Thelemic Materialism (Thelemic Philosophy)
-
@Legis said
"It will always boil down to the difference between your preference to accept an explanation that relies on astronomical improbabilities versus my preference to accept an explanation that relies on a materially undetectable causal factor."
There's no preference about it: if object X is utterly and completely undetectable, one cannot validly conclude it is the cause of anything.
That's objectively the case, regardless of what any single person thinks about it or whatever the X is under discussion.
-
@Los said
"What about when your doctor tells you that you have a disease and that you need X treatment? Do you say, "Bah! How dare you apply your personal standards to me! Every person is an unique individual, and I will not be subjected to your subjective standards of 'health!' Begone, slaver! Let fire from heaven cleanse this space, for it is only for the free!! Huzzah!!!""
Imagine this Legis guy talking to his mechanic, if he really and truly wanted to consistently apply his ideas. The mechanic would look under the hood and say, "Whoa, you need a new engine," and Legis would respond, "How dare you apply your 'personal standards' to my unique car! Begone, slaver! My mind refuses to wear your shackles. I am a free man. Come, fire from heaven!!"
-
"But if that's true, how do you explain the vast technological progress that we've made by consistently applying evidence-based inquiry?"
Every advance was at one time a hypothesis lacking sufficient evidence. People suspended disbelief and experiemented.
-
Los,
Save your straw-man shtick for the under-educated and weak-minded. Here, it just makes you look like a gawping imbecile.
@Los said
"Are you implying that it is impossible for anyone to ever draw objective conclusions?"
No, I am not implying that it is impossible for anyone to ever draw objective conclusions. You should have asked that before you went into your absurd pantomime.
@Los said
"
@Legis said
"It will always boil down to the difference between your preference to accept an explanation that relies on astronomical improbabilities versus my preference to accept an explanation that relies on a materially undetectable causal factor."There's no preference about it: if object X is utterly and completely undetectable, one cannot validly conclude it is the cause of anything.
That's objectively the case, regardless of what any single person thinks about it or whatever the X is under discussion."
"X" is not required to be an "object." That's you inserting more of your "objectivity."
I did not say, "utterly and completely undetectable." That's still more of you inserting your "objectivity." I said, "materially undetectable." But I will make a note, once again, of how you automatically equate the two.
"X" represents an unknown causal factor whose effects are* detectable *to the degree that they violate probability.
-
I am deadly afraid of getting myself into this merry-go-round again.
But, if you guys are to continue anywhere, you will have to define the term "Objective Standard of Detectability" and find a consensus on that definition, or you will be doing a merry-go-round around the axis of that undefined or not consensuated (is that a word?) definition.
-
Simon, I think we've reached a consensus.
There is no physical evidence of non physical things. Imagination is real, but not in the same way as a brick, or dog. A goblin can't buy a sandwich.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"Simon, I think we've reached a consensus.
There is no physical evidence of non physical things. Imagination is real, but not in the same way as a brick, or dog. A goblin can't buy a sandwich."
Well, here is empirical evidence that says otherwise, published by some colleagues.
PLUG:
gallantlab.org/semanticmovies/
Fascinating stuff and sweet use of the web browser for those interested.
-
@Legis said
""X" represents an unknown causal factor whose effects are* detectable *to the degree that they violate probability."
Are you saying that "X" cannot be directly detected but its effects can be detected?
Certainly, that's a valid way to detect things, if one (objectively) evaluates the evidence correctly. For example, if someone were to claim that there was a planet out in such-and-such position that our telescopes couldn't directly perceive because of some other celestial body in the way, one could still detect the planet by detecting its gravitational effect on other bodies. In other words, one could work out the math and determine that if there actually were a large body out in such-and-such position, the gravitational effects would have to be so-and-so. And then going out and detecting so-and-so gravitational effects would indeed be equivalent to detecting a planet at such-and-such position.
What you propose above, however, isn't anything like this. You say effects are detectable "to the degree that they violate probability." I'm guessing by this -- and I can only guess since you (not for the first time) refuse to just come out and say what you mean -- you mean that a bunch of improbable things have happened to you and that this bunch of improbable things is an "effect." And you postulate factor "X" as the necessary explanation for these effects, in the same way that the planet in the above analogy would be a necessary explanation for the gravitational effects.
The problem with your logic here -- and it's an objective problem with it -- is that the occurrence of improbable events (even a bunch of them) in no way implies that they share a common cause. That's objectively the case because it doesn't matter what you, I, or anyone else thinks, and it doesn't matter who makes the claim. Anybody who simply points to a bunch of improbable things happening just has a bunch of improbable things happening...nothing -- absolutely nothing -- about improbable events occurring, in and of themselves, suggests that they share a common cause or that they are anything more than the regular ol' happenstance of life. More evidence would be needed. Again, this is an objective conclusion because it doesn't depend on anyone's particular feelings...it would hold true for anyone making similar claims.
Now, doubtlessly you'll object that there's more to your story, and maybe there is, but if you refuse to share anything, you hardly have grounds for objecting to people misinterpreting your vague clues.
-
@Legis said
"No, I am not implying that it is impossible for anyone to ever draw objective conclusions."
Well, ok, let's look at this, then. I grant that I'm possibly misreading you, so I really want clarification on this point.
A brief recap: you said that you had once detected something that I wouldn't accept. I asked what it was. You refused to say because you say you just know I'm going to judge it according to my "personal standards."
So there's only two possibilities. Either you think that there are no objective standards for evaluating claims about having detected whatever-you-think-you-detected (and thus only "personal standards," which vary from individual to individual, meaning that neither of us has any more claim to be right than the other) OR you think that there are objective standards for evaluating claims about having detected whatever-you-think-you-detected (and, presumably, you think that the standards you're using to evaluate these claims are the objectively correct ones, and I'm the one who's got it wrong and am just using "personal standards" instead of the objectively correct ones).
Which is it?
[By the way, that's a true dichotomy -- for those of you with a compulsive need to imagine "logical fallacies" being present in every piece of communication]
-
@Los said
"
Except that, as our above conversation demonstrates, you’re incapable of explaining why it makes sense without tripping all over yourself in making logical error after logical error.
"
Irony in this thread, not dead
-
@Los said
"
@Legis said
"but matter/energy existing in what?"Nobody knows. It’s quite possible that matter/energy doesn’t exist “in” anything at all. It might be all that exists."
oddly, it actually does exist in something, it exists in time and space.
in the news related cool stuff
"
Ah, the old “I don’t know what the answer is so I’ll randomly declare that it must be consciousness” argument."
Oh come on Los - your being a bit unfair here to Legis. There is nothing random about suggesting this, it's certainly not ruled out in cosmology, it's the core tenet of pan psychism. And if you dont like Legis and others making connections between consciousness and cosmology, then what's the difference about the physical sciences assuming images of neurons firing in the brain is consciousness? If Legis is guilty, then so are you too, no doubt.
everybody assumes where they believe consciousness to reside.
And look how you use things like logic to bully in discussions with those whom are your polar opposite in this dialectic..
"
Even if this conclusion of yours wasn’t a gross logical error, there would be another problem: if matter/energy exists in consciousness, then what does that consciousness exist in? Maybe more matter/energy. Hmm, but what would this more matter/energy exist in? Etc."
lol well to Legis point and yours, maybe consciousness does not exist in anything, everything is consciousness.
Both sides can play that game. His argument is the same as yours logically speaking.
"
Either way, we’re back to “nobody knows,” which is the only honest answer."
"
This is a textbook argument from ignorance. “I can’t think of any answer but X, so it must be X” is a logical fallacy."
It's only a logical fallacy if it's being applied to a bivalent logic problem.
Your being a bully here Los.
-
@ldfriend56 said
" if you dont like Legis and others making connections between consciousness and cosmology"
It's not that I "don't like" it -- as if it's some personal preference I have -- it's that the connections are unjustified by any evidence whatsoever.
" if you dont like Legis and others making connections between consciousness and cosmology
then what's the difference about the physical sciences assuming images of neurons firing in the brain is consciousness? If Legis is guilty, then so are you too, no doubt."I don't assume that consciousness arises from material brains -- I reached that conclusion by looking at evidence, including the fact that causing changes to physical brains causes changes in consciousness and the fact that nobody has ever discovered a consciousness that is not connected to a physical brain. The evidence suggests that consciousness emerges out of brains.
-
@Los said
"
No, you don't. You baldly assert that my arguments have weaknesses -- just like that guy above baldly asserts that I have "blind spots" -- but you (like he) are never able to demonstrate that this is the case, in the same way that I (easily) demonstrate above that your arguments are laughably invalid."
Oh Los - countless times I have in the clearest of terms shown extreme logical contradictions in your positions and you have maintained little consistency inside of them. On every occasion I present to you to confront this you disappear
Just being fair for the sake of the lurking audience
-
@Los said
"
@Simon Iff said
"you conveniently ignore any facts or arguments to the contrary of your favourite ideas"I’ve already explained to you that I don’t, as far as I’m aware, ignore any facts or arguments contrary to my own – I address all of them, which is the opposite of ignoring them."
Los! my friend now you are just practicing deception. Tsk tsk! such black magick
There is clear evidence in this forum where this is not the case. The lurking party may simply look up your infamous 'Experience Has No Explanatory Power' and simply read the last page in the thread.
Remember Los! You are in a place of public media and all of our conversations are being recorded and the data does not lie, even though you words may
-
@Los said
"
@Legis said
"If you believe your position to be "correct," then lets hear the incontrovertible truth from which your logic about what may be known stems. What's the foundation?"I'm going to start from my specific position and move back more generally.
My position, on the particular issue that we're discussing, is that the physical world demonstrably exists and that -- at least at the moment -- there is insufficient evidence to think that any worlds beside the physical world exist (that is to say, there is insufficient evidence to think that there are some "spirit" worlds or "astral" worlds).
"
Yet you completely contradicted this position over and over in the 'Explanatory' thread. We both agreed that the world of ideas is just as equally non demonstrable as the world of spirits yet the value of truth we assign to ideas is consistent because we all experience them as the sole basis for their existence. The fact that you choose to label them as ideas, or spirits, or both is irrelevant. They are both part of the same phenomenon and this was where your entire argument broke down, you began to produce inconsistencies, and then avoided any further questioning.
Other than that, yes I think you're a hoot
-
@Los said
"
I've never defined "exists" as being "material." The definition I gave of "exists" is "manifesting in a detectable way."
."
So something that manifests undetected does not exist? Please clarify because this sounds incredibly childish and don't want to damage your credibility with the lurkers.
-
@Los said
"
In such a case -- where we're talking about, let's say, some being that inhabits another dimension that no human has ever detected and that no human, no matter what any human ever does, could ever possibly detect that being, ever -- I would argue that such a being, "existent" though it may be in some sense, is, from the perspective of humans, completely and totally indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist and that humans are more than justified as treating it as something that doesn't exist.."
Your statement logically says that 'maybe' and 'false' hold the same logical value. Indeed, your exact words are they are 'indistinguishable'.
So - your blind spot that people mention here? The above statement of yours appears to highlight your blind spot, logically. You seem to be forcing a very logical and intuitive ternary logical order into a bivalent operation. Boolean logic cannot handle all true, false, maybe problems. Your blind spot is the third logical value You operate in two valued logic. Here is your proof. Here is me showing you where your calculus is inconsistent and predictable to produce contradictions upon further questioning.
-
oldfriend56 you are my hero
-
@Los said
"The problem with your logic here -- and it's an objective problem with it -- is that the occurrence of improbable events (even a bunch of them) in no way implies that they share a common cause. That's objectively the case because it doesn't matter what you, I, or anyone else thinks, and it doesn't matter who makes the claim. Anybody who simply points to a bunch of improbable things happening just has a bunch of improbable things happening...nothing -- absolutely nothing -- about improbable events occurring, in and of themselves, suggests that they share a common cause or that they are anything more than the regular ol' happenstance of life. More evidence would be needed. Again, this is an objective conclusion because it doesn't depend on anyone's particular feelings...it would hold true for anyone making similar claims.
Now, doubtlessly you'll object that there's more to your story, and maybe there is, but if you refuse to share anything, you hardly have grounds for objecting to people misinterpreting your vague clues."
I have many stories.
I did share one with you - a less personal one.
When I shared that story with you, you didn't just call it "a bunch of improbable things happening" and nothing more.
Instead, you yourself seemed to find the story so improbable that you began retelling the story and changing the facts from my report so that they were more probabilistically explainable.
The question of objectivity doesn't have to be made any larger than you. Despite your claims, you are nowhere close to being objective. If facts even seem too improbable to you, you change the facts to suit what you can accept. And then... AND THEN... you lecture me on how improbability doesn't MEAN anything.
These facts in themselves demonstrate your double-standard.
But let's go still further than this to demonstrate your lack of objectivity.
The little "guess the two words" experiment you agreed to do with Simon was entirely based on improbability. What would it have proven to you if he had guessed the correct two words despite the improbability?
Would it have suggested "an unknown causal factor whose effects are detectable to the degree that they violate probability"?
Yes, of course it would have! This was implicit in the design of the experiment you yourself created as a test!
-
@ldfriend56 said
"Yet you completely contradicted this position over and over in the 'Explanatory' thread."
No, I didn't.
"We both agreed that the world of ideas is just as equally non demonstrable as the world of spirits yet the value of truth we assign to ideas is consistent because we all experience them as the sole basis for their existence."
I never "agreed" to anything of the sort. To the contrary, a person is more than capable of demonstrating that his thoughts exist (including thoughts that he calls his goblins buddies). What a person can't demonstrate -- not even to "to him" -- is that his goblin buddies can do anything that daydreams cannot.
I'm done with you for now. Feel free to write again when you've improved your abilities to read and remember.