1801. 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.

1802. The Salamander's Tale

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

Ah, okay - thanks.

1803. 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 :)

1804. 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.

1805. 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.

1806. 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 :)

1807. The Salamander's Tale

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

I've sodomized a few girls myself.

And isn't it wonderful? ...especially since one could do that every day of the month :)

1808. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141376 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 10:17 am

wooter admitted to making alternate profiles,

Really, he did?

Do you have link to the post where he did?

1809. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141362 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 9:48 am

People,

unless he gets (or already has) another account, we won't hear from him again...

didn't you notice the 'BANNED' avatar... and that when you click on his name it says "The user does not exist"?

Josh heard our pleas... praise be Josh.

1810. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141357 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 9:45 am

This pope is not even above average intelligence I don't think.

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.

1811. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141344 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 9:35 am

Can it be true?


Wooter banned? Finally?

Rejoyce - for no more will we be crushed by the weight of his intellect steaming heaps of bullshit.

1812. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141337 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 9:31 am

...a large collection of nude drawings.

Not only that - the vatican owns some of the finest classical art as well (statues for example)... just image - made by Greeks and by Romans before Constantine... made by HEATHENS!!!

I really think some people employed by the Vatican don't know the extent of Christianity's criminal history, or even just the criminal history of the catholic church.

Many have a fairly good idea, though - and yet seem to be able to live with that.

Okay, so the pope apologized for the church on the matter of the inquisition's reign of terror - witch-burning and all. But the institutions are all still there, and the doctrines that led to these acts of deliberate cruelty are mostly still in effect. So I see no reason to excuse the church.

I also find it quite telling that Pope Benedict when he was still Joseph Kardinal Ratzinger was head-inquisititor. They only renamed it - the title used is "prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith"... but it's the same institution: The inquisition

1813. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141317 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 9:08 am

And he knows this how?

I think they can consistently claim either personal revelation (though the pope would have to affirm this) or that this is implied in their interpretation of the ethics supposedly promoted by the bible (as if there there was one consistent ethical codex to be found anywhere in the Bible, OT or NT)...


...not that this has anything to do with reality, though.

Ha! That's rich coming from somebody who works for the Vatican. How deep-rooted must their ignorance/indoctrination be if he cannot see the irony in his statement?

Hmm... maybe they only have access to one kind of history books?

1814. Fleabytes

Comment #141312 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 9:04 am

Jeezuscat... nice one.

1815. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141310 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 9:01 am

Hilarious!

Here in Germany, we have basically no biblical literalists, and the Christians (mostly roman catholics and lutheran protestants) are very liberal concerning their religion. No 'fire and brimstone' - and evasion if you call them on hell and condemnation to eternal torture by an all-loving god.

I find it astounding how many Christians I know don't even know their catechisms.

Okay, so for the lutheran protestants it's not that big a thing, but for the roman catholic church you are a catholic only if you believe everything in the catechism and follow it.

I even know a girl (17) who converted to catholicism... I always have to stop myself from making her miserable by showing her that she's not a good catholic, or indeed a catholic at all if she doesn't believe what's in the catholic catechism - which I seem to know better than her.

1816. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141305 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 8:52 am

Jon_Sociologist,

you might want to read the entire thread... ;)

1817. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141302 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 8:49 am

I will note that Wooter has not yet answered the direct question put to him.

Who'd have thought.

Guess I'll keep repeating it (and the demand that he stop using the term LOGIC if he cannot comply) for as long as he'll use the term in that way.

1818. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141293 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 8:40 am

Mitchell,
For further reference, it's 'him' - and you may call me Michael or Mike if you like. But since there are many Mikes or Michaels on this site, I think MPhil would be less ambiguous :)

1819. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141288 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 8:35 am

Gay Jesus?

lol - I thought the same thing.

1820. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141287 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 8:34 am

Come on wooter, I've almost done the job for you now.

Maybe even an expert in logic might need a first hint - but I've almost given it away... you have no more excuse.

I think you should either provide the proof I requested or stop making any claims about what logic dictates and that your position is logical!

1821. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141283 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 8:31 am

Okay - here's a first hint:

To prove an "IFF" (meaning 'if and only if' - or as a symbol '<->' - ie if the first side is true, so is the second and vice versa) you start by proving one 'direction' ('->') and when you've done that, you prove the other ('<-').

To prove an implication (either direction), for example (P AND Q) -> P, you assume the antecedens (what is left of the '->', or right of the '<-') and show that the other side follows. In our example:

prove: (P AND Q) -> P

1)assumption: P AND Q
2)P (from 1 via 'AND-cancellation')

"AND-cancellation" (although I don't know the exact English term - you see I only learned them in German :) is an inference rule.

Another inference rule would be double negation, ie from ~~P it follows (in bivalent logic) that P.

There are many more.

EDIT: Looked it up. The correct English term is "AND-elimination", although the symbol for "AND" is substituted for the word.

1822. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141271 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 8:17 am

Sorry Wheeler,

I must admit I cannot guess who you are... enlighten me.

1823. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141270 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 8:15 am

Wooter,

until now I have kept quiet - but now you have provided the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back.

You bandy about the term "logic" ad nauseam...
I have studied logic - and you seem to have no idea what it means - let alone have the ability to use it correctly.


I give you a chance to prove me wrong:

Provide a formal proof of the following statement. This is elementary first-order logic, I learned this in my first semester - so for a master of logic like you, this should be no problem at all:

(EXISTS x Px AND EXISTS x ~Px) IFF (FOR ALL x EXISTS y (Px IFF ~Py))

Include the inference rules for every step.

1824. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141265 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 8:10 am

Oh, oh, I think I spot a contradiction! For you argue that we need justification to believe that the laws observed in our little area of the universe can be disrupted by something. Then you say we need justification for believing the negative position that it does not always obtain.

You can't expect evidence for the things you don't believe and disconfirming evidence for the things you do.

What I said (or meant to say, anyway) was that we are justified to assume that these laws are universal, and that we have no sufficient justification to assume that they aren't.
So if you want to argue for a position that contradicts these laws, you will first have to provide independent evidence that provides sufficient justification for assuming that they aren't universal.

I don't see where there's a contradiction here... ?

1825. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141252 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 7:56 am

I was going to use the P and ~P argument from design earlier, with "the universe is perfect, and thus proves god, and the universe is imperfect because of the fall of man, and thus also proves god," but I decided to not be a christian, since I thought it would be too easy to argue against.

Interesting.

Must say, definitely one of the better hoaxes I've seen. Hope you've had your fun, though.

Including you - I have seen at least 3 atheists imitate religious folk on here before just to see how airtight the responses would be... you're was the best so far, but not the most original.

1826. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141246 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 7:51 am

I do understand that science does perscribe to such a veiw, but I think that since science is restricted to the natural and physical world by definition, it goes without saying that it doesn't apply to non-natural, non-physical things.

If this supernatural entity is supposed to intervene in the physical universe - and all we have reason to assume (and we have very good reasons) is that the physical universe runs in accordance with such and such laws, then every proposed interaction will have to conform to
those laws. You would need to present independent evidence that these laws are not universal (independent from the assumption you want to prove, unless you want to beg the question), if you would want to claim that. And as it stands, we have as of yet no justification for believing that the conservation of energy and momentum (and thus the causal closure) are not universal for the entire system.

Also, I understand a priori to refer to logical tautological, and conceptual knowledge and truths, while a posteriori refers to experiential, and empiricle knowledge and truths. The difference between induction and deduction.

Not quite - "A priori" means "before [or without] empirical observation" and thus refers to the way something is known, while "a posteriori" means "after observation" ie "after looking at the world".

A statement is analytically true if it is true merely by the sameness of referent. "A table is a table" for example is an analytical truth, no matter what "table" means. But "The evening-star is the morning-star" is also an analytical truth, since "evening-star" and "morning-star" have the same referent. But this was only found out by observation - so this is an a posteriori known analytical truth.

1827. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141236 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 7:38 am

Sorry, Wheeler - this I might just have to print and frame so as to hit anyone who doesn't get basic logic right over the head with:

My position is that the logical impossible is possible for the omnipotent, not for everything.

I really have to fight an urge to laugh here...


This is only one possible way of formulating it - but it is correct:

You believe

FOR ALL Y EXISTS X : xPy AND Cy

where xPy means "y is possible for x"
and
Cy means (y is logically contradictory)

from this we can deduce

Cy

and you have ex falso quodlibet.


Now since any logical contradiction will do - (and since all logical contradictions mean the same, since all tautologies also mean the same) you get

P AND ~P

or POSSIBLE: P AND ~P (If you prefer modal logic)

It doesn't matter for how many entities this is possible: If there exists even only one entity for which this is possible, then it is possible and you cannot escape ex falso quodlibet.

1828. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141222 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 7:14 am

If you have some knowledge of philosophy (including philosophy of science) you should know that critical rationalism is by far not the only position that takes the viewpoint I expressed above. I don't even subscribe to critical rationalism as a position in philosophy of science - some of its ideas, yes - but the whole, no.

I didn't say conceptual necessity is no evidence - I said it is, but only as far as the concepts involved have a real referent and as far as the deduction is sound.

This is basic - not tied to critical rationalism.


Oh, and please, if you use philosophical terms, use them correctly - I suppose what you really meant was "analytical truths", as 'a priori' refers to the way of knowing, not to the kind of truth that is (supposed to be) known.
This is important, because contrary to what was assumed a few hundred years ago, "analytical a posteriori" and "synthetic a priori" are possible - that is, as far as the analytical/synthetic distinction even makes sense (vid. Quine)

1829. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141209 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 7:06 am

MPhil, I know of the problem of omnipotence. I go with the one not restricted by logic, I don't see why our comprehencion should limit God.

Then you believe that god can do logically impossible things, so you implicitly believe: possible: P AND ~P
... and per 'ex falso quodlibet', you implicitly believe every statement, thus believing infinitely many contradictions. Thus, all of your explicit beliefs become meaningless, because implicitly you also affirm their negation.

You really need to study some logic.

The last point is just a silly one. Did Pluto not exist before we discovered it? You can't declare something can't be so because we have yet to wittness it.

No, but it means that as long as we have no evidence for something, we have no justification for the belief that it exists - this is epistemology, not ontology.

You also can't claim the burdon of proof to me on my end this time "non-physical things can't effect physical things" is your claim. Which needs to be supported by more than "I have yet to see it happen!"

Seems you didn't understand a word I said - This is not based on "I have yet to see it happen", it is based on the fact that we know that there is conservation of energy and momentum.

Furthemore, as I explained above "I have yet to see it happen", or even "Anyone has yet to see it happen" mean that while it could be true (and it couldn't - conservation of energy and momentum), we would have no justification for believing it.

1830. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141201 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 6:56 am

Wheeler, please enlighten us - what is your religion of choice (and how does it fit your avatar?)


Basically, there can be two kinds of evidence:

Empirical

and

Conceptual

Problem is, for the latter to have any bearing on reality, the concepts have to be correct and the entities they rely upon ontologically have to be known to exist in the first place.

1831. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141192 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 6:50 am

Did you ever get good arguments from theists ??

Nah, not really... interesting arguments as best (although those are the exception, most are boring), but not good ones - which is why I doubt I'm going to get good arguments this time. Of course I'd be only too happy to be surprised.

Wheeler,

please, do read the post Roland_F linked: Again, for your convenience:

The Problem of 'Omnipotence'

and

The Problem of 'Omnipresence'


Furthermore (although I made this point in the above posts as well):

If god isn't physical (or if you prefer the term 'not empirical'), then he cannot affect anything in the physical universe, as every event in time and space has a sufficient physical cause as per the conservation of energy and momentum.

1832. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #141177 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 6:37 am

Roland_F,

thanks.
Can we expect to be presented any good arguments against the position I defended in my post? Somehow, I doubt it :)

1833. Out of the Blue

Comment #141098 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 3:05 am

This is a useful approach to discussion. Maybe we could use it to deal with fundamentalists on matters such as creationism. I suspect it will work as well as any other approach.

What, you mean:



Designnnn....


Deeeesssiiiignnnnnnnn......

1834. Out of the Blue

Comment #141096 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 2:59 am

Brainsssssss...

Brrraaaaaiiiinnnnssssssss......

Qualiaaaaaaaa....

Quuuuuaaaaaaalllllliiiiiaaaaaa.......

:P

1835. Out of the Blue

Comment #141095 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 2:59 am

What is "built-in" is the ability to develop this.

Yes, that's probably more accurate.

Hmm... One of the points I made in my essay (the one to which I posted a link above) is that we seem to have a hard-wired, non-representative (thus not necessarily or even not possibly conscious) version of this, which provides the basis for adopting this stance consciously - and accounts for the fact that we cannot conceive of ourselves otherwise.

1836. Out of the Blue

Comment #141093 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 2:54 am

Yes, - and the 'people' found to be zombies get stripped of their rights and priviliges - and get to be sacrificed on the altar of David Chalmers :)


...or used in horror-movies.

1837. Out of the Blue

Comment #141091 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 2:51 am

"I wonder why it is like anything to have experiences?"

Now THAT will be something worth finding out!

I agree - and compare the findings to those of people thinking that there is nothing it is like...

:)

1838. Out of the Blue

Comment #141089 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 2:50 am

We have an incredibly detailed knowledge of how individual molecules work together as a cell, how cells function - how nutrients are gathered in our digestive tracts from the food we eat, how our lungs "extract" oxygen from the air we breathe and how these nutrients and oxygen-molecules are delivered through the entire body via the blood-stream. We also have very detailed knowledge of how traits are passed on, what the mechanisms are and what the frequency of occurrence will be based on the number of alleles and whether the traits are recessive or dominant... etc.

[vitalism]

"But where in all this detail is anything, anything to do with what it is to be alive?"

[/vitalism]

Sorry, couldn't resist... :) All good fun.

1839. Fleabytes

Comment #141081 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 2:26 am

Indeed, very good compositions methinks.

And I must say I especially enjoyed the meter-changes in "Diacanu".

1840. Out of the Blue

Comment #141062 by MPhil on March 10, 2008 at 12:16 am

Dr. Benway,

...300 milliseconds ago

Are you referring to the famous experiment by Benjamin Libet?

For anyone who doesn't know about it... I suggest a brief look on the wikipedia article on Libet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet


Russell Blackford,

We seem to come with a built-in (presumably evolved) tendency to attribute consciousness to each other, ...

Dennett analysed this as the fact that we have no choice but to adopt the intentional stance toward each other.

Basically, we can adopt either one of three stances to any system:

The physical stance: Predicting it and analysing it on the physical level - which (if the knowledge of the system is complete enough) will always yield correct results, but is very costly in terms of memory and computation.

The design stance: Predicting and analysing the behaviour of a system on the level of "what was it designed to do" (these may be designed or 'designoid' systems). So, for example I predict the behaviour of my alarm clock from the design stance - and it works very well... until some error occurs in the predictions although I have gotten the "design"-parameters and data exactly right. Then we have to revert to the physical stance to find out exactly why the error occurred.

The intentional stance: We attribute beliefs, desires, feelings and other intentional attributes to the system - and the predictions may work out fine. Dennett also says that the only thing there is to being an intentional system is to be a system whose behaviour can successfully be analysed and predicted from this stance.

I've written an essay on this. Sadly, it's full of orthographic mistakes and some syntactic errors. If you won't think less of me for that, feel free to download it here:

http://www.speedshare.org/download.php?id=262577372


And again, as for non-identity theories, I'll simply restate that they are caught on the two horns of a dilemma: interactionist dualism and epiphenomenalism. Conservation of energy and momentum anyone?

1841. Fleabytes

Comment #140938 by MPhil on March 9, 2008 at 6:22 am

... and beyond!"

Err... to uncountable infitiy?

To Hilbert's Hotel?

:)

1842. Out of the Blue

Comment #140924 by MPhil on March 9, 2008 at 5:45 am

I'm sorry Bonzai - I really don't do this just to be argumentative. Maybe I was missing the point - in which case forget what I posted. I'm feeling rather ill today and it is entirely possible that my brain is just not up to the task yet. I assumed the point you were making could or should be amended by what I wrote...

I think I did get your point - but the phrase "they do not reduce" looked to me to be too categorical.

Upon rereading I think I just amended, not contradicted your post.

Didn't want to be argumentative just for the sake of it (and don't feel up to it today, either).

1843. Out of the Blue

Comment #140916 by MPhil on March 9, 2008 at 5:36 am

I forgot: An important factor for the part of the meaning transported (and thereby transportable) by the electric signals over satellite or cable (or from DVD) is the causal history of these signals - which includes as its major factor the making of the show. I know this is trivial, just thought I'd mention it.

1844. Out of the Blue

Comment #140915 by MPhil on March 9, 2008 at 5:33 am

"meanings" at the higher level,--the show,--do not reduce

Yes they do, you just have a much too narrow focus. They reduce to activity in the brain of viewer that is specific to the specific output of the TV (light and sound) - but not completely determined by it.
Still, the component of this "meaning" (I think 'meaning' is already a problematic concept btw) that is outside the brain of the interpreter is transported entirely as electric signals and then decoded to produce specific patterns of light and sound.

1845. Crossing the Divide

Comment #140635 by MPhil on March 8, 2008 at 6:32 am

phatbat,

the problem isn't that she cannot let go of the beliefs - she has, for all I know completely... but that her highly religious family would be totally shocked and couldn't accept her if they knew that she deconverted. She hasn't told them (or anyone else afaik) - she has a very loving relation with them and is afraid (sadly, probably for good reason) that this would break if she came out. She doesn't know what to do now, and I'm afraid I can't help here...

It's heartwrenching.

1846. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #140632 by MPhil on March 8, 2008 at 5:03 am

---TICKER---TICKER---TICKER---

Google results for "ugsome", one minute ago:

approx. 15.100

1847. Fleabytes

Comment #140335 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 6:37 am

clodhopper,

nah, I just put on the "Restaurant at the End of the Universe"-Audiobook (and the sequels). I think my dreams will be entirely pleasant :)

1848. Fleabytes

Comment #140330 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 6:29 am

I was cracking up, unable to breath from all the laughing when I read about the neutrino-propulsion of Jesus' feet.

Indistinguishable from satire.

Never heard of "Star Maker" - interesting that someone would write a book about that.

So, I guess I'm going to start drifting slowly off into sleep right - probably press F5 a couple more times...


Good night all.

1849. Fleabytes

Comment #140324 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 6:23 am

... I would deal with those entirely unsound arguments... but I'm extremely tired by now. Been awake for 20 hours.
Would someone else do it... you know "the unity that is there is there because it was deliberately written so as to enforce the older writings and 'fulfil' the prophecy'... 'the discrepancies are very profund - such as between the god of the OT and of the NT, or between the baby jesus meek and mild, and the hellfire, brimstone eternal torture jesus...

and of course the ridiculous and frankly insulting points 5 and 6...

1850. Fleabytes

Comment #140318 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 6:14 am

Is Frank Tipler the one with the "God is the singularity at the end of time" "The Holy Spirit is the singularity at the beginning" and "Jesus walked on water by creating neutrino-emmissions"?

Also, wouldn't it be funny - god running a "trial universe"?

Imagine he reveals himself to the inhabitants:


"What? Eternal salvation? No, you need my son for that!
...
I'm sorry, but I can't do that... you see, this is only a trial universe. Well, goodbye then!"


And for some fun, try to convince theist that we live in God's trial universe.