Solving the Ignosticism (is meant for ignostics only)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-08-2016, 10:32 AM
RE: Solving the Ignosticism (is meant for ignostics only)
(21-08-2016 08:39 AM)Ace Wrote:  sound is nothing more than vibrations that travel through a medium such as air, liquids, solids
hearing is nothing more than a process of detecting those vibrations via a receptors that specializes in that task, in our case ears

It depends on whether sound is defined as the vibrations or the interpretation of the vibrations. Are all vibrations sounds? If a vibration can be felt but not heard is it a sound?

It's questions like these that make we want to impale philosophers.

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
21-08-2016, 10:39 AM
RE: Solving the Ignosticism (is meant for ignostics only)
(21-08-2016 10:21 AM)Ace Wrote:  
(21-08-2016 09:49 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  But would it make a sound if the audio recorders weren't there? Smile

(Yes, yes it would, but how would we go about proving it?)

not sure if sarcasm or serious, but what the heck I'll bite

just repeat the experiment a dozen times..... the results are always gonna be the same, so under what circumstances is it gonna be any different without the recorder ?

I asked in a bit of a silly mood, but you are nonetheless missing the core question of the original conundrum: Does this or that corner of reality still exist if it is not in some way being observed? Observing it a dozen times does not really give us an answer to what happens if it is unobserved, nor does observing it in different ways (such as watching to see if flocks of birds are disturbed by the sound or trying to measure the vibrations with a seismograph). Any attempt to extrapolate from observed reality to unobserved reality begs this question. It's a bit of a Russel's Teapot in reverse, and it is unprovable.

Regarding my own opinion, I'll say three things. First, yes, I think it makes a sound. But second, this is really a question about the semantics of what we mean when we say that something exists or happens (or more specifically, makes a sound). It's arbitrary, rather than objectively factual. And third, and most importantly, it doesn't matter. If we have no way of observing the phenomenon at all, then it in no way affects us or anything we would wish to do. (If it did, that would constitute an indirect observation.) There's no practical value to pursuing this knowledge, save as a bit of a mental workout.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
21-08-2016, 12:50 PM
RE: Solving the Ignosticism (is meant for ignostics only)
(21-08-2016 07:47 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

(21-08-2016 07:39 AM)theBorg Wrote:  It is not the robot hears. It is us: the UNDERSTAND by "mind-vision", that robot "hears".

Part of that reply is incoherent nonsense. Dear Borg, please strive to be better with your English. Yes
The tape-recorder inside the robot does not hear any sound. It is we, who does hear this sound, when we play the recorded tape. Capishe? If the robot uses the sound to do something for us, then it is we, who admit the presence of the sound. Without our admitting mind - the robot does not hear. The Universe without any life is dead: nobody hears and nobody sees.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2016, 12:57 PM
RE: Solving the Ignosticism (is meant for ignostics only)
At work.

.Dear Borg.

You analogy (In part literally) is not true.

The tape recorder.... (Or, for those more tech savvy, the MP3 player) does indeed hear/is impacted by the sound waves. Just as much should your eardrums, tympany ect.

Indeed! A conical receiving horn connected to a stylus needle scratching onto wax cylinders is the same (Annalog admittedly) as the electronic items today.

Where your analogy falls short is the discrepancy regarding neurons or not.

Sadly..... no time for longer exposition. Sad
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2016, 06:38 PM (This post was last modified: 22-08-2016 11:00 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Solving the Ignosticism (is meant for ignostics only)
(21-08-2016 12:50 PM)theBorg Wrote:  The Universe without any life is dead: nobody hears and nobody sees.

Yes and potentially will be gone sometime. That's just fine. There isn't anything to fret about.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2016, 05:29 AM
RE: Solving the Ignosticism (is meant for ignostics only)
(21-08-2016 12:57 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  You analogy (In part literally) is not true.
The tape recorder.... (Or, for those more tech savvy, the MP3 player)
The sound, which we would hear, does influence the MP3 recorder in the predetermined way. This does not debunk the fact: if a body is dead, then it does not hear the sound. Despite any technical robots, which could be in (or around) the body to sustain its biology.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2016, 05:51 AM
RE: Solving the Ignosticism (is meant for ignostics only)
(22-08-2016 05:29 AM)theBorg Wrote:  The sound, which we would hear, does influence the MP3 recorder in the predetermined way. This does not debunk the fact: if a body is dead, then it does not hear the sound. Despite any technical robots, which could be in (or around) the body to sustain its biology.

Okay... by your reply post I can see we're not quite meeting each other half way with our thoughts.

Anything alive will, generally, be interacted and react to stimulus impacting them.

(Of a side note, if the sound is loud enough even inanimate objects are 'moved' by said interactions)

So... animals react to sound... what are your thoughts on such things, Dear Borg?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2016, 01:24 PM
RE: Solving the Ignosticism (is meant for ignostics only)
(22-08-2016 05:51 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Anything alive will, generally, be interacted and react to stimulus impacting them.
Then I hide behind the Bible.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2016, 01:41 PM
RE: Solving the Ignosticism (is meant for ignostics only)
(22-08-2016 01:24 PM)theBorg Wrote:  
(22-08-2016 05:51 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Anything alive will, generally, be interacted and react to stimulus impacting them.
Then I hide behind the Bible.

Consider

Um... this is humor, yes?

(I do acknowledge there have been a number of lives saved by projectiles dissipating their energy luckily into said book instead of the person holding said book in a pocket.)

So, back to a conversation.

How does the deity's book provide consciousness? How does a book actually 'Do' anything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2016, 02:06 PM
RE: Solving the Ignosticism (is meant for ignostics only)
(22-08-2016 01:41 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(22-08-2016 01:24 PM)theBorg Wrote:  Then I hide behind the Bible.

Consider

Um... this is humor, yes?

(I do acknowledge there have been a number of lives saved by projectiles dissipating their energy luckily into said book instead of the person holding said book in a pocket.)

So, back to a conversation.

How does the deity's book provide consciousness? How does a book actually 'Do' anything?

well it can't DO anything but it can be used for:




https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736...f2ca5d.jpg

YesLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: