[split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-10-2017, 05:16 AM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(26-10-2017 03:26 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  What Thoreauvian told you is that where you are failing to make sense of things because you do not accept that properties do emerge. There is no debate on whether emergent phenomena exist. You then evade the question of whether every question necessarily has a valid answer by saying that everything has a cause. This was a pertinent question because your questions are essentially vague and meaningless yet you demand precise simple explanations of very complex subjects in very short posts from non-experts.

Belaqua wants an answer to "why?" and not just "how?" -- even though there may be no why in the sense he is asking. He seems to be assuming a meaning which isn't necessarily there, then faults us for not finding it.

It's true that theists do answer the question "why?" But that doesn't mean their answers aren't just made up.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thoreauvian's post
26-10-2017, 05:29 AM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(26-10-2017 05:16 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  Belaqua wants an answer to "why?" and not just "how?" -- even though there may be no why in the sense he is asking. He seems to be assuming a meaning which isn't necessarily there, then faults us for not finding it.

It's true that theists do answer the question "why?" But that doesn't mean their answers aren't just made up.

I began by answering why:

(24-10-2017 04:51 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Self organization. Both intelligence and life have developed because it enables more entropy to be created over time than otherwise. Life is thermodynamically far from equilibrium yet self organised by minimising free energy. By reproducing life can continue to reduce a thermodynamic gradient even after it dies. Intelligence has come about for the same reason. An intelligent agent that can more effectively act over time, and thereby reproduce, can increase global entropy more than a stimulus / response agent. Memory, consciousness, temporal sequence learning etc all aid in this.

... and even told him this:

(25-10-2017 03:12 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  You are also ignoring posts where people do explain why.

His response was:

(25-10-2017 03:27 AM)Belaqua Wrote:  That's not an explanation. That's the genetic fallacy.


I then explained how.

His response was to dismiss it as incomplete answer and added dashings of condescension.


(25-10-2017 04:38 AM)Belaqua Wrote:  Right, well, you're still not approaching an answer. The brain does lots of complex things in lots of areas and then [magic pixie dust] we see color.

And it appears that even if we do manage to chart every event in every synapse, the process is the same, with the same magic pixie dust.

But I won't call you dishonest for assuming that one thing can magically turn into another. I'm sure you believe that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Mathilda's post
26-10-2017, 07:34 AM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
One more reason to detest philosophy ... great, just what I needed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
26-10-2017, 07:35 AM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2017 07:39 AM by Thoreauvian.)
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(26-10-2017 05:29 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  I began by answering why:

(24-10-2017 04:51 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  Self organization. Both intelligence and life have developed because it enables more entropy to be created over time than otherwise. Life is thermodynamically far from equilibrium yet self organised by minimising free energy. By reproducing life can continue to reduce a thermodynamic gradient even after it dies. Intelligence has come about for the same reason. An intelligent agent that can more effectively act over time, and thereby reproduce, can increase global entropy more than a stimulus / response agent. Memory, consciousness, temporal sequence learning etc all aid in this.

Perhaps like me, Belaqua didn't fully understand the relevance of this answer to the question asked, just as Deesse23 pointed out. I will have to think this through to make sense of it. Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2017, 08:09 AM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(26-10-2017 07:34 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  One more reason to detest philosophy ... great, just what I needed.

Philosophy is fine as a mental exercise to nudge the mind with new ideas and concepts. The problem is when people take it from the realm of "what if" to reality and think it actually applies or provides answers.

The issue isn't philosophy as much as it is 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
[+] 5 users Like unfogged's post
26-10-2017, 09:00 AM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(26-10-2017 02:44 AM)Belaqua Wrote:  
(26-10-2017 12:39 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  What caused a hammer to exist?

A person. A hammer is a man-made tool. As such it has a built in teleology. It begins to be a hammer at the moment it becomes capable of doing hammer things. It ceases to be a hammer at the moment it can no longer do hammer things.

Is this a hammer? It's clearly capable of doing hammer things.

[Image: ezaAwuo.jpg]

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
26-10-2017, 09:08 AM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(26-10-2017 02:44 AM)Belaqua Wrote:  For the record, I have published three peer-reviewed papers and one book. It was well-reviewed in the scholarly journals and is currently the standard work in the field. But it's a really really narrow field.

Since you brought it up, what field is that? I'd like to know if it has any relevance to the points you're discussing.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
26-10-2017, 10:01 AM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2017 10:09 AM by Chas.)
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(25-10-2017 12:56 AM)Belaqua Wrote:  
(24-10-2017 08:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  Visual input is processed in a different part of the brain than abstract concepts.
We are still learning about how brains work and I have no problem with saying we don't know yet. But, unlike you, I'm not throwing in the towel on finding out.
I rather doubt that you are familiar with all the current theories.

For about ten years, ending last year, I worked with a scientist at the local university who was doing brain research. He conducted fMRI tests on patients with emotional problems, analyzing how their reactions in decision-making tasks differed from a control group. He is a non-English speaker, who needed to read and publish in English. So I read and translated detailed scientific studies on the subject, and sat with him for hours every month to help him get all the latest findings.

Citations, please.

Quote:None of the fMRI studies, or any of the theories he studied, suggests how an electrochemical event presents itself to the subject as a mental representation or abstract concept. No one here has explained that to me.

That is your problem right there. Nothing presents itself to the subject because there is no subject. There is no separable, distinct subject in the brain - there is just the brain.
You are the activity, the activity is you.

Quote:I am not throwing in the towel at all. I'm the one who is pointing out that the problem still lacks any kind of explanation, or even a preliminary theory to be tested.

There is no explanation for an incoherent framing of a problem.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
26-10-2017, 04:17 PM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(26-10-2017 08:09 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(26-10-2017 07:34 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  One more reason to detest philosophy ... great, just what I needed.

Philosophy is fine as a mental exercise to nudge the mind with new ideas and concepts. The problem is when people take it from the realm of "what if" to reality and think it actually applies or provides answers.

The issue isn't philosophy as much as it is philosophers.

A fair point, somewhat. But even the discipline is extremely questionable, insofar as using the same tools it can "prove" contradictory points.

I prefer my masturbation to be more satisfying. Smile

It's been my experience that folks into philosophy are usually -- not always -- motivated by a desire to appear smart. For instance, Belaqua is obviously intelligent, but seems to have a problem with saying, "We don't know yet" . "We don't know yet" is a perfectly fine foundation for search and discovery, but rather than go with that, he appeals to logic, when any smart person knows that the world is not always a logical place.

He's trying to hammer nails with a fish taco.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
26-10-2017, 05:08 PM
RE: [split] When You Fell In Love With Science/Reason/Rationality
(26-10-2017 04:17 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Belaqua is obviously intelligent

Thank you.

(26-10-2017 04:17 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  ...but seems to have a problem with saying, "We don't know yet"

This is untrue. If you look back over the thread, you'll see that I'm the one insisting that we don't know.

Mathilda pretends that we know what an answer will look like when we get one.

That other guy is insisting that we already know -- that mental representation just are electrochemical events.

So your observation here is the opposite of the truth. I say we don't know and don't have a good theory. Others are saying we do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: