|
Effectronica posted:Instead of shouting "It's wrong! It's wrong!" like you're shaken with self-doubt or something, why not provide a counterargument? Your style of argumentation leaves much to be desired. "Beliefs" are essentially the world model constructed by the brain. An accurate world model is essential to effective behaviour, so there is selection pressure to produce brains which construct accurate models of the world. Brains get beliefs and act on them through instinct, inference from sensory experiences, and information shared by others. Since the brain is the product of evolution and there is selection pressure to produce brains which construct accurate world models, evolution directly shapes these processes in order to make them more accurate than chance.
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 19:01 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:So, to sum things up, a significant fraction of people are not able to respond accurately to my posts You could try helping them understand, refine your rhetoric, and make sure your terms are clear, instead of shrugging your shoulders and giving up any hope and getting mad when you're misunderstood. I don't think any philosophical theory was utterly pristine in its first draft.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:What a little worm you are. I said that what you quoted was off-topic, ancillary. I expressed hope that you would read this and treat it as such. You didn't. Why exactly is that quoted section off-topic? It's pretty much the crux of Plantinga's argument. Hell, I pointed out in my posts that once you strip away all the crap about evolution he's just proposing a standard epistemic argument for God in the vein of pre-Kantian philosophers. "God is the bridge between noumenal and phenomenal reality" isn't window dressing. It's the whole point that you and Plantinga are trying to get to. It's the unspoken central thesis of "Why Evolution Implies the Supernatural." Effectronica posted:I am going to define the supernatural as being that which is outside of the bounds of philosophical naturalism, which I will define as "Semantical games are childish", and that "exists" is defined as "There is no earthly reason why someone would demand to know the definition of this word but for the purposes of jackassery". From this, we can see that, since naturalism can only determine phenomenological reality, noumenal reality must also contain supernatural elements if it is distinct from phenomenological reality. 90% of philosophy is establishing definitions, clarifying definitions, and making sure your definitions are consistent. The rest is just trying to link them together in meaningful ways. How you define terms have profound implications for how those concepts interrelate. If you aren't prepared to define your terms in ways that are as specific and detailed as possible, you probably shouldn't be doing philosophy. And confusion surrounding the term "exists" was why the Ontological Argument was so confusingly abstract and difficult to directly address for like 1000 years. In the words of G.E. Moore: "What EXACTLY do you mean by THAT?" ShadowCatboy fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Aug 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Who said I felt I was a genius? Only you. Interesting! Yet you have a clear propensity to assert that people are stupid who make cogent arguments against your own. Your assertions of your own superiority -- well, shall I quote them? You still haven't answered my question, at all. Has your faith (i.e., your probabilistic belief) in your chosen trichotomy decreased at all over the course of this thread?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 23:41
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:You could try helping them understand, refine your rhetoric, and make sure your terms are clear, instead of shrugging your shoulders and giving up any hope and getting mad when you're misunderstood. My friend, when you say "creationism is unreasonable", and people call you a creationist in response, you can only rationally conclude that they are liars or idiots, and I lack the power to unfuck their minds. ShadowCatboy posted:Why exactly is that quoted section off-topic? It's pretty much the crux of Plantinga's argument. Hell, I pointed out in my posts that once you strip away all the crap about evolution he's just proposing a standard epistemic argument for God in the vein of pre-Kantian philosophers. "God is the bridge between noumenal and phenomenal reality" isn't window dressing. It's the whole point that you and Plantinga are trying to get to. It's the unspoken central thesis of "Why Evolution Implies the Supernatural." Well, ShadowCatboy, I hope you get help with that obsession with Christianity, but I have specifically stated that I believe that this x-factor is likely to be, like plate tectonics, a natural phenomenon without the necessary science to put it within naturalism's bounds, yet. So you should probably give a reason to substantiate your claim that I am lying. I am not interested in spending my precious time hashing out the definition of existence with a worm of a man like you. Maybe if you had been less of a prick, I might have considered it before my brain kicked in fully. HappyHippo posted:Your style of argumentation leaves much to be desired. No it isn't. I can believe a false thing that is nevertheless capable of producing effective behavior. After all, what does it matter for the purpose of reproduction if I believe sperm are homunculi or not?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The vast, vast majority of this has been addressed elsewhere in the post that you eagerly scanned for opportunities to deliver an intellectual smackdown. What's left is, essentially, a misunderstanding of the argument. We are not dealing here with a singular event, such as seeing a particular license plate. We are dealing with a large number of events. If you saw that every license plate in a parking lot was arranged by order of their last digit, you would assume that this was highly unlikely to happen by chance, and that they were deliberately arranged. Since you can see that the vast majority of beliefs people hold about the world are true, and that these true beliefs include ones where empirical testing is unlikely to ever occur, and that largely instinctual beliefs are similarly likely to be true, then it seems entirely likely that there is some unknown force or process which acts to promote the formation of true beliefs about the universe. Now, this has pointed out another possibility, but I'll leave that to other people to root out.
rudatron fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Aug 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:No it isn't. I can believe a false thing that is nevertheless capable of producing effective behavior. After all, what does it matter for the purpose of reproduction if I believe sperm are homunculi or not? The possibility of doing so doesn't mean that behaviour isn't on average more effective when it's based on accurate beliefs. If your argument is based on the idea that accuracy of belief is totally independent from the effectiveness of behaviour then this will be pretty funny.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Glad to see people still engaging the OP after he admits he's trolling.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
phasmid posted:You just hide behind claptrap. It's unreasonable to pretend that the people advancing these arguments are engaging in deliberate word-games. Effectronica is trying to have an actual conversation; he's not just trying to troll a bunch of STEM people by asserting nonsense about evolution. His arguments regarding cognition, perception, knowledge, and experience may be wrong, of course. If so, he has asked you to identify the errors so that he can resolve them. In order to refute his ideas on his own terms, you must be willing to do some reading and familiarize yourself with esoteric Kantian vocabulary. If you don't want to do that, then just sit on the sidelines and laugh at the freak (or vote 1 and move on ... whichever floats your boat). His empirical claims about natural phenomena (e.g. plate tectonics, neuronal impulses) or math/stats may contain inaccuracies, but it isn't really productive to harp on them. At best, he'll just choose a different example (or insist that the details aren't relevant to the core epistemological argument). At worst, you'll antagonize him and then we get pages of back-and-forth insults.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 23:50
|
|
rudatron posted:
Inductive reasoning does not inherently lead to true beliefs. Inductive reasoning would conclude that because spiders and scorpions are dangerous, harvestmen and whip scorpions are dangerous. But this is false. Similarly, "there are no black swans" is a product of induction that is also false. In reality, rudatron, if you saw a meaningful order in a parking lot, you would not assume that the cars had fallen into this order randomly, because it is more likely that someone arranged them into that order. This is not the case for non-meaningful orders. Furthermore, what is the natural explanation, that is, the definition that falls within the bounds of naturalism, which accounts for this, given that induction does not do what you say it does. HappyHippo posted:The possibility of doing so doesn't mean that behaviour isn't on average more effective when it's based on accurate beliefs. If your argument is based on the idea that accuracy of belief is totally independent from the effectiveness of behaviour then this will be pretty funny. I didn't say "totally independent", smarmy. But, for example, if I avoid large predators because I think they're venomous, what is the inferior effectiveness? Or are you going to appeal to "on average" and thus render yourself unassailable?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Well at least that explains the reason you've basically refused to engage with anyone fairly, but I do wonder how you can call what you're doing 'trolling'. Where is the entertainment? This is kyrie-level incompetence here. If you're goal was to show up D&D, then I don't think you've actually succeeded, because you've been taken apart pretty thoroughly so far.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 23:56
|
|
rudatron posted:Well at least that explains the reason you've basically refused to engage with anyone fairly, but I do wonder how you can call what you're doing 'trolling'. Where is the entertainment? This is kyrie-level incompetence here. If you're goal was to show up D&D, then I don't think you've actually succeeded, because you've been taken apart pretty thoroughly so far. Do you consider yourself to be an "r/atheism type", rudatron?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Well at least that explains the reason you've basically refused to engage with anyone fairly, but I do wonder how you can call what you're doing 'trolling'. Where is the entertainment? This is kyrie-level incompetence here. If you're goal was to show up D&D, then I don't think you've actually succeeded, because you've been taken apart pretty thoroughly so far. Maybe he just wants to get probated again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
By "trolling r/atheism types", I meant that this topic would be so offensive to that sort of person that they would produce amusing reactions, like not reading what I write before responding, baldly lying about what I say, etc. I had every hope, and I have been confirmed in my hope, that other people would be willing to engage honestly.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I didn't say "totally independent", smarmy. If it's not "totally independent" then there's a connection between belief and effective behaviour, and therefore there is evolutionary pressure to produce accurate beliefs. quote:But, for example, if I avoid large predators because I think they're venomous, what is the inferior effectiveness? Or are you going to appeal to "on average" and thus render yourself unassailable? Throwing up a couple of examples where the wrong belief produces the correct behaviour isn't going to get you anywhere. In the vast majority of situations the correct belief produces more effective behaviour than an incorrect one. You wouldn't be able to reliably poo poo in the toilet if your brain wasn't producing a generally accurate world model.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:By "trolling r/atheism types", I meant that this topic would be so offensive to that sort of person that they would produce amusing reactions, like not reading what I write before responding, baldly lying about what I say, etc. Yeah. People engage in D&D expecting honest debate. Shocking, I know.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Do you consider yourself to be an "r/atheism type", rudatron? Effectronica posted:Inductive reasoning does not inherently lead to true beliefs. Inductive reasoning would conclude that because spiders and scorpions are dangerous, harvestmen and whip scorpions are dangerous. But this is false. Similarly, "there are no black swans" is a product of induction that is also false. rudatron fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Aug 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
GulMadred posted:This is unfair. Philosophy and epistemology are fields of human endeavour with their own specialized terminology. You may find some of the terminology to be confusing, pretentious, poorly-defined, or even vaguely offensive (i.e. where it seems to co-opt scientific words in order to grant itself an undeserved legitimacy). You might consider the whole thing to be a big self-referential circlejerk performed by autists and having no relevance to the outside world, but humans do that kind of poo poo often (example, example). I was a philosophy major, then got a degree in math, pursuing a doctorate. I love the humanities and despise the culture of STEM sneering. As someone with a passing interest in epistemology, it's interesting to thing about that which is provable versus that which is knowable. Buuuuuuuut GulMadred posted:His arguments regarding cognition, perception, knowledge, and experience may be wrong, of course. If so, he has asked you to identify the errors so that he can resolve them. In order to refute his ideas on his own terms, you must be willing to do some reading and familiarize yourself with esoteric Kantian vocabulary. If you don't want to do that, then just sit on the sidelines and laugh at the freak (or vote 1 and move on ... whichever floats your boat). Given that he specifically declared a logical implication in his title, he ought to be quick to try to carefully and rigorously define his terms. He didn't say "why evolution possibly suggests the supernatural." And I see no evidence that he meant it in that sense, either. Again, there's his chosen trichotomy. GulMadred posted:His empirical claims about natural phenomena (e.g. plate tectonics, neuronal impulses) or math/stats may contain inaccuracies, but it isn't really productive to harp on them. At best, he'll just choose a different example (or insist that the details aren't relevant to the core epistemological argument). At worst, you'll antagonize him and then we get pages of back-and-forth insults. With regard to probability, there is a well-known saying: "all models are wrong, but some are useful." He has taken the spectacular and deliberate wrongness of his model and projected it outwards, consequently declaring the need for the supernatural. He has never even stopped to consider his model both wrong and useless. Again, I can't stand STEM sneering at humanities or philosophy (because why would life be worth living without them?). But this is a bad hill to defend. Tacky-Ass Rococco fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Aug 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Its almost like abusing philosophy to troll athiests makes you look like an idiot or something, especially when you are blatently wrong and promoting models that are completely false in the name of the 'Lulz'
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:disproving one of the fundamental axioms of this thread, that people generally have an accurate picture of the world around them quote:The Jungle Book (1967) did not emerge from the aether. The basic issue here is that people generally respond to tigers and other big cats with fear even with a minimum of cultural context, just like babies respond to snakes and spiders with fear. While we could suggest that there is not conscious belief around this, people still form beliefs that are consistent with the real dangers from such animals as they grow older. Your double take at the fact that people form realistic beliefs around the dangers from animals has two problems. Firstly, it is all but impossible to grow up without hearing or reading or seeing on Secondly, you are wrong about these beliefs being correct. People are loving scared of arbitrary harmless insects and for instance will swear to god that dragonflies have a dangerous sting when there isn't and has never been a dragonfly that could do more than awkwardly pinch you with its tiny mandibles. Same for your example of snakes, by the way: choking snakes are excellent evidence for social learning and against an inherent propensity for human beliefs to be correct: until like two weeks ago, loving everyone "knew" that a Boa constrictor would torturously choke you to death by slowly crushing your airways, even though only a tiny fraction of people have ever observed one eating, because well that's what everyone and their mother knows. Now actual measurements have shown that constrictors actually kill by cutting off blood flow fairly quickly and not by choking. Everyone who talks about this issue and wants to make sure their beliefs are true needs to update them from what they were two weeks ago. People are only approaching any sort of correct beliefs about animals that are culturally significant - i.e. most megafauna and a tiny proportions of all other animals, but as you are biologically illiterate and do not know anything beyond pop culture blurbs about animals you are unable to spot this fatal weakness in your argument. I should console you by telling you you are in the good company of moronic animal rights people in this regard. Effectronica posted:Thank you for making my point. What I said is that the choices are solipsism, creationism-without-God, and the supernatural. I would assume that a functional, knowledgeable human being would realize that the first two are blatantly unreasonable, but I didn't consider the power of hatred and small-mindedness. Your definition of solipsism apparently includes any variation of "our senses are not entirely accurate". As a functional, knowledgeable human being you should realise that positing accurate senses is blatantly unreasonable, as evidenced by literal mountains of evidence ranging from our inability to perceive large ranges of sound and electromagnetic spectra (missing out on many experiences) over the fact that even a camera recording nothing humans are inherently unable to perceive will reveal how eyewitness testimony is often disastrously inaccurate. You are unable to understand that human senses do not need to be entirely or even highly accurate, they only need to correlate with physical reality better than chance (heh) to be useful. It is a small mind that must console itself with the illusion that open eyes are the only requirement to see the world as it truly is and in its entirety.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 00:16
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Effectronica: Abusing philosophy to troll athiests via lovely conjecture while pretending he's smarter than everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:By "trolling r/atheism types", I meant that this topic would be so offensive to that sort of person that they would produce amusing reactions, like not reading what I write before responding, baldly lying about what I say, etc. I have - despite the low quality of your argument and despite your repulsive incompetence. You have, however, managed to be more annoying and less reasonable than stereotypical r/atheism shitlords, which is an achievement worthy of recognition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Effectronica: Abusing philosophy to troll athiests via lovely conjecture while pretending he's smarter than everyone else. Next he's going to say anyone who thinks Deepak Chopra is full of poo poo must be a white supremacist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 00:23
|
|
HappyHippo posted:If it's not "totally independent" then there's a connection between belief and effective behaviour, and therefore there is evolutionary pressure to produce accurate beliefs. Wow. All the people who got mad because I used binary true/false as a simplification, and here they are ignoring you using it as the centerpiece of an argument that amounts to assertions. Honest debate indeed. rudatron posted:Do you consider me one? You're the one trolling after all. What about ShadowCatBoy? Who is of that type here, and have you successfully 'trolled' them? Though this will probably lead to an argument about what trolling is (which will be trolled, obviously) but that may not be successful. Well, I'm glad that your brain concluded I was saying that "if you see cars in a parking lot, all in order, God did it", thereby shorting out the analogy and rendering further conversation with you obviously pointless. Wow. Furthermore, you're writing a lot of incoherent nonsense. "Truth is not necessary for natural selection"? This is a key part of my argument! You're a loving illiterate! blowfish posted:Indeed, your posting is very effective in this regard. Well, you can't actually trust that I wrote what you perceive, according to you, so further conversation is pointless. Furthermore, without a binary true/false, we can see that belief that constricting snakes are dangerous because they constrict you is, while incorrect in the particulars, less incorrect than believing that they will kill you with a venomous injection of poisons produced naturally by their body. In other words, you're supporting my argument- that we have beliefs that are closer to reality than you might expect, given that we do have some major beliefs that are notoriously inaccurate. They are exceptions that prove a rule, if I may.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:This has nothing to do with the concepts of phenomenological and noumenal reality, dude, unless you're willing to assert that the difference is because of optical illusions, inattentional blindness and so on. That is exactly the point that I'm making. Humans can make errors in beliefs all the time. We don't experience the squares as the same shade, or the gorilla marching across the court, but there they are. Our phenomenological reality does not line up with the nooumenal reality behind it. You keep saying that beliefs are more true than we would expect them to be, but you haven't demonstrated how this is so. The faulty model discussion and things like optical illusions poke holes in that statement. In the case of the faulty model, it's the idea that your model is giving you bad results. In the case of errors, it's that human beliefs may not be as true as you think they are in the first place. And still this whole conversation is a little silly, because you're asserted that 'things that exist naturally but are not known are supernatural'. That's not the way anyone else uses those terms, so if you're willing to accept a material explanation, regardless of whether it's God, or Buddha-nature or whatever, for the amount of apparent true beliefs we have, then the argument isn't over whether or not the supernatural exists to explain it, it's over the definition of supernatural in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Furthermore, without a binary true/false, we can see that belief that constricting snakes are dangerous because they constrict you is, while incorrect in the particulars, less incorrect than believing that they will kill you with a venomous injection of poisons produced naturally by their body. In other words, you're supporting my argument- that we have beliefs that are closer to reality than you might expect, given that we do have some major beliefs that are notoriously inaccurate. They are exceptions that prove a rule, if I may. lol if you show someone who is not interested in animals a snake and don't tell them it's either a constrictor or a venomous snake and you ask them how it kills stuff the results will be pretty much random. The knowledge that constrictors kill by, well, constricting is cultural and can be entirely divorced from the nowadays-unfamiliar experience of actually facing a snake there is some saying about missing a forest and trees that i can't quite recall here
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Wow. All the people who got mad because I used binary true/false as a simplification, and here they are ignoring you using it as the centerpiece of an argument that amounts to assertions. What the gently caress are you talking about? What does binary true/false have to do with this? Quit dodging the question. Do accurate beliefs produce more effective behaviour?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
also lol i actually think reducing the argument to binary true/false is ok because otherwise we get an even less intelligible shitfest but hey, apparently effectronica has divined my true belief through telepathy or something, though it must at some point include models that more and more closely approach the true state
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Well, ShadowCatboy, I hope you get help with that obsession with Christianity, but I have specifically stated that I believe that this x-factor is likely to be, like plate tectonics, a natural phenomenon without the necessary science to put it within naturalism's bounds, yet. So you should probably give a reason to substantiate your claim that I am lying. You do realize that the term "God" doesn't always refer to the Judeo-Christian deity, right? It was a pretty standard convention used in modernist philosophy to refer to a particular "ultimate substance" or other entity of great significance in proofs. Sure I could go with "X-Factor" like you seem to prefer, but it's a little too unconventional to me and frankly it sounds a touch silly. So I guess it's my fault for not being a little more explicit, because personally my philosophical background is rooted in theology and the modernist era of philosophy and that's how I operate. But there's still no need to go all explodey-hostile. Also for all your raging about other dudes here describing your argument (or Platinga's or whatevs) as "creationism" we weren't the ones who first drew the comparison: Effectronica posted:Either our senses can't be trusted, or creationism is true but there is no god directing it, or, and this is frankly the most reasonable- the supernatural exists. Something, which is beyond our perceptions and knowledge, is a phenomenon which ensures that our beliefs are more likely to be true than they should be given natural selection. Frankly, "Evolution alone cannot account for X, so you need to include a supernatural entity" is pretty much definitive of Creationism. quote:I am not interested in spending my precious time hashing out the definition of existence with a worm of a man like you. Maybe if you had been less of a prick, I might have considered it before my brain kicked in fully. Your words hurt me deep down inside, where I'm soft like a woman.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 00:36
|
|
Buried alive posted:That is exactly the point that I'm making. Humans can make errors in beliefs all the time. We don't experience the squares as the same shade, or the gorilla marching across the court, but there they are. Our phenomenological reality does not line up with the nooumenal reality behind it. You keep saying that beliefs are more true than we would expect them to be, but you haven't demonstrated how this is so. The faulty model discussion and things like optical illusions poke holes in that statement. In the case of the faulty model, it's the idea that your model is giving you bad results. In the case of errors, it's that human beliefs may not be as true as you think they are in the first place. Except that we can phenomenologically experience the noumenal reality by rewatching the video, or by placing our thumb over the splashes of color. The gap is easily bridgeable, whereas Kant's conception doesn't have such an easy bridge. Well, no. I am saying, in full, that things which fall outside the bounds of naturalism are supernatural. A material explanation for this is supernatural because there is no naturalistic base for it to exist. A new species of cricket is not supernatural, but if it were an extremophile that lived in active volcanic calderas it would be supernatural under this definition, even though it probably wouldn't actually be magical. HappyHippo posted:What the gently caress are you talking about? What does binary true/false have to do with this? Your argument relies on everything being solely true or false. But to answer your question: not necessarily. Ha! blowfish posted:lol Wait, hold on... without the context to determine whether a snake constricts or poisons, people guess? This is certainly relevant to the question! I weep for all the people that died of snakebites because they had to empirically test whether that was a king snake or a coral snake in the bushes there.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Well, I'm glad that your brain concluded I was saying that "if you see cars in a parking lot, all in order, God did it", thereby shorting out the analogy and rendering further conversation with you obviously pointless. Wow. I don't 'think you're really acknowledging anything anyone has said to you. Is this entertaining to you? If not, how are you trolling?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 00:41
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted:You do realize that the term "God" doesn't always refer to the Judeo-Christian deity, right? It was a pretty standard convention used in modernist philosophy to refer to a particular "ultimate substance" or other entity of great significance in proofs. Sure I could go with "X-Factor" like you seem to prefer, but it's a little too unconventional to me and frankly it sounds a touch silly. So I guess it's my fault for not being a little more explicit, because personally my philosophical background is rooted in theology and the modernist era of philosophy and that's how I operate. But there's still no need to go all explodey-hostile. I said "evolution by natural selection", so I guess the domestication of dogs is now proof of creationism. Or Creationism. So, too, the feathers of the peacock.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Your argument relies on everything being solely true or false. But to answer your question: not necessarily. Ha! No it doesn't. "More accurate beliefs produce more effective behaviour" is not binary, because neither "accuracy" nor "effectiveness" are binary concepts. Your answer is pretty pathetic considering how essential this is to your argument. You'd think you'd be able to come up with something other than "nuh-uh!" if you'd put any thought into this at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 00:44
|
|
HappyHippo posted:No it doesn't. "More accurate beliefs produce more effective behaviour" is not binary, because neither "accuracy" nor "effectiveness" are binary concepts. How else should I answer? Should I lie and say either yes or no? Should I go along with your dishonesty?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Except that we can phenomenologically experience the noumenal reality by rewatching the video, or by placing our thumb over the splashes of color. The gap is easily bridgeable, whereas Kant's conception doesn't have such an easy bridge. And those types of corrections are easily made without reference to the immaterial, so I'm not sure why you're invoking the possibility of the immaterial for other types of corrections that we are able to make. Whether something is supernatural or not (going by the rest of philosophy anyway) is an ontological question, not an epistemic one. If it's material and exists, it is natural. If it is immaterial and exists, it is supernatural. Even if this new species of cricket was magical, as long as those magical properties are grounded in materialistic ones it's still natural.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:How else should I answer? Should I lie and say either yes or no? Should I go along with your dishonesty? You should provide reasoning to support your answer, or at least demonstrate how the question isn't relevant to your argument. You'd be able to do this if you actually had thought this whole thing out. Of course had you done that you wouldn't be making such ridiculous assertions in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 00:56
|
|
Buried alive posted:And those types of corrections are easily made without reference to the immaterial, so I'm not sure why you're invoking the possibility of the immaterial for other types of corrections that we are able to make. Whether something is supernatural or not (going by the rest of philosophy anyway) is an ontological question, not an epistemic one. If it's material and exists, it is natural. If it is immaterial and exists, it is supernatural. Even if this new species of cricket was magical, as long as those magical properties are grounded in materialistic ones it's still natural. Well, I don't actually think that everyone would agree that magic is not supernatural, even within the field of philosophy. HappyHippo posted:You should provide reasoning to support your answer, or at least demonstrate how the question isn't relevant to your argument. You'd be able to do this if you actually had thought this whole thing out. Of course had you done that you wouldn't be making such ridiculous assertions in the first place. The question is relevant but did not seem to be asked in honesty given your posts thus far.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
Now for another great example of how human senses are imperfect and how the search for ultimate truth is a fool's errand: Colour perception and language see here for a layman's example. Not all cultures differentiate colours equally - for example, until very recently, the Chinese and especially the Japanese (until post-WW2 western style education in this case) did not have a distinction between blue and green - both were called "fresh-coloured", and the ancient Greek poets' wine dark sea was not described as blue most likely because the colour blue had yet to be invented as a distinct colour from that of crappy wine (there nobody talks about things being a beautiful shade of blue in ancient Greek poetry). As you go through different cultures, there is 1) a broad trend for a matching set of colour categories given a particular number of different colour words in the language (it makes sense to start with dark/light, and go on to blood red, and for some reason blue and green are almost always separated late), but 2) many interesting exceptions to that, such as the tribe in the example I linked. You would be hard-pressed to pick out different shades of green that are considered entirely different colours by these people, who are probably weirded out by us lumping grass green and beech tree leaf green together as being basically the same. As evidenced by the Japanese postwar education reform thing, these differences in colour perception are purely cultural - we learn to adjust our idea of the world to that of everyone around us, and that is often useful, rather than towards to the world's ~true~ colours. RBG code 1,1,230 is not meaningfully different from 1,2,229 to us, but if it is the difference between a staple crop and a poisonous plant you better learn to distinguish that poo poo in the blink of an eye and experience it as different colours. "Is your green the same green as my green? Because it is and therefore magic!", says effectronica - "Probably no, because I don't know what 'green' is supposed to be, but I really don't need to care." Immortan posted:Next he's going to say anyone who thinks Deepak Chopra is full of poo poo must be a white supremacist. I think Deepak Chopra is full of poo poo, I am not white, but I am sure I qualify as capital W White  Effectronica posted:Wait, hold on... without the context to determine whether a snake constricts or poisons, people guess? This is certainly relevant to the question! I weep for all the people that died of snakebites because they had to empirically test whether that was a king snake or a coral snake in the bushes there. Your entire argument assumes that people are automagically right about things. When shown evidence that people are not, in fact, automagically right but need to learn from others who know more than they do, you pretend it's irrelevant.  quote:Well, no. I am saying, in full, that things which fall outside the bounds of naturalism are supernatural. A material explanation for this is supernatural because there is no naturalistic base for it to exist. A new species of cricket is not supernatural, but if it were an extremophile that lived in active volcanic calderas it would be supernatural under this definition, even though it probably wouldn't actually be magical.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
This reminds me, I just fed a pet gecko and accidentally stepped on one of the crickets I wanted to dump in its terrarium. Maybe we could discuss the armchair-philosophical implications of this event. e: Effectronica posted:The question is relevant but did not seem to be asked in honesty given your posts thus far. No, engaging with that question is one of the few things left to do for you that do not amount to flailing about while pretending you didn't hear us. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Aug 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 01:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 19:01 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:The question is relevant but did not seem to be asked in honesty given your posts thus far. Drop the persecution complex already. I'm asking a pointed question and you've done nothing but respond with snark and bad attempts at dodging around it. I've laid out how this is essential to your argument, and you agree it's relevant, so answer already.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2015 01:05
|
|