Login

Jal · Yesterday at 10:16 pm

(Yesterday at 10:12 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Ah, there's your trouble. Panpsychism is -a- wordview. Not a -reasonable- worldview. You know what I'm talking about. The kind of worldview that...while it may be true, needs convoluted explanations for why it seems false.

What's unreasonable about it? Only the alternative (self-awareness suddenly emerging from dead particles) is unreasonable/ implausible.

**The Grand Nudger** · (This post was last modified: Yesterday at 10:18 pm by The Grand Nudger.)

Natural selection doesn't have anything to say about dead particles dude. Why do you think it does? Who told you that it does? What must they think of you?

Jal · Yesterday at 10:23 pm

(Yesterday at 10:16 pm)Ravenshire Wrote:
(Yesterday at 10:07 pm)Jal Wrote: I beg to differ. My philosohpy is the hermeneutic for my views on science. To reject my views on science is already a critique of my philosophy. You can't separate the two, in terms of your effort to impugn my OP. In that post, those two disciplines are inextricably intertwined.

So, you're philosophy is based on an ignorance of science (first time I've actually addressed it). Is that better? It still doesn't change the fact that if you don't understand the science, you simply can't speak intelligibly about it. Foundations built upon sand, and all that. If you wan't to remain ignorant of the rock that will give you a good foundation, that's entirely on you.

There you go again with that fallacy, "Until you're a doctorate in said field, it's logically impossible for you to make a contribution to it." You need to acquaint yourself with the expression, "Thinking outside the box." I have found that, in all scholarly disciplines, most students only listen to doctors. The danger is a kind of indoctrination where an excellent idea is overlooked beucause everyone is steeped in traditional dogma because no one is thinking outside the box.

Now admittedly it might be RARE that the non-expert makes a real contribution, but it's not impossible.

Jal · Yesterday at 10:26 pm

(Yesterday at 10:18 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Natural selection doesn't have anything to say about dead particles dude. Why do you think it does? Who told you that it does? What must they think of you?

I've been referring to reductionistic natural selection. I think that should be clear by now.

For example the atheism of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris seems to be reductionistic. In particular Sam Harris stresses determinism.

Angrboda · Yesterday at 10:36 pm

(Yesterday at 10:03 pm)Jal Wrote:
(Yesterday at 9:53 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Name those qualities and your evidence that a rock possesses those qualities.

Panpsychism is a reasonable metaphysical apriori/ axiom understood to resolve the unreasonable assumption of emergent consciousness. I don't have to prove it, I only need to recognize that the alternative is implausible/ unreasonable.

As an analogy, I don't need to prove Euclid's fifth postulate to adopt that axiom. I simply need to recognize that the alternative is implausible/ unreasonable.

Obviously we can be wrong in our axioms. That's why we should all take our own views as tentative. But you haven't demonstrated the notion of a primoridally conscious rock to be illogical.

Actually, the alternative to Euclid's fifth postulate is not implausible/unreasonable, it simply results in different geometries. So Euclid's fifth postulate can be false and no harm done. This shows the error of assuming that something is true based upon what you do or do not know, the classic appeal to ignorance which I pointed out was fatal in your main argument is now fatal to your supposed example.

Jal · Yesterday at 10:44 pm

(Yesterday at 10:36 pm)Angrboda Wrote:
(Yesterday at 10:03 pm)Jal Wrote: Panpsychism is a reasonable metaphysical apriori/ axiom understood to resolve the unreasonable assumption of emergent consciousness. I don't have to prove it, I only need to recognize that the alternative is implausible/ unreasonable.

As an analogy, I don't need to prove Euclid's fifth postulate to adopt that axiom. I simply need to recognize that the alternative is implausible/ unreasonable.

Obviously we can be wrong in our axioms. That's why we should all take our own views as tentative. But you haven't demonstrated the notion of a primoridally conscious rock to be illogical.

Actually, the alternative to Euclid's fifth postulate is not implausible/unreasonable, it simply results in different geometries. So Euclid's fifth postulate can be false and no harm done. This shows the error of assuming that something is true based upon what you do or do not know, the classic appeal to ignorance which I pointed out was fatal in your main argument is now fatal to your supposed example.

The Euclidean example is only one possible example.

And sorry we'll have to agree to disagree about non-Euclidean geometry. When Christians speak of an infinite God, I consider it gibberish and therefore implausible/ unreasonable.

In the same way, if you try to tell me that space and time are curved (.e.g. if you claim the shortest distance between two points is not necessarily a straight line), it's humanly unfathomable and therefore gibberish. I don't care how well this claim "works" in applied science, it is not a philosophically adequate description of the world if it is gibberish to the human mind, if no one can really get a clear understanding of what is being said. "But they proved it !!!!" You proved - gibberish? Well good for you. Meanwhile, don't mind me if I take up this conversation with someone who is a little more rational than you.

**Ravenshire** · Yesterday at 11:03 pm

(Yesterday at 10:23 pm)Jal Wrote:
(Yesterday at 10:16 pm)Ravenshire Wrote: So, you're philosophy is based on an ignorance of science (first time I've actually addressed it). Is that better? It still doesn't change the fact that if you don't understand the science, you simply can't speak intelligibly about it. Foundations built upon sand, and all that. If you wan't to remain ignorant of the rock that will give you a good foundation, that's entirely on you.

There you go again with that fallacy, "Until you're a doctorate in said field, it's logically impossible for you to make a contribution to it." You need to acquaint yourself with the expression, "Thinking outside the box." I have found that, in all scholarly disciplines, most students only listen to doctors. The danger is a kind of indoctrination where an excellent idea is overlooked beucause everyone is steeped in traditional dogma because no one is thinking outside the box.

Now admittedly it might be RARE that the non-expert makes a real contribution, but it's not impossible.

Again with the failure of reading comprehension. I have never said you need a PhD to speak intelligently. I've said you need to not be fucking ignorant of the subject, as you obviously are. You're not thinking outside the box. You're ignoring there is a box.

**Ravenshire** · Yesterday at 11:07 pm

(Yesterday at 10:44 pm)Jal Wrote: I don't care how well this claim "works" in applied science

As I said. Complete ignorance. And, willful to boot.

Jal · Today at 12:18 am

(Yesterday at 11:07 pm)Ravenshire Wrote:
(Yesterday at 10:44 pm)Jal Wrote: I don't care how well this claim "works" in applied science

As I said. Complete ignorance. And, willful to boot.

At least I argue my conclusions. I don't just sit here with a know-it-all air of superiority that is too high and haughty to engage the arguments.

Jal · Today at 12:29 am

Still no refutation of the OP other than, "We don't have to answer your philosophical arguments because we know more science that you."

Huh?

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Yhwach character in TWBY seems to represent evil Jesus	PepsiMAX	74	2816	August 23, 2026 at 10:15 am Last Post: Nay_Sayer
	Satanism seems fun	FrustratedFool	50	12891	August 24, 2023 at 6:37 pm Last Post: FrustratedFool
	Atheism seems to rise in Turkey	Woah0	1	1471	September 11, 2022 at 2:02 pm Last Post: Jehanne
	trigger warning What if atheism's not all it seems?	PhilosophicalZebra	143	51291	December 27, 2017 at 1:54 pm Last Post: CapnAwesome
	Am I a Deist? Cosmological Argument seems reasonable to me.	_Velvet_	97	35745	September 28, 2016 at 8:05 am Last Post: Edwardo Piet
	Evolution and natural selection ARE the gods of this world!	Yoplait	45	15997	June 15, 2015 at 9:01 am Last Post: comet
	Natural explanations to former supernatural ideas	Won2blv	12	5759	May 17, 2015 at 12:13 pm Last Post: Minimalist