Go Back   AFA Forums > Religion, Unreason and Similar Tropes > Belief Central

Belief Central A place for the discussion of belief or a colony for repeated logical fallacies or misrepresentations.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #1071  
Old 7th February 2017, 08:40 AM
Spearthrower Spearthrower is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,119
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
ptutt said View Post
Maybe I have imagined one step ahead of you
Well, clearly not if you say there's no rational reason for something when there is a rational reason for something.


Quote:
ptutt said View Post
I think it depends on how you define a net cost. A parent sacrificing for their children would consider the pay off seeing their children live/succeed/etc and a potential cost could be guilt if they didn't.

And a person sacrificing themselves for a complete stranger?

Not that it really matters because, contrary to what you declared before, you've just offered a reason!


Quote:
ptutt said View Post
It also depends on how you apply rationality. If the rationality is working influenced by evolved/social conditioning...or, as I meant apart from those guiding factors.
Or rather, it depends on whether you apply rationality.

Yes, the ever moving goalposts - I know exactly what to expect.

Regardless, you were mistaken - but I bet you don't change your mind based on that.


Quote:
ptutt said View Post
I would be happy to discuss a specific example if you can raise one.
I don't need to. You offered one which contradicts your claim, then tried to dismiss it. This is why I said I wouldn't bother going into these details. If you're going to reject X, then you're going to reject X1, X2, X3 and so on.

But as I explained - I am not doing this to reach agreement with you. I am doing this to show that you're wrong. You just did that for me.
Like hackenslash liked this post
  #1072  
Old 7th February 2017, 08:41 AM
Spearthrower Spearthrower is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,119
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
ptutt said View Post
I think the meaning of being a 'good' person is simply a person who is deemed to exhibit moral behaviour. Yes, what is deemed as moral may be subjective...but it is fairly closely aligned in a shared culture.


Thanks Phil for contradicting yourself again.
Like hackenslash liked this post
  #1073  
Old 7th February 2017, 08:48 AM
Spearthrower Spearthrower is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,119
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
ptutt said View Post
Yes it does. Because it would take something beyond our chemistry to be able to act. A soul would be a good description of what that could be. I don't think there is any naturalistic explanation as to what could move us beyond what our chemistry is telling us to do. Our chemistry, as I understand it, is fully deterministic.
No, it doesn't. What actually happened is that you imagined you could make up some bullshit and declare it naturalism.

Sorry, that's not how it works.

As for a naturalistic explanation for not being able to move beyond what our chemistry tells us to do, then not only have you already admitted this point in the past, but it's really not very hard to disprove your contention at all. You see, there's this lump of biological matter in our heads that, when working appropriately, produces this system of referential experiences called a 'mind'. The mind itself is not determined solely by chemistry but, to a large degree, by the things it experiences while alive. As such, the thing that lets us move beyond the diktats of our chemistry, Phil, is the organ we use for thinking.

Easily shown. I like doing X, but I deem X not to be good, so I don't do X.

Your claim is, of course, shown wrong. All the rest is apologetic horse-trading.



Quote:
ptutt said View Post
[This is not a proof] It seems as though our society operates on the presupposition that free will exists.
No, as I just explained to you - Free Will is a religious concept and just because you are restricted to that paradigm, it doesn't mean that the rest of society is also restricted to that.


Quote:
ptutt said View Post
In a court of law a person can plead insanity, meaning they did not have control of their actions. Society needs to be protected from such people, but they are not punished as such. If there is no free will, no-one has control over their actions, they are just obeying their chemistry.
You're going to need to try and read what's written, Phil. As I've already pointed out in the post you're supposedly replying to, Free Will is a religious concept.

Rejecting free will doesn't mean rejecting autonomy, or declaring that the universe and everything in it operates on chemical determinism. Your poverty of imagination is showing again.


Quote:
ptutt said View Post
There was no alternative action, given the same circumstances and brain state they would always choose what they chose. Choice is then is illusory.
You're talking about a rock falling due to gravity, not an organism with a mind which can judge its own actions, which can learn, which can process experiential information.

So no, what you're touting has fuck all to do with naturalism - it's a product of your imagination, and it's lacking all sorts of essential information that would make your comprehension valid.

Last edited by Spearthrower; 7th February 2017 at 08:50 AM.
Like hackenslash, Darwinsbulldog liked this post
  #1074  
Old 7th February 2017, 08:53 AM
Spearthrower Spearthrower is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,119
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
ptutt said View Post
3. Or you are wrong.

inter-subjectivity is merely a sub-set of subjectivity. Dichotomy still exists.


Oh Phil, if only you could see what occurs in our brains when you say such stupid and self-defeating things.

Comprehending this alone would get you far past your silly little antiquated beliefs of a system of human thinking independent of human thinking.
Like hackenslash liked this post
  #1075  
Old 7th February 2017, 12:12 PM
Stub King's Avatar
Stub King Stub King is offline
Take my advice, don't listen to me
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 826
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

first, let me say that you simply ignored both my request for you to supply proof of your assertion, as well as most of my questions.

Quote:
ptutt said View Post
I think
stop right there. end of discussion. if it depends on what you think then it is subjective.

Quote:
the meaning of being a 'good' person is simply a person who is deemed to exhibit moral behaviour
so being good is just ... being good. is that it? I think we have a word for this ... damn, I am sure it will come back to me ... it's on the tip of my tongue ... as, yes ... a tautology.

the meaning of E=mc^2 is that energy and mass are the same thing. it does not prove either of them exists.

FYI: we all exhibit moral behaviour. but I am sure what you mean to say is "moral behaviour which I, ptutt, considers good". I will leave you to fathom why this is - again - proof of nothing.


Quote:
Yes, what is deemed as moral may be subjective...but it is fairly closely aligned in a shared culture
and this proves what exactly? that people who share a cultural heritage share a common moral code? so fucking what? they also share a cuisine. so which one is better: pizza or bratwurst?

you acknowledge that "what is deemed as moral may be subjective". so why not just be intellectually honest about it?

Quote:
I do believe that our view of what is good would have a fair amount of overlap
probably. so? we may also overlap in our political views. does this mean there is an objectively best political view?

Quote:
and I think if you are honest you can contemplate such points as follows.
tbh, I am not sure you think much. you seem to certainly spend an awful lot of time in mental gymnastics, but that's about it.

Quote:
Sometimes the consequences will be positive when you cheat. If you look at it from risk/return perspective you could calculate when you are more likely to net a positive result from cheating...yet cheating is not 'good'...
why is cheating not good? based on whose opinion? and what is cheating? whose rules are you bypassing? are those rules objectively right or just?

the early christians who practiced their religion when it was outlawed ... were they cheats?

Quote:
so why be 'good' when you, on probability, missing out on net benefit?
so you start with sometimes, then progress to asserting "on probability". I guess in a few sentences you would have asserted certainty. you are begging the question here, as you have done many times before. which leads me to this:

you are just a run of the mill apologist. you have been shown up time and time again, yet you continue to hold on to your views under the pretence of thought. you keep begging the question, because like all apologists you are certain of the answer before you ask the question. you are perfectly entitled to take this path, but I am done here. This is just a waste of time.

adios
__________________
The less people know, the more stubbornly they know it. (Osho)
Like Sendraks liked this post
  #1076  
Old 8th February 2017, 02:50 PM
Stubby's Avatar
Stubby Stubby is offline
Omu'sata
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 2,201
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

The Prince of the Tutts, 1:1

And it did come to pass that a Prince of the Tutts came to the wall of the non-believers
As it was for those who came before and those who are likely to come again, the Prince of the Tutts wrote his sermon on the wall, over the words of those who came before
Alas, his words were also written over words unread by him
Bold were his proclamations and certain was he that his faith was the bestest among faiths
Among his words, “Morals!” he cried. “Morals are objective!” And the bestest morals were foundeth in his favourite book!

The Prince of the Tutts, 1:2

As hath been and as always shall be, the non-believers did ask for evidence
And the Prince of the Tutts was seen to engage in much wriggling and manoeuvres of thought
But convinced as he was and undeterred by the wisdom of the unbelievers, he did continue to decry that Morals were objective! Truly, he was blinded by his faith

The Prince of the Tutts, 1:3

As hath been and as always shall be, the non-believers did engageth with the Prince
Much wisdom was imparted to the Prince, some of which was of the flood crafted by the god of “morals!”
But alas, said wisdom did but flutter through one ear and outeth the other
For - as the birds must have fluttered above the waves of the flood, despairing at the lack of grubs to eat and the absence of branches in which to roost, there was nowhere for the wisdom to alight and no sustenance to be found
The bird could not have known that the grubs and the trees had been slain by a god of “morals!”
Starved of food and weary from nowhere to rest, the idea did perish like the bird

The Prince of the Tutts, 1:4

But lo! The Prince did return, not after three days but after many waxings and wanings of the moon!
But still he proclaimed as he always had
And still the bird did starve
As hath been and as shall always be, the non-believers despaired that the believers that cometh to preach produce not evidence not fact nor thinking of sound foundation, but the regurgitation of the beliefs of old
But one new thing was seen in the words of the Prince of the Tutts and that thing was irony
For the Prince had failed to see the light and the light was that his words did disproveth his own claim

The Book of Meh, the Prince of the Tutts, 1-4
__________________
"Send me money, send me green, heaven you will meet. Make your contribution and you'll get a better seat" - Metallica, Leper Messiah
Like hackenslash liked this post
  #1077  
Old 8th February 2017, 03:31 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 18,290
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

ptutt wrote:
Quote:
..our chemistry is fully deterministic".
I would like to discuss this. Determinism does not mean inevitability.

Right at the bottom of it all is quantum uncertainty. To illustrate what I mean, we go back to the Newtonian Universe. In Newton's view, provided we knew the starting conditions, we could predict what happens accurately for ever.

Now, it was not quantum mechanics that overthrew Newton, but Einsteinian relativity. Cartesian space is not inviolate because only the speed of light is constant [in the same "medium"].

What QM does is throw a further sapper in the works of determinism as an absolute thing. Modern "determinism" is more like "canalism". In other words, we are more likely to find something in a narrower range when we say something is "determined".

Let's add another concept: the idea of proximate vs ultimate causes.

Suppose you have two people die. They are both the same age and general health. One person dies because they have an horrific accident that severs a limb, and they bleed out and die. The other person dies at the same time, but there is no specific cause. [Very old people tend to die more than young people, so we can reasonably infer that age eventually caught up with him or her.

Now, the person with the bleed out has a proximate cause of death. With great loss of blood, no oxygen or nutrient are reaching the brain and organs, so we can be fairly confident of the cause of death.

But with an aged person that just dies? Well, organs wear, out telomeres shorten and mutations get far more frequent, so less proteins and enzymes of sufficient quantity and quality are there to repair the older body. We can call this "a diffuse causal chain". There is no ultimate or single cause of death, but a "perfect storm" of things that go wrong.

Another example: two murderers. For the first murder, we find out that he had brain cancer. Because we have found a proximal and single cause, juries are less likely to convict him. They feel [and happen to be correct] that the brain cancer was a direct cause of his murderous intent. In other words, 'free will" was not involved.

What about the other murderer? We can find no obvious or single link to explain the murderous behaviour. So it is very easy here to believe that the person murdered of his own free will. But not so fast. There may have indeed been many causes that "canalised" the person to commit murder, it just may be that we are ignorant of them. How can we know the complete history of that person?

There might be a thousand or more factors that led to the act of murder, and more likely than not, we will remain ignorant of most of them. Like the guy who died of simple old age, we are often hard put to find specific causes or causes that led to the act of murder. So we mistakenly write it off to "free will".

The religious concept of free will allows simple [but often incorrect] choices. The murderer was evil, a Satan-worshipper or some such thing. Done. Easy, but probably wrong.

__________________
Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.
  #1078  
Old 8th February 2017, 04:00 PM
Spearthrower Spearthrower is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,119
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
Darwinsbulldog said View Post
I would like to discuss this. Determinism does not mean inevitability.

The thing is, even if it were wholly deterministic, then it still wouldn't mean what Ptutt has used it to mean. A system produced by a deterministic system does not itself need to deterministic.

While I obviously agree with what you have to say, I think Ptutt's error is far more wide-ranging than the bit you tried to help him with.
  #1079  
Old 8th February 2017, 04:12 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 18,290
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Well, I iz jist a puppy and can't handle too much at once!

Putting most of my effort into understanding this:-

Handsteiner, J., et al. (2017). "Cosmic Bell Test: Measurement Settings from Milky Way Stars." Physical Review Letters 118(6): 060401.
Quote:
Bell’s theorem states that some predictions of quantum mechanics cannot be reproduced by a local-realist theory. That conflict is expressed by Bell’s inequality, which is usually derived under the assumption that there are no statistical correlations between the choices of measurement settings and anything else that can causally affect the measurement outcomes. In previous experiments, this “freedom of choice” was addressed by ensuring that selection of measurement settings via conventional “quantum random number generators” was spacelike separated from the entangled particle creation. This, however, left open the possibility that an unknown cause affected both the setting choices and measurement outcomes as recently as mere microseconds before each experimental trial. Here we report on a new experimental test of Bell’s inequality that, for the first time, uses distant astronomical sources as “cosmic setting generators.” In our tests with polarization-entangled photons, measurement settings were chosen using real-time observations of Milky Way stars while simultaneously ensuring locality. Assuming fair sampling for all detected photons, and that each stellar photon’s color was set at emission, we observe statistically significant ≳ 7.31 σ and ≳ 11.93 σ violations of Bell’s inequality with estimated p values of ≲ 1.8 10 − 13 and ≲4.0 10 − 33 , respectively, thereby pushing back by ∼ 600  years the most recent time by which any local-realist influences could have engineered the observed Bell violation.
[FREE]

http://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.060401

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0207105301.htm

IMHO, and naively, I think it is a very elegant experiment!!
__________________
Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.
Like hackenslash liked this post
  #1080  
Old 8th February 2017, 04:33 PM
Stub King's Avatar
Stub King Stub King is offline
Take my advice, don't listen to me
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 826
Default Re: Dissecting ptutt's assertions

Quote:
Darwinsbulldog said View Post

IMHO, and naively, I think it is a very elegant experiment!!
I just read it an hour ago. this is very cool. and for once I could read the actual paper and get most of it.
__________________
The less people know, the more stubbornly they know it. (Osho)
Like Darwinsbulldog, hackenslash liked this post
Thank Darwinsbulldog thanked this post
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 08:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.