Comments by MPhil

201. The Mother, The Child, The School Board And The Psychic

Comment #196150 by MPhil on June 19, 2008 at 11:09 am

A good example of a complex rhythm in a repeating pattern would be the rhythm played by the guitar in this song starting at about 0:58:

Pain of Salvation: Deus Nova

Try to clap that rhythm (I love body-percussion :) Better: try to do that while stomping your foot on every quarter note... good luck. Took me a while. The orchestration at the beginning is also quite nice.

They also have some very nice neo-classical parts, like this song:

Pluvius Aestivus

For another prime example of prog, take a listen to this:
Liquid Tension Experiment: Biaxident

202. The Mother, The Child, The School Board And The Psychic

Comment #196141 by MPhil on June 19, 2008 at 10:54 am

Well, maybe some of Yes is indeed predictable, but they have genuinely surprising and fascinating songs as well. I think those "spherical" carpets of wide chords on keyboards are overused, but can also be well-placed. And then there's of the interesting keyboard-melodies and the interactions of those with the melodies of other instruments.

But actually, there are certain properties of "progressive rock/metal" that are at least to some extent "defining", such as the use of complex rhythmic and harmonic structures.

And one thing you certainly cannot say at least about King Crimson is that their music is predictable -
"Frame by Frame" for example is very catchy I think. But the polymetric structure of two guitars playing the same riff, but one of them with a 8th note less every other time (so that a 7/8 overlaps with a 7/8 PLUS 6/8) (Frame by Frame - the polymeter starts at 1:14) can hardly be called predictable. And things like these, or even just frequent time-signature changes, tempo changes and complex rhythmic structures in general is at least regarded as characteristic of much of progressive rock/metal.

Al,

thanks - you gave me a good laugh! :)

203. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196134 by MPhil on June 19, 2008 at 10:41 am

One thing on the ID/creationism/complexity-topic:

I wish people would FINALLY stop using the "who created god" argument or "the complexity required to produce god" or "it is far more unlikely that something like god just appeared"...

We argue against conceptions of god where god is outside of time! As such, the question of causal origin doesn't even make sense here!

The real problem is the conception of some agent outside time itself. This is what is conceptually impossible - the arguments for the unlikelyhood of god "appearing" or asking "who created" are void, because they don't even make sense in regard to some supposed thing supposedly outside of time.

It is enough that we can show that the concept of an agent outside time is contradictory and that, in terms of compexity, god is always the most complex thing imaginable and as such always the worst explanation because it has NO parsimony whatsoever.

204. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196127 by MPhil on June 19, 2008 at 10:29 am

fizhburn,

I'm interested in what you think of Mackie's "argument from queerness" against moral realism. For my own part, I think there can be objective moral values that only hold contingently for certain species (based on common structures found in all human societies)

Actually, I think it still holds. Yes, if "objective moral values" was a coherent and sufficiently detailable concept, I think it would be possible for there to be such values that only hold for certain species... but if they are objective (as "over and above" intersubjective), how could they be contingent? We know that objective moral values wouldn't be spatiotemporal entities, that leaves abstract entities either as concepts or as some platonistic "forms", ie as metaphysical entities. But concepts that are not or do not represent platonistic forms are theoretically reducible to the workings of brains in a certain frameworld - and as such wouldn't be objective over and above intersubjective - and even if we do not assume reductive physicalism this would be true - which leaves only metaphysical entities (forms) for obejctive moral values - and those cannot exist contingently, for they have no need for causal origins (and, as Kim argues convincingly, "causality" doesn't make sense outside of a spatiotemporal framework).

Also, the argument from queerness states that we cannot have a "real" concept of what it would be for such entities (aside from the fact that we cannot have a "real", coherent concept of such entities themselves) to stand in the relation to physical events (someone shooting someone in the head for example) that they would have to in order for things (actions, events, whatever) in this world to have objective moral value.

What would such a relation be? Entailment? certainly not - because the values do not entail the actions/events etc... "Conferring value to them"? - what does that mean? How? I agree with Mackie that we simply cannot have a coherent concept of that.

If we (as for example Wilhelm Vossenkuhl does) say that there are objective moral values, but that they are not independent of what people/groups think about morality - then that is, I think, a cop-out... because in such a case the values would be inter-subjective. And if the distinction "intersubjective"-"objective" makes sense, then the position would be false.

Personally, I prefer a contractualist account of ethics - some application of rawls political thoughts to morality. Scanlon has provided a good attempt at this - showing that there are moral statements which we cannot reasonably reject. But that this is due to facts about the psychology of individuals, about societies and about reason - not due to some platonistic moral values.

Re: Williamson - I agree that our methods and topics are not discontinuous in that way. For one thing, many of the sciences arose from philosophy, and there is still fruitful interdisciplinary work. But I don't understand the use of "although" in "although we do ask some conceptual questions" in this context? In the end - isn't all philosophers do conceptual work? Certainly, it concerns not only concepts in general but specific concepts and their relations, and relations between "concepts and world" and such - but I would also categorize this as conceptual work. What is your opinion?

On a side note - I just had to give a talk about a chapter in Timothy Williamson's "Knowledge and its limits"... and I have to say: Although his thoughts are very interesting, and his position seems (so far) tenable, his writing is abysmal here. Far too dense, not structured enough - not recapitulating and summarizing, not specifying up front where he's going with something, the concepts are made especially clear - although he tries to do that (for example: what IS a "Virtual-C". I understand how he uses and relates it, but what am I to understand this IS?)

Especially that chapter (3) was just cruel to read.

Re: Reasonableness - This requires just one statement from me: I agree wholeheartedly

:)

______________

Oh, and - Quine:

well placed quote! :)

205. The Mother, The Child, The School Board And The Psychic

Comment #196109 by MPhil on June 19, 2008 at 10:00 am

Hey, I'm 24 and I agree with Steve that the musicians of Yes are highly accomplished musicians, and that their music is far more complex and "sophisticated"(if you will) than pop music or hip hop or whatever. That is not to say that the latter have no artistic value.

I'm a fan of progressive rock. King Crimson for example - some of the most sophisticated music I have ever heard (and I am also a fan of classical music and Jazz), and extremely accomplished musicians. Same goes for Bands from Progressive Metal or even Progressive Death metal, which most people think is only disgusting noise.

Think of it: A time-signature change every few measures (and not just 4/4 - 3/4... rather something like 9/8 - 17/16 - 5/4 - 21/32) - polymeter (various time-signatures played on top of one another), complex interactions of melodies with complex rhythms providing ever-changing harmonic structures - the use of atonal melodies and disharmonic structures - and the complex interactions of dissonant and con-sonant elements.

It's just fascinatingly complex - and requires extremely talented musicians to write and perform. Okay, the music of Yes often isn't nearly as complex as King Crimson or even Dream Theater/Pain of Salvation/Necrophagist - but it still is vastly more sophisticated than anything you are likely to hear on the radio (except for classical music and jazz) or anything from genres such as pop, hip hop, techno or some such.

Again, that is not to say that there are not great songs in those genres. I do enjoy a lot of pop music, and find some extremely simple songs to be incredibly artistic in that they convey powerful emotions for example, in that the phrasing and voicing of notes/chords is perfectly suited to what the song wants to convey etc.

But I do love and am fascinated by complex, sophisticated music requiring skillful instrumentalists to perform.

Oh, and yes - I am aware that the next-to-last statement about "you young people" was meant in a humorous way... still, I think the points about "punk and hip hop" are at least somewhat true, concerning "sophistication" of music at least.

206. Is the Universe Actually Made of Math?

Comment #196097 by MPhil on June 19, 2008 at 9:46 am

Bamboospitfire,

You got right to the critical point with this:

but nevertheless correct axioms

.

What does "correct" mean in this context? Something like "true"? I can have a concept (actually, several :) of what it is for a proposition/statement to be true - for example (this is not an uncritical concept in philosophy, but it is common and serves an explanatory purpose here) that the proposition describes an actually obtaining state of affairs.

But axioms do not make claims about the world - they are the foundation of a structure generated upon them via inference-rules(/allowed operations). So how could they be "correct"?

There is large consensus that to speak of axioms as being "truth-apt", ie as being capable of being true or false is nonsensical, that it is a category mistake. Even if this wasn't so (but, as I said, people who study such questions largely agree that is is), how could we possibly know whether they are correct?

We can only know that they generate a system that us useful for explanatory purposes, but not that it accurately describes the world (see my points concerning 1, 2.I and 2.2), because in order to know that, we would have to know indepently exactly what is true about the world.

Only if we already knew what is absolutely true about the world could we know whether a theory we use or even a tool or a framework we use to make sense of our perceptions serves to accurately describe the world.
But that is of course impossible - the whole point of science is providing explanations and a progression of explanations in that anomalies are being solved etc...

I also think my theory as outlined above has the immense advantage of providing a natural explanation for the phenomena of logic, or formal systems in general and why they are so useful. Without such an account - they would lend themselves to people arguing for dualism, or even theism. I have actually heard people make that argument - that in a purely material world without a fundamental "mindfulness" or mind (such as god) it is inexplicable how there could be such things as logic, formal systems, conceptions of abstract entities and also inexplicable why they should be so applicable.

It doesn't help that the concepts you have identified mean nothing to me and my internet searching has just given me a headache.

Okay, let me try again :)

A logic system with the principle of bivalence has the following axioms:

* Law of bivalence:

For any proposition P, P is either true or false.

* Law of the excluded middle:

For any proposition P, P is true or 'not-P' is true.

* Law of non-contradiction:

For any proposition P, it is not the case that both P is true and 'not-P' is true.

These three are obviously related.

Seems intuitive enough - actually, it's one of the things that is so basic to all our thinking that for millenia it was assumed that this this reflects a genuine truth about the universe itself.

If you haven't thought about what I am going to show now, you are likely to think "Well, isn't it? Of course it cannot be that something is both true and not true":

Think of quantum theory and the statement "Particle P has location L"
In quantum theory - this proposition is not either true or false. It isn't that we cannot know whether it is true or false - it doesn't correspond to the principle of bivalence!

Same thing is true in relativity theory concerning statements like: "Event E had a duration D"
Here, this is also not either true or false - it depends on your vantage-point in relation to other vantage points.

But we humans live, think, explore on a mesoscopic scale, where bivalent logic (like "It is either true that John is Mary's father or it isn't") applies perfectly.

In different logical frameworks (for example bivalent versus non-bivalent), you have different axioms - and thus the set of provable theorems is different.

207. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #196079 by MPhil on June 19, 2008 at 9:21 am

Jethro,

The various concepts people have of what is "good" or "bad" in a moral sense are causally active in their decision making, and thus in their relations to other people.

Research into such areas as Evolutionary Stable Strategies and Game Theory tell us that an individual behaving in certain ways relating to how it treats others and itself are advantageous for that individual.

This can be done for individuals, groups, or even for "inhertiable" dispositions to behave in certain ways.

As it turns out, a group in which a certain degree of altruistic behaviour is present does far better than a group of egoists.

This does explain to a great degree why we decide and act under certain concepts of moral values, especially since having a certain morality - seeing certain things as having positive or negative moral valuable does greatly influence our behaviour.

Interaction between humans is also to a great part linguistic. We talk to our children about how to behave - we teach them "values", and give reasons for adopting them (in the best case, anyway).
Our concepts of "moral value" and related concepts play a certain role in our linguistic behaviour, which plays a role in determining our future behaviour.

To infer, however, that there - fundamentally - in the ontology of the world EXIST such things as moral values independent of the way humans relate to each other... moral values that are thus objective and not "merely" inter-subjective - that inference is entirely unwarranted.

There are also many more reasons why "objective moral values" in this respect are not things we have sufficient reason to include in our ontology.
(see e.g. John Leslie Mackie's "Ethics - Inventing Right and Wrong")
________________________
Speaking of Mackie and picking up a topic of of a few pages ago discussed between fizhburn, Frankus and Brian....

Fizhburn, (Brian and Frankus already know my opinion on this :)

I think Mackie's "The Miracle of Theism" is a wonderful book even for "beginners" into critical thinking about theism. More modern than Hume, discussing more arguments from both sides and various positions of theists, but not as technical and strictly concerned with logic as Sobel's book.
It also discusses Hume in some detail.

Have you read it?

Anyway - people falsely assuming they have good reasoning faculties and an open mind.... as a philosopher myself, I see this very often as well :)

But being philosophers, we are in a bad situation here... our field and the one tool we almost formally specialize in using (since we have no others) IS critical thinking itself (and applied to specific conceptual questions).... as such we might and often are accused of the same thing.
Mind you I don't think this is warranted as a generalization :)

But then, we all only hold positions which we think are reasonable/rational to hold. As such, at least to a certain degree, don't we all assume that we have good a good faculty for reasoning? Okay, some have strong opinions on subjects they know next to nothing about and others are very tentative when it comes to that. But concerning those positions we actually hold - I think we all do assume that it is reasonable to hold them and thus that our reasoning faculty is quite good... don't we?

208. Is the Universe Actually Made of Math?

Comment #196043 by MPhil on June 19, 2008 at 8:41 am

bamboo, epinephrine et al...

I think we can agree that mathematics is a discipline.... it certainly is (alongside logic, set theory, category theory etc) the study of structures and relations.

(an analogue of the following is true of logic, set theory, category theory etc as well)

Mathematics uses symbols to refer to abstract entities like numbers, groups, functions etc. whose ontological status is highly disputed (nominalism, platonism, conceptualism etc) and discovers, analyses relations between them.

These arise from the axioms and the inference rules in highly complicated ways. That is what the form of a mathematical proof is: to show that a theorem follows from the axioms and allowed operations.

Thus

I don't see how mathematics could be any different to what it is. To say that we invent it suggests that we have some control over how it works. That is manifestly absurd.

it not quite true. It is not absurd.
Chose different axioms and allowed operations, and you get different results.

An example would be the difference between bivalent and paraconsistent logic, or between Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with and without the axiom of choice.

That the language of mathematics is a construct is entirely uncritical.

The reasons why mathematics can describe the world so well are, I think, twofold:
1) All observation is theory laden. To a certain degree, we could not make observations about the physical world that are not describable in our mathematics because we can only make sense of our perceptions - make them into observation - by already applying the framework of logic/mathematic
and
2)
I. The axioms and allowed operations seem to have indeed some connection to the strucutre of ontology - they seem to be so that the structure of "what there is" is captured at least in certain respects by it. This is an intuitive interpretation, but it would be naive to assume that this has to be so, because the following could also be true without this (I) being true:
II. The axioms and allowed operations have some connection to the structure of the ontology/ontologies the contraints of the mind in general allow us to conceptualize

We can, through 1) be fairly certain that something at least roughly equivalent to II) is the case whether or not I) is the case as well. But given II), we can never in principle know whether I) is also the case or not.

Anyway - the "world out there" consists of concrete entities standing in certain relations. The relations between the physical objects can be expressed wonderfully by mathematics, which is one reason it is so fascinating and awe-inspiring. But abstracts objects either have to reduce to concepts which can be reduced to operations/functions in neural networks interacting with each other and their collective environment (physicalism), or you get pluralism, so that there would be a realm of abstract, non-spatiotemporal objects either somehow interfering with physical entities in a causal way (and we can have no clear conception of causality in that respect), or there are indeed only ideas/concepts/abstract objects - and no concerete objects, no substance.

Both seem to me to be absolutely untenable - max takes the latter position which essentially says there is no substance, just structure of abstract objects. And that I think is not merely wrong but meaningless - we cannot coherently conceive of that.

I am not saying mathematics is "only names", or that it is arbitrary. The language of it is - but it is a construct, certainly - that models a subset of the structures and relations that are possible at all. That the axioms and inference rules of mathematics, of logic, set theory - of everything that models relations lead to such incredibly applicable results is (at least this is my theory) due to our brains being product of the natural world that have evolved to model the world around them. They are - in their general way of making sense of information - shaped by how the world really is, what structures and relations obtain. The form of these also implies the possibility of non-actualized structures and relations. From this, it seems to me, to be "natural" (though definitely not less amazing or awe-inspiring) that our minds should be capable of constructing systems like those of mathematics, logic, set theory etc - and that many of those apply wonderfully to the world.

One last point. I think we all know that science never gives us full knowledge of how the world is or even what it consists of (for more on that, see an entry on my blog titled "Science works" on http://mphil.livejournal.com) fundamentally. We construct theories to construct models of worlds that fit our perceptions. They can be falsified, but never verified - because we cannot in principle know that the next test will not prove that something about our theory is false.

Mathematics have been incredibly apt to formulate such theories. But to be certain that therefore mathematics models the world would mean to be certain that the world is as our current theories tell us - and that would be quite arrogant.

This does not at all diminish the fascination of mathematics or the awe at its usefulness... but it provides a tentative explanation and a reason to be careful not to make the arrogant assumption that we know what and how the world really is.

Cheers guys,
hope I didn't bore you!
-Mike

209. Is the Universe Actually Made of Math?

Comment #195871 by MPhil on June 19, 2008 at 12:16 am

Did I mention that I hate it when some people use "philosophy" as some kind of dirty word? Ignorance is really rampant, isn't it? This is -sorry- just like a creationist who has no idea of science saying it has no value.

Not to mention that we all make metaphysical propositions - "God does not exist", "(only) material things exist/do not exist" etc. for example. Does not mean we have to commit to metaphysical entities. Also, who ever gave anyone the idea that Philosophy is pretty much nothing more than Platonism? Platonism hasn't been very popular for quite some time.

Anyway - I am not doubting the competence as a cosmologist of Max Tegmark... but he is doing philosophy here, and dreadful philosophy at that.

This is not just Platonism - it's property monism, or perhaps even idealistic monism. Really dreadful.
And actually not very consequent either: Mathematics is a Language with propositions expressed in statements of that language. We use propositions to make claims about the world. It is one thing to say that everything has a structure which mathematics can describe (and that alone is highly problematic, though at the base level I might agree) - but it's quite another to say that the language of mathematics(and logic and set-theory etc) is not that which we use to describe structures of something, but that this is what the "world is composed of". If everything was describable through related statements - would the real world thus BE nothing over and above statements then? All structure - expressed by employing abstract entities - no substance.

Nah, that's worse than Platonism.

210. Vatican bans Dan Brown film Angels & Demons from Rome churches

Comment #194551 by MPhil on June 17, 2008 at 12:19 am

Fanusi,

don't have much time... so my reply won't have much detail:

First, spare me your snide and denigrating tone.

By "not the new Hitler", I was criticizing your completely asinine claim that the radical muslims are the greatest evil in any dimension the world has ever seen. No one denies they're a very serious problem, but they don't have the structure or means to overthrow governments of first world powers, to wage Blitzkrieg and take control of countries not already under their control in a matter of weeks or days, they don't have an organized Armed force that acts so systematically as to make this possible.
Thus - they are not as great a threat to everyone living in the West as Hitler was.

Your comment about nationalism is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen... nationalism has a very strict definition. You try to defeat my claim by attempting to define Nationalism as nothing more than in-group morality which is necessary for stability and persistence of the group. What utter bullshit! Nationalism is pride in one's country or culture, often excessive in nature, it is unquestioning idealization of the nation (an artificial entity unlike the aggregate of people itself) with beliefs in its superiority and devaluation of foreigners. Taking pride in something one has not achieved oneself is never justified. Persistence and Stability of the Group does not necessitate any (excessive or not) pride, or for that matter any de-valuation of others. Nationalism is entirely artifical and a political tool. You obviously fail to distinguish between Nationalism and the individual's contribution to society by aiding others and the groups capability for defence with unjustified pride.

Refresh my memory - when was the last time a US marine bombed a Mosque, or hacked the head off a 9-year old girl, or shot... Am I going to have to go on like this, or are you going to drop the inane moral equivalence?

Nah, they do it on a grander scale... systematic torture, de-humanizing one's enemies in the mindset of the people engaged in the operation, violating international laws, denying even potential (not confirmed) enemies basic human rights, disregard for Genever convention, executions, restricting the rights and liberties of one's people. Waging a war of aggression (not Afghanistan, but Iraq), exempting those high up responsible for this from prosecution, thereby abandoning effectively the rule of law over all, which - as you should know - was one of the greatest achievements of constitutionality.

Don't forget the hypocrisy and irony either... claiming to be defending liberty and justice by abandoning those to a large degree and then getting people to support such courses of action through nationalism, the unjustified (because not self-achieved), excessive pride in one's culture or nation with simultaneous de-valuation of others - by idolizing that which just sank so low.

Sorry, if you don't see this, you're hopelessly naive.

Finally, Islam is the single greatest retrograde force in human history. If it were not for the blight of Islam, all of the Middle East and North Africa would now be First World (having inherited the Graeco-Latin civilisation as much, or more so than Europe), and we would have been spared the endless genocides and miseries inflicted by Islam. Also, given that the Muslims helped plunge us into the Dark Ages by burning the Library of Alexandria, I think it's safe to say that Islam's influence has been far more terrible than (gasp!) Bush's.

-The Christian's destroyed the Library of Alexandria as well.
-In the middle-ages, when Islam had its enlightenment, it was Christianity that held back Europe, and much of scientific (almost all of the medical-anatomic for example) knowledge came from the Muslim world.
-Don't forget the mass-murders and miseries inflicted by the almighty Roman Catholic Church.
-The greatest threat to the Western world right now is its own ignorance, including the flames it fans around the world, creating more instability.

211. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194406 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 5:54 pm

I know Frankus... didn't mean to criticize your intent of wanting to make the distinction between "guess/opinion" and "theory" clear. Just my usual, pedant self :)

212. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194399 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 5:39 pm

I don't agree with that definition of "Theory"...

It fails to distinguish between a theory, its potential Models, its actual models and its intended applications. It claims theories have to be verifiable, when there's a good argument to be made that falsifiability is all we can ever get - we can only verify phenomena and data intersubjectively, but can never verify theories, only corroborate them. Also, it's not entire theories that get falsified, but rather a research-program can be either stagnant, regressive or progressive.

There's much more to it than that - but I'm really tired right now :)

Oh, and yes - I am a pedant :)

213. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194378 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 5:01 pm

Why do you keep avoiding the question?

Even Dawkins himself admitted to intelligent design in the great Ben Stein movie "Expelled".

What a masterpiece.

Okay, that's it.

I simply cannot believe that this one is for real any longer. Those comments could only be made by some atheist having a good (but sadistic) laugh in the course of posing as a total fuckwit theist.
Perhaps I am too generous in refusing to believe that any person could be that ridiculously stupid... I don't know. Perhaps it's Poe's Law in action, but wouldn't humanity still be better off if this one was a hoax?

214. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194362 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 4:21 pm

Since this is generally an off-topic thread...

I just remembered a wonderful little sci-fi story by Daniel Dennet. It poses very real philosophical questions and is - I think, quite fun to read:

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/where_am_i.html

What do you think?

215. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194353 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 4:08 pm

Ah, yes, God, Creation, Suffering and Salvation.... the epitome of Münchhausen's by Proxy

216. Vatican bans Dan Brown film Angels & Demons from Rome churches

Comment #194287 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 3:20 pm

Some of that I knew...

What we should tell Christian theists, then, would be something like: "There is no justification for the assumption that the Jesus YOU BELIEVE IN ever existed. Some person to which almost all of the stuff important for Christianity - a mix of earlier myths - was later ascribed most likely did, but this is not the Jesus of the Bible, and not the Jesus in which you believe."

217. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194271 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 3:03 pm

phil rimmer,

sadly - I do not know of any pictorial representation of the library of Alexandria. Would be nice to have one, though.

218. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194264 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 2:57 pm

Billy Sands,

That Story reminds me of the wonderful story

"Thank Goodness"

by Daniel Dennett:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dennett06/dennett06_index.html

He had a dissection of the aorta - and barely survived. But he recovered fully thanks to the goodness of fellow humans.

Friends told him they prayed for him - he had to forgive them, and just managed to refrain from noting

"Thanks, but did you also sacrifice a goat?"

219. Vatican bans Dan Brown film Angels & Demons from Rome churches

Comment #194241 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Thanks, Falcon. That's the kind of detail I wanted to know.

But then what attributes are true of the person to which these copied elements were ascribed?
Numbers and names of followers and that's all? Not even that? More?

If you have information on that, I'd love to read it.

220. Vatican bans Dan Brown film Angels & Demons from Rome churches

Comment #194233 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Fanusi,

Sadly, for the American right (at least those in power and those supporting them), your number 3 applies perfectly. And they are the ones using a culture of nationalism to get people to support violations of human rights (in order to defend human rights, supposedly), of international treaties, crimes against humanity and violation of the constitution. They are willing to use sink to the level of their enemies.

Nationalism is always naive and never justified. Not only is it notoriously exploitable in order to get people to support gruesome acts, it is always a de-valuation of others.

I don't like Michael Moore, his style is devious and some of his conclusions are wrong. But he does also address very real problems. He does it badly, and all this is tainted by his despicable methods. But there are others who do this far better than him. "Taxi to the Dark Side" and "No End in Sight" are two examples.

Hitchens completely fails to impress me as a political commentator, btw.

Oh dear, I can smell it - this is in danger of becoming an excessive, mudslinging debate on things I have had my fair share of debating long ago.

And this: "Michael Moore is an apologist and frontman for the most evil murderers this world has ever seen."

Is flat out not true. The Radical Muslims are not "the new Hitler" or Stalin, or Khmer Rouge.

In fact, I would go as far as to say that the Bush-government has had a far broader and more severe effect on the global human rights situation than the Islamist - partially by creating more of the latter, partially by completely throwing human rights and freedoms and international law out of the window.

Anyway - I've had this debate far too often. I have got enough on my hands moderating and educating extreme leftists and battling the religiously deluded :)

221. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194214 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 2:31 pm

The Library of Alexandria - don't remind me. Even thinking about this cultural catastrophe makes me shudder.

Perhaps a stylized logo portraying the Library of Alexandria could become a new logo of anti-theism :) Saying at the same time "never again shall something like this be destroyed" and "look what humanity can achieve through rationality".

The more people like you post, the more we hone and refine our arguments in support of reason

I think only arguments we haven't answered before (much less hundreds of times) have that effect. Responding to him now is just a waste of time I fear.

222. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194200 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 2:24 pm

Come on guys - this guy has pressed the "reset-button" (as epeeist so eloquently put it) at least 10 times by now - he's way past strike 40 now.

We have presented the evidence, explained his errors - he has proven himself to be completely resistant to reason.

His last comment was unoriginal - the accusations have been met and he simply keeps repeating them. This is trolling. It deserves flagging - and certainly no longer deserves any responses.

223. Vatican bans Dan Brown film Angels & Demons from Rome churches

Comment #194180 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 2:00 pm

That's going a bit far. You don't have to believe in the fantastical stories of the Bible but I think you'll be in the substantial minority if you argue that Jesus never existed.

A man named Jesus who claimed to perform miracles most likely existed. I doubt there are too many classical historians (myself included) who will doubt this.

I am very much willing to believe this.

Perhaps you can help me... this is what I have heard:

-There were many leaders of religious sects around that time
-Some of them were a nuisance to the Roman Empire
-There are no disinterested historical accounts that can be determined to refer to any Jesus of Nazareth.

And then, it is evident that much of the Jesus myth is copied from earlier myths (Dionysus, Osiris, Mithras, Hercules etc):

* Born of virgin on December 25;
* Stars appeared at their births;
* visited by Magi from the east;
* turned water into wine;
* healed the sick;
* cast out demons;
* performed miracles;
* transfigured before followers;
* rode donkeys into the city;
* betrayed for 30 pieces of silver;
* celebrated communal meal with bread and wine;
* which represented the savior's flesh and blood;
* killed on a cross or tree;
* descended into hell;
* resurrected on third day;
* ascended into heaven;
* to forever sit beside Father God and become divine Judge.

I'm sure there were many people around that time who were leaders of cults. By what properties would we pick out "the historic Jesus" as the historic Jesus?
Is it something like number of followers, birthplace, names of followers, having been a nuisance to the Roman Empire etc...

If you could enlighten me, I'd be glad.

224. Vatican bans Dan Brown film Angels & Demons from Rome churches

Comment #194168 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 1:40 pm

On the right side?

I meant that solely with regards to being highly critical of nationalism and right-wing politics.

225. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194159 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 1:25 pm

Well to answer this question you must first understand that there are two types of evolution; Microevolution and Macroevolution.

You've got some nerve talking to someone who is a doctor of biology that way. Do you honestly think Steve has never heard of "Microevolution vs Macroevolution"? Do you honestly think that ANYONE on here hasn't heard about this before? Do you honestly think we haven't heard all that bullshit about this before?

And of all people you address this post to Steve? A doctor of biology... have you read the link he provided? What you write about it makes me think you didn't.

How about you sit down with a bunch of experts on this subjects - people who hold a degree in biology. Then you should ASK them "What about microevolution vs macroevolution? - that speciation-stuff does seem incredible to a layperson like me." Then you LISTEN to their explanations, get shown the evidence (like that one Steve's blog he kindly linked to for you). Maybe you ask some more questions. So you LISTEN and try to UNDERSTAND... and accept that these people are far more knowledgeable concerning this than a layperson. And when they have explained it to you - you accept it.

That would be the intellectually honest thing to do. But no, you come here and try to lecture a doctor of biology about macroevolution. You claim to know better than thousands of people who have put a lot of effort into studying this, who have devoted their lives to explanatory progression in the understanding of life.

Can you really not see how incredibly arrogant this is?

You ought to apologize.

226. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #194092 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 12:11 pm

So what you're basically saying is that I'm talking complete crap.

That's not how I see it...

227. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194080 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 11:59 am

You mean to say polite is better than the hack and slash approach to stupid arguments?

Not quite - I love to hack and slash no-good arguments. Tear them to shreds with the razor sharp tool of reason. I just think that personally, I myself shouldn't make so many snide and denigrating remarks while I'm tearing the arguments apart.

228. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194071 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 11:43 am

a useful provocational technique.

Well, if you want to scare them away - or make them more angry (and sometimes I guess that's a goal that is acceptable), then I'm sure it can be useful :)

I can't claim to be any where near as imaginative with it as the Rev. Dark or Diacanu.

They do have a real talent for that, don't they? :D I find it highly amusing.

229. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194070 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 11:39 am

Thanks, I just replied.

230. Vatican bans Dan Brown film Angels & Demons from Rome churches

Comment #194065 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 11:28 am

Michael Moore great for a factual movie?

Are you serious? This guy is a manipulator and a propagandist who uses every trick in the book to get people to agree with a position he takes - manipulating interviews, cutting out-of-context, juxtaposing certain scenes to imply a conclusion.

Don't get me wrong. I think the Bush-administration should spend life in prison for crimes against humanity and potentially for treason because of what they did to the constitution.

Michael Moore is largely on the right side, but his methods are despicable and his claims often not substantiated by the evidence he presents.

There are far better people creating documentaries.

Have you seen "Taxi to the Dark Side" or "No End in Sight"? The first was presented entirely objectively, but I almost couldn't bear to watch it. It made me physically sick and enraged beyond description.

Also, as far as I know there already was a documentary about the Roman Catholic Church's practice of playing the shell-game with pedophiles.

231. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194061 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 11:09 am

I have been strongly influenced by epeeist on this. Sometimes, with the best intentions, we let such people run rings around us. We end up pandering to them, answering every question.

That makes sense... sounds right. Still, somehow, epeeist manages not to "lose his cool" over the irrational people coming here.

Once I get really annoyed by something like this, I can be very dismissive, harsh and insulting - and while the adrenaline-rush of it feels good, I don't like myself when I'm like that.

I think we need to ask why they feel qualified to discuss science at all - we don't let them put a foot in the door, as it where, unless they are polite and agree to rational discussion.

Yes, but we should - at the same time - promote inquisitive interaction of non-scientists with scientists, to get people to develop an interest in science and rational investigation in general. Asking questions is wonderful - even if they are critical of well-established things. True enlightenment can only come from learning.

So we should encourage learning and discussion while discouraging arrogance. Your latest blog-entry does a great job at exposing the arrogance of theism/"supernaturalism"/religion.

To encourage learning might even be harder.

To have carto (and others) join in with that would be wonderful.

Yes, I didn't mean to exclude others - Carto's post just reminded me that I wanted to ask him this for a while now.

232. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194051 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 10:35 am

Diacanu

... wonderful!

He's for every one of us stand for every one of us
he'll save with a mighty hand every man
every woman every child with a mighty flash

General Kala, Steve Zara approaching
-what do you mean "Steve Zara approaching"?
Open fire… all weapons
despatch war rocket Ajax to bring back his body
Steve!!! Za-raaa!…
Zara's ALIIIIVEE!

Steve!!! Za-raa!
he'll save every one of us

Just a man with a man's courage he knows
nothing but a man he can never fail
no one but the pure in heart may find the golden grail ... of science

233. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194045 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 10:26 am

Steve

- okay, that was a prime example of irrationality, but at least the attempt to discuss arguments with his partner is an element (however insufficient) of rationality.

Maybe I'm being too generous. But I think I personally could improve the way I appear to others by being less harsh - same critique, same directness, but a little less cynical perhaps.

And I still think that personally, the tone I used was a little unwarranted, although understandable.

Carto,

[...]is how we determine which theory is the truth.

Hmm... I don't know. That would imply verifiablity.
I'd say that's how we determine which explanatory approach (research-program) doesn't work.

And that's how we get explanatory progression and real explanations, which is something that - as we know - religion can never provide.

Anyway - as always, I enjoy your wit and eloquence. Thank you for that. For half a year now you managed to make me laugh, to provide intellectually stimulating contributions and valuable insight. I know this is terribly cliché... sorry :)

Anyway - perhaps we could convince you to join Steve, Brian, me and others on the "blogsphere" - and if you don't want your own, I (and I would say others as well) would love to get your input on our posts as a commentator. What do you think?

234. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #194027 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 9:45 am

Okay - I just thought about this.

Yes, ketch22 has shown some arrogance... but I think the tone I adopted was due to being fed up with the same old same old, as if we hadn't rebutted such arguments ages ago.

We have to give him credit for at least attempting to confront rational criticisms and attempting to use real arguments.

That's more than most people do. He's certainly more intellectually honest than wooter and/or Robertson.

That's not saying that his arguments are good. But to someone who hasn't had access to the good rebuttals and/or perhaps doesn't have to capability to evaluate them (when they are really complex) and/or may be blinded by wanting to believe... at least he is making a serious (though insufficient) attempt at rationality.

So I say: Way to go - now analyze with all the rigor you can muster all the arguments for your position. Face the rebuttals, and if you cannot logically defeat them, change your position. That will be complete intellectual honesty.

235. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #193951 by MPhil on June 16, 2008 at 8:35 am

Hunagarianelephant,

the point was that anything in a spacetime framework is bound by the laws of that spacetime-framework (no matter how many dimension). And of course no entity inside spacetime could be the origin thereof or of the laws that govern it.

Anything that is outside (assuming - contrafactually - that we can coherently conceive of this) of any spacetime-like framework cannot be causally active in any way.

But theism claims that God is not bound by natural laws, is not spatiotemporal, is the origin of everything etc.

But via the causation-argument, theism is in princple meaningless or false, depending on your viewpoint. In any case - it is impossible.

Theism also claims "intrinsic", metaphysically objective moral values. And Steve is right, D could not be the origin of that. In fact, we cannot have a coherent concept of such kinds of values either.

Why not? What if D has interacted with our specific planet with a view to ensuring that the human species evolving as it has, and intervened in history to get the bible written? As such D created man in - if not his own image - at least his own preference, and gave commandments through biblical figures.

This would not lead to intrinsic, metaphysically objective moral values either.

Also, assuming a deity was causally active (and thus in any spacetime framework), omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence etc don't make sense either. Such a deity can also not have teleologically designed humankind through evolution for two reasons:

1.) (Credit has to go to Steve) The outcome of some deterministic processes are not calculable in advance - in principle.

2.) As far as we know, many mutations are caused by radiation from radioactive decay, which is a genuinely random process and thus cannot be calculated in advance either.

A God like D would be a sort of LaPlace daemon, and thus incompatible with what we know of random events, Heisenberg-uncertainty etc.

236. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193708 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 11:44 pm

My sleep/wake-cycle is totally off again. I really need to see a doctor because of this... makes it damn near impossible to follow any schedule (such as for uni) if your sleep/wake-cycle is always off.

Diacanu,

you're right - upon rereading, it seems you didn't say that. Just goes to show, I need sleep.

237. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193700 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 11:32 pm

Inferences are based on faith. So therefore, Macroevoluion is a religion.

Fallacy of equivocation. Actually, inference is absolutely logically unassailable. Induction is that which never amounts to proof. But that doesn't justify calling it "faith" with the same meaning of "faith" as in "religious faith".

That is just complete arse-gravy.

238. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193699 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 11:30 pm

...oh, I forgot - and of course without positivism it would still be true that if we can know (of) something, then it is per definition natural.

But since theism has no epistemic justification, and they still make their claims - they have to invent "a different kind of knowledge". Of course they would have to lay out the exact methodology, that it is consistent, reliable and non-arbitrary.

But of course, religion is arbitrary.

239. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193696 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 11:24 pm

Again, if magic existed, it would be testable, and become science.

That would be positivism... and I'm afraid it's not quite true. There might be natural things we cannot grasp with science - but that doesn't give anyone any justification for inventing pseudo-explanations. It doesn't make the illogical logical and doesn't give explanatory power to that that which doesn't have explanatory power.

We need not say that there cannot exist anything that science cannot explain. It suffices to say that while there may be things which we cannot detect, we could per definition thus also never have sufficient reason to claim that any specific such thing does exist.

240. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193686 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 10:47 pm

Claim debunked ages ago - still no cogent argument for any of the five lemma epeeist has shown you need to prove before your claims hold.

Way past strike 30 by now... henceforth ignored by me.

241. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193683 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 10:35 pm

Yes - clamiing causal origin from some non-spatiotemporal realm... logically inconsistent... how logical, how rational.

242. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193682 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 10:34 pm

It is the only reasonable and logical explanation.

...

...

*cricket* *cricket*

...

...

*cough*

243. George W Bush meets Pope amid claims he might convert to Catholicism

Comment #193669 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 10:10 pm

If I joined my local Nazi party, then tried explaining to my friends and coworkers that I am not a Nazi, how well do you think that would work out for me? Just curious. I'm guessing not too well.

If it was a free choice, then no, not too well - and rightly so.

But it has no bearing on the arguments I gave...

And as for Rotkohl - no, neither. Soryy.

Anyway - good night then :)

244. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193666 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 10:07 pm

All at one time thought the world flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. Majority does not represent truth.

You're right. But total evidence determines epistemic justification.

When there was no sufficient theory to explain the phenomena with heliocentrism, proclaiming it as known truth would have been unwarranted. Only when there is theoretic explanation can we make any such claim. And even then we can only claim "best current explanation" - but this is still far more than any mythology/superstition/religion can claim since the beginning of rational investigation.

Not everything needs evaluating. Somethings are just known to be the truth. The Truth, The Light and The Way.

Arguing for a position and then stating outright that there is no chance that one could be wrong... the epitome of irrationality.

As for Micro-Macro evolution...

the others are right. Even if the theory of evolution was false, assuming design would not be rational. You need independent corroboration for that.

But anyway - the distinction is quite arbitrary.

245. George W Bush meets Pope amid claims he might convert to Catholicism

Comment #193649 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 9:50 pm

I didn't imply (nor mean to) that you were one of those who think lederhosen and Hitler when they hear "Germany"...

The part of my comment where I spoke about such things was meant to be more general. Only the parts in specific reference to calling Ratzinger a Nazi were addressed to you.

Strangely, I never liked Sauerkraut myself :)

246. George W Bush meets Pope amid claims he might convert to Catholicism

Comment #193645 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 9:48 pm

mikecbraun,

that depends if you define "Nazi" via being member of an organisation, or via having certain convictions.

Per the first definition - the one you advanced - Ratzinger would necessarily have stopped being a Nazi when he left the HJ or NSDAP or Wehrmacht. But there were many people who were Nazis afterwards - and whom we can rightly call Nazis even after 1945... so the second definition makes more sense.

And in that case, Ratzinger certainly is no longer a Nazi if ever he was one.

On that subject - just as a Child completely indoctrinated into the Catholic creed from it's earliest days is not to blame for identifying itself as a Catholic in its childhood (especially if it deconverts later), not every member of the HJ (not even most) can be blamed for identifying as National-Socialist. Especially since there is really no evidence to suggest that Ratzinger continued to believe in the superiority of the German people, or "believe" in Adolf Hitler or that the thrid Reich shall remain for a thousand years - calling Ratzinger a Nazi is unwarranted.

247. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193639 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 9:41 pm

Scientific facts are only based on being the best explanation - in terms of coherency explanatory broadness, parsimony. The general standards of rationality. For any claim about something other than closed, logical systems, - in short for any claim about anything not analytically true, "best explanation" in the above way is the maximum we can achieve. That's another reason why religion is so ludicrously arrogant.

And since it rests on false inferences and logically contradictory concepts - it can never have any explanatory power.

Any potential naturalistic explanation would still be an explanation - invoking the "supernatural" never can be. But can do better than grasping at straws... we have immensely powerful theories, so well corroborated that it's ludicrous to claim they are totally off.

Macroevolution is not a warranted inference? Don't make me laugh.

248. George W Bush meets Pope amid claims he might convert to Catholicism

Comment #193636 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 9:34 pm

Yes, I see the humour - and I'm grinning. So I think it's this has been a successful attempt :)

249. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193623 by MPhil on June 15, 2008 at 9:19 pm