(March 3, 2016 at 3:30 am)Heat Wrote: Seems as though a religious person has put for his religious views "Logical".

Oh boy.

Yep. He's a Muslim, so I don't know why he doesn't just say that.

He'd make a great tag team with AAA!

Yeah! They both team up to trash science, then once they've done destroying all reason and knowledge, they fight to the death about which arbitrary explanation to fill the void with.

I can't be bothered to explain how he managed to ignore the content of yet another message. I'm not sure if such people consciously displace anything that might conflict with their pre-drawn conclusions, or whether their brain does it automatically and they don't notice.

(March 3, 2016 at 5:27 am)robvalue Wrote: I can't be bothered to explain how he managed to ignore the content of yet another message. I'm not sure if such people consciously displace anything that might conflict with their pre-drawn conclusions, or whether their brain does it automatically and they don't notice.

Maybe this is why consciousness seems phenomenal to Harris. Because he doesn't really know why he acts and thinks the way he does.

Harris you're pretty good at replying to comments and you have had a lot to reply to but I just want to remind you that you forgot to reply to my comment this time.  I was talking about the laws of science.

(March 2, 2016 at 12:11 pm)Harris Wrote:

(February 29, 2016 at 9:06 pm)IATIA Wrote: There is no such thing as a 'particle'.  What is referred to as particles are 'regular' fluctuations of a field, whereas "virtual particles' are irregular fluctuations of a field.  And they are both real and detectable.  Else how would we know they are there?

Virtual Particles: What are they?

Please explain how virtual particle are similar to fluctuation of a field. Also clarify about which field we are talking and what exactly is that field.

I answered the first part and the second is explained in the link which obviously you did not see fit to peruse either.

(March 3, 2016 at 6:59 am)paulpablo Wrote: Harris you're pretty good at replying to comments and you have had a lot to reply to but I just want to remind you that you forgot to reply to my comment this time.  I was talking about the laws of science.

No, I don't think he's that good at it.  In my experience, he will argue a point until it's clearly lost, and then dig up other people's posts, keeping himself in a constant state of distraction so that he never actually has to face the music of the END of a line of duscussion.  I believe the reason for this is obvious-- the end of any line of discussion will end up at the same point: the God idea is unworkable.

If I recall, this tendency became obvious maybe 6 months or so ago, and the consensus was that someone should engage Harris in a 1:1 debate, which was promptly offered, accepted, and then dodged.  Pressing school needs, I think it was.

If I am wrong, and it was someone else, then forgive me.  But I recommend that Harris engage in a 1:1 debate with someone, so that there are no fresh cherries to pick, and a line of inquiry can reach all the way to its conclusion.

(March 1, 2016 at 8:40 am)Rhythm Wrote: Infinite regress is a problem for logic, not for the universe.  We can't reach a conclusion out of infinite regress, by definition.

Infinite regress is not a problem for an accidentally ordered series, but it is a problem for essentially ordered sequences.

(March 2, 2016 at 4:54 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Postulating an uncaused anything is not very logical.  It's a leap of faith.

Merely taking the world as intelligible is a leap of faith. Believing that we can know anything is a leap of faith. There are no 'purely' rational positions.

(March 2, 2016 at 1:26 pm)Rhythm Wrote: No, logic starts with a premise.  Full stop.

And what you think a premise is?

(March 2, 2016 at 1:26 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Let's run with it, though.  You have just declared that any logic involving a god demands that the god premise be observable.  

Is this your intention, will you be satisfied with your demands when I ask to be made party to such an observation?  How about I ask you to demonstrate that your god concept is even intelligible?  Rational?  Do you intend to honor your own statements, however correct or incorrect they may be?

This is called putting words in others mouth. Remember what I said, “Logic always starts from observable and intelligible objects and then goes to metaphysical concepts.”