|
botany posted:Rarity doesn't matter though? You're ignoring how information spreads. There might only be a single instance of a tiger attack or there might be a hundred - what matters is how many people talk about it and for how long people talk about it. (There was only a single Chernobyl disaster, and look what an impact that had.) He's making arguments from ignorance. Whether that ignorance is intentional or unintentional, this is stuff he could look up with ease on readily accessible internet resources.
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:23 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:You said, "Smudgie Buggler", that beliefs are behaviors, that they contribute to the phenotype of an organism. Therefore, it must be possible to distinguish, externally, between the phenotypes produced by different beliefs, in order for natural selection to act on them. Again, you do not have a firm enough grasp of what a phenotype is. quote:However, since telepathy is not real, it must similarly be impossible to peek inside someone's brain without directly observing it. Similarly to what? The verb 'peek' implies observation, so I guess this is basically right. But entirely irrelevant. quote:In addition, natural selection must be able to act in the absence of actions corresponding to the belief, in order for this to be true. In order for... telepathy to be impossible? Or for it to be impossible to look inside someone's brain without looking inside their brain? Your argument is missing some premises. quote:In other words, even if I never act on my belief that brightly-colored frogs are cuddly by actually touching them, natural selection should still be able to quash this maladaptive belief, no? No. Firstly, there is nothing in the belief that brightly coloured frogs are cuddly to 'act on.' It is not normative. Secondly, that belief is not necessarily maladaptive, and NS doesn't give a poo poo about it if it isn't. Evolution is simply the tendency of traits that aid or have no effect on replication to replicate, and traits that hinder replication not to replicate. Our beliefs are tuned for survival and sex, not accuracy. The true stupidity of all this is that you think that fact defeats naturalism as it gives us cause to doubt it, when naturalism itself gives us better reasons to doubt naturalism than the observation that infallibility has not been aggressively selected for. quote:But of course, you started from the premise that this was a stupid thread made by an idiot, because you disagreed with it, and that your towering intellect would lay down the law and crush the heretic. This is bad enough, but it also turns out that you're not all that smart, either. This, at least, is what I can conclude from seeing your assumptions on display. I would suggest not embarrassing yourself any further. You are basically the pissiest little twerp in this subforum, currently basking in this fever-dream of a thread which consists of nothing more than you doing an incredibly poor job of ripping off a philosopher who is essentially Ned Flanders' bookish older brother and other posters trying to decipher your turgid prose and exercising remarkable restraint in explaining why you sound so ridiculous. So forgive me if I scoff that the idea that there's anybody embarrassing themselves here but you. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 02:04 on Aug 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 19:43
|
|
So, to sum things up, a significant fraction of people are not able to respond accurately to my posts, thereby disproving one of the fundamental axioms of this thread, that people generally have an accurate picture of the world around them. Of course, I am unreasonable, insane, "the pissiest little twerp in D&D", etc. so I am going to assume that they're not a representative sample of humanity and plow onwards. botany posted:Rarity doesn't matter though? You're ignoring how information spreads. There might only be a single instance of a tiger attack or there might be a hundred - what matters is how many people talk about it and for how long people talk about it. (There was only a single Chernobyl disaster, and look what an impact that had.) 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.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
2/10.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
What relevance does this have?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Wow, the majority of posters have both argued against your points and your reaponse is to almost wholly dismiss all their arguments out of hand. Well done.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 21:08
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Wow, the majority of posters have both argued against your points and your reaponse is to almost wholly dismiss all their arguments out of hand. You have misrepresented me repeatedly, even after I have offered corrections. Inductively, the rational response is, in fact, to dismiss you out of hand, as you have shown no sign of being able to accurately represent what I am saying, which means that even if I simply respond to the parts you get right, presumably on accident, it still will eventually degenerate to you completely misrepresenting me. Thus, I am simply behaving reasonably.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Okay lemme try to break this down. As I understand it, Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument goes something like this: 1) Evolution selects cognitive processes that allow an organism to understand and survive in its environment (the "beliefs" that Effectronica refers to). 2) However, evolution operates blindly: it doesn't care whether those processes (or their resultant beliefs) accurately reflect reality or not: just on whether those processes/beliefs help us to survive. 3) It seems highly unlikely that evolution would direct the development of our cognition towards rational processes that lead to the truth, they just give us belief systems that help us survive. 4) Thus, if we want to say that our reasoning accurately reflects reality (rather than being a blind set of heuristics) an external agent (God) must be appealed to as something that directed our cognitive development accurately. Now here's my way of addressing it: Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument is much like any other basic epistemic argument for God. It just has more window dressing. At its core such epistemic arguments have four basic elements: A) A requirement that human reasoning needs an explanation to "perfect" it. B) A requirement that truly "perfected" human reasoning allows us to accurately understand reality qua reality (reality as it truly is rather than what we think it is). C) An internal deficit in human reasoning (this varies by the argument) that prevents it from "perfecting" itself internally, hence requiring... D) An appeal to an external, suprarational entity that would allow us to "perfect" reason. (usu. God, Faith, etc) Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument is just a much more convoluted version of your standard epistemic argument, in that it tosses in some scientific details into the mix. His approach with element C) is to draw a dichotomy. Either "Human cognitive processes DO accurately reflect true reality (which is what we're looking to prove)" OR "Human cognitive processes DO NOT accurately reflect true reality (which would be a problem for philosophy)." Since evolution works blindly, it is unlikely that evolution alone could allow for the former. Thus we must appeal to an external agent (God, Faith, etc) if we want to have the intellectual right to say that human reason gives us an accurate reflection of reality. There are several problems with this argument. First, this dichotomy just isn't something we need to speculate on. A basic course on human psychology will show you that the human mind did NOT evolve to operate rationally. Rather, it evolved to operate on heuristics: simple mental shortcuts that give us a rough, unoptimized, but workable model of reality that helps us get food, avoid threats, and live long enough to procreate. For example, consider rolling a ball off of a table edge and how it will drop. You have three possible options:  Now if you asked your average schoolkid, the vast majority will say the answer is 1. A sizable number will say the answer is 2. But only the great minority will understand that motion operates along a parabolic curve, most closely represented by 3. This is because our understanding of motion is grounded not on reason, but on simple intuitive processes that we've evolved to deal with relatively simple problems of survival. A college physics course on Newtonian motion therefore isn't about operating from the heuristic-based reasoning we've developed through evolution. It is about developing a higher-order sense of reasoning that trains away natural cognitive processes. Moreover, Newtonian Physics developed only after many millenia of incorrect reasoning and had to be constructed through centuries of experiments and expert thinkers. Here's the thing: if the argument is "God guided the evolution of our minds to percieve reality accurately" then he did a pretty loving lovely job. There are more fundamental problems with the Evolutionary Argument, but this is the most apparent one: that our evolution gave us crappy cognitive processes, and the superior systems of reasoning we've developed were constructed not by natural selection but by thousands of years of painstaking academic work, with a lot of trial and error.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:What relevance does this have? Well, for one thing, it means that I can now consider your poor defense of the argument to be part of the troll rather than a genuine belief that what you're saying is a good presentation of said argument. (Which actually isn't a poor choice of tactics, so long as you can avoid making it too obvious that that's what you're doing.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You have misrepresented me repeatedly, even after I have offered corrections. Inductively, the rational response is, in fact, to dismiss you out of hand, as you have shown no sign of being able to accurately represent what I am saying, which means that even if I simply respond to the parts you get right, presumably on accident, it still will eventually degenerate to you completely misrepresenting me. Thus, I am simply behaving reasonably. No, I think its safe to say you think everyone presenting counterpoints is below you and hence even if they understand your arguments correctly, you can dismiss them off hand as being wrong and ignoring their counterpoints. Which is what you do in every thread. You presenting Creationism as 'reasonable' basically makes any points you are trying to present as reasonable bunk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 21:21
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted:*snip* Plantinga's argument is that our beliefs accurately reflect reality, and therefore that there is an x-factor which ensures that this is the case. For Plantinga, this x-factor is God intervening in evolution to ensure that minds come into existence like his own, but as I said earlier, this could be a natural process that is yet unobserved, or it could be Buddha-nature. Your characterization of it is, literally, backward. But Plantinga's argument doesn't require that all our beliefs be accurate ones. Furthermore, as a side point, our ability to catch thrown and falling objects indicates that we understand Newtonian physics on an intuitive level, and therefore that our cognition actually works extremely well in this field. In point of fact, Newton's main contributions to physics are about providing a mathematical underpinning to things that were already fairly well-understood (Avicenna and Ibn al-Haytham corrected Aristotle on motion and gravity in the 10th century, though it wasn't until Galileo that a more firm underpinning was established). Going back to the main point, this really just leaves the same basic gap between faulty cognition and accurate results, if we accept it. We still need an x-factor, or else to declare that we do not perceive reality all that well.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 21:29
|
|
Technogeek posted:Well, for one thing, it means that I can now consider your poor defense of the argument to be part of the troll rather than a genuine belief that what you're saying is a good presentation of said argument. (Which actually isn't a poor choice of tactics, so long as you can avoid making it too obvious that that's what you're doing.) Do you consider yourself an "r/atheism" type? CommieGIR posted:No, I think its safe to say you think everyone presenting counterpoints is below you and hence even if they understand your arguments correctly, you can dismiss them off hand as being wrong and ignoring their counterpoints. 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.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:But Plantinga's argument doesn't require that all our beliefs be accurate ones. Furthermore, as a side point, our ability to catch thrown and falling objects indicates that we understand Newtonian physics on an intuitive level, and therefore that our cognition actually works extremely well in this field. In point of fact, Newton's main contributions to physics are about providing a mathematical underpinning to things that were already fairly well-understood (Avicenna and Ibn al-Haytham corrected Aristotle on motion and gravity in the 10th century, though it wasn't until Galileo that a more firm underpinning was established). Actually, motion-detection/reaction and cognitive understanding are two entirely separate faculties. We evolved the former earlier on and the faculty uses non-conscious portions of the brain. The ability to conceptualize it accurately is much harder and required the development of systematic science. I'm quite sure that Plantinga's argument allows for erroneous reasoning, but my point is that our reasoning on more complicated elements would be naturally erroneous if it were not for the systematic development of scientific standards that took place outside of evolution. This would overall debunk the idea of a sort of guided cognitive evolution that you seem to be proposing. Heuristics are essentially comparable to vestigial organs in this kind of creationist argument: they run counter to the hypothetical organized design of a Creator. I mean sure, you could always say "Well this is how the Creator-entity designed it through evolution. Messily, with the ability to develop more complex forms/abilities over a long span of time and a lot of work." But this no longer serves as a proof, it's little more than post-hoc rationalization akin to Theistic Evolutionism. quote:Going back to the main point, this really just leaves the same basic gap between faulty cognition and accurate results, if we accept it. We still need an x-factor, or else to declare that we do not perceive reality all that well. I do not accept that this gap exists whatsoever, because I do not accept the ontology that reason must accurately reflect reality qua reality (or noumenal reality, or however you want to call it). In fact, I would argue the opposite. This is ultimately why Plantinga doesn't impress me: his argument is just a more convoluted attempt bring the question of reason and God back to a pre-Kantian era. The whole paradigm is somewhat archaic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 21:51
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted:Actually, motion-detection/reaction and cognitive understanding are two entirely separate faculties. We evolved the former earlier on and the faculty uses non-conscious portions of the brain. The ability to conceptualize it accurately is much harder and required the development of systematic science. I'm quite sure that Plantinga's argument allows for erroneous reasoning, but my point is that our reasoning on more complicated elements would be naturally erroneous if it were not for the systematic development of scientific standards that took place outside of evolution. This would overall debunk the idea of a sort of guided cognitive evolution that you seem to be proposing. This isn't a creationist argument, unless you believe in ephemeral contagions. Okay, so your argument is that we don't perceive reality accurately. Very well then. I disagree, but there's not much that can bridge that gap.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
blowfish posted:An argument could be made that people who have at some point heard Words on the internet and are insecure about their existence are not able to see the morality of the situation I gotta say, at first I thought the argument was merely inconsistent (which isn't so bad, people often inadvertently introduce contradictions in the course of sufficiently complicated arguments  ) , but the more I read the more  it gets.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. Hmm, what would you say P("These are the only three options" | "Nobody has found this argument even slightly convincing") equals?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Plantinga's argument is that our beliefs accurately reflect reality, and therefore that there is an x-factor which ensures that this is the case. For Plantinga, this x-factor is God intervening in evolution to ensure that minds come into existence like his own, but as I said earlier, this could be a natural process that is yet unobserved, or it could be Buddha-nature. Your characterization of it is, literally, backward. Actually I would really like to know exactly what you think is backwards about my summary. Because I think my post pretty faithfully reflects the bolded part of your post here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:This isn't a creationist argument, unless you believe in ephemeral contagions. What exactly do you mean by "reality"? Because you're using this term very very vaguely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 21:57
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted:Actually I would really like to know exactly what you think is backwards about my summary. Because I think my post pretty faithfully reflects the bolded part of your post here. Because Plantinga's argument is the reverse of how you characterized it. It's not "in order for us to say that we perceive reality", it relies on the assumption that we perceive reality accurately to begin with! From that point, then, Plantinga argues for an external factory which is responsible for accurate perceptions. He, personally, would characterize it as such, but it exists independently of him. ShadowCatboy posted:What exactly do you mean by "reality"? Because you're using this term very very vaguely. I am stating that the phenomenological reality we inhabit is one that can be made to correspond very closely to noumenal reality, in the Kantian definitions of those terms. I believe this because I reject Cartesian demonology and other systems as pointless, and because, like Johnson, I have kicked a rock and experienced pain from doing so. Effectronica fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Aug 16, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Man, if only biological and chemical systems were subject to philosophical notions, you might have a leg to stand on. They are not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Because Plantinga's argument is the reverse of how you characterized it. It's not "in order for us to say that we perceive reality", it relies on the assumption that we perceive reality accurately to begin with! From that point, then, Plantinga argues for an external factory which is responsible for accurate perceptions. He, personally, would characterize it as such, but it exists independently of him. No. It is only "backwards" in the order that I listed it in, not in terms of the development of the argument. I could just as easily reorder the steps from 4 to 1 and detail the argument as "We perceive reality accurately. But evolution alone does not account for this. Hence, God." Or whatever you like. At best this is just quibbling over minor details, at worst it's meaningless pedantry. quote:I am stating that the phenomenological reality we inhabit is one that can be made to correspond very closely to noumenal reality, in the Kantian definitions of those terms. I believe this because I reject Cartesian demonology and other systems as pointless, and because, like Johnson, I have kicked a rock and experienced pain from doing so. Why exactly, ontologically speaking, would a definition of reason require phenomenological reality to correspond with noumenal reality at all? Why can't a functional definition of reason operate within phenomenological reality on its own? And how, mechanistically speaking, does God (or whatever) bridge the gap between phenomenological reality and noumenal reality?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 22:23
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted:No. It is only "backwards" in the order that I listed it in, not in terms of the development of the argument. I could just as easily reorder the steps from 4 to 1 and detail the argument as "We perceive reality accurately. But evolution alone does not account for this. Hence, God." Or whatever you like. At best this is just quibbling over minor details, at worst it's meaningless pedantry. I'm not offering a definition of reason here. I'm also not saying whether reason requires correspondence. I am saying why I believe that phenomenological reality is generally consistent with noumenal reality, namely that in order for noumenal reality to be meaningful, we either need some form of supernatural process or entity to believe in which deceives us with phenomenology, or which offers a way out of deception, or we must believe that phenomenological reality corresponds closely to it. But this is off-topic, and I hope you will treat it as such!
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I'm not offering a definition of reason here. I'm also not saying whether reason requires correspondence. I am saying why I believe that phenomenological reality is generally consistent with noumenal reality, namely that in order for noumenal reality to be meaningful, we either need some form of supernatural process or entity to believe in which deceives us with phenomenology, or which offers a way out of deception, or we must believe that phenomenological reality corresponds closely to it. So, not only do you like making 'God of the gaps' arguments, you like pretending that said god is being purposefully deceptive by disguising his actions are natural occuring instances. .......riiiiiighhhhhtttt....
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 22:31
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So, not only do you like making 'God of the gaps' arguments, you like pretending that said god is being purposefully deceptive by disguising his actions are natural occuring instances. Can you read, or are you blinded by hatred?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:So, not only do you like making 'God of the gaps' arguments, you like pretending that said god is being purposefully deceptive by disguising his actions are natural occuring instances. Are you illiterate?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Can you read, or are you blinded by hatred? I'm reminded of an old German with some unspellable name who claimed that hatred was something reserved for those we esteemed. If he's blinded by anything, I doubt it's by hatred. Will you address the probability question I asked above? Do you even know what conditional probability is?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 22:37
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:I'm reminded of an old German with some unspellable name who claimed that hatred was something reserved for those we esteemed. If he's blinded by anything, I doubt it's by hatred. If you want people to treat your insults as sincere arguments, disguise them better, and also don't accidentally imply that truth relies on popularity.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:
You're kind of on the hook to explain stuff like this then:  .Also this.. And you have to do it without subscribing to the idea that science/scientific realism or whatever you want to call it is a worthy pursuit. Because if you do, then we don't need anything beyond the realm of a phenominal process in order to figure things out. Unless you're sticking with 'natural process we don't know about' still counts as supernatural, in which case we need to discuss what the hell the supernatural is even supposed to be if ignorance of a natural concept/rule/whatever is all that it takes to make something supernatural.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:If you want people to treat your insults as sincere arguments, disguise them better, and also don't accidentally imply that truth relies on popularity.  Seriously, are you self aware?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 22:42
|
|
Buried alive posted:You're kind of on the hook to explain stuff like this then: 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.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Didn't evolution go way above and beyond our last hominid predecessors (not our Neanderthal cousins)?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I'm not offering a definition of reason here. I'm also not saying whether reason requires correspondence. I am saying why I believe that phenomenological reality is generally consistent with noumenal reality, namely that in order for noumenal reality to be meaningful, we either need some form of supernatural process or entity to believe in which deceives us with phenomenology, or which offers a way out of deception, or we must believe that phenomenological reality corresponds closely to it. Okay? I'm not sure what the point of this thread is then, because all that's being said here is that "for something rationally impossible to function there'd need to be something external to reason to allow that to happen." Which I might be able to accept, but I don't see the point since human reason operates quite will without having to appeal to supernatural or suprarational entities. It's basically like saying "If we could eat numbers some mysterious nonrational X must be incorporated to make this to happen." It doesn't really make sense, even if it would be kinda neat. But we operate quite well without having to do the rationally impossible act of eating numbers. Also, I want to know what exactly you mean here: Effectronica posted:Or we can accept that there is a barrier between noumenal and phenomenological reality (between what is really real, and what we can perceive), but this still accepts that the supernatural exists, it just denies that we can ever know anything about it. What EXACTLY do you mean by "supernatural"? Or "exists"? Or that the division between noumenal and phenomenological reality still accepts that "the supernatural exists"? ShadowCatboy fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Aug 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:If you want people to treat your insults as sincere arguments, disguise them better, and also don't accidentally imply that truth relies on popularity. A) I disguised nothing, if you're talking about my first line. It wasn't thinly-veiled; hell, if there's a single theme with you, you are not nearly as clever as you think you are. B) I implied nothing. I asked what you thought the probability was that this question can be reduced to a trichotomy given the fact that you are actively hostile to everyone who criticizes said argument. It's a reasonable question! You expressed some slight uncertainty in the OP, possibly insincere. But you explicitly stated that your argument relies on a trichotomy, where you regard two of the options as ludicrous, reducing it to a monochotomy. Is your belief shaken by the fact that you have no adherents? Do you consider that, at best, you are terrible at presenting your arguments? Or, most likely, do you regard yourself as a genius prophet before heathens?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
You still haven't demonstrated why accurate beliefs cannot be accounted for by evolution. This is the crux of your argument and it's completely wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Or we can accept that there is a barrier between noumenal and phenomenological reality (between what is really real, and what we can perceive), but this still accepts that the supernatural exists, it just denies that we can ever know anything about it. You're confusing philosophy and science. Evolution is real, people who disagree are wrong, please inform yourself by reading about biology and not some argument from special interest groups (i.e. Christianity).
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 23:04
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted:Okay then? I'm not sure what the point of this thread is then, because all that's being said here is that "for something rationally impossible to be true there'd need to be something external to reason to allow that to happen." Which I might be able to accept, but I don't see the point since human reason operates quite will without having to appeal to supernatural or suprarational entities. 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. 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. Jack of Hearts posted:A) I disguised nothing, if you're talking about my first line. It wasn't thinly-veiled; hell, if there's a single theme with you, you are not nearly as clever as you think you are. 80% of Americans believe in angels. By your reasoning, you must convert to Christianity and live a joyless life of deception. But your gleeful nonsense relies on the assumption that I had any belief I would convince people. I didn't and don't, because I am fairly unconvinced of the ability of reasonable argument to assail deeply-held beliefs, such as the aggro-atheism and megamaterialism of many people posting in this thread. HappyHippo posted:You still haven't demonstrated why accurate beliefs cannot be accounted for by evolution. This is the crux of your argument and it's completely wrong. Instead of shouting "It's wrong! It's wrong!" like you're shaken with self-doubt or something, why not provide a counterargument?
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 23:07
|
|
phasmid posted:You're confusing philosophy and science. Evolution is real, people who disagree are wrong, please inform yourself by reading about biology and not some argument from special interest groups (i.e. Christianity). Please do not post in my thread if you're not going to read posts.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Which particular posts did I ignore? Was it the same ones you ignored by trying to categorize "reality"? Nobody has ever been able to say what reality *is*. Your arguments are faith-based, not science based, and you haven't given a substantive answer yet. You just hide behind claptrap.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Originally I felt like Effectronica was just another tedious moralist. Now I welcome him as another jrodefeld.Effectronica posted:80% of Americans believe in angels. By your reasoning, you must convert to Christianity and live a joyless life of deception. But your gleeful nonsense relies on the assumption that I had any belief I would convince people. I didn't and don't, because I am fairly unconvinced of the ability of reasonable argument to assail deeply-held beliefs, such as the aggro-atheism and megamaterialism of many people posting in this thread. "These reasonings do not cohere," per the cheap translation I have of Epictetus. Suppose I approach a question sure that I'm a philosophical genius saying something profound, i.e., Effectronica posted:What I said is that the choices are solipsism, creationism-without-God, and the supernatural. and that, broadly speaking, everyone laughs at you, and that, strictly speaking, nobody accepts this as correct. Does your internal estimate of the probability that you are a philosophical genius (clearly approximately 1) change at all? My reasoning compels me to nothing, it compels you to nothing; it merely asks: is your faith in your own genius at all affected?
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 23:25
|
|
|
All philosophy is is semantical games, so watching you flip your poo poo because someone asked you to define your terms is funny enough to justify this thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 08:23 |
|
phasmid posted:Which particular posts did I ignore? Was it the same ones you ignored by trying to categorize "reality"? Nobody has ever been able to say what reality *is*. Your arguments are faith-based, not science based, and you haven't given a substantive answer yet. You just hide behind claptrap. For one thing, I am operating under the assumption evolution is real and creationism is false, "phasmid". Jack of Hearts posted:Originally I felt like Effectronica was just another tedious moralist. Now I welcome him as another jrodefeld. Who said I felt I was a genius? Only you. Who thinks that the truth is democratic? Probably the majority of the idiots in this thread. Who What Now posted:All philosophy is is semantical games, so watching you flip your poo poo because someone asked you to define your terms is funny enough to justify this thread. "is is"? Very telling.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2015 23:31
|
|