(June 27, 2017 at 12:43 pm)Khemikal Wrote: -and you got that immediately, pages and pages and pages ago.

Evolutionary procesess selectively favor reliable brains.

I already responded to the claim in bold. Also, you cannot say for yourself that you have a super powerful and reliable brain inside your head unless an exterior being says that to you. Nobody can claim he has a good voice unless someone else hears him and confirms it. We can't say for ourselves that our brains are reliable since we have no idea what unreliable brains are like.

(June 27, 2017 at 12:43 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Our minds are reliable -regardless- of whether or not they are the work of a conscious.  Regardless of the existence of a "consciousness" our brains are the reliable product of evolutionary pressure.   There -is- no need to summon any supernatural creator.  

How can a product of an unconscious natural process be reliable ? How can unconsciousness generate minds capable of proving objective truths ? How can a product have abilities superior to its designer - which is evolutionary processes in this case - ?

(June 27, 2017 at 12:43 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Who cares, it obviously can produce a reliable mind

This is far from obvious, you need to demonstrate this claim to back up your theory about human minds reliability.

(June 27, 2017 at 12:43 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Your premises are demonstrably false, and your conclusion simply a restatement of those premises.  That you refuse to acknowledge that those premises have already been shown to be demonstrabnly false, however, is an indicator of how reliable -your- brain is.  Did the perfect being do that to you, or his guidance?

How can the first premise be false according to you ? My brain is CLEARLY not the work of a consciousness because it is a product of continous alterations of the genome, this process is NOT conscious. The second premise is still somehow debatable, but I'm still waiting to hear a reasonable objection instead of just asserting that everything I say is false without clarifying why.

(June 29, 2017 at 10:58 am)Parsim0ny Wrote: Only under the assumption that God exists one can know for sure that his mind is reliable.

Instead of immediately posting insulting meme photos, I'm going to give you a chance to reword this. I'm no dummy, and I'm pretty good with words, and I don't think these are words, in this order, can possibly represent an idea that you actually hold.

(June 29, 2017 at 11:15 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(June 29, 2017 at 10:58 am)Parsim0ny Wrote: Only under the assumption that God exists one can know for sure that his mind is reliable.

Instead of immediately posting insulting meme photos, I'm going to give you a chance to reword this.  I'm no dummy, and I'm pretty good with words, and I don't think these are words, in this order, can possibly represent an idea that you actually hold.

Sorry, I don't see anything wrong with my sentence. Can you point out the mistake for me ?

(June 29, 2017 at 11:12 am)Parsim0ny Wrote: How can a product of an unconscious natural process be reliable ?

Simple.  Organisms with unreliable minds are more likely to die out, leaving a gene pool of more reliable minds.

(June 29, 2017 at 11:12 am)Parsim0ny Wrote: I already responded to the claim in bold. Also, you cannot say for yourself that you have a super powerful and reliable brain inside your head unless an exterior being says that to you. Nobody can claim he has a good voice unless someone else hears him and confirms it. We can't say for ourselves that our brains are reliable since we have no idea what unreliable brains are like.

-and I saw the quality of your response.

I dont have a super powerful and reliable brain in my head.  I have a more powerful brain than a canary, that's reliable enough for my purposes.  An exterior being saying something to me won;t change any of that...and why would you trust the exterior beings word for it anyway?  Wouldn't they, then, by this batshit law of reliable minds you're proposing...need an exterior being to establish that?  And again, and again, and again..ad infinitum.

This is ignorance, Parsimony. All I have to do to sufficiently establiosh the reliability of a human mind is to see whether or not it produces useful and reliable results at it;s purpose. Acccurately modeling the environment to escape predation - for example. Check. Making profitable inferences as to where food may be found? Check. Correctly determining that my mate is not a simplteton...doublecheck.

That we can accurately and reliably make distinctions between a person with a reliable mind and a person with a deficient mind...again, shows us that there is no need to refer to some "exterior being". We have enough information, ourselves, here, to make that determination....and even if there were some batshit requirement of an "exterior being" then why doesn't some other human mind count? "Hey, Bill, is there a ball over there?" "Sure is Steve, why?" -Reliable mind confirmed.

Quote:How can a product of an unconscious natural process be reliable ?

Pretty simple, actually.  Let's say you have a cup in the sink, and the faucet above is dripping.  At some point, the faucet will fill the cup, and the cup will begin to reliably overflow to the tune of one drip per drop.  Ta-da.

Quote:How can unconsciousness generate minds capable of proving objective truths ?

On the one hand, it didn't..presumably your mother checked to see if your father seemed retarded before she spread her legs.  This is just one of the selective pressures involved in producing a species with reliable minds.  The other, being that members of a species with unreliable minds would..you know...die.  

Quote:How can a product have abilities superior to its designer - which is evolutionary processes in this case - ?

Evolutionary processes are not a designer.  There is no design, only what remains. This is a silly question on it's face, anyway. Are you wondering how a freight train is capable of hauling more than a human being - or wondering whether or not that's even possible?

Quote:This is far from obvious, you need to demonstrate this claim to back up your theory about human minds reliability.

Do you have a reliable mind?  Do you take that to be obvious?  Well, your reliable mind is an evolved mind.  Even if "goddidit" - that- is how he did it.  

Quote:How can the first premise be false according to you ?

You had parents, that's how.  Their assessments of whether or not their prospective mate was mentally deficient..presumably, went into producing your reliable mind.  

Or maybe it didn't......

Quote:My brain is CLEARLY not the work of a consciousness because it is a product of continous alterations of the genome, this process is NOT conscious.

What would your mother think if she heard you describe her that way?  

Quote:The second premise is still somehow debatable, but I'm still waiting to hear a reasonable objection instead of just asserting that everything I say is false without clarifying why.

No, the second premise is DOA.  Evolutionary processes are not only capable of producing reliable minds, they -did- produce reliable minds.  Or, at least, they produced my reliable mind.

Whether or not yours is reliable -is- debatable.

(June 29, 2017 at 11:21 am)Astreja Wrote: Simple.  Organisms with unreliable minds are more likely to die out, leaving a gene pool of more reliable minds.

This is an astonishing claim to make. I cannot trust a monkey to perform a heart surgery in my chest, even if it means that these monkeys are capable of selectively improving their fingers movements and become "more" reliable.

(June 29, 2017 at 10:58 am)Parsim0ny Wrote: Parsim0nyIf there is a God, who is by definition absolutely fair, he must make his creatures capable of knowing him and follow the right path. Therefore, I know my mind is reliable because God made it that way.

By whose definition is god fair?

---

(June 29, 2017 at 11:28 am)Parsim0ny Wrote:

(June 29, 2017 at 11:21 am)Astreja Wrote: Simple.  Organisms with unreliable minds are more likely to die out, leaving a gene pool of more reliable minds.

This is an astonishing claim to make. I cannot trust a monkey to perform a heart surgery in my chest, even if it means that these monkeys are capable of selectively improving their fingers movements and become "more" reliable.

You're an idiot.

(June 29, 2017 at 11:28 am)Parsim0ny Wrote:

(June 29, 2017 at 11:21 am)Astreja Wrote: Simple.  Organisms with unreliable minds are more likely to die out, leaving a gene pool of more reliable minds.

This is an astonishing claim to make. I cannot trust a monkey to perform a heart surgery in my chest, even if it means that these monkeys are capable of selectively improving their fingers movements and become "more" reliable.

Which is why we only trust humans to do that. Or, some humans. And force them to go through years of medical school before we trust them to do that. And if they can't hack it, they don't get to go and tinker with our tickers. Why are you theists always so absolutely horrible at making analogies? I mean, that should be like the easiest (even for YOU) type of apologetic technique and you always, consistently, embarrassingly, blow it.

(June 29, 2017 at 11:28 am)Parsim0ny Wrote:

(June 29, 2017 at 11:21 am)Astreja Wrote: Simple.  Organisms with unreliable minds are more likely to die out, leaving a gene pool of more reliable minds.

This is an astonishing claim to make. I cannot trust a monkey to perform a heart surgery in my chest, even if it means that these monkeys are capable of selectively improving their fingers movements and become "more" reliable.

That's right, you can't.  You can, however, trust an ape...but only one species.  Your species. That might have something to do with developmental differences in our respectively evolved brains - particularly since monkeys have much -much- better hand eye and manual dexterity than we do. They're faster problem solvers with better short term memory, as well.

Living in the trees aint easy. If we -could- train a monkey to do heart surgery, they'd be a hell of alot better at it than we are.

(June 29, 2017 at 11:44 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(June 29, 2017 at 11:28 am)Parsim0ny Wrote: This is an astonishing claim to make. I cannot trust a monkey to perform a heart surgery in my chest, even if it means that these monkeys are capable of selectively improving their fingers movements and become "more" reliable.

That's right, you can't.  You can, however, trust an ape...but only one species.  Your species.  That might have something to do with developmental differences in our respectively evolved brains - particularly since monkeys have much -much- better hand eye and manual dexterity than we do.  They're faster problem solvers with better short term memory, as well.

Living in the trees aint easy.  If we -could- train a monkey to do heart surgery, they'd be a hell of alot better at it than we are.

Let's not forget it's not outside the realm of possibility for robotics to advance to that stage as well. But then they're a product of 'intelligent design'. Fucking co-opting bastards turning evolution into something tawdry.