Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 81 to 120 of 136

Thread: Animals (Pets) have souls?

  1. #81
    Consul Sirveri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon Freeman View Post
    In all seriousness, you can be brain-dead and still living. If the ill-considered, long established practice of using lobotomy to treat mental illness (Hooray for America, world leader in total number of lobotomies!) taught us anything, it's that as long as the centers of your brain controlling respiration are 'living' (electrically active), you could continue to exist with no consciousness. Even if these centers have been deactivated, we can keep you alive on a machine.
    Lobotomies do not cause brain death.
    Brain death means total loss of function, including the function required to maintain life.
    Body death typically is defined as an unrecoverable cessation of heart or respiratory activity.
    Legal death can be either, but is typically brain death, and is the standard used in 39 of the states today. This is due to the ability to restore body function after brain death via use of a respirator; this is possible because the heart has its own electrical impulses that will continue so long as the heart has access to oxygen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshyyy View Post
    There is some serious misquoting potential above.
    The rep system should be abolished.

  2. #82
    Artisan Gordon Freeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    The Citadel
    Posts
    778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirveri View Post
    Lobotomies do not cause brain death.
    So go get one, and tell us how you feel afterwards. Are you asserting that you can function on any meaningful level in your day-to-day life after having a radical lobotomy?

    Wait, I forgot they performed one on you years ago! Zing!

    And way to bring up the legal sense of brain-death, which no one was talking about. Why not discuss the difference between brain death, persistent vegetative states, and conditions resembling brain death, if you want to go into that quagmire? (I'm sure you're just looking to be a contrarian though, maybe feeling left out of the Woden/TB mutual-tuchus-smooching society)
    Please accept my resignation. I have no interest in being a member of any club that would take me as a member.

    Quote Originally Posted by Meherrin View Post
    Lord of the Gifs
    Who loves not women, wine and song, remains a fool his whole life long.

  3. #83
    Consul Sirveri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon Freeman View Post
    So go get one, and tell us how you feel afterwards.
    Your definition of brain dead is wrong (both legally and as defined by the medical community). I was correcting your definition of brain death. Cheers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshyyy View Post
    There is some serious misquoting potential above.
    The rep system should be abolished.

  4. #84
    Artisan Gordon Freeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    The Citadel
    Posts
    778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirveri View Post
    Your definition of brain dead is wrong (both legally and as defined by the medical community). I was correcting your definition of brain death. Cheers.
    So you're a JD/MD now! Moving up in the world. It's hard to imagine how you got those degrees without the ability to read. It's a miracle! Glory be and Hallelujah.

    Since nowhere in my comment did I state those who have had lobotomies are brain dead in a legal or medical sense, merely that their consciousness has been snuffed.

    See? You're a prime example that one can be both alive and brain-dead simultaneously!

    <Removed by Mod>
    Last edited by Ex Mod; 10-19-2014 at 04:41 AM. Reason: Relax on the insults
    Please accept my resignation. I have no interest in being a member of any club that would take me as a member.

    Quote Originally Posted by Meherrin View Post
    Lord of the Gifs
    Who loves not women, wine and song, remains a fool his whole life long.

  5. #85
    Consul Sirveri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon Freeman View Post
    Since nowhere in my comment did I state those who have had lobotomies are brain dead in a legal or medical sense, merely that their consciousness has been snuffed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon Freeman View Post
    But you've been brain-dead for years and it hasn't hurt ya none! Zing!

    In all seriousness, you can be brain-dead and still living. If the ill-considered, long established practice of using lobotomy to treat mental illness (Hooray for America, world leader in total number of lobotomies!) taught us anything, it's that as long as the centers of your brain controlling respiration are 'living' (electrically active), you could continue to exist with no consciousness. Even if these centers have been deactivated, we can keep you alive on a machine.
    Any college degree you have is currently revoked, you may restore it by going to any junior college and taking a basic communications class. Or you could just man up and admit that you're wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshyyy View Post
    There is some serious misquoting potential above.
    The rep system should be abolished.

  6. #86
    Artisan Gordon Freeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    The Citadel
    Posts
    778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirveri View Post
    Any college degree you have is currently revoked, you may restore it by going to any junior college and taking a basic communications class. Or you could just man up and admit that you're wrong.
    'If the ill-considered, long established practice of using lobotomy to treat mental illness (Hooray for America, world leader in total number of lobotomies!) taught us anything, it's that as long as the centers of your brain controlling respiration are 'living' (electrically active), you could continue to exist with no consciousness.'

    If you can find where brain-death is mentioned in this statement, mazel tov. Learn to read.
    Last edited by Ex Mod; 10-19-2014 at 04:42 AM. Reason: RL insults
    Please accept my resignation. I have no interest in being a member of any club that would take me as a member.

    Quote Originally Posted by Meherrin View Post
    Lord of the Gifs
    Who loves not women, wine and song, remains a fool his whole life long.

  7. #87
    Consul Sirveri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon Freeman View Post
    'If the ill-considered, long established practice of using lobotomy to treat mental illness (Hooray for America, world leader in total number of lobotomies!) taught us anything, it's that as long as the centers of your brain controlling respiration are 'living' (electrically active), you could continue to exist with no consciousness.'

    If you can find where brain-death is mentioned in this statement, mazel tov. Learn to read or piss off. ******-bag.
    Way to cut out the preceding sentence. Perhaps this is why Conservatives are so incredibly stupid, they can't understand the concept of CONTEXT. So I'm guessing you'll be taking both an entry level communications class and English 1A (or the precursor since it's quite possible given the ability you have shown in thread you wouldn't be able to test into it). Or you could just admit that you're wrong, you might actually gain a small level of respect from everyone currently reading the thread. Confession is good for the soul.

    Cheers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshyyy View Post
    There is some serious misquoting potential above.
    The rep system should be abolished.

  8. #88

    Woden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    11,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Many people can even remember their dreams, and psychology assures me that even those who can't do have them.
    Side note, I'm actually not certain that I dream. I've never once recalled a dream, and I've had severe sleep dysfunctions for most (possibly all) of my life. I think it's entirely possible that I don't go into REM sleep at all. Never had the money to do a sleep study, though, especially since I've been uninsured for so long. I might try to get one done next year.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    I'm curious as to whether you're capable of any sort of recognition of your own fallibility or reading comprehension.
    Of course not, he's a lawyer. Or so he claims, at least.

    ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    What's the point of being observable if it isn't accurately measurable?
    Because we're still able to learn about it, even if the amount we can learn is limited. If you can observe that a specific part of the brain is being used for a specific type of mental activity or during the perception of a specific type of sensation, and moreover, that the brain section in question is only being used in things relating to that, then it is clear that that brain section is involved with that mental activity/perception. Saying in response, "Well, we don't know exactly how it works, so it could all just be metaphysical" is wrongheaded because it requires that you ignore such evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    Philosophical wanking, my my, what a nice philosophical position you have taken!
    I don't have much patience for philosophy for the pure sake of philosophy. I've never made a secret of that. I view most of philosophy as being nothing more than an intellectual plaything that people use to act superior over others with, which has little to no practical application.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    A) Define it better.
    Why would I define it better? I'm not the one proposing such an explanation, and if I did try to "define it better", then the people who are claiming souls exist would just be going "lol nope, that's not what I think a soul is."

    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    but blatantly dismissing it is a completely different ball game from mere skepticism.
    Bullcrap. It has literally not been given enough of a definition to allow for any investigation whatsoever. It has no substantial difference from the commonly-touted examples of skepticism like Russell's Teapot or the Dragon in My Garage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    Purely physical descriptions do not seem to fully describe identity.
    How do you figure? Just because we don't know enough about how a vastly complex system works to fully describe something does not mean that the complex system is not the cause of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    C) Evidence isn't the end-all be-all to truth, just a pragmatic way of dealing with problems of knowledge when appropriate.
    Gotta say, statements like this from somebody who has been dismissing evidence that doesn't fit with their argument kind of piss me off. Evidence isn't the only way to find out if something is true or false (though it's generally the best way when available), but when evidence and philosophy differ, it's evidence that wins.

    Furthermore, when something is deliberately set up to be non-falsifiable, then what's the point of even giving it consideration? If you can't prove it wrong, then A) you can't prove it right, either, and B) it's almost certainly been rendered inconsequential in terms of the world around us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    Metaphysical explanations can have strict standards,
    So what? Those standards are entirely arbitrary and meaningless, since there is no way to verify anything about them. Hence the whole "metaphysical" part of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    However, if there were no humans to create mathematics, would those mathematical truths still be truths? Would they still exist? Would any true mathematical statement stop being true?
    Yes, No, and No, in the exact same sense that any correct logical statement remains true even in the absence of any intelligent being to ponder it. Just because a statement is true does not mean that the statement has some independent existence; what you seem to be implying is that objective truths themselves (not the things that the true statements are about, but the statements themselves) have an existence, which I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim before.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    Puddles aren't integers,
    And now you're stumbling towards my point. In math, an integer is exactly identical to any other integer of the same value; in the real world, this is almost never the case with anything being counted. For example, you can count the number of members of a herd, but this does not imply that each member is equal and identical (contrary to what math implies). You can count the number of pebbles on a beach, but they are all unique and distinct from each other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    The key point remains that if I speak a certain mathematical statement that represents a mathematical truth, then as long as those exact same conditions are maintained, it will always be true.
    Okay, then please explain how this is in any way relevant to the topic of discussion. Or have you just caused a page-long diversion for the sake of stroking your ego in trying to explain this in the most convoluted way possible when it wasn't even relevant?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    If consciousness is a property that can be switched on and off, then, assuming we can repair brains to restore consciousness to brain-dead people, are brain-dead people really dead?
    They are dead because we lack the ability to restore consciousness to them. If we had this ability, then we might not consider them dead (or, more likely, we would still consider them dead but be able to revive them). Why do you act like this is some sort of surprising issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    No, they want a complete picture.
    And, again, when do we ever have a complete picture on anything? This goes right back to my previous statement of impossible requirements that act as nothing more than a foothold for metaphysical claims which are being held to lesser standards.

    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    When you prove a mathematical theorem, did you just "invent" a truth, as in, your actions created a truth? Or was that truth always there, and was just never formalized until you wrote the proof?
    Neither. The truth value of the theorem is a property of the mathematical system; when discovering such a theorem, the person is merely noting that it is a consequence of the system's axioms.

  9. #89

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirveri View Post
    Way to cut out the preceding sentence. Perhaps this is why Conservatives are so incredibly stupid, they can't understand the concept of CONTEXT. So I'm guessing you'll be taking both an entry level communications class and English 1A (or the precursor since it's quite possible given the ability you have shown in thread you wouldn't be able to test into it). Or you could just admit that you're wrong, you might actually gain a small level of respect from everyone currently reading the thread. Confession is good for the soul.

    Cheers.
    Funny, I always thought the same about liberals, or at least the liberal media. I've found that fox news does better then liberal media....and fox news is awful.
    Retired as of 10/13/14 after 7 and a half years of playing. Good luck to those who continue to play.
    us2; Round 6 - Adjudicator (Getter) (BACON) (Lost)
    us3; Round 2 - stevo (Getter) (QoD) (Lost)
    us3; Round 3 - stemem (Getter) (SI) (Won)
    us3; Round 4 - BliZZarD (Getter) (Delicious) (lost)
    us3; Round 5 - Ice Lillies (Getter) (DoS) (Semper DoS)
    us3; Round 7 - Revolt (Getter) (SI) (Won)
    us8; Round 1 - Heavenly Wrath (Getter) (TNT) (won)
    com3; Round ? - General Mills (Getter) (ReD DoS/TWD) (Lost)

  10. #90
    Philosopher Daft Punk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Not even mad
    Posts
    2,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Huh? It merely says that the subjectivity of experience has no place in the language game. In other words, the reason your questions are so difficult to answer is that they're attempting to use language to answer questions about things which language hasn't the conceptual framework to answer since people aren't telepathic, and can't "see into another's box" or directly experience someone elses' "beetle."

    The issue you're having is created by your language choice -- you're attempting to describe aspects of internal perception using the language of objective observation. That is to say, your perception of your consciousness is something that occurs in the first person, but you're asking for a third-person linguistic explanation.
    There is no problem of language if all qualia can be eventually quantified as the result of physical processes in the brain. Hence, physicalism. Pick one or the other. And if you're going to continue upon the language-game/unknowable qualia approach, then you're going to run into some serious epistemic problems regarding consciousness, because that would basically mean we have an explanation that combines the material and the immaterial, which is exactly what you don't want to happen, considering your opposition to souls earlier.

    I'm just surprised that you're bringing up Wittgenstein instead of someone more relevant to philosophy of the mind, like Nagel.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    So? Some propositions are more problematic than others; it is the human endeavor to find the best propositions from the list of possible propositions so as to arrive at the best system we can think of. If a "soul belief" is more problematic than its competitors...
    What if all beliefs regarding this subject are negligible?

    1) Humans have no souls. We just rot in the ground after we're dead.
    2) Humans have souls. This is spiritual and brings me meaning and peace, man! (not linked to religion/linked to religion)

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    I feel like you're trying to use terminology to obscure the answer, or are thinking in needlessly obscure terminology, because these are easy questions.
    Nothing I said was complex in any way lol. No jargon here.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    All the things that you perceive in the first person are linked to groups of neurons that we can describe in the third person. "I feel X." "That's because of neural cluster Y." "I feel Z." "That's because of neural cluster P."

    "Consciousness" is generated by the complexity of interactions in your brain. But any given well defined aspect of consciousness can be traced to a physical thing; that aspect of consciousness is gone when the physical thing that generates your experience of it is gone.

    Yes, brain-dead people are really dead. If they are "revived," then they are no longer dead. That's why we can use the word "revived," as in, brought back from the dead.
    Do you mind if I present a different scenario? Like the whole "teleporter" scenario? I think that would be a better approach to allow me to explain why there's more to this topic than meets the eye.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    That IS the complete picture. See: Newton's Flaming Laser Sword. Once again, the reason the picture isn't fully fleshed out is that no one is coming forward with a specific question. If you ask "what happens to my __________ after I die," the question is answerable. Every time. The picture is complete.
    More like, your picture is complete assuming things you left out aren't true. Furthermore, I don't know what Newton's Flaming Laser Sword is. Isn't Newton's Flaming Laser Sword one of those things that "if it can't be tested by experiment, then it's not worth figuring out"?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    You want truth to exist outside the human mind. But it doesn't. It's true that logical truths are true whether or not we're thinking about them, but that doesn't make them exist in any meaningful way, because that's not what "exist" means.

    In other words, if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it still make a sound? Yes, because the things all exist. If no one has invented non-Euclidean geometries, are they still true? Yes, but they don't exist. They don't exist until someone thinks them. Truth as a property of things "exists" (although not in a physical way), but the truth value of a thing is not separate from the thing. That is, there is no sense in which the truth of geometry is something separable from geometry that can be said to be its "essence."
    That doesn't make sense. If truths don't exist without a human to think them, then... well that doesn't make any sense. According to correspondence, truths are true because they correspond with facts. Mathematics is still going to correspond with facts regardless of our own existence.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Yes, you invented a true statement. You didn't invent the property of things that is truth, but again, there's no sense in which the truth of your statement existed before you made the statement. That is absurd.
    That sounds like there's an element of subjectivity created if the truth of a particular statement is mind-dependent. I don't think you want to approach this path.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Daft Punk, this isn't well defined. How can I strip a mathematical statement of "everything except its essence" without you telling me what you mean by the term? Abstract objects exist, yes. There are relationships between abstract objects, yes. But truth value? Truth value is a property of statements. If there is no statement, then there is no truth value to evaluate.
    Can a truth value be a property of relationships between abstract objects? Are those abstract objects said to exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    But you're using language that describes properties and trying to make it describe something it wasn't meant to describe. In other words, you yourself are creating the problem you're attempting to solve by using "truth value" as abstracted from statements when the existence of truth value is contingent upon a statement.

    You're saying "True or false," then crying that it's not abstract enough if I say "is what true or false?"
    Let me clarify it for you again then. "1 + 1 = 2, assuming integers, arithmetic, etc." I have chosen to reveal this true relationship representing abstract objects in this particular form. I could have chosen a million other possible ways to represent this relationship. However, nothing I can do can change this relationship unless I change the axioms. In that case, it wouldn't prove my original statement wrong, but instead, prove a different relationship that is completely different from my original relationship. And both relationships would be true about the particular mathematical objects that they represent.

    In case that isn't clear enough, here's the SEP on mathematical Platonism.

    Platonism about mathematics (or mathematical platonism) is the metaphysical view that there are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and our language, thought, and practices. Just as electrons and planets exist independently of us, so do numbers and sets. And just as statements about electrons and planets are made true or false by the objects with which they are concerned and these objects' perfectly objective properties, so are statements about numbers and sets. Mathematical truths are therefore discovered, not invented.

    The most important argument for the existence of abstract mathematical objects derives from Gottlob Frege and goes as follows (Frege 1953). The language of mathematics purports to refer to and quantify over abstract mathematical objects. And a great number of mathematical theorems are true. But a sentence cannot be true unless its sub-expressions succeed in doing what they purport to do. So there exist abstract mathematical objects that these expressions refer to and quantify over.

    Frege's argument notwithstanding, philosophers have developed a variety of objections to mathematical platonism. Thus, abstract mathematical objects are claimed to be epistemologically inaccessible and metaphysically problematic. Mathematical platonism has been among the most hotly debated topics in the philosophy of mathematics over the past few decades.
    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    Because we're still able to learn about it, even if the amount we can learn is limited. If you can observe that a specific part of the brain is being used for a specific type of mental activity or during the perception of a specific type of sensation, and moreover, that the brain section in question is only being used in things relating to that, then it is clear that that brain section is involved with that mental activity/perception.
    Finding a correlation is an easy problem of consciousness. Finding the mechanism is harder, but still "easy". I'm not debating the validity of finding evidence there. What that "mental activity/perception" really is, is a hard problem of consciousness for sound reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    Saying in response, "Well, we don't know exactly how it works, so it could all just be metaphysical" is wrongheaded because it requires that you ignore such evidence.
    How are we able to learn about the more difficult problems of consciousness if it isn't measurable in any meaningful way? And no, I don't espouse a metaphysical answer to the question of consciousness. I'm only playing the devil's advocate here, since I'm not a fan of people making claims while poisoning the well for the other side.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    I don't have much patience for philosophy for the pure sake of philosophy.
    So you have no patience for discussing opposing philosophical views? As opposed to firmly holding a particular set of philosophical views, even in cases where it may lead to faulty, pigheaded conclusions?

    Come on, let's not get bigoted here. Philosophy is fun, and philosophy poses serious questions. Science is literally viewing the world in accordance to several philosophical principles. When we go and look at science, we ask questions like "how do we know", "does this represent the true nature of the world", "is just a working model good enough to claim that science represents the world", "could we ever know this for certain?", "what theories are scientific and what theories aren't scientific", "which theory is better"?

    Anything that goes meta about science is philosophy. Science can't justify itself with more science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    I've never made a secret of that. I view most of philosophy as being nothing more than an intellectual plaything that people use to act superior over others with, which has little to no practical application.
    Philosophical claims here:

    1) All philosophical views that are not a) naturalist, b) anti-realist about everything except science, and c) falsifiable are just "intellectual playthings that people use to act superior over others with", as opposed to tools used to investigate the fundamental nature of everything or whatever.

    2) Only practical things are worthwhile pursuits. If it doesn't earn bread, it's not worthwhile.

    Woden, I don't think you needed an explicit philosophy to act superior to other people.

    I'm kidding, it's just a joke. Let's move on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    Why would I define it better? I'm not the one proposing such an explanation, and if I did try to "define it better", then the people who are claiming souls exist would just be going "lol nope, that's not what I think a soul is."
    Not referring to you explicitly, just in general. And hey, maybe those guys are wankers. I can't help you pragmatically convince other people to define souls better. However, I can at least encourage you to think about it a little bit more than the standard "if I can't see it, it isn't there" view.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    Bullcrap. It has literally not been given enough of a definition to allow for any investigation whatsoever. It has no substantial difference from the commonly-touted examples of skepticism like Russell's Teapot or the Dragon in My Garage.
    Russell's Teapot is completely irrelevant to the concept of a soul, because a soul isn't a scientific concept.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    How do you figure? Just because we don't know enough about how a vastly complex system works to fully describe something does not mean that the complex system is not the cause of it.
    True. However, it does not mean that the complex system is the cause of it either. Why should we wank over this? Because identity matters when we make decisions such as "when does a person die" or "is a dolphin sentient"?

    1) It's hard to define identity, which is pretty much a philosophical question

    2) Only if you assume that emergent properties are merely the sum of the parts in the system, which is a tenuous claim for something we know very little about

    3) Scroll down to my response to your definition of consciousness,

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    Gotta say, statements like this from somebody who has been dismissing evidence that doesn't fit with their argument kind of piss me off. Evidence isn't the only way to find out if something is true or false (though it's generally the best way when available), but when evidence and philosophy differ, it's evidence that wins.
    Woah there, I haven't been rejecting any evidence of any kind. Again, this is an exercise in thought that we're doing for fun. I'm not your enemy here. Hear me out.

    Let me rephrase your statement: 1) My philosophical views are best. 2) When my philosophical views dispute other philosophical views, my philosophical views should win.

    Your philosophical views dictate that evidence beats all. I have some philosophical views that state that evidence is very useful, but is not the end-all be-all to knowledge, especially because evidence can be misleading. How come you're a staunch proponent of falsification? Have you ever read Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    Furthermore, when something is deliberately set up to be non-falsifiable, then what's the point of even giving it consideration? If you can't prove it wrong, then A) you can't prove it right, either, and B) it's almost certainly been rendered inconsequential in terms of the world around us.
    Are moral arguments falsifiable? What consequences would that pose for people who 1) agree that moral statements represent facts about reality, but 2) agree that we can't know those facts for certain.

    Sounds like a horrible existence not knowing whether you're doing the right thing or not, and just relying on your gut, hoping that you're not horribly deranged in your path.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    So what? Those standards are entirely arbitrary and meaningless, since there is no way to verify anything about them. Hence the whole "metaphysical" part of it.
    There's a way of approaching metaphysics so it isn't "arbitrary and meaningless". It happens all the time. See the Free Will vs. Determinism debate.

    Hey, maybe one day the study of souls will turn into a proto-science and we can make some sense of the idea. Or maybe, it never happens. I wouldn't blame you dismissing people that claim to know more about souls than you or I do, but dang, it shouldn't mean we should shut down all discussion about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    Yes, No, and No, in the exact same sense that any correct logical statement remains true even in the absence of any intelligent being to ponder it. Just because a statement is true does not mean that the statement has some independent existence; what you seem to be implying is that objective truths themselves (not the things that the true statements are about, but the statements themselves) have an existence, which I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim before.
    Can mathematical truths be nonexistent? How can a truth be non-existent? That doesn't really make sense.

    And plenty of people have argued for some form of mathematical Platonism:
    Gottlob Frege
    W. V. O. Quine
    Kurt Godel
    Immanuel Kant
    Plato (duh)

    Maybe I'm just not explaining it in a way that's comfortable for you, so let me provide the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's definition:

    Platonism about mathematics (or mathematical platonism) is the metaphysical view that there are abstract mathematical objects whose existence is independent of us and our language, thought, and practices. Just as electrons and planets exist independently of us, so do numbers and sets. And just as statements about electrons and planets are made true or false by the objects with which they are concerned and these objects' perfectly objective properties, so are statements about numbers and sets. Mathematical truths are therefore discovered, not invented.

    The most important argument for the existence of abstract mathematical objects derives from Gottlob Frege and goes as follows (Frege 1953). The language of mathematics purports to refer to and quantify over abstract mathematical objects. And a great number of mathematical theorems are true. But a sentence cannot be true unless its sub-expressions succeed in doing what they purport to do. So there exist abstract mathematical objects that these expressions refer to and quantify over.

    Frege's argument notwithstanding, philosophers have developed a variety of objections to mathematical platonism. Thus, abstract mathematical objects are claimed to be epistemologically inaccessible and metaphysically problematic. Mathematical platonism has been among the most hotly debated topics in the philosophy of mathematics over the past few decades.
    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    And now you're stumbling towards my point. In math, an integer is exactly identical to any other integer of the same value; in the real world, this is almost never the case with anything being counted. For example, you can count the number of members of a herd, but this does not imply that each member is equal and identical (contrary to what math implies). You can count the number of pebbles on a beach, but they are all unique and distinct from each other.
    More like, you stumbled back onto my point. We literally just said the same exact thing. Only that you think I'm still arguing that when I say "1 + 1 = 2, assuming integers, arithmetic, etc." is universal, that it applies to the applied mathematics as well, which isn't true. That's not the argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    Okay, then please explain how this is in any way relevant to the topic of discussion. Or have you just caused a page-long diversion for the sake of stroking your ego in trying to explain this in the most convoluted way possible when it wasn't even relevant?
    There's an essence to those mathematical statements that is distinct from our ways of representing them. This opens the door to the theory of forms. Once I've made sense of the theory of forms, I can demonstrate of a nonreligious, metaphysical soul can be said to exist (though nothing can be known about it AFAIK).

    I've been emphasizing this point in every post.

    Woden, calm down. I'm not attacking you. You don't need to get aggressive with everyone who disagrees with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    They are dead because we lack the ability to restore consciousness to them. If we had this ability, then we might not consider them dead (or, more likely, we would still consider them dead but be able to revive them). Why do you act like this is some sort of surprising issue?
    That's interesting. You're defining death as the inability to restore consciousness. Suppose in about 100 years, neurological procedures become powerful enough to restore consciousness, let's say, in about 50% of people up to 10 days after initial brain-death. If I were to teleport some brain-dead people now into the future, those people would magically be considered alive according to your definition.

    You might be satisfied with a changing definition of death. However, I'm not. It seems very subjective, despite having the guise of "objective" science behind it. I want to make some ontological sense out of it.

    It's a surprising issue to me because even death isn't clearly defined, because science doesn't hold satisfying answers to concepts like identity, and death.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    And, again, when do we ever have a complete picture on anything? This goes right back to my previous statement of impossible requirements that act as nothing more than a foothold for metaphysical claims which are being held to lesser standards.
    Might be impossible, shouldn't stop us from trying though. It might be impossible to be a good person all the time, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't try.

    Metaphysical claims are often held to very rigorous standards too. e.g. Free Will vs. Determinism debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    Neither. The truth value of the theorem is a property of the mathematical system; when discovering such a theorem, the person is merely noting that it is a consequence of the system's axioms.
    You actually just stated my second option. If a truth is the inevitable consequence of a consequences axioms, then the truth was always there. We just didn't know it until we formalized, or "discovered", the theorem.

    In reality, in many mathematical fields, the axioms are formalized AFTER the revolutionary discoveries, which kinda turns your whole "top-bottom" approach to mathematics... upside down.
    Last edited by Daft Punk; 10-18-2014 at 10:26 PM.

  11. #91
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    There is no problem of language if all qualia can be eventually quantified as the result of physical processes in the brain. Hence, physicalism. Pick one or the other. And if you're going to continue upon the language-game/unknowable qualia approach, then you're going to run into some serious epistemic problems regarding consciousness, because that would basically mean we have an explanation that combines the material and the immaterial, which is exactly what you don't want to happen, considering your opposition to souls earlier.
    What? Again, I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. I'm endorsing physicalism, yes. That there are no souls is a trivial result of this endorsement.
    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    I'm just surprised that you're bringing up Wittgenstein instead of someone more relevant to philosophy of the mind, like Nagel.
    Nagel is bone dry and strikes me as not-so-insightful. *shrug*
    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    What if all beliefs regarding this subject are negligible?

    1) Humans have no souls. We just rot in the ground after we're dead.
    2) Humans have souls. This is spiritual and brings me meaning and peace, man! (not linked to religion/linked to religion)
    1) is accurate, while (2) requires further justification, or it will incur consequences.

    At the very least, if you don't have a reasonable, empirical basis for your positive belief in the soul, then you are undercutting our epistemic tools for distinguishing between things we know about and things we don't know about.
    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    Do you mind if I present a different scenario? Like the whole "teleporter" scenario? I think that would be a better approach to allow me to explain why there's more to this topic than meets the eye.
    If you wish, of course.
    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    More like, your picture is complete assuming things you left out aren't true. Furthermore, I don't know what Newton's Flaming Laser Sword is. Isn't Newton's Flaming Laser Sword one of those things that "if it can't be tested by experiment, then it's not worth figuring out"?
    No, it's a more explicit version of Occam's Razor.

    If we have correlated data about P and Q but want to explain P in terms of C, stop for a moment, and ask yourself why you're trying to complicate the system.

    That is to say, we can explain human consciousness based on physical brain states for any aspect of consciousness you desire us to explain. Why do you feel the need to say "I know that this system is complete and accurate, but let's just add more things for the lulz."

    But this brings me back to the standing challenge. Point to any particular aspect of consciousness that we cannot correlate with physical processes. You can't. Because it's fully explained. There's nothing mystical here.

    This is how you actually think about everything else.
    > "Why did you go to the grocery store?"
    "I needed milk."
    "No, WHY did you go to the grocery store?"
    "I needed milk..."
    "Did you need peanuts?"
    "No, I just needed milk. That's it."
    "Eggs?"
    "No, I needed milk."

    Unless there is an observable phenomenon that we cannot explain, then we assume the system is complete. This is a fact about how we think about things, yes. That's Newton's flaming laser sword. Unless you can point to something we can't explain, you don't get to go making up new reasons why things are happening.
    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    That doesn't make sense. If truths don't exist without a human to think them, then... well that doesn't make any sense. According to correspondence, truths are true because they correspond with facts. Mathematics is still going to correspond with facts regardless of our own existence.
    I'm not sure if you understand what I am saying.

    You want platonism to be correct in that you want mathematical constructs to be objects that exist. But they're not; platonism is mistaken. An "object" is "a material thing that can be seen and touched." Why are you trying to use the word "object" to apply to something that doesn't fit the definition of the word?

    The only sense in which these "truths" exist is in the counterfactual. If no one ever formulated that 1+1=2, and I tried formulating 1+1=3, it would still be false. And it is also true that the statement "1+1=2" is true wherever it appears. But it is NOT true that the statement is true where it DOESN'T appear. I'm saying that truth values have objects; their existence is contingent on the existence of their object. You can't just say "true" without telling me what is true.

    The cheap argument against what you are saying is that
    1) We exist in the physical universe
    2) We have knowledge of mathematics
    3) We can only attain knowledge about things in the physical universe.

    (Benacerraf, 1972 or 1973. I forget. In any case, this argument is basically had.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    That sounds like there's an element of subjectivity created if the truth of a particular statement is mind-dependent. I don't think you want to approach this path.
    Of course there is an element of subjectivity to any truth value you assign to a statement, because your understanding of any given statement IS mind dependent, and these things don't exist in the way that you're claiming they do.
    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    Can a truth value be a property of relationships between abstract objects? Are those abstract objects said to exist?
    No, and no. Truth value is a property about statements. Truth value can be a property of statements about abstract things. And no, abstract "objects" don't exist. For one thing, the definition of the word "object" is such that it can't be placed next to the word "abstract." At least, not without causing significant metaphysical confusion, as has been occurring in this conversation since the get-go; things that exist are either physical things or projections of physical things. Things that you imagine abstractly don't exist -- they're not objects. They're thoughts. What does "exist" as an object is your brain state while you're imagining an object. But for some strange reason you (and platonists) want to conflate your first person experience of having a thought by applying terms that describe third-person physical nouns to it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    Let me clarify it for you again then. "1 + 1 = 2, assuming integers, arithmetic, etc." I have chosen to reveal this true relationship representing abstract objects in this particular form. I could have chosen a million other possible ways to represent this relationship. However, nothing I can do can change this relationship unless I change the axioms. In that case, it wouldn't prove my original statement wrong, but instead, prove a different relationship that is completely different from my original relationship. And both relationships would be true about the particular mathematical objects that they represent.
    I understand that any well-defined system has corollaries. What I don't understand is why you feel the need to say that these things, therefore, "exist" in the same what that things "exist," when they clearly don't.

    Once again, things that exist do so within the bounds of the universe in which we live. Given the thrashing Platonism has had since the 1940's, you're very unlikely to win new converts. You might as well explain how you think platonism gets you a soul in any case. (Note though, once you posit that "things can exist outside the realm of our universe" as you are positing, you can get an argument for whatever you feel like, since your fallback claim gets to be "well it exists outside our universe so the normal rules about things don't apply.")
    Last edited by The Burninator; 10-18-2014 at 11:16 PM.

  12. #92
    Artisan Gordon Freeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    The Citadel
    Posts
    778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator
    But this brings me back to the standing challenge. Point to any particular aspect of consciousness that we cannot correlate with physical processes. You can't. Because it's fully explained. There's nothing mystical here.
    Doesn't this go back to your objection to subjectivity? You have no way of knowing this for all people, and thus you're using a subjective statement to justify your argument (I believe you jumped all over DP for this - Irony!). Obviously you are incorrect or there would be no such thing as sociopaths, pyschopaths, kleptomaniacs or other people who have compulsive behaviors that they act upon for no quantifiable reason. There's nothing physically wrong with people who suffer from certain types of mental illness, and yet, you can hardly say there's nothing wrong with them.


    People do things all the time for no objective well-thought out reason, it's called spontaneity.
    ____________________
    I found your argument to be shockingly similar to Papa Bear Bill


    'Consciousness is all correlated with physical processes, point to any aspect that isn't. You can't explain that!'
    Last edited by Gordon Freeman; 10-18-2014 at 11:49 PM.
    Please accept my resignation. I have no interest in being a member of any club that would take me as a member.

    Quote Originally Posted by Meherrin View Post
    Lord of the Gifs
    Who loves not women, wine and song, remains a fool his whole life long.

  13. #93
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon Freeman View Post
    *Victorious sounding intro about how Burn is wrong*
    You could have just skipped to the point. Especially since you happen to be wrong about this last bit -- the bit where you say there's nothing physically wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon Freeman View Post
    Obviously you are incorrect or there would be no such thing as sociopaths, pyschopaths, kleptomaniacs or other people who have compulsive behaviors that they act upon for no quantifiable reason. There's nothing physically wrong with people who suffer from certain types of mental illness, and yet, you can hardly say there's nothing wrong with them.

    People do things all the time for no objective well-thought out reason, it's called spontaneity.
    So two things.
    1) There are 2 explanations for why you do anything: there's the physical brain structure explanation (third person) and the mental state explanation (first person). That is, "why did you punch that man" has two answers. One is "well this neuron and that neuron fired, which sent a chemical signal down this cord, and released these chemicals in this arm, which caused muscle contractions, which pulled the bone of the arm in that direction, and caused it to come into contact with that face." The other is "he insulted my mother, so I decided to punch him." Events that are spontaneous from the first person perspective aren't from the third person, since (1) your brain controls your actions, (2) your brain is made of matter, and (3) matter follows natural laws.

    You're claiming that there are people who don't have good first person explanations for things. That doesn't say anything about the third person explanations. Just offhand, all the things you listed have objective third person explanations in terms of brain abnormalities. (Just because we don't understand the specifics of every disorder does not mean that we can't say "well it has to do with this brain structure.")

    2) My claim is that the physical (brain structure) explanations are comprehensive. The third person account, not the first. You saying that there are people who don't know why they act doesn't at all threaten the account that everything is traceable to physical events.

    Your examples:
    kleptomania -- explainable by defect in frontal lobe white matter.
    Sociopathy -- explainable by a defect in the orbitofrontal cortex.
    Psychopathy -- caused by having less grey matter.

    Again, I'm willing to concede, providing someone can actually find a hole in the system. Point out ONE behavior (just one) that has no physical explanation whatsoever, and I will be forced to concede that the physical system may be incomplete and require a secondary explanation.
    Last edited by The Burninator; 10-19-2014 at 12:10 AM.

  14. #94
    Philosopher Daft Punk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Not even mad
    Posts
    2,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    What? Again, I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. I'm endorsing physicalism, yes. That there are no souls is a trivial result of this endorsement.
    Well, if you say qualia exist, but yet reject that physical terms can describe qualia, then you're not a physicalist.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Nagel is bone dry and strikes me as not-so-insightful. *shrug*
    Which is weird, because he made similar points that Wittgenstein made, but instead made it relevant to philosophy of the mind.

    Have you ever read "What Is it Like to Be a Bat"?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    1) is accurate, while (2) requires further justification, or it will incur consequences.

    At the very least, if you don't have a reasonable, empirical basis for your positive belief in the soul, then you are undercutting our epistemic tools for distinguishing between things we know about and things we don't know about.
    1) Is only accurate assuming that falsifiability can correctly account for all knowledge about the outside world.
    2) Is only accurate assuming that naturalism is false.

    You're basically stating that inductive reasoning is the only proper justification for belief or action. Which I highly disagree with. What about emotion? What about faith? I can point out things you trust based on at least a tiny smidgen of faith. What about just being pragmatic about belief in a soul, since belief in a soul leads to other consequences that could possibly lead to an improvement in the quality of life, like reasonable spirituality?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    No, it's a more explicit version of Occam's Razor.

    If we have correlated data about P and Q but want to explain P in terms of C, stop for a moment, and ask yourself why you're trying to complicate the system.
    Are you one of those guys that married Occam's Razor into your overall standards of epistemology? I hope not. It's not the end-all, be-all to truth, though it's an interesting metric that is often either 1) correct, or 2) useful in getting us in the right direction

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    That is to say, we can explain human consciousness based on physical brain states for any aspect of consciousness you desire us to explain. Why do you feel the need to say "I know that this system is complete and accurate, but let's just add more things for the lulz."

    But this brings me back to the standing challenge. Point to any particular aspect of consciousness that we cannot correlate with physical processes. You can't. Because it's fully explained. There's nothing mystical here.
    Oh, looks like we've solved cognitive science. Let me call up Steven Pinker, Dan Dennett, and Thomas Nagel. We're done here!

    Wait a second...

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Huh? It merely says that the subjectivity of experience has no place in the language game. In other words, the reason your questions are so difficult to answer is that they're attempting to use language to answer questions about things which language hasn't the conceptual framework to answer since people aren't telepathic, and can't "see into another's box" or directly experience someone elses' "beetle."

    The issue you're having is created by your language choice -- you're attempting to describe aspects of internal perception using the language of objective observation. That is to say, your perception of your consciousness is something that occurs in the first person, but you're asking for a third-person linguistic explanation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk
    Well, if you say qualia exist, but yet reject that physical terms can describe qualia, then you're not a physicalist.
    Your points on Wittgenstein and qualia completely contradict a physicalist's position.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    This is how you actually think about everything else.
    > "Why did you go to the grocery store?"
    "I needed milk."
    "No, WHY did you go to the grocery store?"
    "I needed milk..."
    "Did you need peanuts?"
    "No, I just needed milk. That's it."
    "Eggs?"
    "No, I needed milk."

    Unless there is an observable phenomenon that we cannot explain, then we assume the system is complete. This is a fact about how we think about things, yes. That's Newton's flaming laser sword. Unless you can point to something we can't explain, you don't get to go making up new reasons why things are happening.
    Newton's Flaming Laser Sword only works in a scientific framework as a pragmatic solution to the problematic nature of observation, induction, etc. Really, just Russell's Teapot. Unless you believe that science accurately describes the world for how it actually is, then you're actually making strong, undefended assertions, like assuming naturalism, about the real world in addition to supported scientific claims.

    You only asked him about peanuts and eggs, and he only chose to answer "milk" after several requests. However, you don't know that guy's true motives. Unknown to you, he also bought cookies, and never told you because he didn't feel like it/thought it was obvious. Perhaps he was going to tell you that he bought cookies if you asked "why" one more time, or you asked "did you buy cookies". Welcome to Goodman's Riddle of Induction.

    -- --

    Of course, when the situation is something as trivial as "what did this guy get from the grocery store", then I'm not going to stress over it, since it's really a "scientific" problem and I've done the best I could do. However, if I wanted to say, with definitive truth, that that guy only purchased milk, then I would be hesitant to do so because it would involve me making unwarranted assertions.

    This is doesn't matter when you're just going grocery shopping. When you're trying to explain the most complicated problems of the known world, it does matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    I'm not sure if you understand what I am saying.
    I am, and I'm not liking the consequences of mind-dependent truths, which basically leads to idealism. Are scientific truths mind-dependent? Is the real world mind-dependent?

    I'm going to have to ask you why you think truths are mind-dependent, because that basically sounds like a crapload of unjustified subjectivism.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    You want platonism to be correct in that you want mathematical constructs to be objects that exist. But they're not; platonism is mistaken. An "object" is "a material thing that can be seen and touched." Why are you trying to use the word "object" to apply to something that doesn't fit the definition of the word?
    Stop right there.

    Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

    Now what is meant by the word ‘object’? This word too, in the comprehensive sense in which it is used in philosophy, is a term of art. In ordinary language we are inclined to call only material objects… objects, and not e.g. events or numbers… What is meant by ‘objects’ in philosophy has its basis in … what we mean by the word ‘something’… There is a class of linguistic expressions which are used to stand for an object; and here we can only say: to stand for something. These are the expressions which can function as the sentence-subject in so-called singular predicative statements and which in logic have also been called singular terms…
    When I refer to objects, I don't refer to explicitly material objects that you can perceive with your senses.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    The only sense in which these "truths" exist is in the counterfactual. If no one ever formulated that 1+1=2, and I tried formulating 1+1=3, it would still be false. And it is also true that the statement "1+1=2" is true wherever it appears. But it is NOT true that the statement is true where it DOESN'T appear. I'm saying that truth values have objects; their existence is contingent on the existence of their object. You can't just say "true" without telling me what is true.
    Okay. Assume a system of axioms. Let's say we know that 1) arithmetic holds, 2) logic holds 3) base 10 numbers hold, etc., but we haven't yet discovered that "1 + 1 = 2". We know that "1 + 1 = 2" was inevitable, yet we didn't know that particular statement until TB the Mathematician wrote the proof. Does that mean that "1 + 1 = 2" was not true until we, as humans, discovered the relationship on our own?

    The axioms basically willed it to happen eventually as long as we were smart enough to figure it out. In fact, those axioms have a finite/infinite amount of possible theorems and truths that can be justified from those exact axioms and those resulting theorems, and so on. Did we, as humans, change the truth simply by discovering the proof? That sounds like a posteriori action.

    I don't think so. That would be like saying that the structure of the atom wasn't true until quantum mechanics and the Standard particle theory came along. You need to make the connection that discovering new principles changes truth values in order for truths to be mind-dependent.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    The cheap argument against what you are saying is that
    1) We exist in the physical universe
    2) We have knowledge of mathematics
    3) We can only attain knowledge about things in the physical universe.

    (Benacerraf, 1972 or 1973. I forget. In any case, this argument is basically had.)
    You dun' goofed with the bolded term.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Of course there is an element of subjectivity to any truth value you assign to a statement, because your understanding of any given statement IS mind dependent, and these things don't exist in the way that you're claiming they do.
    So are you saying it's impossible to make any statement that is objectively true? Elaborate.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    No, and no. Truth value is a property about statements. Truth value can be a property of statements about abstract things. And no, abstract "objects" don't exist.
    Pretty dramatic statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    For one thing, the definition of the word "object" is such that it can't be placed next to the word "abstract." At least, not without causing significant metaphysical confusion, as has been occurring in this conversation since the get-go; things that exist are either physical things or projections of physical things. Things that you imagine abstractly don't exist -- they're not objects. They're thoughts. What does "exist" as an object is your brain state while you're imagining an object. But for some strange reason you (and platonists) want to conflate your first person experience of having a thought by applying terms that describe third-person physical nouns to it.
    Except object does not explicitly imply a material one. And your derision of "abstract objects" can easily apply to any object located outside of your mind. After all, the physical world you perceive is disconnected from the physical world that actually is. Does that mean any claim you make about the outside world is "mind-dependent"?

    Hobbling very close to idealism right now.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    I understand that any well-defined system has corollaries. What I don't understand is why you feel the need to say that these things, therefore, "exist" in the same what that things "exist," when they clearly don't.
    I think we need to define existence, since I think you're conflating existence with physical existence.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Once again, things that exist do so within the bounds of the universe in which we live. Given the thrashing Platonism has had since the 1940's, you're very unlikely to win new converts.
    1) Platonism is still very alive and well, especially the mathematical kind.
    2) WVO Quine, Putnam, etc. were all guys that did their best work in the latter half of the 20th century. They're extremely well respected analytical philosophers who supported some degree of mathematical Platonism.
    3) The subject is far from a closed debate. I just linked you the stats. Straight down the middle among philosophers who take an explicit position.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    You might as well explain how you think platonism gets you a soul in any case.
    I already did a while back lol. The soul is the form of a particular person, just like the mathematical essence is the form of a particular mathematical expression.

    Of course, this doesn't help us at all, but it provides a neat thought experiment.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    (Note though, once you posit that "things can exist outside the realm of our universe" as you are positing, you can get an argument for whatever you feel like, since your fallback claim gets to be "well it exists outside our universe so the normal rules about things don't apply.")
    Nah, I think that opening the realms of explanation, when done rationally, to outside physical explanations, isn't necessarily a bad thing. Considering that even the physical universe cannot be accurately explained after a point thanks to the limitations of humans, and that there are so many problematic fields that can't really be represented by physical phenomenon, like morality, I think we're going to need to think of ways to think outside the box without embracing "anything goes".

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    If you wish, of course.
    I think I'll wait until we wrap up this particular conversation.
    Last edited by Daft Punk; 10-19-2014 at 12:38 AM.

  15. #95
    Artisan Gordon Freeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    The Citadel
    Posts
    778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    You could have just skipped to the point. Especially since you happen to be wrong about this last bit -- the bit where you say there's nothing physically wrong.

    yapity yap yap
    While there are cases of compulsive disorders derived from physical defects or abnormalities (whether induced through birth or trauma), a vast majority of compulsive clinical disorders (of the named varieties) are clinically silent (having no physical root cause and being undetectable until after manifestation of symptoms). So, nice google skills, but they could use a bit of work, extraneous examples do not a rule prove. (Dare I say, you've used an inductive fallacy (irony!) - which is to say, because case X & case Y have kleptomania derived from physical abnormalities, thus all people who are kleptomaniacs have kleptomania caused by physical trauma/abnormality.)

    You could have just skipped right to the last bit -- the bit where you threw out your inductive fallacy, if that's what you were setting out to do.
    Last edited by Gordon Freeman; 10-19-2014 at 12:28 AM.
    Please accept my resignation. I have no interest in being a member of any club that would take me as a member.

    Quote Originally Posted by Meherrin View Post
    Lord of the Gifs
    Who loves not women, wine and song, remains a fool his whole life long.

  16. #96

    Woden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    11,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    Furthermore, I don't know what Newton's Flaming Laser Sword is.
    Long version: https://philosophynow.org/issues/46/...ng_Laser_Sword
    Short version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Alder

    I'd recommend the long version, personally. Particularly since it references a conversation that reminds me strongly of this thread. Speaking of which, Burns, I'd recommend skipping down to the "Many years after my first brush with philosophy" paragraph, and reading that; Daft Punk seems to be arguing in the same sort of arguing-for-the-sake-of-arguing mindset.

  17. #97
    Artisan Gordon Freeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    The Citadel
    Posts
    778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    Long version: https://philosophynow.org/issues/46/...ng_Laser_Sword
    Short version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Alder

    I'd recommend the long version, personally. Particularly since it references a conversation that reminds me strongly of this thread. Speaking of which, Burns, I'd recommend skipping down to the "Many years after my first brush with philosophy" paragraph, and reading that; Daft Punk seems to be arguing in the same sort of arguing-for-the-sake-of-arguing mindset.
    I'm just waiting for this argument to Godwin itself.
    Please accept my resignation. I have no interest in being a member of any club that would take me as a member.

    Quote Originally Posted by Meherrin View Post
    Lord of the Gifs
    Who loves not women, wine and song, remains a fool his whole life long.

  18. #98
    Philosopher Daft Punk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Not even mad
    Posts
    2,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    Long version: https://philosophynow.org/issues/46/...ng_Laser_Sword
    Short version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Alder

    I'd recommend the long version, personally. Particularly since it references a conversation that reminds me strongly of this thread. Speaking of which, Burns, I'd recommend skipping down to the "Many years after my first brush with philosophy" paragraph, and reading that; Daft Punk seems to be arguing in the same sort of arguing-for-the-sake-of-arguing mindset.
    That's highly condescending. You were making assertions that have little justification. I was pointing them out for the sake of discussion and for fun. Hey, maybe I'd learn something along the way. Notice who began to become belligerent first.

    Anyway, this whole "Newton's Flaming Laser Sword" reeks of logical positivism. The 1920s called. They want their outdated philosophy of science back. Even Popper, the father of falsification, disliked it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon Freeman View Post
    I'm just waiting for this argument to Godwin itself.
    Wittgenstein might have met ****** in school.

  19. #99
    Artisan Gordon Freeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    The Citadel
    Posts
    778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    That's highly condescending. You were making assertions that have little justification. I was pointing them out for the sake of discussion and for fun. Hey, maybe I'd learn something along the way. Notice who began to become belligerent first.

    Anyway, this whole "Newton's Flaming Laser Sword" reeks of logical positivism. The 1920s called. They want their outdated philosophy of science back. Even Popper, the father of falsification, disliked it.



    Wittgenstein might have met ****** in school.
    It's easy to fall back on belligerence when your arguments are predicated on very little. They're a tetchy bunch.

    Please accept my resignation. I have no interest in being a member of any club that would take me as a member.

    Quote Originally Posted by Meherrin View Post
    Lord of the Gifs
    Who loves not women, wine and song, remains a fool his whole life long.

  20. #100
    Consul Sirveri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ???? View Post
    Funny, I always thought the same about liberals, or at least the liberal media. I've found that fox news does better then liberal media....and fox news is awful.
    Have you seen what the Tea party does with Obama... I mean, like everything they do. The first thing that jumps to mind is the entire BS you didn't build it line that they took out of context and completely missed the point with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshyyy View Post
    There is some serious misquoting potential above.
    The rep system should be abolished.

  21. #101
    Philosopher Daft Punk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Not even mad
    Posts
    2,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon Freeman View Post
    It's easy to fall back on belligerence when your arguments are predicated on very little. They're a tetchy bunch.
    Yeah why are we wasting all this time on this philosophy crap? Let's just do science. Science is everything. Everyone knows that science is true because science is true so why bother talking about it?

    <Removed by Mod - Filter Evasion>

    If you don't agree, then you can **** off!
    Last edited by Ex Mod; 10-19-2014 at 01:57 AM. Reason: Removed video w/ swearing

  22. #102
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    Well, if you say qualia exist, but yet reject that physical terms can describe qualia, then you're not a physicalist.
    You're using the term qualia, not I.

    I'm saying that "qualia" ideas have a point in that since I don't have an fMRI and a textbook on me, or the ability to more directly experience your thoughts, I can't currently observe your "beetle." I'm not saying it's impossible to do so. A correct statement of "qualia" would be the trivial truth that you and I have different points of view since we're physically different and in different places.
    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    Which is weird, because he made similar points that Wittgenstein made, but instead made it relevant to philosophy of the mind.

    Have you ever read "What Is it Like to Be a Bat"?
    Philosophy of the mind, after epistemology, is the most confused and most obnoxious part of Philosophy. The last thing I've read by Nagel was "Death."
    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    1) Is only accurate assuming that falsifiability can correctly account for all knowledge about the outside world.
    2) Is only accurate assuming that naturalism is false.
    1) Should just be accepted for the sake of argument, because this is quickly headed towards having to come up with an account for the truth values of counterfactual conditionals, and I don't even want to deal with that here. Suffice to say that (1) is at least "among the best epistemic positions on the matter."
    2) Are you really willing to argue against naturalism? Like, really? Or can we leave the 17th century now?
    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    You're basically stating that inductive reasoning is the only proper justification for belief or action. Which I highly disagree with. What about emotion? What about faith?
    Neither of those are justifications. They're reasons, but a "justification" is "the act of showing something is reasonable." So yes, reason is the only valid method of justification. It's not the only cause people might have to act, but it's certainly the only proper justification. You don't get any epistemic warrant for claiming knowledge without reason, DP. You don't get to know things based on feelings. You only get to know things based on reasons.
    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    I can point out things you trust based on at least a tiny smidgen of faith. What about just being pragmatic about belief in a soul, since belief in a soul leads to other consequences that could possibly lead to an improvement in the quality of life, like reasonable spirituality?
    What? What is reasonable spirituality? Belief in a soul could be just as comforting to me as belief in a giant teddy bear I might get to hug forever after I die. But my ability to make up a story about it doesn't give me the right to say "well I know it is true." If you want to say that "believing the soul is there will make your life better" is false, at least for me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    Are you one of those guys that married Occam's Razor into your overall standards of epistemology? I hope not. It's not the end-all, be-all to truth, though it's an interesting metric that is often either 1) correct, or 2) useful in getting us in the right direction
    Well I agree with your 1 and 2, but would have changed "often" to "almost always."
    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    Your points on Wittgenstein and qualia completely contradict a physicalist's position.
    What? You're using the term qualia, not I.

    I'm saying that "qualia" ideas have a point in that since I don't have an fMRI and a textbook on me, or the ability to more directly experience your thoughts, I can't currently observe your "beetle." I'm not saying it's impossible to do so. A correct statement of "qualia" would be the trivial truth that you and I have different points of view since we're physically different and in different places. Wittgenstein says stop trying to use terms for things they weren't meant to be used for or for things you don't have the epistemic warrant to use them on. For example, if you're claiming you have a "beetle" with attributes only you can detect, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't exist. It has no place in the language game.
    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    Newton's Flaming Laser Sword only works in a scientific framework as a pragmatic solution to the problematic nature of observation, induction, etc. Really, just Russell's Teapot. Unless you believe that science accurately describes the world for how it actually is, then you're actually making strong, undefended assertions, like assuming naturalism, about the real world in addition to supported scientific claims.
    Again, are you really claiming that naturalism is false? That there are supernatural explanations for events? If that's the route you're going to go, then there's no constructive place this conversation can go, except into the 17th century.
    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    You only asked him about peanuts and eggs, and he only chose to answer "milk" after several requests. However, you don't know that guy's true motives. Unknown to you, he also bought cookies, and never told you because he didn't feel like it/thought it was obvious. Perhaps he was going to tell you that he bought cookies if you asked "why" one more time, or you asked "did you buy cookies". Welcome to Goodman's Riddle of Induction.
    Why Goodman though? Honestly, his setup has merit, but his botched descriptions of Hume make me want to burn it every time it's mentioned.

    But in any case, see that you only had warrant to question the assertion if you could point to phenomena that the assertion couldn't explain. (Hence my continued challenge to please point to something that would evidence that there is, in fact, a soul.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    I am, and I'm not liking the consequences of mind-dependent truths, which basically leads to idealism. Are scientific truths mind-dependent? Is the real world mind-dependent?
    Where did I say that? You want to bookend what I am saying into dichotomies someone divided in a polemic somewhere. The truth value of a statement is mind dependent only because your evaluation of the truth value of the statement is dependent on your mind. Are you saying you think you can evaluate whether or not something is true without using your mind?

    Things that are scientifically shown are an attempt at removing any single person's brain from the proposition (hence our emphasis on repeatability).

    You want "truths" to exist someplace outside the physical universe that we are endeavoring to discover them. All I said is that you fundamentally can't escape your point of view, so you can't evaluate truth values without your point of view.

    But I can't figure out why you want truth to "exist" in this way that totally denies the meanings of the words "exist," "someplace," and "discover." You want to use language to describe a "place" that exists ONLY in your mental projections. You have a box in your brain and in it you have a "beetle." I don't have an fMRI and a textbook; I can't figure out what you could possibly mean by saying this thing "exists" outside of spacetime. The word "exist" means "is an object in spacetime." An "object" is a "material thing."
    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    I'm going to have to ask you why you think truths are mind-dependent, because that basically sounds like a crapload of unjustified subjectivism.
    Once again, someone gave you a polemic about this and has blinded you to the positions here. I never said "truths are mind dependent." I said that your only mechanism for evaluating whether or not something is true is your mind. Do you deny this? I hope not. In any case, if the only way you can evaluate whether or not something is true is by using your own mind, in what sense are you claiming you have access to something "mind independent?"

    I'm certainly not claiming that 1+1=3 could possibly be correct (subjectivism). We all know it's 1+1=2. What I'm saying is that just because that statement is true everywhere it appears doesn't give it a magical nonphysical existence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    Stop right there.

    Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    This is why I can't stand epistemologists or philosophers of the mind. The word "object" is in the damn dictionary, and it has a definition. No, I won't use the word "object" the way you've changed its definition to be, because it's not what it means. If I decide that every time we say "angel" we actually also meant "butterflies" then of course I can show angels exist. If you change "object" from its dictionary definition so it doesn't have the condition whereby "objects" are physical, then of course every time someone says "object" they reinforce your point.
    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    When I refer to objects, I don't refer to expressly material objects that you can perceive.
    Taken and noted, with protest, since that isn't what the word means.
    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    Okay. Assume a system of axioms. Let's say we know that 1) arithmetic holds, 2) logic holds 3) base 10 numbers hold, etc., but we haven't yet discovered that "1 + 1 = 2". Knowing that "1 + 1 = 2" was inevitable, yet we didn't know until TB the Mathematician wrote the proof. Does that mean that "1 + 1 = 2" was not true until we, as humans, discovered the relationship on our own?
    If you wrote 1+1=2 before it was proven, it would be true, but you wouldn't have the epistemic privilege of being allowed to say "I know that 1+1=2 is true." As such, you would say at this point in time that the truth value of 1+1=2 is inevaluable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    The axioms basically willed it to happen eventually as long as we were smart enough to figure it out. In fact, those axioms have a finite/infinite amount of possible theorems and truths that can be justified from those exact axioms and those resulting theorems, and so on. Did we, as humans, change the truth simply by discovering the proof? That sounds like a posteriori action.

    I don't think so. That would be like saying that the structure of the atom wasn't true until quantum mechanics and the Standard particle theory came along. You need to make the connection that discovering new principles changes truth values in order for truths to be mind-dependent.
    But it changes our evaluations of them, and that's what is important.

    I agree with everything in the above post. But I don't see what it has to do with the fact that the truth value of these statements don't exist where the statements don't exist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    You dun' goofed with the bolded term.
    You disagree with my simplification of the argument?

    What things outside spacetime do we obtain knowledge about?
    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    So are you saying it's impossible to make any statement that is objectively true? Elaborate.
    I'm saying that the only tool you have to evaluate whether or not something is true is your mind, so claiming that you can know things in a mind-independent manner is misleading language at best, and misleading language that lets you claim that truths "exist" someplace if we could only go there.
    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    Except object does not explicitly imply a material one. And your derision of "abstract objects" can easily apply to any object located outside of your mind. After all, the physical world you perceive is disconnected from the physical world that actually is. Does that mean any claim you make about the outside world is "mind-dependent"?
    In the way that you can't solve the Brain-in-a-vat argument, yes. Your query is irrelevant in that it's trivial. If you want to be a skeptic the discussion about anything becomes pointless.
    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    I think we need to define existence, since I think you're conflating existence with physical existence.


    Actually what I'm claiming is that the word "exist" in language refers to physical existence. I don't see any other way for something to exist, unless it is either a physical thing or a projection of a physical thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    Nah, I think that opening the realms of explanation, when done rationally, to outside physical explanations, isn't necessarily a bad thing. Considering that even the physical universe cannot be accurately explained after a point thanks to the limitations of humans, and that there are so many problematic fields that can't really be represented by physical phenomenon, like morality, I think we're going to need to think of ways to think outside the box without embracing "anything goes".
    Once again, you're mixing points of view. Morality is a first-person explanation, while physical explanations are third person.

    All of human action can be described accurately and sufficiently in the third person without any specification of morality.

  23. #103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirveri View Post
    Have you seen what the Tea party does with Obama... I mean, like everything they do. The first thing that jumps to mind is the entire BS you didn't build it line that they took out of context and completely missed the point with.
    The Tea Party, Conservatives, Liberals, Republicans, Democrats, Independents...You cannot deny that all of them do the same thing come election time.
    Retired as of 10/13/14 after 7 and a half years of playing. Good luck to those who continue to play.
    us2; Round 6 - Adjudicator (Getter) (BACON) (Lost)
    us3; Round 2 - stevo (Getter) (QoD) (Lost)
    us3; Round 3 - stemem (Getter) (SI) (Won)
    us3; Round 4 - BliZZarD (Getter) (Delicious) (lost)
    us3; Round 5 - Ice Lillies (Getter) (DoS) (Semper DoS)
    us3; Round 7 - Revolt (Getter) (SI) (Won)
    us8; Round 1 - Heavenly Wrath (Getter) (TNT) (won)
    com3; Round ? - General Mills (Getter) (ReD DoS/TWD) (Lost)

  24. #104
    Consul Sirveri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,241

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ???? View Post
    The Tea Party, Conservatives, Liberals, Republicans, Democrats, Independents...You cannot deny that all of them do the same thing come election time.
    Do they sometimes do it to try to score points... possibly, but scale wise... no, not gonna happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joshyyy View Post
    There is some serious misquoting potential above.
    The rep system should be abolished.

  25. #105
    Philosopher Daft Punk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Not even mad
    Posts
    2,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    You're using the term qualia, not I.
    Pedantic. I referred to qualia, you responded by referring to the subjectivity of experience. Nagel never used the word qualia, yet still directly talked about it in his paper "What Is it Like to Be a Bat"?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    You're using the term qualia, not I.
    I'm saying that "qualia" ideas have a point in that since I don't have an fMRI and a textbook on me, or the ability to more directly experience your thoughts, I can't currently observe your "beetle." I'm not saying it's impossible to do so. A correct statement of "qualia" would be the trivial truth that you and I have different points of view since we're physically different and in different places.
    How exactly does an fMRI shed light on qualia? It might show parts of the brain that are being highlighted as

    I recommend that you read Nagel's short 9 page paper. We cannot talk about philosophy of the mind any more until you do, because we'll just be talking past each other.

    I also recommend that you read this this post about neuroscience and free will. It's not immediately relevant, but it does shed light on how we frame arguments regarding the nature of the mind

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    You're using the term qualia, not I.
    Philosophy of the mind, after epistemology, is the most confused and most obnoxious part of Philosophy. The last thing I've read by Nagel was "Death."
    Interesting. I find ethics to be the most confused and obnoxious part of philosophy lol. Epistemology is actually one of the most sound and complete fields of philosophy. I'd say that philosophy of the mind is middling ground. What is your favorite kinds of philosophy then?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    1) Should just be accepted for the sake of argument, because this is quickly headed towards having to come up with an account for the truth values of counterfactual conditionals, and I don't even want to deal with that here. Suffice to say that (1) is at least "among the best epistemic positions on the matter."
    I refuse to accept this premise for the sake of argument, because it does not fully account for the truth of scientific arguments (see Kuhn), and it's not even close to being a complete theory of knowledge for how everything works.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    2) Are you really willing to argue against naturalism? Like, really? Or can we leave the 17th century now?
    I'm not willing to argue against naturalism when it comes to the scientific method. I might give it a thought regarding other things.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Neither of those are justifications. They're reasons, but a "justification" is "the act of showing something is reasonable." So yes, reason is the only valid method of justification. It's not the only cause people might have to act, but it's certainly the only proper justification. You don't get any epistemic warrant for claiming knowledge without reason, DP. You don't get to know things based on feelings. You only get to know things based on reasons.
    Yet even reason has its faults. See the Munchhausen trilemma. Eventually, all reasoned arguments maintain a degree of faith on some axiom.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    What? What is reasonable spirituality? Belief in a soul could be just as comforting to me as belief in a giant teddy bear I might get to hug forever after I die. But my ability to make up a story about it doesn't give me the right to say "well I know it is true." If you want to say that "believing the soul is there will make your life better" is false, at least for me.
    Okay, now we're in the realm of the subjective then, where we are uncertain about what happens in the afterlife.

    To be honest, I agree with you on this position. I don't find comfort in some sort of afterlife. While I can accept that God might exist, I wouldn't care, since I wouldn't be able to personally know. It would be very confusing to deal with a God that made humans in such a manner that God's idea of good and bad is separate from what we normally thing is good and bad. However, for some individuals, that thought, that existential struggle, brings them inner strength. If it's over an issue that isn't clear cut, then it's as good as any explanation.

    However, Woden might liken this argument to "arguing for the sake of arguing", which I don't think is fair. I'm not attached to any particular ideas. I'm attached to the method to how one comes to a conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Well I agree with your 1 and 2, but would have changed "often" to "almost always."
    That's fine. As long as you don't accept it as some kind of overarching test to whether something is true or not, then I don't care. It's useful, but not definitive.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    What? You're using the term qualia, not I.
    Pedantry. You don't need to use the term qualia to talk about qualia. Nagel's paper talked about qualia without saying the word a single time.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    I'm saying that "qualia" ideas have a point in that since I don't have an fMRI and a textbook on me, or the ability to more directly experience your thoughts, I can't currently observe your "beetle." I'm not saying it's impossible to do so. A correct statement of "qualia" would be the trivial truth that you and I have different points of view since we're physically different and in different places. Wittgenstein says stop trying to use terms for things they weren't meant to be used for or for things you don't have the epistemic warrant to use them on. For example, if you're claiming you have a "beetle" with attributes only you can detect, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't exist. It has no place in the language game.
    You do realize that you're only digging yourself a deeper hole right? Qualia = subjective experience. Physicalism = 3rd party objective explanation. If qualia can't be explained as the result of physical interactions, then physicalism is false.

    Note, I'm not saying physicalism is false, only that you need to come up with a better argument for it (and perhaps read up on those links I provided).

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Again, are you really claiming that naturalism is false? That there are supernatural explanations for events? If that's the route you're going to go, then there's no constructive place this conversation can go, except into the 17th century.
    Naturalism doesn't necessarily imply something like "ghosts" and "Goddidit". I'm only attacking naturalism as a complete explanation of the universe, since science uses naturalism. Yet, science does not, and cannot, paint a complete picture of the universe due to many epistemic problems, such as the problem of induction, the is-ought problem, Goodman's riddle of induction, etc.

    Alvin Plantinga gave an interesting argument against naturalism once.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Why Goodman though? Honestly, his setup has merit, but his botched descriptions of Hume make me want to burn it every time it's mentioned.
    Because Goodman's Riddle of Induction demonstrates that, inductively speaking, there is no difference between observing the color green, and the color grue (something that is green until a certain point of time, where it then becomes grue).

    I don't know what you're talking about regarding Goodman and Hume though. Care to elaborate?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    But in any case, see that you only had warrant to question the assertion if you could point to phenomena that the assertion couldn't explain. (Hence my continued challenge to please point to something that would evidence that there is, in fact, a soul.)
    I already did. There is lack of physical arguments that satisfy the question, and it's unlikely that there will be a physical argument that satisfies the question due the fundamental nature of physical arguments. Yet we intuition (and the routine assumption in law, etc.) that someone has an identity. This might be explained through a metaphysical identity, e.g. someone's soul

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Are you saying you think you can evaluate whether or not something is true without using your mind?
    No, I am saying that evaluating something with your mind does not necessarily change the truth value. I'm saying that the truth of mathematics is mind-independent. If everyone evaluates a mathematical proposition, is the truth value continuously changed all the time? If nobody existed, does the truth of the proposition go away?

    If the act of observation or evaluation changes the truth value of mathematics... then it's not really a priori, isn't it?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Things that are scientifically shown are an attempt at removing any single person's brain from the proposition (hence our emphasis on repeatability).
    Except, once we interpret the results, there must be a human brain to construct a scientific model! Induction is a real problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    You want "truths" to exist someplace outside the physical universe that we are endeavoring to discover them. All I said is that you fundamentally can't escape your point of view, so you can't evaluate truth values without your point of view.
    Yet mathematics isn't a physical endeavor, isn't it? Outside the pen and paper of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    But I can't figure out why you want truth to "exist" in this way that totally denies the meanings of the words "exist," "someplace," and "discover." You want to use language to describe a "place" that exists ONLY in your mental projections.
    Debatable. After all, if you wanted to be an extreme physicalist, then you could easily argue that abstract concepts do exist because they are thoughts that "only exist in your mental projections", which of course, are purely the results of neurons firing on and off.

    Of course, I reject that abstract concepts only exist in mental projections. Because they're true regardless of our mental projections. Does a triangle suddenly cease to exist once every single mathematician dies?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    You have a box in your brain and in it you have a "beetle." I don't have an fMRI and a textbook; I can't figure out what you could possibly mean by saying this thing "exists" outside of spacetime. The word "exist" means "is an object in spacetime." An "object" is a "material thing."
    Idk, it's not a difficult thing to imagine a truth that is independent of human observation. We like to assume that the universe works that way, and that science is the way to discover how the universe works.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Once again, someone gave you a polemic about this and has blinded you to the positions here.
    What are you talking about?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    I never said "truths are mind dependent." I said that your only mechanism for evaluating whether or not something is true is your mind. Do you deny this? I hope not. In any case, if the only way you can evaluate whether or not something is true is by using your own mind, in what sense are you claiming you have access to something "mind independent?"
    Your mind is unreliable, sure. However, the ultimate truth of a mathematical statement isn't changed by a mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    I'm certainly not claiming that 1+1=3 could possibly be correct (subjectivism). We all know it's 1+1=2. What I'm saying is that just because that statement is true everywhere it appears doesn't give it a magical nonphysical existence.
    Then what is physical about math then? How can knowledge not be real?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    This is why I can't stand epistemologists or philosophers of the mind. The word "object" is in the damn dictionary, and it has a definition. No, I won't use the word "object" the way you've changed its definition to be, because it's not what it means. If I decide that every time we say "angel" we actually also meant "butterflies" then of course I can show angels exist. If you change "object" from its dictionary definition so it doesn't have the condition whereby "objects" are physical, then of course every time someone says "object" they reinforce your point.
    Man those darns philosophers always gotta make the truth (read, what I believe) so difficult man. If you just redefine things to mean what I believe, instead of things that encourage thoughtful debate and provide insight into truths without making too many unwarranted assertions, then you're just making things difficult. It's like angels man. Don't do angels I mean come on, it's so obvious!

    Sorry man, you should know better than to say something like this as a philosophy major. What are you doing then?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Taken and noted, with protest, since that isn't what the word means.

    If you wrote 1+1=2 before it was proven, it would be true, but you wouldn't have the epistemic privilege of being allowed to say "I know that 1+1=2 is true." As such, you would say at this point in time that the truth value of 1+1=2 is inevaluable. But it changes our evaluations of them, and that's what is important.
    Whether or not you know something doesn't mean it does or does not exist. Did quantum mechanics not exist until the 20th century?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    I agree with everything in the above post. But I don't see what it has to do with the fact that the truth value of these statements don't exist where the statements don't exist.
    Our evaluations only matter in determining what is knowledge, not what is true or what exists. What is true is actually a subcomponent of knowledge. Do things not exist until we have knowledge of them? Again, did Newtonian gravity not exist until we had knowledge of it?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    You disagree with my simplification of the argument?
    Yes because you changed the goalposts by "simplifying" the argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    What things outside spacetime do we obtain knowledge about?
    Math. Ethics. Anything grounded in reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    I'm saying that the only tool you have to evaluate whether or not something is true is your mind, so claiming that you can know things in a mind-independent manner is misleading language at best, and misleading language that lets you claim that truths "exist" someplace if we could only go there.
    Mind-independent = free from influence of all our biases and what not. Objective.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    In the way that you can't solve the Brain-in-a-vat argument, yes. Your query is irrelevant in that it's trivial. If you want to be a skeptic the discussion about anything becomes pointless.
    This is actually what you're secretly espousing by placing too much emphasis on the evaluation of truth statements, rather than the truth statement's actual truth value.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Actually what I'm claiming is that the word "exist" in language refers to physical existence. I don't see any other way for something to exist, unless it is either a physical thing or a projection of a physical thing.
    So math doesn't exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    Once again, you're mixing points of view. Morality is a first-person explanation, while physical explanations are third person.

    All of human action can be described accurately and sufficiently in the third person without any specification of morality.
    What are you on about? How is morality necessarily a first-person explanation? What does human action have anything to do with what I'm talking about? I'm not talking about psychology.
    Last edited by Daft Punk; 10-19-2014 at 02:27 AM.

  26. #106
    Consul
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    9,816

    Default

    Holy eff you see kay!

    This thread has become one mile-long windbag post after another. Only took me posting those twice to realize how ridiculous I was being for contributing to it.
    Last edited by jdurand; 10-19-2014 at 03:24 AM.

  27. #107
    Philosopher Daft Punk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Not even mad
    Posts
    2,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jdurand View Post
    Holy eff you see kay!

    This thread has become one mile-long windbag post after another. Only took me posting those twice to realize how ridiculous I was being for contributing to it.
    It's not like it's a struggle or anything. Why be so negative?

  28. #108
    Consul
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    9,816

    Default

    Because it is an avalanche of postulation and pseudo-intellectual chest-beating.

    I mean, good Lord, man! It's just going on and on and on and on and on. There may be some convincing points and arguments by they're buried in damn near page-long posts where it's apparently felt that each word of the previous post warranted a paragraph-long response.

  29. #109
    Philosopher Daft Punk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Not even mad
    Posts
    2,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jdurand View Post
    Because it is an avalanche of postulation and pseudo-intellectual chest-beating.

    I mean, good Lord, man! It's just going on and on and on and on and on. There may be some convincing points and arguments by they're buried in damn near page-long posts where it's apparently felt that each word of the previous post warranted a paragraph-long response.
    What's pseudointellectual about it?

    Of course it's going to go on for a while. When somebody makes a particularly contentious claim, that claim is often rooted in a web of assertions based in a patchwork of different beliefs. I'm trying to get to the root of the problem. Unfortunately, trying to show how Plato viewed souls from a nonreligious perspective has taken a really long set of twists and turns as my views clash with TB's.

    Where is the chest-beating involved? It doesn't have to be "chest-beating" to test each other's position. Eventually, I'll probably realize that I'm not making any further progress, or that we're just talking past each other, and I'll agree to disagree for another day. No harm done. Maybe, one of our views will change. Either way, I walk away with a better understanding of my own position and the positions of other people on a subject I care about.

    You need to loosen up jdurand. Actually, everybody here needs to loosen up. Gordon Freeman, Woden, TB, myself, etc. Are we all here on some kind of sacred mission to prove ourselves right that we can't dissociate ourselves emotionally from the outcome? Or are we here to enjoy ourselves and have fun?
    Last edited by Daft Punk; 10-19-2014 at 03:49 AM.

  30. #110
    Consul
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    9,816

    Default

    You're making progress already, young sir. That post was infinitely more easy to digest.

  31. #111

    Woden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    11,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jdurand View Post
    they're buried in damn near page-long posts
    That last text-wall by Daft Punk was five and a half screens long for me, and I've got a 1080-height resolution. I'd say it was at least two pages worth printed, probably even going onto a fourth page.

  32. #112
    Philosopher Daft Punk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Not even mad
    Posts
    2,676

    Default

    Who cares? We've all made extremely long posts in this thread. Everybody here is guilty of doing that in the past. If you're going to talk about a fundamental issue, it might take a while to get to the... fundamentals.

  33. #113
    Philosopher Daft Punk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Not even mad
    Posts
    2,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jdurand View Post
    You're making progress already, young sir. That post was infinitely more easy to digest.
    Well, before I was dealing with trying to get people to realize that "Newton's lightsaber" or whatever it's called, is extremely flawed. It's so tied into a lot of the more scientifically oriented people's worldview that I have to post page after page of responses to even begin to make progress. It's frustrating. I can't even try giving a thought experiment because they refuse to entertain it. It isn't good philosophy, nor is it good science.

    We all know this worldview too well. I like to call it scientism, but it's really an old approach in philosophy to understanding the world that has been long abandoned about a half century ago: logical positivism. "Newton's Flaming Testicles" is a restatement of the core testament of logical positivism: "Only statements that can be tested are meaningful". Of course, this statement itself can't be tested. It's an unwarranted assumption. In fact, you can't talk about "Newton's Laws of Lasers" as an equal to falsification, as Karl Popper came up with falsification to refute "Newton's Laser Fire Sword".

    I get tired of seeing people thinking in circles trying to justify why science holds a monopoly on truth and why all philosophers are just highbrow pedants who don't understand science. Reading the article that Woden linked earlier was actually cringe-inducing, because it was just fractally wrong. I legitimately feel bad for the mathematician and his poor experiences that caused him to retreat to such a narrowminded, sheltered worldview. He worships an old, disproven view. It's not valid. Let's move on so we can get a better picture of how science works and how science betters our understanding of the world.
    Last edited by Daft Punk; 10-19-2014 at 05:10 AM.

  34. #114
    Consul
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    9,816

    Default

    Go back and scan over your and Burnie's exchanges and tell me you guys didn't break about 20 keyboards typing all that.

  35. #115
    Philosopher Daft Punk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Not even mad
    Posts
    2,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jdurand View Post
    Go back and scan over your and Burnie's exchanges and tell me you guys didn't break about 20 keyboards typing all that.
    I personally only broke five keyboards, but somebody was wrong on the internet, so it was okay.

    Jokes aside, what I did in the last post was address the root of the problem. Before, I tried going from the top-down, but all that ended up doing was spawning more and more branches of arguments until entire pages were taken up.

  36. #116
    Consul
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    9,816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Daft Punk View Post
    ...but all that ended up doing was spawning more and more branches of arguments until entire pages were taken up.
    And that, sir, is the rabbit hole of debating.

  37. #117
    Artisan Gordon Freeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    The Citadel
    Posts
    778

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jdurand View Post
    And that, sir, is the rabbit hole of debating.
    How apropos that it's a thread about whether or not animals have souls!
    Please accept my resignation. I have no interest in being a member of any club that would take me as a member.

    Quote Originally Posted by Meherrin View Post
    Lord of the Gifs
    Who loves not women, wine and song, remains a fool his whole life long.

  38. #118
    Consul
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    9,816

    Default

    The rabbit soul of debating?

  39. #119
    Philosopher Daft Punk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Not even mad
    Posts
    2,676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jdurand View Post
    The rabbit soul of debating?
    I don't believe in superstitious nonsense.

  40. #120
    Consul
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    9,816

    Default

    How about the rabid soul of debating?

    EDIT: I'm sorry I killed your thread, DP.
    Last edited by jdurand; 10-19-2014 at 07:58 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •