1701. Fleabytes

Comment #142390 by Bonzai on March 12, 2008 at 12:39 pm

mylearnedfriend wrote

One problem in Biblical interpretation (and no, I'm not trying to make everything less precise by this, but MORE precise) is you have to look at the style of writing - so a historical narrative (eg Chronicles) should be looked at differently from poetry (eg Psalms). Just as we look differently at a description of something in an encyclopedia compared to that in a poem.

To be fair I think the man (woman?)does have a point.

Except for the fundies who think that Jesus spoke KJB English Christians don't claim the Bible is the literal word of God. Sophisticated Christians instead say that the Bible was "inspired" by God but written by men. This would allow for a lot of inaccuracies and inconsistencies in irrelevant details. If the purpose of an "inspired" narrative was to convey a moral lesson or to set the stage of some dramatic story I don't see why it had to be accurate on scientific details.

Many Christians would have no problem acknowledging that the bible was not intended to be a scientific text book and secular Biblical scholars agree on this point as well. I really don't think it is such a devastating blow to point out that the Biblical authors believed in the flat earth theory. This line of attack would work on the Quran though, because Mohammad made the much more definitive claim that God spoke through him and God is supposed to know his facts,

I think it is best to let mylearnedfriend to tell us what sets the Bible apart from other ancient folk lores and take it from there. I can't think of anything but let's hear his claims and his arguments to back them up (I know his claims but I would want him to flesh them out with detailed arguments and evidence when applicable)

I would also want to hear from other sophisticated Christians such as flying goose.

1702. Fleabytes

Comment #141948 by Bonzai on March 11, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Now I think I might have misunderstood fides_et_ratio's statement that

It's irrational for a recovering alcoholic not to pray

I thought he was talking about someone who has quited drinking through some kind of Christian programs. But now I realize he is making the statement out of the blue which I can only take it to mean a universal recommendation, which is of course stupid.

But I stand by the rest of my points in the previous two posts.

1703. Fleabytes

Comment #141939 by Bonzai on March 11, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Steve,

Can you post it somewhere?

1704. Fleabytes

Comment #141936 by Bonzai on March 11, 2008 at 12:28 pm

MPhil,

Hmm, but whether it actually is rational as opposed to merely perceived as rational but in fact only costly on resources (time, energy) depends on the actual utility.

A large part of utility is psychological satisfaction, which we have to take people's word for it as that cannot be measured objectively.

This seems like some kind of Pascal's Wager.

No. It is not like that at all.

You won't know the outcome of Pascal's wager in your lifetime. But believers do have means to evaluate their satisfaction on an ongoing basis. There are people who either become atheist or switch faith because they figure they make the wrong bets that don't "pay off".

In order to maximize the utility, wouldn't we have to pray to all gods? Or only to the ones that don't fight each other?

People do shop around, see above. It depends on many factors, like what community one feels comfortable with and so on, which really has little to do with specifically the religious texts.

But no utility of praying has been observed except for the placebo-effect. You could invest that same time and energy into something more effective, I'd say.

How do you know it is not effective? Placebo doesn't work very well on average but this doesn't mean it doesn't work well for any particular individual.

I know some friends who are social workers, they told me of people who are in and out of jail and have a long list of addictions.They try everything with them, punishment, encouragement, therapy, nothing works but somehow Jesus does. It is a placebo but it does the job for them.

We may say they are just statistical outliers, but this is a third person way of looking at it. A person never looks at himself or herself in statistical terms. Now is it irrational not to give up on a placebo that works well for you in exchange for something that works better, but only on average and chances are you already know it doesn't work very well for you based on past experience?

EDIT

Actually there may be something more than placebos because people don't just do prayers alone, chance are they get some kind of community and emotional supports from peers by joining a church and these things can be shown to be effective in helping people to cope during difficult times.

1705. Fleabytes

Comment #141927 by Bonzai on March 11, 2008 at 11:56 am

fides_et_ratio

It's irrational for a recovering alcoholic not to pray

Actually, this is an interesting point that I can sympathize with. It boils down to what is rationality?

This is the economist's definition of rationality, which involves maximizing utility rather than "truth". If you get what you want by subscribing to a fiction who is to say it is not rational in that sense?

I can respect that attitude from believers as long as they don't make truth claims that they have nothing to back up.

I have said this before, I think most people don't believe because they want explanations for some scientific riddles. You can find good evidence for that by actually tracking the rise and fall of religiosity in a population.

The Chinese community in Toronto is highly religious comparing to the general population, Evangelicalism is a very visible and powerful influence within that community. It is not that these people brought their religiosity with them because many become Christians after they have arrived and the community is markedly more religious than the population they come from.

A key reason is that the Church provides many things that a new immigrant needs such as social support, networking, services, community and friendship.

I think this observation can be reasonably generalized.

There are of course many harmful side effects accompanying the rise of Christian fundamentalism, but you can't turn the tide by bashing people over the head with "truth" and "rationality" only. These are not what motivate people to believe in the first place. There is a disconnection between cerebral atheist intellectuals such as Dawkins and the very people they try to influence. For Dawkins and his supporters here "truth" is all that matters, as he himself stressed many times in his interviews. But religious folks,--and non religious ones too,-- are almost as a rule not too interested in the abstract "truth". I wouldn't necessarily say that they are non reflective,--I take back that description which I used in replying to MaxD earlier,--but they probably reflect on other things, which are more personal and concrete.

If we want to help people kick their religious habit,--sometimes for good reasons, though not always,--we have to understand their emotional and material needs and offer an alternative. Telling people they are deluded that their feelings are only biochemistry wouldn't get you very far.

1706. Should Galileo's tomb be opened for DNA tests?

Comment #141680 by Bonzai on March 11, 2008 at 4:47 am

Sex is perfectly natural, but how many of you would have hot, steamy, sweaty sex in front of your children or your parents? If not, why not? Do you think it is an irrational hang up that we should overcome?

1707. Should Galileo's tomb be opened for DNA tests?

Comment #141679 by Bonzai on March 11, 2008 at 4:42 am

Russell Blackford

While I do have some preferences about what is done with my body after I die, I don't really care that much if someone is silly enough to want to have sex with it. It may seem "icky" or "creepy" but it's not an ickiness that I'll experience

Even if you don't believe in an afterlife, respect for human remains can be justified as a way to protect their memory for the living, Seeing the body of a love one being abused may cause emotional damage for the living family and friends. I think that is a good enough reason to treat dead bodies with respect. Since we are hard wired to feel empathy, it would be natural for us to extend the same respect to dead bodies of strangers.

Humans are emotional creatures, a sound ethics must take that into account. "Rationalism" has a slightly different meaning in ethics than in the natural science. Ethics necessarily involves value judgments and preferences, evidence and data has to be evaluated against premises which are necessarily anthropocentric. What "nature is" alone is not a sufficient foundation to define proper human behaviour.

1708. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141654 by Bonzai on March 11, 2008 at 3:11 am

Mphil,

Josh, couldn't you just ban the IP instead of the profile?

Finally something we can agree 100% :-)

I don't think your nuronal code analogy is accurate for what we were talking about, but that is an interesting topic on its own.

My point was a very simple very focused one. I just don't think formal logic has a similar function to natural logic. Also, you obviously need some natural logical skill to work on formal logic,---because even while trying to act like machine, you do actually use natural, informal logic and intuitions to work out your formal deduction, it is just the presentation that is formal,-- but I don't think studying it would improve one's "logical" skills in a natural sense.

It is not to say that it has no other use. I can see how its useful in modelling and engineering such as some kinds of AI systems, or the example you gave, or even the mudane Boolean circuit. These applications are considerably beyond traditional formal logic.

There was a girl who hanged out with my philosopher friends some years ago when she was dating one of them. They used to tell her to her face that she had poor logical ability and she became very self conscious as a result. She asked them for ways to improve her logical skills and one guy told her to take a course in symbolic logic. She actually did that and ended up even more confused than she was before because she couldn't even parse a simple word argument any more, let alone making one. When my friends introduced her to me, her first question was, "Oh my god.. you are a mathematician so you must be good at logic, do you think in symbols?"

For some reasons I couldn't shake that off my head when I was reading your posts, perhaps I was reading too much into them.

1709. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141652 by Bonzai on March 11, 2008 at 2:46 am

Troll wrote:

Every painting has an artist

By using this analogy you already assume nature is like a painting, which is an artifact by definition. So you are smuggling your conclusion into your premise in a rather obvious way. This is circular argument.

Why does your ass split into two buttocks? It must have been King Arthur trying his sword there. Every painting has an artist, right?

1710. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141627 by Bonzai on March 11, 2008 at 1:15 am

Mphil

It makes clear the connections and inferences that are far more ambiguous and obscure in natural language - but are there if interpreted correct. It helps to see what the different logical structures could be - what the interpretations could be - and which yield a valid argument and which don't.

But you're then talking about the value of formal logic in investigating logic as a subject matter, it is not an argument for the advantage of applying formal logic in real arguments. These are two seperate issues.

The point you have been making is like telling people that they need to study linguistic in order to write well. One has nothing to do with the other. Noam Chomsky is a great linguist but he writes in a rather dry and turgid style, he is not a great stylist IMO. On the other hand, most writers don't know any linguistics.

Oh believe me, I know far too many mathematicians who would have their fair share of problems with any kind of formal logic.

Because most mathematicians wouldn't actually use formal logic in any real work of importance or interest. Again the difference is studying formal system (human using natural logic to study formal logic) and working within the formal system (human trying to pretend to be machines). Mathematicians tend to take the first route to prove interesting theorems about these systems, not the second route. This explains the difference in logic courses taught in math departments and philosophy departments. Books such as Kalish and Montague spend a lot of time on making you work mechanically within the system which is rather trivial but tedious,--and pointless IMO. I am familiar with the book as I have charged philosophy majors $25 an hour to teach them that stuffs when I was a starving undergraduate, without even taking the course myself. A much more interesting book would be Yuri Manin's mathematical logic. There is very little transcription and formal deduction. It shows you these things can be done in principle and then immediately moves on to prove interesting theorems about these systems.

t's like learning a programming language - where the forms are extremely important, too. After all, logic is the underlying form of every programming language. So I will say again that studying the very nature of logical reasoning by studying logic

Then why not actually learn a programming language?

Having the ability to formally reconstruct arguments can and does (from my own experience) help to see why an argument looks 'fishy', where exactly the problem lies. This can be very obscure in natural language.

No one does that in real mathematics because it would be unreadable, it is like saying you can find the logical flaw in a computer program written in a high level language by looking at its machine codes.

Besides it is exceedingly unlike that a working mathematician would commit the kind of elementary logical fallacies in his proofs that can be cleared up with the help of making the formal structure transparent. Logic is so basic in the trade that any competent mathematican would use it almost instinctively. Logic is the easy part in mathematics research, it is like knowing the alphabets for the writers,--not even grammar and spelling, just the alphabets,-- as I have told you before. The kind of holes uncovered in proofs are usually so subtle and convoluted that it could be spotted only if you have some feel about the concepts involved, not through translating the argument into first order logic,--probably thousnds of pages of gibbrish for the original proof of Fermat's theorem for which a hole was discovered in the 1990's,-- hoping that you can detect the flaw mechanically.

Mathematics,--and any subject of real intellectual depth for that matter,--is much more than just a logical skeleton. You have a very skew view of mathematics because you only know it through a caricature. It is a caricature because it selectively exaggerates some features while completely ignoring others, much more important ones from the practioners' point of view. It may be a useful model for whatever that you want to study about mathematics, but keep in mind that it is still a very distorted picture of the real thing.

In short formal logic is useful only as a model to investigate some aspects of reasoning and it is interesting only when you take the meta view of studying the formal systems themselves. It is close to useless as a way of augmenting natural reasoning in any real endevor of science, not to mention actual debates in the humanities.

If someone has to make his arguments in a way that would require two pages of Kalish -Monbtague styled formal deductions to decode I would suggest that he should learn to express himself better.

Also, it is essential for formal epistemology - belief-revision theory and so forth, various semantic theories and truth-theories.

Maybe, I also doubt the value of formal epistemology.

1711. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141618 by Bonzai on March 10, 2008 at 11:26 pm

MPhil

(EXISTS x Px AND EXISTS x ~Px) IFF (FOR ALL x EXISTS y (Px IFF ~Py))

Don't know why you would want a formal proof. The formal machinery actually conceals, not illuminates the real "logic". This is the machine's way of doing thing, not how a logical human would carry out a real argument.

Here is the human proof.

Assume (EXISTS x Px AND EXISTS x ~Px)

This means the predicate P holds for some object a and doesn't hold for some object b, so we have

Pa and ~Pb (i.e "both Pa and ~Pb are true")

Take an arbitrary but fixed c,

if Pc is true, then

(Pc<->~Pb),

so for some y (Pc<->~Py)

i.e.

EXISTS y (Pc<->~Py)

Since c is arbitrary, this is true for any x substituting into the place of c

so

FOR ALL x EXISTS y (Px<->~Py)

On the other hand, if Pc is false

Pc<->~Pa

so for some y (Pc<->~Py)

i.e

EXISTS y (Pc<->~Py)

Since c is arbitrary, arguing as before we get:

FOR ALL x EXISTS y (Px<->~Py)

Since in either case (whether Pc is true or false)
we nave

FOR ALL x EXISTS y (Px<->~Py)

We showed that

(EXISTS x Px AND EXISTS x ~Px)->FOR ALL x EXISTS y (Px<->~Py)

The converse is equally easy.

This kind of reasoning pattern is standard fare for undergraduates in pure mathematics who have not taken any course in formal logic. They learn that by actually doing proofs,--by actually using their logical faculty to solve problems,-- rather looking at logical templates.

Once one knows what is going on, it is an easy but boring job to transcribe it into a formal langugage unreadable by most humans so that those who can read this kind of gibberish can feel smart. The specific formal rules and the detail legal format of writing formal inference differ depending on the formal logic book one has the misfortune to read, but the differences are usually only pedantic and notational.

Sorry for being a meta smart ass once again. I just want to demonstrate the fultility of formal "reasoning". Rigorous looking formal rules may intimidate the uninitiated and give out an aura of importance but it is rather useless in teaching logcal thinking, it is just a game.

Knowing the name of something and knowing something intimately are two different things,--Feynman's cardinal rule? I never feel that it is very convincing to cite Latin words for inference rules in order to persuade someone who has not been exposed to them. He should ask what are the justifications for those rules if they don't appear intuitively enough. Logic is intuitive as we are all hard wired with it. One should be able to convey the naturality of a sound argument without having to quote the rules.

1712. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141604 by Bonzai on March 10, 2008 at 8:59 pm

so drinking alcohol is a sin too it seems. oops!

Didn't Jesus turn water into wine?

Is seven a magic number?

1713. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #141590 by Bonzai on March 10, 2008 at 7:13 pm

Shmeezers,

On another note, I have a question to ask here; any atheist is open to answer it. Let us say there is no God, no good nor evil, etc. How do you feel about the fact that someone like Hitler (who killed himself before justice could be served) or Stalin will end up in the same place as you and I (i.e., nothingness)? How do you come to terms with the fact that there is no ultimate justice? I am very curious about this.

I am sure many people would point out that wishful thinking doesn't make something true.

So let me make a different point.

The crime of Hitler and Stalin might be enormous to us. But for a God who supposedly created the univerese through the big bang, created the stars, the laws of physics and the mind and has "guided evolution" through many episodes of mass extinctions, there a disconnection here to think that he would care about what Hitler and Stalin did. Their crimes would be trivial in the eyes of such a being, just as they would be against the backdrop of the vast cosmos. Our emotion, joy and pain would be just nothing when put in such a context.

So it is not even true to say that everything would be forgiven, to forgive at least something or someone has to care enough about the transgression. If there is a God and it is as grand as advertised, I just cannot imagine it giving a shit about Stalin and Hitler or our notion of justice.

Would we give a damn about what ants do to each others in their warfare? Well the gap between us and God is infinitely greater than that between us and the ants,--if such a being exists and has indeed done all the things that theists attribute to it.

So here is a problem. If God were to be truly relevant to us, it has to be a very small God, small enough to be sufficently like us to take an interest in our petty problems and conflicts and demand our worship--in other words, not really a God at all and perhaps not even a very powerful alien. If it is anything like religions advertise, it ceases to have any connection to us except as a sort of general background,--indifferent to our hangups just like the universe itself.

1714. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141587 by Bonzai on March 10, 2008 at 6:35 pm

gay jesus

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xog6i_funny-gay-jesus-will-survive_shortfilms

1715. Should Galileo's tomb be opened for DNA tests?

Comment #141581 by Bonzai on March 10, 2008 at 6:10 pm

I don't see what great scientific cause would be advanced by digging up poor old Galileo.

1716. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #141576 by Bonzai on March 10, 2008 at 5:37 pm

Marxism was turned into a religion in the former communist countries. Say whatever about Marx and his writings, but it would be wrong to say that as an intellectual system Marxism is a religion and it was intended as one.

Humans have a way to turn every idea into religion, every wise man into an icon and a demigod to worship. I am seeing that trend even here with rationalism and Dawkins among some occasional posters.

1717. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #141575 by Bonzai on March 10, 2008 at 5:25 pm

ungodlystheist

1/ All things are impermanent.
2/ All emotions are painful.
3/ All phenomena are empty; they are without inherent existence.
4/ nirvana is beyond extremes (Birth,death, ageing and sufferinf)

1. Is that not true?

2.No, it says (emotional) pain is brought on by desire and attachment,--not letting go. It does not mean all emotions are painful and it doesn't mean your athritis is brought on by emotion.

3. This is one way of translating it, another way is that phenomenon is decieving and transient, so that beneath all the sights and sounds is the great void. In view of Quantum field theory that is not really that outlandish.

4. It is a state of mind.

A central Buddhist teaching,--certainly not unique to Buddhism,--is that words are only a crude way to communicate ideas. It is therefore foolish to hang on to the words but missing the ideas and images they try to convey. You illustrate the point nicely.

Buddhism is definitely against literalism so there is no such thing as a "Buddhist fundamentalist". Indeed a purpose of the riddles in Zen is to break the cognitive "prison" created by words, though I think they may be taking it too far.

The Buddha never taught that "salvation",--if I can use a Christian term for people too steeped in that mindset,--is attained through "faith" and slavishly hanging on to his every word. Rather exactly the opposite. Buddhism teaches that each has to find "truth" through his or her own path. The Buddha asked his pupils to doubt, not to "believe based on faith". Sometimes it veers to the extreme of doubting even reason.

Burning incense and praying to Buddha statues are of no help. There is no "sky daddy" looking out for you in Buddhism, Buddhists do these things not because of Buddhism, but because it is a human thing to seek mental comfort and reassurance.

Whatever one thinks of Buddhism, it is not like the Abrahamic religions, it is a very different animal. Most notably, Buddhism doesn't ask you to believe in anything, worship any God, or obey any commandment; it doesn't insist that the Buddha's teaching cannot be changed or be reinterpreted. You are only projecting your own mindset by trying to create a false parallel, so that you can slot Buddhism into your preconcieved idea of "religion".

1718. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141369 by Bonzai on March 10, 2008 at 10:03 am

Any idea who that is sodomizing Jesus?

Are you suggesting that there is something wrong with being sodomized? Just curious.

1719. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141360 by Bonzai on March 10, 2008 at 9:47 am

So wheeler is a parody I take it. What about wiped out and wooter?

1720. Out of the Blue

Comment #140931 by Bonzai on March 9, 2008 at 5:56 am

Then you are arguing that reductionism can't reduce something, not that it shouldn't.

If by reducing you lose essential information then you can't, and therefore you shouldn't. What constitutes "essential information" depends on the question you ask.

1721. Out of the Blue

Comment #140930 by Bonzai on March 9, 2008 at 5:53 am

You are saying that reductionism is valgur and inappropriate sometimes

I am saying that the people who apply reductionism without regard to context (ie.reducing to the wrong level given the question at hand) are vulgar reductionists. What is unclear about it? I think only you have problem understanding it.

1722. Out of the Blue

Comment #140926 by Bonzai on March 9, 2008 at 5:47 am

sometimes inappropriate and vulgar to do so, (which is what I understood you to be saying) in which case that is merely your opinion,

Why can't you argue against an approach if you can demonstrate that it doesn't answer the question it claims it does? What then can you argue against?

1723. Out of the Blue

Comment #140922 by Bonzai on March 9, 2008 at 5:41 am

Nothing is catagorically vulgar, that is what you personally think

There is a kind of Marxists known as "vulgar Marxists" because they understand Marx very simplistically and missing his subtle points, They are so called not by people who dislike Marxism, in fact they are called vulgar Marxists by other Marxists.

I think my meaning is clear in the way I use the word vulgar, I am not interested in playing English word game with you.

1724. Out of the Blue

Comment #140918 by Bonzai on March 9, 2008 at 5:36 am

Yes they do, you just have a much too narrow focus

And you are taking an analogy too far just to be argumentative, Is that a professional hazard for philosophers to keep missing the point? :)

1725. Fleabytes

Comment #140911 by Bonzai on March 9, 2008 at 5:25 am

Thanx for the pictures steve. :)

1726. Out of the Blue

Comment #140909 by Bonzai on March 9, 2008 at 5:14 am

MG

I don't see eye to eye on his dislike of reductionism,

I have no idea why you say that. I don't "dislike" reductionism in the way I dislike stale coffee. As I tried to explain on the other thread, "reductionism" may or may not be appropriate depending on the question being asked, and the level you want to reduce to. So it wouldn't make sense to say I categorically like or dislike reductionism.

TV images are colour dots on the screen formed by accelerated electrons hitting the screen. This level of reductionism makes sense for the TV repairman, but it wouldn't make sense for you the TV viewer. Knowing the physics of the CRT would not enable you to reconstruct an episode of your favourite show and certainly wouldn't replace the experience of watching it.

In the other thread I was arguing against the kind of "vulgar reductionism" which essentially says that the physics of CRT is all there is to TV shows.

EDIT In this example "meanings" at the higher level,--all the things that make you watch the show,--do not reduce, they cannot be captured through looking at the inner working of the CRT. I think this may be relevant in thinking about consciousness too,

1727. Fleabytes

Comment #140900 by Bonzai on March 9, 2008 at 4:30 am

Steve,

Does anyone have any ideas about the motivations of so many of the theists who post here?

Probably not so different from why some of us post on religious sites.

1. A genuine curiosity about the thinking process of "the other side".

2. Feeling pissed off and come to pick fight.

3. Being a part of a raiding party.

4. Try to convert,

I have posted on religious sites because of 1 and 2, but not 3 and 4, ok, I have tried a bit of 4 but gave up very quickly.

And last but not least

5. Sheer boredom.

1728. Out of the Blue

Comment #140871 by Bonzai on March 9, 2008 at 12:15 am

Quine

Every species is an intermediate, unless it leaves no descendants. Homo sapiens sapiens is an intermediate to something else if not the end of a branch. We are making progress in the fight against genetic disease while producing new internal and external prosthetics every day. People are walking around with implanted computers regulating their hearts and preventing runaway neuro storms in their brains. Human evolution has started the transition from Darwinian to Lamarckian . There is no end in sight.

I am not sure what is the relevance of your examples. How does prosthetics and transplant evolve us into a different species? If you have an artificial heart it won't be inherited by your child.

All these things that you mention are created to serve humans, not some abstract notion of progress. When some abstract notion of progress, such as transcending humans to become "better",--where "better" is always defined by those who have power--,trumps humanistic values and becomes the goal in and of itself I have a problem. Transhumanism is like a bad Frankistein adaptation of Nietzsche,

1729. Out of the Blue

Comment #140869 by Bonzai on March 9, 2008 at 12:08 am

MaxD,

You've conceded my point. mind=brain at work

I don't concede anything. I have never said otherwise.

But simply because we don't there is no reason to go making any crazy claims about conscioussness.

What crazy claim did I make? I am not the one making extravagant claims here, those who think they can "explain" consciousness based on little data are.

1730. Out of the Blue

Comment #140866 by Bonzai on March 8, 2008 at 11:44 pm

MaxD,

Sorry the preponderance of the evidence does indeed favor the mind=brain at work. I know you hate the idea. But there is a vast literature on this business. It may turn out to be wrong. However it isn't silly to assume based on the evidence currently available. You are very reminiscent of the smoking lobby in your refusal to acknowledge it.

So how does it work? It is like saying digestion is the stomach. It is a basic confusion of category, I don't think there is any evidence to show that because it is just silly as it is formulated.

Well, I can think of at least one other person who could maybe use a little of that as well.

I for one don't write long, rambling books with pretentious titles that make inflated claims and fill them with bad analogies that never get to the point,

EDIT: Oh I see, you say mind = brain *at work*. Of course that is different from "the mind is the brain" in crazy old man's post. *at work* is crucial and with it, I don't think there is anything controversial that requires a lot of research to prove. It is a truism.

1731. Out of the Blue

Comment #140855 by Bonzai on March 8, 2008 at 10:39 pm

crazy old man

Everything cognitive science has taught us about the mind and the brain is that the mind IS the brain. There is not some other thing which would be left floating in the ether were its neural underpinnings to be copied, perhaps, or replaced, even transferred to another medium...It strikes me as the same sort of misplaced sentimentality and bipolar dispair that features in sneering objections to the notion that humanity can ever be any more than the dirty, squabbling, superstitious lot that we are.

First of all this is silly, it is like saying the music is your CD. Doesn't make sense.

Secondly, I don't see how not believing in a disembodied soul floating around would require us to deny human worth and accept nihilism. That is the kind of charge that theists make against atheism, as if somehow Nazi doctors would be the necessary outcome of embracing science without God. I am sorry to see some atheists actually confirming that stereotype.

Transhumanism is nothing but a kind of eugenics on crack championed by a few overeducated, overprivileged Westerners and geeks with an overdeveloped brain but too little experience with real people to know their hope and fear. It is a dream to remake the world in their own image,--the disembodied, umber "rational" mind for which the quest of more computational power and greater control of everything is the only goal. Ayn Rand would have loved it.

I recommend Dan Dennett's "Consciousness Explained"

What a pompous title. I always think that that man can use a little humility.

1732. Out of the Blue

Comment #140824 by Bonzai on March 8, 2008 at 5:31 pm

Steve,

I am starting to think that we may not get that far by just building a brain model. To get a mind that we would recognise, we may have to give it human experiences from the earliest stages

That was what I meant to say in the first two paragraphs of post #49. You articulate it a lot better than I did, Thanks.

1733. Out of the Blue

Comment #140760 by Bonzai on March 8, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Steve,

That isn't going to affect how minds develop, it is simply going to keep the brain cells alive. We don't need that in a simulated system.

I hope I understand you correctly, in that case I wouldn't be so sure about that. No disembodied minds have been observed, They always come in a whole package.

It is possible that connectivity and computing power are not all there is, in some crucial junctures of development, certain sensational inputs are crucial. You may be able to simulate them, but then maybe not if we don't know what we try to simulate or cannot reproduce them short of creating something just as complex,

Since we all believe in evolution, in principle you can create a mind by simulating evolution itself. But this is impossible just because of sheer complexity, Evolution is not a deterministic process and there were twist and turns and accidents which might have contributed to the emergence of intelligence in some crucial way.

I am highly doubtful that you can create a mind by brute force simulation without knowing even what the right questions are to begin with, let alone having a good model for it. The goal is too ambitious, too ambiguous and too ill defined, it is rather naive and unfocused as a research strategy, You need to first have a model with a narrower and more well defined scope so that simulation can be used strategically to test out special aspects of the models.

We know a lot about weather without having to actually create a real weather system by simulation.

People like Teratonis are talking science fiction. It is as if with enough computing power and connectivity a mind is bound to emerge so all it matters is Moore's law, that is sheer naivety,

1734. Out of the Blue

Comment #140688 by Bonzai on March 8, 2008 at 10:55 am

JD Cherry

Before anything resembling consciousness could arise from a simulated brain you'd need a simulated body.

Excellent point, There is the knowledge of the mind and the knowledge of the flesh. The geeky type often ignore the body and talk as though it is just the mind that counts. I don't even want to get started on the misanthropes who call themselves "transhumanists".

P.S, I think in some way "irrationality" may be essential to genuine intelligence, it is probably link to insights, heuristics, big picture thinking imagination and all those qualities that cannot be captured by logic alone.

1735. Belief in Belief

Comment #140612 by Bonzai on March 8, 2008 at 2:13 am

Steve,

It isn't like that. It is more like having a culture that celebrates the general principle of drug use for everyone all the time, and having those that don't take any considered outcasts.

I never get the message in any society that all kinds of religious belief should be encouraged regardless of actual content. Even in the theocracies only certain brands of religiosity are encouraged, others are ruthlessly persecuted.

In my country Canada it is generally accepted that religion should be a strictly private matter.Bible thumping politicians will never get elected except in some small backwater places. Recently our provincial conservative party was decimated because the leader made a campaign promise to fund faith schools. I think that is the same way in western Europe as well. The U.S. is an anomaly in its public display of religiosity among the developed countries,--but then it is only particular faiths that are being promoted so contents do count. In the U.K the funding of faith schools, from my understanding, is the result of rational calculation to achieve political and social ends rather than an evidence of widespread irrationality,- of course it doesn't mean that they can't miscalculate.

I think it is intrinsically dangerous, as gullibility is dangerous.

It is not gullible if one believes after some internal reflections like Titan. Wishful thinking and self deceiving maybe, but he gets what he wants at his end of the bargain,--peace of mind, meanings and so on, One would be gullible if he gets cheated and receives nothing in return,

No one is all rational, but then no one is all irrational either, there is some rationality even in something apparently irrational if you get what you want. It is rational at least in the sense of the economist.

Passions aren't institutionalised.

This is a separate argument.Since you are against irrationality in all context, this shouldn't be part of your argument because irrationality is irrationality, regardless of whether it is institutionalized or private. I am against privileges given to organized religions but I have no problem with people having private religious beliefs. One doesn't have to do with the other,

1736. Belief in Belief

Comment #140602 by Bonzai on March 8, 2008 at 1:28 am

Steve,

The problem people (including me) have with accepting this kind of thinking is not that any individual who thinks this way could also end up flying planes into buildings, it is that acceptance allows those very few who may fly planes into buildings to start the development of their beliefs not just undetected, but openly within a framework that encourages them.

This is the slippery slope argument. I don't find it very convincing. It is like saying legalizing marijuana will automatically open the door to accepting heroin simply because they are both drugs.

Religious beliefs are defined by their actual contents, not just the irrational "thinking process" that underlies the belief of an invisible God.

I know some straight Christians who are very involved in gay rights and other social justice causes, they are inspired by a very leftwing, liberal reading of the Bible. It is correct that they have in common with Fred Phelps in believing without evidence that some invisible sky daddy works through their lives, but it is hardly a very salient or useful observation, because the same "thinking process" that leads to theistic belief can produce completely opposite results.

Fred Phelps' problem is not his belief in an invisible God, but a particularly ugly and hateful one created in his own image, I just can't see how giving my gentle Christian friends a free pass for their irrational belief in God would automatically validate Fred Phelps, it is like saying legalizing pot logically would lead to open season on heroin.

Rationality is like a mental seatbelt. It should be encouraged in all. You can't say "only encourage it in those who are reckless and will be more likely to crash", because you can't tell who they are.

This is not an accurate analogy. Not wearing seat belt is inherently dangerous, but the "irrationality" of belief is no more intrinsically dangerous than passion.It cuts both ways, it can motivate people to be good or bad and for many it does provide meanings and comfort in times of great need.

On the other hand, "rationality" also cuts both ways in terms of social effect. It is perfectly rational to act unethically if the cost benefit analysis informs you that you can get away.

I think we should treat irrationality as a fundamental (albeit usually very low level) problem from the start. It is like an illness that can and does general moderate harm, and occasionaly lead to very serious consequences.

No more of a disease than passion. Humans are all irrational in some ways. Passion is irrational and can be dangerous, but it doesn't follow that we must "cure" people of it because some people may turn into stalkers when they are too madly in love. That would be absurd.

1737. Belief in Belief

Comment #140574 by Bonzai on March 7, 2008 at 10:37 pm

I don't see how anyone could be in disagreement with Titan. He only tells you his experience, never makes any claim that he has proof and never says you should believe as he does.

Some guy tells you he experiences X, where X doesn't contradict any law of nature.He interprets X as an indication of Y, which does contravene the law of nature, but he adds that he has no proof , it is just how he feels.

So what is there to debate? That he doesn't really feel what he says he does??

But I do have a problem with the often made assertion on this site that if you believe in a God who fixes your marriage without objective evidence, then you could also believe without evidence in a God who tells you to fly a plane into a tower or to sacrifice your first born and carry out the act,

The point being made is essentially that if you are irrational then you must be consistently irrational all the way, The believer is a person who is on the one hand irrational, yet on the other hand also inhumanly logical in his consistency. That is a very unrealistic expectation.

Human psychology doesn't work in such a linear way like a syllogism.

Belief involves multiple levels of rationalization and reinforcement and it doesn't take place in a vacuum because most believers,--save the absolute fanatics,-- do live in the real world and cannot help taking in other ideas and mental inputs (for example, this is how doubts may occur), it is never just a simple proposition "I believe".

To me "belief in belief" is not a dirty phrase, I don't have a problem with people believing in things which they find therapeutic and give their lives meanings as long as it doesn't cause actual harm to self and others,--as oppose to "abstract harm" like "murdering the truth".

1738. When blasphemy bit the dust

Comment #140571 by Bonzai on March 7, 2008 at 10:18 pm

How come the UK has an official 'Church of England', but as a nation, is very secular; And yet here in the US we have a constitutional separation of church and state, but we're so much more pious? How did you guys manage that?

I think one possible reason, certainly not the whole reason, may be that the COE actually acts as a vehicle for the state to manage the nation's religious life by defining mainstream religious expressions to be at the moderate middle while the wackos are marginalized. In the U.S. it is a free market of superstition.

This has some disturbing implications for democracy.

1739. When blasphemy bit the dust

Comment #140562 by Bonzai on March 7, 2008 at 9:33 pm

It appears the House of Lords by its nature blasphemes holy scripture by having women members who dare to speak up and be in authority over men:

"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)

Well to be fair though, these are Paul's words. When faced with Bible thumpers I often ask who the hell Paul was anyway, there has never been any claim of divinity for this guy even by the Christians, nor do they claim he was channeling Jesus when he wrote. At the most he was only claimed to be "inspired" by the Holy Spirit which was a very loose influence, unlike being possessed like Mohammad claimed for himself. Paul's words therefore should not be binding for Christians.

To be consistent I wouldn't tell Christians "gotcha!" if they don't follow all of Paul's rantings..

1740. Fleabytes

Comment #140501 by Bonzai on March 7, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Steve,

but he is one of the least 'dumbed down' of the popular authors that I know of.

Actually, I think Penrose doesn't dumb down. He has some ideas on consciousness which some people hate, but even if you ignore that part, his books are still a great tour of theoretical physics presented with a lot of honesty and insights. His latest is a monstrous 800 page opus, even come with exercises! My only complaint is that his prose is kind of dry, definitely not elegant like Dawkins'.

1741. Fleabytes

Comment #140498 by Bonzai on March 7, 2008 at 2:43 pm

And Oh, Kip Thorne has a beautiful set of lecture notes on "classical physics" (i.e non Quantum but include general relativity) which can be downloaded from the link below, but unfortunately it is for the advanced readers.

http://www.pma.caltech.edu/Courses/ph136/yr2002/index.html

1742. Fleabytes

Comment #140486 by Bonzai on March 7, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Steve,

Some of the public reports are very good, especially Brian Greene..

I am sorry that I really can't share your enthusiasm for Brian Greene, I think he really dumbs it down to sell books and his promotion of string theory is almost like an infomercial. I read a bit of the elegant universe, I am skeptical about the inflated claims.

Greene had a debate with Lee Smolin which you can find on the internet. He basically started with very extravagant claims about string theory, only to back track and concede a lot of points when challenged by Smolin.

I would say that is not untypical of string theorists. I go to string theory seminars from time to time. The speakers almost always start off with hypes that they have to later qualify or back track from during the Q&A session.

With regard to relativity, I recommend Wolfgang Riddler's "Relativity, special, general and cosmology". It is sometimes used as a supplementary text book at the senior undergraduate or graduate level, but it is written in a conversational style with emphasis on concepts while keeping the math to a minimal. Instead of using the full machinery of tensor analysis and differential geometry for general relativity like in a more formal text, he keeps it relatively simple with low dimensional analogies and only provides sketches of more formal calculations at strategic places. MPhil may find some bones to pick on the introduction where he made a few philosophical points, I find some of them are not so clear.

1743. Fleabytes

Comment #140482 by Bonzai on March 7, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Steve

I have a supernatural claim on your credit card. Oh, and the rest of your wallet. And, your car if it is nice one (say, low emmission). How about your house? Is it by the beach? God has said it's all mine.

Go right ahead. Don't have a house, get $2 in my wallet and a maxed out credit card. Do you want to claim my debt too?

1744. Fleabytes

Comment #140109 by Bonzai on March 7, 2008 at 1:14 am

Steve,

Edited to closely match Stenger's opinion.

Then he would have to have a theory about how these "constants" covariate. This is not really an answer, just a "maybe". I never read Stenger, but based on your report I think he is overstating his case.

I am not so concerned about whether life can arise if the constants change IMO this is a distraction. The issue is whether we will have a theory to fix these constants, or do they have to be added "by hand". If we accept some kind of multiverse explanations, what are the probability distribution of the constants across the multiverse and why and how can that be tested. These are physics questions and life has got noting to do with it,

1745. Fleabytes

Comment #140088 by Bonzai on March 7, 2008 at 12:50 am

Steve,

Based on what you report, Stenger sounds very "post modernist". Pomo physics??!!

1746. Fleabytes

Comment #140069 by Bonzai on March 7, 2008 at 12:31 am

Well I think Mphil is confusing formal and informal philosophy.

In a broad sense we all philosophize, we reflect on what we do. In that sense indeed "Feynman did a lot of philosophy".

But this is not philosophy as an overarching, systematic discipline. It is often the case that philosophers specializing in philosophy of X have no expertise in X whatsoever. The better ones seek out second hand information from experts in X, but many wouldn't even do that, they cite the works of other philosophers of X as authorities in their books and papers and their "works" are completely incomprehensible to experts in X.

1747. Fleabytes

Comment #140049 by Bonzai on March 7, 2008 at 12:11 am

flying goose,


In science a new theory always has to be able to absorb the old theory it replaces in the sense that we have to be able to recover the old theory in the range where the old theory applies. This internal consistency is unique in science. It is not like that in theology (or philosophy for that matter). There is no reason why this should be the case if science is just our invention and doesn't in some profound way captures some aspects of what is "really" out there.

EDIT: I think this also in some sense addresses Mphil's point about observations being theory laden. That is of course true. But there is no reason why observations based on a variety of different assumptions would fit together if we make these underlying theories arbitrarily. I think the fact that they do fit suggests that these theories are constrained by reality.

1748. Fleabytes

Comment #140037 by Bonzai on March 7, 2008 at 12:03 am

Here is a good quote from Feynman

"Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong."

1749. Fleabytes

Comment #140030 by Bonzai on March 6, 2008 at 11:56 pm

flying goose

Are you all Platonists then? Searching for and believing in absolute and immutable truths waiting out there to be discovered?

Maybe. I am a mathematician and I tend to think of mathematics as a "real" landscape to be discovered, that is how it feels to me. But the honest answer is I don't know, it just seems that way. I can't justify it to the philosophers here, just my feeling and there seems to be enough evidence of some sort,--but only if you look at it with certain prejudice. IMO the best description of mathematics is coming from a non mathematician, Albert Camus, who said that mathematics is that absurd art per excellence where the abstract game of symbols somehow resonates at the far side of universe,--something to that effect,

In the end I don't know. There are things to be discovered, we try to do our best as far as possible. If we hit a brick wall, work on something else, maybe the pieces will fall together eventually, or may be it won't. We can only try.

I tend to agree with Richard Feynman, it is better to live without answers and certainty, while continuing exploring rather than accepting answers on faith that are very likely to be false, I don't remember the exact quote, but that is the spirit.

1750. Fleabytes

Comment #140015 by Bonzai on March 6, 2008 at 11:41 pm

Steve

I am coming to the point where I just won't accept the use of words like naturalism or supernaturalism or monism or dualism, or terms like free will. I don't believe they are useful. I think they are the attempts of a species of ape that has only just started to use language to put to labels on a reality we have barely started to explore.

I think we need to step back, and take a more humble approach, which is to stop worrying about labels, and just try and see what is out there without worrying about the consequences of what labels we may end up using..

Wow.. beautifully and powerfully put. I wonder if I might have just a wee bit to contribute to your moving closer towards Peter Atkin's view about philosophy. :)