Comments by MPhil

1151. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141808 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 8:33 am

lxlqlxl,

if you're interested, you can skim through "Other comments by MPhil" at the bottom of every post of mine... if any one of them catches your attention, you can view it in context by clicking at the headline

:)

1152. Fleabytes

Comment #141800 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 8:23 am

al,

hey - I take offence at that.
I'm as old as you are - and I happen to like 70s music (rock and prog that is), and music that is hundreds of years older...

:)

1153. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141798 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 8:19 am

I suspect on a standard IQ-test, he would score above 130, probably even approaching 140, possibly higher.

If you define intelligence differently though, - I cannot argue against that. And I would like to add that Ratzinger definitely does not conform to what "the ideal of rationality" is usually thought to mean.

1154. Fleabytes

Comment #141792 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 8:10 am

The Reverend Dark

Stairway to Heaven

What? not "What if God was one of us?" :)

1155. Fleabytes

Comment #141791 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 8:08 am

Steve,
many - mostly central-European moderate protestants - have already abandoned the idea that the existence of God can be demonstrated through reason. They think it's more like intuitively knowing what a metaphor means... but they either cannot specify what that is supposed to mean or end up at some "sensing god"-thingy, of course making clear that they think this means understanding a deeper truth than science could ever grasp.

This is tantamount to admitting irrationality. It's admitting a-rationality. But I fear the conclusion will never be made that a-rationality when applied to statements about the existence, nature or consequences of something is irrationality.

1156. Fleabytes

Comment #141769 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 7:15 am

By the way... loved your Cartomancer piece!

Dito!

1157. Fleabytes

Comment #141763 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 7:09 am

so there is no reason why it should fit into our imaginations.

Of course we have no justification to assume the existence of something beyond what the implications of what we know are. This is true both for speculations concerning 'future science' and for things in other matters.

As I do not tire of stating: Conceptual necessity is important, indeed overwhelming evidence - but for that, it requires that the concepts have a real referent. And this requires independent corroboration.

However, the fact that we can discover (and have) that the universe does not need or necessitate us can be seen as a strengthening our position...

The speculations some theists make to seemingly corroborate their hypotheses are contrary to the implications of all that we truly know - the speculations that are warranted considering our knowledge strengthen the case for atheism.

1158. Fleabytes

Comment #141752 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 6:52 am

Steve,

that would be nice!
However, until now they're only posts, not an essay... they would need some refinement for that.

You can of course just use the posts for primary reference - but as they address specific posts on this comment thread - they would have to be slightly altered to fit the format of a debate.

The posts are:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby,page50#136661

and

http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2285,Fleabytes,Paula-Kirby,page62#138081

(and some remarks in posts further down the thread)

1159. Fleabytes

Comment #141738 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 6:38 am

And yes - in their society, they do police themselves to some extent. There is reward and punishment, there are conflict-solutions and so forth.

1160. Fleabytes

Comment #141736 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 6:37 am

clearthinker,

it depends what you mean by "a sense of right and wrong".

Emotions - check
Empathy - check
Social (moral) behaviour based on the above - check

If you mean theorizing about morality, no - but that is not what "moral behaviour" or "morality" means.

1161. Fleabytes

Comment #141732 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 6:34 am

Why do I get the feeling that a discussion with Robertson the matter of "the omni-'s" would be rather pointless? I'd much rather have Craig, Plantinga or van Inwagen... or all three of them - and Steve Zara, Cartomancer and me on the other team...

1162. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141718 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 6:15 am

lxlqlxl,

no, intelligence has various definitions - one is the ability to solve problems and puzzles.

Ratzinger is without doubt an intellectual. And highly intelligent. The faculty of problem-solving through strategic thinking must not necessarily involve thinking critically and rationally about everything. Neurpsychological evidence does support that - compartmentalization is possible and occurs very often. And someone can be entirely rational in the separate areas without approaching employing his faculties on the meta-level.

1163. Fleabytes

Comment #141714 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 5:58 am

Did some just deliver deliver a steaming heap of loaded questions, more straw men and unwarranted assumptions? Who ordered that? Paula? No, I know for a fact you ordered intellectual debate and reason... wait, so did we all. Strange - the delivery service must have gotten something wrong then.

1164. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141703 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 5:32 am

Indeed - they know they're right. And if they're shown that what they believe is impossible they redefine their beliefs just to be able to claim that the thing they believe in does exist (although its an ad hoc reinterpretation, and before they were shown wrong every time, they believed in that which was shown to be impossible)

Usually, adopting one's beliefs to successful is a good thing. But they only evade - not revise. Because that would mean abandoning the very core of what they believe in. And since they can't do that - they unsuccessfully attempt to weasel out by ad hoc reinterpretations.

*shudder*

1165. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141702 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 5:27 am

Well, triunity is, I think, an impossible concept all of its own.

But concerning Ratzinger, I will quote myself if I may:

Make no mistake, Ratzinger is highly educated, very well read and a very good thinker. Sadly, this almost brilliant mind was first hijacked by religion when he was a child and then hardened in its self-imposed delusion when the '68-revolution got to the universities when he was trying to hold lectures there. They went out of their way to cause trouble - interrupting lectures by physical force and so on... and this was one decisive factor in driving Ratzinger into very conservative catholicism. He used to be far more liberal before then.

At Vatican II he (one of the youngest people involved back then) was even partly responsible for the liberalization of the catholic church that Vatican II brought.

As I said: He has to rationalize something that cannot be rationalized... and this is what happens when an almost brilliant mind is hijacked by religion.

1166. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141694 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 5:17 am

I was mocking ... I should have added a

;-)

Oops, my bad.

It is interesting to see how some theists deal with the logical problems.... they have many ways to deflect them. The most common one is "no-one believes in what you are challenging any more".

Indeed, William Lane Craig (in his essay in "The Oxford Companion to Atheism") even states that the counter-arguments and (he doesn't use the expression) destructions of theological concepts and arguments have helped them to adapt - to create better concepts and arguments.

This is what I was referring to as the dishonesty, the hypocrisy and 'making things-up as you go along' mentality of apologetics in my post on omnipotence on the Fleabytes thread. Only that I took on (and - I think - sufficiently destroyed) the refined concept of omnipotence that Craig forwards in that essay.

1167. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141691 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 5:07 am

Pah! The rest of us could have taken you down!

I don't think Mitchell doubted that.

It just would have taken a lot, lot longer.

I don't think it would have made any significant difference. Maybe even the contrary, as I tend to get lost in details... as Mitchell said:

You stopped him right at the gates.

1168. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141687 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 5:03 am

Well, then next time fill me in beforehand, Mitchell :)

1169. Should Galileo's tomb be opened for DNA tests?

Comment #141685 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 5:02 am

But the emotions we develop in regard to dead bodies can be conditioned - and, I would say - largely are conditioned, not themselves hard-wired. The potential for them seems to be.

I find it entirely rational that when we see a dead body where severe mutilation has caused the death, that we empathise with what we think the suffering person must have felt and therefore condemn the act.

I can empathise that we feel it's disgusting that a dead body be mutilated for no reason because of the memories attached to that body.

But giving ones body up for science, or donating organs, or having an autopsy done - these I think are entirely legitimate.

Concerning organ donation, I favour the "active dissent" approach. Everyone is per default an organ donor unless that person before his/her death or the family afterwards objects. The dissent model seems just as fair, but it could save a lot more lives than the consent-model.

1170. Fleabytes

Comment #141675 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 4:31 am

Once that kicks in, we can be lucky that they don't have the power to turn the whole of civilisation to dust themselves... not yet, anyway.

1171. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141674 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 4:30 am

lievemebe,

indeed. I just think it's absolutely grotesque and disgusting that the roman catholics had to (and some still do) formally take on oath to oppose anything on princle that might provide evidence against what they believe in because of some kind of "it must not be true, therefore it cannot be true"-'reasoning'.

I think it's all because of the catholic doctrine that the existence of an almighty, triune god can be demonstrated by reason... as I said: disgustingly dishonest.

1172. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141671 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 4:20 am

3. Supporting the latest scientific evidence for a Godless universe.

...hmm, ever heard of the anti-modernist oath catholic clergymen had to take until '67 - and still taken by traditionalist branches of roman catholic clergy?

See the full text here:

http://www.franciscan-archive.org/bullarium/oath.html

1173. Fleabytes

Comment #141670 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 4:17 am

Interestingly, no Christian I know personally believes this "end of days" stuff... nor wish this. It's just not part of moderate central-European Christendom - they may believe that Christ will come sometime far far in the future, but from what I have learned, they don't make the conscious connection to apocalypse and wanting that to happen. And concerning the potential political consequences, I'm glad for that :)

1174. Fleabytes

Comment #141667 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 3:52 am

Lorien,

you got something wrong there.
God doesn't do that anymore... he only did it in biblical times, with 'prophecies' that OT and NT studies as well as archeology etc show to have no corroboration whatsoever.

That is - people often claim that God still grants prophecies to people (thus making them his prophets)... until the time has come and they don't happen :)

1175. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141661 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 3:31 am

Good that we can agree on the IP-thing.

Let's just hope he has a static one, not a dynamic.

*shudder*

I think it's only fair that in a debate between two - the one who made the 'attack' has to leave the last comment to the other :) So (to quote one my favourite songs) I'll "make it quick, with one more thing" (and no, I'm not a sultan of swing)

but I don't think studying it would improve one's "logical" skills in a natural sense.

I wasn't saying that it always must do that - but when I reflect on my own reasoning abilities and faculties - I think it has helped me personally a great deal (as well as my fellow students).

... and now let's combine our efforts and fight the good fight against theism: Can we PM Josh and inquire as to an IP-ban?

What do you think?

1176. Fleabytes

Comment #141660 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 3:25 am

I will, if you don't mind, PM you my first draft of my next contribution at the end of the week, for your opinion.

Pray do so! :)

1177. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141647 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 2:32 am

Just the same old drivel.

Maybe this shouldn't be considered trolling, but spamming? Or both? Or all three including offensive? It certainly offends reason.

Josh, couldn't you just ban the IP instead of the profile?

1178. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141636 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 2:07 am

Somehow I suspected I wouldn't be able to leave whatever reply you give alone :)

which investigates logic as its subject matter, it is not applying formal logic in real arguments.

Actually, both... and studying both by studying the formal system itself and how the formal structure of statements/arguments in natural language depends on syntactic, not only semantic interpretations that are crucial to the validity (or lack thereof) of the argument.

they need to study linguistic in order to write well.

I don't think so. And we've discussed this very point before as I remember - so I'd be grateful if you'd just give me the chance to state my reply once again and leave it at that?
-The point of focus for me is not 'writing-style'.
When writing fiction, style is very important. The validity of an argument is entirely dependent on the form. And you can study that. Natural logic (to take up a point you make further down) also depends on form - so formalizing it and seeing what the power of the system is, analysing common mistakes, being able to construct formal proofs etc is not useless. In argument - form is almost everything. In fiction-writing it is not.

Because most mathematicians wouldn't actually use formal logic in any real work of importance or interest. Again the difference is studying formal system (human using natural logic to study formal logic) and working within the formal system (human trying to pretend to be machines).

Actually, that's not the problem I have observed. Far too many mathematicians I know aren't really good at constructing valid arguments or analysing arguments. Most I know I consider to be very good at what they do - they just fail to apply the same rigorous method to thinking - and knowing or believing.

Of course in a rather trivial way - humans are machines. Biological machines. Our brains and our reason is thus one functional aspect thereof (and a rather important one at that). I fear this is our old disagreement about the use of formal system for modelling again, so I will leave it at stating that 'natural logic' (if you simply mean non-formal reasoning) is often too coarse and not rigorous enough to do the jobs of formal logic.

btw, I'm pleased to see someone else here knows Kalish-Montague. I happen to think it's an astounding system, and took a lot of good thinking to develop. And it's extremely useful at least for me and a lot of other people I know.

It shows you these things can be done and then immediately move on to prove interesting theorems about these systems.

That does sound interesting. But as I stated above - that's only part of what interests me. the KM-calculus and formal logic in general is a very useful tool for me.

it is like saying you can find the logical flaw in a computer program written in a high level language by looking at its machine code.

I don't think that analogy is correct. The analogy would be correct for trying to find a flaw in an argument by looking at the neuronal coding vectors.

In fact I think it's the another way around. Imagine you have a computer - and you don't know the programming language - you just see the various levels of outputs - intermittent as well as final (and the input). You also know what it's supposed to do, but sometimes fails to.

What formal logic in this analogy would be is a) trying to find out the programming language (or an approximation thereof), and b) knowing what the task of the computer is, and that it sometimes fails - analysing why it fails and constructing a programming language that is up to the task and also has enough power to be the medium for analysing why the computer makes the mistakes and what exactly those are.

In the field of mathematics - you are completely right I think, except for the most basic errors, which it seems to me can be pointed out in 'a logical way of speaking' most easily.

I remember my basic stochastic-course. Analysing the situations and finding the correct stochastic model was always my favourite part. And it appears to me that this is exactly one object-level implementation of natural logic. And when someone (me being no exception of course) made mistakes at that step - the teacher (all my fellow students agreed - the best maths-teacher we ever had) would point out where the modelling went wrong and how to remedy it.
This is exactly parallel to analysing how semantic and syntactic interpretations of a situation-description including an argument given in natural language yield different results.

Logic is the easy part in mathematics research, it is like knowing the alphabets for the writer,--not even grammar and spelling, just the alphabets,-- as I have told you before.

Informal logic is enough there, and yes - I agree - for maths having this informal grasp of logic is like knowing the abc for the writer. But it seems your view is too narrow here - as you try to apply that everywhere.

I was saying that for arguments which do not have another (or a different) formal system (or theorems of a formal science such as mathematics, if you like that term better - all the while realizing that 'studying mathematics' is may not be captured by describing the system :) as object-level, knowing formal logic has helped me a lot.

Let me give you an example: We all know that if the premises of an argument are agreed upon, and the argument is valid, that we have to accept its conclusion. This is the part of the power of logic, whether formal or informal. Now, in studying various arguments by theists (for example - not limited to that), I have come across some very complex arguments. Some of them seemed to be valid, and the premises seemed to be true. But the conclusions were frankly unbelievable.

It was not until I formalized the argument in various ways that I found the exact flaw - because natural language can obscure these. This is because it is not like the machine-code analogy you gave, but rather like the analogy I gave in return. The flaw may have been an obscured fallacy of equivocation, or an obscured incorrect inference or that the semantic model the reader was led to apply did not fit the formal structure which was indeed correct.

A prime example (outside of the field of theology) is Paul Churchland's discussion of why the argument hidden in the Mary-the-colour-blind-color-scientist thought-experiment is flawed. (To be found in the book "There's something about Mary" by Stoljar et al.)

For the above reasons, I disagree with every claim in the statement:

In short formal logic is useful only as a model of reasoning and it is interesting only when you take the meta view of studying formal systems themselves. It is close to useless as a way of augmenting natural reasoning in any real endevor of science, not to mention actual debates in the humanities.

And - also with the last point. Again, the trivial truth is, we are (biological, chemical, physical) machines. Analysing, modelling and approximating our functions - and even expanding them I think worthwhile, including belief-revision theory, formal epistemology etc. And formal logic has proven to be a hugely usefull - even necessary tool for that and far more than that.

I know you will want to disagree with a lot of this. But I think you are aware that what you state is not an undisputed matter of fact, but your personal opinion. I don't have a problem with that - although I think the view is rather narrow and doesn't do justice to my fields of study (naturally).

I do think we have discussed this enough - over and over again.

For all I know you're a highly intelligent person whose opinion on a number of topics I share. I would really like it if we could just get along, and if you could lay off attacking what I hold so dear :)

By now I know your opinion - and I suspect understand a good deal about your reasons for thinking like you do. It was an enriching if trying experience for me... but it is really also not something I feel I need to continue, especially in the company we keep on this site.

I thank you for sharing your opinion - and would like to ask you if it would be possible for you to rest your case knowing that you have made your points elaborately and eloquently. I can promise you that every time I am going use or discuss my fields - I will know what your opinion is and keep that in mind.

So will most others here - in fact, I would guess all of those who have an interest in that.

Would that be okay with you?

EDIT: I see you have edited your post (or did I simply not catch that before) to include a few more snide remarks :) I will overlook them for the sake of decency ;)

1179. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141623 by MPhil on March 11, 2008 at 12:25 am

The formal machinery actually conceals, not illuminates the real "logic". This is the machine's way of doing thing, not how a logical human would carry out a real argument.

I disagree on both counts. It serves to make clear the connections and inferences that are far more ambiguous and obscure in natural language - but which are there under certain (mostly intended) interpretations of natural language. It's helpful in seeing what the different logical structures could be - what the interpretations could be - which of those yield a valid argument and which don't. Thus it reflects the form of logical reasoning.

This kind of reasoning pattern is standard fare for undergraduates in pure mathematics who have not taken any course in formal logic. They learn that by actually doing proofs,--by actually using their logical faculty to solve problems,-- rather looking at logical templates.

Oh believe me, I know far too many mathematicians who would have their fair share of problems with any kind of formal logic. Furthermore, we actually were doing proofs - in formal language instead of natural (since it's more rigorous - and the course was centred around formal logic). But of course we used examples of 'real' natural language-statements to formalize and prove. And as I said - I think it models very nicely how logical thinking works. In fact, I think the various logical calculi are very good models of how strict logical thinking works (by which I don't mean that we explicitly use exactly such formula.)

And again you feel you must resort to insults. - I think that's rather sad. What is being done is more than a boring, tedious job (at least for me and a fair number of people I know) to see what the formal structure of a statement in natural language must be so as to be correct. The formulae help a great deal.

And please, you know as well as I do that this isn't done so that people can feel smart. I hope that one day you may refrain from using insults :)

It's like learning a programming language - where the form is extremely important, too. After all, logic is the underlying form of every programming language. So I will say again that studying the very nature of logical reasoning by studying logic (and not just one kind of logic - we studied many of them. We just adopted one notation and calculus - the Kalish-Montague calculus to be exact.)
That the differences between calculi are often pedantic and notational is of course a sign that logical calculi have the same expressive force - which means that there is something that can be expressed in various ways. However, some differences are not merely pedantic and notational and do reflect a different approach by comparison of which you can learn something about logical reasoning.

So I don't think formal reasoning is futile at all. You need it in programming languages, in maths, physics. Having the ability to formally reconstruct arguments can and does (from my own experience) help to see why an argument looks 'fishy', where exactly the problem lies. This can be very obscure in natural language.

Furthermore I will repeat that I think it is interesting and important to study how logical thinking can be formally modelled, just as it is important to study how a certain 'dead' system can be modelled in physics. Only with logic, it is our logical reasoning - a more fascinating field at least to me - that is modelled.

It's not at all about giving off an aura of importance and intimidation - but you know that. You just think it has no real benefits. But I do disagree for the reasons stated above.

It's studying, modelling the formal structure of arguments (they have one - and it's important, because if there's a mistake there, the argument is invalid and therefore cannot be sound). It is investigating the possibility and expressive force of formal languages (and thus the basis for programming languages). And it has helped me and others immensely to be able to point out the exact flaw in an invalid argument - to make clear a fallacy that was very obscure in natural language.

Using only natural language, it gets extremely hard to keep track of a long and complicated argument. And it will take longer to find out if it's valid or if a proposition is tautological, contradictory or possible if you don't have it formalized.

But I am confident that you are aware that I was merely posting the original comment so as to gain the right to tell wooter: You claim to be a master of logic - do this and you get some credibility. If you don't - shut up. Because logic does always mean formal thinking. Formalized thinking is merely abstracting the form - which is what logic depends on, what arguments depend upon completely, as you know. An argument has to be valid before it can be sound.

Also, it is essential for formal epistemology - belief-revision theory and so forth, various semantic theories and truth-theories.

It's a metascience (though it doesn't capture all of the object-level of course, just as no science can capture the entirety (including all the attributes) of the objects it studies; it describes what they rely upon. You may disagree about the extent, but you would concede as trivial that they do) for mathematics, programming, AI, theoretical linguistics, computerlinguistics, statistics and so forth.

Don't get me wrong - I just couldn't let your comment stand without a reply that shows why I think you're wrong. I'm not interested in yet another discussion over this, since I think that for anyone not firmly and irrevocably already on your side, I have succeeded in showing why it is a worthwhile and interesting field of studies just as rigorous and enlightening as many others.

btw, here is how I have done the proof:

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/c1e7ccf0c5.jpg

1180. Fleabytes

Comment #141563 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 4:22 pm

Indeed, this deserves respect. His manners that is - not his views or argumentative faculties.

But yes - from what I've witnessed he is a very nice chap.

1181. Fleabytes

Comment #141557 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 3:51 pm

My rebuttal of his first rebuttal should be up by the weekend after next - the 17th?

Wait, did I miss something?

He posted his opening statement

So did you.

He posted his rebuttal of your opening statement

Wouldn't you now have to post your rebuttal of his opening statement as well, not of his first rebuttal?

Or am I that far behind?

As I said - If you like, I'd be glad to continue our cooperation and extend it to other debates.

1182. Fleabytes

Comment #141552 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 3:41 pm

...thank you. And I hope I can fulfill that role in the future, since you mentioned other debates... also concerning the other rounds in the Bnonn-debate.

At least I would be honored to cooperate with you further on these.

1183. Fleabytes

Comment #141536 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 3:07 pm

Be back soon... just have to take care of something :)

1184. Fleabytes

Comment #141533 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 3:06 pm

Steve,

wow - thank you. I would like to consider you my friend as well.

And I definitely agree with your points...

so, back to normal...

Q is god.

1185. Fleabytes

Comment #141529 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Therefore Q exists.

Yes, but that's trivial. We all know John DeLancie is God... and extremely charismatic, too. Anyone that can get Picard so close to throwing a temper tantrum must be God :)

1186. Fleabytes

Comment #141526 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 2:58 pm

Well, that's your (seemingly collective opinion) and you have every right to feel that way - but personally I don't think I have a moral obligation to shut up about something that strikes me as peculiar - even in something so brilliant, as this does in no way imply that I think the piece any less wonderful.

EDIT: Well, I guess I may have been a little insensitive. If so I do honestly apologize. I know I would want anyone to ask questions about something peculiar I wrote, nit-pick and point out a copying error or something... but I guess not everyone likes that.

...Shutting up by popular demand now.

:)

No hard feelings, okay?

And you should all know by now that I too feel deeply privileged to be part of a community that has people like you in it.

1187. Fleabytes

Comment #141519 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Wow,

I feel a tinsy bit of hostility... never thought that'd happen here.

...I apologize...? Are we in the business of silently worshipping?

1188. Fleabytes

Comment #141517 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Now now,

we're not in the business of worshipping here. I can do both :)

And I already expressed my admiration for this absolutely marvellous, glorious, hilarious, wonderful, astonishing display of genius.

But I'll gladly do that again:

Bravo!

Happy now, Steve? :)

1189. Fleabytes

Comment #141514 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Oh...

"thee-ries" *having a revelation*

All good then (or did I miss something in the "child labelling / childhood labelling verse as well?)

1190. Fleabytes

Comment #141510 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Steve,

yes - the alliteration sounds just fine... but the verse doesn't fit the metre:

This is the metre as it should be:

- / - / - / - / - / - / - / - /

(iambic octameter)

And this:

He understands the theories of beginnings biological

would be

- / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / -

it has one too many syllables.

1191. Fleabytes

Comment #141488 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 1:55 pm

He understands the theories of beginnings biological

this needs slight tweaking as well to fit the rhythm (and metre)... how about "events biological"?

1192. Fleabytes

Comment #141485 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Absolute genius!

It's astonishing. The rhymes and even certain sentences from the original... wow.

I might have to record that one.

A tiny thing, though...

4th stanza, 3rd verse - "child labelling" should be "childhood labelling" to preserve the rhythm.

:)

1193. Fleabytes

Comment #141474 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 1:29 pm

"He is the Very Model of a Major Modern Atheist"

...brilliant - someone write this!

1194. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141452 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 12:51 pm

My dear fellow, it is far more complicated than that. A moral code may not be metaphysically objective, but it may be firmer than culture and upbringing. It could well be a result of some common evolutionary origin.

Didn't I say that? Right after the part you quoted?

But I also said 'specific moral code', meaning somehow explicit, not hard-wired moral behaviour-patterns arising through evolution.

Think of all the moral codes, especially the religious ones and their differences, the ones of German nationalism or of head-hunter societies...
certainly very relative.

This does not at all detract from the position (true as far as I know) that certain 'moral' behaviour is evolutionary hard-wired (was I said, except for real sociopaths).

So - I really think I also said what you said - but these two positions are not mutually exclusive.

1195. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141427 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 11:57 am

Ah, okay - thanks.

1196. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141410 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 11:11 am

Steve,

it's quite easy:

Concerning "Are morals relative" - just think "is the specific moral code that a person adheres to relative to culture and upbringing in general and not metaphysically objective?"

The answer is obviously "Yes" - So you can get a higher score while still believing that some moral behaviour is almost universal (almost because of pathological sociopathy) because it is evolutionary stable and biologically hard-wired.

And as for the "do they have a right (to indulge with every last cent...)" think legally, not ethically.

A few such tweakings will certainly get you a higher score :)

1197. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141407 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 11:06 am

Or you could just link me to wooter's post where he admitted to creating multiple profiles - I'd like to see that.

1198. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141403 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 11:03 am

hungarianelephant,

sorry - that link doesn't work. Formatting error I suppose.

1199. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141392 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 10:35 am

Well, there you go - virgins are not my cup of tea. Sexually experienced is more fun for me...

...we should change the subject, though :)

1200. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141379 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 10:25 am