Thelemic Materialism (Thelemic Philosophy)
-
@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.
-
@Los said
"
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."
Well you call it a conclusion based on evidence - but philosophy and neuroscience calls it an 'assumption' regarding the 'hard problem'. Materialists assume consciousness emerges from brains because the materialist model allows for nothing else so it must emerge from the brain. There is absolutely NOTHING in the data that accounts for the hard problem of consciousness. Most of the studies you are claiming as your evidence have very clinical definitions of consciousness anyway and sometimes none of them are consistent. The data just says there is a connection between brain activity and our qualia. That's it.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousne
Would love to hear how you define consciousness, and I am sure the lurkers would too. Best of luck!
-
@Los said
"
I'm done with you for now. Feel free to write again when you've improved your abilities to read and remember."Really? You're done with me just right when I present you with a logical refutation which remains unanswered? Lol shocking.
As for my poor memory - well proof is recorded here - <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11328&start=550">viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11328&start=550</a><!-- l --> as the world can see you dont address posts that befuddle you and you find any attempt to avoid third value questions.
-
@Legis said
"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."
Is this your ghost story about someone you knew who was all worked up about religion and had talked herself into thinking an invisible creepy-crawly was "possessing" her? And then some coincidence happened where you thought she was in "trouble" and you called her up and it turned out that she had relapsed and talked herself into thinking the creepy crawly had returned on the same night that you were worried about her and had a scary dream?
Oh, em, gee!
If you recall, I didn't find the events of that story terribly improbable to begin with. It's not even that impressive a coincidence. Everyone's had wildly improbable coincidences.
I recall that I summarized your little story on that thread in explaining how it's not at all unusual for someone so severely mentally distressed to experience relapses and it's also not unusual for that person's friends to worry about that person, even well after she seems "cured." That the two events (your dream/worry and her relapse) happened on the same night is coincidental, but certainly not absurdly so and definitely not out of the realm of what we would expect to happen.
On that other thread, I was explaining this to you, and in doing so, I think I left out some detail of the original ghost story or overlooked something that was unimportant to the point I was making -- but was important to you and your emotional connection to the story -- so you freaked out and threw an hysterical conniption (and were probably muttering "Begone, slaver! My mind won't wear your chains" under your breath as you pounded out an indignant response on your keyboard).
On this thread, I've almost certainly left out a bunch of details of your ghost story as well, because I really don't remember it well, but I do remember that the main point was basically....wow, these two things happened on the same night...oh em gee, amazing! But it's not amazing.
I mean, even if I grant that your story is absolutely unbelievable and unexplainable by anything that anyone knows, it wouldn't demonstrate a thing. It wouldn't demonstrate, even slightly, that there really are "demons" floating around who just happen to possess people with unhealthy psychological attachment to wacky religious ideas.
"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!"
But if that guy had managed to guess the words, that wouldn't just have been some improbable happenstance occurring in the flow of everyday life. It would have been a measurable data point, obtained after we had taken precautions to rule out other (natural) means of that guy guessing the words.
If that same guy came up to me in daily life and said something offhand like, "Boy, you look happy today, Los. Looks like you're havin' a fine one!" and -- let's say for the sake of the ghost story -- I had just won money on a horse whose name is "Havin' a Fine One," some might say, "Oh em gee! Improbable coincidence! There are psychic powers!!!"
But of course, such an event wouldn't demonstrate anything because it's just more of the usual coincidences that happen to people all the time. I can recall dozens of weird coincidences that happen to me all the time in everyday life. Ever call someone and have it go to voicemail and then when you get off the phone you discover you have a voicemail from that person and when you compare notes with that person later it turns out that you were calling each other at the exact same time? Oh em gee! What are the odds?? Must be psychic powers, yo!
But the experiment we did on the other thread wasn't some random piece of happenstance. It was something very specific and steps had been taken to remove anything that could contribute to making the guess more likely (the words were chosen at random from a book, making it unlikely that the participant could guess what words that someone with my writing style might be likely to choose consciously).
Human brains are impressed by coincidence because we have pattern-recognizing functions hardwired into them. We're always looking for connections between events and broader causes, even when there are none.
-
@ldfriend56 said
"I present you with a logical refutation"
You've presented nothing of the sort. You present tedious walls-of-words -- usually multiple-posted in response to the same point whenever your mind sees fit to vomit up, at intermittent intervals, whatever associations you feel like -- and you consistently misread and misinterpret points in ways that make each one of your sentences just incorrect enough that responding to the entire wall-of-words would be a serious chore.
And then you complain and stamp your little feet when I mostly ignore you.
I'm talking here about the content of your posts, not you. I've never really seen you contribute anything substantial to any conversation. I was mostly done with you in that other thread after you proudly declared that your post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacious reasoning demonstrated your wacky claims about spirits having "healed" you. It's just not worth talking to such a tedious poster who literally refuses to understand how fallacious reasoning cannot demonstrate absurd claims.
Maybe you have presented a "logical refutation" somewhere in the latest wall-of-words, but I can't be bothered to slog through your awful prose to locate it. If you can't make your point clearly and simply, you don't have a point at all. Which you don't.
-
Los,
Bottom line.
The fact is that you agree when creating experiments that outrageous improbability is a sufficient reason for accepting immaterially measureable causation. This was the structure of the experiment you and Simon performed. Yes, it failed to produce results.
But, just because you have not satisfied this criterion in your own experience doesn't give you the right to proclaim that I have not.
And that's really all there is to you: "I haven't experienced it, so you can't have either."
-
@Uni_Verse said
"oldfriend56 you are my hero <3"
awww
Los is just a bully. He does the same thing all the 'pseudo skeptics' do they use online guerilla tactics and go around the web and do this. They always claim evidence and science blah blah blah, but when you apply the methods they claim to use, their arguments fall apart and they ignore any anti thesis to what they believe.
It truly is just for entertainment purposes
-
@Los said
"
@ldfriend56 said
"I present you with a logical refutation"Maybe you have presented a "logical refutation" somewhere in the latest wall-of-words, but I can't be bothered to slog through your awful prose to locate it. If you can't make your point clearly and simply, you don't have a point at all. Which you don't."
tsk tsk tsk. practicing deception again. fyi i love the 'wall of words' defense. that's a classic. I am sure context of things you have a hard time grasping might look like a wall of words, indeed and you may need things presented in a sentence or two, perhaps with a picture. Yes I am sure that would change everything.
maybe you should follow me a twitter?
-
@Legis said
"The fact is that you agree when creating experiments that outrageous improbability is a sufficient reason for accepting immaterially measureable causation."
But it's not simply the improbability that makes it sufficient evidence. It's the fact that this improbability happens in a context where we took steps to remove, as much as possible, natural means for a correct guess to occur (including creating the situation of a "test" and not just waiting for one of the zillions of everyday coincidences to happen).
"But, just because you have not satisfied this criterion in your own experience doesn't give you the right to proclaim that I have not."
Correct. What gives me the right to proclaim that you have not is the fact that, despite your being asked again and again, you've said nothing that indicates you have actually detected something supernatural.
""I haven't experienced it, so you can't have either.""
Once more, my argument isn't simply based on personal experience. I've never personally "experienced" seeing an electron, but I have more than enough evidence to think that there are electrons.
The issue is evidence and argument. As I've been suggesting, anyone can objectively evaluate how good evidence and argument are in the context of claims, and no one has sufficient evidence to think that any of this supernatural stuff is real (in the sense of existing as anything other than make believe, fantasies, and honest-to-goodness mistakes in concluding what certain experiences were).
-
@Los said
"
But it's not simply the improbability that makes it sufficient evidence. It's the fact that this improbability happens in a context where we took steps to remove, as much as possible, natural means for a correct guess to occur (including creating the situation of a "test" and not just waiting for one of the zillions of everyday coincidences to happen)."Not all experience happens in laboratory-controlled conditions with confirming witnesses. That doesn't mean I am required to dismiss it for myself. You seem to believe that it does, but it does not. It only means that I have not and can not prove it to* someone else*. I accept and own that fact.
And I'm not trying to prove it to anyone. I'm simply asserting my fundamental human right to accept my own experiential evidence as valid despite the potential of those who were not there to eternally doubt that experiential evidence.
I believe in the power of an individual to experience and know the truth for themselves. I have chosen, take responsibility for, and own that belief. Indeed, it is the basis of Scientific Illuminism.
You just disagree with that possibility, instead seeming to prefer to let others ultimately decide for you what is real.
Specifically, when it comes to questioning the ultimate nature of Reality, I reject a belief in "objectivity" achieved by "consensus" as ultimately an agreed-upon bias. What is it but majority rule? And what is majority rule but many individuals determining the meaning of "objectivity" for themselves individually and outvoting those who disagree? Who gets to vote? What have they experienced? Are they closed-minded about experiences that they have not yet had? In this matter, objectivity by consensus? I think not. That's just majority-rule bias.
You seem to think I'm embarrassed by my statement. I'll repeat it:
"Begone, Slavior! My mind won't wear your chains. I am a free man."
@Legis said
"Just because you have not satisfied this criterion in your own experience doesn't give you the right to proclaim that I have not."