Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-02-2017, 01:04 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 12:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You implied that I said going to / being in college grants someone IQ points. I never said that, and you know it.

That was joke.

Quote:No 5 is not enough. Half the high school world is in AP. If you were 1/2 as intelligent as you, you would be taking COLLEGE level courses. And I see you left out Biology, you repeatedly make assertions about how neurological systems and brains and perception works. You are totally ignorant about the things you go on about, (dualism and intentionality).

LMFAO.

I research Biology on the side. I couldn't take AP Bio because it requires Biology be taken first. I took AP Physics instead of Biology last year. Also, I didn't mention that my school only allows upperclassmen to take AP classes. I took 5 APs in two years. And it doesn't matter what the rest of the world is taking. You said this: "If you really were as smart as you think, you'd be in some sort of advanced placement."
I am in advanced placement. You didn't mention any number of classes I needed to be taking to be considered smart in your eyes. Also, AP classes ARE college level. You can take AP classes that exempt you from taking certain classes in college.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2017, 01:06 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 12:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  17 YOs "lecturing" at people, is hilarious. Facepalm
You are UNQUALIFIED.

LMFAO.

It's only hilarious if you're an arrogant person who thinks ad homs will win him arguments.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2017, 01:16 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 12:36 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(09-02-2017 12:21 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  When an audio engineer designs a speaker with a vibrating membrane and a box around it, and a huge magnet and a coil, when he designs that speaker to create well directed waves of pressure that propagate through a room full of air, how does he (accidentally?) include the transportation of your "not material" *feeling* that a brain has when listening to this music? What is it and how is it transported from the speaker to the ear?

This is an awesome question. It gets at which type of dualism is preferable. The immaterial aspect of the waves is not present when the engineer builds the speaker. It's contained within the wave. Information can be contained in the physical (some dualists would say it must be contained in the physical) but understood or interpreted in the aphysical and by aphysical means. It has two components. It has it's physical properties and it has it's content/ meaning. The same goes for a line of code or a word being written on a page. The immaterial is not transported physically in the wave. It's a property of the wave itself.

Am i right if i rephrase your answer with "i have no clue what it is and how it is transported"?

I didnt claim that "the immaterial aspect of the waves is not present when the engineer builds the speaker", that would be silly, since the engineer doesnt know what kind of music is gonna be played (yet the speaker has to have the general ability to transmit *feelings*, see furhter down below). But i asked something different:

What is it and how is it transported via a PCB, a speaker, air, human bones and tissue, that carries *feelings* about the music you hear? Simply saying that its "contained within the wave" is hand waving. If you dont know what it is and how it works then say so! If you dont even have any idea what it possibly (metaphysically) is, then say so! But you know what that would mean. It would mean you are in bare assertion territory again.

What do you know about waves in electronics, and what do you know about acoustic waves? How can you claim that "something is contained within the wave"? Do you even know how simple physical (non metaphysical) information is contained in waves? Do you know how waves make up spectra of audio signals? Do you know how to encode and decode the information within waves? Have you ever heared of a guy called "Fourier"?

All you have done is thrown more assertions at the table without describing in the least what you actually are talking about.

Quote:Information can be contained in the physical (some dualists would say it must be contained in the physical)
Assertion without explanation

Quote:understood or interpreted in the aphysical and by aphysical means.
Assertion without explanation

Quote:It has two components. It has it's physical properties and it has it's content/ meaning.
Assertion without explanation. You may (accidentally) even be correct here, if we consider the *information* (as in "information theory") to be aphysical/abstract.
What is "meaning"?

Quote:The same goes for a line of code or a word being written on a page
Assertion without explanation

Quote:The immaterial is not transported physically in the wave. It's a property of the wave itself.
(Woo-ish) assertion without explanation. What exactly do you know about the properties of waves?

I am getting the impression that you are equivocating *information* which is transported via waves with the (metaphysical?) *feelings* or *meaning* you are referring to. As it has been told to you, you need to give more clear definitions of terms you are using and/or explanations when you are using them (and you seem to do this quite a bit) in a different way than most experts would.

Quote:Please tell me, i am all ears, and i bet all the hundreds of software and hardware engineers, as well as mechanical engineers at my office will be literally excited by the breaking news i am going to report after you enlightened me (and everyone else on TTA).
(09-02-2017 12:36 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Well it has nothing to do with the engineer. The engineer didn't author the immaterial aspect of the wave. That was the author of the music.
If the engineer didnt actually include the ability to transmit *feelings* into the speaker, then the speaker can not transmit *feelings* no matter how well the author did write his piece. You dont seem to understand the fundamentals of signal theory.

If you however would ask me to explain what the information is and how it is transported physically that this information is, called *music*, i will be happy to explain it to you with the help of Monsieur Fourier, and i could give you directions on how to demonstrate a few of these things to yourself easily at home, just so you may trust my theoretical explanations. I would not have to rely on bare assertions when doing this.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Deesse23's post
09-02-2017, 01:24 PM (This post was last modified: 09-02-2017 01:40 PM by unfogged.)
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 12:56 PM)Naielis Wrote:  It's important for total comprehension of a concept to have decent terminology.

yes, it is, but if you continue to insist that everybody must conform completely to a single philosophy then you are going to continue to have a hard time. You will never understand what anybody else is telling you if don't accept that people don't box themselves into strictly rigid definitions for their thinking.

You are so focused on labelling and categorizing every position that you aren't listening to what those positions are.

Quote:But let me link you to some articles on dualism and the problems with materialism. http://www.iep.utm.edu/consciou/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/

I've read and listened to argument for dualism for decades and there's just no demonstrable evidence for it. At best it is god-of-the-gaps.

Since I've already told you that I don't hold to strict materialism what is the point of trying to show me problems with that position? That's a prime example of what I said above.

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
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
09-02-2017, 01:25 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 12:20 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Of course skepticism can lead to solipsism.

No, it can't. Again, solipsism is incoherent. It is a semantically worthless position. Nothing can "lead to it" other than stupidity.

(09-02-2017 12:20 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Skepticism is incoherent.

No, it isn't.

(09-02-2017 12:20 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Materialism doesn't allow for the mind to even exist.

Yes, it does.

(09-02-2017 12:20 PM)Naielis Wrote:  It holds that ALL things are material.

You fail to understand what that means.

The mind is a process performed by material entities. Materialism takes no issue with processes. The mind is no more immaterial than a computer program, or the act of running.

You do not understand materialism.

(09-02-2017 12:20 PM)Naielis Wrote:  It seems you confuse supervenience physicalism for materialism. "The two broad, traditional and competing theories of mind are dualism and materialism (or physicalism).

Materialism and physicalism are the same thing, Naielis. Even your own source says this. Moreover, all physicalism is "supervenience physicalism"; physicalism is the position that all things supervene on the physical.

For those who have not heard the term before, "supervene" means to be based on, such that no changes can be made to the thing being supervened on - the physical world - without changes to the thing supervening. You cannot affect the brain without affecting the mind, and so on.

Do not attempt to lecture other, more well-studied people on what their positions are, Naielis. You do not understand them sufficiently to be able to offer comment.

(09-02-2017 12:40 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(09-02-2017 11:40 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You demonstrably do not, because you consistently fail to understand what it says about minds. You instead post things like "liking one type of music over another implies dualism", or "materialism cannot deal with the existence of minds", and so on.

"There are also many familiar objections to both materialism and dualism. For example, it is often said that materialism cannot truly explain just how or why some brain states are conscious, and that there is an important “explanatory gap” between mind and matter.

This is asserted, yes.

Since the assertion is both incoherent ("truly explain" is insufficiently well-defined, as is the nature of the supposed "explanatory gap") and unsupported, it is discarded.

And this is irrelevant to the actual point that you are ostensibly responding to, which is that you do not actually possess a sufficient understanding of materialism to be able to offer meaningful criticism.

(09-02-2017 12:36 PM)Naielis Wrote:  The immaterial aspect of the waves is not present when the engineer builds the speaker. It's contained within the wave.

There is no "immaterial aspect of the waves". The concept is incoherent. Repeating it constantly will not make it any less so.

(09-02-2017 12:36 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Information can be contained in the physical (some dualists would say it must be contained in the physical) but understood or interpreted in the aphysical and by aphysical means. It has two components. It has it's physical properties and it has it's content/ meaning. The same goes for a line of code or a word being written on a page.

You do not possess coherent definitions of those terms. As a result, this is gibberish.

"Information" actually has a concrete definition, and has to do with the number of possible states of a given entity. It is quantifiable, and is contained within the entity itself.

"Meaning" is another thing entirely, and has to do with all the various connections, inferences, and deductions that a given conscious observer makes with that information. It is not contained within the source of the information. It is created by the observer.

Your argument seems to be that meaning - which is what you are presumably referring to when you say "immaterial aspect" - is contained within the sound waves themselves. This is nonsensical. Likewise, "interpreted in the aphysical by aphysical means" is absolute gibberish. Both are directly caused by your poor grasp of semantics.

Define your terms, boy, or you're going to spend eternity running around in circles asking incoherent questions and giving even more incoherent answers.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
09-02-2017, 01:26 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 12:56 PM)Naielis Wrote:  But I do tend to be quite strict with definitions and consistent usage of definitions within a given conversation.

Current evidence suggests otherwise.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2017, 01:29 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 01:16 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Am i right if i rephrase your answer with "i have no clue what it is and how it is transported"?

Partially. I know that it wasn't transported physically, but I don't know the exact nature of content/ meaning.

Quote:What is it and how is it transported via a PCB, a speaker, air, human bones and tissue, that carries *feelings* about the music you hear? Simply saying that its "contained within the wave" is hand waving. If you dont know what it is and how it works then say so! If you dont even have any idea what it possibly (metaphysically) is, then say so! But you know what that would mean. It would mean you are in bare assertion territory again.

What do you know about waves in electronics, and what do you know about acoustic waves? How can you claim that "something is contained within the wave"? Do you even know how simple physical (non metaphysical) information is contained in waves? Do you know how waves make up spectra of audio signals? Do you know how to encode and decode the information within waves? Have you ever heared of a guy called "Fourier"?

I've read a little on Fourier, but I haven't read any of his works. I haven't researched waves in relation to information, but thank you for giving me a new topic for next week. What I'm saying isn't related to wave mechanics necessarily. It's about concepts contained within the wave. Now I'm aware that the usage of "contained" is confusing here so I'll explain. When I say contained, I'm referring to an ontological and nonspatial containment. This is similar to concepts being contained within other concepts. It doesn't refer to a physical location or transportation.

Quote:I am getting the impression that you are equivocating *information* which is transported via waves with the (metaphysical?) *feelings* or *meaning* you are referring to. As it has been told to you, you need to give more clear definitions of terms you are using and/or explanations when you are using them (and you seem to do this quite a bit) in a different way than most experts would.

Sorry I'm not always able to explain very clearly in text. I'll try to explain more in a bit, but for now I have to go.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2017, 02:14 PM (This post was last modified: 09-02-2017 03:41 PM by Deesse23.)
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 01:29 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I've read a little on Fourier, but I haven't read any of his works. I haven't researched waves in relation to information, but thank you for giving me a new topic for next week.

I had a lecture for a complete semester about fourier analysis (how spectra are made of discrete waves). As a basis i needed parts of a complete semester of math to be able to properly do the math part of fourier (it included irrational numbers of which i reminded you earlier in this thread). It took me three semesters of math to have the complete toolset necessary to deal with all of electronics inclusing signal theory etc.
After that i had to apply and use fourier in several other lectures. After that i had to learn Laplace transofrmation and the Z-transformation, which is in-fucking-sane (because it is a kind of Laplace trafo of the Laplace trafo). It it needed to transform signals from time to frequency domain and back. I had to apply this too, and later, much later, maybe 2 years, i really began to understand wtf i was doing there. As a rule of thumb, everything i learned needed 2y to *sink in* before i really understood it (or at least thought i understood).
Just to give you a perspective: I went to school 13 years before i went to university, i had (admittedly in lower grade lectures) A-grades in school in math, and i thought "what else can they throw at me in university? Cant be that bad." In my first lecture i met 80% of students who thought exactly the same way.....after one week we were scared to death, and 5y later only ca. 1/3rd of us *survived* the filtering process of tests.

And you think Fourier its a "topic for next week"?! This is exactly your problem.


Not to insult you, but people who are touching topics just barely enough to be able to do "name dropping" are usually frauds (or bullshit artists). So everytime you do something like you just have done, you make yourself very vulnerable to this suspicion/accusation. Nobody, literally nobody but certified savants or geniuses are able to learn about and grasp within "a week" or so the topics we are regularly touching in this thread.

So what i am saying in general is: Before you start analyzing and criticizing modern science in terms of "waves", "spectra", "signals", "signal theory" or "information theory", you first need to understand these topics. In order to understand them you need several years of hardcore university level math and on top of this the basic lecture on the topics itself, and on top of this you usually need some time of application of these theories, before you can even start to claim what they cover and what and how (this *what*) may be covered only by metaphysics or such.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Deesse23's post
09-02-2017, 02:17 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 12:36 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Information can be contained in the physical (some dualists would say it must be contained in the physical) but understood or interpreted in the aphysical and by aphysical means. It has two components. It has it's physical properties and it has it's content/ meaning. The same goes for a line of code or a word being written on a page. The immaterial is not transported physically in the wave. It's a property of the wave itself.

So as I understand it, from some flavor of materialistic view the sound waves are areas of more or less compression of air that strike the ear and are transmitted into the brain via electrical and/or chemical means. Those inputs modify the brain state. That much I think everybody agrees on.

What you are arguing is that above and beyond the basics some kind of "immaterial content" is a property of the wave (which survives any transfer from air to other objects and back) and that these properties are also transmitted through the ear into some kind of "aphysical" thing that interprets the immaterial content. You cant define the property of the waves that carries the content or show any way to measure it and you can't show any mechanism by which it is translated by the ear for delivery to the aphysical processor or any way for the aphysical processor to interact with the physical matter of the brain.

And you think that makes more sense than it is just the brain reacting to physical stimuli?

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
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
09-02-2017, 02:21 PM (This post was last modified: 09-02-2017 02:43 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 01:06 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(09-02-2017 12:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  17 YOs "lecturing" at people, is hilarious. Facepalm
You are UNQUALIFIED.

LMFAO.

It's only hilarious if you're an arrogant person who thinks ad homs will win him arguments.

It's hilarious you are such a baby that you think lecturing is a good way to communicate, AND you FAILED to address why it is you NEVER reply to questions about your unsupported assertions concerning dualism, intentionality, or ANYTHING to do with Neuro-science. I have no "arguments" to make. So far all you've ever done here is post nonsense.

You "research Biology on the side".
LOL

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: