|
Effectronica posted:So let's drop some of the formality and get to the basic issue. How do our beliefs interact with our behaviors? How does the mind interact with the body? There are four basic options: I don't know why "Beliefs cause behavior and are evolutionarily adaptive, and are inherently true or false" is not a 5th option. In that case, our beliefs are true about as often as they should be.
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 15:28 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:That's the point of the argument- there's no known natural mechanism to determine truthfulness of beliefs, and, besides, it's also fairly unlikely because our beliefs are not all true. Which part, of the three, is fairly unlikely? If our beliefs are not all true, they can still cause behavior, they can still be evolutionarily adaptive, and they can still be inherently true or false. The same goes for the lack of a natural mechanism to determine truthfulness. There may be no 'natural' mechanism to determine truthfulness, yet our beliefs can still cause behavior, they can still be evolutionarily adaptive, and they can still be inherently true or false.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2015 03:45
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I mean that if we have a natural-yet-unobserved mechanism that enforces truthful beliefs, it is odd that it should only operate on some beliefs and not others, at least not without creating a further, unobserved hierarchy of beliefs. Not odd at all. Mechanisms, natural or observed or otherwise, generally do not operate equally well in every instance. Effectronica posted:In any case, your suggestion implies telepathy in any case, because we can, given sufficient power, observe the thoughts of other people through closely examining the minds of people that know them. After all, if we can determine whether the belief "My wife loves me" is true solely through locating the truth factor on the belief structure or whatever, it is possible, then, to transfer thoughts between minds, though probably not FTL at least. No, no telepathy is needed. The thoughts of other people are not needed. No 'natural' mechanism to determine truthfulness is needed. Our beliefs can still cause behavior, they can still be evolutionarily adaptive, and they can still be inherently true or false - without any of these things.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:This is an extremely stupid post. Effectronica posted:This is an extremely stupid post. That's as close to an apology as I've ever seen in D&D.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
There was an Interesting debate in the early analytical philosophy days over whether miracles or the supernatural are contradictory concepts. For those talking about natural mechanisms, what would be an example of a supernatural event, as opposed to a natural but unexplained event?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 15:28 |
|
|
Sorry about your thread OP.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2015 03:16
|
|