(September 21, 2015 at 9:03 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It's not that I just "assume" that materialism is correct; I've just been presented with loads of evidence to that effect and only empty talk to the contrary. Open the curtain and show me the Mind-Thing or admit that your Gaud is just as nebulous and unreasonable as the rest of them.

ok... i'm going to give one last shot at trying to show you the circularity of your logic by means of a comparative argument that you will definitely recognize as circular. if this doesn't work then my words are just falling on deaf ears.
Form
we have X, and think Y explains X.
Reason
because we have X.
This is begging the question.

Claim
first person- we have X (the experience a world) and think Y (the world is made of material substance that exists apart from experience).
second person- we have X (the bible) and think Y (everything it says is true).
Reason
first person- because we have evidence from X (the experience of a world).
second person- because it says so in X (the bible).

do you get it yet? observational evidence is evidence from experience... so it can't be used as evidence for why and how we experience. it's circular... it's question begging... it's fallacious...

Redbeard The Pink Wrote:Your only reason for attempting to forward a metaphysical claim about physical nature is to put your questions and assertions beyond the scope of evidence because as soon as evidence is brought up, you crumble.

again... it is not beyond the scope of evidence if you use the actual definition of evidence rather than your skewed made up definition... evidence- "something which shows that something else exists or is true..." do you see observable in that definition there? what about empirical? no? ok. moving on.

Redbeard The Pink Wrote:Evidence cannot be refuted or explained away

except by counter evidence... or by providing a better explanation for it...

Redbeard The Pink Wrote:so you have endeavored to disallow all physical evidence from the discussion and create something whose real existence can be asserted without the need for evidence.

i'm sorry... I didn't create anything... I haven't unilaterally 'disallowed' empirical evidence... it's simply fallacious to infer the nature of experience with evidence from the contents of experience. I don't make up logic. look it up...

Redbeard The Pink Wrote:There is no such thing. If something really exists, it's possible to show it.

does show exclude inference? because science infers a lot about what can't be physically shown... sure they infer from empirical evidence, but they infer nonetheless.
another thing... why is it reasonable to use reason to come to a conclusion who's premises are based on empirical evidence... but not to come to a conclusion based on a premise that is based on what we know is true, but is not empirical?

Redbeard The Pink Wrote:Period. If you can't show it, you don't know it, no matter how good it sounds to you.

let me try this one last time... see if I can get you to actually answer it rather than dodging... AHEM... how do you know this (If you can't show it, you don't know it)? can you show that's true?

(September 21, 2015 at 9:15 am)emjay Wrote: @Rational AKD

Hello. I think your theories are very interesting but how are they connected with Christianity? It's one thing to say we're all figments of God's imagination and living in a simulation, but why this God and this religion rather than any other? I guess what I'm asking is which came first in you, Christianity or this theory?

hello. the argument presented isn't necessarily an argument for Christianity. really it's an argument for monistic idealism, though a separate and easy argument can show how idealism implies theism. but that's the most you can take the argument's implications. this argument didn't convince me to become a Christian. I was first a Christian, but I was a dualist. this argument convinced me to become an idealist and abandon dualism. I have separate reasons that I am a Christian, which are off the topic of discussion.

(September 21, 2015 at 2:27 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: again... it is not beyond the scope of evidence if you use the actual definition of evidence rather than your skewed made up definition... evidence- "something which shows that something else exists or is true..." do you see observable in that definition there? what about empirical? no? ok. moving on.

(Emphasis mine)


That would be "shows," bro. "Shows" is the part of that definition that speaks to evidence being observable, empirical, and sharable amongst peers. "Shows." If you can't show it, you don't know it.

Quote:except by counter evidence... or by providing a better explanation for it...

Those things can be applied to explanations of evidence, but evidence stands. Once a piece of evidence is legitimately demonstrated to exist, there is basically no ignoring it, especially not using reason alone.

Quote:does show exclude inference? because science infers a lot about what can't be physically shown... sure they infer from empirical evidence, but they infer nonetheless.

(Emphasis Mine)


Exactly. They infer things from evidence, and they're allowed to do that because evidence can be physically shown. Reason can be used to draw conclusions from evidence because the conclusions are backed by evidence and not just reason. If the conclusion is contended, whoever made it has every right to say, "Ok, either offer evidence of your contrary claim, and/or provide a better explanation for the evidence I have here, and/or provide further evidence for why my conclusion is wrong and why yours is better." They're allowed to say that because they have evidence, and evidence does not go away.


You, on the other hand, can be dismissed with little more than the wave of a hand, and yet people are still nice enough to try to reason with you and explain what evidence is and why it stands up to scrutiny. Personally, I'm doing less and less of that because it seems to be a pretty major waste of time.

Quote:let me try this one last time... see if I can get you to actually answer it rather than dodging... AHEM... how do you know this (If you can't show it, you don't know it)? can you show that's true?

It's a simple fact of how the word "knowledge" is defined. Knowledge is distinct from belief because knowledge requires evidence, whereas belief does not. Beliefs could be based on evidence, but knowledge is ALWAYS based on evidence, and evidence by definition can be shown. If you cannot demonstrate something, you do not know it; you merely believe it, and if you believe it without evidence, then you believe it on faith. You cannot claim to have knowledge unless you have evidence, and belief without evidence (faith) is the most intellectually dishonest position it's possible to hold.

Logic requires both a valid form -and- sound propositions.  To call something sound...we must be able to -show- that it is true.  A person has no business asking another to prove the "assumption" that knowledge requires that something can be shown...while using a system that offers the promise of knowledge -if and only if- the truth of the premises can be shown. -If- it is an assumption, it is shared by all who attempt to leverage logic. Those who would doubt that, even as an assumption......don't get to play with the logic blocks and expect or claim truth (or criticize the positions of others) on that basis anymore.

Even reason requires evidence, and evidence must be.......evident, or it isn't evidence - it's something else.

Now, we can play with logic, we can arrange those blocks and allow premises -without- evidence (for sake of discussion, for example), but only as an exercise in the craft of forming arguments - it does not, at that point, have the ability to determine truth, because those stated conditions have not been met. In the end, conclusions we reach without having checked off both boxes -may be true-, but they won't be true for the reasons we've given...and so it's nonsensical to call them proven. They are simply accepted, or not.

As an example, AKD has -accepted- idealism.....in this case, however, neither of those two boxes have been checked off. While, ultimately, what AKD has accepted may be true, it isn't so for the reasons stated, and AKD has provided neither himself nor us with any knowledge on that issue. There's nothing wrong in this, of course....we operate on assumptions that either we, personally, can't prove...or that may not be provable -all day long-. We often call them axioms.

(September 21, 2015 at 2:33 pm)Rational AKD Wrote:

(September 21, 2015 at 9:15 am)emjay Wrote: @Rational AKD

Hello. I think your theories are very interesting but how are they connected with Christianity? It's one thing to say we're all figments of God's imagination and living in a simulation, but why this God and this religion rather than any other? I guess what I'm asking is which came first in you, Christianity or this theory?

hello. the argument presented isn't necessarily an argument for Christianity. really it's an argument for monistic idealism, though a separate and easy argument can show how idealism implies theism. but that's the most you can take the argument's implications. this argument didn't convince me to become a Christian. I was first a Christian, but I was a dualist. this argument convinced me to become an idealist and abandon dualism. I have separate reasons that I am a Christian, which are off the topic of discussion.

Thank you for your reply and your honesty   I found myself drawn to your theory both for its originality and because of its 'ground up' approach, which is the same sort of way I'd think about these things. I've done my own thought experiments about simulations and one came to a similar (or perhaps not?) conclusion of god as techie playing something like the Sims. It wasn't serious - I don't believe in that - but it was still food for thought, and still a possibility that would allow for an afterlife and all the omni's. So when I saw your theory, written in heavy duty logic (which is beyond me but which I trust much more than mere ideas) I was naturally curious and since you were a Christian I wanted to know if one implied the other and I would have been willing to listen if it did but I couldn't see how it could. So thank you again for that honesty.

I'm not a dualist, though I suppose I do 'regress' to it sometimes without thinking. I'm interested in Neuroscience, Neural Networks, and computational theories of the mind and as it stands they give me the comfort of thinking that the mind problem is solvable and that we're on our way, but nonetheless there is that unbridged gap between the physical workings of the brain and the experience of mind. So even though the brain's neural networks make perfect sense for what we experience in consciousness, and they are directly correlated such that surgery, drugs, or stimulation will have predictable results on that experience, it still doesn't answer the question of how that experience is created from something physical like the brain. So that's why your theory, as a possible alternative to that, was interesting to me.

(September 21, 2015 at 4:16 pm)emjay Wrote: Thank you for your reply and your honesty   I found myself drawn to your theory both for its originality and because of its 'ground up' approach, which is the same sort of way I'd think about these things.

yes, it is quite an original argument. though I cannot take credit for it, credit is given in the OP. and I always try and word arguments from the ground up so it can be plainly seen that I am not arguing from the conclusion backwards.

emjay Wrote:I've done my own thought experiments about simulations and one came to a similar (or perhaps not?) conclusion of god as techie playing something like the Sims. It wasn't serious - I don't believe in that - but it was still food for thought, and still a possibility that would allow for an afterlife and all the omni's. So when I saw your theory, written in heavy duty logic (which is beyond me but which I trust much more than mere ideas) I was naturally curious and since you were a Christian I wanted to know if one implied the other and I would have been willing to listen if it did but I couldn't see how it could. So thank you again for that honesty.

I don't know of something that can surely connect the two, though I must say there are some curious implications in the bible that may appear to hint at it. such as morality being taught as emanating from personal intentions of the heart rather than actions one physically performs. the doctrine that you are to purify your inner self, not just obey a set of rules.

emjay Wrote:I'm not a dualist, though I suppose I do 'regress' to it sometimes without thinking. I'm interested in Neuroscience, Neural Networks, and computational theories of the mind and as it stands they give me the comfort of thinking that the mind problem is solvable and that we're on our way, but nonetheless there is that unbridged gap between the physical workings of the brain and the experience of mind.

there actually are some interesting findings in neuroscience when they are researched within the field of quantum biology; a field of biology that takes quantum processes into account when explaining biological processes. and given the brain is quantum computing, the same quantum rules and effects apply and that would include the implications of the measurement problem. this gives a case for immaterial soul causing collapse in quantum brain processing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_xEraQWvgM

emjay Wrote:So that's why your theory, as a possible alternative to that, was interesting to me.

i'm glad you're intrigued. though I would say it's must more than a mere possibility, or an interesting thought. I would say on face value it is a possibility and interesting thought, but the argument shows that mere possibility implies the conclusion is actually true. the difference means mind is in fact not reducible to matter, and given dualism is false monistic idealism entails.

(September 21, 2015 at 4:55 pm)Rational AKD Wrote:

(September 21, 2015 at 4:16 pm)emjay Wrote: Thank you for your reply and your honesty   I found myself drawn to your theory both for its originality and because of its 'ground up' approach, which is the same sort of way I'd think about these things.

yes, it is quite an original argument. though I cannot take credit for it, credit is given in the OP. and I always try and word arguments from the ground up so it can be plainly seen that I am not arguing from the conclusion backwards.

Thanks, I'll make note of the author and look it up. Usually the only way I can be convinced, or convince myself of an argument is from the ground up.

Rational AKD Wrote:

emjay Wrote:I've done my own thought experiments about simulations and one came to a similar (or perhaps not?) conclusion of god as techie playing something like the Sims. It wasn't serious - I don't believe in that - but it was still food for thought, and still a possibility that would allow for an afterlife and all the omni's. So when I saw your theory, written in heavy duty logic (which is beyond me but which I trust much more than mere ideas) I was naturally curious and since you were a Christian I wanted to know if one implied the other and I would have been willing to listen if it did but I couldn't see how it could. So thank you again for that honesty.

I don't know of something that can surely connect the two, though I must say there are some curious implications in the bible that may appear to hint at it. such as morality being taught as emanating from personal intentions of the heart rather than actions one physically performs. the doctrine that you are to purify your inner self, not just obey a set of rules.

If I was ever to become a Christian again it would not be because of anything said in the Bible. I'm afraid to say that door is forever closed to me... and locked. I just thought it would be very ironic if I became a theist again because of quantum physics

Rational AKD Wrote:

emjay Wrote:I'm not a dualist, though I suppose I do 'regress' to it sometimes without thinking. I'm interested in Neuroscience, Neural Networks, and computational theories of the mind and as it stands they give me the comfort of thinking that the mind problem is solvable and that we're on our way, but nonetheless there is that unbridged gap between the physical workings of the brain and the experience of mind.

there actually are some interesting findings in neuroscience when they are researched within the field of quantum biology; a field of biology that takes quantum processes into account when explaining biological processes. and given the brain is quantum computing, the same quantum rules and effects apply and that would include the implications of the measurement problem. this gives a case for immaterial soul causing collapse in quantum brain processing.

Thanks for the video, it was very interesting, though I won't claim to have fully understood it, especially in such a condensed (8 minute) form. But what did go in was fascinating. I was aware in general, though not in detail, of the microtubules theory of quantum effects in the brain but I didn't know a whole field had arisen from it, so yeah, that will very interesting to look into   My knowledge of quantum physics is limited - I've read Feynman's QED and a couple of other books but that's about it. But it is fascinating and I'll probably try and find a book on the subject (of quantum biology).

Rational AKD Wrote:

emjay Wrote:So that's why your theory, as a possible alternative to that, was interesting to me.

i'm glad you're intrigued. though I would say it's must more than a mere possibility, or an interesting thought. I would say on face value it is a possibility and interesting thought, but the argument shows that mere possibility implies the conclusion is actually true. the difference means mind is in fact not reducible to matter, and given dualism is false monistic idealism entails.

Well basically I only have a basic grasp of logic so I can't pick apart a logical argument, premise by premise, like others can on this site - so I'll just wait to see who wins in this thread But it is interesting and I can't 'unsee' it so rest assured I will be thinking about it, and even more if it stands up to all scrutiny.

(September 21, 2015 at 6:13 pm)emjay Wrote: Thanks, I'll make note of the author and look it up. Usually the only way I can be convinced, or convince myself of an argument is from the ground up.

I don't think he's an author. but he's on youtube under that name.

emjay Wrote:If I was ever to become a Christian again it would not be because of anything said in the Bible. I'm afraid to say that door is forever closed to me... and locked. I just thought it would be very ironic if I became a theist again because of quantum physics

well, irony always has its way of working into our lives. no one can say for sure what the future holds. I'm pretty knowledgeable in apologetics if you ever have questions you can PM me.

emjay Wrote:Well basically I only have a basic grasp of logic so I can't pick apart a logical argument, premise by premise, like others can on this site - so I'll just wait to see who wins in this thread But it is interesting and I can't 'unsee' it so rest assured I will be thinking about it, and even more if it stands up to all scrutiny.

well, it's something to look at if you choose to do so or not. and I don't think anyone really wins on these threads... people just get mad, or just disagree and give up. once in a blue moon people who are strongly biased against each other find an agreement where one was swayed to the other side... but that's very rare.

(September 21, 2015 at 1:49 pm)Rational AKD Wrote:

(September 21, 2015 at 5:51 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: Ultimately your entire argument falls down because you invoke the metaphysical which by definition is beyond the mind or the senses.

yet again someone stating the argument is invalid on principle rather than by false premises or invalid logic... ok. i'll bite.

RaphielDrake Wrote:Therefore a concept you can comprehend by definition cannot be branded a metaphysical concept.

is that metaphysically true? if it is, then how do you know it? if it's not, then how can you say it?
just because it's beyond our senses, doesn't mean we can't use reason and deduction to infer something of it. it just means we can't use what we experience to infer something of it... because the contents of experience can only infer the contents of experience... not the nature of how and why we experience.

RaphielDrake Wrote:The mind is something you can comprehend. You even conceded "you can think of it as a product of material interactions or its own substance". Thats entirely accurate.

of course I gave that as a possibility in the definition... if I didn't then I would be question begging. the point of the argument was to deduce that possibility as false through introspection. just saying 'it's false by definition isn't a valid argument because definitions are arbitrary.

[quote-RaphielDrake] Infact neuroscience outright proves this. It is the result of biological components interacting.

but you just said 'you can comprehend by definition cannot be branded a metaphysical concept...' yet you're using knowledge we gather from conscious experience to infer the metaphysical nature of conscious experience... IE, that it's purely physical... and second, biological components interacting only shows how materials interact... not mind... try not to refute yourself next time.

RaphielDrake Wrote:You are creating a mystery where none exists because you want to perceive it as something more and you can't without attempting to invoke the metaphysical which as stated is an oxymoron.

you do realize that denying the metaphysical is still a metaphysical claim... right? you can't deny something without inferring something about that something... if you're denying X, you're still talking about X.
[/quote]

"yet again someone stating the argument is invalid on principle rather than by false premises or invalid logic... ok. i'll bite."

Given that I gave my reasons and demonstrations of invalid logic after my statement that your argument was invalid you would appear to be creating a claim of sweeping and unreasonable denial where none occured. I don't know why you have chosen to do that as I was rather polite and reasonable in how I addressed you but you have and I think thats rather disingenuous, very rude and slightly insulting. However, I am truly honored that you are even bothering to "bite". Such distinguished company as yourself obviously could of gotten away with a nibble. I am truly humbled to be conversing with you. Moving on.


"just because it's beyond our senses, doesn't mean we can't use reason and deduction to infer something of it."

If you're operating under the definition of metaphysical hats exactly what it means. Part of the very definition of metaphysical means its beyond our senses and beyond our comprehension. If the metaphysical were indeed a thing that existed it would not only mean that your deduction and reasoning skills would be grossly inadequate but it would also mean you can't throw random concepts that you clearly do have a grasp of under its umbrella. The metaphysical is something you can debate the existance of but it is not something you can label things with otherwise it is by definition not metaphysical. 
You can not have it both ways.


"of course I gave that as a possibility in the definition... if I didn't then I would be question begging. the point of the argument was to deduce that possibility as false through introspection. just saying 'it's false by definition isn't a valid argument because definitions are arbitrary."

Definitions are how human beings communicate concisely and effectively, without them civilization cannot function. If the word you are using does not fit what you are describing then its important that is addressed so we can find the right word for what you are describing. Otherwise we are forever lost in translation.
Things that are demonstrably, physically true can not be argued away. It is not just a "possibility" that mind is something formed by biological components interacting within our brains. It is a tangible, physical fact we can demonstrate and experiment with. If you do not think those are important I encourage you to try and live without food for a week. Philosophy is a good tool to use for subjects we have no material evidence to go on. However "If a tree falls down in the forest-" etc etc is only an interesting question so far as I don't have a tape recorder to leave in that forest. If I do it becomes rather pointless.


"but you just said 'you can comprehend by definition cannot be branded a metaphysical concept...' yet you're using knowledge we gather from conscious experience to infer the metaphysical nature of conscious experience... IE, that it's purely physical... and second, biological components interacting only shows how materials interact... not mind... try not to refute yourself next time."

I would like to point out that you have yet to establish there is a metaphysical nature to conscious experience and that I myself never made any metaphysical claims on the nature of the mind. I merely stated that you cannot throw concepts you can comprehend, mind included, under that umbrella.  I can prove the mind is the result of physical interactions through physical evidence. Can you give me something of equal strength for your metaphysical claims or is it based entirely on an assumption? 
You don't seem to have found space in your retort to do that although you did seem to find time to insert more rudeness in place of actual points.


"you do realize that denying the metaphysical is still a metaphysical claim... right? you can't deny something without inferring something about that something... if you're denying X, you're still talking about X."

I made no claims on the existence of the metaphysical. I denied your right to put whatever you please under its umbrella. By its definition you have no such right.

If you do decide to put in more blatant rudeness with your points I would ask you to take into account three things. 
1. It makes you look like you're putting in filler instead of points. 
2. I've been polite up until now. 
3. I have a vast and varied experience of intense sarcasm and am far, far better at it than you will ever be.

(September 21, 2015 at 8:50 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(September 21, 2015 at 5:51 am)RaphielDrake Wrote: The mind is something you can comprehend. You even conceded "you can think of it as a product of material interactions or its own substance". Thats entirely accurate. Infact neuroscience outright proves this. It is the result of biological components interacting.

Given the nature of the OP, I don't think this comment really gets to the salient issues.  You have to get a lot deeper to get to the philosophical arguments here.

Why stop there? There are so many subjects we need to go deep into and reach the philosophical truths of. 
I mean, we assume cars travel through locomotion caused by a combustion engine but maybe theres a metaphysical aspect to that too. Something we can't comprehend in the background that helps make it move.
Why these metaphysical questions are only directed towards god and the mind is an utter mystery to me. I'm sure it has nothing to do with ego or a fear of death.