Ask a Radical Atheist

[Piggy]

So we don't include Biblical literalism in the defintion of god. Where is it stipulated that fundamentalist Christians get to define god for the rest of us?

They don't. That was just one example, for comparison.

[Tricky]

You want a list?

I can give you authors, if you'd like. I don't have many of those books anymore. But I've read countless books of mysticism and esoterica.

What do you want to talk about? Tibetan Buddhism? Tarot? New Age? Shamanism? The Maharishi? Gurdjieff? Ram Das? Tim Leary? Edgar Cacey? Rumi and fakirs and whirling dervishes? Medieval contemplative monks? Jewish mysticism? What?

I'm not an atheist because I'm ignorant of religion, mysticism, mythology, and spirituality. I'm an atheist because I've studied these things.

If there is something in there which you believe can salvage the God hypothesis, then please produce it from the bag.
Nominated!

Especially the bold part.

[Apathia]

There are no non-theistic gods. That's what theism is... belief in God.
To me that's just humpty-dumptyism. It's redefining God to be something God never was.

If God is a "communal engagement" then it's equivalent to an idea, or a feeling, or perhaps a mass delusion. In that case, the experience is real, but nothing actually God-like is real.

It's kind of like re-defining phlogiston as the experience of seeing something burn -- which has no bearing on what phlogiston was actually believed to be before it was debunked.

The contemplative Asian sects have been at the redefining game longer than Westerners, that's all.

Personally, I'm not much interested in the question "Can we re-define 'God' in novel ways to refer to non-Godlike things which we already know exist, such as ideas or the universe, or to refer to utter philosophical abstractions that have no actual referent?"

That seems unimportant and trivial to me. However, the question of whether God actually exists... that's important.



I haven't said that, and wouldn't.

I'm not talking about all uses of these words -- such as calling Clapton a guitar god, for example, or saying that sleeping in til 8:00 and being served breakfast in bed is divine.

I'm not saying all definitions of the words, used in any sense whatsoever, are empty or nonsensical.

I'm talking about definitions of "God" or "gods", divine beings which theists actually believe in.

When we're talking about that, then yes, all definitions are either contrary to fact, or fall into some fatal error such as self-contradiction, lack of definition, emptiness, humpty-dumptyism, etc.

Good enough then. It's clear where your chalk lines are drawn and who you are daring to step over them. Pity that so far no theist has has come for the game.

BTW I wish you more "Divinity" in your life than just toast and jam on a tray.

[Piscivore]

I'm not restricting the discussion to any particular definition.
There are no non-theistic gods.
That sounds like you are. Perhaps you better define for me what you mean by theistic and non-theistic, because the dictionary definition means you are restricting the discussion to only "...one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world". That doesn't even come close to applying to all gods, and certainly not to the definition I'm talking about.

But that doesn't mean that I'm going to swallow any old definition anyone dreams up and ignore fatal problems with those definitions.
Please don't.

I can't accept "God is the universe" or "God is love" because those turn out to be empty if no other qualities are given.

I can't accept "God created the universe then had nothing more to do with it" because, again, it's a non-definition of God. It's merely crediting an I-don't-know with an action that does not require any god, leaving that I-don't-know undefined.

I can't accept mad-scientist scenarios because believers don't worship mad scientists (Not even Nicolai Tesla and Wilhelm Reich? :))-- not even the Mormons, who believe that the God of the Bible used to be something kind of like us.
None of that is part of what I'm talking about.

I'm not following you here.

Are you saying that the villagers' disease-causing spirits really exist?
No, I'm saying that they had an incorrect idea about what it is they were talking about, so their definition of what caused the disease is probably not the one we should use.

Similarly, I don't think the "believers" have the first clue as to what it is they are actually worshipping, so I don't feel compelled to grant them license to define god for me.

Or are you saying that something causes the actions they credit these spirits with, but when looking for that cause, you have to "leave their definitions behind"?

If the latter, then you're simply saying that they're wrong about what causes disease, that something else causes disease.
Quite so.

You can't "leave their definitions behind" and simultaneously say that their ideas are correct.
I didn't say their ideas were correct. Their ideas are part and parcel of their flawed definition.

The question is not "Does something else do the things that theists believe God does?"

The question is "Does God exist?"
You're immediately dimissing the notion that it isn't god, but "something else", because you're assuming that god can only be "viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world". That's just not the case.

If it is "something else" doing those things, then what is it?

[Paulhoff]

Correct, which is the reason we have Analytic Philosophy ;) Still, discussing these things is a philosophical endeavor, so strictly speaking if you don't like philosophy please don't discuss it. Sure, you can state that you don't believe in god because you don't buy metaphysical arguments, thats a position and it is respectable. But claiming that you can prove that there is no god will convert you in a philosopher! (my personal discussion with Piggy, he states that he hates philosophy and that he does not do philosophy and yet he make lots of philosophical argumentations in here).
If you need to call talking about a so-called god or so-called gods a philosophical endeavor, so be it, for you. I see no proof and/or need of a so-called god to explain anything, because in truth it doesn’t explain anything. There are billions of people in the world now, and many billions that lived before, and not one had the same exact belief in a so-called god or so-called gods, and not one of these so-called gods came close to the truth to what the so-called god was supposed to explain.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Apathia]

BTW I wish you more "Divinity" in your life than just toast and jam on a tray.

Darn, too late to edit this out.
Piggy, I did not mean this as a taunt. I wish I could retract it, just so it doesn't get taken that way.

I was thinking about Southern Cooking this morning. You don't realize how "divine" it is till you are stuck in some southwestern state where they can't tell mustard greens from collard greens.
Are you still in Georgia. Apart from it being in the middle of the Bible Belt, I envy you.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Ok, enough is enough, I will drop my final answer for his ultimate question:

"Does god exist?"

Here it goes Piggy, hold tight to your chair!!!

http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html

(or, in other words, you simply lack imagination).

[thaiboxerken]

That's rather pathetic, Zen. To say Piggy lacks imagination simply because he doesn't believe fiction to be fact is condescending and wrong. You also used the story of another atheist to convey that insult as well.

[HghrSymmetry]

I had always enjoyed the AC short story.

I never suspected it to be used as a weapon, however feeble.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Dear fools, you two lack imagination too. My position is firm, skeptical to the bone. Yet some others, like Piggy, make bold affirmations from time to time. My take? it is a lack of imagination, but the funny thing is that it was not an attack, not even an argument. That you two fail to see where I'm coming from is not as bad as to state an opinion without knowing the rules of the game.

Piggy and I hold, more or less, the same things, our methods are different, and from time to time I play jokes on that he is a philosopher even when he hates philosophy.

That said, boys, relax. Not everyone who "attacks" an argument of a materialist is a woo. On the same token, not everyone who disagrees with materialists is a woo.

Hghr... if by AC you mean Arthur C. Clarke you are wrong, it is one of the best short stories written by Assimov. To tell the truth, it makes me cry, I find it incredibly poetic.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

hehehe I re-read my answer. Honestly, it is elegant and poetic. Sorry if you two can't see it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I suspected your sentence came out differently than you intended. It does sound insulting, after all, rather than a good natured comment.

But I have to disagree. Why would one need god myths in order to have imagination. There are so many other more worthy things to ponder in the Universe.

[thaiboxerken]

Dear fools, you two lack imagination too.

So now you attack more people. Nice.


That said, boys, relax. Not everyone who "attacks" an argument of a materialist is a woo. On the same token, not everyone who disagrees with materialists is a woo.

Telling people that they lack imagination is not an attack on any argument. It is an attack on a person's character. I can appreciate Asimov's short story, it's interesting. However, I simply don't believe it to be true or even a plausible explanation of "god."

[Robin]

hehehe I re-read my answer. Honestly, it is elegant and poetic. Sorry if you two can't see it.
"I bend the knee before Shakespeare, but no other poet living or dead" - William McGonagall

[Robin]

That said, boys, relax. Not everyone who "attacks" an argument of a materialist is a woo. On the same token, not everyone who disagrees with materialists is a woo.
Indeed not, Mach, Neurath, Schlick, Carnap to name but a few. But it all depends, does it not, upon the quality of the "attack"?

[articulett]

So now you attack more people. Nice.



Telling people that they lack imagination is not an attack on any argument. It is an attack on a person's character. I can appreciate Asimov's short story, it's interesting. However, I simply don't believe it to be true or even a plausible explanation of "god."



Moreover, telling someone "I am not a woo" is not a convincing argument. I think we each can decide for ourselves who we find unimaginative or likable or wooish.

These are opinions, after all. To me, those who believe other than materialism are woos-- they believe in something for which there is no good evidence... something that is identical (as far as the evidence goes) to much of the woo they don't believe in.

[HghrSymmetry]

Hghr... if by AC you mean Arthur C. Clarke you are wrong, it is one of the best short stories written by Assimov. To tell the truth, it makes me cry, I find it incredibly poetic.


I meant Analog Computer, that's what it stood for in Asimov's story. It's one of my favorites as well.

As for the misunderstood attack comment, I retract it. We can't interpret everything perfectly on forums.

[HghrSymmetry]

I can appreciate Asimov's short story, it's interesting. However, I simply don't believe it to be true or even a plausible explanation of "god."


I had never thought of it as anything but a clever, well written story.

I suppose that there are people who ponder that maybe a type IV civilization is cooking universes left and right.

Of course, it can't be ruled out, but using Occam's razor, I'll not sweat it.
Whether this is the Matrix or not, I still have to get my aging yet still sinewy ass to work in the morning.

;)

[thaiboxerken]

There is something strange about a person who claims a person has no imagination because they don't believe in a god but then offers up a short story written by an atheist as an example of good imagination.

[HghrSymmetry]

Interesting observation thai.

What would be your irony rating (1-10)?

[thaiboxerken]

Irony isn't the word I had in mind.

[HghrSymmetry]

Aa, noted.

[articulett]

maybe "sinewy ass" was the word(s) you had in mind?

[HghrSymmetry]

Art's on a roll tonight.

(Post at your own risk.)

:covereyes:)

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

People... people... easy. You are running instead of walking. I do not see any compelling reason to believe in god. In the same manner, I appreciate intelligent science fiction.

I believe the story is worth a reading, I believe you can't disprove "god" and I believe if you do affirm that it doesn't exists you lack imagination. Sorry. I didn't write it as an insult, if the wording sounds like that I apologize. Was not my intention at all.

That said, I sustain that it is lack of imagination. Why? Because we live immerse in our own little heads. One thing is to be a skeptic, to doubt. Another very different to deny (humans will never fly) based on what we know.

I believe this short story illustrates the point in that there are ways to conceive a creature like god. Its a story, it is science fiction, yet, it is undeniable that Issac Asimov have more imagination than us. And again, this is not insulting us.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Moreover, telling someone "I am not a woo" is not a convincing argument. I think we each can decide for ourselves who we find unimaginative or likable or wooish.

Agreed. And I also know that, in this forum, there are lots of believers who attempt to fight against the preferred point of view of skeptics (materialism in one or other form).

These are opinions, after all. To me, those who believe other than materialism are woos-- they believe in something for which there is no good evidence... something that is identical (as far as the evidence goes) to much of the woo they don't believe in.

Here you are dead wrong. Unbelievable wrong. Take me, for lacking a better example, I make no ontological commitments, other than that, I'm comfortable with the naturalist research that some claim is behind materialism. There you go. A materialism skeptic who is not a woo. :)

[Alric]

Sorry if this has been already discussed. Echoing the OP, the only rational position is not to believe in god. There is no evidence for the existence of god. Zilch. Nada.

God has the same chance of existing as the 10 imaginary things I will imagine in the 10 min. That is, much below the threshold of reality.

[martu]

I believe the story is worth a reading, I believe you can't disprove "god" and I believe if you do affirm that it doesn't exists you lack imagination. Sorry. I didn't write it as an insult, if the wording sounds like that I apologize. Was not my intention at all.


Do you think it is possible that the sun is being pushed through the sky by a dung beetle?

[Piscivore]

God has the same chance of existing as the 10 imaginary things I will imagine in the 10 min. That is, much below the threshold of reality.

Are you limiting "reality" to only that which is physically manifested?

Have you read any of my posts in this thread (aside from the ones where I'm having fun with Larsen, that is)?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I suspected your sentence came out differently than you intended. It does sound insulting, after all, rather than a good natured comment.

But I have to disagree. Why would one need god myths in order to have imagination. There are so many other more worthy things to ponder in the Universe.

Agreed with the first, maybe it sounds like an insult, I honestly don't see it that way though.

With your second comment I have reservations. I'm proposing no myth, but a tale, and I insist in that a skeptic, or even a hard core materialist, should stop in "I see no compelling reason to believe in god" and not claim that there is none.

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false." is a common theist argument (woo argument actually) and this is what Piggy is doing in the thread!

"The sentence 'there is no god' is true because there is no proof of it being false."

[Alric]

Are you limiting "reality" to only that which is physically manifested?

Have you read any of my posts in this thread (aside from the ones where I'm having fun with Larsen, that is)?

I'll read them if you can provide any evidence of another reality besides what is physically manifested, and how it can interact with reality.

After all, people that believe in god also would have to believe he can affect the physical world. Otherwise, what's the point?

[Piscivore]

I'll read them if you can provide any evidence of another reality besides what is physically manifested, and how it can interact with reality.
Is that a yes?

Why do non-physically manifested things have to be part of a separate reality? Dreams exist in this reality, don't they?

I do believe I have provided plenty of evidence in those posts for what my understanding of god is, and its existance.

After all, people that believe in god also would have to believe he can affect the physical world.
Are you trying to dictate to people what they must believe? That's what it sounds like. Why must they believe he can affect the physical world?

In any case, one of my key points was that the effects it has in the physical world is evidence that what I understand god to be exists. I think that's what I opened with.

Otherwise, what's the point?
You don't understand the reason they would believe something, so it's worthless or untrue by default? Is that what you are saying?

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
With your second comment I have reservations. I'm proposing no myth, but a tale, and I insist in that a skeptic, or even a hard core materialist, should stop in "I see no compelling reason to believe in god" and not claim that there is none.

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false." is a common theist argument (woo argument actually) and this is what Piggy is doing in the thread!

"The sentence 'there is no god' is true because there is no proof of it being false."This is stated without the other equally important part of what I said and what the facts are. Try again and this time address my entire reason instead of this annoying single cherry picked aspect. It's taken me years to perfect my position. It deserves to be addressed in its entirety. :)

1) There is no evidence for god beliefs.
2) The scientific principle, one cannot prove the negative, is inappropriately used as if it somehow supported the idea god beliefs require agnosticism.

3) There is overwhelming evidence god beliefs are made up and not the result of real interactions with gods.
4) There is another scientific principle which states one should follow the evidence, not fit the evidence to the facts.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is that a yes?

Why do non-physically manifested things have to be part of a separate reality? Dreams exist in this reality, don't they?And they have a physical aspect as well. Got any examples of something that exists without any physical evidence in the same way gods are claimed?

You might be able to argue something like math. But I think one can connect that to the physical as well.

Maybe I am missing your point.

[Alric]

Is that a yes?

Why do non-physically manifested things have to be part of a separate reality? Dreams exist in this reality, don't they?

No. They don't.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

This is stated without the other equally important part of what I said and what the facts are. Try again and this time address my entire reason instead of this annoying single cherry picked aspect. It's taken me years to perfect my position. It deserves to be addressed in its entirety. :)

1) There is no evidence for god beliefs.
2) The scientific principle, one cannot prove the negative, is inappropriately used as if it somehow supported the idea god beliefs require agnosticism.

3) There is overwhelming evidence god beliefs are made up and not the result of real interactions with gods.
4) There is another scientific principle which states one should follow the evidence, not fit the evidence to the facts.

I didn't wanted to conclude all your ideas from one post. I will gladly tackle your points. :)

1) What it has been discussed ad nauseam is that this depends on what the word means. Piggy (sorry I have not been following the thread post by post) says that every meaning is void or nonsensical. I believe the short story proves otherwise, there can be a concept of god that is not void and makes sense (not that I believe it is actually the case).

2) No. Read the form of the argument, it is a fallacy. No emotions needed.

3) Agreed. And I believe we all have here transcended the personal gods that are in the mind of most believers.

4) Agreed. I have no presented an argument to favor "god existence", only presented evidence in that deny it is as foolish as believe it. We have not enough elements to make a claim.

[Piscivore]

No. They don't.

You don't dream?

[Alric]

Sometimes I dream about fairies and flying gorillas. Neither of which, as far as I know, exist.

[Piscivore]

Sometimes I dream about fairies and flying gorillas. Neither of which, as far as I know, exist.

I'm not talking about the content of your dreams, but dreams themselves. These dreams you have exist, yes? Are they physically manifested somewhere? Can we pluck one out of your brain and slide it under a microscope?

[Piscivore]

I see, in another thread (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3598204&postcount=110), blobru gets what I was trying to say about god.

[Alric]

Are they physically manifested somewhere? Can we pluck one out of your brain and slide it under a microscope?

Wrong instrument. You can detect and characterize dreaming using EEG.

This is a fallacious argument. The content of dreams is fantastical. The act of dreaming itself is specific patterns of neuronal activity.

Are you arguing that dreams are real? Dreaming is real. Dreams are not. Just like a historical fiction is fantasy but the book that contains it is real.

[Piscivore]

The act of dreaming itself is specific patterns of neuronal activity.
Those patterns of neuronal activity, are they real? Do they physically manifest? Can you see the pattern, or just the EEG readout that creates a representation of the pattern?

you arguing that dreams are real?
As "specific patterns of neuronal activity", yes. You just said you had a dream, a "specific pattern of neuronal activity", did you not? How did you do that if the dream wasn't real?

Dreaming is real. Dreams are not.
What is the difference between the act and the product of that act?

Just like a historical fiction is fantasy but the book that contains it is real.
You're missing a bit here. Historical fiction is a story, and stories exist. Sometimes they are contained in a book, sometimes not. The content of that story might not be factual, but the story exists. Do you agree?

There's more to say about fiction, but I don't think we're ready for that yet.

[Alric]

Curiously, you didn't quote the part about detecting dreams using EEG. Don't think of me as rude but I am not going to argue about whether dreams are real or not.

[Piscivore]

Curiously, you didn't quote the part about detecting dreams using EEG.
What's so curious? I mentioned the EEG- As I see it it shows a representation of the pattern of which you speak, but is not the pattern itself. Am I wrong?

Don't think of me as rude but I am not going to argue about whether dreams are real or not.
Is that because you do not have an answer that will jibe with your apparent insistance that non-physically manifested things can be real?

Let's try numbers. Are numbers real?

[Piscivore]

Sorry, skeptigirl, I didn't mean to ignore you, I didn't see your post right away.

And they have a physical aspect as well.
They are manifested from the actions of physical agents, yes. But patterns of neuronal activity, as Alric puts it, are not neurons. EEG measurments and representations of the patterns are not the patterns. The patterns themselves, like numbers, do not have any independent physical existence of their own, but they are still "real", or they could not be measured.

Got any examples of something that exists without any physical evidence in the same way gods are claimed?
I've already told you what I see as the physical evidence of the god I'm talking about.

You might be able to argue something like math. But I think one can connect that to the physical as well.
A pair of apples is not "two". It only represents "two". Connecting to the physical is not the same as being physical.

Maybe I am missing your point.
I should say so. :)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Those examples you said were evidence of god only amounted to people believing in gods. Some of us pointed out there are a lot of things people believe in. Belief is a conclusion. A conclusion is not evidence. You never really addressed that objection to your 'evidence'.

I posted an extensive discussion on this arguing with Beth if you'd care to see it. But to summarize, Beth was essentially arguing that if you saw something that was red, your sensory input was evidence red existed. But it is the red thing that is the evidence of something red, not the conclusion drawn from the sensory input. The conclusion you were seeing red was not the evidence, the evidence was the red thing.

You are merely describing conclusions. What is the evidence for those conclusions?

[Piscivore]

Those examples you said were evidence of god only amounted to people believing in gods. Some of us pointed out there are a lot of things people believe in. Belief is a conclusion. A conclusion is not evidence. You never really addressed that objection to your 'evidence'.
I did, but you may have missed it because I posted it just when Claus was starting to harrass you again. I think you must have missed it, because I don't see where you got back to me on it.
Again, are you even trying to think through what you are proposing here? By this reasoning if someone believes in a golden calf and builds a monument then there must be a golden calf god.
There is. If you were there, you could even touch it, at least the artifact representing it. You could have spoken to its followers, learned about what the god thought was important, what it expected from its people, could have watched or participated in the rite that honoured it.How does believing in Santa make Santa real? You are not making any sense.
Depends on what you mean by "real". If you mean will I ever be able to pull the beard of a 400 year old magical elf-saint that flies in a sleigh and personally delivers presents to all the good little children with his own flesh and blood hands- no.
If you mean something that is instantly recognisable to nearly everyone on earth, in whose name gifts are given, about whom stories are told, that entity that inspires good will and holiday cheer- yes, that is real. No less so because we create him.
The Golden Calf, Santa, would not exist in the way I am talking about if only one person believed in them. They do exist despite anyone's disbelief or ignorance of them. Belief, "conclusions" are not relevent to their existance.

I advanced a question also that you didn't answer, and it might clear up a few things:
Answer me this. Is "skeptigirl" a thing that is "real" in and of itself, independantly in the world, or is it something created by the workings of your brain cells? Do you doubt your own existence simply because what you "are" is just the result of some process?
The argument you are making against god with regard to "conclusions" seems to work equally well against personal identity. How do you know you are who you believe yourself to be? The literature on psychology is full of people that thought they were someone else.

I posted an extensive discussion on this arguing with Beth if you'd care to see it.
Please. Link?

But to summarize, Beth was essentially arguing that if you saw something that was red, your sensory input was evidence red existed. But it is the red thing that is the evidence of something red, not the conclusion drawn from the sensory input. The conclusion you were seeing red was not the evidence, the evidence was the red thing.
I'll hold off on commenting until I read it in full.

You are merely describing conclusions. What is the evidence for those conclusions?
I'm not talking about belief. I'm not describing any "conclusions". If you think that I am I'm not communicating this correctly.

[articulett]

Here you are dead wrong. Unbelievable wrong. Take me, for lacking a better example, I make no ontological commitments, other than that, I'm comfortable with the naturalist research that some claim is behind materialism. There you go. A materialism skeptic who is not a woo. :)

How is being skeptical of materialism different than being skeptical of evolution? What other explanation fits what we observe so well? To me, being skeptical of evolution while having no evidence of any alternate theory is woo-ish. So, unless you have an explanation with evidence, it sounds like you are using gaps in knowledge to insert your beliefs. For me, that's "woo". I have a strong "woo" meter, I guess.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

How is being skeptical of materialism different than being skeptical of evolution? What other explanation fits what we observe so well? To me, being skeptical of evolution while having no evidence of any alternate theory is woo-ish. So, unless you have an explanation with evidence, it sounds like you are using gaps in knowledge to insert your beliefs. For me, that's "woo". I have a strong "woo" meter, I guess.

It is evident that you have not read the thread in which I explain my views. First, materialism has NOTHING to do with evolution. Don't play a strawman here. Explanation about what??? If you are a materialist you might answer (to the question about what's the world made of) "it is made of matter".

If someone asks me the same question I will state that the question is meaningless.

I hope you can spot the difference, because that's all you will find different in my views in respect to materialism. Now, there are several conclusions that can be drawn from my position, but they belong to somewhere else.

BTW, this demonstrates that your woo meter is nothing but a woo belief. :D

[articulett]

It is evident that you have not read the thread in which I explain my views. First, materialism has NOTHING to do with evolution. Don't play a strawman here. Explanation about what??? If you are a materialist you might answer (to the question about what's the world made of) "it is made of matter".

If someone asks me the same question I will state that the question is meaningless.

I hope you can spot the difference, because that's all you will find different in my views in respect to materialism. Now, there are several conclusions that can be drawn from my position, but they belong to somewhere else.

BTW, this demonstrates that your woo meter is nothing but a woo belief. :D

My point was not that materialism had something to do with evolution... I am trying to figure out how you perceive yourself as "not a woo" when I see you as a woo. I see those who are "skeptical of evolution" as a woo, because although we don't know everything (and the "skeptics of evolution" know a whole lot less), they never have anything else that explains the data better... they fill the perceived gaps in knowledge with whatever it is they've been indoctrinated to believe. Their evidence is that it "feels right" or "they like it better" or "it's in their holy book", I guess. Such explanations don't fit what we observe.

Materialism fits what we observe--when a brain is damaged, consciousness is altered... despite eons of wanting to exist separately from our bodies... there isn't any evidence that this can happen. So what IS the alternative and what is the evidence for it. I'm not asking for anything big. I'm just trying to see if you are doing the "skeptical of evolution" semantic dance.

You are skeptical of materialism. Yes, there are things we don't understand... the same with evolution. But what evidence is there that supports any other conclusion? If you don't have evidence or alternate explanation, forgive me, if I conclude you are a woo. It is an opinion after all. The only alternative to a naturalistic explanation is a supernatural one; materialism (physicalism, naturalism, etc.) IS the natural explanation, isn't it? That makes all other explanations, supernatural. I don't believe in the super natural... and even if I did, I certainly have no reason to think you or anyone else has access to it. So, naturally it's logical for me to conclude you are trying to convince yourself you have a logical alternative without presenting your view or any evidence for it.

[Robin]

I believe this short story illustrates the point in that there are ways to conceive a creature like god. Its a story, it is science fiction, yet, it is undeniable that Issac Asimov have more imagination than us. And again, this is not insulting us.
There are many, many, many ways of conceiving a creature like god. Including the way Jews, Christians, Muslims and Hindu's do.

Do we really need another?

[articulett]

I think that whether Isaac Asimov has more imagination than "us" is also an opinion.

You might want to be careful about stating opinions as facts BDZ. Everybody is capable of forming their own opinions. I'm not saying that I don't think Asimov is wonderfully imaginative... but I don't know all the imaginative capabilities that "us" represents, and therefore, Asimov having the most imagination IS, in fact, deniable (or at least "arguable")--contrary to your claims that it is not.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The only alternative to a naturalistic explanation is a supernatural one; materialism (physicalism, naturalism, etc.) IS the natural explanation, isn't it? That makes all other explanations, supernatural. I don't believe in the super natural... and even if I did, I certainly have no reason to think you or anyone else has access to it. So, naturally it's logical for me to conclude you are trying to convince yourself you have a logical alternative without presenting your view or any evidence for it.

Articulett, this goes far beyond your ad hoc answers. You see, those work when dealing with people who believes in supernatural stuff, ghosts, superpowers, you name it.

I'm talking about a completely different thing. Does epistemology ring a bell? FWIW, and even when I'm sure you will not understand, I have problems with the word "explanation". We have not explained anything, all we have (all we can have) are descriptions. And the difference is radical (yet subtle at first sight).

So, please, don't attempt to label me using the common concepts you have learned here when you have no clue on where I'm coming from.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I did, but you may have missed it because I posted it just when Claus was starting to harrass you again. I think you must have missed it, because I don't see where you got back to me on it.

The Golden Calf, Santa, would not exist in the way I am talking about if only one person believed in them. They do exist despite anyone's disbelief or ignorance of them. Belief, "conclusions" are not relevent to their existance....[snip]Seems like you are just saying the god concept is real. That is not the same as saying gods are real. So evidence for god beliefs and god concepts is different than evidence for gods exists.

The discussion with Beth ends with post #1308 on page 33 in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101366&page=33). You'll do best to work back from there rather than try to go forward from wherever it starts. The points got clearer in the end and were repeated a lot in the middle. Beth may have had more to say but she's temporarily limited in typing due to a finger injury.

[articulett]

Articulett, this goes far beyond your ad hoc answers. You see, those work when dealing with people who believes in supernatural stuff, ghosts, superpowers, you name it.

I'm talking about a completely different thing. Does epistemology ring a bell? FWIW, and even when I'm sure you will not understand, I have problems with the word "explanation". We have not explained anything, all we have (all we can have) are descriptions. And the difference is radical (yet subtle at first sight).

So, please, don't attempt to label me using the common concepts you have learned here when you have no clue on where I'm coming from.

I'm not even sure you have a clue where you are coming from. Yes, theories are descriptions... but scientific theories are the very best explanation we have. If you have something different and there's evidence for it, I'd like to know. If not, then I presume your being skeptical of materialism is on par with those who are "skeptical" of evolution.

If you can't explain the difference then, I'll presume you are using gaps in knowledge to tell yourself that your "alternative explanation"-- for which you have no measurable evidence--is still on the table.

You labeled me... you said your skeptical of materialism... I am equally entitled to have an opinion about your beliefs and their validity. Right. I have as much right or more right to skeptical of your inferred alternative explanation that you have to be of materialism... You won't say what you believe, because you don't want us to point out the flaws in it. That's a typical woo trick. It's easy to be skeptic of science and skeptic, so long as you don't have show how poorly your alternate explanation fits the observations. You can be skeptical of gravity if you want, as well. I don't care. I make up my own mind as to who sounds clear and informative and who sounds like an obfuscating woo.

[Serenity's Light]

And they have a physical aspect as well. Got any examples of something that exists without any physical evidence in the same way gods are claimed?

You might be able to argue something like math. But I think one can connect that to the physical as well.

Maybe I am missing your point.

I know this question was meant for Piscivore; I apologize if I'm jumping into your discussion inappropriately (I'm still very much a newbie here). But I think I can suggest a couple of examples that might fit the bill of something that is non-physical and yet exists.

The first one is the set of imaginary numbers in mathematics--for example, "i", which is defined as the square root of -1. By definition, negative numbers cannot be square-rooted, since squaring any number yields a positive number (or 0, if you're squaring 0). Yet, we somehow still have "i".

The other example is related to Piscivore's example of dreams. Any fictional story or character obviously has no physical reality--for example, no extraordinary detective named Sherlock Holmes who had a sidekick named Watson ever existed in the physical world. Yet the fictional stories created in people's minds manifest in the physical world--a person may write his idea down and have it published as a book, movie, or TV show. If a story becomes popular enough, fans may create websites devoted to it, or even organize conventions at which they can gather with other fans to discuss that particular work of fiction. The story itself has no physical reality, but the books (or movie scripts, reels of film, etc) do. Events surrounding the idea (fan conventions, etc) occur in the real world, and obviously all the readers/viewers of the story exist. Furthermore, we can categorize statements about fictional works as true or false. To continue with the Sherlock Holmes example, we can say that "Sherlock Holmes lived at 221B Baker Street" is true and that "Sherlock Holmes had pink hair" is false. (I believe Steven Pinker discussed the concept of making objectively true or false statements about fictional characters--I think he even used Sherlock Holmes as an example--in one of his books, but I honestly can't remember which one. It might be "The Stuff of Thought", but I could be wrong.)

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I'm not even sure you have a clue where you are coming from.

:D

Articulett, you know that fundamentalists tend to label everything they can't understand. Right? Add to that your complete lack of comprehension of where I'm coming from and this is getting simply ridiculous. :rolleyes: Don't do that to yourself.

I don't have beliefs other than our language can describe some natural events and facts. Got it? You believe materialism "explain" things, good for you, but this vision is extremely naive. An explanation assumes knowledge, gives you a (false) sense of tranquility because you "understand". This gives you a ground from where you can act, you can label, you can be confident. But the same goes for every woo belief, they naturally pretend that their beliefs explain.

Now, I have tried to show you that I stop BEFORE THAT (and thats all the difference I have with materialism). I even claim that it is futile to ad the layer about "whats the world made of". It is completely unnecessary.

Our descriptions fit observations? Good. They don't? let's change our models. That's all we can aspire to get. So, again, please stop being obtuse and attribute me whatever you want to see. I do not believe in anything. GOT IT? I hope.. because this is getting tired. :o

[Alric]

This gives you a ground from where you can act, you can label, you can be confident. But the same goes for every woo belief, they naturally pretend that their beliefs explain.

I really dislike post-modernism and relativism.

In science you not only label. You also develop and mechanism or theory that provides testable predictions and are consistent with other theories.

Woo believes, religions, etc, have nothing of the sort. Only word games that have no predictive value in the real world. Oh. Also they like to say epistemology a lot.

[Robin]

I even claim that it is futile to ad the layer about "whats the world made of". It is completely unnecessary.
I agree, that is why Materialists generally don't do it.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I really dislike post-modernism and relativism.

In science you not only label. You also develop and mechanism or theory that provides testable predictions and are consistent with other theories.

Woo believes, religions, etc, have nothing of the sort. Only word games that have no predictive value in the real world. Oh. Also they like to say epistemology a lot.

My vision is not post-modernist, nor is relativist. Science is not a body of beliefs, but a set of tools. That said, yes, those mechanisms and theoretical approaches are what distinguish it from other attempts to describe our world. And yes, woo beliefs, religions and etc have nothing like that.

Now, the intriguing part is why oh why some people in the forum react so predictable when dealing with someone who "apparently" does not share their world view? It is a paranoid attitude, sorry if this sounds offensive, but it is true.

I state that I do not need an ontological commitment, that science is a set of tools, that all we have, and can have are descriptions and some people react as if I were talking about mind super powers and souls... :eye-poppi Come on! I exhort you to give the benefit of the doubt and ask questions, instead of label at first sight!

[Piscivore]

Seems like you are just saying the god concept is real. That is not the same as saying gods are real.But why is it not? Sure, I get that "the believers" don't think so, but why do they get to define it?

As a metaphor, consider Dorothy. If you asked her who the Wizard of Oz was while she was on her way to retrieve the Wicked Witch's broomstick, she'd tell you he was a giant green all-powerful head. That's what she was serving. She probably would not have done something so hazardous for a small little Kansas snake oil peddler, but that's what she did in actuallity.

Similarly, the believers pray to, build churches for, and donate money to what they think is an omnipotent, omnipresent, merciful supernatural being. In reality "the man behind the curtain" is a corporate, subjective, and consentualy created entity that dwells in their heads and acts through their actions.

So evidence for god beliefs and god concepts is different than evidence for gods exists.
Only if you define them as separate things. If you define it as something that must have an objective, independant physical manifestation, yes, you are right. But is that the only possibility?

Anyway, I've said that what I think is going on with the "god concept" is categorically different from just "concepts" in general. No one I'm aware of has ever felt compelled to build a temple for the number thirty-seven.

Would you care to answer the question related to personal identity?

The discussion with Beth ends with post #1308 on page 33 in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101366&page=33). You'll do best to work back from there rather than try to go forward from wherever it starts. The points got clearer in the end and were repeated a lot in the middle. Beth may have had more to say but she's temporarily limited in typing due to a finger injury.
Thanks, I'll read it tommorow.

[Piscivore]

I know this question was meant for Piscivore; I apologize if I'm jumping into your discussion inappropriately (I'm still very much a newbie here).

Jump right in, no apology necessary. Welcome to the forum!

[Skeptic Ginger]

I know this question was meant for Piscivore; I apologize if I'm jumping into your discussion inappropriately (I'm still very much a newbie here). But I think I can suggest a couple of examples that might fit the bill of something that is non-physical and yet exists.

The first one is the set of imaginary numbers in mathematics--for example, "i", which is defined as the square root of -1. By definition, negative numbers cannot be square-rooted, since squaring any number yields a positive number (or 0, if you're squaring 0). Yet, we somehow still have "i".

The other example is related to Piscivore's example of dreams. Any fictional story or character obviously has no physical reality--for example, no extraordinary detective named Sherlock Holmes who had a sidekick named Watson ever existed in the physical world. Yet the fictional stories created in people's minds manifest in the physical world--...The fact we have an imagination is not evidence the things we imagine exist. And the same is true for math. Would it exist if we weren't here? No. None of that supports the fact that if we imagine gods that is somehow evidence of gods.

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
Only if you define them as separate things. If you define it as something that must have an objective, independant physical manifestation, yes, you are right. But is that the only possibility?You can define gods as imaginary things people imagine.

I can say anything I can think of exists in my thoughts. So what?

God believers do not have that concept of gods. They have a concept of gods as being outside of pure imagination. So I'm really not sure why you are off in this irrelevant side track.

..Anyway, I've said that what I think is going on with the "god concept" is categorically different from just "concepts" in general. No one I'm aware of has ever felt compelled to build a temple for the number thirty-seven.Then you believe Zeus exists? Golden calf gods exist? Vishnu exists?

..Would you care to answer the question related to personal identity?If I knew what you meant.

In the meantime, it might be useful to read what I posted about what is a conclusion and what is evidence and why conclusions are not evidence.

[Piscivore]

The fact we have an imagination is not evidence the things we imagine exist. And the same is true for math. Would it exist if we weren't here? No.
You're playing with two different senses of the word exist here, SG.

"The fact we have an imagination is not evidence the things we imagine [subsist as independent, objective entities]."

"And the same is true for math. Would it [subsist as a concept in our minds] if we weren't here? No." (Further implying since we are here, it does.)

None of that supports the fact that if we imagine gods that is somehow evidence of gods.
Not if one keeps using that same, tired, traditional, incorrect view of "gods" that you can't seem to look away from.

[Piscivore]

You can define gods as imaginary things people imagine.

I can say anything I can think of exists in my thoughts. So what?
So what happens when you share that thought with someone else?

God believers do not have that concept of gods. They have a concept of gods as being outside of pure imagination.
So what? F[rule X] them. They don't get to run the show just because they are blinded by their misconceptions.

So I'm really not sure why you are off in this irrelevant side track.
You're asking me to believe that the only possible Wizard of Oz is the big green floating head, and I'm trying to tell you about the man behind the curtain.

Then you believe Zeus exists? Golden calf gods exist? Vishnu exists?
Yes. Not as independent, objective entities but as subjective, dependent, created entites. Humans made the gods they pretend to serve. The idea was concieved by a human, bred by humans, modified by humans, served by humana, and acts through humans. Nonetheless, for all of this, it is greater than any one human, and is not destroyed by any one human's disbelief.

If I knew what you meant.
Do you think your conciousness exists seperately from your brain?
Do you think what "you" are is different from your conciousness?

In the meantime, it might be useful to read what I posted about what is a conclusion and what is evidence and why conclusions are not evidence.
I will, tomorrow, I promise.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm at a loss trying to understand the logic of your view here, Piscivore.

When you get time, (no hurry), could you define what you mean by the word, 'god'? In particular, how is an imagined god any different from an imagined Harry Potter?

[dglas]

Actually, Pisc. You should start a new thread.

[Robin]

I know this question was meant for Piscivore; I apologize if I'm jumping into your discussion inappropriately (I'm still very much a newbie here). But I think I can suggest a couple of examples that might fit the bill of something that is non-physical and yet exists.

The first one is the set of imaginary numbers in mathematics--for example, "i", which is defined as the square root of -1. By definition, negative numbers cannot be square-rooted, since squaring any number yields a positive number (or 0, if you're squaring 0). Yet, we somehow still have "i".

The other example is related to Piscivore's example of dreams. Any fictional story or character obviously has no physical reality--for example, no extraordinary detective named Sherlock Holmes who had a sidekick named Watson ever existed in the physical world. Yet the fictional stories created in people's minds manifest in the physical world--a person may write his idea down and have it published as a book, movie, or TV show. If a story becomes popular enough, fans may create websites devoted to it, or even organize conventions at which they can gather with other fans to discuss that particular work of fiction. The story itself has no physical reality, but the books (or movie scripts, reels of film, etc) do. Events surrounding the idea (fan conventions, etc) occur in the real world, and obviously all the readers/viewers of the story exist. Furthermore, we can categorize statements about fictional works as true or false. To continue with the Sherlock Holmes example, we can say that "Sherlock Holmes lived at 221B Baker Street" is true and that "Sherlock Holmes had pink hair" is false. (I believe Steven Pinker discussed the concept of making objectively true or false statements about fictional characters--I think he even used Sherlock Holmes as an example--in one of his books, but I honestly can't remember which one. It might be "The Stuff of Thought", but I could be wrong.)
In other words abstract or imaginary.

[Hokulele]

To briefly comment on the discussion between Piscivore and skeptigirl, which is more real, "Piscivore" and "skeptigirl" as we know them in this forum, or the people behind the keyboards? Technically, "Piscivore" is just a concept, not necessarily a real person, as we cannot know whether the opinions expressed here are truly the views of the man/woman/Cthuloid behind the keyboard. And yet, here we are reacting to "Piscivore" as if it were real. Similarly, "god" may be a convenient avatar for many to hide behind when expressing opinions that may or may not be truly theirs, but are still useful for a reason. Is this "god" any less real?

[dglas]

To briefly comment on the discussion between Piscivore and skeptigirl, which is more real, "Piscivore" and "skeptigirl" as we know them in this forum, or the people behind the keyboards? Technically, "Piscivore" is just a concept, not necessarily a real person, as we cannot know whether the opinions expressed here are truly the views of the man/woman/Cthuloid behind the keyboard. And yet, here we are reacting to "Piscivore" as if it were real. Similarly, "god" may be a convenient avatar for many to hide behind when expressing opinions that may or may not be truly theirs, but are still useful for a reason. Is this "god" any less real?

Piscivore is Cod.
But is he/she/it an abstraction or an emergent property?
Something's fishy here....

[Hokulele]

Piscivore is Cod.
But is he/she/it an abstraction or an emergent property?
Something's fishy here....


Submergent, I'd say.

[CFLarsen]

I'm at a loss trying to understand the logic of your view here, Piscivore.

When you get time, (no hurry), could you define what you mean by the word, 'god'? In particular, how is an imagined god any different from an imagined Harry Potter?

Can't you just answer the questions?

What happens when you share that thought with someone else?

Do you think your consciousness exists separately from your brain?

Do you think what "you" are is different from your consciousness?

Nothing in these questions requires you to understand Piscivore's point. They are all about your point.

[Alric]

I am still waiting for any evidence for something beyond the physical. Barring some word games that truthfully are not convincing at all.

[Piscivore]

Can't you just answer the questions?

What happens when you share that thought with someone else?

Do you think your consciousness exists separately from your brain?

Do you think what "you" are is different from your consciousness?

Nothing in these questions requires you to understand Piscivore's point. They are all about your point.

Claus, she and I are having a perfectly pleasant discussion, and she is under no obligation to answer anything she does not want to. Please stop trying to bully her, especially on my behalf.

I'm at a loss trying to understand the logic of your view here, Piscivore.
If you will bear with me, I think I have to lay some foundation first, and if you wouldn't mind I think it really would help if you did think about and try to answer those questions. I really am going somewhere with them.

When you get time, (no hurry), could you define what you mean by the word, 'god'? In particular, how is an imagined god any different from an imagined Harry Potter?
Well, I feel I've done so already, repeatedly and at length. But I'm ovbviously not getting it across. I think we are running afoul of a few differences in basic premises, and I'd like to root those out first.

[CFLarsen]

Claus, she and I are having a perfectly pleasant discussion, and she is under no obligation to answer anything she does not want to. Please stop trying to bully her, especially on my behalf.

If you ask questions, don't you want answers?

Or do you merely discuss for the sake of discussing?

[Piscivore]

To briefly comment on the discussion between Piscivore and skeptigirl, which is more real, "Piscivore" and "skeptigirl" as we know them in this forum, or the people behind the keyboards? Technically, "Piscivore" is just a concept, not necessarily a real person, as we cannot know whether the opinions expressed here are truly the views of the man/woman/Cthuloid behind the keyboard. And yet, here we are reacting to "Piscivore" as if it were real. Similarly, "god" may be a convenient avatar for many to hide behind when expressing opinions that may or may not be truly theirs, but are still useful for a reason. Is this "god" any less real?
Exactly.

Skeptigirl, whether you know it or not, you are participating in creating God just by your talking about him in this thread. Actually, the very fact that you are having trouble looking beyond the traditional qulaities of the god with which you were probably raised argues in my favour. Why would this concept be so strong in your head if "god' were just a belief? You don't believe in it.

Piscivore is Cod.
But is he/she/it an abstraction or an emergent property?
Something's fishy here....

Submergent, I'd say.
:D

[Piscivore]

If you ask questions, don't you want answers?
I may want them, but I have no right to demand them. I'm not an inquisitor or a toddler.

Or do you merely discuss for the sake of discussing?
Is that an unknown concept to you?

Please go take your games elsewhere. You've done enough damage here already.

[notheist]

Exactly.

Skeptigirl, whether you know it or not, you are participating in creating God just by your talking about him in this thread. Actually, the very fact that you are having trouble looking beyond the traditional qulaities of the god with which you were probably raised argues in my favour. Why would this concept be so strong in your head if "god' were just a belief? You don't believe in it.


:D

So. if I think of a jelly donut, it will EXIST? NO?.. But Why not?... I thought of it.

What you are not getting is the concept of existence. Your concept of god is just in YOUR head and as such can't help or hurt anyone but you. ERGO the only thing that is exist is your idea of god. not an actual entity.

[Piscivore]

So. if I think of a jelly donut, it will EXIST? NO?.. But Why not?... I thought of it.
Not outside of your own head, no. That's why more than one person is required.

What you are not getting is the concept of existence. Your concept of god is just in YOUR head and as such can't help or hurt anyone but you.
Quite so.

ERGO the only thing that is exist is your idea of god. not an actual entity.
What do you mean by "actual entity"?

[CFLarsen]

I may want them, but I have no right to demand them. I'm not an inquisitor or a toddler.

But do you want them?

Is that an unknown concept to you?

Not at all. I just find it a futile waste of time.

Please go take your games elsewhere. You've done enough damage here already.

Asking people to answer pertinent questions is not a game. To me, at least.

[Piscivore]

Not at all. I just find it a futile waste of time.

Then please don't let me waste it any further. Buh-bye.

[notheist]

Not outside of your own head, no. That's why more than one person is required.


Quite so.


What do you mean by "actual entity"?

No matter how many people you have, it still won't get you a donut.


Imaginary stuff is of little value, except maybe entertainment.

What you are having trouble imagining is the idea your god idea has no worth to anyone but you, so you got to get others to embrace it. Sorry but I and many others sure don't need the god idea, and in fact that freedom makes our lives more fulfilling. But if a god idea floats your boat, go for it, just don't kid yourself it useful to anyone but you.

[Piscivore]

No matter how many people you have, it still won't get you a donut.
You haven't read my earlier post in this thread, I never said it would. This is why I asked you for your definition of "actual entity". I'm not claiming "god" is an independent, objective entity, like your donut.

And, just to be pedantic, the idea in your head can get you a donut, only you have to make it happen with your own hands. Or get someone else to do it for you. I don't think this intermediate step invalidates the notion that the idea led to the realisation. Michealangelo had to concieve of his David before he could carve it, yes? I think it is ludicrous to expect anyone to think that thinking about a donut will make one materialise, yet I seem to see people arguing against that notion.

Imaginary stuff is of little value, except maybe entertainment.
"Imaginary stuff" can also inspire, enrage, incite, and pacify. Don't sell imagination short.

What you are having trouble imagining is the idea your god idea has no worth to anyone but you, so you got to get others to embrace it. Sorry but I and many others sure don't need the god idea, and in fact that freedom makes our lives more fulfilling. But if a god idea floats your boat, go for it, just don't kid yourself it useful to anyone but you.
That's amusing, you assume I'm some sort of theist. :)

[CFLarsen]

Then please don't let me waste it any further. Buh-bye.

So, you ask questions just for the sake of asking questions.

I'll keep that in mind.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Imaginary stuff is of little value, except maybe entertainment.

I hope that's a joke. "imaginary stuff" is all we have and will ever have. Every thinking process is imagination, every musical composition, every experiment, every theory, all science and every prediction comes from our thinking processes... yep thats right... pure imagination!

BTW, in this thread, it is because that that so many temples exist, churches, wars, complete ideologies come from imagining gods. How come "imaginary stuff is of little value" :eek::eek::eek::eek:

[Piscivore]

The discussion with Beth ends with post #1308 on page 33 in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=101366&page=33). You'll do best to work back from there rather than try to go forward from wherever it starts. The points got clearer in the end and were repeated a lot in the middle. Beth may have had more to say but she's temporarily limited in typing due to a finger injury.

I don’t want to step on Beth’s toes, or get embroiled in the other thread right now, so I’ll try to keep this short.

In the case of the conclusion a thing is red because it looks red, the color of the thing is still the evidence.
Not quite, the experience of the colour of the thing is the evidence. That the thing is a certain colour is the conclusion.

Evidence is a physical thing. It exists.
Are we back to “exists” = “physical” now?

One can dissect the neuro sensory system in a person.
Indeed, and one will not find “red” there because it is a transitory pattern of firings of neurons, not the neurons themselves. The experience of red, and the experience of god, are not physical. They are not independent of the physical activity of the neurons, but they are not in themselves physical entities. You can map them, such as with Alric’s EEG, but “the map isn’t the territory”.

In the case of the red evidence, we have the red thing.
Here is your error repeated. The red thing is not evidence of red. The experience of “red’ is evidence that the thing is perceived as “red”. What the thing is, what shade of red it is, may be up for debate, but the experience of percieving the thing as "red" is evidence that there is a thing and that a quality is possess is reflecting light in the wavelengths humans have learned to call "red". Nothing more. It might not be conclusive, incontrovertable evidence, but it is evidence.

Contrariwise, Beth’s assertion that the experience of god is evidence of god is misleading and incorrect as well. What is experienced when most people say they “felt god” or “communed with god” is an emotional reaction to certain stimuli, such as attending church. This experience is evidence that the experiencer had an emotional reaction to something. Whether that “something” can be called “god” or not is up for debate and needs more evidence, but the experience is evidence that “something” does exist and a quality it possesses is engendering the experienced emotional response. It might not be conclusive, incontrovertable evidence, but it is evidence.

Therefore, it seems to me that both of you mixed up "evidences" and "conclusions". I don't think I am doing that.

ETA: Plumjam and I had a very similar discussion just a couple days ago, in the midst of a lot of other things. Starts here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3588514&postcount=151), if you are interested.

[lupus_in_fabula]

I hope that's a joke. "imaginary stuff" is all we have and will ever have. Every thinking process is imagination, every musical composition, every experiment, every theory, all science and every prediction comes from our thinking processes... yep thats right... pure imagination!

BTW, in this thread, it is because that that so many temples exist, churches, wars, complete ideologies come from imagining gods. How come "imaginary stuff is of little value" :eek::eek::eek::eek:

By the same token… saying “imaginary stuff is all we have” is pure imagination too. Thus we can never know it that’s actually so, or if your rebuttal is nonsense. I would say that such way of arguing is pretty darn useless.

[notheist]

"Imaginary stuff" can also inspire, enrage, incite, and pacify. Don't sell imagination short.

I do not, in fact I make my living as a designer and artist. But also know the images in my head are nothing untill I give them physical form. An artist who is all imagination and no craft is not much of an artist.

[SirPhilip]

I do not, in fact I make my living as a designer and artist. But also know the images in my head are nothing untill I give them physical form. An artist who is all imagination and no craft is not much of an artist. Quite. Art doesn't actually exist, but well developed visual communication skills (http://www.ralphmcquarrie.com). It is actually artists who do deliver on meaningful experiences outside the normal, and can also affect a deep shift of judgment about the way things work (such as propaganda), and the way people are psychologically.

[CFLarsen]

Quite. Art doesn't actually exist, but well developed visual communication skills (http://www.ralphmcquarrie.com). It is actually artists who do deliver on meaningful experiences outside the normal, and can also affect a deep shift of judgment about the way things work (such as propaganda), and the way people are psychologically.

The same can be said for advertising.

Do you think there is a difference between art and advertising?

[Piscivore]

I do not, in fact I make my living as a designer and artist. But also know the images in my head are nothing untill I give them physical form.

Well, now we're back to talking about stories. Stories exist, but they are not physical. Sometimes they are contained in a book, sometimes not. Even when they are, the map is not the territory. Further, stories can grow and change as they are spread. They become bigger than what was originally in the originator's head. I'd ask you to refer to the many variant versions of "The Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy". Douglas Adams is dead, but the story lives on. It has grown, changed, and spread far across the globe from the idea that once dwelt in his head.

If you think that this doesn't apply to stories encoded in fixed form like a book, try Googling "Harry Potter fanfic".

ETA: On further reflection, I think you're mistaken to say "the images in my head are nothing untill I give them physical form". I think it would be more accurate to say "the images in my head are nothing untill I share them."

[Alric]

So, is the argument that god is like a fantasy story?

I agree!

[Piscivore]

So, is the argument that god is like a fantasy story?

I agree!

Do you think stories exist?

[Alric]

Do you think stories exist?

Of course not. That is why they are called "stories".

[SirPhilip]

The same can be said for advertising. Do you think there is a difference between art and advertising? Hm! Hard one (http://world.guns.ru/handguns/beretta93r-4.jpg). Maybe.

[Piscivore]

Of course not. That is why they are called "stories".

I think you need to read up a bit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_literature).

[CFLarsen]

Hm! Hard one (http://world.guns.ru/handguns/beretta93r-4.jpg). Maybe.

What is the difference between art and advertising, then?

[Tricky]

What is the difference between art and advertising, then?
Art does not try to sell something external to the art. Obviously, advertising can contain art.

[CFLarsen]

Art does not try to sell something external to the art. Obviously, advertising can contain art.

Patrons of the arts never demanded that they be portrayed favorably?

You don't want to go down that road, do you?

[Tricky]

Patrons of the arts never demanded that they be portrayed favorably?
Demanding that a product be presented favorably would make it advertising, wouldn't it? It is not the patron creating the art. And I said advertising could (and usually does) contain art.

You don't want to go down that road, do you?
Not here. That would be a bad derail, but perhaps another thread.

[Piscivore]

Demanding that a product be presented favorably would make it advertising, wouldn't it? It is not the patron creating the art. And I said advertising could (and usually does) contain art.


Not here. That would be a bad derail, but perhaps another thread.

Here's one (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110427).

ETA: And I'm not sure I think that this is the difference, Tricky:
Art does not try to sell something external to the art.

[Tricky]

Art vs. Advertising derail relocated here. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3602272#post3602272)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Piscivore, I'll have to address the rest of your post later, however regarding evidence vs conclusions which are not evidence,

If you have some version of reality like we are all in the Matrix, then say so now so we can end this discussion as that is not the view I hold and there is no sense going further. However, if that isn't what you are saying, then read on.

This could get a little tricky. The experience is the means by which you detect the evidence. The red thing is still the evidence.

For example, when you observe the checkerboard optical illusion (http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html) one light square in the shadow is really the same shade of gray as one dark square not in the shadow. In this case your experience is faulty, but the evidence does not change.


(BTW: I did note in my discussion with Beth that if you were examining the sensory system, the experience was evidence in that case so don't get sidetracked on that different issue. Everything can be evidence depending on what you consider it evidence of. So for this discussion we need to stick to what is evidence in the case of the red thing and what is the conclusion in the case of the red thing.)


And it looks like this is a side track so feel free to take it to the thread it started in with Beth. I'll see that it was bumped and reply there.

[articulett]

My vision is not post-modernist, nor is relativist. Science is not a body of beliefs, but a set of tools. That said, yes, those mechanisms and theoretical approaches are what distinguish it from other attempts to describe our world. And yes, woo beliefs, religions and etc have nothing like that.

Now, the intriguing part is why oh why some people in the forum react so predictable when dealing with someone who "apparently" does not share their world view? It is a paranoid attitude, sorry if this sounds offensive, but it is true.

I state that I do not need an ontological commitment, that science is a set of tools, that all we have, and can have are descriptions and some people react as if I were talking about mind super powers and souls... :eye-poppi Come on! I exhort you to give the benefit of the doubt and ask questions, instead of label at first sight!


I don't think anyone is paranoid... I just think they are trying to make sense of what you are saying... you seem to feel a sense of superiority about something or other compared to those who don't "share your world view". I was just wondering if anyone other than you knows what that world view is... because it sounds like you are bad mouthing the best explanation we have similar to the way creationists bad mouth evolution. And you get defensive when I say as much and give a lot of eye-rolling language... like I'm too stupid to understand. I'm not stupid; I think if you were actually conveying something, I'd know--or someone could translate. You sure haven't given us anything to distinguish you from, say, Tom Cruise, and his recent Scientology nothingness.

I think the problem is in your words, not in anybody else's ability to understand. I think you make it clear that you don't share the scientific world view--just like creationists do... while being very vague about what you do believe, because you know there is no empirical data to support it or means of testing it. As long as you don't say what it is, you can keep pretending in your head that it's better than the "mundane world view" of the rest of the skeptics.

[Piscivore]

If you have some version of reality like we are all in the Matrix, then say so now...

I do not.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I think you make it clear that you don't share the scientific world view...

And you claim to understand!! I'm very sorry Articulett, I don't want to be rude, but you don't understand a bit of what I say. Ask people who do understand BEFORE writing your strawmans. Ok? Even Pixy understands that I'm somehow a naturalist and that everything I believe in is compatible with what she, as a hard core materialist, believes in.

If you want to understand go to the thread in which I expose my ideas and read it TO THE END. Now... please cease your continuous (and nonsensical) "attacks" on my views (better put, your interpretations due to your bias against me).

Please? :)

[Tricky]

Even Pixy understands that I'm a naturalist and that everything I believe in is compatible with what she, as a hard core materialist, believes in.
What then is the difference between a naturalist and a hard-core materialist?

BTW, Pixy is male, as far as I know.

[Robin]

What then is the difference between a naturalist and a hard-core materialist?
Nothing. If BDZ wants to be consistent he should reject naturalism too.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

double post

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

What then is the difference between a naturalist and a hard-core materialist?

BTW, Pixy is male, as far as I know.

I'm not strictly a naturalist, let see.

Naturalism:

The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.In my case, I would rephrase it as "a system of thought holding that phenomena is describable in terms of sets of relational rules", to fit my views.

Some hard-core materialists in the forum have very concrete answer to some questions, for example: when asked about whats the world made of? they say "matter" or "everything is material". I believe the question is meaningless. That's another difference between my views and materialists.

Now, the difference between naturalism and materialism is that the former is an assumption about reality being explainable via concrete set of laws, while the last one implies an ontological commitment.

Regarding Pixy, in the end it is irrelevant if is a "she" or a "he" Pixy is intelligent and I have learned a lot discussing with he/she.

Nothing. If BDZ wants to be consistent he should reject naturalism too.

I'm interested to know why do you think this, but yes, the corrections are above. They might be subtle, but the consequences are vast.

[Robin]

Naturalism:

The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.
And how does this differ from what d'Holbach, the Churchlands, Daniel Dennett or Richard Dawkins for example would say?
Some hard-core materialists in the forum have very concrete answer to some questions, for example: when asked about whats the world made of? they say "matter" or "everything is material". I believe the question is meaningless. That's another difference between my views and materialists.
But as I have asked you before (and you have never answered), is it reasonable to define a philosophy like Materialism in terms of the statements of some unspecified Materialists on JREF.

And in any case, I bet if you were to go further and ask "what is matter" or "what does 'material' mean" you would probably find that they mean things that can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.
I'm interested to know why do you think this, but yes, the corrections are above. They might be subtle, but the consequences are vast.
I would be interested in knowing what you think the differences are (apart, that is from the comments of some unspecified posters in JREF)?

How does d'Holbach's position differ from the one you put? How do the Churchland's position differ? Now the Churchlands' position differs a lot from d'Holbach's position a couple of centuries earlier, but they both have in common that:

all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.

[Tricky]

In my case, I would rephrase it as "a system of thought holding that phenomena is describable in terms of sets of relational rules", to fit my views.

Some hard-core materialists in the forum have very concrete answer to some questions, for example: when asked about whats the world made of? they say "matter" or "everything is material". I believe the question is meaningless. That's another difference between my views and materialists.
I can't see much of a difference. Materialists, as you describe them, give a word for the "relational rules" and that word is "matter". You don't. But you agree that there are objective, observable, definable rules. It sounds to me like it is merely a question of semantics, unless you argue that there is something that exists that is different from matter in its behavior. As far as I can tell, you do not.

Now, the difference between naturalism and materialism is that the former is an assumption about reality being explainable via concrete set of laws, while the last one implies an ontological commitment.
I don't see that these are mutually exclusive. They seem to be talking about different things entirely. Are you saying that materialists deny an ontological commitment? Speaking as a soft-core materialist, I'm not even sure what that would entail.

Regarding Pixy, in the end it is irrelevant if is a "she" or a "he" Pixy is intelligent and I have learned a lot discussing with he/she.
Yes, Pixy is amazing and usually makes no comments about gender, but if you try to flirt, he'll let you know. I know from experience. :D

[Robin]

In my case, I would rephrase it as "a system of thought holding that phenomena is describable in terms of sets of relational rules", to fit my views.
In any case you are making just as much an assumption as the one you accuse Materialist of making.

How do you know that all phenomena are describable in terms of sets of relational rules?

My personal definition for Materialism is:

1. Any event that is not deterministic is arbitrary.
2. Mental events and entities are functional composites of non-mental events and entities.

[Robin]

The true skeptical position is Positivism (or more generally Empricism):
"Every meaningful statement is, or is reducible to, a statement about conscious experience."

Until about a year or so ago I called myself a Positivist. But I have moved to the position of Materialism as described above.

[Robin]

And I would have to add to the previous definition of Positivism - "Probably".

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Thanks, because we can talk without resorting to ad hominems or strawmans or accusations. Pure intellectual talk, I like it.

I can't see much of a difference. Materialists, as you describe them, give a word for the "relational rules" and that word is "matter". You don't.

Not exactly. "Matter" is ontologically "what exists". In my case I stop before making an ontological commitment with any kind of "stuff". I believe that the question about "whats the world made of" is incoherent. We can describe parcels of phenomena, and phenomena is what we see, smell, touch, deduct (gravity, x rays, gamma rays, quarks). There are no "final constituents", no ontology other than our descriptive models and phenomena. The relational rules are about phenomena, not "objects".

But you agree that there are objective, observable, definable rules.

Yes, absolutely, there is something objective, beyond our beliefs, and our models attempt to describe "THAT". I see no divisions between "subjectivity" and "objectivity" both the "internal" and the "external" are part of the "same stuff" (my philosophy is monist, even when I believe there is nothing concrete or, again, "material" giving it cohesion).

It sounds to me like it is merely a question of semantics, unless you argue that there is something that exists that is different from matter in its behavior. As far as I can tell, you do not.

In a way it is semantics, but it is also more, as I hope it can be seen from above.

I don't see that these are mutually exclusive. They seem to be talking about different things entirely. Are you saying that materialists deny an ontological commitment? Speaking as a soft-core materialist, I'm not even sure what that would entail.

Not at all, on the contrary, I believe some materialists (well its more than a belief, they have expressed it countless times here in the JREF forums) make a strong commitment with an ontology that it is based on material objects. Something like "objects are real while souls are not" meaning objects are material and souls are immaterial. I refuse to take part on such dichotomies as I believe they come from religious thinking "the spiritual and material worlds". As I have said, I believe a way out of dichotomies is to stop right before having to have an ontological commitment. BTW, it could be argued that my ontology are the "sets of relational rules" and "phenomena", but I believe these are immediately available (in contrast quarks and objects are constructs) and, to put them a name, "Primitives," from where everything else comes.

[SirPhilip]

What is the difference between art and advertising, then? Why, the same difference between sharing and selling! Although today an appreciation of these differences typically don't exist.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

How do you know that all phenomena are describable in terms of sets of relational rules?

My personal definition for Materialism is:

1. Any event that is not deterministic is arbitrary.
2. Mental events and entities are functional composites of non-mental events and entities.

Ah Robin! Now we are talking! (I believe I have answered to your questions many times but we haven't arrive to this level of understanding before) :)

I don't know all phenomena is describable, it is an assumption, a place from where you can start to deal with phenomena in a coherent, orderly fashion (doing science for example).

Regarding your definition, care to explain more about 1? because I like your 2, in fact I like it a lot (you didn't resort to the classic "mental events are material". Now, my question to you would be: Why keeping the name "materialism" when it is carrying so much history on its back? What "material" and "materialism" mean have changed countless times throughout history!

Take for instance "god", or "good" and "evil" I believe we skeptics should propose new terminology instead of using such words, generally speaking of course.

[Robin]

Not exactly. "Matter" is ontologically "what exists". In my case I stop before making an ontological commitment with any kind of "stuff".
But you have just made a very firm ontological commitment to the kind of stuff that behaves according to relational rules.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Until about a year or so ago I called myself a Positivist. But I have moved to the position of Materialism as described above.

Why? care to explain more?

[Paulhoff]

Take for instance "god", or "good" and "evil" I believe we skeptics should propose new terminology instead of using such words, generally speaking of course.
And should use new words from a to z.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

But you have just made a very firm ontological commitment to the kind of stuff that behaves according to relational rules.

Se above, quarks, objects, x rays and consciousness are constructs, deductions, the primitives are phenomena and such sets of relational rules. If you go further away (and yes, it can be done) you cease to relate to phenomena via language, and beyond language nothing can be said.

Tautological, I know, yet necessary sometimes. :)

[Serenity's Light]

Jump right in, no apology necessary. Welcome to the forum!

Thanks for the welcome!

The fact we have an imagination is not evidence the things we imagine exist. And the same is true for math. Would it exist if we weren't here? No. None of that supports the fact that if we imagine gods that is somehow evidence of gods.

I agree that the mere fact that we can imagine gods doesn't prove they exist. I'm not so sure about the "math wouldn't exist if we weren't here" point, though. Wouldn't the ratio of a circle's circumfrence to its diameter remain the same whether or not there were any humans around to measure the quantity and give it a label? (I guess this is sort of like the old "If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?" question.)

And as I mentioned before, some of the more esoteric mathematical concepts, like imaginary numbers, do actually bring up an interesting point. By definition, you can't take the square root of a negative number. Yet, the quantity "i", which is defined as the square root of -1, exists. If a number can defy mathematical laws but still exist, then perhaps a deity can defy physical laws but still exist. This gets back to the root of Piggy's original assertion, namely that we can say not only "God doesn't exist", but the much stronger "God can't exist".

Finally, since this thread was originally supposed to be about questions to Piggy, I have one to ask just out of curiosity: Piggy, what evidence would be required to make you doubt your strong atheist position?

[articulett]

I still can't tell what he means when he says he is skeptical of the materialist world view, but he is a naturalist. He says he has a different world view than the materialists. I consider myself both... and a rationalist and a skeptic. I don't believe in things for which there is no measurable evidence... no things which are indistinguishable from delusions. I believe there is are objective truths...

Supposely BDZ is different somehow and skeptical of materialism... but I can't tell what the hell it means. Maybe I'm skeptical of materialism.... what would that mean? Is he like Interesting Ian who believes there are natural explanations for things like souls or something that we just haven't discovered yet? Or does he just not know or care about the brain and how it generates consciousness? Or does he think the stuff we don't understand implies something that he's not saying or can't convey?

Pixy is smart... When he appears, I'll try and ask him again. I think I remember the thread where he tried to explain it... or was that Ich? But I couldn't make sense of it... kind of like with Piscivore, I think on this thread. They are inferring something-- but I don't know what it is or how it differes from what the majority of us understand as naturalism/materialism/physicalism. Is it something worth finding out about... or is it just semantics like creationists use to put down those who threaten what they want to believe?

I understand that he's skeptical of materialism... but I have no idea if it's worth it to try and figure out why. Clearly he thinks this is a good way to be... but I can't make sense of it.

I still think he's saying nothing--just using words to feel like he has "higher truth" than those "materialists" that "don't share his world view" (his words.)

[Robin]

Ah Robin! Now we are talking! (I believe I have answered to your questions many times but we haven't arrive to this level of understanding before) :)
I believe we have come close. Remember I was the only one who did not leap to conclusions about your "Theoretical Framework" and assume you were talking about Solipsism or Idealism?

I compared it, you will recall, to Compte's or Mach's Positivism.
I don't know all phenomena is describable, it is an assumption, a place from where you can start to deal with phenomena in a coherent, orderly fashion (doing science for example).
Which is comparable to Quinean pragmatism.
Regarding your definition, care to explain more about 1?
First there is the rather simple consideration of incorporating the fact that there might be real randomness in the universe.

The second is that we cannot assume that there is a unified mathematical model that will predict any observable phenomenon. It may be that there is, but we cannot assume that there is.

Take for example the old Interesting Ian question "are qualia causally efficacious?" I cannot say for sure whether they are or whether they are simply a side effect. If they were then it might be possible that there could be no mathematical model that could precisely predict behaviour from brain chemistry.

But even if there were no such model it would still be the case that behaviour follows deterministically from brain chemistry (ie quale follows deterministically from brain states, then behaviour follows deterministically from the quale), or to the extent that it did not, behaviour would be arbitrary.
because I like your 2, in fact I like it a lot (you didn't resort to the classic "mental events are material".
Or the "mental events reduce to physical events". Both are statements devoid of meaning, unless "material" and "physical" are also defined.
Now, my question to you would be: Why keeping the name "materialism" when it is carrying so much history on its back? What "material" and "materialism" mean have changed countless times throughout history!
Because I don't agree that Materialism has changed significantly since d'Holbach at least. d'Holbach denied that we could know the elements of matter, only the effect it had on our conscious experience. He simply stated that everything, including human minds behaved according to the laws of nature. The Churchlands say much the same thing.

In any case the history is important, as I said before those who ignore philosophy are doomed to repeat it. The first part of my definition, for example, comes from an argument by Hume 200 years ago,

And finally I believe my definition to be a synthesis of what modern era Materialists (18th century onwards) have been saying.
Take for instance "god", or "good" and "evil" I believe we skeptics should propose new terminology instead of using such words, generally speaking of course.
Or at least get a clear idea of what we are talking about when we use them. In some ways this will simplify the argument.

From my point of view God, Dualism and Idealism all refer to the claim that there is at least one mental entity that is not a functional composite of non-mental entities.

Libertarian free will refers to the claim that there is at least one event that is neither deterministic nor random.

When speaking of "good" it would be great if people would refrain from conflating the form of this word that requires an adverb and that which does not.

[Robin]

Why? care to explain more?
Actually as a result of something hammegk said. He said that Positivism was a cop-out and basically he is right.

It is perfect as a starting point, but if we were not able to move beyond it and say something meaningful about the world then philosophy would be useless.

Also the debate that has gone on in JREF about libertarian free will and the dichotomy between the deterministic and the random has been part of my move. Seeing this argument in Hume more than 2 centuries ago was interesting.

Basically it was brought on by the train of thought started by the question "what is meant by 'physical'?'.

[Robin]

Se above, quarks, objects, x rays and consciousness are constructs, deductions, the primitives are phenomena and such sets of relational rules. If you go further away (and yes, it can be done) you cease to relate to phenomena via language, and beyond language nothing can be said.

Tautological, I know, yet necessary sometimes. :)
More accurately quarks, radiation, particles etc are elements in a mathematical model used to predict observations. Since mathematics is the most precise language we have then these things are the most precise thing we can say about or universe.

If there is no unified mathematical model that describes every observable then there are some things that we could not precisely say about the universe.

[CFLarsen]

Why, the same difference between sharing and selling! Although today an appreciation of these differences typically don't exist.

Moved to here. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3603116#post3603116)

[Piscivore]

... kind of like with Piscivore, I think on this thread. They are inferring something-- but I don't know what it is or how it differes from what the majority of us understand as naturalism/materialism/physicalism.

Well, what I'm talking about is completely grounded in naturalism/materialism/physicalism, if that helps.

[SirPhilip]

Moved to here. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3603116#post3603116) No, I'm the artist, you get moved by me.

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/5841/larsonismsmassvolumedf6.png

[SirPhilip]

I understand that he's skeptical of materialism...
Well, I was also, until a piano was dropped on my head..

..but I have no idea if it's worth it to try and figure out why. Clearly he thinks this is a good way to be... but I can't make sense of it. I still think he's saying nothing--just using words to feel like he has "higher truth" than those "materialists" that "don't share his world view" (his words.) My dear, nothing is worse than being married to everyone you talk to, and given how helpless you are to be nothing else, your disbelief in anything good makes perfect sense.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Articulett, this is an honest answer, not a bully one. Thanks for that.

I still can't tell what he means when he says he is skeptical of the materialist world view, but he is a naturalist. He says he has a different world view than the materialists. I consider myself both... and a rationalist and a skeptic. I don't believe in things for which there is no measurable evidence... no things which are indistinguishable from delusions. I believe there is are objective truths...

Then we believe the same, except for the fact that I don't believe in that the world is "made of matter" or that "everything is material". These concepts are naively expressed as "the ultimate truth" by some members of the JREF forums (and elsewhere of course).

Now, sure, this might sound as a bold claim BUT ONLY IF you consider that I'm implying here the common opposite, this is, that I'm someone who believes in "immaterial stuff" like souls or supernatural things like mental superpowers. Well, I CLEARLY DON'T, first of all, because I do not believe in that duality, it is completely illogical, kind of a "gift" from the past (dark ages and religious theological arguments about the "world of god" and "the world of men" which needed to be as different as possible).

Supposely BDZ is different somehow and skeptical of materialism... but I can't tell what the hell it means. Maybe I'm skeptical of materialism.... what would that mean? Is he like Interesting Ian who believes there are natural explanations for things like souls or something that we just haven't discovered yet? Or does he just not know or care about the brain and how it generates consciousness? Or does he think the stuff we don't understand implies something that he's not saying or can't convey?

Ok, first of all, I'm not "skeptical of materialism" just skeptical about the "final constituent" or a "final substance". I also believe that some materialists (not scientists, not professional philosophers, but common people) still carry all the baggage that was abandoned like two centuries ago about matter being something solid (which obviously "really really existed" as opposed to something not solid "read immaterial" which was "imaginary stuff".

I hope this clear things up once and for all!! :)

I understand that he's skeptical of materialism... but I have no idea if it's worth it to try and figure out why. Clearly he thinks this is a good way to be... but I can't make sense of it...

... I still think he's saying nothing--just using words to feel like he has "higher truth" than those "materialists" that "don't share his world view" (his words.)

I hope it is transparent by now. If it is not, ask questions, don't fight strawmans, nor accuse me of believing in things I don't. Ok? There are more than the materialists, the dualists and the idealists points of view, and I'm sure you are capable to understand that.

[Alric]

I think whatever you believe in is so ambiguous and non-parsimonious that it allows you to believe in whatever you want. Same goes for Piscivore.

[Piscivore]

I think whatever you believe in is so ambiguous and non-parsimonious that it allows you to believe in whatever you want. Same goes for Piscivore.

Only because you can't see what I'm talking about. And you've explicitly declined to discuss it further. Parsimony is very much part of my thinking. And if what I say seems ambiguous, it is only my failure to communicate something that's counterintuitive and counter to the most basic elements of most people's earliest unculturation.

ETA: I'm just going to take a wild-ass guess here and surmise that you've not been a skeptic all that long, Alric?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I believe we have come close. Remember I was the only one who did not leap to conclusions about your "Theoretical Framework" and assume you were talking about Solipsism or Idealism?

I remember, but I have the feeling that sometimes you felt that I didn't answer concrete questions of yours. But I did tried, so, maybe it was about our different discourses, because with these last posts of yours I can see that we think alike in lots of things.

First there is the rather simple consideration of incorporating the fact that there might be real randomness in the universe.

Interesting, as opposed to classical mechanics determinism? you know, the assumption that if you know the position and trajectories of every atom you could predict absolutely everything. Is this related to some inherent chaos?

The second is that we cannot assume that there is a unified mathematical model that will predict any observable phenomenon. It may be that there is, but we cannot assume that there is.

Well, it is a common assumption among most science, particularly theoretical physicists, that there can be one big theory to rule them all. I'm with you in that it is not necessarily the case (in fact I do believe that it is not the case).

Take for example the old Interesting Ian question "are qualia causally efficacious?" I cannot say for sure whether they are or whether they are simply a side effect. If they were then it might be possible that there could be no mathematical model that could precisely predict behaviour from brain chemistry.

Too soon to tell, as I have repeatedly say to those who simply equate "consciousness = brain, nothing that we don't understand".

But even if there were no such model it would still be the case that behaviour follows deterministically from brain chemistry (ie quale follows deterministically from brain states, then behaviour follows deterministically from the quale), or to the extent that it did not, behaviour would be arbitrary.

I'm not sure I follow. For instance, those results in which the brain "chooses" before the individual is actually aware of that decision would indicate (IMO) that most reactions are, somehow, hardwired. But it is an hypercomplex topic, so I don't know.

Or the "mental events reduce to physical events". Both are statements devoid of meaning, unless "material" and "physical" are also defined.

Agreed. Furthermore, it is an oversimplification that ignores that there are no mental events located "inside the brain". The mind needs the brain as much as it needs an environment, for a start.

Because I don't agree that Materialism has changed significantly since d'Holbach at least. d'Holbach denied that we could know the elements of matter, only the effect it had on our conscious experience. He simply stated that everything, including human minds behaved according to the laws of nature. The Churchlands say much the same thing.

But you talk here about professionals. The average "hard core materialists" in our daily life (for example, some members of this forum) consistently demonstrate that they believe in "solid" matter, to have a clear opposite to "immaterial stuff" like souls and such kind of things.

This is why I'm so insistent about this "materialism" stuff. It is an old word that encompasses many more meanings that what it actually has. Lately matter means more like "some fussy state that we can predict" than that "solid, touchable, concrete stuff" that our ancestors believed in. But this is not evident for everybody.

From my point of view God, Dualism and Idealism all refer to the claim that there is at least one mental entity that is not a functional composite of non-mental entities.

Good, I like it.

Actually as a result of something hammegk said. He said that Positivism was a cop-out and basically he is right.

What do you mean by that?

Also the debate that has gone on in JREF about libertarian free will and the dichotomy between the deterministic and the random has been part of my move. Seeing this argument in Hume more than 2 centuries ago was interesting.

Im not aware of such debate. "libertarian free will" is what exactly?

Basically it was brought on by the train of thought started by the question "what is meant by 'physical'?'.

Which is a VERY good question BTW. As I said, I believe most "everyday people" take for granted that it is something solid (to put it in a word).

More accurately quarks, radiation, particles etc are elements in a mathematical model used to predict observations. Since mathematics is the most precise language we have then these things are the most precise thing we can say about or universe.

AGREED! Forms of description, which is why I insist (and maybe articulett will be able to understand now) to use "describe" instead of "explain" when dealing with theories.

If there is no unified mathematical model that describes every observable then there are some things that we could not precisely say about the universe.

Indeed. Now, the question is if it, even in principle, we can reach such mathematical model. I believe we can't as our descriptions are deeply tied to what we are. In other words, we can only think about certain things, and these are still limited by our biology.

[Alric]

Only because you can't see what I'm talking about. And you've explicitly declined to discuss it further.

Then say it. No metaphors. Just say it. The shorter the better. I'll say mine.

The material world is all there is. Consciousness is a pattern, that like constellations, only exist in some animal material brains.

That's it. Your turn.

[Piscivore]

From my point of view God, Dualism and Idealism all refer to the claim that there is at least one mental entity that is not a functional composite of non-mental entities.
The material world is all there is. Consciousness is a pattern, that like constellations, only exist in some animal material brains

Put in those terms, the god I'm talking about is a functional composite of mental entities (human conciousnesses) that are themselves functional composites of non-mental entities (nurons).

That's not strictly speaking accurate, but hopefully enlightening.

Alric, are those patterns that form consiousness physical? Remembering that an EEG map of them the pattern is not the pattern itself?

ETA: I'm not asking this to be a pest, or to be Claus. I think we have a difference in at least one of our basic premises, and I think yours is wrong.

[Alric]

Of course not. Patterns don't have mass.

You realize that there is no evidence whatsoever that what you propose does or could exist.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Then say it. No metaphors. Just say it. The shorter the better. I'll say mine.

The material world is all there is. Consciousness is a pattern, that like constellations, only exist in some animal material brains.

That's it. Your turn.

I know the question is for Piscivore but since you accused me of ambiguity and about being wordy I will paste here my answer (originally posted about 4 posts ago):

I believe that phenomena is describable in terms of sets of relational rules.

As you can see, yours is way more complex and requires several (big) assumptions. What is matter?, for instance, or how can consciousness exist in brains? You should also note how I avoid making statements in the form of "X is Y" as these tend to be highly problematic. You used two.

[Piscivore]

Of course not. Patterns don't have mass.
Yet they exist, right? They can be mapped, as you said.

You realize that there is no evidence whatsoever that what you propose does or could exist.
Don't get ahead of yourself.

[Alric]

I believe that phenomena is describable in terms of sets of relational rules.


I fail to see what this truism has anything to do with god.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I fail to see what this truism has anything to do with god.

Fair enough. Sorry, my mistake. It has nothing to do with god. My only answer to god and denial of its possible existence is the story I talked about several posts ago. BTW, worth a reading if you haven't (and not because of the thread, just because it is extremely good).

Now, the reason I posted a better explanation of my views is because articulett insisted in viewing me as a believer in souls or maybe mental superpowers, merely because (she?) didn't have a clue of where I was coming from. But no, no supernatural stuff to fight here.

[Alric]

Yet they exist, right? They can be mapped, as you said.


Don't get ahead of yourself.

Borges wrote extensive reviews of imaginary places, including maps. Maps of patterns do not make the patterns real. My suspicion is that patterns are not real but an animal invention that exists only in brains.

The problem is that you are taking advantage of the colloquial use of the word "exist". Things can exist and not be real. Reality is only matter.

[Piscivore]

Borges wrote extensive reviews of imaginary places, including maps. Maps of patterns do not make the patterns real.
Neither does some patterns being imaginary render them all so. Is conciousness real, or not?

My suspicion is that patterns are not real but an animal invention that exists only in brains.
So conciousness is real, but is just a pattern, but patterns aren't real? What in the animal brain did the inventing?

Do you want to take a moment to figure out what it is you think before continuing?

The problem is that you are taking advantage of the colloquial use of the word "exist".
The problem is English is an unplanned, ad hoc, self-contradictory and redundant languge, with many words carrying more than one explicit meaning and sometimes several dozen implied meanings. While this is wonderful for artistic expression and humour, it makes it difficult to use for ontological or scientific discussion. For example:

ex·ist (http://www.answers.com/exist&r=67) (ĭg-zĭst')
intr.v., -ist·ed, -ist·ing, -ists.
1. To have actual being; be real.
2. To have life; live: one of the worst actors that ever existed.
3. To live at a minimal level; subsist: barely enough income on which to exist.
4. To continue to be; persist: old customs that still exist in rural areas.
5. To be present under certain circumstances or in a specified place; occur: “Wealth and poverty exist in every demographic category” (Thomas G. Exter).
I'm using sense 1, here, so let's check "real"...

re·al (http://www.answers.com/real)(rē'əl, rēl)
adj.
1.a. Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence
1.b. True and actual; not imaginary, alleged, or ideal: real people, not ghosts; a film based on real life.
1.c. Of or founded on practical matters and concerns: a recent graduate experiencing the real world for the first time.
2. Genuine and authentic; not artificial or spurious: real mink; real humility.
3. Being no less than what is stated; worthy of the name: a real friend.
4. Free of pretense, falsehood, or affectation: tourists hoping for a real experience on the guided tour.
5. Not to be taken lightly; serious: in real trouble.
6. Philosophy. Existing objectively in the world regardless of subjectivity or conventions of thought or language.
7. Relating to, being, or having value reckoned by actual purchasing power: real income; real growth.
8. Physics. Of, relating to, or being an image formed by light rays that converge in space.
9. Mathematics. Of, relating to, or being a real number.
10 Law. Of or relating to stationary or fixed property, such as buildings or land.
I'm understanding "real" in terms of sense 1.a. Which are you using? Which one of these says that what is "real" is only what is physical?

Are you saying conciousness does not have a verifiable existance? Are you saying that patterns are not objective- that if one doctor examined your EEG another doctor or machine testing at the same time would get a different one?

Things can exist and not be real. Reality is only matter.
Yeah, see- I don't think it is me that is using a colloquial definition here.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Borges wrote extensive reviews of imaginary places, including maps. Maps of patterns do not make the patterns real. My suspicion is that patterns are not real but an animal invention that exists only in brains.

The problem is that you are taking advantage of the colloquial use of the word "exist". Things can exist and not be real. Reality is only matter.

What Piscivore says is that once something like "god" gets out from one individual and permeate others it has an existence beyond the individuals. What's the big deal? why running like if you have read about telekinesis?

On the other hand, what do you mean by "exists only in brains"? What does that mean, that the pattern "god" is inside the head? How come patterns could exist but not be real? And what is that about "reality is only matter", what is matter?

[articulett]

Music is real... it's measurable... we can detect it... it reacts with the environment... consciousness is like that... but "god" isn't. God is undetectable except as a notion in the brain of the assorted people who have been indoctrinated to believe in such things. I'd say god is as "real" as demons in that way. People really fear demons and devils and such--but that doesn't mean that such things exist. Is god more than that? With music and other "real" phenomena-- it can be perceived by others... or by machines that detect sound or color etc. You can confirm it's existence as something outside of the human mind even though the human mind interprets the pattern as music. But the physical aspects of sounds and colors etc. exist whether anyone is there to see them or perceive them or interpret them or not. It doesn't seem that consciousness or god has that quality.

[Robin]

Put in those terms, the god I'm talking about is a functional composite of mental entities (human conciousnesses) that are themselves functional composites of non-mental entities (nurons).
Another great science fiction writer, alas unpublished (my Dad) wrote a story about a man who invents a machine for experiencing the consciousness of other humans and animals.

When he tries it out at home he is horrified to find himself inside the consciousness of an animal with long probing tentacles throughout his house, finding and gathering food from every corner.

He eventually realises he is in the consciousness of an ants nest.

Later he tries the machine out at a football stadium and gets inside the consciousness of a football crowd. But the football crowd turns out to be less intelligent than the ants nest.

[Robin]

Too soon to tell, as I have repeatedly say to those who simply equate "consciousness = brain, nothing that we don't understand".
Certainly, but consciousness requires the brain machinery, of that we can be almost certain. Therefore if there is some other thing other than brain concerned with consciousness, we know that it could not be termed 'mental' or 'consciousness'.
I'm not sure I follow. For instance, those results in which the brain "chooses" before the individual is actually aware of that decision would indicate (IMO) that most reactions are, somehow, hardwired. But it is an hypercomplex topic, so I don't know.
These cases would demonstrate that, at least in some cases, intention is an effect of behaviour rather than a cause. I am still not convinced that muscle readiness events are not triggered by the mind testing the possibility of a certain course of action. But who am I to say?

In any case it would not show that qualia were not part of the hardwiring. I just wonder why we would have evolved qualia if they were of no survival advantage.
Agreed. Furthermore, it is an oversimplification that ignores that there are no mental events located "inside the brain". The mind needs the brain as much as it needs an environment, for a start.
I don't see that you can assume that. I would say that the mind is probably indeed inside the brain.
But you talk here about professionals. The average "hard core materialists" in our daily life (for example, some members of this forum) consistently demonstrate that they believe in "solid" matter, to have a clear opposite to "immaterial stuff" like souls and such kind of things.
Not just the materialists. People reject specific definitions and so tend to argue on the vague feelings that these words invoke. People think of 'matter' or 'material' as hard, chunky intractable. They think of mental things as soft, wispy, tractable. And so they think these things cannot be the same. It is like Thomas Nagle said, in Descartes time people felt they could not get a handle on mental stuff the way they thought they could get a handle on non-mental stuff, using pre-scientific notions of physical.

But of course science has shown that handle people thought they could get on the physical to be illusory. We get a different sort of handle on things now - mathematics.
This is why I'm so insistent about this "materialism" stuff. It is an old word that encompasses many more meanings that what it actually has. Lately matter means more like "some fussy state that we can predict" than that "solid, touchable, concrete stuff" that our ancestors believed in. But this is not evident for everybody.
Well the term was initially wished on those who did not go for Theistic or Dualistic or Idealistic interpretations of reality. I think d'Holbach was the first to take it as an identity. As I say it means pretty much the same now as it did 200 years ago. The fact that some people misunderstand it is a case for educating people, not abandoning the term.
What do you mean by that?
I mean that it is simply an assumption that we cannot go further.
Im not aware of such debate. "libertarian free will" is what exactly?
Wow, you have been at JREF - how long? - and you have avoided the 'libertarian free will' debate? What are the odds of that?

Libertarian free will is simply the position that free will is incompatible with determinism. Since clearly randomness is incompatible with any kind of will, free or otherwise then libertarian free will must depend on something that is neither deterministic nor random. What that means is anybody's guess.

The best paper I know of on the subject is C.D. Broad's Indeterminism, Determinism and Libertarianism (http://www.ditext.com/broad/dil.html)
Which is a VERY good question BTW. As I said, I believe most "everyday people" take for granted that it is something solid (to put it in a word).
It is a very good question, but most people overlook the option that very good questions can be dealt with by very good answers.
Indeed. Now, the question is if it, even in principle, we can reach such mathematical model. I believe we can't as our descriptions are deeply tied to what we are. In other words, we can only think about certain things, and these are still limited by our biology.
One of my maths lecturers once mentioned that it may be that eventually we will have to build machines to do our thinking, since we will have to deal with topics that the human mind is biologically incapable of dealing with. Interesting idea.

But even then we may be unable to get a theory of everything since we do not know what everything may be. We may be in a universe contained in a multiverse contained in a megaverse contained in a ... Or maybe we are a dream in the sleep of Brahman.

[Piscivore]

Another great science fiction writer, alas unpublished (my Dad) wrote a story about a man who invents a machine for experiencing the consciousness of other humans and animals.

When he tries it out at home he is horrified to find himself inside the consciousness of an animal with long probing tentacles throughout his house, finding and gathering food from every corner.

He eventually realises he is in the consciousness of an ants nest.

Later he tries the machine out at a football stadium and gets inside the consciousness of a football crowd. But the football crowd turns out to be less intelligent than the ants nest.

That sounds great! Has he ever tried to publish it?

Can I read it?

[articulett]

It does sound great...
If I was a talented fiction writer, I'd plagiarize it. :)

[CFLarsen]

Music is real... it's measurable... we can detect it... it reacts with the environment... consciousness is like that... but "god" isn't. God is undetectable except as a notion in the brain of the assorted people who have been indoctrinated to believe in such things. I'd say god is as "real" as demons in that way. People really fear demons and devils and such--but that doesn't mean that such things exist. Is god more than that? With music and other "real" phenomena-- it can be perceived by others... or by machines that detect sound or color etc. You can confirm it's existence as something outside of the human mind even though the human mind interprets the pattern as music. But the physical aspects of sounds and colors etc. exist whether anyone is there to see them or perceive them or interpret them or not. It doesn't seem that consciousness or god has that quality.

You miss the point: The emotions/experiences that music can give. Sometimes, people see their god in music.

[Piscivore]

You miss the point: The emotions/experiences that music can give. Sometimes, people see their god in music.

Great, now he's invoking plumjam as evidence of god. :D

[CFLarsen]

Great, now he's invoking plumjam as evidence of god. :D

I didn't say it was evidence of god. I said that people could experience their god through music.

You want to dispute that? Go right ahead.

[Piscivore]

I didn't say it was evidence of god. I said that people could experience their god through music.

You want to dispute that? Go right ahead.

I forgot, Claus, you cannot recognise or understand humour. My apologies.

[CFLarsen]

I forgot, Claus, you cannot recognise or understand humour. My apologies.

That is your problem, yes.

You reserve the right to come back, at any given moment, and say that you were only kidding.

That makes it impossible to take you seriously, at any given moment.

[Piscivore]

That is your problem, yes.

You reserve the right to come back, at any given moment, and say that you were only kidding.

That makes it impossible to take you seriously, at any given moment.

So don't. We've had this discussion already.

[dglas]

I didn't say it was evidence of god. I said that people could experience their god through music.

You want to dispute that? Go right ahead.

I'll see your experience of God and raise you a picture of a unicorn.

Hmmm. That was a quip, but I wasn't kidding...

[Alric]

From this point on I would like all references to god to equally apply to the flying spaghetti monster.

Why not?

[Piscivore]

From this point on I would like all references to god to equally apply to the flying spaghetti monster.

Why not?

Why indeed not?

Have you decided yet whether conciousness is "real" or not, and which sense of the word "real" you'd like to use?

[Alric]

I think consciousness exists, in the same way other patterns in nature due. Its a state or a process. However, patterns, states or processes are ultimately based on physical and quantifiable objects that can be mapped and described by animal brains. The brain, stars or the tides, for example.

I am still unclear on how this relates to the god question. There is no pattern or physical object found in nature that could be related to god. You may argue that we have not found it yet, but if this is the case, why consider it in the first place.

It might explain why god's last hiding place is grammatical ambiguities.

[Piscivore]

I think consciousness exists, in the same way other patterns in nature due. Its a state or a process. However, patterns, states or processes are ultimately based on physical and quantifiable objects that can be mapped and described by animal brains. The brain, stars or the tides, for example.
I agree with that.

I am still unclear on how this relates to the god question.
I've tried to explicate it, but the thread is full of noise, and as I said, it's not an easy one. I'll keep trying.

There is no pattern or physical object found in nature that could be related to god.
How about the pattern of behaviours of the believers?

You may argue that we have not found it yet, but if this is the case, why consider it in the first place.
I agree. Unobserved evidence is not evidence.

It might explain why god's last hiding place is grammatical ambiguities.
That's a conclusion masquerading as a premise, be careful with it, they're dangerous.

I am not relying on grammatical ambiguities. I've spent most of the worthwhile time on this thread just trying to clear them up. If there is something you feel I'm being unclear about, please bring it to my attention.

[Alric]

How about the pattern of behaviours of the believers?

If you can think of any way to link belief in god with actual existence of god let us know.

[Piscivore]

If you can think of any way to link belief in god with actual existence of god let us know.

That's what I've been endeavouring to do this whole time. The problem is, people have a hard time looking past the old, parochial definitions for "god".

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Piscivore, correct me if I'm wrong here, sometimes using other words and concepts help (this is words and concepts from a different POV)

Alric, I believe what he says is that minds are capable of creating ideas, and that sometimes this ideas are capable to have an existence outside the minds. Nope, nothing supernatural, nothing that contradicts what we know.

For example, "Santa Claus" exists beyond the beliefs on individuals. It exists as part of a culture. Now, if the culture dies, and every vestige of "santa claus" (this is images, writing, etc) we can say that "Santa Claus" will cease to exist, but as long as the culture remains, so it will remain.

Take a more mundane example. Table (this is a small surface with four legs). Now, suppose you invented this object because you believe it would be easier to sit in a rock in front of this table than to eat in the ground. Others will see the utility of your invent and will call it table too.

Now, tables exist as solid objects but only because they are also relational concepts (otherwise they wouldn't be TABLES and a new word and concept would have to be created). As a concept they belong to a culture and exist in a realm other than individual consciousnesses.

[Piscivore]

Piscivore, correct me if I'm wrong here, sometimes using other words and concepts help (this is words and concepts from a different POV)

Alric, I believe what he says is that minds are capable of creating ideas, and that sometimes this ideas are capable to have an existence outside the minds any individual mind. Nope, nothing supernatural, nothing that contradicts what we know.
With that minor correction, yes. That's just one element, though.

For example, "Santa Claus" exists beyond the beliefs on individuals. It exists as part of a culture. Now, if the culture dies, and every vestige of "santa claus" (this is images, writing, etc) we can say that "Santa Claus" will cease to exist, but as long as the culture remains, so it will remain.
I've used that exact analogy myself.

...exist in a realm other than individual consciousnesses.
That's going a little too far into Plato for me.

A better analogy would be one of those big signs in Times Square (pre plasma TVs) made up of millions of individual light bulbs, that can display any picture you want by lighting and darkening the bulbs in a pattern. The individual bulbs don't matter- they can be replaced, and a couple burned out bulbs here or there won't disrupt the picture overmuch, but the picture, the pattern, cannot exist apart from the bulbs as a whole. At least, not so it can have an effect on things (in this case, the people who see the sign, perceive the picture, and react to it) outside the bulbs.

[Tricky]

I agree. Unobserved evidence is not evidence.

I must disagree with you here, Fishophage. If you can describe what evidence will look like when it is discovered, then if it exists, it is evidence.

For example, if you thought that there was a link between two groups of animals, you might say that you hypothesize that there is was a species that had some characteristics of both groups. If indeed such a fossil does exist, it is undiscovered evidence for your hypothesis.

And of course, consider a forensic crew that goes to the scene of the crime to collect evidence. The evidence is there, they just have to collect it.

Yeah, a minor point I know, but semantics is so exciting!

[Piscivore]

I must disagree with you here, Fishophage. If you can describe what evidence will look like when it is discovered, then if it exists is found, it is evidence.
Fixed. What you think the evidence will look like is another hypothesis, not evidence itself. Take Piggy's phlogiston example. The men of science of that day hypothesized it existed, went looking for it. They thought it was evidence they just hadn't found yet. It wasn't. When they observed its absence, though- that was evidence.

For example, if you thought that there was a link between two groups of animals, you might say that you hypothesize that there is was a species that had some characteristics of both groups. If indeed such a fossil does exist, it is undiscovered evidence for your hypothesis.
And if it doesn't exist, it isn't. And if you haven't found it, you cannot assume it exists- except hypothetically.

And of course, consider a forensic crew that goes to the scene of the crime to collect evidence. The evidence is there, they just have to collect it. In other words, observe it.

You can't bring the fingerprints or the murder weapon you didn't find into court, or put the DNA samples you didn't collect before the peer review commitee.

Yeah, a minor point I know, but semantics is so exciting!
Indeed. I let the poetry of repeated terms get the better of accuracy. I should have better said "undiscovered data is not evidence". That's what unobserved "evidence" is, a point of data, meaningless unobserved.

ETA: At skeptigirl's request, I recently put up a lengthy post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3605622&postcount=1313) on this very topic in another thread.

[Tricky]

I'm not in the mood for fighting about this. I think that observation doesn't change the nature of a thing into evidence. I can understand why you do, but our difference is purely semantics. You will simply have to go through life knowing you were wrong.:D

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I'm not in the mood for fighting about this. I think that observation doesn't change the nature of a thing into evidence. I can understand why you do, but our difference is purely semantics. You will simply have to go through life knowing you were wrong.:D

You have to read later his answer on that thread. That said, let me attempt to put it in other words. Observation does not change the object as it is beyond us, but we do not relate to the object as it is, we relate to the object using concepts, desires, needs, particular senses, etc. In this sense, "evidence" is a relation, not a thing, and the object is one of the ingredients, and nothing else.

[Alric]

The above is not true.

[Tricky]

You have to read later his answer on that thread. That said, let me attempt to put it in other words. Observation does not change the object as it is beyond us, but we do not relate to the object as it is, we relate to the object using concepts, desires, needs, particular senses, etc. In this sense, "evidence" is a relation, not a thing, and the object is one of the ingredients, and nothing else.
What is it before it is evidence? Does anything about the thing that you are now calling "evidence" change? I say no. You now making your first observation of a thing that was previously there. So is the thing you are observing the evidence, or is it you that are the evidence? Because "you" are the only thing that has changed.

[Piscivore]

What is it before it is evidence?
The same thing as it was after, whatever that was. "Evidence" is a human judgement, not an inherent quality of the object.

Does anything about the thing that you are now calling "evidence" change? I say no. You now making your first observation of a thing that was previously there. So is the thing you are observing the evidence, or is it you that are the evidence? Because "you" are the only thing that has changed.
Who said anything changed?

I addressed this point just now in the other thread.

[Tricky]

The same thing as it was after, whatever that was. "Evidence" is a human judgement, not an inherent quality of the object.
I disagree. I believe it is a fundamental property of the item. Whether or not you see the evidence or evaluate it correctly, it is still evidence.
Who said anything changed?
You do. You are arguing that by observing the object, it has changed from not-evidence to evidence, or that you have changed from not-having-evidence to having-evidence. What has changed? Having. Not evidence.

[Piscivore]

I disagree. I believe it is a fundamental property of the item. Whether or not you see the evidence or evaluate it correctly, it is still evidence.
You are making the same error plumjam does about beauty. Evidence means nothing outside of a human mind. The floor derives no conclusion fron the chair that rests on it. The tree learns no truths from the wind that blows through its branches. The bloody knife- without a human to evaluate the blood, whose blood it is, whose knife it is, what the scrapes on the blade signify, and how it got there- is just a forged piece of steel with a thin coating of organic molecules.

If "evidence" is a thing, then why is the absence of a thing also evidence?

You do. You are arguing that by observing the object, it has changed from not-evidence to evidence,
Fair enough, but these are just human categories, not essential properties. The same as "beautiful" and "ugly". If "evidence" is an essential property, than anything can be evidence for anything. The fossil we haven't found yet that shows a bipedal erect posture and tentacles for arms is evidence that my family evolved from molluscs, because that's the sort of intermediate form I'd expect to see.

or that you have changed from not-having-evidence to having-evidence. What has changed? Having. Not evidence.
"Having" is a verb, not an adjective. "to posess". It isn't a quality of either the possesser or the object, it is a happening.

If I have a nice piece of fish, I'm still the same person when the fish is gone, yes?

[Tricky]

You are making the same error plumjam does about beauty. Evidence means nothing outside of a human mind. The floor derives no conclusion from the chair that rests on it. The tree learns no truths from the wind that blows through its branches. The bloody knife- without a human to evaluate the blood, whose blood it is, whose knife it is, what the scrapes on the blade signify, and how it got there- is just a forged piece of steel with a thin coating of organic molecules.
I disagree. Evidence is essentially data. The objective and correct meaning of that data is independent of the human mind or of any mind. How do you tell what is correct from what is incorrect? Evidence. With luck and work, humans will interpret the evidence correctly. If not, they will be wrong. The evidence is still there.

This is not the same as beauty, which, by definition, is totally subjective.

If "evidence" is a thing, then why is the absence of a thing also evidence?
It isn't. The absence of evidence is "no evidence". You're falling into the intellectual trap that ID proponents set. They feel that if they can show that if evidence doesn't exist, or is faulty, then it is evidence FOR their claim. And that is wrong.

Fair enough, but these are just human categories, not essential properties. The same as "beautiful" and "ugly". If "evidence" is an essential property, than anything can be evidence for anything. The fossil we haven't found yet that shows a bipedal erect posture and tentacles for arms is evidence that my family evolved from mollusks, because that's the sort of intermediate form I'd expect to see.
What is human is the interpretation of the evidence. Certainly, evidence can be interpreted wrongly. We don't have perfect objectivity. But our lack of observational skills doesn't change what the data truly means to that idealized concept of a perfectly objective observer.

"Having" is a verb, not an adjective. "to possess". It isn't a quality of either the possessor or the object, it is a happening.
Sorry, I was trying to be all literary again. Actually, "having" in the sense I used it, is a gerund, as in "skiing is fun". That makes it technically a noun. The "having" or the "perception" is the thing you are calling evidence. And I disagree. Respectfully.

If I have a nice piece of fish, I'm still the same person when the fish is gone, yes?
Actually, you're not. You were a hungry person before. Now you're a satiated person. And of course, the fish molecules become part of you. So you are changed somewhat, admittedly not a lot.

Sorry if I'm duplicating. I don't want to read a long thread elsewhere. I want to TALK, dammit!

[Piscivore]

I disagree. Evidence is essentially data.
Yes, evidence is data, but an object unobserved is not data, it is just an object.
This is data:
da·ta (http://www.answers.com/data&r=67)
pl.n. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
1. Factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions.
2. Computer Science. Numerical or other information represented in a form suitable for processing by computer.
3. Values derived from scientific experiments.
4. Plural of datum (sense 1).
These are all kinds of information, not objects.
This is information:
in·for·ma·tion (http://www.answers.com/information&r=67)
n.
1. Knowledge derived from study, experience, or instruction.
2. Knowledge of specific events or situations that has been gathered or received by communication; intelligence or news. See synonyms at knowledge.
3. A collection of facts or data: statistical information.
4. The act of informing or the condition of being informed; communication of knowledge: Safety instructions are provided for the information of our passengers.
5. Computer Science. Processed, stored, or transmitted data.
6. A numerical measure of the uncertainty of an experimental outcome.
7. Law. A formal accusation of a crime made by a public officer rather than by grand jury indictment.
Every single one of those senses (excepting the last, strictly legal case) has to do with observation or manipulation of perceptions, not inherent qualities of objects.

The objective and correct meaning of that data is independent of the human mind or of any mind.
There is no meaning without a human mind, let alone an "objective and correct" one.
mean·ing (http://www.answers.com/meaning)
n.
Something that is conveyed or signified; sense or significance.
Something that one wishes to convey, especially by language: The writer's meaning was obscured by his convoluted prose.
An interpreted goal, intent, or end: “The central meaning of his pontificate is to restore papal authority” (Conor Cruise O'Brien).
Inner significance: “But who can comprehend the meaning of the voice of the city?” (O. Henry).
You are confusing data with facts. Facts are discovered after data has been evaluated, checked, tested, repeated, replicated, etc. until they can be judged evidence, and that evidence combined with other similarly tested and vetted evidence.

How do you tell what is correct from what is incorrect? Evidence.
Wrong, with repeatability, replicability, etc.

With luck and work, humans will interpret the evidence correctly. If not, they will be wrong.I'd rather like to think the scientific method was more reliable than effort and a bit of luck. You make discovery sound like an Horatio Alger story.

The evidence is still there. But it isn't the object. A bone just sitting there in the dirt isn't evidence. A bone that is measured to be 14 m.y.o. is data, which, when checked against other bones or retested to check against measuring (perception) error, becomes evidence.

This is not the same as beauty, which, by definition, is totally subjective.
So are perceptions, which is why science has the built in error checking. If evidence were objective and an inherent property of an object, there wouldn't be any dispute over what it represented.

It isn't. The absence of evidence is "no evidence". You're falling into the intellectual trap that ID proponents set. They feel that if they can show that if evidence doesn't exist, or is faulty, then it is evidence FOR their claim. And that is wrong.So it is. Which is why I didn't say "absence of evidence". I said absence of a thing is evidence. The phlogiston that should have permeated every centimetre of interstellar space wasn't there. That's evidence that phogiston doesn't exist- or is there some "anti-phlogiston" to bear this "objective, inherent evidence"?

What is human is the interpretation of the evidence. Certainly, evidence can be interpreted wrongly. We don't have perfect objectivity. But our lack of observational skills doesn't change what the data truly means to that idealized concept of a perfectly objective observer.
Now we're inventing extraneous entities beyond necessity? Idealized entities? Put down the Plato and step away from the keyboard. :p
Cut out "objectivity" except as a verified, factual conclusion from properly vetted evidence derived from thouroughly tested observational data and there's no reason to go running for some preposterous "ideal" entity for validation.

Sorry, I was trying to be all literary again. Actually, "having" in the sense I used it, is a gerund, as in "skiing is fun". That makes it technically a noun.
I never trusted those damn gerunds. Sneaky bastards.

The "having" or the "perception" is the thing you are calling evidence.
Not quite. There are a couple of steps from "perception" to "evidence". Important, scientific steps. To just declare that perception was evidence would be as unwarranted as saying an unobserved object was. Respectfully.

Actually, you're not. You were a hungry person before. Now you're a satiated person.
Dude, you've met me, I've never been satiated. :)

Sorry if I'm duplicating.
Oh, that's fine. I love copy-and-pasting... :D


I don't want to read a long thread elsewhere. I want to TALK, dammit!
So, how was the ren faire? My family went to the one out here, but I was having a "Captain Tripps" weekend with the flu.

[Piscivore]

Actually, "having" in the sense I used it, is a gerund, as in "skiing is fun". That makes it technically a noun.

Oh, and nouns are not adjectives, either. :p