Dillahunty vs. Slick and A.I.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-10-2016, 05:26 AM
RE: Dillahunty vs. Slick and A.I.
(15-10-2016 01:13 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  We are able to selectively focus by self generated action of our own brain just as we are able to move by self generated action of our bodies. We are free to think or not to think, basically. This is the essence of free will.
...
Yes our minds are the product of biology and Chemical reactions but we have some control over it.

I think the rebuttal to this, that I have myself, would be to argue against free will in a physical, deterministic universe. If everything is physical, including your brain, and everything follows the deterministic laws of physics, how can we "choose" to do something if physics dictates the particles composing our choice-making mechanisms? I agree that Slick's answer isn't good either.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2016, 05:29 AM
RE: Dillahunty vs. Slick and A.I.
(15-10-2016 05:06 AM)unknowndevil666 Wrote:  Can't one query about any concept? But I think it's definitely justified in Slick's case. He believes he has the ability to think logically through God or something supernatural, beyond the physical. He is then asking how one can think logically when restrained to the physical world. And clearly we claim to think logically, so it is a concept that we have that he is able to question from his worldview.
For one who has such an overtly "strong atheist" name you are appearing to come over in a rather "religious apologetic" manner.

Oops, hit wrong post, corrected!

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2016, 05:30 AM
RE: Dillahunty vs. Slick and A.I.
At work.

Um.... the above analogy strikes me as some how 'Wrong' or 'Off' as silicone systems by themselves are not 'Local' it's the programs run through the transistors that make it so.

Those with a computing/programming back ground please speak up and add to every one's knowledge. Big Grin

It also avoids Mr Slick's ascertation about the 'Supernatural'. Consider

Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2016, 05:33 AM (This post was last modified: 15-10-2016 05:43 AM by GenesisNemesis.)
RE: Dillahunty vs. Slick and A.I.
The more important question is how a non-material entity works, and Slick cannot answer that at all. Laugh out load

So, if Slick thinks that's a legitimate criticism, it would also be a legitimate criticism to ask how non-material entities work. A non-material entity would be a non-answer. There is no explanation as to how a soul, for instance, produces consciousness, theists merely exclaim "because it's a soul". There is no explanation how a non-material entity could produce matter. They merely say "because he's god".

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2016, 05:42 AM
RE: Dillahunty vs. Slick and A.I.
(15-10-2016 05:29 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  For one who has such an overtly "strong atheist" name you are appearing to come over in a rather "religious apologetic" manner.

Oops, hit wrong post, corrected!

Ironically, this is my Youtube username that I came up with when I was still a Christian. And yes, whenever I see something wrong, I try to correct it, no matter what side it's coming from.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2016, 05:43 AM
RE: Dillahunty vs. Slick and A.I.
(15-10-2016 05:33 AM)GenesisNemesis Wrote:  The more important question is how a non-material entity works, and Slick cannot answer that at all. Laugh out load

So, if Slick thinks that's a legitimate criticism, it would also be a legitimate criticism to ask how non-material entities work. A non-material entity would be a non-answer. There is no explanation as to how a soul, for instance, produces consciousness, theists merely exclaim "because it's a soul". There is no explanation how a non-material entity could produce matter. They merely say "because he's god".

I agree, his answer to the question is flawed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unknowndevil666's post
15-10-2016, 05:58 AM
RE: Dillahunty vs. Slick and A.I.
(15-10-2016 05:42 AM)unknowndevil666 Wrote:  
(15-10-2016 05:29 AM)Gloucester Wrote:  For one who has such an overtly "strong atheist" name you are appearing to come over in a rather "religious apologetic" manner.

Oops, hit wrong post, corrected!

Ironically, this is my Youtube username that I came up with when I was still a Christian. And yes, whenever I see something wrong, I try to correct it, no matter what side it's coming from.

Thanks for explaining.

I agree that errors in thnking and action need correcting, regardless of source.

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Gloucester's post
15-10-2016, 10:56 AM
RE: Dillahunty vs. Slick and A.I.
(15-10-2016 05:33 AM)GenesisNemesis Wrote:  The more important question is how a non-material entity works, and Slick cannot answer that at all. Laugh out load

So, if Slick thinks that's a legitimate criticism, it would also be a legitimate criticism to ask how non-material entities work. A non-material entity would be a non-answer. There is no explanation as to how a soul, for instance, produces consciousness, theists merely exclaim "because it's a soul". There is no explanation how a non-material entity could produce matter. They merely say "because he's god".

Agreed they don't even try to answer there own question it's always vague appeals to religious concepts that were suppose to take at face value. Meanwhile they demand to know every molecules role in our explanation the hypocrites.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes OrdoSkeptica's post
15-10-2016, 11:00 AM
RE: Dillahunty vs. Slick and A.I.
(15-10-2016 03:33 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(14-10-2016 06:26 PM)unknowndevil666 Wrote:  I just recently came across a clip from the most recent debate between Matt Dillahunty and Matt Slick which can be found here. At around 1:20:00, Slick asks the question, "How does a physical brain produce proper logical inference if one chemical state leads(?) another chemical state and that's what our brains are?"

Trying to answer the question myself, I came up with something like, "the brain, constructed out of physical properties that follow mathematical laws and therefore logic, is a structure that is able to recognize its own world's logic". I feel very strongly that there is an analogy, possibly a perfect analogy, to artificial intelligence implemented in computer programs. Do we yet have such an A.I. that is capable of learning about its computational environment, so that it can be used to illustrate how our brains are able to accurately produce logic?

Also, I'd be very interested in anybody's own answer to the question, because I think it is an interesting one.

(Edit: Also, literally just after posting this I realized this probably shouldn't be in the "Atheism and Theism" section. I don't know how to change it though so maybe a mod will or something?)

The tactic of a presup like Slick is to "pull the rug under your feet" regarding epistemology. Ultimately you can not prove that we are not brains in vats, or that the universe is a simulation, etc. So dont waste your time trying to defend your position vs such dishonest scum. Instead, point out what their position is based on: The (completely unfounded, pulled out of their asses) presupposition that a god exists and has told them everything they need to know, and because its a god who did this, they can be 100,000% sure.

Ergo: Both of you can not account for anything, but i would go with the more simple worldview according to occcams razor, the one without this pesky litte additional parameter of a god.


Agreed worst part of presup is the whole "i know because it was revealed to me" nonsense.Then they have the brass that unless you can prove there not getting magic messages from god then they win .Even thou there is no good reason to believe they are.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2016, 11:26 AM
RE: Dillahunty vs. Slick and A.I.
(15-10-2016 05:20 AM)unknowndevil666 Wrote:  
(14-10-2016 09:28 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Also of note is exactly how disparagingly simplified he's being when you read Mathilda's comments about interconnections and stuff. Not counting that it's not just chemical but electron flow and interconnected-ness and a whole other heap of things.
(14-10-2016 11:36 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  It's all about making connections in our brains. Our brains are a neural network and as we learn new things, new pathways are constructed in our brains.
It's not just a bunch of chemicals up there. It's cell structure & neural pathways.

I think the point of Slick's question, although he does grossly misrepresent it by calling it "chemicals" and comparing it to the reaction between baking soda and vinegar, is "how is a physical brain capable of handling pure, abstract logic?". The way he's thinking, no matter how complex a physical system is, it doesn't have any mechanism that is pure and logical. In other words, 1000000000000! * 0 is still 0.

Our brains handle logic by observing it
All squares are rectangles. All rectangles have four sides. Logic, therefore, tells you that all squares have four sides.

All trees have trunks. An oak tree is a tree. Therefore, deductive reasoning tells you that the oak tree has a trunk.

If A>B & B>C, then A>C

By understanding the values & properties of the things we observe, we can also understand how those properties transfer when the situation changes.

Our universe is stable enough so that we can do this.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: