Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.11 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-09-2016, 01:31 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(08-09-2016 12:23 PM)xear Wrote:  I just post here for my own amusement and fun, I don't expect anyone to take any of this seriously. I think it's less fun if you take every word literally or don't try to get into the essence of the analogy.

I understood the analogy; it was just bad. The guy in the hut would have no justification for believing that the voices came from somewhere else and were just being transmitted by the phone. That would be something completely outside his experience and understanding. He'd be right to not believe the guy who tried to tell him that the voices were coming from somewhere else just like we are justified in dismissing your claims that consciousness comes from somewhere else.

The difference is that in the case of the phone we have evidence that the voices come from somewhere else. In the case of consciousness we have nothing like that.

Quote:No Sam, you don't have proof this way that the brain creates consciousness, nor do you have proof that you actually graduated from Logic 101 or even the remedial classwork.

Frankly, anybody who thinks it is OK to seriously entertain claims because the claim makes them happy has no business trying to denigrate the logic abilities of another. Harris was pointing out evidence that supports the idea that consciousness is produced by the brain; to prove him wrong you only need to provide evidence that contradicts that.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
08-09-2016, 04:42 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
You're very bad at analogies. Seriously. And I love a good analogy. Undecided

The guy in the hut breaking the phone is equivalent to destroying a guy's brain entirely, not to damaging portions and being able to catalog (and predict) exactly what elements of the personality will be damaged by that impact.

For your analogy to actually be analogous, our New Guinean would have to be able to separately label each part, and tell you what the function of each part is, from the antenna to the speaker, and yet still be able to believe that the voice comes from a person/spirit living in the phone. It's a pretty big stretch to say he could do one but not the other. For instance, he could notice that dismantling the antenna but not the speaker meant the phone could still perform some function, such as producing a static sound, but not voice-from-afar.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
08-09-2016, 05:02 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(08-09-2016 12:23 PM)xear Wrote:  I just post here for my own amusement and fun, I don't expect anyone to take any of this seriously.

It is interesting to note that this is not the first time a theist has posted this type of statement. Typically the new theistic posters start out quite vigorously, eager to convert the heathens I suppose. Then once the spankfest starts they reveal that they aren't taking it seriously, or only posting for fun.

Sounds to me like an admission of defeat...

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
08-09-2016, 09:37 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(08-09-2016 06:27 AM)xear Wrote:  We don't see consciousness. We see the effects of consciousness, just like we don't see happiness we see the effects of happiness.

Is it at least possible that consciousness and the brain are not identical? That consciousness operates through the brain. We can see the effects of consciousness through the brain much like any instrument, let's say a phone for instance. I'm talking to you on the phone. I hang up the phone and you cease to exist as far as I can tell, but that is only an appearance. Similarly, if you destroy parts of the phone, then parts or all of the voice transmission fails. This doesn't mean I on the other end disappeared or ceased to exist.


We know phones are two way communication devices, because they were designed that way.

What reason do you have to think that the brain is just a receiver? Nothing but your own empty and baseless speculation.

[Image: a63aa4e31a02ee74e4e4962ae5b9618ec66b1703...3e6e8c.jpg]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
08-09-2016, 09:48 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(08-09-2016 07:40 AM)xear Wrote:  If you were a primitive man who had no experience of telephones, you would have to conclude that if you smashed the phone then you would have fully ended whatever voice it produced. You would also have to conclude that anyone who brought in a phone also brought in the voice coming from it at the same time. You would certainly have to believe that the voice that came from the phone was started when the phone was built. No one could prove to you, in your Papua New Guinea hut, that the phone and voice are possibly separable. There would be no contrary evidence and you would be "right" in saying they are co-emergent.


Bull-fucking-shit.


One, you're assuming that your conclusion is the only possible one a 'primitive man' could come up with, itself nothing more than an assertion.


Proving that the voice is independent of the phone could be done, provided that person has more imagination than a Kindergartner (or you, as the case may be). You could present a set of phones, and a person. Have that person talk, then have them talk over the phone. Have them talk over many different phones, showing they all convey their voice. Then swap out the talking person with another, showing the correlation between the person's voice and the change in the voice over the phone. Eliminate phones, and show how that doesn't stop the others from working. There you go, you've now conveyed enough information through demonstration and observation that someone entirely unfamiliar with phones should be able to parse the concept that the device is simply conveying the voice of another person, but that the voice is that of the person using the device and not contained within the device itself.


Fucking hell, I'm glad someone as unimaginative as you isn't in a scientific field.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
08-09-2016, 09:54 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(08-09-2016 12:04 PM)xear Wrote:  This does nothing to rebut the argument. I am not insisting I know what is outside the shed, I'm saying there are many possibilities and because there is no physical evidence they can't all be eliminated. What do I know for sure? Nothing. We've already covered that. Rocket says he wouldn't buy into the speculation since he can't test it. Great. He also can't test whether consciousness can exist without a brain and won't buy into that, great.

That doesn't rebut the argument, it just means its not for him.


You are insisting what's outside the shed, and it's your pet theory biocentism. If you were truly honest and actually cared about the evidence, then you wouldn't put any weight behind your belief until you had the evidence to back it up. Provide evidence for a 'consciousness' that exists outside of a brain, or accept that your pet hypothesis is about as plausible as universe creating invisible pink unicorns.

Biocentism ins't a thing because there is no positive evidence in support of it. Not only that, but it requires the assumption of mind-body dualism, something that has long left the realm of scientific plausibility.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like EvolutionKills's post
08-09-2016, 10:18 PM (This post was last modified: 09-09-2016 10:41 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(08-09-2016 12:23 PM)xear Wrote:  
Quote:Yes, somebody could prove it in the Papua New Guinea hut. They could demonstrate how phones work and explain the science behind it.
I just post here for my own amusement and fun, I don't expect anyone to take any of this seriously. I think it's less fun if you take every word literally or don't try to get into the essence of the analogy.

So you want us to ignore what you actually wrote, in favor of pretending you're less dumb than you appear to be?

Yeah, fuck that.


(08-09-2016 12:23 PM)xear Wrote:  In a video on this thread that someone posted of Sam Harris he said something like he could prove the brain creates consciousness by simply damaging certain parts of it and consciousness would end.

Indeed. Brain trauma and damage has been shown to degenerate human cognition. When the brain gets competently and irrevocably damaged upon death, consciousness ceases. Unless you're ready to present evidence of mind-body dualism and are ready to upend centuries worth of scientific progress, you need to be cogent of exactly how precarious your position is.


(08-09-2016 12:23 PM)xear Wrote:  Well our man in the Papua New Guinea hut could equally prove that the voice was in the phone by damaging the phone and the voice would disappear.

If all he had was the phone, then sure. Smashing the phone would end the transmission of the voice. But modern cognitive science isn't a primitive who just smashed a phone and is building a conjecture with a sample size of one, you ignoramus.


(08-09-2016 12:23 PM)xear Wrote:  No Sam, you don't have proof this way that the brain creates consciousness, nor do you have proof that you actually graduated from Logic 101 or even the remedial classwork.

The projection is strong in this one.

Once again, kettle meet pot... Facepalm


Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence, if the evidence you expect to find if your hypothesis is true is nowhere to be found. If you have a hypothesis (that consciousness exists outside of the brain), then we should expect to find some evidence of consciousness existing outside of ourselves. If it were true, we should have access to more sensory perception than our own individual limitations. We do not. If it were true, we should expect things like telepathy and mind reading to work. They do not. If it were true, we should expect people who recover from severe injuries and brain trauma to come back as their pre-injury selves, their personalities entirely intact and separate from their damaged bodies. They often do not.

If however it was false, then we should expect to see brain damage and deformation to cause neurological and cognitive degeneration. We do observe this. If false, then when a body dies and all neurological processes cease, we should expect to see the end of consciousness. We do observe this. If false, we should expect that things like telepathy and psychokinesis shouldn't work. We observe that they do not.


You figure it out.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
09-09-2016, 06:56 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Quote:Frankly, anybody who thinks it is OK to seriously entertain claims because the claim makes them happy has no business trying to denigrate the logic abilities of another. Harris was pointing out evidence that supports the idea that consciousness is produced by the brain; to prove him wrong you only need to provide evidence that contradicts that.

Harris did not prove anything. But to disagree with him I have to prove something... not exactly a fair playing field is it?

But I'm glad you brought up this question about whether a belief makes you happy. As you may note I said that [happiness] is not justification for a belief but a possible side benefit.

Regarding the shed analogy which you said proves nothing... well, it is only meant to demonstrate that just as the man in the shed cannot provide concrete evidence there is a world outside the shed, it doesn't mean there is not a world outside the shed. No, it doesn't prove there is one. There is the possibility. But let's take our man inside the shed. Let's say he comes to believe there is a world outside the shed. What then? He can't get out of the shed. Such a belief may only make him more miserable. I would argue that the belief in atheism is perhaps a happier belief, certainly a happier belief than what a lot of theists subscribe to.

Since neither belief is provable, only the agnostic position is that, the happier belief may be a projected future of absolute oblivion. Such would be an end to crazy ex-wives, an out of control government bent on taxing your every move, sky high rents, a failed job market, and crazy internet posters who fail to see basic logic. I would hate for you Unfogged, to have to think of an astral future on some interdimensional message board faced with my future posts about an even crazier unprovable dimension.




.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2016, 07:18 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(09-09-2016 06:56 AM)xear Wrote:  But I'm glad you brought up this question about whether a belief makes you happy. As you may note I said that [happiness] is not justification for a belief but a possible side benefit.

On the contrary:

(07-09-2016 05:29 AM)xear Wrote:  I could say "I had a vivid dream that told me there is a giant dragon on the planet Pluto and I will meet him when I die. I can't prove it and you can't disprove it." No real intelligent further discussion on it gets anywhere. You say I'm silly for believing such a thing, I say, it makes sense to me and makes me happy.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
09-09-2016, 07:32 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(09-09-2016 06:56 AM)xear Wrote:  Harris did not prove anything. But to disagree with him I have to prove something... not exactly a fair playing field is it?

I have not asked you to prove anything; I've asked for evidence that supports your position and contradicts the accepted position. Harris provides that for his position. You do a lot of hand-waving about what might be true and what you'd prefer to be true.

Quote:<random nonsense about the utility of false beliefs>

I'm not at all interested in whether a belief makes somebody more or less happy or what is possible in some abstract sense. I'm interested in what is reasonable to believe is actually true.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: