(March 2, 2016 at 3:48 pm)Alex K Wrote:

(March 2, 2016 at 12:09 pm)Harris Wrote: I think this lecture would give anyone a good understanding about what particles are and how they can be detected. Please note, throughout the lecture you will not hear anything about virtual particles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q944yL8wSFE

But, Harris, I was going to play Socrates with you for a bit, and if you just reply by posting hour long Youtube videos, that's kind of lame and not conducive to a discussion

So, how does one detect a "real particle" in your opinion?

You are giving question which demand long technical answer and therefore instead of going through all that boring exercise I proposed you a video that gives all technical details on the tools and methods which scientists are using to detect particles.

Frankly speaking I do not understand the purpose of your question which seems to me irrelevant to the subject of this thread.

(March 2, 2016 at 5:49 pm)little_monkey Wrote:

(March 2, 2016 at 12:10 pm)Harris Wrote: Logic always starts from observable and intelligible objects

Yes, that was the point of the syllogism.

Quote:and then goes to metaphysical concepts.

You would need to prove that.

I had depicted a general view on how logic works. It always starts from intelligible objects however it may end in other observable object or in some metaphysical concept. It all depends upon what you are trying to explore by the use of logic.

(March 3, 2016 at 3:04 am)robvalue Wrote: I wonder what it's like living in a world where the only two options are:

1) Current scientific theory explains everything 100%

and

2) My favourite book filled with magical stories is true

I'm quite content with option 3.

Oh really!

Did science tell you what your own subjective experiences are?
Did science tell you what happens to us after we die?
Did science tell you what exactly gravity is?
Did science tell you something about the mechanism of Natural Selection?
Did science tell you what is the first living being on earth and how it came into being?

Etc. etc. etc.

My favourite book at least gives some understanding in logical way to all puzzling concepts and giving guidance on how to live in harmony with others and tells us the purpose of our lives. It tells what is good for us and what is not. It threatens mischief makers and give good tidings to those who show their patience and scarify their wild desires for the goodwill of the community of which they are part of.

Sure, if you have selfish genes and you care for no one other than your own good will, pleasure, and comfort then my favourite book is not for you.

Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Maybe.
No.
Tuesday.
Maybe.
No.
Yes.
If I can be bothered.
I already covered this.
See above.
Yes.

(March 3, 2016 at 5:44 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(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.

I have already told you that you have no idea about philosophy. Phenomenal Consciousness is a term that is commonly used in philosophy for subjective experiences.

(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.

Thank you for appreciating my responses. I always endeavour to put things in their original form without contaminating them with fancy ideas that are subject to personal desires. God is the only logical answer to all puzzling questions that people have created intentionally for the purpose to resist the idea of God.

This time I have not responded you because Chad has given a fairly decent response which in my opinion does not require further elaborations.

“You're right descriptions are after-the-fact accounts. When someone asks, why did x, y, and z happen, they are not asking for an after-the-fact description of x, y, and z. They want to know what thing made x, y, and z happen, regardless of how that thing is described.”

(March 3, 2016 at 8:06 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(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.

I am only responding to your comments without adding or deleting anything from them. If you start asking me about “how can we detect particle” or giving me “fire breathing dragons,” etc. which have no relevance with the subject matter then what you think I would answer back. The kind of comments you are giving the kind of responses you are getting.

(March 4, 2016 at 5:02 am)robvalue Wrote: Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Maybe.
No.
Tuesday.
Maybe.
No.
Yes.
If I can be bothered.
I already covered this.
See above.
Yes.

Sometimes I have a feeling that people in this forum are quarrelling without knowing what they are quarrelling for.

(March 4, 2016 at 4:58 am)Harris Wrote:

(March 2, 2016 at 3:48 pm)Alex K Wrote: So, how does one detect a "real particle" in your opinion?

You are giving question which demand long technical answer and therefore instead of going through all that boring exercise I proposed you a video that gives all technical details on the tools and methods which scientists are using to detect particles.

Frankly speaking I do not understand the purpose of your question which seems to me irrelevant to the subject of this thread.

I am finding this hilarious.

A professional physicist is being lectured on his subject by a theist who knows nothing of the field or the scientific method and who instead of explaining himself posts links to videos created by peers of the physicist.

A classic example of the Dunning-Krueger effect.

(March 3, 2016 at 8:34 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(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.

Just as there are no purely rational motivations, right? The Vulcan lifestyle is an illusion.