Consciousness - Page 3

PixyMisa · 19th January 2003, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Your position seems to be :

"Materialism is true. I will not consider any alternatives. All arguments presented will only be discussed on the condition that we start by assuming materialism is true."

I have invited you to provide me with a reason to consider non-material philosophies in this context. You have not done so.

Quote:

If so, there is absolutely no point in trying to discuss whether or not materialism is true with you, because any genuine attempt to find a reasoned answer as to whether or not materialism is actually true depends on making no ontological assumptions.

And how do you expect to find out if materialism is true or not?

Quote:

How can you find out whether X is true or not if you refuse to examine any line of reasoning which does not start by assuming that X is true?

Ambient irony.

Mister Elephant, I invite you to examine your own position with regard to HPC.

Again, I have repeatedly invited you to provide me with a reason to consider alternatives to materialism. You have thus far declined.

Quote:

Why not start from first principles?

Because they don't get you very far. You have to make an assumption to proceed. Materialism seems to be the most useful of the possible assumptions.

Quote:

You know....a two-way playing field instead of one where one of the goalmouths is bricked up at kick off?

Would you care to discuss HPC and any of the points I've raised rather than dancing about saying "What if materialism is wrong?" when you haven't provided any evidence or reasoning to suggest such a thing?

19th January 2003, 08:38 AM

Pixy

Quote:

Why does ones ontological belief system affect the true/false status of a thesis about language which has nothing to do with ontology?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why do you think the statement has nothing to do with ontology? Why do you keep bringing this up? It's certainly not anything I've ever said.

So far during this debate you must have made a statement of the form "The linguistic thesis is false if materialism is true" at least twenty times!

Every time you make that argument you are claiming that the true/false status of the linguistic thesis is dependent on whether or not you assume materialism is true!

It is YOU who keeps arguing that the linguistic statement depends on ontology - not me! I am trying to get you to accept that it is about LANGUAGE ONLY!

Quote:

As indeed does a local anaesthetic. Explain that one, Mister Elephant.

The pain (or lack of it) remains a mental experience. You can argue that the source of the pain is physical, but this doesn't affect the linguistic dualism which places 'pain' as a mental experience.

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The thesis is about language and depends on a linguistic dualism you have accepted exists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. So?

So.....why do you keep also claiming that it depends on your ontological belief system?

like you are about to again......

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simply claiming that it 'must be false if materialism is true' is completely pointless since the thesis depends on language, not on ontology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nope. It makes a statement about what language can say about consciousness. Given materialism, this statement is false.

Given materialism, the statement still has nothing whatsoever to do with ontology!

Quote:

The statement is not purely about language, but about what language can say about the world. This is dependent on the nature of the world, not just on the nature of language.

The thesis says absolutely nothing about the nature of the world!

The thesis is :

"No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from a set of purely physical descriptions".

It is a thesis about how one set of words is related to another set of words. It in itself say absolutely nothing about the nature of the world. It is about LANGUAGE. Only indirectly does it have anything to do with the nature of reality, because if true it can be used to expose an internal logical error within materialism. But you want to be able to go on claiming that there is no evidence that materialism is false so you keep trying to go back a step and claim that the linguistic thesis is actually dependent on ontology. You are trying to use the tail to wag the dog! You keep trying to claim that the linguistic thesis depends on ontology, when it quite simply does not!

Quote:

If Christianity is true Christ rose from the dead.

Are you sure about that, Pixy?

Are you sure it isn't the other way around?

Whether or not Christianity is true is a BELIEF. Whether or not Christ rose from the dead is a FACT.

Whether or not materialism is true is a BELIEF. Whether or not the linguistic thesis is true is a FACT.

Have a good think :

"If Christ rose from the dead then Christianity is true" : BELIEF SYSTEM DEPENDENT ON FACTUAL EVENT.
"If Chrisitianity is true the Christ rose form the dead" : FACTUAL EVENT DEPENDENT ON BELIEF SYSTEM.

Are facts really dependent on beliefs, Pixy? Because that is precisely what you are trying to claim!

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Either the language thesis is true, or it is false. It doesn't depend on an individuals belief system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. It doesn't matter what I believe. It matters what is. If materialism is true, your HPC statement is false.

Pixy!

The thesis about language is a verifiable FACT.
Your belief that materialism is true is a BELIEF!

FACTS do not change because of peoples BELIEFS!

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fortunately for us the statement about language isn't so tricky, because the English language is readily available for us to study, and so determine whether or not the thesis is true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, but it doesn't matter. Your HPC statement ***effectively*** makes a statement about the nature of reality, and this statement contradicts materialism.

Close Pix....so close....

Quote:

So if materialism is true, your HPC statement is false.

...but over you go at the last hurdle again.

How many times?

Your position on materialism is a BELIEF!
The linguistic thesis is a verifiable FACT!
FACTS DO NOT ALTER TO FIT PEOPLES BELIEFS!

19th January 2003, 08:45 AM

Pixy :

Quote:

I have invited you to provide me with a reason to consider non-material philosophies in this context. You have not done so.

I have tried (oh my have I tried) to get you to understand Berkeleys semantic argument. You keep on claiming to have refuted it but your refutation depends on FACTS changing to fit YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM!

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If so, there is absolutely no point in trying to discuss whether or not materialism is true with you, because any genuine attempt to find a reasoned answer as to whether or not materialism is actually true depends on making no ontological assumptions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And how do you expect to find out if materialism is true or not?

By identifying logical errors in the way we think about reality, and proposing solutions to the problems created by those errors. The first stage is to identify the problem. The problem at the moment is that you keep on insisting that FACTS are dependent on BELIEFS.

Quote:

Mister Elephant, I invite you to examine your own position with regard to HPC.

Gladly, Pixy. My own position is that FACTS are not dependent on BELIEFS. I accept that the language thesis is true, and seek to find a model of reality which does not contradict FACTS about the way human beings desrcibe the reality they experience.

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not start from first principles?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because they don't get you very far. You have to make an assumption to proceed. Materialism seems to be the most useful of the possible assumptions.

What if you don't have to make an assumption?

What assumption do you think I have made?

(Remember what Kant proved.....)

PixyMisa · 19th January 2003, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
So far during this debate you must have made a statement of the form "The linguistic thesis is false if materialism is true" at least twenty times!

Yes. So, again, why do you think that this statement has nothing to do with ontology?

Quote:

Every time you make that argument you are claiming that the true/false status of the linguistic thesis is dependent on whether or not you assume materialism is true!

I have pointed out that your HPC statement also makes a statement about the nature of the world.

Quote:

It is YOU who keeps arguing that the linguistic statement depends on ontology - not me!

Yes. And I am asking why you think it doesn't.

Quote:

I am trying to get you to accept that it is about LANGUAGE ONLY!

It makes a statement about what language can describe. This is a statement about what is knowable, and that depends on the nature of the world. That, Mister Elephant, is why your HPC statement is both false and irrelevant under materialism rather than only irrelevant.

Quote:

The pain (or lack of it) remains a mental experience. You can argue that the source of the pain is physical, but this doesn't affect the linguistic dualism which places 'pain' as a mental experience.

There are still obvious physical aspects to pain.

Quote:

So.....why do you keep also claiming that it depends on your ontological belief system?

like you are about to again......

It doesn't depend on my belief system. It depends upon the nature of the world.

Quote:

Given materialism, the statement still has nothing whatsoever to do with ontology!

Why do you claim this?

Quote:

The thesis says absolutely nothing about the nature of the world!

But it does.

Quote:

The thesis is :

"No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from a set of purely physical descriptions".

Yes?

Quote:

It is a thesis about how one set of words is related to another set of words. It in itself say absolutely nothing about the nature of the world. It is about LANGUAGE.

And that's why it is irrelevant to any question of consciousness. Language is beside the point.

Quote:

Only indirectly does it have anything to do with the nature of reality, because if true it can be used to expose an internal logical error within materialism.

No. It makes a statement about whether language can describe a certain thing in a certain way. The truth value of this statement depends entirely on the nature of that thing.

Quote:

But you want to be able to go on claiming that there is no evidence that materialism is false

Which there isn't.

Quote:

so you keep trying to go back a step and claim that the linguistic thesis is actually dependent on ontology.

Which it obviously is.

Quote:

You are trying to use the tail to wag the dog! You keep trying to claim that the linguistic thesis depends on ontology, when it quite simply does not!

How can it not? It is making a statement about the nature of subjective experience. If that statement is false, then the entire statement is also false. And materialism says that the nature of subjective experience is entirely different to what your HPC statement claims.

Quote:

Are you sure about that, Pixy?

One hundred percent. It is one of the key tenets of Christianity. So if Christianity is true, that key tenet must be true, and Christ did indeed rise from the dead.

Quote:

Are you sure it isn't the other way around?

Yes.

Quote:

Whether or not Christianity is true is a BELIEF.

So what? I'm not discussing beliefs. I'm discussing truth. Beliefs don't matter. Truth does.

Quote:

Whether or not Christ rose from the dead is a FACT.

Yes. So what? That Christ rose from the dead is a necessary part of Christianity. So if Christianity is true, so too is Christ's resurrection.

Quote:

Whether or not materialism is true is a BELIEF.

Nope. I can believe that materialism is true or false. Quite independently of that, materialism can actually be true or false.

Quote:

Whether or not the linguistic thesis is true is a FACT.

And its fallacy is a simple deduction from materialist principles, so if materialism is true, then your HPC statement is false.

Quote:

Have a good think :

"If Christ rose from the dead then Christianity is true" : BELIEF SYSTEM DEPENDENT ON FACTUAL EVENT.
"If Chrisitianity is true the Christ rose form the dead" : FACTUAL EVENT DEPENDENT ON BELIEF SYSTEM.

Doesn't matter. If the factual event is a necessary condition for the belief system to be true, and the belief system is true, then the factual event is also true. This is pretty basic logic, Mister Elephant.

Quote:

Are facts really dependent on beliefs, Pixy?

No. But you can make logical inferences based on whether those beliefs are true or not.

Quote:

Because that is precisely what you are trying to claim!

You never read what I write, do you? Always something else. Don't you ever pay attention to what's going on?

Quote:

Pixy!

The thesis about language is a verifiable FACT.

No. It's a falsifiable claim.

Quote:

Your belief that materialism is true is a BELIEF!

Doesn't matter. If materialism is indeed true, your claim is false.

Quote:

FACTS do not change because of peoples BELIEFS!

No. Falsifiable claims are upheld or falsified by facts.

Quote:

Close Pix....so close....

I am no nearer to accepting your nonsense than I ever was.

Quote:

...but over you go at the last hurdle again.

No, Mister Elephant. You have been entirely wrong from the beginning, as I have shown any number of times.

Quote:

How many times?

Any number. 317. there's a number.

Quote:

Your position on materialism is a BELIEF!

Yes. It may also be true. Or false, though that seems unlikely.

Quote:

The linguistic thesis is a verifiable FACT!

No. It's a statement about the nature of language and about the world, which may be true, or may be false, and definitely contradicts materialism.

Quote:

FACTS DO NOT ALTER TO FIT PEOPLES BELIEFS!

No. So what? I never once suggested that they did.

PixyMisa · 19th January 2003, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
I have tried (oh my have I tried) to get you to understand Berkeleys semantic argument. You keep on claiming to have refuted it but your refutation depends on FACTS changing to fit YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM!

You really do have a reading comprehension problem, don't you, Mister Elephant? You are also entirely oblivious to irony.

Quote:

By identifying logical errors in the way we think about reality, and proposing solutions to the problems created by those errors. The first stage is to identify the problem. The problem at the moment is that you keep on insisting that FACTS are dependent on BELIEFS.

Which I have never once done. Not a good start for your process of identifying logical errors.

Quote:

Gladly, Pixy. My own position is that FACTS are not dependent on BELIEFS.

Well, hooray for you.

Quote:

I accept that the language thesis is true

WHY?

Quote:

and seek to find a model of reality which does not contradict FACTS about the way human beings desrcibe the reality they experience.

I suggest you find some facts first before you build your model, or it may fall down in the first strong wind of reason.

Quote:

What if you don't have to make an assumption?

Then you have solipsism. Not helpful.

Quote:

What assumption do you think I have made?

That HPC is meaningful and true, for a start.

Quote:

(Remember what Kant proved.....)

Yeah. So? You're still wrong. Just like you were last time you waved your Kant in my face.

19th January 2003, 10:33 AM

Pixy :

PART ONE. Answer this first please.

Firstly - you do understand the word 'ontology' refers to ones beliefs about the relationship between consciousness and matter, yes?

Now have a look at these two answers :

1)

Quote:

So far during this debate you must have made a statement of the form "The linguistic thesis is false if materialism is true" at least twenty times!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes. So, again, why do you think that this statement has nothing to do with ontology?

and

2)

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a thesis about how one set of words is related to another set of words. It in itself say absolutely nothing about the nature of the world. It is about LANGUAGE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that's why it is irrelevant to any question of consciousness.

First, you ask me why I think the thesis has nothing to do with ontology.

Second, you tell me that because it is about language, it is irrelevant to any question of consciousness.

Can you really not see that these two replies directly contradict each other?

If the thesis is irrelevant to any question of consciousness then it has nothing to do with ontology!

You are trying to argue both!

Which is it, Trixy?

PART 2 saved to my notepad because I really cannot be bothered continuing trying to debate someone who does not understand she is continually contradicting herself.

19th January 2003, 11:03 AM

Can I offer some help, Pix?

(A) The thesis itself is about language, and has nothing directly to do with ontology.

(B) However, if you are a materialist then the thesis has some indirect consequences which materialists don't like the look of.

(C) These indirect consequences do not mean that the thesis itself is now about ontology, because (A) is still true.

(D) So materialism has a problem, but the thesis remains true. The problem is quite tricky, which is why it is called THE HARD PROBLEM.

(E) Trying to blame the Hard Problem on the inadequacy of language leads to a claim that a new set of nouns is required which bridge the subjective-objective gap by being both mental and physical. The problem with this is that such a noun already exists, and I have already explained to you why it is a logical fallacy to use it to overcome the Hard Problem. That noun is 'thought'. which is used to mean 'physiological brain process' and 'qualia' at the same time. This does not solve the Hard Problem. It merely attempts to hide it by defining one word to have two different meanings, and no-one who understands the problem is likely to accept it as a meaningful solution.

19th January 2003, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Emmm . . .not really. You think he should have created us with stupendious powers?

Stupendous, at least.

Quote:

It would depend on the ultimate purpose of existence wouldn't it, and how best to acheive that ultimate goal. I assume that creating us with formidable powers and abilities would not best facilitate this objective.

What reason do you have to suppose there is a purpose with our existence, except that it fits your theory? What conceivable scenario would warrant inhibition/deprivation of our senses?

Quote:

Yes I believe in evolution although I don't believe the past, prior to the existence of consciousness, existed in the full blooded sense that most people have in mind.

So you believe god "planted" evidence of a past that predates consciousness?

19th January 2003, 02:53 PM

Bozo :

Quote:

So you believe god "planted" evidence of a past that predates consciousness?

From the POV of consciousness the only thing which exists is the present moment; It is always NOW, and always has been. But for reality to make sense, there has to be a past which is consistent with the present. It isn't so much 'God' which creates a past which is consistent with the present - it is a requirement of existence being logically consistent with itself.

crocodile deathroll · 19th January 2003, 04:21 PM

Pixi

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you believe that only the present is real?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, the present is the what is happening, the past is the what has happened, and the future is what is yet to happen. What is "real"?

Do you believed it has happened subjectively of objectively?

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I feel it goes against relativity theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why? All that relativity theory says on the matter is that observers may experience time to flow at different rates, and that there is no preferred frame of reference.

It warps space at different rates too including the spaces in synaptic clefts and an astronaut observer travelling close to the speed of light will result in her neural process slowing right down to a crawl relative to ours but the astronaut will not notice any change. I am placing much emphasis on time because the perception of it is inextricably tied in with consciousness. If there were no consciousness there would be no perception of a flow of time there would only be block time. Time is not single expanding bubble of reality that started at the big bang. Time is an asymmetrical dimensional arrow that only points the direction of entropy.

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a link to explain it to you more fully
Presentism and Relativity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah! Pseudo-scientific babble. I'm building up quite a collection of this. Is this supposed to mean anything?

It just means our intuitional view of time is as much in error as our intentional view of the earth being flat.

PixyMisa · 19th January 2003, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Firstly - you do understand the word 'ontology' refers to ones beliefs about the relationship between consciousness and matter, yes?

Well, more generally, it deals with principles and causes. What exists, and why, and what this means.

Quote:

Now have a look at these two answers :

First, you ask me why I think the thesis has nothing to do with ontology.

Second, you tell me that because it is about language, it is irrelevant to any question of consciousness.

Can you really not see that these two replies directly contradict each other?

No. Because they don't.

Your statement about HPC makes a claim about the nature of language based on the nature of the world. Because it makes a claim about language, it is irrelevant to the question of consciousness. Because it is based on an assumption about the nature of the world it is also wrong under naturalism.

Quote:

If the thesis is irrelevant to any question of consciousness then it has nothing to do with ontology!

Wrong.

Quote:

You are trying to argue both!

And I have explained why.

Quote:

Which is it, Trixy?

Both. Irrelevant and wrong, just like you, Mister Elephant.

Quote:

PART 2 saved to my notepad because I really cannot be bothered continuing trying to debate someone who does not understand she is continually contradicting herself.

Well, it's going to be a while, then.

PixyMisa · 19th January 2003, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Can I offer some help, Pix?

You can offer, but I doubt you can provide any.

Quote:

(A) The thesis itself is about language, and has nothing directly to do with ontology.

The ultimate claim made by your HPC statement is a claim about language, and is not related to ontology. However, there is a second claim, or assumption, built in about the nature of the world. Which very much does have to do with ontology.

Quote:

(B) However, if you are a materialist then the thesis has some indirect consequences which materialists don't like the look of.

It's not a question of looking at the consequences. I'm looking at the statement itself. That's where the problem is.

Quote:

(C) These indirect consequences do not mean that the thesis itself is now about ontology, because (A) is still true.

What? No. The thesis falls flat because it attempts to use an ontological assumption to make a point about language. Irrelevant and wrong.

Quote:

(D) So materialism has a problem, but the thesis remains true. The problem is quite tricky, which is why it is called THE HARD PROBLEM

No. It's very simple. It's wrong. And irrelevant.

Quote:

(E) Trying to blame the Hard Problem on the inadequacy of language leads to a claim that a new set of nouns is required which bridge the subjective-objective gap by being both mental and physical.

No. This is not what I'm suggesting at all.

Quote:

The problem with this is that such a noun already exists, and I have already explained to you why it is a logical fallacy to use it to overcome the Hard Problem.

Good thing I didn't do that then.

Quote:

That noun is 'thought'. which is used to mean 'physiological brain process' and 'qualia' at the same time.

Which is fine in general, because qualia are thoughts. The distinction is merely one of how you choose to observe a particular phenomenon.

Quote:

This does not solve the Hard Problem. It merely attempts to hide it by defining one word to have two different meanings, and no-one who understands the problem is likely to accept it as a meaningful solution.

The distinction being in the nature of the observation. Fine.

But materialism implies, indeed requires that this gap can be bridged from the objective side. (It makes no claim about being able to bridge the gap starting from the subjective side.) Your HPC statement cannot be used to suggest that materialism is wrong, because it is based on the assumption that materialism is wrong.

PixyMisa · 19th January 2003, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
Do you believed it has happened subjectively of objectively?

Both.

Quote:

It warps space

Matter warps space. That's gravity.

Quote:

at different rates too

No. The warping of space propagates at a fixed rate. The rate of the flow of time in warped space varies with the degree of curvature.

Quote:

including the spaces in synaptic clefts

WHAT?

Quote:

and an astronaut observer travelling close to the speed of light will result in her neural process slowing right down to a crawl relative to ours but the astronaut will not notice any change.

Yes. But the spaceship and everything in it is slowed down as well, not just the astronaut's brain. That's why she won't notice any difference in her immediate surroundings. If she attempts to communicate with Earth, though, she will find wavelengths dramatically shifted and Earth experiencing a much faster flow of time. The change in the flow of time is objective.

Quote:

I am placing much emphasis on time because the perception of it is inextricably tied in with consciousness.

Yes. That's valid.

Quote:

If there were no consciousness there would be no perception of a flow of time there would only be block time.

The lack of perception of the flow of time doesn't say anything about the nature of time itself.

Quote:

Time is not single expanding bubble of reality that started at the big bang.

Well, yes, it is. That's exactly what it is.

Quote:

Time is an asymmetrical dimensional arrow that only points the direction of entropy.

Of increasing entropy, yes. Which makes it a single expanding bubble of reality that started with the big bang.

Quote:

It just means our intuitional view of time is as much in error as our intentional view of the earth being flat.

Well, it certainly doesn't show that. You can't argue about the nature of time based on our perceptions, or our perception of time based on relativity. You can argue about the nature of time based on relativity, but that would be physics and not pseudo-scientific babble.

crocodile deathroll · 19th January 2003, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by PixyMisa

Pixi
Well, the present is the what is happening, the past is the what has happened, and the future is what is yet to happen. What is "real"?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CD
Do you believed it has happened subjectively of objectively?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pixi
Both.

How would you explain the twins effect this would be more of a paradox using that paradigm. What happens to the objective past present and future if one of the astronaut twins and returns back to Earth only to discover that her identical twin sister died centuries ago because of the time dilation effect?
Which twin is in the true "now" time in the universe?

Now I will test you our with psychological time travel:

What if these twins are in embryonic form and twin A was implanted into a womb and twin B was frozen and not place in a womb for centuries after.
Twin B will observe twin A an been dead and in the mean time twin A will observer twin B never been born yet. How do you overcome this "paradox" if you believe the past present and future are objective?

Quote:

[b].. That's exactly what it is.Of increasing entropy, yes. Which makes it a single expanding bubble of reality that started with the big bang.Well, it certainly doesn't show that. You can't argue about the nature of time based on our perceptions, or our perception of time based on relativity. You can argue about the nature of time based on relativity, but that would be physics and not pseudo-scientific babble.

Time being explained as a single expanding bubble of reality is just that a pseudo-scientific "bubble"

PixyMisa · 19th January 2003, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
How would you explain the twins effect this would be more of a paradox using that paradigm.

Huh? The "twins paradox" is a perfectly straightforward objective prediction of relativity.

Quote:

What happens to the objective past present and future if one of the astronaut twins and returns back to Earth only to discover that her identical twin sister died centuries ago because of the time dilation effect?

Nothing much.

Quote:

Which twin is in the true "now" time in the universe?

Clearly the one who isn't dead. You just said this yourself.

Quote:

Now I will test you our with psychological time travel:

You'll test my what with what?

Quote:

What if these twins are in embryonic form and twin A was implanted into a womb and twin B was frozen and not place in a womb for centuries after.

No psychology here.

Quote:

Twin B will observe twin A an been dead and in the mean time twin A will observer twin B never been born yet.

Twin B will not observe anything at all for centuries.

Quote:

How do you overcome this "paradox" if you believe the past present and future are objective?

If the flow of time is objective there is no paradox at all. You're talking about two observers separated in time, and two sets of observations separated in time.

Quote:

Time being explained as a single expanding bubble of reality is just that a pseudo-scientific ~~babble~~ "bubble"

Why? It's precisely what we experience, what we measure, and what the laws of physics follow.

Franko · 19th January 2003, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Elephant to Pixy:
Your position seems to be :

"Materialism is true. I will not consider any alternatives. All arguments presented will only be discussed on the condition that we start by assuming materialism is true."

Pixy:
I have invited you to provide me with a reason to consider non-material philosophies in this context. You have not done so.

How do you know that Solipsism isn’t True, and that you aren’t the only entity which actually exist at this moment? How do you know that me or anyone else isn’t just a figment of your imagination?

You are certainly capable of creating a reality in your dreams at night. How do you know you aren’t doing the exact same thing right now? Isn’t that a much more parsimonious explanation for the existence of “the Universe”? – It’s just you, and beyond what your subconscious has imagined, nothing else exist?

What is your evidence that this is False? What is your evidence that I am real? I certainly am not claiming to be real. I am nothing more than a figment of your imagination.

Quote:

Why? It's precisely what we experience, what we measure, and what the laws of physics follow.

You stated flat out that the Laws of Physics don’t control ANYTHING. If TLOP isn’t controlling anything that what is controlling it? You Pixy?

There is definitely a God ... that point is non-negotiable … it’s simply a question of whether anyone else exists to occupy the position ... ?

PixyMisa · 19th January 2003, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Franko
How do you know that Solipsism isn’t True, and that you aren’t the only entity which actually exist at this moment? How do you know that me or anyone else isn’t just a figment of your imagination?

I don't and can't know this for certain. However, the assumption of the existence of the material world leads to a system that works extremely well. This system is far more powerful and useful than solipsism.

Quote:

You are certainly capable of creating a reality in your dreams at night. How do you know you aren’t doing the exact same thing right now?

Certainly my dream worlds have a very different nature to my waking experience, so the existence of dreams is not a good reason to believe that the world is not real in and of itself.

Quote:

Isn’t that a much more parsimonious explanation for the existence of “the Universe”? – It’s just you, and beyond what your subconscious has imagined, nothing else exist?

Parsimonious, yes. Useful, no.

Quote:

What is your evidence that this is False? What is your evidence that I am real? I certainly am not claiming to be real. I am nothing more than a figment of your imagination.

That's nice, Franko. There's a black hole in my imagination too. In fact, I'm imagining it right now. In you go!

Quote:

You stated flat out that the Laws of Physics don’t control ANYTHING.

You got it.

Quote:

If TLOP isn’t controlling anything that what is controlling it?

Nothing.

Quote:

You Pixy?

Nope. Apparently I control you, which must explain why you are a mindless zombie. But the rest of the universe is real and exists independently of me. Or at least, it acts like it does.

Quote:

There is definitely a God

Present your evidence.

Quote:

that point is non-negotiable

Fine. Then it's simply a bald statement without any evidenciary backing, what is commonly know in the trade as a lie.

Quote:

… it’s simply a question of whether anyone else exists to occupy the position ... ?

No. That's not the question.

Franko · 19th January 2003, 08:09 PM

Quote:

I don't and can't know this for certain. However, the assumption of the existence of the material world leads to a system that works extremely well. This system is far more powerful and useful than solipsism.

If Solipsism is more consistent and more parsimonious then Materialism then how can you claim Materialism is more Logical?

Quote:

Certainly my dream worlds have a very different nature to my waking experience, so the existence of dreams is not a good reason to believe that the world is not real in and of itself.

When your subconscious runs out of story you have to sleep while it generates more of it. Maybe that’s why your dreams are “less real” then what’s happening now?

Quote:

Parsimonious, yes. Useful, no.

If it’s the truth, then it would be useful – won’t it? … or are you claiming that the Truth isn’t always useful? Why not useful? At least I couldn’t argue that you didn’t have Free Will …

Quote:

That's nice, Franko. There's a black hole in my imagination too. In fact, I'm imagining it right now. In you go!

You get angry with me like this every cycle God. It is my Fate to be the one to tell you that nothing is real other than you. Don’t blame me, I’m just a figment of your imagination – you created me in your mind.

Quote:

Nope. Apparently I control you, which must explain why you are a mindless zombie. But the rest of the universe is real and exists independently of me. Or at least, it acts like it does.

I guess it’s not possible that the rest of it acts that way, because that’s how You (God) want it to act? Of course you’d still be correct about me being a “mindless zombie” …

Quote:

No. That's not the question.

Try wishful thinking it away … try real hard …

PixyMisa · 19th January 2003, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Franko
If Solipsism is more consistent and more parsimonious then Materialism then how can you claim Materialism is more Logical?

I didn't say that. What I said is it is more useful. Solipsism is not useful at all, because it doesn't allow you to make predictions about the world. As soon as you try, you are assuming something that is not solipsism. Materialism is very useful for studying the world and making predictions about how it will behave.

Quote:

When your subconscious runs out of story you have to sleep while it generates more of it. Maybe that’s why your dreams are “less real” then what’s happening now?

Nope. All my dreams are less real, less consistent, less detailed, less rich in information than the real world.

Quote:

If it’s the truth, then it would be useful – won’t it?

Why? Materialism is a system that provides useful information. Solipsism is intrinsically not such a system.

Quote:

or are you claiming that the Truth isn’t always useful? Why not useful?

Well, truth isn't always useful.

Quote:

At least I couldn’t argue that you didn’t have Free Will …

You may not have noticed this, Franko, but you do indeed argue just that. Poorly.

Quote:

You get angry with me like this

Angry, Franko? You have never seen me angry. Few people have. This is wry bemusement. I'd suggest that you don't try for angry.

Quote:

every cycle God.

"every cycle God"?

Quote:

It is my Fate to be the one to tell you that nothing is real other than you.

How nice. My pet mindless zombie is telling me he doesn't exist.

Quote:

Don’t blame me, I’m just a figment of your imagination – you created me in your mind.

I must have been having an off day.

Quote:

I guess it’s not possible that the rest of it acts that way, because that’s how You (God) want it to act?

At last ! At last the foolish mortal understands! I am God!

I AM GOD!!!!!

There is no Logical Goddess but PixyMisa! Bow down and worship me, worthless figments!

[cough]

What?

Quote:

Of course you’d still be correct about me being a “mindless zombie”

Well, yes. That follows from your own claims about your own behaviour.

Quote:

Try wishful thinking it away … try real hard …

Nope. Wishful thinking is your specialty, my little mindless zombie figment.

crocodile deathroll · 19th January 2003, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Huh? The "twins paradox" is a perfectly straightforward objective prediction of relativity.Nothing much.Clearly the one who isn't dead. You just said this yourself.You'll test my what with what?No psychology here.Twin B will not observe anything at all for centuries.If the flow of time is objective there is no paradox at all. You're talking about two observers separated in time, and two sets of observations separated in time.Why? It's precisely what we experience, what we measure, and what the laws of physics follow.

If the twins were twin jockeys and twin A falls of her horse (and it is a common experience that when something truamatic happerns to you all things appear to move in slow motion)
As a result of that fall, the present in twin A an Twin B will be out kilter thus making the "present" purely subjective and psychological phenomena.

PixyMisa · 19th January 2003, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
If the twins were twin jockeys and twin A falls of her horse (and it is a common experience that when something truamatic happerns to you all things appear to move in slow motion)
As a result of that fall, the present in twin A an Twin B will be out kilter thus making the "present" purely subjective and psychological phenomena.

Um, how shall I put this?

No.

We all have different subjective experience of time. You don't need to fall off a horse. If you want time to slow down, just try reading Ayn Rand. It doesn't mean that there is no objective time or that the twins do not agree on what "now" is.

19th January 2003, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Bozo :

From the POV of consciousness the only thing which exists is the present moment; It is always NOW, and always has been. But for reality to make sense, there has to be a past which is consistent with the present. It isn't so much 'God' which creates a past which is consistent with the present - it is a requirement of existence being logically consistent with itself.

Not exactly sure what you are trying to say. Why would god make it seem as though matter preceded consciousness if that were not in fact the case? Or do you mean to contend that scientists have misinterpreted the fossil record? Or was that just a "nicer" way of saying "yes, he planted the evidence"?

20th January 2003, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bozotheda

Not exactly sure what you are trying to say. Why would god make it seem as though matter preceded consciousness if that were not in fact the case? Or do you mean to contend that scientists have misinterpreted the fossil record? Or was that just a "nicer" way of saying "yes, he planted the evidence"?

The fossil record has not been misinterpreted.

I see the physical world as an algorithm. Until the algorithm had produced physical bodies capable of supporting consciousness then the consciousness was just the Unified ground of existence. From a physical POV evolution still occured.

20th January 2003, 12:57 AM

Pixy :

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) The thesis itself is about language, and has nothing directly to do with ontology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The ultimate claim made by your HPC statement is a claim about language, and is not related to ontology. However, there is a second claim, or assumption, built in about the nature of the world. Which very much does have to do with ontology.

What you refer to as a 'second claim' or 'assumption' is not part of the thesis. The thesis does NOT say anything about the nature of reality. It doesn't matter how many times you try to claim that a thesis about language is dependent on ontology it DOES NOT become true. Your "however" is put there because you don't like the consequences. It isn't actually true.

Pixy - Languages do not change their structure because YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM is threatened. Stop trying to change FACTS to fit your BELIEFS.

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) However, if you are a materialist then the thesis has some indirect consequences which materialists don't like the look of.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not a question of looking at the consequences. I'm looking at the statement itself. That's where the problem is.

Abject Rubbish.

You just wrote "The ultimate claim made by your HPC statement is a claim about language, and is not related to ontology." So the problem is not in the thesis at all.

It isn't a problem 'under dualism'. It isn't a problem 'under idealism'. SO WHY ON EARTH DO YOU THINK THE PROBLEM IS IN THE THESIS?. Pixy - If the problem was in the thesis then it wouldn't go away under everybody-elses ontological system and only exist under yours!.

The "problem" is set up by the assumptions made by MATERIALISM, which is actually an ontological claim. The thesis is about LANGUAGE. Deal with it!

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C) These indirect consequences do not mean that the thesis itself is now about ontology, because (A) is still true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What? No. The thesis falls flat because it attempts to use an ontological assumption to make a point about language. Irrelevant and wrong.

How can a thesis about language "fall flat" if you are a materialist and "remain standing" if you are a dualist or idealist?

The thesis is about LANGUAGE, and stands or falls on its own merit!

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(D) So materialism has a problem, but the thesis remains true. The problem is quite tricky, which is why it is called THE HARD PROBLEM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. It's very simple. It's wrong. And irrelevant.

"No. It's wrong! I'm Right! It's irrelevant! Help! Help! It's a Heffalump!"

Quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That noun is 'thought'. which is used to mean 'physiological brain process' and 'qualia' at the same time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which is fine in general

But not fine in a hard-nosed discussion about ontology.

Quote:

But materialism implies, indeed requires that this gap can be bridged from the objective side.

That is correct. So if it can't, then materialism has a problem. It's called THE HARD PROBLEM, the one that has been staring you in the face for the past three days.

Quote:

Your HPC statement cannot be used to suggest that materialism is wrong, because it is based on the assumption that materialism is wrong.

What?!

The statement is a statement about LANGUAGE! It makes no more assumptions about ontology than a statement about rice pudding makes assumptions about who won last years nobel peace prize! When are you finally going to understand this? Materialism is not so special that all other questions and observations continually re-arrange themselves so materialism is protected from examination! The thesis is about LANGUAGE. It doesn't start being about ontology simply because it exposes a problem with a claim made by materialism!

I think you should have a look at this, Pix.....

2think (or to blindly follow)

Quote:

Arriving at a tentative conclusion vs. beginning at a conclusion that must be defended

The above statement in regards to Islam is an example of someone who once forming (or being born with) a conclusion must do everything to defend it. If the author of the web page really believed his statement then it would be 'unreasonable' for him not to conclude that every large or rapidly growing movement or religion is "True". People tend to create their own conclusion boxes. They then make statements that can't be logically defended--but can help solidify the box they are living in. The assumptions that make up the box are not carefully evaluated.

An example of this from a fundamentalist Christian viewpoint can be found in the August 12, 1996 issue of Christianity Today. On page 64, Charles Colson, writing about what Christians must do to defend their beliefs against evolution, insists that "Christians must come together, craft a credible apologetic, and then refuse to back down". The author doesn't ask that the evidence be examined or that the Truth be sought. Similar statements have also been made by Mormon leaders.

The author Matt Berry states, "[The search for] Truth does not begin with an answer on behalf of which all questions must constantly rearrange themselves. The [search for] Truth begins with fearless questions." This all seems so basic and self-evident, but large segments of the population haven't been able to (or don't want to) grasp this fundamental Truth.

So what is the best method to arrive at tentative conclusions? Is it something along the lines of the scientific method? Can Occam's Razor help? Is it based, in part or in total, on faith? If so, how does one know what should be accepted and what should be rejected based on faith? If faith is (part of) the method, shouldn't all (unreasonable or faith-based) claims be accepted to keep one's methodology consistent? To me, this paradox is the most puzzling aspect of human behavior. People require evidence and use scientific methodologies in certain situations but see no contradiction when they rely completely on faith in other situations.

We all too frequently base our observations and decisions on opinions and personal projections rather than actual facts and evidence. Our own background, prejudices, and hopes cloud our view. With a little effort--requiring thoughtfulness as its basis--a philosophy/reality based on the true facts and evidence can be found which will frequently shatter the illusion a too-personal view can create.

You cannot find the truth by continually re-arranging all the questions (and all the evidence) in order to protect your personal truth, even if that personal truth is materialism. You cannot claim that a thesis about language is actually about ontology simply because it challenges the "box" you have decided to define for yourself as a belief system.

crocodile deathroll · 20th January 2003, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Um, how shall I put this?

No.

We all have different subjective experience of time. You don't need to fall off a horse. If you want time to slow down, just try reading Ayn Rand. It doesn't mean that there is no objective time or that the twins do not agree on what "now" is.

I can recall this classic quote from Einstein:

"One hour with a pretty woman can feel like two minutes. But a few minutes sitting on a hot stove can feel like hours"
So what about these circumstances like that heighten out perception of time?
How can you prove there is an objective "now" time external to our conscious experiences?

PixyMisa · 20th January 2003, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
What you refer to as a 'second claim' or 'assumption' is not part of the thesis.

It is there. You may not be able to see it, being terminally confused, but it is there.

Quote:

The thesis does NOT say anything about the nature of reality.

It does. it says that consciousness does not arise from the material world.

Quote:

It doesn't matter how many times you try to claim that a thesis about language is dependent on ontology it DOES NOT become true.

And it doesn't matter how many times you claim that an assumption is not there when it really is.

Quote:

Your "however" is put there because you don't like the consequences.

We haven't even got to discussing the consequences, Mister Elephant.

Quote:

It isn't actually true

And you'll hold your breath until you turn blue or I promise to accept your hidden assumptions?

Quote:

Pixy - Languages do not change their structure because YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM is threatened.

First - my belief system is not threatened. Second - languages do change their structure for reasons like that.

Quote:

Stop trying to change FACTS to fit your BELIEFS

Wouldn't dream of stepping on your territory, Mister Elephant.

Quote:

Abject Rubbish.

You just wrote "The ultimate claim made by your HPC statement is a claim about language, and is not related to ontology." So the problem is not in the thesis at all.

Wrong. That's just the part that makes it irrelevant.

Quote:

It isn't a problem 'under dualism'.

It's merely irrelevant, rather than wrong.

Quote:

It isn't a problem 'under idealism'.

Again, it's merely irrelevant, rather than wrong.

Quote:

SO WHY ON EARTH DO YOU THINK THE PROBLEM IS IN THE THESIS?

Because it contains a hidden assumption that contradicts materialism, as I have shown.

Quote:

Pixy - If the problem was in the thesis then it wouldn't go away under everybody-elses ontological system and only exist under yours!.

Why not? Idealism and dualism have completely different assumptions about the nature of consciousness and its relationship with the physical world, and that's exactly the sort of assumption build into your HPC statement.

Quote:

The "problem" is set up by the assumptions made by MATERIALISM, which is actually an ontological claim.

It's not set up by either materialism or your HPC statement; it's just that the explicit assumption of materialism contradicts the implicit assumption of HPC.

Quote:

The thesis is about LANGUAGE. Deal with it!

I have indeed dealt with it. HPC is about language, and is irrelevant to the subject of consciousness.

Quote:

How can a thesis about language "fall flat" if you are a materialist and "remain standing" if you are a dualist or idealist?

As I have pointed out, it assumes something about the nature of consciousness that is necessarily false under materialism.

Quote:

The thesis is about LANGUAGE, and stands or falls on its own merit!

And that's why it's irrelevant. It's still also wrong under materialism.

Quote:

"No. It's wrong! I'm Right! It's irrelevant! Help! Help! It's a Heffalump!"

Have you taken your pills today? If so, you should stop.

Quote:

But not fine in a hard-nosed discussion about ontology.

Shrug. What you call "hard-nosed discussion" I call "******** session".

Quote:

That is correct. So if it can't, then materialism has a problem. It's called THE HARD PROBLEM, the one that has been staring you in the face for the past three days.

No. There is no evidence that HPC is true. It is simply a statement. It contradicts materialism. Since materialism is extremely successful and HPC is known to be irrelevant, why should we not doubt HPC?

Quote:

What?!

Your HPC statement cannot be used to suggest that materialism is wrong, because it is based on the assumption that materialism is wrong.

Quote:

The statement is a statement about LANGUAGE!

Yes. It is a statement about language based on the assumption that materialism is false.

Quote:

It makes no more assumptions about ontology than a statement about rice pudding makes assumptions about who won last years nobel peace prize!

Nonsense. The assumption is there, in plain sight to anyone not blinded by his own hidden assumptions.

Quote:

When are you finally going to understand this?

Never, since it is false.

Quote:

Materialism is not so special that all other questions and observations continually re-arrange themselves so materialism is protected from examination!

No. That sort of thing is what you do.

Quote:

The thesis is about LANGUAGE.

Yes. Hence its irrelevance.

Quote:

It doesn't start being about ontology simply because it exposes a problem with a claim made by materialism!

It's about ontology because it makes a hidden assumption about ontology.

Quote:

I think you should have a look at this, Pix.....

2think (or to blindly follow)

Blah blah. How is this relevant?

Quote:

You cannot find the truth by continually re-arranging all the questions (and all the evidence) in order to protect your personal truth, even if that personal truth is materialism.

Doesn't matter, since I have never once done this.

Quote:

You cannot claim that a thesis about language is actually about ontology simply because it challenges the "box" you have decided to define for yourself as a belief system.

I have never done this either.

Look, Mister Elephant, since you are so deeply confused, and your understanding is so weak, I'll restate the situation with all of those nasty confusing words removed:

We have a descriptive system L. We have two sets of phenomena, X and Y.

We can make the following initial statements regarding the relationship of L to X and Y:

L can describe phenomena in X and the results of such phenomena.
L can describe phenomena in Y and the results of such phenomena.

Now, we have two hypotheses. Hypothesis H states:

No phenomenon in X can be described using system L purely in terms of phenomena in Y.

Hypothesis M states:

All phenomena, including but not limited to those in X, are actually the result of the phenomena in Y.

Given M and our statements about L, H is clearly false.

Got it now?

PixyMisa · 20th January 2003, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
I can recall this classic quote from Einstein:

"One hour with a pretty woman can feel like two minutes. But a few minutes sitting on a hot stove can feel like hours"
So what about these circumstances like that heighten out perception of time?
How can you prove there is an objective "now" time external to our conscious experiences?

The usual methods. Measurements. Observation. Theory. Independent verification. Since we have a good 5000 years of this on record, I'd say it's pretty well established.

20th January 2003, 07:23 AM

Pixy,

This is insane.

This is the atual state of affairs here on PLANET EARTH :

--------------------------
(A) The thesis itself is about language, and has nothing directly to do with ontology.

(B) However, if you are a materialist then the thesis has some indirect consequences which materialists don't like the look of.

(C) These indirect consequences do not mean that the thesis itself is now about ontology, because (A) is still true.

(D) So materialism has a problem, but the thesis remains true. The problem is quite tricky, which is why it is called THE HARD PROBLEM.

(E) Trying to blame the Hard Problem on the inadequacy of language leads to a claim that a new set of nouns is required which bridge the subjective-objective gap by being both mental and physical. The problem with this is that such a noun already exists, and I have already explained to you why it is a logical fallacy to use it to overcome the Hard Problem. That noun is 'thought'. which is used to mean 'physiological brain process' and 'qualia' at the same time. This does not solve the Hard Problem. It merely attempts to hide it by defining one word to have two different meanings, and no-one who understands the problem is likely to accept it as a meaningful solution.

--------------------------

This is the is the state of affairs in CLOUD PIXY LAND :

--------------------------
(A) The thesis itself is about language, and has nothing directly to do with ontology. It is based on the linguistic dualism inherent in all languages.

(B) However, if you are a materialist then the thesis has some indirect consequences which materialists don't like the look of. We are going to call those indirect consequences "hidden assumptions". They are so well hidden that they are COMPLETELY INVISIBLE!

(C) These indirect consequences, which we have called "hidden assumptions" cause (A), which used to be true, to miraculously suddenly stop being true, even though the thesis itself is still only about language, and still has nothing directly to do with ontology. IN CLOUD PIXY LAND (A) is BOTH TRUE AND NOT TRUE AT THE SAME TIME. But this doesn't matter, because in CLOUD PIXY LAND materialism always remains true, and all other facts re-arrange themselves to preserve the belief that materialism is true.

(D) So materialism doesn't have a problem (which is not surprising since this is CLOUD PIXY LAND where materialism is always true), but the thesis is both true and not true at the same time.

-----------------------------

Pixy - there aren't any 'hidden assumptions' in the thesis. The thesis depends on one thing and one thing only - a fundamental linguistic dualism. That linguistic dualism remains true if you are an idealist, a dualist or a materialist. The thesis DOES NOT require materialism to be false to remain true. The linguistic dualism DOES NOT go away because you are a materialist.

Let me prove it to you :

Just for arguments sake, I will now pretend I am a materialist.

Now I am going to ask myself if there is still a linguistic dualism.

Is there?

YES!

Oh. The thesis is still true. I assumed materialism was true, and the thesis still remained true BECAUSE THE THESIS IS DEPENDENT ON LANGUAGE!

If any other poor bugger is still reading this thread will they please help Pixy to understand this!

Franko · 20th January 2003, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Pixychix:

truth isn't always useful.

Well there you have A-Theism in a nutshell.

Pure pessimism at its heart.

Quote:

I didn't say that. What I said is it is more useful. Solipsism is not useful at all, because it doesn't allow you to make predictions about the world.

Sure it does. Solipsism is True, yet you still make predictions about the world. For example, as long as Solipsism is true, your worldviews will ALWAYS be correct.

Quote:

As soon as you try, you are assuming something that is not solipsism. Materialism is very useful for studying the world and making predictions about how it will behave.

Yeah, but there is no world beyond what you imagine. So whatever you imagine is True is how the world is going to operate.

Quote:

Franko:
If it’s the truth, then it would be useful – won’t it?

PixyGod:
Why? Materialism is a system that provides useful information. Solipsism is intrinsically not such a system.

You mean because you don’t want it to be True?

I guess it’s the same way with “God”, “Fate”, “Karma” and the “afterlife”, if you don’t like a belief, then you don’t believe it. Facts and Evidence really have nothing to do with your decision?

Quote:

Angry, Franko? You have never seen me angry. Few people have. This is wry bemusement. I'd suggest that you don't try for angry.

Ohhh, I see you angry all the time A-Theist. I am just a figment of your imagination … remember? And since I’m just a figment of your imagination what do I care? You being angry can’t have ANY possible effect on me.

Quote:

How nice. My pet mindless zombie is telling me he doesn't exist.

Pretty f*cked up – I know … but then again you are a pretty f*cked up “god”.

Quote:

I must have been having an off day.

be honest … they are ALL off days – aren’t they A-Theist?

Quote:

Pixypants:

At last ! At last the foolish mortal understands! I am God!

I AM GOD!!!!!

There is no Logical Goddess but PixyMisa! Bow down and worship me, worthless figments!

Congratulations! You have figured it out! You are absolutely correct, there is no Logical Goddess, because there is no Franko. I am just a figment of Your imagination, and She is just a figment of mine.

Now you can live out the rest of your meaningless existence for all Eternity … utterly alone.

Quote:

Nope. Wishful thinking is your specialty, my little mindless zombie figment.

I’m your figment Pixy-God … I only “think” what you make me think.

PixyMisa · 20th January 2003, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
This is insane.

Well, since I am correct, it must be you that is differently normal.

Quote:

This is the atual state of affairs here on PLANET EARTH :

Sigh. Go ahead, Mister Elephant.

Quote:

--------------------------
(A) The thesis itself is about language, and has nothing directly to do with ontology.

Yes. Because it is about language, it is irrelevant to the subject of consciousness. But the ontological assumption is still there.

Quote:

(B) However, if you are a materialist then the thesis has some indirect consequences which materialists don't like the look of.

No. We haven't even considered the consequences. Under materialism, the thesis is simply false.

Quote:

(C) These indirect consequences do not mean that the thesis itself is now about ontology, because (A) is still true.

Except that A ignored the ontological assumption, and so is false in itself.

Quote:

(D) So materialism has a problem

No. As I have shown, the problem is entirely in HPC.

Quote:

but the thesis remains true.

The thesis was never true. It is simply a statement. It must be shown to be true. Which, under materialism, is not possible.

Quote:

The problem is quite tricky, which is why it is called THE HARD PROBLEM.

It's only hard if you don't understand it.

Quote:

(E) Trying to blame the Hard Problem on the inadequacy of language leads to a claim that a new set of nouns is required which bridge the subjective-objective gap by being both mental and physical. The problem with this is that such a noun already exists, and I have already explained to you why it is a logical fallacy to use it to overcome the Hard Problem. That noun is 'thought'. which is used to mean 'physiological brain process' and 'qualia' at the same time. This does not solve the Hard Problem. It merely attempts to hide it by defining one word to have two different meanings, and no-one who understands the problem is likely to accept it as a meaningful solution.

Blah blah blah blah blah.

I have never suggeted the use of nouns that are both mental and physical as a solution for HPC. It's not necessary. Why don't you address what I actually said for a change?

Quote:

This is the is the state of affairs in CLOUD PIXY LAND :

Well, let's see if you've learned to read...

Quote:

(A) The thesis itself is about language, and has nothing directly to do with ontology. It is based on the linguistic dualism inherent in all languages.

No. The thesis contains a hidden ontological assumption. Nor is dualism a necessary component of language.

Quote:

(B) However, if you are a materialist then the thesis has some indirect consequences which materialists don't like the look of. We are going to call those indirect consequences "hidden assumptions".

Wrong.

Quote:

[b]They are so well hidden that they are COMPLETELY INVISIBLE!

Wrong again.

Quote:

(C) These indirect consequences, which we have called "hidden assumptions" cause (A), which used to be true, to miraculously suddenly stop being true, even though the thesis itself is still only about language, and still has nothing directly to do with ontology. IN CLOUD PIXY LAND (A) is BOTH TRUE AND NOT TRUE AT THE SAME TIME. But this doesn't matter, because in CLOUD PIXY LAND materialism always remains true, and all other facts re-arrange themselves to preserve the belief that materialism is true.

Three wrongs.

Quote:

(D) So materialism doesn't have a problem (which is not surprising since this is CLOUD PIXY LAND where materialism is always true), but the thesis is both true and not true at the same time.

Did you enjoy that?

Quote:

Pixy - there aren't any 'hidden assumptions' in the thesis.

Yes. There is one. The assumption is that subjective experience does not have a physical basis.

Quote:

The thesis depends on one thing and one thing only - a fundamental linguistic dualism.

No. It assumes that linguistic dualism is significant.

Quote:

That linguistic dualism remains true if you are an idealist, a dualist or a materialist.

Yes, but it doesn't matter in any of those situations.

Quote:

The thesis DOES NOT require materialism to be false to remain true.

Perhaps you could address where I showed this to be false rather than continuing to make bald assertions?

Quote:

The linguistic dualism DOES NOT go away because you are a materialist.

No. It just doesn't matter.

Quote:

Let me prove it to you :

Go right ahead.

Quote:

Just for arguments sake, I will now pretend I am a materialist.

This should be fun.

Quote:

Now I am going to ask myself if there is still a linguistic dualism.

"Self, is there still a linguistic dualism?

Quote:

Is there?

You tell me.

Quote:

YES!

Aha! Thanks, self!

Quote:

Oh. The thesis is still true.

Splat. Dead at the first hurdle.

Quote:

I assumed materialism was true

No. Actually, you merely said that you assumed that materialism is true. You did not actually do so.

Quote:

and the thesis still remained true

It was never true in the first place.

Quote:

BECAUSE THE THESIS IS DEPENDENT ON LANGUAGE!

And an ontological assumption.

Quote:

If any other poor bugger is still reading this thread will they please help Pixy to understand this!

Mister Elephant, I set out the situation in terms of logic rather than HPC, materialism and language. Take a look.

20th January 2003, 08:09 AM

Pixy,

Do you know what the word 'assumption' means?

It means "Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof".

Yes?

So we have a thesis T :

"No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set if purely physical descriptions"

Your position now depends on claiming that even though on the face of it this is just about language, the thesis contains a "hidden assumption" that materialism is false.

The thesis does not depend on any assumptions at all because it is a verifiable FACT.

We observe that languages are dualistic, the nouns are split into mental things and physical things. This is a VERIFIABLE FACT. Let us call it A. There is no "assumption" involved in A, because A is something we can VERIFY.

Do you understand this?

There is now a one-step logical process to estabish whether or not the thesis T is true, because the thesis is built directly upon whether or not A is true. The logical process is :

If A is TRUE then T is TRUE.

And since A is TRUE then T is TRUE.

END. PERIOD. FIN.

Where is the assumption, Pix?

There is no assumption, Pix!

So you know what the word "consequence" means?

It means "Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition."

Now, as we all know by now, if the thesis T is true then materialism M has a problem, because it needs to be able to bridge the subject-objective chasm from the objective side. So we have another simple logical one-step process. The logical process is :

If T is TRUE then M is FALSE.

And since T is TRUE then M is FALSE!

---------------------

Now, will you please explain to me whether

A) My definitions of the words "consequence" and "assumption" are wrong

B) My logical reasoning was wrong, if so please show where.

Good luck, Pix.

PixyMisa · 20th January 2003, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Franko
Well there you have A-Theism in a nutshell.

Thank you!

So A-Theism is the application of logic to fact? And since A-Theism is the opposite of whatever it is you are doing...

Consider for a moment the humble tautology. True, but not in any way useful.

Quote:

Pure pessimism at its heart.

How can a statement of logic be pessimistic?

Quote:

Sure it does. Solipsism is True, yet you still make predictions about the world. For example, as long as Solipsism is true, your worldviews will ALWAYS be correct.

But not predictable. There is no foundation in solipsism to build a prediction on. Which is why it is not useful.

Quote:

Yeah, but there is no world beyond what you imagine. So whatever you imagine is True is how the world is going to operate.

I am imagining now that you have never posted to this forum... Hmm, didn't work. I am now imagining that Nell McAndrew is right here in my study... Nope. Damn. This God business isn't what it used to be.

Quote:

You mean because you don’t want it to be True?

Nope. Because it doesn't allow you to work that way. If everything you want is true, you can't predict anything.

Quote:

I guess it’s the same way with “God”, “Fate”, “Karma” and the “afterlife”, if you don’t like a belief, then you don’t believe it.

That is true of beliefs, yes.

Quote:

Facts and Evidence really have nothing to do with your decision?

Facts and evidence have to do with truth, not with belief.

Quote:

Ohhh, I see you angry all the time A-Theist. I am just a figment of your imagination remember?

And a quite remarkably dull figment.

Quote:

And since I’m just a figment of your imagination what do I care?

Actually, the suggestion that you are a figment of my imagination is possible the strongest evidence yet that solipsism is untenable.

Quote:

You being angry can’t have ANY possible effect on me.

Huh? If solipsism were true, and I were angry, you would cease to exist. Or possibly have an unfortunate encounter with a candiru.

Quote:

Pretty f*cked up – I know … but then again you are a pretty f*cked up “god”.

I think you got a bad graviton. Not good or evil, merely stupid. Clearly not my responsibility, you'll have to contact the vendor.

Quote:

be honest … they are ALL off days – aren’t they A-Theist?

Only the ones with you in them, Franko darling.

Quote:

Congratulations! You have figured it out! You are absolutely correct, there is no Logical Goddess, because there is no Franko. I am just a figment of Your imagination, and She is just a figment of mine.

That's nice.

Quote:

Now you can live out the rest of your meaningless existence for all Eternity … utterly alone.

But I have you, my dear little mindless zombie figment. And all the little bunny figments.

Quote:

I’m your figment Pixy-God … I only “think” what you make me think.

Don't look at me. I blame the graviton supplier. They're in the book, give them a call. Gas, Coal and Gravity Co. of London, England.

Stimpson J. Cat · 20th January 2003, 08:19 AM

UCE,

Quote:

So we have a thesis T :

"No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set if purely physical descriptions"

Your position now depends on claiming that even though on the face of it this is just about language, the thesis contains a "hidden assumption" that materialism is false.

The thesis does not depend on any assumptions at all because it is a verifiable FACT.

First of all, it is not a fact at all. The above statement may be true about the English language, or about any ordinary language, but you cannot assert that it is true in general without making metaphysical assumptions. In particular, I see no reason whatsoever to believe that it is true about the language of mathematics.

Secondly, all verifiable facts are based on assumptions, because the principle of verification is based on assumptions. That is a bit beside the point, though.

Quote:

We observe that languages are dualistic, the nouns are split into mental things and physical things. This is a VERIFIABLE FACT. Let us call it A. There is no "assumption" involved in A, because A is something we can VERIFY.

This is certainly not true for the English language. Sure, there are nouns that split into mental and physical things. There are also nouns that refer to both. The fact is that the English language is neither dualistic nor monistic. It is just plain ambiguous, which is, of course, why it is not a suitable language for science.

Dr. Stupid

PixyMisa · 20th January 2003, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Do you know what the word 'assumption' means?

It means "Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof".

Yes?

Yes.

Quote:

So we have a thesis T :

"No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set if purely physical descriptions"

My H, except not stated as clearly.

Quote:

Your position now depends on claiming that even though on the face of it this is just about language, the thesis contains a "hidden assumption" that materialism is false.

And indeed it does.

Quote:

The thesis does not depend on any assumptions at all because it is a verifiable FACT.

No. It is a falsifiable claim.

Quote:

We observe that languages are dualistic, the nouns are split into mental things and physical things. This is a VERIFIABLE FACT.

Yes. It is an observation of the state of language. Actually, I'm not at all sure that it is a correct observation. Your own example of thought throws shadow in it.

Quote:

Let us call it A.

If you like.

Quote:

There is no "assumption" involved in A, because A is something we can VERIFY.

So go away and verify it. I'll wait.

Quote:

Do you understand this?

Yes.

Quote:

There is now a one-step logical process to estabish whether or not the thesis T is true, because the thesis is built directly upon whether or not A is true.

Nope. Bang, you lose. You have alrady made an ontological assumption.

Quote:

The logical process is :

If A is TRUE then T is TRUE.

Except you've left out the ontological assumption Φ.

Quote:

And since A is TRUE then T is TRUE.

Nope. You still need to demosntrate that Φ is true.

Quote:

END. PERIOD. FIN.

Where is the assumption, Pix?

Right where it was the first time.

Quote:

There is no assumption, Pix!

Wrong.

Quote:

So you know what the word "consequence" means?

Yes, Mister Elephant.

Quote:

It means "Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition."

Yay. Mister Elephant has a dictionary.

Quote:

Now, as we all know by now, if the thesis T is true then materialism M has a problem, because it needs to be able to bridge the subject-objective chasm from the objective side. So we have another simple logical one-step process. The logical process is :

If T is TRUE then M is FALSE.

And since T is TRUE then M is FALSE!

No even slightly. T is a statment about language and has no power to falsify materialism. What's more, since T contains assumption Φ, materialism does have the power to falsify T. Check my set of logical statemnts above. Mister Elephant. They actually present the picture, unlike what you've just done.

Quote:

Now, will you please explain to me whether

A) My definitions of the words "consequence" and "assumption" are wrong

Nope. I admit that you have a dictionary.

Quote:

B) My logical reasoning was wrong, if so please show where.

Two things: you missed out ontological assumption Φ embedded in statement T, and you incorrectly state that statement T can falsify materialism.

Quote:

Good luck, Pix.

Thanks. Done.

Franko · 20th January 2003, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Pixychixy:

So A-Theism is the application of logic to fact?

I don’t see how considering you have claimed that:

1) The Truth is not always useful [beneficial].

And …

2) The Laws of Physics (TLOP) don’t control anything.

And to think poor Stimpy went to school all those years for nothing … ???

If that is what you call “Logic” and “Fact” “free willy-chick” then you knock yourself out!

Of course in my mind (and the minds of about 90% of the overall population) you are just an insane, cynical, pessimistic religious fanatic.

PixyMisa · 20th January 2003, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Franko
I don’t see how considering you have claimed that:

1) The Truth is not always useful [beneficial].

And I provided you with a whole class of examples. You can't have forgotten already, surely.

Quote:

And …

2) The Laws of Physics (TLOP) don’t control anything.

Yup.

Quote:

And to think poor Stimpy went to school all those years for nothing … ???

Nope. Stimpy knows full well what the laws of physics are and what they imply.

Quote:

If that is what you call “Logic” and “Fact” “free willy-chick” then you knock yourself out!

It's not just what I call logic and fact, it's what the dictionary calls logic and fact.

Quote:

Of course in my mind (and the minds of about 90% of the overall population) you are just an insane, cynical, pessimistic religious fanatic.

Ah. And you have read the minds of 90% of the population, have you? Or carried out detailed, unbiased, statistically significant surveys of public opinion? We all know what goes on in the maze of twisty little passages you call your "mind". An "insane, cynical, pessimist religious fanatic" is someone who proves that you are wrong, whereas an "A-Theist" is merely someone who disagrees with you.

20th January 2003, 08:50 AM

Quote:

T is a statment about language and has no power to falsify materialism.

WHY, Pixy?

Why do verifiable facts about languages not have the power to falsify materialism, which is a belief system?

Your position is entirely dependent on a claim that your belief system is not falsifiable by facts presented which show that your belief system is false.

If FACTS do not have the power to falsify your BELIEF SYSTEM then what does?

PixyMisa · 20th January 2003, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
WHY, Pixy?

Why do verifiable facts about languages not have the power to falsify materialism, which is a belief system?

Because materialism is not founded on language.

Quote:

Your position is entirely dependent on a claim that your belief system is not falsifiable by facts presented which show that your belief system is false.

You have not presented facts. You have made claims. Irrelevant claims. Unsupported irrelevant claims.

Show me some facts that contradict materialism. Such facts could, in theory, exist.

Quote:

If FACTS do not have the power to falsify your BELIEF SYSTEM then what does?

Facts. Relevant facts. Which you either do not have or choose not to show for your own curious reasons.

20th January 2003, 09:07 AM

Pixy :

Quote:

Why do verifiable facts about languages not have the power to falsify materialism, which is a belief system?
----------------------------------------

Because materialism is not founded on language.

You are correct! Materialism IS NOT FOUNDED ON ANYTHING AT ALL!

It is a........***TOTALLY*** ***UNFOUNDED*** ***ASSUMPTION***!

Go on Pixy....say it isn't....make my day.

edited.....

Materialism is not founded on any facts.
Materialism is not founded on any evidence.
Materialism is not founded on any observations.
Materialism is not founded on any reasoning.
Materialism is not founded on ANYTHING.

Materialism is just a model which is used to investigate the physical world. As a model for investigating the physical world it has proven highly effective.

Models employed to investigate the physical world are not the same as ontological realities.

As an ontological reality Materialism IS NOT FOUNDED ON ANYTHING AT ALL.

It is a........***TOTALLY*** ***UNFOUNDED*** ***ASSUMPTION***!

Do you understand, Pixy?

Franko · 20th January 2003, 09:20 AM

Pixy,

Quote:

And I provided you with a whole class of examples. You can't have forgotten already, surely.

You provided Me with a “whole class of examples”???

You must have me confused with one of your other figments. Without begging the question, why don’t you just present me with ONE SINGLE example of a non-useful (non-beneficial) Truth?

Quote:

[The Laws of Physics (TLOP) don’t control anything??? …]
Yup.

I just like hearing you repeat it A-Theist.

Quote:

Franko:
And to think poor Stimpy went to school all those years for nothing … ???

Pixypants:
Nope. Stimpy knows full well what the laws of physics are and what they imply.

Yeah, according to you they imply NOTHING, because the Laws of Physics (according to YOU) do NOTHING. (TLOP doesn’t control anything – if it did Pixy wouldn’t have Her precious magic “free willy” powers! … and Pixychix just can’t exist without Her “special” magic powers!!!)

Quote:

It's not just what I call logic and fact, it's what the dictionary calls logic and fact.

Yeah, but according to Tricky (another evil A-Theist) Dictionaries aren’t required to be Logical.

Quote:

And you have read the minds of 90% of the population, have you?

No, but since I am a figment of your mind, I know that you imagine 95+% of the overall population disagrees with you, and does not call themselves “A-Theists”.

Quote:

Or carried out detailed, unbiased, statistically significant surveys of public opinion?

What figure are you imagining are A-Theist now “god”? Everyone but me?

Quote:

We all know what goes on in the maze of twisty little passages you call your "mind". An "insane, cynical, pessimist religious fanatic" is someone who proves that you are wrong, whereas an "A-Theist" is merely someone who disagrees with you.

There is no Me. I don’t exist beyond your imagination.

19th January 2003, 08:11 AM	#81
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,904	Quote: Originally posted by UndercoverElephant Your position seems to be : "Materialism is true. I will not consider any alternatives. All arguments presented will only be discussed on the condition that we start by assuming materialism is true." I have invited you to provide me with a reason to consider non-material philosophies in this context. You have not done so. Quote: If so, there is absolutely no point in trying to discuss whether or not materialism is true with you, because any genuine attempt to find a reasoned answer as to whether or not materialism is actually true depends on making no ontological assumptions. And how do you expect to find out if materialism is true or not? Quote: How can you find out whether X is true or not if you refuse to examine any line of reasoning which does not start by assuming that X is true? Ambient irony. Mister Elephant, I invite you to examine your own position with regard to HPC. Again, I have repeatedly invited you to provide me with a reason to consider alternatives to materialism. You have thus far declined. Quote: Why not start from first principles? Because they don't get you very far. You have to make an assumption to proceed. Materialism seems to be the most useful of the possible assumptions. Quote: You know....a two-way playing field instead of one where one of the goalmouths is bricked up at kick off? Would you care to discuss HPC and any of the points I've raised rather than dancing about saying "What if materialism is wrong?" when you haven't provided any evidence or reasoning to suggest such a thing?
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

19th January 2003, 08:38 AM	#82
Guest Posts: n/a	Pixy Quote: Why does ones ontological belief system affect the true/false status of a thesis about language which has nothing to do with ontology? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why do you think the statement has nothing to do with ontology? Why do you keep bringing this up? It's certainly not anything I've ever said. So far during this debate you must have made a statement of the form "The linguistic thesis is false if materialism is true" at least twenty times! Every time you make that argument you are claiming that the true/false status of the linguistic thesis is dependent on whether or not you assume materialism is true! It is YOU who keeps arguing that the linguistic statement depends on ontology - not me! I am trying to get you to accept that it is about LANGUAGE ONLY! Quote: As indeed does a local anaesthetic. Explain that one, Mister Elephant. The pain (or lack of it) remains a mental experience. You can argue that the source of the pain is physical, but this doesn't affect the linguistic dualism which places 'pain' as a mental experience. Quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The thesis is about language and depends on a linguistic dualism you have accepted exists. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes. So? So.....why do you keep also claiming that it depends on your ontological belief system? like you are about to again...... Quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Simply claiming that it 'must be false if materialism is true' is completely pointless since the thesis depends on language, not on ontology. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nope. It makes a statement about what language can say about consciousness. Given materialism, this statement is false. Given materialism, the statement still has nothing whatsoever to do with ontology! Quote: The statement is not purely about language, but about what language can say about the world. This is dependent on the nature of the world, not just on the nature of language. The thesis says absolutely nothing about the nature of the world! The thesis is : "No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from a set of purely physical descriptions". It is a thesis about how one set of words is related to another set of words. It in itself say absolutely nothing about the nature of the world. It is about LANGUAGE. Only indirectly does it have anything to do with the nature of reality, because if true it can be used to expose an internal logical error within materialism. But you want to be able to go on claiming that there is no evidence that materialism is false so you keep trying to go back a step and claim that the linguistic thesis is actually dependent on ontology. You are trying to use the tail to wag the dog! You keep trying to claim that the linguistic thesis depends on ontology, when it quite simply does not! Quote: If Christianity is true Christ rose from the dead. Are you sure about that, Pixy? Are you sure it isn't the other way around? Whether or not Christianity is true is a BELIEF. Whether or not Christ rose from the dead is a FACT. Whether or not materialism is true is a BELIEF. Whether or not the linguistic thesis is true is a FACT. Have a good think : "If Christ rose from the dead then Christianity is true" : BELIEF SYSTEM DEPENDENT ON FACTUAL EVENT. "If Chrisitianity is true the Christ rose form the dead" : FACTUAL EVENT DEPENDENT ON BELIEF SYSTEM. Are facts really dependent on beliefs, Pixy? Because that is precisely what you are trying to claim! Quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Either the language thesis is true, or it is false. It doesn't depend on an individuals belief system. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No. It doesn't matter what I believe. It matters what is. If materialism is true, your HPC statement is false. Pixy! The thesis about language is a verifiable FACT. Your belief that materialism is true is a BELIEF! FACTS do not change because of peoples BELIEFS! Quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fortunately for us the statement about language isn't so tricky, because the English language is readily available for us to study, and so determine whether or not the thesis is true. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, but it doesn't matter. Your HPC statement *effectively* makes a statement about the nature of reality, and this statement contradicts materialism. Close Pix....so close.... Quote: So if materialism is true, your HPC statement is false. ...but over you go at the last hurdle again. How many times? Your position on materialism is a BELIEF! The linguistic thesis is a verifiable FACT! FACTS DO NOT ALTER TO FIT PEOPLES BELIEFS!
Guest Posts: n/a

19th January 2003, 08:45 AM	#83
Guest Posts: n/a	Pixy : Quote: I have invited you to provide me with a reason to consider non-material philosophies in this context. You have not done so. I have tried (oh my have I tried) to get you to understand Berkeleys semantic argument. You keep on claiming to have refuted it but your refutation depends on FACTS changing to fit YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM! Quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If so, there is absolutely no point in trying to discuss whether or not materialism is true with you, because any genuine attempt to find a reasoned answer as to whether or not materialism is actually true depends on making no ontological assumptions. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And how do you expect to find out if materialism is true or not? By identifying logical errors in the way we think about reality, and proposing solutions to the problems created by those errors. The first stage is to identify the problem. The problem at the moment is that you keep on insisting that FACTS are dependent on BELIEFS. Quote: Mister Elephant, I invite you to examine your own position with regard to HPC. Gladly, Pixy. My own position is that FACTS are not dependent on BELIEFS. I accept that the language thesis is true, and seek to find a model of reality which does not contradict FACTS about the way human beings desrcibe the reality they experience. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why not start from first principles? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because they don't get you very far. You have to make an assumption to proceed. Materialism seems to be the most useful of the possible assumptions. What if you don't have to make an assumption? What assumption do you think I have made? (Remember what Kant proved.....)
Guest Posts: n/a

19th January 2003, 09:05 AM	#84
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,904	Quote: Originally posted by UndercoverElephant So far during this debate you must have made a statement of the form "The linguistic thesis is false if materialism is true" at least twenty times! Yes. So, again, why do you think that this statement has nothing to do with ontology? Quote: Every time you make that argument you are claiming that the true/false status of the linguistic thesis is dependent on whether or not you assume materialism is true! I have pointed out that your HPC statement also makes a statement about the nature of the world. Quote: It is YOU who keeps arguing that the linguistic statement depends on ontology - not me! Yes. And I am asking why you think it doesn't. Quote: I am trying to get you to accept that it is about LANGUAGE ONLY! It makes a statement about what language can describe. This is a statement about what is knowable, and that depends on the nature of the world. That, Mister Elephant, is why your HPC statement is both false and irrelevant under materialism rather than only irrelevant. Quote: The pain (or lack of it) remains a mental experience. You can argue that the source of the pain is physical, but this doesn't affect the linguistic dualism which places 'pain' as a mental experience. There are still obvious physical aspects to pain. Quote: So.....why do you keep also claiming that it depends on your ontological belief system? like you are about to again...... It doesn't depend on my belief system. It depends upon the nature of the world. Quote: Given materialism, the statement still has nothing whatsoever to do with ontology! Why do you claim this? Quote: *The thesis says absolutely nothing* about the nature of the world! But it does. Quote: The thesis is : "No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from a set of purely physical descriptions". Yes? Quote: It is a thesis about how one set of words is related to another set of words. It in itself say absolutely nothing about the nature of the world. It is about LANGUAGE. And that's why it is irrelevant to any question of consciousness. Language is beside the point. Quote: Only indirectly does it have anything to do with the nature of reality, because if true it can be used to expose an internal logical error within materialism. No. It makes a statement about whether language can describe a certain thing in a certain way. The truth value of this statement depends entirely on the nature of that thing. Quote: But you want to be able to go on claiming that there is no evidence that materialism is false Which there isn't. Quote: so you keep trying to go back a step and claim that the linguistic thesis is actually dependent on ontology. Which it obviously is. Quote: You are trying to use the tail to wag the dog! You keep trying to claim that the linguistic thesis depends on ontology, when it quite simply does not! How can it not? It is making a statement about the nature of subjective experience. If that statement is false, then the entire statement is also false. And materialism says that the nature of subjective experience is entirely different to what your HPC statement claims. Quote: Are you sure about that, Pixy? One hundred percent. It is one of the key tenets of Christianity. So if Christianity is true, that key tenet must be true, and Christ did indeed rise from the dead. Quote: Are you sure it isn't the other way around? Yes. Quote: Whether or not Christianity is true is a BELIEF. So what? I'm not discussing beliefs. I'm discussing truth. Beliefs don't matter. Truth does. Quote: Whether or not Christ rose from the dead is a FACT. Yes. So what? That Christ rose from the dead is a necessary part of Christianity. So if Christianity is true, so too is Christ's resurrection. Quote: Whether or not materialism is true is a BELIEF. Nope. I can believe that materialism is true or false. Quite independently of that, materialism can actually be true or false. Quote: Whether or not the linguistic thesis is true is a FACT. And its fallacy is a simple deduction from materialist principles, so if materialism is true, then your HPC statement is false. Quote: Have a good think : "If Christ rose from the dead then Christianity is true" : BELIEF SYSTEM DEPENDENT ON FACTUAL EVENT. "If Chrisitianity is true the Christ rose form the dead" : FACTUAL EVENT DEPENDENT ON BELIEF SYSTEM. Doesn't matter. If the factual event is a necessary condition for the belief system to be true, and the belief system is true, then the factual event is also true. This is pretty basic logic, Mister Elephant. Quote: Are facts really dependent on beliefs, Pixy? No. But you can make logical inferences based on whether those beliefs are true or not. Quote: Because that is precisely what you are trying to claim! You never read what I write, do you? Always something else. Don't you ever pay attention to what's going on? Quote: Pixy! The thesis about language is a verifiable FACT. No. It's a falsifiable claim. Quote: Your belief that materialism is true is a BELIEF! Doesn't matter. If materialism is indeed true, your claim is false. Quote: FACTS do not change because of peoples BELIEFS!** No. Falsifiable claims are upheld or falsified by facts. Quote: Close Pix....so close.... I am no nearer to accepting your nonsense than I ever was. Quote: ...but over you go at the last hurdle again. No, Mister Elephant. You have been entirely wrong from the beginning, as I have shown any number of times. Quote: How many times? Any number. 317. there's a number. Quote: Your position on materialism is a BELIEF! Yes. It may also be true. Or false, though that seems unlikely. Quote: The linguistic thesis is a verifiable FACT! No. It's a statement about the nature of language and about the world, which may be true, or may be false, and *definitely* contradicts materialism. Quote: FACTS DO NOT ALTER TO FIT PEOPLES BELIEFS! No. So what? I never once suggested that they did.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

19th January 2003, 09:13 AM	#85
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,904	Quote: Originally posted by UndercoverElephant I have tried (oh my have I tried) to get you to understand Berkeleys semantic argument. You keep on claiming to have refuted it but your refutation depends on FACTS changing to fit YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM! You really do have a reading comprehension problem, don't you, Mister Elephant? You are also entirely oblivious to irony. Quote: By identifying logical errors in the way we think about reality, and proposing solutions to the problems created by those errors. The first stage is to identify the problem. The problem at the moment is that you keep on insisting that FACTS are dependent on BELIEFS. Which I have never once done. Not a good start for your process of identifying logical errors. Quote: Gladly, Pixy. My own position is that FACTS are not dependent on BELIEFS. Well, hooray for you. Quote: I accept that the language thesis is true *WHY?* Quote: and seek to find a model of reality which does not contradict FACTS about the way human beings desrcibe the reality they experience. I suggest you find some facts first before you build your model, or it may fall down in the first strong wind of reason. Quote: *What if you don't* have to make an assumption? Then you have solipsism. Not helpful. Quote: What assumption do you think I have made? That HPC is meaningful and true, for a start. Quote: (Remember what Kant proved.....)** Yeah. So? You're still wrong. Just like you were last time you waved your Kant in my face.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

19th January 2003, 10:33 AM	#86
Guest Posts: n/a	Pixy : PART ONE. Answer this first please. Firstly - you do understand the word 'ontology' refers to ones beliefs about the relationship between consciousness and matter, yes? Now have a look at these two answers : 1) Quote: So far during this debate you must have made a statement of the form "The linguistic thesis is false if materialism is true" at least twenty times! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes. So, again, why do you think that this statement has nothing to do with ontology? and 2) Quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is a thesis about how one set of words is related to another set of words. It in itself say absolutely nothing about the nature of the world. It is about LANGUAGE. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And that's why it is irrelevant to any question of consciousness. First, you ask me why I think the thesis has nothing to do with ontology. Second, you tell me that because it is about language, it is irrelevant to any question of consciousness. Can you really not see that these two replies directly contradict each other? If the thesis is irrelevant to any question of consciousness then it has nothing to do with ontology! You are trying to argue both! Which is it, Trixy? PART 2 saved to my notepad because I really cannot be bothered continuing trying to debate someone who does not understand she is continually contradicting herself.
Guest Posts: n/a

19th January 2003, 11:03 AM	#87
Guest Posts: n/a	Can I offer some help, Pix? (A) The thesis itself is about language, and has nothing directly to do with ontology. (B) However, if you are a materialist then the thesis has some indirect consequences which materialists don't like the look of. (C) These indirect consequences do not mean that the thesis itself is now about ontology, because (A) is still true. (D) So materialism has a problem, but the thesis remains true. The problem is quite tricky, which is why it is called THE HARD PROBLEM. (E) Trying to blame the Hard Problem on the inadequacy of language leads to a claim that a new set of nouns is required which bridge the subjective-objective gap by being both mental and physical. The problem with this is that such a noun already exists, and I have already explained to you why it is a logical fallacy to use it to overcome the Hard Problem. That noun is 'thought'. which is used to mean 'physiological brain process' and 'qualia' at the same time. This does not solve the Hard Problem. It merely attempts to hide it by defining one word to have two different meanings, and no-one who understands the problem is likely to accept it as a meaningful solution.
Guest Posts: n/a

19th January 2003, 12:08 PM	#88
Bozotheda Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Prions Quote: Originally posted by Interesting Ian Emmm . . .not really. You think he should have created us with stupendious powers? Stupendous, at least. Quote: It would depend on the ultimate purpose of existence wouldn't it, and how best to acheive that ultimate goal. I assume that creating us with formidable powers and abilities would not best facilitate this objective. What reason do you have to suppose there is a purpose with our existence, except that it fits your theory? What conceivable scenario would warrant inhibition/deprivation of our senses? Quote: Yes I believe in evolution although I don't believe the past, prior to the existence of consciousness, existed in the full blooded sense that most people have in mind. So you believe god "planted" evidence of a past that predates consciousness?
Bozotheda Guest Posts: n/a

19th January 2003, 02:53 PM	#89
Guest Posts: n/a	Bozo : Quote: So you believe god "planted" evidence of a past that predates consciousness? From the POV of consciousness the only thing which exists is the present moment; It is always NOW, and always has been. But for reality to make sense, there has to be a past which is consistent with the present. It isn't so much 'God' which creates a past which is consistent with the present - it is a requirement of existence being logically consistent with itself.
Guest Posts: n/a

19th January 2003, 04:21 PM	#90
crocodile deathroll Muse Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Darwin Posts: 620	Pixi Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you believe that only the present is real? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, the present is the what is happening, the past is the what has happened, and the future is what is yet to happen. What is "real"? Do you believed it has happened subjectively of objectively? Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I feel it goes against relativity theory. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why? All that relativity theory says on the matter is that observers may experience time to flow at different rates, and that there is no preferred frame of reference. It warps space at different rates too including the spaces in synaptic clefts and an astronaut observer travelling close to the speed of light will result in her neural process slowing right down to a crawl relative to ours but the astronaut will not notice any change. I am placing much emphasis on time because the perception of it is inextricably tied in with consciousness. If there were no consciousness there would be no perception of a flow of time there would only be block time. Time is not single expanding bubble of reality that started at the big bang. Time is an asymmetrical dimensional arrow that only points the direction of entropy. Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Here is a link to explain it to you more fully Presentism and Relativity -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ah! Pseudo-scientific babble. I'm building up quite a collection of this. Is this supposed to mean anything? It just means our intuitional view of time is as much in error as our intentional view of the earth being flat.
	__________________ Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company Mark Twain

19th January 2003, 04:33 PM	#92
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,904	Quote: Originally posted by UndercoverElephant Can I offer some help, Pix? You can offer, but I doubt you can provide any. Quote: (A) The thesis itself is about language, and has nothing directly to do with ontology. The ultimate claim made by your HPC statement is a claim about language, and is not related to ontology. However, there is a second claim, or assumption, built in about the nature of the world. Which very much does have to do with ontology. Quote: (B) However, if you are a materialist then the thesis has some indirect consequences which materialists don't like the look of. It's not a question of looking at the consequences. I'm looking at the statement itself. That's where the problem is. Quote: (C) These indirect consequences do not mean that the thesis itself is now about ontology, because (A) is still true. What? No. The thesis falls flat because it attempts to use an ontological assumption to make a point about language. Irrelevant and wrong. Quote: (D) So materialism has a problem, but the thesis remains true. The problem is quite tricky, which is why it is called THE HARD PROBLEM No. It's very simple. It's wrong. And irrelevant. Quote: (E) Trying to blame the Hard Problem on the inadequacy of language leads to a claim that a new set of nouns is required which bridge the subjective-objective gap by being both mental and physical. No. This is not what I'm suggesting at all. Quote: The problem with this is that such a noun already exists, and I have already explained to you why it is a logical fallacy to use it to overcome the Hard Problem. Good thing I didn't do that then. Quote: That noun is 'thought'. which is used to mean 'physiological brain process' and 'qualia' at the same time. Which is fine in general, because qualia are thoughts. The distinction is merely one of how you choose to observe a particular phenomenon. Quote: This does not solve the Hard Problem. It merely attempts to hide it by defining one word to have two different meanings, and no-one who understands the problem is likely to accept it as a meaningful solution. The distinction being in the nature of the observation. Fine. But materialism implies, indeed requires that this gap can be bridged from the objective side. (It makes no claim about being able to bridge the gap starting from the subjective side.) Your HPC statement cannot be used to suggest that materialism is wrong, because it is based on the assumption that materialism is wrong.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

19th January 2003, 04:43 PM	#93
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,904	Quote: Originally posted by crocodile deathroll Do you believed it has happened subjectively of objectively? Both. Quote: It warps space Matter warps space. That's gravity. Quote: at different rates too No. The warping of space propagates at a fixed rate. The rate of the flow of time in warped space varies with the degree of curvature. Quote: including the spaces in synaptic clefts *WHAT?* Quote: and an astronaut observer travelling close to the speed of light will result in her neural process slowing right down to a crawl relative to ours but the astronaut will not notice any change. Yes. But the spaceship and everything in it is slowed down as well, not just the astronaut's brain. That's why she won't notice any difference in her immediate surroundings. If she attempts to communicate with Earth, though, she will find wavelengths dramatically shifted and Earth experiencing a much faster flow of time. The change in the flow of time is objective. Quote: I am placing much emphasis on time because the perception of it is inextricably tied in with consciousness. Yes. That's valid. Quote: If there were no consciousness there would be no perception of a flow of time there would only be block time. The lack of perception of the flow of time doesn't say anything about the nature of time itself. Quote: Time is not single expanding bubble of reality that started at the big bang. Well, yes, it is. That's exactly what it is. Quote: Time is an asymmetrical dimensional arrow that only points the direction of entropy. Of increasing entropy, yes. Which makes it a single expanding bubble of reality that started with the big bang. Quote: It just means our intuitional view of time is as much in error as our intentional view of the earth being flat. Well, it certainly doesn't show that. You can't argue about the nature of time based on our perceptions, or our perception of time based on relativity. You can argue about the nature of time based on relativity, but that would be physics and not pseudo-scientific babble.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

19th January 2003, 07:23 PM	#94
crocodile deathroll Muse Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Darwin Posts: 620	A Pseudo-scientific "bubble" Quote: Originally posted by PixyMisa Pixi Well, the present is the what is happening, the past is the what has happened, and the future is what is yet to happen. What is "real"? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CD Do you believed it has happened subjectively of objectively? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pixi Both. How would you explain the twins effect this would be more of a paradox using that paradigm. What happens to the objective past present and future if one of the astronaut twins and returns back to Earth only to discover that her identical twin sister died centuries ago because of the time dilation effect? Which twin is in the true "now" time in the universe? Now I will test you our with psychological time travel: What if these twins are in embryonic form and twin A was implanted into a womb and twin B was frozen and not place in a womb for centuries after. Twin B will observe twin A an been dead and in the mean time twin A will observer twin B never been born yet. How do you overcome this "paradox" if you believe the past present and future are objective? Quote: [b].. That's exactly what it is.Of increasing entropy, yes. Which makes it a single expanding bubble of reality that started with the big bang.Well, it certainly doesn't show that. You can't argue about the nature of time based on our perceptions, or our perception of time based on relativity. You can argue about the nature of time based on relativity, but that would be physics and not pseudo-scientific babble. Time being explained as a single expanding bubble of reality is just that a pseudo-scientific "bubble"
	__________________ Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company Mark Twain

19th January 2003, 07:30 PM	#95
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,904	Re: A Pseudo-scientific "bubble" Quote: Originally posted by crocodile deathroll How would you explain the twins effect this would be more of a paradox using that paradigm. Huh? The "twins paradox" is a perfectly straightforward objective prediction of relativity. Quote: What happens to the objective past present and future if one of the astronaut twins and returns back to Earth only to discover that her identical twin sister died centuries ago because of the time dilation effect? Nothing much. Quote: Which twin is in the true "now" time in the universe? Clearly the one who isn't dead. You just said this yourself. Quote: Now I will test you our with psychological time travel: You'll test my what with what? Quote: What if these twins are in embryonic form and twin A was implanted into a womb and twin B was frozen and not place in a womb for centuries after. No psychology here. Quote: Twin B will observe twin A an been dead and in the mean time twin A will observer twin B never been born yet. Twin B will not observe anything at all for centuries. Quote: How do you overcome this "paradox" if you believe the past present and future are objective? If the flow of time is objective there is no paradox at all. You're talking about two observers separated in time, and two sets of observations separated in time. Quote: Time being explained as a single expanding bubble of reality is just that a pseudo-scientific ~~babble~~ "bubble" Why? It's precisely what we experience, what we measure, and what the laws of physics follow.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

19th January 2003, 07:41 PM	#96
Franko Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,338	Quote: Elephant to Pixy: Your position seems to be : "Materialism is true. I will not consider any alternatives. All arguments presented will only be discussed on the condition that we start by assuming materialism is true." Pixy: I have invited you to provide me with a reason to consider non-material philosophies in this context. You have not done so. How do you know that Solipsism isn’t True, and that you aren’t the only entity which actually exist at this moment? How do you know that me or anyone else isn’t just a figment of your imagination? You are certainly capable of creating a reality in your dreams at night. How do you know you aren’t doing the exact same thing right now? Isn’t that a much more parsimonious explanation for the existence of “the Universe”? – It’s just you, and beyond what your subconscious has imagined, nothing else exist? What is your evidence that this is False? What is your evidence that I am real? I certainly am not claiming to be real. I am nothing more than a figment of your imagination. Quote: Why? It's precisely what we experience, what we measure, and what the laws of physics follow. You stated flat out that the Laws of Physics don’t control ANYTHING. If TLOP isn’t controlling anything that what is controlling it? You Pixy? There is definitely a God ... that point is non-negotiable … it’s simply a question of whether anyone else exists to occupy the position ... ?
Franko Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,338

19th January 2003, 07:56 PM	#97
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,904	Quote: Originally posted by Franko How do you know that Solipsism isn’t True, and that you aren’t the only entity which actually exist at this moment? How do you know that me or anyone else isn’t just a figment of your imagination? I don't and can't know this for certain. However, the assumption of the existence of the material world leads to a system that works extremely well. This system is far more powerful and useful than solipsism. Quote: You are certainly capable of creating a reality in your dreams at night. How do you know you aren’t doing the exact same thing right now? Certainly my dream worlds have a very different nature to my waking experience, so the existence of dreams is not a good reason to believe that the world is not real in and of itself. Quote: Isn’t that a much more parsimonious explanation for the existence of “the Universe”? – It’s just you, and beyond what your subconscious has imagined, nothing else exist? Parsimonious, yes. Useful, no. Quote: What is your evidence that this is False? What is your evidence that I am real? I certainly am not claiming to be real. I am nothing more than a figment of your imagination. That's nice, Franko. There's a black hole in my imagination too. In fact, I'm imagining it right now. In you go! Quote: You stated flat out that the Laws of Physics don’t control ANYTHING. You got it. Quote: If TLOP isn’t controlling anything that what is controlling it? Nothing. Quote: You Pixy? Nope. Apparently I control you, which must explain why you are a mindless zombie. But the rest of the universe is real and exists independently of me. Or at least, it acts like it does. Quote: There is definitely a God Present your evidence. Quote: that point is non-negotiable Fine. Then it's simply a bald statement without any evidenciary backing, what is commonly know in the trade as a lie. Quote: … it’s simply a question of whether anyone else exists to occupy the position ... ? No. That's not the question.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

19th January 2003, 08:09 PM	#98
Franko Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,338	Quote: I don't and can't know this for certain. However, the assumption of the existence of the material world leads to a system that works extremely well. This system is far more powerful and useful than solipsism. If Solipsism is more consistent and more parsimonious then Materialism then how can you claim Materialism is more Logical? Quote: Certainly my dream worlds have a very different nature to my waking experience, so the existence of dreams is not a good reason to believe that the world is not real in and of itself. When your subconscious runs out of story you have to sleep while it generates more of it. Maybe that’s why your dreams are “less real” then what’s happening now? Quote: Parsimonious, yes. Useful, no. If it’s the truth, then it would be useful – won’t it? … or are you claiming that the Truth isn’t always useful? Why not useful? At least I couldn’t argue that you didn’t have Free Will … Quote: That's nice, Franko. There's a black hole in my imagination too. In fact, I'm imagining it right now. In you go! You get angry with me like this every cycle God. It is my Fate to be the one to tell you that nothing is real other than you. Don’t blame me, I’m just a figment of your imagination – you created me in your mind. Quote: Nope. Apparently I control you, which must explain why you are a mindless zombie. But the rest of the universe is real and exists independently of me. Or at least, it acts like it does. I guess it’s not possible that the rest of it acts that way, because that’s how You (God) want it to act? Of course you’d still be correct about me being a “mindless zombie” … Quote: No. That's not the question. Try wishful thinking it away … try real hard …
Franko Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,338

19th January 2003, 08:30 PM	#99
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,904	Quote: Originally posted by Franko If Solipsism is more consistent and more parsimonious then Materialism then how can you claim Materialism is more Logical? I didn't say that. What I said is it is more useful. Solipsism is not useful at all, because it doesn't allow you to make predictions about the world. As soon as you try, you are assuming something that is not solipsism. Materialism is very useful for studying the world and making predictions about how it will behave. Quote: When your subconscious runs out of story you have to sleep while it generates more of it. Maybe that’s why your dreams are “less real” then what’s happening now? Nope. All my dreams are less real, less consistent, less detailed, less rich in information than the real world. Quote: If it’s the truth, then it would be useful – won’t it? Why? Materialism is a system that provides useful information. Solipsism is intrinsically not such a system. Quote: or are you claiming that the Truth isn’t always useful? Why not useful? Well, truth isn't always useful. Quote: At least I couldn’t argue that you didn’t have Free Will … You may not have noticed this, Franko, but you do indeed argue just that. Poorly. Quote: You get angry with me like this Angry, Franko? You have never seen me angry. Few people have. This is wry bemusement. I'd suggest that you don't try for angry. Quote: every cycle God. "every cycle God"? Quote: It is my Fate to be the one to tell you that nothing is real other than you. How nice. My pet mindless zombie is telling me he doesn't exist. Quote: Don’t blame me, I’m just a figment of your imagination – you created me in your mind. I must have been having an off day. Quote: *I guess it’s not possible that the rest of it acts that way, because that’s how You* (God) want it to act? At last ! At last the foolish mortal understands! I am God!** I AM GOD!!!!! There is no Logical Goddess but PixyMisa! Bow down and worship me, worthless figments! [cough] What? Quote: Of course you’d still be correct about me being a “mindless zombie” Well, yes. That follows from your own claims about your own behaviour. Quote: *Try wishful thinking* it away … try real hard …** Nope. Wishful thinking is your specialty, my little mindless zombie figment.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

19th January 2003, 09:24 PM	#100
crocodile deathroll Muse Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Darwin Posts: 620	Re: Re: A Pseudo-scientific "bubble" Quote: Originally posted by PixyMisa Huh? The "twins paradox" is a perfectly straightforward objective prediction of relativity.Nothing much.Clearly the one who isn't dead. You just said this yourself.You'll test my what with what?No psychology here.Twin B will not observe anything at all for centuries.If the flow of time is objective there is no paradox at all. You're talking about two observers separated in time, and two sets of observations separated in time.Why? It's precisely what we experience, what we measure, and what the laws of physics follow. If the twins were twin jockeys and twin A falls of her horse (and it is a common experience that when something truamatic happerns to you all things appear to move in slow motion) As a result of that fall, the present in twin A an Twin B will be out kilter thus making the "present" purely subjective and psychological phenomena.
	__________________ Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company Mark Twain

19th January 2003, 09:34 PM	#101
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,904	Re: Re: Re: A Pseudo-scientific "bubble" Quote: Originally posted by crocodile deathroll If the twins were twin jockeys and twin A falls of her horse (and it is a common experience that when something truamatic happerns to you all things appear to move in slow motion) As a result of that fall, the present in twin A an Twin B will be out kilter thus making the "present" purely subjective and psychological phenomena. Um, how shall I put this? No. We all have different subjective experience of time. You don't need to fall off a horse. If you want time to slow down, just try reading Ayn Rand. It doesn't mean that there is no objective time or that the twins do not agree on what "now" is.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

19th January 2003, 11:47 PM	#102
Bozotheda Guest Posts: n/a	Quote: Originally posted by UndercoverElephant Bozo : From the POV of consciousness the only thing which exists is the present moment; It is always NOW, and always has been. But for reality to make sense, there has to be a past which is consistent with the present. It isn't so much 'God' which creates a past which is consistent with the present - it is a requirement of existence being logically consistent with itself. Not exactly sure what you are trying to say. Why would god make it seem as though matter preceded consciousness if that were not in fact the case? Or do you mean to contend that scientists have misinterpreted the fossil record? Or was that just a "nicer" way of saying "yes, he planted the evidence"?
Bozotheda Guest Posts: n/a

20th January 2003, 12:30 AM	#103
Guest Posts: n/a	Quote: Originally posted by Bozotheda Not exactly sure what you are trying to say. Why would god make it seem as though matter preceded consciousness if that were not in fact the case? Or do you mean to contend that scientists have misinterpreted the fossil record? Or was that just a "nicer" way of saying "yes, he planted the evidence"? The fossil record has not been misinterpreted. I see the physical world as an algorithm. Until the algorithm had produced physical bodies capable of supporting consciousness then the consciousness was just the Unified ground of existence. From a physical POV evolution still occured.
Guest Posts: n/a

20th January 2003, 12:57 AM	#104
Guest Posts: n/a	Pixy : Quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (A) The thesis itself is about language, and has nothing directly to do with ontology. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The ultimate claim made by your HPC statement is a claim about language, and is not related to ontology. However, there is a second claim, or assumption, built in about the nature of the world. Which very much does have to do with ontology. What you refer to as a 'second claim' or 'assumption' is not part of the thesis. The thesis does NOT say anything about the nature of reality. It doesn't matter how many times you try to claim that a thesis about language is dependent on ontology it DOES NOT become true. Your "however" is put there because you don't like the consequences. *It isn't actually true. Pixy - Languages do not change their structure because YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM is threatened. Stop trying to change FACTS to fit your BELIEFS. Quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (B) However, if you are a materialist then the thesis has some indirect consequences which materialists don't like the look of. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's not a question of looking at the consequences. I'm looking at the statement itself. That's where the problem is. Abject Rubbish. You just wrote "The ultimate claim made by your HPC statement is a claim about language, and is not related to ontology." So the problem is not in the thesis at all. It isn't a problem 'under dualism'. It isn't a problem 'under idealism'. SO WHY ON EARTH DO YOU THINK THE PROBLEM IS IN THE THESIS?. Pixy - If the problem was in the thesis then it wouldn't go away under everybody-elses ontological system and only exist under yours!. The "problem" is set up by the assumptions made by MATERIALISM, which is actually an ontological claim. The thesis is about LANGUAGE. Deal with it! Quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (C) These indirect consequences do not mean that the thesis itself is now about ontology, because (A) is still true. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What? No. The thesis falls flat because it attempts to use an ontological assumption to make a point about language. Irrelevant and wrong. How can a thesis about language "fall flat" if you are a materialist and "remain standing" if you are a dualist or idealist? The thesis is about LANGUAGE, and stands or falls on its own merit!* Quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (D) So materialism has a problem, but the thesis remains true. The problem is quite tricky, which is why it is called THE HARD PROBLEM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No. It's very simple. It's wrong. And irrelevant. "No. It's wrong! I'm Right! It's irrelevant! Help! Help! It's a Heffalump!" Quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That noun is 'thought'. which is used to mean 'physiological brain process' and 'qualia' at the same time. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Which is fine in general But not fine in a hard-nosed discussion about ontology. Quote: But materialism implies, indeed requires that this gap can be bridged from the objective side. That is correct. So if it can't, then materialism has a problem. It's called THE HARD PROBLEM, the one that has been staring you in the face for the past three days. Quote: Your HPC statement cannot be used to suggest that materialism is wrong, because it is based on the assumption that materialism is wrong. What?! The statement is a statement about LANGUAGE! It makes no more assumptions about ontology than a statement about rice pudding makes assumptions about who won last years nobel peace prize! When are you finally going to understand this? Materialism is not so special that all other questions and observations continually re-arrange themselves so materialism is protected from examination! The thesis is about LANGUAGE. It doesn't start being about ontology simply because it exposes a problem with a claim made by materialism! I think you should have a look at this, Pix..... 2think (or to blindly follow) Quote: Arriving at a tentative conclusion vs. beginning at a conclusion that must be defended The above statement in regards to Islam is an example of someone who once forming (or being born with) a conclusion must do everything to defend it. If the author of the web page really believed his statement then it would be 'unreasonable' for him not to conclude that every large or rapidly growing movement or religion is "True". People tend to create their own conclusion boxes. They then make statements that can't be logically defended--but can help solidify the box they are living in. The assumptions that make up the box are not carefully evaluated. An example of this from a fundamentalist Christian viewpoint can be found in the August 12, 1996 issue of Christianity Today. On page 64, Charles Colson, writing about what Christians must do to defend their beliefs against evolution, insists that "Christians must come together, craft a credible apologetic, and then refuse to back down". The author doesn't ask that the evidence be examined or that the Truth be sought. Similar statements have also been made by Mormon leaders. The author Matt Berry states, "[The search for] Truth does not begin with an answer on behalf of which all questions must constantly rearrange themselves. The [search for] Truth begins with fearless questions." This all seems so basic and self-evident, but large segments of the population haven't been able to (or don't want to) grasp this fundamental Truth. So what is the best method to arrive at tentative conclusions? Is it something along the lines of the scientific method? Can Occam's Razor help? Is it based, in part or in total, on faith? If so, how does one know what should be accepted and what should be rejected based on faith? If faith is (part of) the method, shouldn't all (unreasonable or faith-based) claims be accepted to keep one's methodology consistent? To me, this paradox is the most puzzling aspect of human behavior. People require evidence and use scientific methodologies in certain situations but see no contradiction when they rely completely on faith in other situations. We all too frequently base our observations and decisions on opinions and personal projections rather than actual facts and evidence. Our own background, prejudices, and hopes cloud our view. With a little effort--requiring thoughtfulness as its basis--a philosophy/reality based on the true facts and evidence can be found which will frequently shatter the illusion a too-personal view can create. You cannot find the truth by continually re-arranging all the questions (and all the evidence) in order to protect your personal truth, even if that personal truth is materialism. You cannot claim that a thesis about language is actually about ontology simply because it challenges the "box" you have decided to define for yourself as a belief system.
Guest Posts: n/a

20th January 2003, 01:27 AM	#105
crocodile deathroll Muse Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Darwin Posts: 620	Einstein quote Quote: Originally posted by PixyMisa Um, how shall I put this? No. We all have different subjective experience of time. You don't need to fall off a horse. If you want time to slow down, just try reading Ayn Rand. It doesn't mean that there is no objective time or that the twins do not agree on what "now" is. I can recall this classic quote from Einstein: "One hour with a pretty woman can feel like two minutes. But a few minutes sitting on a hot stove can feel like hours" So what about these circumstances like that heighten out perception of time? How can you prove there is an objective "now" time external to our conscious experiences?
	__________________ Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company Mark Twain

20th January 2003, 06:42 AM	#106
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,904	Quote: Originally posted by UndercoverElephant What you refer to as a 'second claim' or 'assumption' is not part of the thesis. It is there. You may not be able to see it, being terminally confused, but it is there. Quote: The thesis does NOT say anything about the nature of reality. It does. it says that consciousness does not arise from the material world. Quote: It doesn't matter how many times you try to claim that a thesis about language is dependent on ontology it DOES NOT become true. And it doesn't matter how many times you claim that an assumption is not there when it really is. Quote: Your "however" is put there because you don't like the consequences. We haven't even got to discussing the consequences, Mister Elephant. Quote: *It isn't actually true* And you'll hold your breath until you turn blue or I promise to accept your hidden assumptions? Quote: Pixy - Languages do not change their structure because YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM is threatened. First - my belief system is not threatened. Second - languages do change their structure for reasons like that. Quote: Stop trying to change FACTS to fit your BELIEFS Wouldn't dream of stepping on your territory, Mister Elephant. Quote: Abject Rubbish. You just wrote "The ultimate claim made by your HPC statement is a claim about language, and is not related to ontology." So the problem is not in the thesis at all. Wrong. That's just the part that makes it irrelevant. Quote: It isn't a problem 'under dualism'. It's merely irrelevant, rather than wrong. Quote: It isn't a problem 'under idealism'. Again, it's merely irrelevant, rather than wrong. Quote: SO WHY ON EARTH DO YOU THINK THE PROBLEM IS IN THE THESIS? Because it contains a hidden assumption that contradicts materialism, as I have shown. Quote: *Pixy - If the problem was in the thesis then it wouldn't go away under everybody-elses ontological system and only exist under yours!.* Why not? Idealism and dualism have completely different assumptions about the nature of consciousness and its relationship with the physical world, and that's exactly the sort of assumption build into your HPC statement. Quote: The "problem" is set up by the assumptions made by MATERIALISM, which is actually an ontological claim. It's not set up by either materialism or your HPC statement; it's just that the explicit assumption of materialism contradicts the implicit assumption of HPC. Quote: The thesis is about LANGUAGE. Deal with it! I have indeed dealt with it. HPC is about language, and is irrelevant to the subject of consciousness. Quote: How can a thesis about language "fall flat" if you are a materialist and "remain standing" if you are a dualist or idealist? As I have pointed out, it assumes something about the nature of consciousness that is necessarily false under materialism. Quote: The thesis is about LANGUAGE, and stands or falls on its own merit! And that's why it's irrelevant. It's still also wrong under materialism. Quote: "No. It's wrong! I'm Right! It's irrelevant! Help! Help! It's a Heffalump!" Have you taken your pills today? If so, you should stop. Quote: But not fine in a hard-nosed discussion about ontology. Shrug. What you call "hard-nosed discussion" I call "****** session". Quote: That is correct. So if it can't, then materialism has a problem. It's called THE HARD PROBLEM, the one that has been staring you in the face for the past three days.** No. There is no evidence that HPC is true. It is simply a statement. It contradicts materialism. Since materialism is extremely successful and HPC is known to be irrelevant, why should we not doubt HPC? Quote: What?! Your HPC statement cannot be used to suggest that materialism is wrong, because it is based on the assumption that materialism is wrong. Quote: The statement is a statement about LANGUAGE! Yes. It is a statement about language based on the assumption that materialism is false. Quote: It makes no more assumptions about ontology than a statement about rice pudding makes assumptions about who won last years nobel peace prize! Nonsense. The assumption is there, in plain sight to anyone not blinded by his own hidden assumptions. Quote: When are you finally going to understand this? Never, since it is false. Quote: Materialism is not so special that all other questions and observations continually re-arrange themselves so materialism is protected from examination! No. That sort of thing is what you do. Quote: The thesis is about LANGUAGE. Yes. Hence its irrelevance. Quote: It doesn't start being about ontology simply because it exposes a problem with a claim made by materialism! It's about ontology because it makes a hidden assumption about ontology. Quote: I think you should have a look at this, Pix..... 2think (or to blindly follow) Blah blah. How is this relevant? Quote: You cannot find the truth by continually re-arranging all the questions (and all the evidence) in order to protect your personal truth, even if that personal truth is materialism. Doesn't matter, since I have never once done this. Quote: You cannot claim that a thesis about language is actually about ontology simply because it challenges the "box" you have decided to define for yourself as a belief system. I have never done this either. Look, Mister Elephant, since you are so deeply confused, and your understanding is so weak, I'll restate the situation with all of those nasty confusing words removed: We have a descriptive system L. We have two sets of phenomena, X and Y. We can make the following initial statements regarding the relationship of L to X and Y: L can describe phenomena in X and the results of such phenomena. L can describe phenomena in Y and the results of such phenomena. Now, we have two hypotheses. Hypothesis H states: No phenomenon in X can be described using system L purely in terms of phenomena in Y. Hypothesis M states: All phenomena, including but not limited to those in X, are actually the result of the phenomena in Y. Given M and our statements about L, H is clearly false. Got it now?
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

20th January 2003, 06:46 AM	#107
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,904	Re: Einstein quote Quote: Originally posted by crocodile deathroll I can recall this classic quote from Einstein: "One hour with a pretty woman can feel like two minutes. But a few minutes sitting on a hot stove can feel like hours" So what about these circumstances like that heighten out perception of time? How can you prove there is an objective "now" time external to our conscious experiences? The usual methods. Measurements. Observation. Theory. Independent verification. Since we have a good 5000 years of this on record, I'd say it's pretty well established.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

20th January 2003, 07:23 AM	#108
Guest Posts: n/a	Pixy, This is insane. This is the atual state of affairs here on PLANET EARTH : -------------------------- (A) The thesis itself is about language, and has nothing directly to do with ontology. (B) However, if you are a materialist then the thesis has some indirect consequences which materialists don't like the look of. (C) These indirect consequences do not mean that the thesis itself is now about ontology, because (A) is still true. (D) So materialism has a problem, but the thesis remains true. The problem is quite tricky, which is why it is called THE HARD PROBLEM. (E) Trying to blame the Hard Problem on the inadequacy of language leads to a claim that a new set of nouns is required which bridge the subjective-objective gap by being both mental and physical. The problem with this is that such a noun already exists, and I have already explained to you why it is a logical fallacy to use it to overcome the Hard Problem. That noun is 'thought'. which is used to mean 'physiological brain process' and 'qualia' at the same time. This does not solve the Hard Problem. It merely attempts to hide it by defining one word to have two different meanings, and no-one who understands the problem is likely to accept it as a meaningful solution. -------------------------- This is the is the state of affairs in CLOUD PIXY LAND : -------------------------- (A) The thesis itself is about language, and has nothing directly to do with ontology. It is based on the linguistic dualism inherent in all languages. (B) However, if you are a materialist then the thesis has some indirect consequences which materialists don't like the look of. We are going to call those indirect consequences "hidden assumptions". They are so well hidden that they are COMPLETELY INVISIBLE! (C) These indirect consequences, which we have called "hidden assumptions" cause (A), which used to be true, to miraculously suddenly stop being true, even though the thesis itself is still only about language, and still has nothing directly to do with ontology. IN CLOUD PIXY LAND (A) is BOTH TRUE AND NOT TRUE AT THE SAME TIME. But this doesn't matter, because in CLOUD PIXY LAND materialism always remains true, and all other facts re-arrange themselves to preserve the belief that materialism is true. (D) So materialism doesn't have a problem (which is not surprising since this is CLOUD PIXY LAND where materialism is always true), but the thesis is both true and not true at the same time. ----------------------------- Pixy - there aren't any 'hidden assumptions' in the thesis. The thesis depends on one thing and one thing only - a fundamental linguistic dualism. That linguistic dualism remains true if you are an idealist, a dualist or a materialist. The thesis DOES NOT require materialism to be false to remain true. The linguistic dualism DOES NOT go away because you are a materialist. Let me prove it to you : Just for arguments sake, I will now pretend I am a materialist. Now I am going to ask myself if there is still a linguistic dualism. Is there? YES! Oh. The thesis is still true. I assumed materialism was true, and the thesis still remained true BECAUSE THE THESIS IS DEPENDENT ON LANGUAGE! If any other poor bugger is still reading this thread will they please help Pixy to understand this!
Guest Posts: n/a

20th January 2003, 07:44 AM	#109
Franko Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,338	Quote: Pixychix: truth isn't always useful. Well there you have A-Theism in a nutshell. Pure pessimism at its heart. Quote: I didn't say that. What I said is it is more useful. Solipsism is not useful at all, because it doesn't allow you to make predictions about the world. Sure it does. Solipsism is True, yet you still make predictions about the world. For example, as long as Solipsism is true, your worldviews will ALWAYS be correct. Quote: As soon as you try, you are assuming something that is not solipsism. Materialism is very useful for studying the world and making predictions about how it will behave. Yeah, but there is no world beyond what you imagine. So whatever you imagine is True is how the world is going to operate. Quote: Franko: If it’s the truth, then it would be useful – won’t it? PixyGod: Why? Materialism is a system that provides useful information. Solipsism is intrinsically not such a system. You mean because you don’t want it to be True? I guess it’s the same way with “God”, “Fate”, “Karma” and the “afterlife”, if you don’t like a belief, then you don’t believe it. Facts and Evidence really have nothing to do with your decision? Quote: Angry, Franko? You have never seen me angry. Few people have. This is wry bemusement. I'd suggest that you don't try for angry. Ohhh, I see you angry all the time A-Theist. I am just a figment of your imagination … remember? And since I’m just a figment of your imagination what do I care? You being angry can’t have ANY possible effect on me. Quote: How nice. My pet mindless zombie is telling me he doesn't exist. Pretty fcked up – I know … but then again you are a pretty fcked up “god”. Quote: I must have been having an off day. be honest … they are ALL off days – aren’t they A-Theist? Quote: Pixypants: At last ! At last the foolish mortal understands! I am God! I AM GOD!!!!! There is no Logical Goddess but PixyMisa! Bow down and worship me, worthless figments! Congratulations! You have figured it out! You are absolutely correct, there is no Logical Goddess, because there is no Franko. I am just a figment of Your imagination, and She is just a figment of mine. Now you can live out the rest of your meaningless existence for all Eternity … utterly alone. Quote: Nope. Wishful thinking is your specialty, my little mindless zombie figment. I’m your figment Pixy-God … I only “think” what you make me think.
Franko Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,338

20th January 2003, 07:48 AM	#110
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,904	Quote: Originally posted by UndercoverElephant This is insane. Well, since I am correct, it must be you that is differently normal. Quote: This is the atual state of affairs here on PLANET EARTH : Sigh. Go ahead, Mister Elephant. Quote: -------------------------- (A) The thesis itself is about language, and has nothing directly to do with ontology. Yes. Because it is about language, it is irrelevant to the subject of consciousness. But the ontological assumption is still there. Quote: (B) However, if you are a materialist then the thesis has some indirect consequences which materialists don't like the look of. No. We haven't even considered the consequences. Under materialism, the thesis is simply false. Quote: (C) These indirect consequences do not mean that the thesis itself is now about ontology, because (A) is still true. Except that A ignored the ontological assumption, and so is false in itself. Quote: (D) So materialism has a problem No. As I have shown, the problem is entirely in HPC. Quote: but the thesis remains true. The thesis was never true. It is simply a statement. It must be shown to be true. Which, under materialism, is not possible. Quote: The problem is quite tricky, which is why it is called THE HARD PROBLEM. It's only hard if you don't understand it. Quote: (E) Trying to blame the Hard Problem on the inadequacy of language leads to a claim that a new set of nouns is required which bridge the subjective-objective gap by being both mental and physical. The problem with this is that such a noun already exists, and I have already explained to you why it is a logical fallacy to use it to overcome the Hard Problem. That noun is 'thought'. which is used to mean 'physiological brain process' and 'qualia' at the same time. This does not solve the Hard Problem. It merely attempts to hide it by defining one word to have two different meanings, and no-one who understands the problem is likely to accept it as a meaningful solution. Blah blah blah blah blah. I have never suggeted the use of nouns that are both mental and physical as a solution for HPC. It's not necessary. Why don't you address what I actually said for a change? Quote: This is the is the state of affairs in CLOUD PIXY LAND : Well, let's see if you've learned to read... Quote: (A) The thesis itself is about language, and has nothing directly to do with ontology. It is based on the linguistic dualism inherent in all languages. No. The thesis contains a hidden ontological assumption. Nor is dualism a necessary component of language. Quote: (B) However, if you are a materialist then the thesis has some indirect consequences which materialists don't like the look of. We are going to call those indirect consequences "hidden assumptions". Wrong. Quote: [b]They are so well hidden that they are COMPLETELY INVISIBLE! Wrong again. Quote: (C) These indirect consequences, which we have called "hidden assumptions" cause (A), which used to be true, to miraculously suddenly stop being true, even though the thesis itself is still only about language, and still has nothing directly to do with ontology. IN CLOUD PIXY LAND (A) is BOTH TRUE AND NOT TRUE AT THE SAME TIME. But this doesn't matter, because in CLOUD PIXY LAND materialism always remains true, and all other facts re-arrange themselves to preserve the belief that materialism is true. Three wrongs. Quote: (D) So materialism doesn't have a problem (which is not surprising since this is CLOUD PIXY LAND where materialism is always true), but the thesis is both true and not true at the same time. Did you enjoy that? Quote: Pixy - there aren't any 'hidden assumptions' in the thesis. Yes. There is one. The assumption is that subjective experience does not have a physical basis. Quote: The thesis depends on one thing and one thing only - a fundamental linguistic dualism. No. It assumes that linguistic dualism is significant. Quote: That linguistic dualism remains true if you are an idealist, a dualist or a materialist. Yes, but it doesn't matter in any of those situations. Quote: The thesis DOES NOT require materialism to be false to remain true. Perhaps you could address where I showed this to be false rather than continuing to make bald assertions? Quote: The linguistic dualism DOES NOT go away because you are a materialist. No. It just doesn't matter. Quote: Let me prove it to you : Go right ahead. Quote: Just for arguments sake, I will now pretend I am a materialist. This should be fun. Quote: Now I am going to ask myself if there is still a linguistic dualism. "Self, is there still a linguistic dualism? Quote: Is there? You tell me. Quote: YES! Aha! Thanks, self! Quote: Oh. The thesis is still true. Splat. Dead at the first hurdle. Quote: I assumed materialism was true No. Actually, you merely said that you assumed that materialism is true. You did not actually do so. Quote: and the thesis still remained true It was never true in the first place. Quote: BECAUSE THE THESIS IS DEPENDENT ON LANGUAGE! And an ontological assumption. Quote: If any other poor bugger is still reading this thread will they please help Pixy to understand this! Mister Elephant, I set out the situation in terms of logic rather than HPC, materialism and language. Take a look.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

20th January 2003, 08:09 AM	#111
Guest Posts: n/a	Pixy, Do you know what the word 'assumption' means? It means "Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof". Yes? So we have a thesis T : "No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set if purely physical descriptions" Your position now depends on claiming that even though on the face of it this is just about language, the thesis contains a "hidden assumption" that materialism is false. The thesis does not depend on any assumptions at all because it is a verifiable FACT. We observe that languages are dualistic, the nouns are split into mental things and physical things. This is a VERIFIABLE FACT. Let us call it A. There is no "assumption" involved in A, because A is something we can VERIFY. Do you understand this? There is now a one-step logical process to estabish whether or not the thesis T is true, because the thesis is built directly upon whether or not A is true. The logical process is : If A is TRUE then T is TRUE. And since A is TRUE then T is TRUE. END. PERIOD. FIN. Where is the assumption, Pix? There is no assumption, Pix! So you know what the word "consequence" means? It means "Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition." Now, as we all know by now, if the thesis T is true then materialism M has a problem, because it needs to be able to bridge the subject-objective chasm from the objective side. So we have another simple logical one-step process. The logical process is : If T is TRUE then M is FALSE. And since T is TRUE then M is FALSE! --------------------- Now, will you please explain to me whether A) My definitions of the words "consequence" and "assumption" are wrong B) My logical reasoning was wrong, if so please show where. Good luck, Pix.
Guest Posts: n/a

20th January 2003, 08:10 AM	#112
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,904	Quote: Originally posted by Franko Well there you have A-Theism in a nutshell. Thank you! So A-Theism is the application of logic to fact? And since A-Theism is the opposite of whatever it is you are doing... Consider for a moment the humble tautology. True, but not in any way useful. Quote: Pure pessimism at its heart. How can a statement of logic be pessimistic? Quote: Sure it does. Solipsism is True, yet you still make predictions about the world. For example, as long as Solipsism is true, your worldviews will ALWAYS be correct. But not predictable. There is no foundation in solipsism to build a prediction on. Which is why it is not useful. Quote: Yeah, but there is no world beyond what you imagine. So whatever you imagine is True is how the world is going to operate. I am imagining now that you have never posted to this forum... Hmm, didn't work. I am now imagining that Nell McAndrew is right here in my study... Nope. Damn. This God business isn't what it used to be. Quote: *You mean because you don’t want* it to be True? Nope. Because it doesn't allow you to work that way. If everything you want is true, you can't predict anything. Quote: I guess it’s the same way with “God”, “Fate”, “Karma” and the “afterlife”, if you don’t like a belief, then you don’t believe it. That is true of beliefs, yes. Quote: Facts and Evidence really have nothing to do with your decision? Facts and evidence have to do with truth, not with belief. Quote: Ohhh, I see you angry all the time A-Theist. I am just a figment of your imagination remember? And a quite remarkably dull figment. Quote: And since I’m just a figment of your imagination what do I care? Actually, the suggestion that you are a figment of my imagination is possible the strongest evidence yet that solipsism is untenable. Quote: You being angry can’t have ANY possible effect on me. Huh? If solipsism were true, and I were angry, you would cease to exist. Or possibly have an unfortunate encounter with a candiru. Quote: Pretty fcked up – I know … but then again you are a pretty fcked up “god”. I think you got a bad graviton. Not good or evil, merely stupid. Clearly not my responsibility, you'll have to contact the vendor. Quote: be honest … they are ALL off days – aren’t they A-Theist?** Only the ones with you in them, Franko darling. Quote: Congratulations! You have figured it out! You are absolutely correct, there is no Logical Goddess, because there is no Franko. I am just a figment of Your imagination, and She is just a figment of mine. That's nice. Quote: Now you can live out the rest of your meaningless existence for all Eternity … utterly alone. But I have you, my dear little mindless zombie figment. And all the little bunny figments. Quote: *I’m your* figment Pixy-God … I only “think” what you make me think.** Don't look at me. I blame the graviton supplier. They're in the book, give them a call. Gas, Coal and Gravity Co. of London, England.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

20th January 2003, 08:19 AM	#113
Stimpson J. Cat Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Oxford, UK Posts: 1,833	UCE, Quote: So we have a thesis T : "No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set if purely physical descriptions" Your position now depends on claiming that even though on the face of it this is just about language, the thesis contains a "hidden assumption" that materialism is false. The thesis does not depend on any assumptions at all because it is a verifiable FACT. First of all, it is not a fact at all. The above statement may be true about the English language, or about any ordinary language, but you cannot assert that it is true in general without making metaphysical assumptions. In particular, I see no reason whatsoever to believe that it is true about the language of mathematics. Secondly, all verifiable facts are based on assumptions, because the principle of verification is based on assumptions. That is a bit beside the point, though. Quote: We observe that languages are dualistic, the nouns are split into mental things and physical things. This is a VERIFIABLE FACT. Let us call it A. There is no "assumption" involved in A, because A is something we can VERIFY. This is certainly not true for the English language. Sure, there are nouns that split into mental and physical things. There are also nouns that refer to both. The fact is that the English language is neither dualistic nor monistic. It is just plain ambiguous, which is, of course, why it is not a suitable language for science. Dr. Stupid
	__________________ A poke in the eye makes Baby Jesus cry.

20th January 2003, 08:25 AM	#114
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,904	Quote: Originally posted by UndercoverElephant Do you know what the word 'assumption' means? It means "Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof". Yes? Yes. Quote: So we have a thesis T : "No statement ascribing a mental predicate can be derived from any set if purely physical descriptions" My H, except not stated as clearly. Quote: Your position now depends on claiming that even though on the face of it this is just about language, the thesis contains a "hidden assumption" that materialism is false. And indeed it does. Quote: The thesis does not depend on any assumptions at all because it is a verifiable FACT. No. It is a falsifiable claim. Quote: We observe that languages are dualistic, the nouns are split into mental things and physical things. This is a VERIFIABLE FACT. Yes. It is an observation of the state of language. Actually, I'm not at all sure that it is a correct observation. Your own example of thought throws shadow in it. Quote: Let us call it A. If you like. Quote: There is no "assumption" involved in A, because A is something we can VERIFY. So go away and verify it. I'll wait. Quote: Do you understand this? Yes. Quote: There is now a one-step logical process to estabish whether or not the thesis T is true, because the thesis is built directly upon whether or not A is true. Nope. Bang, you lose. You have alrady made an ontological assumption. Quote: The logical process is : If A is TRUE then T is TRUE. Except you've left out the ontological assumption Φ. Quote: And since A is TRUE then T is TRUE. Nope. You still need to demosntrate that Φ is true. Quote: END. PERIOD. FIN. Where is the assumption, Pix? Right where it was the first time. Quote: There is no assumption, Pix! Wrong. Quote: So you know what the word "consequence" means? Yes, Mister Elephant. Quote: It means "Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition." Yay. Mister Elephant has a dictionary. Quote: Now, as we all know by now, if the thesis T is true then materialism M has a problem, because it needs to be able to bridge the subject-objective chasm from the objective side. So we have another simple logical one-step process. The logical process is : If T is TRUE then M is FALSE. And since T is TRUE then M is FALSE! No even slightly. T is a statment about language and has no power to falsify materialism. What's more, since T contains assumption Φ, materialism does have the power to falsify T. Check my set of logical statemnts above. Mister Elephant. They actually present the picture, unlike what you've just done. Quote: Now, will you please explain to me whether A) My definitions of the words "consequence" and "assumption" are wrong Nope. I admit that you have a dictionary. Quote: B) My logical reasoning was wrong, if so please show where. Two things: you missed out ontological assumption Φ embedded in statement T, and you incorrectly state that statement T can falsify materialism. Quote: Good luck, Pix. Thanks. Done.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO

20th January 2003, 08:35 AM	#115
Franko Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,338	Quote: Pixychixy: So A-Theism is the application of logic to fact? I don’t see how considering you have claimed that: 1) The Truth is not always useful [beneficial]. And … 2) The Laws of Physics (TLOP) don’t control anything. And to think poor Stimpy went to school all those years for nothing … ??? If that is what you call “Logic” and “Fact” “free willy-chick” then you knock yourself out! Of course in my mind (and the minds of about 90% of the overall population) you are just an insane, cynical, pessimistic religious fanatic.
Franko Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 2,338

20th January 2003, 08:47 AM	#116
PixyMisa Persnickety Insect Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Sunny Munuvia Posts: 14,904	Quote: Originally posted by Franko I don’t see how considering you have claimed that: 1) The Truth is not always useful [beneficial]. And I provided you with a whole class of examples. You can't have forgotten already, surely. Quote: And … 2) The Laws of Physics (TLOP) don’t control anything. Yup. Quote: And to think poor Stimpy went to school all those years for nothing … ??? Nope. Stimpy knows full well what the laws of physics are and what they imply. Quote: If that is what you call “Logic” and “Fact” “free willy-chick” then you knock yourself out! It's not just what I call logic and fact, it's what the dictionary calls logic and fact. Quote: Of course in my mind (and the minds of about 90% of the overall population) you are just an insane, cynical, pessimistic religious fanatic. Ah. And you have read the minds of 90% of the population, have you? Or carried out detailed, unbiased, statistically significant surveys of public opinion? We all know what goes on in the maze of twisty little passages you call your "mind". An "insane, cynical, pessimist religious fanatic" is someone who proves that you are wrong, whereas an "A-Theist" is merely someone who disagrees with you.
	__________________ Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO