Total posts: 3,192
-->
@ludofl3x
I admit it's a sophisticated phrasing and you've clearly spent time crafting it, I applaud the effort, but it's hinged on a very broad version of the verb "to exist," one that doesn't argue for "is factual and real." It seems semantic, not the sort of thing that would make one, say, fly a plane into a building for passion of belief. At best, doesn't it argue for deism? Or does it argue that all versions of all gods ever conceived existed? Is it possible using your argument If, for the sake of discussion, anyone who believed in Thor the norse god suddenly vanished, leaving no one to conceive of him, would he then cease to exist?
As in any argument, the resolution in part is hinged on the words used and their descriptions. It doesn't suffice to simply dismiss by labeling an argument "semantic," because all arguments are semantic. (Perhaps you meant lexically semantic.) And yes, it would argue that all Gods exist.
And I'm not sure I understand your question: are you asking that if someone believed that Thor vanished, leaving no one to [believe in] him, would he then cease to exist?
First you'd have to explain how someone/some god vanishing means they no longer exist; and how one person believing he vanished prevents another from believing he didn't. But you can correct the error in my interpretation if I made any.
I still think you're arguing for the mechanics of ability or right to believe something.
No. I don't believe I've conversed with an atheist who disputed an individual's "right or capacity to believe." So it would not follow that my response would be one that concerned one's right or ability.
I think the spirit of the question is more along the lines of what causes people to have conversion experiences or go out an proselytize, which is a bit different than "has anyone ever imagined a god, if so, that god exists."
I thought that the spirit of the question was to provide arguments towards the existence of God and the response used to rebuff atheists. I think you're projecting your experiences, which is natural, and creating a caricature of theists.
Numbers are just names we've given to amounts, as I see it.
But numbers aren't observed in nature. Give me its composition, its weight, its length or volume. Numbers are forms. Its an ascription which depends on those who accept it.
If all people ceased to exist, two asteroids plus two more asteroids would still equal our asteroids, even if no one could count them.
How would you know this, especially if you did not exist?
They're essential to our expression of mathematical concepts, but math isn't contingent on numbers, oddly enough.
Yes, mathematics is most certainly dependent on numbers. (And logic.)
As far as testing for the "true" meaning of a word, it would depend on the word, wouldn't it?
Then let's conduct this thought experiment. Pick any word you wish, and we'll test for its true meaning.
Created:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
All things that are perceived must exist (given that the nonexistent can't be perceived.)2. God is perceived (believed in by his adherents.)3. Therefore God exists.I got up at two in the morning and saw this, and was like, this is like the ontological argument's older sibling that got tired of the rules of modal logic and said, "I'm going all in"....I love it. I'm not sure that it works but love it.
It works out quite well actually. But it is contingent on one's description of nonexistent. When I use nonexistent, I'm using it in the same way as I would use the term "nothing." So then, the trouble this presents many atheists in my experience is the burden to somehow explain how they're able to perceive the nonexistence of the nonexistent. The nonexistent can provide no perceivable information on itself (not only because it's "nothing" but also we use perception to process and rationalize reality.) That is, if something doesn't exist, how could one know that it doesn't exist if it in fact does not exist?
So then, some atheists will try to conflate nonexistent with imaginary, at which point I would challenge them to rationalize reality without any use of conceptualization (another way of saying "imagination.") That means, no science, no math, no logic, no words. In order to do so, they'd have to be able to acquire information isolated from their capacity to perceive. Some will argue that these concepts themselves aren't real but that which they rationalize is. If that's in fact the case, then that would necessarily suggest that existent and nonexistent can interact or connect. And as a consequence, one would have to ask: what is the epistemological significance in creating the distinction?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
True. And I am asking, first, should it be?
Yes.
And second, if it is based on personal tastes, how can anyone's personal tastes be an "ought" for another person?
Because the framework incorporates personal tastes and presumes the best possible environment in which they can manifest. But I'll further explain below.
Then the system of everyone having his own moral code has not worked very well has it? This is why we have jails, police, and courts.
You misunderstand. I am not at al suggesting that each person has his or her own moral code. That is, a moral framework applied to just oneself. Once again, that would be irrelevant--futile even--because the application of morality to oneself would render the same consequence every time. In a moral framework that recognizes my sovereignty for example, all actions I conduct toward myself and my property are by nature, "right." I cannot dispute with myself. (This does not mean that one is incapable of regret.)
A consistent moral framework incorporates the capacity of each individual to optimally (and there's a reason I continue to use this term) manifest their personal tastes. And the only moral framework I believe does this is Individualism, which is based on the posited axiom of individual sovereignty. That is, I have discretion to pursue my values especially as it concerns myself and my property so long as it does not infringe on your capacity to pursue your values as it concerns yourself and your property, and vice versa. And I use the term optimally because it implicitly suggests a standard where conflicts and disputes are diminished as much as possible.
What if you want to kill my sister? Well then, you'd be infringing on her capacity to pursue her own values as it concerns herself. Of course, you can kill her. But that would create conflict. Morality is a prescription toward certain ends. And good and bad can only be conducive or inhibiting respectively towards those ends.
My point is that when morality is used only as a framework for social interaction, and is based on personal taste, moral chaos is the only possible result. So societies produced a "morality" and officers to force us into a single moral code called the law.
Morality can only be used as a framework for social interaction for the reasons I mentioned above. And I understand your argument: if everyone has their own prescriptions for social interaction, then wouldn't that just create conflict? Yes. It would then behoove everyone to resolve these conflicts through discussion and argument.
But everyone has a different idea of what a morally consistent framework is. This is saying how things ought to be. But things are never that way, and have never been that way. Your comment amounts to the impotent "We should all get along".
Everyone has the capacity to provide their own prescriptions; that doesn't mean that it's consistent. And what is morality in its simplest form if not a mission statement that "we should all get along"? And if that's not the end you're seeking with morality, then what are you seeking?
Thank you! And what we ALL ought to do cannot be set by the personal tastes of a few. "Ought" implies a moral imperative for all.I'm asking, "What makes a morality an ought?"If you believe like Zed, that morality is only subjective, then no morality is an "ought" for everyone. Only people who accept a certain moral code are bound to that morality.If you believe, like I do, that there is a moral code that IS an ought for everyone, then that moral code is the most coherent standard on which to base a framework for social interaction.
Once again, you misunderstand. I'm not talking about the personal tastes of a few; I'm talking about a moral framework that incorporates the personal tastes of all individuals and provides a prescription best suited for each individual to manifest said tastes. And by "best-suited," I mean with as little conflict and dispute as possible.
And the "ought" is inherent to the ends. That is, for example, should one desire to establish a society in which one's individual sovereignty is respected, then one and all participants ought to follow individualist morality. Now I firmly believe that all possessors of self possess self-interest; therefore, individualist morality would be a framework consistent with everyone's self-interests. Hence, everyone ought to abide by individualist morality.
Not necessarily. This is true only if we first accept the materialist's view of reality.And still, the materialist must tell us why we should follow his moral code, and why we are immoral if we don't.
I don't see how materialism ties in with the fundamentally normative nature of morality; can you explain further?
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
I feel like it makes a distinction between "exists" and "is real" or "is true," but those are all very slippery semantics as far as I can tell. It seems akin to 'anything in possible' when in practical terms, that's just not true: for example, it's strictly speaking possible I could somehow find myself manning second base for the Yankees, but in practical terms, it is so improbable that it cannot be practically distinguished from impossible.
If I decide to name the action of standing still "manning" and name one plank on my wooden floor "second base" and my living room "The Yankees," then I would be manning second base for the Yankees. Now you can argue that I'm not using those words correctly, but the basis of your counterclaim would be entirely dependent on consensus, which informs an amount, not truth. You attempt to exclude belief from "reality," and yet what capacity do you bear to rationalize "reality" without your beliefs? Case in point: there's yet to be material evidence presented for numbers. Yet numbers are essential in Mathematics, which itself is essential to Science. You believe the numbers exist because they helps you rationalize the environment as you believe you see it. You believe that the words as you speak or type them will communicate the content of your thoughts to the best of their ability, don't you? If I were to ask you to test for the true meaning of a word, how would you go about doing this? And if you can't, are they no longer part of (your) reality?
Created:
-->
@Stronn
Yes, that's the extension of my argument to its logical conclusion. Can you present the absurdity? Or are you just proffering an irrelevant impression that you simply describe as absurd?That is among the most absurd arguments I've seen. It essentially says that anything someone believes must exist..
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
I know someone whose relative was diagnosed clinically with it and their brain scan indicated unusual activity associated with the condition. I don't spend a lot of time reading JAMA or anything. But my point remains: the doctor never said "Look, we think based on what we see here it might be schizophrenia, and there are medicines we use to treat and control that condition (which would infer that brain chemistry is involved as the medicines would modify that in some way).
I'm not denying that brain chemistry exists. Only that schizophrenia has yet to be demonstrated as a biochemical condition/illness. Drugs are in fact chemical. But after doing research into the subject, you'll discover that most antipsychiotic drugs are just relaxants (stimulating the release of dopamine.) And they usually treat just a few "symptoms." If you're interested in the subject, I'd suggest reading the works of David Kaiser and Thomas Szasz.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
I mean it's a condition that corresponds with things you can diagnose with various brain scans and other medical methods. It's no longer blamed on demons or external entities.
I asked because as far as I understood, there has yet to be a biochemical basis demonstrated for any mental disorder. There have been hypotheses, surely. So, when you mentioned "brain chemistry" I thought you might be able to reference a study that demonstrates biochemistry.
Created:
-->
@OntologicalSpider
I wouldn't call it "favorite" but I usually offer this argument:What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?
1. All things that are perceived must exist (given that the nonexistent can't be perceived.)
2. God is perceived (believed in by his adherents.)
3. Therefore God exists.
Why is it your favorite argument?
Because the logic is sound.
What are some objections to this argument and how do you deal with them?
Well, usually opponents will attempt to create equivalences to that which they believe also doesn't exist, i.e. Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, FSM, etc. intended to have me concede to some faulty logic. I don't because I do acknowledge that the aforementioned also exist. The fault is in conflating immaterial perception (cognition, imagination, etc.) with nonexistent. I then challenge them to rationalize their environment, even their perceptions, isolated from their "imaginations." Thus far, no has been able to do this. If one is going to argue that the incorporation of imagination trivializes a perspective, then one should at least be consistent. And materialists, in my experience, almost never are.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
Which study?Study demonstrates schizophrenia to be a chemical brain disorder, not demonic possession.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
What's the difference?Or a hypothesis.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Let us do a thought experiment.Let us agree that immoral actions are bad.Not just that immoral actions break a certain moral code, but immoral actions are "not good" in an empirical way.Given this scenario, is it possible to say why an immoral action is bad?Sure, we could point to the "bad" an action caused, but that would only prove that the action caused bad in the world, the question remains, even if we all agree that the action caused bad, what makes "bad" immoral?What makes "bad" of lesser value than good?So murder is immoral. But exactly why is it immoral? Can there be any reason that is not based on someone's tastes?Can your moral code give us an moral action that is empirically "bad"?If it cannot, how is your morality different from your personal tastes?
The issue I find with your query is that your intention is to exclude personal tastes (subjective values) rather than include them. Morality in part is based on personal tastes. While the application of morality to just the individual would be irrelevant--as demonstrated in TwoMan's description--moral frameworks are based on the concept self-interest. It's also important to remember that moral analysis takes place between man and his social environment, not just man and himself. So let's use TwoMan's example: I'm a thief who steals from someone else. Now this provides an immediate positive value for me (acquiring something I didn't have before) and an immediate negative value for the other person. But what if that person, whom I robbed, has a gun hidden? And in an act of reprisal, the other person shoots me in my back, resulting in paralysis, and takes back that which I had stolen. I sacrificed long-term positive values for an immediate short-term value because I didn't consider the risks of pursuing and manifesting certain values.
Morality as a framework for social interaction ought to offer each individual his or her own optimal path to pursuing his or her happiness/contentment. If I wanted 200 dollars for example that I didn't have, one way to get it would be rob someone; or I could just wait until I get paid at my job, or ask a friend or family member, actions which would reduce risks of reprisal. "Bad" is anything that violates or infringes on an individual's capacity to pursue his or her self interest through a (morally) consistent framework. And one last point: morality is not about that which we can do. After all, we can do anything. It's about that which we ought to do, an argument that's fundamentally normative. And therefore, subject to personal values.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
As far as I can be aware, a collection of believers who ostensibly share similar beliefs are nonetheless just that.Though I have noticed that Janesix has recently been proposing a possible "hive mind" principle, which on first consideration is quite a fascinating concept.
Wouldn't the concept of a "hive mind" inform a God?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
You did. You did not ask me for them, correct, but you did ask for them. This is an open forum. If you only want specific replies from specific people, then you should do it in a debate format or take it to PMs.
Redundant:
You're not in position to take anything as anything. You responded to a question that wasn't directed at you. As is your prerogative, you can participate in any query on a public forum.
I am not asking you to verify or falsify anything. I am simply asking you to clarify which of those points you are denying the reality of, all of them?
Enjoy the rest of your day, sir.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Yes you are. You asked for them, I provided them. Either you accept them or reject them. If you reject them, then let's dive into that.
No I am not. I didn't ask you for anything before you interjected in a query that wasn't directed at you. By then you had already submitted all of your points. I'm not going to verify or falsify your points, as I've already informed you. You submitted them, so substantiate. If not, move along, and have a nice day.
Well, I did that,
You've essentially done nothing other than list your points.
and then you denied that those observations were real.
Where did I do this? Quote me verbatim.
It would pointless to argue that something substantiates evolution when you deny that said something even exists!
Quote me verbatim.
They can be. Anything can be an explanation.
Anything can be used in an explanation; that is not the same as anything can be an explanation.
I didn't say Evolution explains itself. I said "Evolution is the process which explains what we see today."
What is it that we see today?
Exactly! That's how it works. I claim error, you ask for clarification, just like I'm trying to get you to do with my original points: you claim error, so substantiate that.
Where did I claim error with your original points? Quote me verbatim.
A theory is not merely an "attempted explanation"
I never said a theory was an "attempted explanation"--in fact, you quoted my description of a theory:
theories being that which explain phenomena (e.g. processes.)
I refer only to Evolution as an "attempted" explanation.
Theories must be testable, falsifiable, be consistent with observations,
Naturally.
and be better than existing theories and explanations in terms of scope and/or accuracy.
This makes no sense. How can that which constitutes a theory require it to be "better than existing theories"?
And Occam's razor isn't a synonym for "simplification" but rather a statement that unnecessary elements from a theory or explanation should be removed.
Rhetorically, yes it is. Simplification is exactly as you describe Occam's razor--removal of extraneous information.
Incorrect. The mechanism results in a gradual change in populations of organisms over time. It is this change that we call Evolution.
It's not the change we call evolution. Your statements above inform my point. The standard of accepted theories is based on merit. Thus, each theory is provisional. Processes aren't provisional. Only their explanations and interpretations can be (e.g. Einstein's Stationary Universe.)
Once again, let's discuss and have you explain how each of your points inform a reality that substantiates evolution. If not, enjoy the rest of your day. This is the last time I going to entertain this stalling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Going back to my original post here: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/3512/evolution?page=1&post_number=9All of those are real observations. Which of those do you dispute are real?
I'm not the one to dispute which of your points is real; you are the one to argue the reason each of your points inform a reality that substantiates Evolution because that is what my question asked. Saying that it's real does not suffice.
No, they aren't mutually exclusive. Evolution is the process which explains what we see today.
No. Processes are processes. Processes are explained. They can be incorporated into explanations, but they are not the explanations. And your statement makes no sense: how can Evolution be the "process" that explains itself?
This is not what Occam's razor is or how it is to be applied. Your simplification is erroneous.
My use is obviously rhetorical given my following statement, and if you're going to claim error, fine. Substantiate your counterclaim.
"Change" can mean a lot of things.
Exactly. That's the reason Evolution is not merely a statement of change over time, as many mistake it to be. It's a hypothesis delineating a--and this is important--regulatory mechanism which governs this change over time. Evolution is not the mechanism. It is the "why?" to the mechanism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
His exact words (copy-pasted) were "Which would you like to discuss more in-depth?"
I know his exact words.
You were screwing around by not picking a topic to discuss in-depth
I am not "screwing around," nor have I ever screwed around in this discussion. You haven't debated me before, so you wouldn't know that I'm being completely sincere and earnest when I stated that I intended to discuss everything. But since you're not necessarily a participant beyond the extent of assuming one's decorum, whether this registers with you or not is of no consequence.
My charge of obstinacy is objectively justified by a simple read-through of the conversation.
That's not the meaning of objective. You assume yourself to have provided an "impartial opinion" but you are still registering an opinion, which is clearly subjective.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
How do you know this?I evolved because, in short I am a product of genetic variation, rather than a carbon copy from a masterplan.
One assumes that at a moment of creation, Charles Darwin and computer technology did not instantly spring into existence.
Describing of course that which you've experienced over time as "progression." And that depends on:
Real is what we think we know. Both instinctive data and sensory acquired and stored data.
As far as I am aware, we can only deduce things from our own, individual human standpoint. Therefore this would probably be the limit of a human beings reality.
Reality is qualified by humanity?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I did. Each point has two parts: reality and how that reality substantiates evolution, which is what you were asking. For example: The commonality of genetic code among all living organisms, as there are any number of genetic combinations that produce identical effects, yet all organisms share based building blocks and codings for identical proteins.
No you did not. You don't get to call it "reality" without substantiation. For example, your first point speaks to Mendel's Law of Inheritance, not "Evolution" per se. Evolution's link to inheritance is through modern synthesis, which shifted the consensus from orthogenesis to natural selection. But that's not "Evolution." It's merely the premise that changed the interpretation. Try again.
The above is a reality.
You've yet to substantiate any reality.
And that is why that reality substantiates evolution.
That has yet to be determined.
Those things are not mutually exclusive. A process can be an explanation.
Yes they are. The process is the actual mechanism. And the explanation is the communication. What Evolution does is hypothesize that known mechanisms inform a regulatory "supra" mechanism of change over time. It's not the actual mechanism; it's the hypothesis.
This is simplification to the point of error.
Occam's razor. It's simple as it needs to be to inform truth. Theories (attempt to) explain phenomena. That is how it is defined. You perceive error, then substantiate your counterclaim.
This is not correct. Evolution is the process which encapsulates the change of living organisms over time. Mutation and replication is the primary underlying mechanism of that process.
The process of change is called change. That is not Evolution. Evolution is an (attempted) explanation as to the reason that change occurs. If it were merely a statement or phenomena of change, then Mendel's Laws, and Darwin's theory of natural selection would've suffice in appeasing once again, the "consensus" that supports Evolutionary Theory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I believe we are communicating and I believe you would abandon the conversation if you did not believe we were communicating.Your typed words are verifiable data points.
That's presumptuous. I do not object to your presumption as long as its recognized as such.
Although efficacious, it is not 100% fool-proof. That's why marketers are ever so interested in children (basically fish-in-a-barrel) and the magical "18-24" (idiots with money) demographic. Most people develop some immunity to NEW propaganda after graduating although many retain the commercial jingles and other prejudices acquired in their youth for the rest of their lives (that's why nostalgia is so powerful).
So at what proportion is psychology efficacious? At what point does that argument not fall into the ecological inference fallacy?
Presumably you're a human who speaks English and knows how to use a computer.
I can, but so can an A.I.
You remember being a helpless child. You have certain foods that you prefer over others. You are intelligent and thoughtful.
This could just as easily describe a dolphin.
You could be a figment of my imagination, however, you are a very persistent and scientifically verifiable figment of my imagination, which makes you functionally identical to a REAL-TRUE-FACT.
Have I been scientifically verified? I've had blood tests. But my blood could be a simple cocktail of perfluorocarbons. I could be a very sophisticated Turing test. All of this is to say, how is that which you believe is real "functionally different" from that which "is real"?
The only thing you've proven is that you find significance in this conversation (which answers your own question).Your participation is de facto acknowledgement of your interest.Please feel free to explain.
Significant in a context where it addresses the scope of its claim. Belief's being an evaluation of a personal set of conditioned data is an explanation for all individuals who exhibit belief, right? But that in and of itself is a belief. If it's valid, it constitutes a paradox: if it's true, it cannot be an evaluation of a personal set of conditioned data. And if it's not an evaluation of a personal set of conditioned data, then it's not a belief.
By saying that you sustain this very belief zedvictor put forth, you are undermining the logical consistency of his argument. It's no longer personal. Hence, I ask: what significance does it bear to anyone other than him? This is not to say that I'm not "interested" in his posit. I question only whether he can extend the consequence of said posit to anyone beyond himself. But to do so is to undermine his argument.
Have you ever seen an ant? Or a newborn infant?
Yes... and yes. How are they excluded?
You can debug a program by running the program. That's what I'm doing here. You're assisting me. Error checking. Testing for logical coherence.
Presuming there's a bug.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Some or none.It's wholly dependant upon the recipient.What is a debate, other than a string of subjective statements?When is a personal judgement not based upon ones personal opinions?
Would it not stand to reason that Belief being an evaluation of a personal set of conditioned data also be wholly dependent on the recipient?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Evolution is the process, which is ongoing. It has no end unless all life ceases to exist.
I suspected as much. Evolution is not a process. Evolution is the attempted explanation; hence it is referred to as the "theory of evolution," theories being that which explain phenomena (e.g. processes.) Evolution attempts to delineate the mechanism which regulates the change of a species over time. It is NOT the change itself; that simply is referred to as "change" (or more loosely "mutation" in the context of progenation, "mutation" and "progenation" being the actual processes.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
No. My question is exactly as it was posed: "how does reality, as far as you can tell, substantiate Evolution?" You listed several points, so let's discuss them and their pertinence to the question I clearly asked. I can only presume that you offered them up as a response because you thought they would address my question. Now, I'm requesting that you elaborate on each point and substantiate how they address my question. If you cannot/will not do this, then move along, and have a nice day. I'm not interesting in taking the mantle of scrutinizing unsubstantiated points. You are your argument's author; so substantiate your points. It's that simple.Dude, his question is tantamount to "prove science."
Find, let's start again:At a general level, the following observations substantiate evolution:
- The commonality of genetic code among all living organisms, as there are any number of genetic combinations that produce identical effects, yet all organisms share based building blocks and codings for identical proteins. The only known mechanism for this is inheritance across generations.
- The natural hierarchical grouping of species which implies a branching evolutionary process;
- Agreement among independently derived phylogenetic trees, which supports the objective validity of phylogenetic organization of living organisms (see above);
- Agreement of phylogenetic tree with fossil records; Again, independent support of phylogenetic organization;
- Existence of vestigial structures, implying that organisms inherit structures from previous generations which must then be reused for other purposes;
- Existence of atavism, implying that organisms inherit structures which lose their purpose altogether;
- The agreement of phylogeny with ontogeny; the developing of organisms in utero parallels evolutionary developments among related species;
- The agreement of phylogeny with geographical distribution of animals; more independent support of phylogenetic organization.
- The existence of similar structures among animals used for different purposes; see: vestigial structures;
- The existence of structures that are suboptimal for their function, implying that organisms can only use the structures they are provided with via inheritance.
- The existence and replication of transposons; transposons being alien genetic material whose primary replication mechanisms is via genetic inheritance.
- The direct observation of individual elements of evolution, such as morphological changes, functional changes, different stages of speciation, and actual instances of speciation.
Redundant. Substantiate the relevance or move along.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
He seems okay with you going more in-depth on one thing at a time he just doesn't want to choose which one. Just start at the top of your list and work your way down, the two of you are both being overly pedantic.
I mentioned quite a few times that I take no issue with our discussing every point he listed. After all, he is the one who listed them. I'm not "pedantic" or "obstinate." I'm challenging him to follow up on his reference. He listed every point. Then let's discuss. I don't dwell on irrelevancies and I don't do my opponent's work for them.
He's essentially stonewalling my challenge by questioning "genuine interest" and seeking a referendum placed on me to question his references rather than his explaining the relevance of each of his points in the first place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
A. I think therefore I am, as far as I can be certain, which is all there is. So I evolved. As far as I am aware I am not a carbon copy of everything that predates me.
Please elaborate on the part which I've emboldened. How did you come to the conclusion that because of cogito ergo sum that you've "evolved"? How are you able to conclude as far as you are aware that you're not a "carbon-copy"?
B. I communicate with you electronically.A. and B. are both relative to the processes of Material evolution, as is Darwinian Theory.
How?
As far as I can be aware A. and B. are real.
And how would you describe "real"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I see no benefit to me simply copying and pasting information from one place to another. The arguments are there if you are truly interested in having a conversation about it.I am not asking you to have a conversation with a website, I'm asking you to have a conversation with me about information that happens to be contained on a website.
And I'm requesting that you pick any and all information you believe is relevant in addressing the question I asked; it's a simple task. Once again, let me remind you: you are the one who responded to my question. Now instead of substantiating your response upon request, you're stalling by making reference to points about phenomena I presume you don't fully understand. It isn't enough to just regurgitate something you've read. Demonstrate the reasoning.
Do you have any questions or objections you would like to raise to me about that information?
Yes. How is that information relevant in addressing the question I asked?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Like this you mean?
Yes, like that.
"So as of yet, it has not been demonstrated that anyone on the planet has a mental "illness."
That's not the same as stating "no one has a mental 'illness.'"
It is indeed. And after your comment that "So as of yet, it has not been demonstrated that anyone on the planet has a mental "illness." I am asking you a question concerning Jesus the Christ's mental state. Was Jesus mad? His family seemed to believe he was?
And I'm declining a response to your questions.
That is true, you are not obliged.. But you did attempt a response of sorts thereby you acknowledged the question, but then avoided actually answering it. see post
Yes, and I'm responsible for my response to Singularity. In what way am I obliged to answer your questions? You just acknowledge that I'm not obliged, so there are not "Buts."
Why ever not!!!??
Because I have no inclination to argue about Bible quotes with you especially on a subject where they are irrelevant. But whether this registers with you or not is of no consequence. I won't engage you in a discussion over quotes, and that's the last time I'm going to inform you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I'm not interested in their arguments; once again, I cannot have a discussion with a web-page; I'm not seeking to verify or falsiify your points; I'm seeking your argument that explains the relevance your points have to the question I asked. Remember, you're the one who responded to my question. If you cannot/will not do this, then stop wasting both of our time.The material contains the arguments. If you have any questions or objections about them, please let me know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
I did not ask you to provide the material; nor did my question supplicate the reference to your specific material. If you want to use the material as a reference and basis for you argument, then by all means, do so. But you would still have to provide an argument. Not merely parrot what you've read. If not, then move along, and have a nice day.No, I am not going to cut and paste several essays worth of text onto this forum. I have provided the material. The floor is now yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
We share basic hardware (biological, instinctual) similarities and basic firmware (primary childhood experience) similarities.This is evidenced by our ability to communicate. These (inter-subjective) similarities are prerequisite to our intellectual interaction.
Are we really communicating? What is it that we're communicating? Isn't everything you've read concerning my response filtered through the prism of your personal set of conditioned data? What is the difference between my statements and figments of your experience?
The "other minds (brains)" hypothesis is a coherent framework for understanding the actions of "others".Psychology is based on this idea (other minds) and its EFFICACY is established by PROPAGANDA/MARKETING/PUBLIC RELATIONS techniques.
"Established" is too indulgent. And if psychology is efficacious in manipulating the formulation of decisions and experiences defined personally conditioned data (e.g. Propaganda, Marketing, Public Relations, etc.) then does this not undermine the subjectivity of individual experience? Or better yet, individuality?
You've been "conditioned" (inculcated, programmed by instinct and primary childhood experiences) similarly to myself (inter-subjectively).
How were we conditioned similarly?
Because I'm communicating with you. This logically means our brains must necessarily share basic similarities.
Once again, are we? I could be a figment of your imagination especially if one is going to argue that belief is a personal set of conditioned data. Your response is subject to that which you believe to be true about the "human" brain.
Simply by making a statement (any statement) you are implicitly raising your ego above others.
For example, What significance does the statement, "what significance does this bear to anyone other than you?" bear to anyone other than you?
Except that I'm not the one arguing that belief is intrasubjective. I'm using his premise to demonstrate contradiction.
Ultimately, yes. Yes, the issue IS whether you find it interesting.
No it isn't. I do find it interesting, and my participation conveys as much. But that's what I meant by "significance."
Generally speaking. There may be a few exceptions, but those exceptions are incapable of intellectual interaction (self-excluding).
How is this a general rule when the rule is also subject to its own description? And there are exceptions that are incapable of intellectual interaction, then how are you aware of them?
It seems to reasonably reflect my experiences as well, and from what I can gather, it does not conflict with the data I've accumulated on "others".
But all that data consists of your personally conditioned data.
Exactly like when you find yourself speaking to someone else in a dream.Can you learn about someone who only exists in a dream? Can someone who only exists in a dream teach you something about yourself?
No less than I can learn about someone else. And I wouldn't know if a figure in my dream could teach me something about myself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Because it is a broad range of topics that that covers a lot of ground. If you really, really, want me to address every single point at once, I'm just going to provide you a link with all of the information, but I'm not thinking that's what you want.
No it isn't. If I sought to have the information repeated to me, I could easily do the research myself--and I've done so in the past. You asked, "Which would you like to discuss more in-depth?" I cannot have a discussion with a web-page.
I'm prepared to discuss any of them that you want. I just don't think it is useful to try and do them all at once.
Then why would you list them all at once? And if you're prepared, then have at it.
I am already going at the pace I wish to go.
Good.
I turn the floor over to you, and await selection of any point you wish to delve into more deeply.
I already told you, "all of it." You offered all those points in response to my question. So I'm going to assume all of those points are relevant.
If you do not wish to delve into any of those points, then I will take refusal as either lack of genuine interest in the subject matter or concession of the point at hand.
You're not in position to take anything as anything. You responded to a question that wasn't directed at you. As is your prerogative, you can participate in any query on a public forum. As is my prerogative, I am now indulging you. You listed your points in response to my question. I'm going to presume they are relevant. I am "interested" in seeing how you substantiate this relevance. Hence, I'm "interested" in discussing all of your points. So in essence, get to your points.
If you really, really, really, want to tackle every single point rightthisminute,
Who said anything about "right this minute?" I said, "feel free to go at your own pace." If you need to divide your response into several posts, then do so. If you want to consolidate each of your posts into one post, then do so. I don't mind reading the entirety of your prospective post(s).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Why? Why would you list all of those points if you're not prepared to discuss them all, especially in the context of my question? Feel free to go at your own pace. I will examine your response once all points have been addressed as well as the relation to my question is made clear. The floor is yours.I think it'd be best if we take things one at a time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So then, how is this:Belief is YOUR evaluation of YOUR personal set of conditioned data (INTRA-SUBJECTIVE).
YOU were largely programmed (INCULCATED) to believe most of what you think that you believe (BASE PROGRAMMING, FIRMWARE).Once YOU have been formatively programmed (INCULCATED, BIOS FLASHED) it becomes very difficult to properly re-programme (FIRMWARE UPDATE). It's very difficult to change your mind (RE-PROGRAM, DE-PROGRAM).
not subject to your first point? Do we share a personal set of conditioned data?
It is a description of my understanding of how the human brain works.
How can you make any conclusions about the human brain, when your belief is constrained to your personal set of conditioned data? What does "human" denote outside of your personally conditioned data?
You might find it "useful" to (EITHER) understand how your own brain works (OR) as insight into how to better communicate with me.
How can you know how "my" brain works?
Keep in mind, it is the epitome of HUBRIS to share your opinion with another person.
How so?
You can't honestly ask, "what significance does this bear to anyone other than you?" without turning that question back on itself (back on yourself).It's self-defeating.
How so?
The "answer" is, (EITHER) you find it interesting (OR) you don't.
The issue isn't whether I find it interesting; zedvictor proposed a metric of belief to which all are subject, no? Then you argue that it's intrasubjective. So then zedvictor's metric subjects only his own experiences. (Hence, I ask the significance of his metric to anyone other than himself.) If you're going to argue that it's instead "inter"-subjective, then I ask, what is inter-subjevtivity if not a composite of purely intra-subjective experiences?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Despite drafterman's inclusion, I request that you still answer the question I posed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Which would you like to discuss more in-depth?
All of it. Make sure, however, you incorporate each point to the question I asked.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
B. I'm not really a proponent of assumed objectivity. I think that anything intra-subjective, is just that.
So then what significance does this:
Belief is your evaluation of your personal set of conditioned data.You were largely programmed to believe most of what you think that you believe.Once you have been formatively programmed it becomes very difficult to properly re-programme. It's very difficult to change your mind.You don't just recall every individual bit of data and re-sequence it according to the mood of the moment.Your personally held data is already stored in specific sequences and automatically utilised as such.
bear to anyone other than you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
@zedvictor4
A. What do you assume is my "proposed metric". Perhaps you could clarify.
Please explain what you mean by "your proposed metric".
This is what I mean:
Belief is your evaluation of your personal set of conditioned data.You were largely programmed to believe most of what you think that you believe.Once you have been formatively programmed it becomes very difficult to properly re-programme. It's very difficult to change your mind.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Well, you have stated at post 30:it has not been demonstrated that anyone on the planet has a mental "illness
If you're going to quote me, quote me verbatim:
So as of yet, it has not been demonstrated that anyone on the planet has a mental "illness."
My question has everything to do with your own statement that - "no one on the planet has a mental illness"
Never made that statement. Read my response again.
and the topic of this thread.
The topic of this thread is "Should churches give free psychological evaluations?" (Really, it's just an attempt at defamation.) Your attempt to engage a dispute over the lexicon of the Bible has nothing to do with this thread's subject.
So it would be nice if you could answer the question instead of avoiding it by posing your own question.
Once again, I do not "avoid" questions which I have no obligation to answer. And I'm not going to engage you in a discussion over Bible quotes. As I've already told you in the other thread, you have demonstrated the incapacity and/or unwillingness to support your claims. That hasn't changed. I will not indulge intellectual regress by engaging you in redundancy. So enjoy your day, Stephen.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
How does reality, as far as you can tell, substantiate evolution?Reality in so much as we are able to know what reality possibly is, substantiates evolution.
As one assumes that the human one is the only argument. Therefore, human arguments are just that.
You've made a statement similar to this one quite some time back, so I'll ask you the same question: if you have no conception of "the whole" then how can you relate the extent of your knowledge to it in any way? Why are presuming that they are just assumptions?
Created:
-->
@Singularity
Should I seek help then?That is silly. Not everybody displaying a symptom or even multiple symptoms of early onset schizophrenia will have it.
If want you want to understand in depth the nature of "mental illness" and its pervasive use in psychological/psychiatric lexicon, then read Thomas Szaz's "Myth of Mental Illness" should my arguments prove unconvincing, and you need an outside reference.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Disagreeing with a statement doesn't make it unintelligible. But to admit that you're merely disagreeing would mean your assuming responsibility for your disagreement. Instead, you'd rather attempt to pathologize Mopac's statements to circumvent your owning up to fact that your disagreement is solely based on opinion. Rather than expose your contention as opinion, you're making him out to be "mentally ill."he also says stuff like God is truth, with truth being defined as "an honest statement". No,honest statements are not divine, even if the divine does make them, the statement itself is not a God lol.
Created:
Also I am not presenting a diagnosis. Just because he has displayed symptoms of early onset schizophrenia does not mean he has it, which is why it is a good ideal to seek help, and I say "before it is too late" because if medicated early, schizophrenia can be a non issue in somebody's life, so yes if you see somebody displaying obvious symptoms you have a moral obligation to point them towards help
Your recommendation comes from an online dictionary. Your premise is based literally on lexical semantics.
Created:
-->
@Singularity
Cats, Logs, Fidelus, Soyez-vous, moto kudasai, Friendly, Dog, Hairs. Am I now schizophrenic because I strung these words together? "Word salad" is nothing more than a gimmicky neologism that disguises psychology's incapacity as of yet to substantiate a pathological and/or biochemical basis for their diagnoses. As of yet, there's no presentation of a biochemical basis for schizophrenia, "schizophasia," logorrhea, etc.Um word salad is a symptom https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-word-salad.html
Created:
-->
@Singularity
He has clear signs of early onset schizophrenia.
And what has Mopac said that permits you to conclude that Mopac exhibits signs of early onset schizophrenia? What experience do you have with gauging these signs that puts you in a position to make such a diagnosis from online commentary?
The word salad and delusions just being a few
Word salads are not a "sign" of schizophrenia nor is your impression of Mopac's "delusion."
I can't diagnose him because I am not his therapist but it is perfectly fine to attempt to get somebody help before it is too late.
"Help before it is too late"? Too late for what? You just said you can't diagnose Mopac but you're already making conclusions about the unsubstantiated prospects you allege?
No, you're just trying to pathologize Mopac's participation by alleging "mental illness" which is clear you don't fully understand.
Just like when I see people with suicidal ideation I can't conclude they are suicidal but I point them towards resources they can utilize.
Irrelevant.
I am not saying being spiritual is a symptom of mental illness, most spiritual people do not have mental illness, but he has shown clear signs,
You're not saying much of anything, much less substantiating your accusations or metrics.
You are preventing him from getting the help he needs by denying his obvious symptoms and signs
No, I'm challenging the reasoning and integrity of one who would conceive a thread accusing a member(s) of suffering mental "illness." What did you expect to come of this thread? Perhaps the more prudent approach would have been to discuss this privately with Mopac, should you have had genuine concern for Mopac's well-being. It's "obvious" that you're attempting to defame his character with these unsubstantiated and what I believe to be libelous claims.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I know. So then would the metric not be subject to the metric? Or is this merely being proposed as tautological?It applies equally to both "intra-subjective" belief (AND) "inter-subjective" belief.
Compelling evidence (Uniform Standards Of Evidence, USOE).
Not exactly what I sought; when you said "being convinced" you were describing yourself. How would define "being convinced"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
Evolution is a fact.
That argument has yet to be substantiated. Why don't you give it a try?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Belief is your evaluation of your personal set of conditioned data.You were largely programmed to believe most of what you think that you believe.Once you have been formatively programmed it becomes very difficult to properly re-programme. It's very difficult to change your mind.You don't just recall every individual bit of data and re-sequence it according to the mood of the moment.Your personally held data is already stored in specific sequences and automatically utilised as such.
Wouldn't this very argument be subject to your proposed metric, diminishing its implied "objectivity" or "inter-subjectivity"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I've been CONVINCED.I never chose to be CONVINCED.
How would you define "convinced?"
Created:
-->
@Singularity
That is clearly also not true. I have mental illness.
That does not put you in a position to offer a pseudo-diagnosis using online commentary.
It is honestly offensive to me that pointing people towards help who have all the symptoms of mental illness comes across as offensive and people get defensive.
That which you find offensive is irrelevant. And you're not trying to point anyone towards help. You're merely attempting to trivialize their adherence to their religion and/or spiritual philosophy by assuming "psychological authority."
We all have problems and for example Mopac getting defensive about it instead of seeking help, makes me think he thinks I am less than him for suffering from something I can't help
Mopac did not ask for your help.
I never diagnosed you,
No you did not. You did, however, offer a pseudo-diagnosis based on some assumed psychological authority.
but you have all the symptoms and should seek a psychologist.
Once again, there are no "symptoms"; symptoms suggest pathology; pathology suggests biochemistry; as of yet, there has been no biochemical basis demonstrated.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Was Jesus "mad"? Anyone knows that to call someone "mad" is simply a cheap form of abuse. But what is it when the bible uses the word? What's more, what is it when Jesus' own family say of him having "lost his mind" - thought he was "crazy" - said "he's gone mad" - and to be "out of his mind" - and " he has become mad" ? Mark 3:21
What does any of this have to do with my response?
Created:
-->
@Reece101
I can’t because as I’m typing this, this isn’t the future.
So then why would you state this:
Go back and look at the examples so you understand to be carful not to twist context for future references.
My demand for a "direct reference" has nothing to do with your mention of "future reference." Provide me a direct reference to the examples you claim demonstrate my "twisting" your words.
I didn’t argue magic doesn’t exist.
I didn't state that you argued magic didn't exist; my statement is conditional and normative.
What argument?
These arguments:
It isn’t like Christianity existed for hundreds of thousands of years before it became the norm/state sponsored.
Postdiluvian figures, are you serious? The flood is a made up story. It was not an historical event.
The belief system you’ve espoused.
Which belief system is that?
What claim? What argument?
Look above.
What’s the task?
Supporting the claims I referenced above, or dropping them.
Created: