I worship his Frankoness

[jan]

...while the first part of this conversation can be found at the Berkeley's syllogism (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27082) thread. This is yet another attempt of the Forces of Darkness to disprove immaterialism.

[jan]

Originally posted by Franko

How can you agree with anyone that Solipsism is false?

If Solipsism is true then the only people you could “agree” with are figments of your imagination.

Either you can prove Solipsism is false, or you are kidding yourself.


If I would agree with somebody that Solipsism is true, it could become a rather short discussion, unless I am in the mood to talk with one of the figments of my imagination. The long version is: I do not agree with him that Solipsism is false, I agree with him that we may assume it to be false during our conversation.

Originally posted by Franko

May I assume you believe in the “Big Bang” creation myth … ?

Solipsism is the EXACT SAME theory as the Big Bang, just on a much, much more parsimonious scale, and like the Big Bang Myth it is a starting point for the universe/existence.


If "Big Bang" refers to a certain part of the history of our world, I do believe in the Big Bang creation myth. I don't think the Big Bang explains our existence. And as far as I can see, few people do.

I do not understand why Big Bang is the exact same theory than Soplipsism. Maybe you could be so kind to explain it (no irony: I know you are busy reposting to all the other Franko-fans out there). Unless you do, I have to guess what you could mean. Perhaps you mean Big Bang is as arbitrary as a theory than Solipsism in explaining our existence. But I do not criticize Solipsism because it doesn't explain our existence.

Originally posted by Franko

Do the laws of physics bore you and Paul, or do the laws of physics make for a boring existence? I am not sure what you are trying to say?


As long as you are not altering your perception with those means natural sciences provides you with, live can be considered boring by some people. But I was not saying that life is boring: it would just be boring to have it twice, compared with having two different things.

Originally posted by Franko

You lost me.

In what way does Mathematics violate (T)he (L)aws (O)f (P)hysics (TLOP)?

If the laws of mathematics don’t violate the TLOP, then I’d say they were obeying TLOP.

Look, TLOP discovers you (your genetics). Then TLOP controls you (or some other human) and makes you discover/invent the laws of mathematics. The atoms in your brain aren’t magically special. They obey the same exact rules that any other atoms obey. The entire universe is nothing but a bunch of particles obeying a bunch of unbreakable laws. Events don’t occur “randomly” or “accidentally”. Everything happens EXACTLY according to the way TLOP prescribed it from the dawn of time.


Perhaps you lost me too. In what way does Mathematics obey TLOP? I would say TLOP neither contradicts math nor says something about it. Anyway, I would like to introduce a discrimination between the "real TLOP" (that means, the behaviour matter shows, the laws matter obey), and the "invented TLOP", the scientific theories humans develop. I will try to develop this a bit further in my next post...

Originally posted by Franko

In what way does “matter” comprehend logic or reasoning? Logic, reasoning, comprehension, and perception are completely unnecessary from the point of view of matter and TLOP – aren’t they?


I am a bit more liberal than the other materialists around here. It is okay with me that consciousness or abstract entities like theories exist (as long as they depend on matter). Logic, reasoning, comprehension and perception are completely unnecessary within a physical theory. And a hardcore materialist like, say, Paul Churchland would say that we sooner or later will replace all this terms with better terms. Other softcore materialists like Daniel Dennett say that while those terms may be in principle unnecessary, they are quite useful and can't be given up for practical reasons (it would be very, very roundabout to say "A C-fiber in my brain triggered" instead of "I see something red").

Originally posted by Franko

I don’t see how a True Materialist could come to any other logical conclusion?


Once again, if you want to discuss it, you will have to search somebody who is sharing the modest version of materialism.

Originally posted by Franko

If the laws of physics don’t explain everything then what else is required … magic?


According to the mentiined philosophers, the laws of psychology are required, and psychology can never be reduced to physics, although all mental processes depend on physical processes. Sometimes psychology seems to be more some kind of magic than sience, but I don't think it would be fair to say that they are the same.

Originally posted by Franko

So would I, yet I never hear one.


Dennett's argument is the unfathomable complexity this reduction would require. Jackson's or Nagel's argument is that how it is to experience certain Qualias (like "seeing red") can never be reduced to physical theories.

Originally posted by Franko

Right. The brain is made of atoms, and obeys the same laws of physics as everything else. Modify the atoms or the chemical processes and obviously you modify the mind/consciousness.

But there is no “You” in the process … right? There are only atoms, and the laws of physics. “You” are just an illusion.

The hardcore materialist Chruchland I mentioned above would be happy to agree that the "I" is only an illusion. But it is not necessary to hold such an extreme position to be a materialist. You could instead say that the "I", your perceptions, your thooughts and feelings and such do exist. They are just dependend on physical processes.

[jan]

Some immaterialists seem to be quite happy to concede that protons are made of quarks, that atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons, that molecules are made of atoms, and that water is made of molecules. But if you ask whether they think that this certain wet feeling you get if you walk through the rain with a hole in your shoes is caused by water, they tend to answer that it is not caused by water, but just acts as if it would have been caused by water.

Of course you can play the doubtful on every stage. You can claim that protons are not made of quarks, but just behave as if. Since all the evidence of the existence of quarks has been gathered by a few costly high-tech machines, it would be very easy to doubt the existence of quarks. But what would be the difference if you would say "protons behave as if they are made of quarks", instead simply saying "protons are made of quarks"? You may interpret the latter as being an abridged version of the former, used for brevity. Nobody knows and few claim to know what quarks or atoms and the like "really" are. All we know is how they behave. And they behave as if protons are made of quarks. You can't prove this beyond unreasonable doubt, but the evidence is quite overwhelming.

So I can't see what the gain is if you claim that the mentioned wet feeling in your shoe is not caused by water, but merely behaves as if caused by water, unless you claim that it does not behave that way (but then evidence would be against you). If you concede that the mentioned feeling behaves as if caused by water, I think you need something that is hold responsible for this. Usually this is called "matter". Berkeley prefers to call it "god". But what is the difference? As far as I can see, Berkeley attributes his god many traits that are not supported by evidence (like, for example, having a personality). In some of your former posts I happened to read before starting to post myself you claimed, if I remember it right, matter being the god of the materialists (you stated it a bit different: the laws of physics being the god of the A-theists). In a certain way, you are correct. Matter or the laws of physics are just good ol' god, stripped naked and without any of those traits we do not have any evidence for. As you may remember (if you are not too young), once lightning was considered to be caused by an angry god. It is now attributed to electricity, but it is not just the name that changed, that electricity also lacks the intentionality god is usually assumed to posses. I think this is a progress, since it explains why there are lightnings over uninhabited area (of course you can also explain that away in the older theory: perhaps seemingly uninhabited areas are in fact inhabited by invisible demons, and god wants to punish them? and so on...). And of course electricity has some additional traits god never had (positive and negative charge, current, magnetism, three-finger-rule, and so on). You may assume that life is but a dream, but you may miss some really exciting stuff physic might be able to tell you about it.

More out of Discordia's box:

Hard-core materialists: mental states are determinated by physical states, and knowing the laws of physics is sufficient to explain anything mental.
Soft-core materialists: mental states are determinated by physical states, but knowing the laws of physics is not always sufficient to explain anything mental.
Ultra-hard-core materialists: mental states are physical states.

If you want to learn something about softcore materialism, I recommended you reading Searle, Jackson or Fodor. If you want to discuss with an ultra-hard-core materialist, I recommend challenging Stimpson J. Cat. I would consider myself to be a medium hard semi-reductionistic Four-of-Six-ist (not to be confused with "Seven of Nine").

Out of the six substances

1 Matter
2 Thoughts, perceptions, feelings, consciousness
3. Ideas, concepts, theories, ideologies, memes
4. The true laws of physics that regulate the behaviour of matter and Plato's heaven
5. Immortal souls
6. god

I assume that only the substances 1 to 4 exist in a certain way. The substances 5 and 6 may exist, but I can't see any evidence that they do. That makes me a 4-of-6-ist. I think it is quite plausible (but yet undemonstrated) that the rules regulating the behaviour the things made of substances 2 and 3 can be reduced to the laws regulating the behaviour of the things of substance 1. That makes me a semi-reductionist, since I assume that some, but not all laws of substances can be reduced to one set of laws. And it makes me medium hard, since I assume that some sciences can be reduced to other sciences (that is, psychology to physics), but I still concede that there are mental states, unlike an ultra hard materialist.

One could define "a substance n does really exist only if the laws that govern the behaviour of things made of substance n can not be reduced to laws that govern the behaviour of things made of some other substance." According to this definition, I would say that substances 2 and 3 exist, but only substance 1 does really exist. Substance 4 is a special case; perhaps it shouldn't be counted as a substance at all, since it is not governed by a certain set of laws, but is itself that certain set of laws. That definition would make me a hardcore monistic materialist. But as you see, this tends to be just a game of words.

Berkeley assumed that substance 6 is sufficient to perform all the tasks I use substance 1 for, so he could go without substance 1. But this is equivalent to using substance 1 and assuming additional traits of substance 1.

Does that thing that makes our experiences coherent (if you agree that they are sometimes more or less coherent) be a deity with traits of personality? All I can see is that it behaves like atoms. If it behaves like atoms, maybe it is atoms? And if it is not atoms, but just behave like atoms, what difference does that make?

[jan]

Does consciousness influences matter? Does matter influences consciousness? Yes and yes. If I decide to lift my feet, my feet moves, so my consciousness can be considered to influence some matter. If I take a drug, matter influences my consciousness. The boring part of philosophy, I think, are claims like "matter does not exist, it is all an illusion" or "consciousness does not exist, all there is are atoms". The interesting part are claims like this one:

"All my conscious states can be explained strictly in terms of physics. So if I lift my feet, this can be explained strictly in physical terms. It is not necessary to mention consciousness at all."

or

"All coherence in my perception can be explained strictly in terms of psychology. So if I take a drug, this can be explained strictly in mental terms, since first seeing the drug, next perceiving the taste of the drug and finally feel funny and experience odd things can be explained as a kind of mental association. It is not necessary to mention matter at all."

I'm not certain whether the first claim is valid. But it seems to me to be a more promising claim than the latter. And it is by far the more interesting claim, because its a priori plausibility is lesser than that of the latter claim. Since our primary experience consists of our perceptions, it is quite natural to try to explain everything in mental terms. But it is far more surprising and successful if we are able to explain perceptions in physical terms. And we are quite successful in explaining perceptions in physical terms. Consider how much the theory of light (including Quantum Mechanics) together with the physiology of the eye and the brain and together with theories of neural networks can tell you about your visual perceptions. Consider how little the theory that the coherence of your perceptions is just some sort of mental association tells you. Consider how little the theory that your perceptions are provided to you by a deity tells you. One of those theories leads to testable predictions and exciting new questions, all the others turn out to be just metaphysical games that leads you nowhere.

[jan]

Appendix.

For reference, I tried to make the list of the six possible substances more concise:

1 Matter
2 Mind
3 Memes
4 Laws
5 Souls
6 Gods

You may add further substances to this list, if you like ("Chi", "Psi", "Demons" and so on). If you do so, you should take care that the new substance is not a special case of some substances of the list above (for example, if you think telepathic abilities use a special "psi-field", this psi is not a new substance, it's just a certain kind of matter, like water or air or a magnetic field).

My theory ("by Anne Elk (Miss)"): Matter does really exist. Mind and Memes exist, but not really (in the sense defined above). Laws exist. The definition of "real existence" is not applicable to Laws. Souls and Gods do not exist.

[jan]

Still 30 posts before I can get my own avatar (no, wait, only 29 left). Perhaps I should have split my reply into on post per sentence...

[hammegk]

Welcome. New blood is always useful. ;)

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by hammegk
Welcome. New blood is always useful. ;)

:D

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by hammegk
Welcome. New blood is always useful. ;)

Course, it just tastes better.

[Dancing David]

Welcome jan, you may find that trying debate Ian and Franko is sort of like talking to a tape recorder, no matter what you do, they just say what they are going to say.

Hammegk, you just never know, there are days when he participates and other days he just whacks with his cane because his gout is acting up. Funny that he wants new blood, he randomly tosses up old vomit. :P

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dancing David

Hammegk, you just never know, there are days when he participates and other days he just whacks with his cane because his gout is acting up. Funny that he wants new blood, he randomly tosses up old vomit. :P
Dancing, you have taken a fair number of cheap shots now. Are you sure -- in your rather feeble & precarious position -- SURE you want to get in a pissing contest with me? :rolleyes:

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by jan
Still 30 posts before I can get my own avatar (no, wait, only 29 left). Perhaps I should have split my reply into on post per sentence...

If you want to "cook the books" on your post count for an avatar, just post non-sense to The Thread That Will Not Die in Community.

[Yahweh]

What? Worship his Frankoness before you worship thine Yahwehness? INSOLENCE!

:D

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Yahweh
What? Worship his Frankoness before you worship thine Yahwehness? INSOLENCE!

:D

Visit this thread for vallible info'mation on wah hiyis Yawehness is nuttin' but a false Franko! Read dem tracts!

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=12592

[jan]

Thanks everybody for the friendly welcome.

Originally posted by hammegk

Welcome. New blood is always useful.


I hope it is not considered disrespectful if I as a newbie start flooding this forum with my abuses of the English language and start my own Franko shrine.

Originally posted by Dancing David

Welcome jan, you may find that trying debate Ian and Franko is sort of like talking to a tape recorder, no matter what you do, they just say what they are going to say.


Even if you are correct, they force you to evaluate your own assumptions, which I think is always a good thing. Let's see. From what I have seen so far, Interesting Ian (perhaps I should have named myself "boring jan"?) could post more elaborate answers, but I guess you have to take what you can get.

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner

If you want to "cook the books" on your post count for an avatar, just post non-sense to The Thread That Will Not Die in Community.


Thanks. But I don't know of anything irrelevant I could post to The Thread That Will Not Die.

Originally posted by his Yahwehness

What? Worship his Frankoness before you worship thine Yahwehness? INSOLENCE!


Dear brothers and sisters, are not all religions essentially the same? Do they not all state the same eternal and holy truth? Isn't Berkeleyian immaterialism just the same thing as materialism? Are we not all sockpuppets of the One? Is worshipping His Frankoness not just the same as entertaining his Yahwehness?



Answering four posts with one post. Sigh, I will never have my own avatar. Undying Thread, I'm coming!

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk

Dancing, you have taken a fair number of cheap shots now. Are you sure -- in your rather feeble & precarious position -- SURE you want to get in a pissing contest with me? :rolleyes:

More projection there hamme? Isn't feeble and precarious in the eye of the beholder.
I am just amazed at how you are very reasonable at one moment and engage in the conversation and then at the next moment you just spew all sorts of stuff. It seems very random and unrelated to the topics at hand. (Of course it is obvious that you and JJ don't get along and that predates my arrival on the JREF.)

My point in engaging you , it just seems so random, never know when you will switch from Dr. Jay to Mr. Aitch. You have many valid views that I enjoy learning, but there seems to be equal parts wisdom and vomit.

Pissing contest,I am sure you have more piss and vinegar than I could ever muster, even if I filled up on water and vinegar.

Cheasp shots were handed around by you first, fire wa returned, we can move to cease fire and truce if you would like.

Feeble and precarious, it is to laugh, ho-ho.(Yoicks and away!)

So if best Daffy Duch style, I will now aknowledge you supeior abilty to be mean, cunical and pointless. I pretend to show you my belly, but I know that you are as likely to stab me as pet me.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Isn't feeble and precarious in the eye of the beholder?
Yes, just as is everything, imo.


I am just amazed at how you are very reasonable at one moment and engage in the conversation and then at the next moment you just spew all sorts of stuff....
......there seems to be equal parts wisdom and vomit.
Thanks for accepting some of it as wisdom -- be advised the parts you fault are better called "bile".

Or, as I prefer to put it, whacking a recalcitrant jackass in the head with a 2x4; just an attention getter, don't you know?


Cheap shots were handed around by you first, fire was returned, we can move to cease fire and truce if you would like.
So far in my chats with you, specifically, I don't recall opening fire (although I indeed may have). At any rate I don't plan to move out of the truce stage at this moment anyway.

... I know that you are as likely to stab me as pet me.
Ummm, I like to think I'm way past the use of sharp instruments; Damned "perception" again. ;)

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk

Yes, just as is everything, imo.


Thanks for accepting some of it as wisdom -- be advised the parts you fault are better called "bile".

Which humor is bile, the yelow choleric?

Or, as I prefer to put it, whacking a recalcitrant jackass in the head with a 2x4; just an attention getter, don't you know?

I suppose it is useful, but if you club the poor meat car senseless, it defeats the purpose. Although I suppose you might then hit ist with a spiritual 2x4


So far in my chats with you, specifically, I don't recall opening fire (although I indeed may have). At any rate I don't plan to move out of the truce stage at this moment anyway.

Given my general lack of boundaries, I probably misinterpreted, whoa boundries, whoa.



Ummm, I like to think I'm way past the use of sharp instruments; Damned "perception" again. ;)

But thy wit is quite sharp!