tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post5169725586047820330..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: In defense of superstition?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-38955432581674305002012-06-24T23:47:26.875-04:002012-06-24T23:47:26.875-04:00PS. One constructs one's own awareness; it is ...PS. One constructs one's own awareness; it is not beamed in by Martians. It is one's construct and one has no right to say it is real except for oneself, but that is enough. <br /><br />With our construct we reason, and our reasoning tells us that the world corresponds in many ways to our construct. Light waves are accurately captured by eyes, and sound waves by ears, and we are suited by evolution to know the world around us. <br /><br />My awareness is my construct, but my construct informs me that I have good reason to say the world generally (only generally) corresponds to my construct. I should generally make the assumption that it does (until I stand in the witness box in Court against a skilled advocate).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30300645170828631602012-06-24T23:34:07.033-04:002012-06-24T23:34:07.033-04:00I would simplify the issue of magic and spirituali...I would simplify the issue of magic and spirituality by saying that our base-state is belief. We aim at knowledge, and science continually fails in that aim because even in settled theories variations will be adopted according to the beliefs of proponents. Hypotheses are strictly conditioned beliefs.<br /><br />Religious texts are full of belief and little objective knowledge, sadly. Consequently, if our aim is knowledge, we must extend our beliefs more into hypotheses than spirtuality. The base of belief remains open to all, to drive accumulation of knowledge, but one becomes mature at a certain point.<br /><br />Nevertheless, Atheism is a fallacy. It is illogical to negate beliefs of the private individual, the universal driver. All that can be said logically about God is that He may be outside of knowledge, and if one believes to get knowledge, then to believe one way or the other about God is illogical or lacks Parsimony. One should allow both private beliefs and an objective public world, but value the public world and totally ignore private Gods.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-79202166527450919972012-06-18T12:55:35.901-04:002012-06-18T12:55:35.901-04:00Actually, it was Matthew Hutson that wrote: "...Actually, it was Matthew Hutson that wrote: "And the illusion of free will has been very useful to us." Because of course he was under the illusion that he was consciously free to say that. And Attlee is just under illusions, unconsciously.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07573847127040276949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-87616288536369237612012-06-18T11:10:48.404-04:002012-06-18T11:10:48.404-04:00The idea that consciousness is an illusion is unin...The idea that consciousness is an illusion is unintelligible.Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-71547811103515605122012-06-17T19:17:44.753-04:002012-06-17T19:17:44.753-04:00No to the former, the latter is obviously another ...No to the former, the latter is obviously another pretense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-69985771710703231422012-06-17T15:52:37.206-04:002012-06-17T15:52:37.206-04:00Attlee,
Is there no end to your arrogance, or to ...Attlee,<br /><br />Is there no end to your arrogance, or to your inability to actually read what I write?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-29815343527599611742012-06-17T15:37:39.210-04:002012-06-17T15:37:39.210-04:00Where did he just say that?Where did he just say that?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07573847127040276949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-91131262088985998262012-06-17T15:04:40.893-04:002012-06-17T15:04:40.893-04:00Is there no end to the imperious flow of illogic? ...Is there no end to the imperious flow of illogic? You just said that "science cannot disprove an incoherent concept like free-will because it's a question of logic" - so which is it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-58369708930322863612012-06-17T10:06:11.809-04:002012-06-17T10:06:11.809-04:00Eamon,
funny, I had the opposite feeling: that to...Eamon,<br /><br />funny, I had the opposite feeling: that too many skeptics / atheists are willing to take for granted metaphysical positions that they do not understand. I often detect a glee in people's confident assertion that consciousness and free will are illusions, you know the can't-help-yourself crowd...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-25367301159015321712012-06-15T17:28:18.756-04:002012-06-15T17:28:18.756-04:00@ Roy
Agreed.@ Roy<br /><br />Agreed.Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-38034239365876893952012-06-15T17:21:35.027-04:002012-06-15T17:21:35.027-04:00re: "Boy, I love it when people on this blog ...re: "Boy, I love it when people on this blog throw "incoherence" around as if it were a trump all card. There is nothing incoherent about mathematical Platonism, and the second part of your comment has nothing whatsoever to do with what Ladyman and Ross (who, by the way, are not math Platonists) are talking about."<br /><br />Gardner's statement preens itself as the ne plus ultra of the thesis: “If all sentient beings in the universe disappeared . . . there would remain a sense in which mathematical objects and theorems would continue to exist even though there would be no one around to write or talk about them. Huge prime numbers would continue to be prime even if no one had proved them prime.” Is this what you mean to defend as coherent?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-44910811119214209812012-06-15T17:04:50.539-04:002012-06-15T17:04:50.539-04:00You may be right about not being committed to reje...You may be right about not being committed to rejecting emergent phenomena. <br /><br />That aside, why do you think eliminative materialism engenders such a hostile (and, it seems, violent) reaction from not only theists but also from so many skeptics?Cian Eamon Marleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09070168038290681070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-91186585909290603382012-06-15T16:23:48.259-04:002012-06-15T16:23:48.259-04:00Eamon,
well, you almost had me there, almost. No,...Eamon,<br /><br />well, you almost had me there, almost. No, I'm not committed to abandon the possibility of emergent phenomena (about which I am neutral), because if they exist they are physical. You reject them because you decided to commit to reductive physicalism.<br /><br />As for minding, I think it as something the brain does, like the lungs produce breathing, or the heart produces circulating of blood.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-23592402682429940222012-06-15T16:01:57.542-04:002012-06-15T16:01:57.542-04:00My satire seems not to have been sufficiently iron...My satire seems not to have been sufficiently ironic.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07573847127040276949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-3497063955329433882012-06-15T15:41:39.431-04:002012-06-15T15:41:39.431-04:00@ Roy
The body influences the mind. But by the sa...@ Roy<br /><br />The body influences the mind. But by the same token, the mind influences the body. They mutually condition each other.Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-33514489159538690522012-06-15T14:55:22.884-04:002012-06-15T14:55:22.884-04:00Well, you know what they've been saying. Cons...Well, you know what they've been saying. Conscious thoughts don't cause events. Because if they had any real substance, and were labeled either ists or isms, they'd have to. Consciousism. That hurts one's health to think about.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07573847127040276949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40631032476835034222012-06-15T13:46:04.017-04:002012-06-15T13:46:04.017-04:00Massimo,
In a nutshell, then, in saying "I t...Massimo,<br /><br />In a nutshell, then, in saying "I think of "minding" as something the brain does, not of "the mind" as an object" you are (ontologically speaking) <i>eliminating</i> the mind and instead construing mental activity as solely brain activity. <br /><br />This position of yours, I should like to add, removes you from the property dualist and the-mind-as-an-emergent-phenomenon camps.Cian Eamon Marleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09070168038290681070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-63985924080233801222012-06-15T13:41:42.864-04:002012-06-15T13:41:42.864-04:00Massimo,
I think your suggestion does go a good b...Massimo,<br /><br />I think your suggestion does go a good bit toward the eliminative materialist position. If we can identify the neural bases for consciousness (I say 'bases' because consciousness is not a single, unified phenomenon) we can maintain traditional ways of verbalization ('beliefs', 'desires', etc.) but with the ontological-understanding that such verbalizations are useful fictions and instead, in a strict sense, what we are referring to when we employ such verbiage is and only is physical brain states.Cian Eamon Marleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09070168038290681070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-55531010783670695892012-06-15T09:35:58.067-04:002012-06-15T09:35:58.067-04:00@ the brain with no reference point
> The elim...@ the brain with no reference point<br /><br />> <i>The eliminative materialist contends that there is no thing which corresponds to the word "self". </i> <<br /><br />WARNING: "<i>The Surgeon General has determined that eliminative materialism is dangerous to your mental health.</i>"<br /><br />This is the fallacy of eliminative materialism - the insistent that what is inherently <i>subjective</i> must be <i>objective</i>. And since we cannot objectively identify the self, the eliminative materialist arrives at the irrational conclusion that subjectivity does not existAlastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-15491325965782871282012-06-15T09:13:48.135-04:002012-06-15T09:13:48.135-04:00@ Massimo
> Boy, I love it when people on this...@ Massimo<br /><br />> <i>Boy, I love it when people on this blog throw "incoherence" around as if it were a trump all card. There is nothing incoherent about mathematical Platonism, and the second part of your comment has nothing whatsoever to do with what Ladyman and Ross (who, by the way, are not math Platonists) are talking about.</i> <<br /><br />Mathematical Platonism is unintelligible to extent that the Platonist attempts to place mathematical abstractions outside of a mind that abstracts.Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30511591188915613942012-06-15T08:43:08.513-04:002012-06-15T08:43:08.513-04:00Attlee,
> "Mathematical Platonism" w...Attlee,<br /><br />> "Mathematical Platonism" would be a contender if it were conceptually coherent. The wave function of an H2O molecule is no more an intrinsic (non-relational) "constituent" than is mass. <<br /><br />Boy, I love it when people on this blog throw "incoherence" around as if it were a trump all card. There is nothing incoherent about mathematical Platonism, and the second part of your comment has nothing whatsoever to do with what Ladyman and Ross (who, by the way, are not math Platonists) are talking about.<br /><br />Eamon,<br /><br />the tone of some of the above comments is indeed unfortunate. That aside, perhaps here is what has been bugging me about eliminativism:<br /><br />> the eliminative materialist contends that there is no thing which corresponds to the word "self". <<br /><br />That is correct, but there is a sensation of self which, if denied (or reduced to an "illusion") feels a lot like denying the data. Could it be that a good compromise is to think of selfing (an activity / property / tendency, whatever) rather than of self as an object? Similarly, I think of "minding" as something the brain does, not of "the mind" as an object. Thoughts?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-23870281711805141112012-06-15T00:12:35.817-04:002012-06-15T00:12:35.817-04:00Re: "... mathematical Platonism becomes a ser...Re: "... mathematical Platonism becomes a serious contender when we talk about the ontology of the basic constituents of the world." <br /><br />"Mathematical Platonism" would be a contender if it were conceptually coherent. The wave function of an H2O molecule is no more an intrinsic (non-relational) "constituent" than is mass.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-49817122206968829962012-06-14T21:26:34.068-04:002012-06-14T21:26:34.068-04:00@ Massimo
> To begin with, there actually is e...@ Massimo<br /><br />> <i>To begin with, there actually is evidence that the way superstition works is precisely analogous to the <b>placebo effect</b>...<br /><br />In other words, <b>it is persistence at the task that is the active causal link</b>, everything else is window dressing. Now, surely we can encourage people to persist at a task without having to invent fables, yes?</i> <<br /><br />This is incorrect. The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo" rel="nofollow">placebo effect</a> is based on FAITH (positive belief). The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo" rel="nofollow">nocebo effect</a> is based on SKEPTICISM or DOUBT (negative belief). Faith can heal. This is a scientifically-established fact.<br /><br />"<i>The <b>placebo effect</b>. is related to the perceptions and expectations of the patient; if the substance is viewed as helpful, it can heal, but, if it is viewed as harmful, it can cause negative effects, which is known as the <b>nocebo effect</b>.</i>"<br /><br />(source: Wikipedia: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo#Expectancy_and_conditioning" rel="nofollow">Placebo</a>)<br /><br />"<i>For she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole. But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour</i>." - <a href="http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/book.php?book=Matthew&chapter=9&verse=" rel="nofollow">Matthew 9:21-22</a>Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-48792221843015610102012-06-14T21:14:57.657-04:002012-06-14T21:14:57.657-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-18681473410759068052012-06-13T18:35:02.141-04:002012-06-13T18:35:02.141-04:00Of course conscious thoughts cause events. And con...Of course conscious thoughts cause events. And conscious falsehoods cause events as much or more than conscious truths. They are inescapably sequential to change.<br />Everything written here comes from conscious thought and changes the potential future of everyone who reads them as well as of everyone who will deal with that reader in that future.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07573847127040276949noreply@blogger.com