(4 hours ago)Angrboda Wrote:

(5 hours ago)Jal Wrote: "For someone who argues that there are degrees of sentience, this is a particularly daft objection.  Consciousness evolved by degrees.  Same as is required by your argument." That's somewhat like conflating abiogenesis and evolutoin, claiming they are the exact same thing. Emergent consciousness is claim vastly less probable than the claim that consciousness was already present but matured in degrees. 

On what basis do you conclude it is less probable?   We know that mind comes in varying expressions among animals.  We don't know that there is an expression of it in rocks, for which there is no evidence.  That's an asymmetry you need to answer with something other than assuming pansychism.

(5 hours ago)Jal Wrote: "You are arguing that things like hunger, libido, and such are epiphenomenal. " That's precisely the opposite of my claim. I regard them as innate, albeit initially in negligible degrees of acuteness. 

  
Innate isn't opposed to epiphenomenal.  Try learning what words actually mean.

(5 hours ago)Jal Wrote: "To argue that such a terminus is unreasonable with regard to basic forces such as gravity, but not with respect to your own brute facts is to engage in a double standard." I am not convinced it's a double standard. LOGICALLY and EMPIRICALLY, I cannot pull your body from a distance. I must reach out and touch you. Gravity contradicts what we seem to know. yet it is easily explained by a physical God whose hand is doing precisely that - reaching out and touching matter.

Gravity doesn't present any obvious contradiction any more than sentient rocks presents a contradiction to what we know.  The charge of a double standard remains unanswered.

Yes it does, and Newton affirmed it does. I cannot pull you from a distance. I must reach out and touch you. Quick google: 

"Even stronger is a letter Newton wrote to Richard Bentley in 1692/93, where he said:

Quote:"That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else... is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it."

This is Newton saying, "If you believe in an immaterial force acting across a distance, you must be an idiot."

(2 hours ago)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(3 hours ago)Jal Wrote: Primarily we disagree on the underlying cause of so-called "gravity", not on the nature of its effects.

This isn’t one of those agree-to-disagree moments. You’re simply wrong.



If you don’t accept the underlying nature of gravity, then you don’t accept the concept of mass. If you don’t accept the concept of mass, you’re a hopelessly stupid person.

Boru

You're pretty naive to assume that one version of physics is authoritative and apodictic. I suggest you take PHL 101.

(2 hours ago)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(3 hours ago)Jal Wrote: Primarily we disagree on the underlying cause of so-called "gravity", not on the nature of its effects.

Does this mean you are also a flat-earther?

No.

(2 hours ago)Jal Wrote:

(4 hours ago)Angrboda Wrote: On what basis do you conclude it is less probable?   We know that mind comes in varying expressions among animals.  We don't know that there is an expression of it in rocks, for which there is no evidence.  That's an asymmetry you need to answer with something other than assuming pansychism.

  
Innate isn't opposed to epiphenomenal.  Try learning what words actually mean.


Gravity doesn't present any obvious contradiction any more than sentient rocks presents a contradiction to what we know.  The charge of a double standard remains unanswered.

Yes it does, and Newton affirmed it does. I cannot pull you from a distance. I must reach out and touch you. Quick google: 

"Even stronger is a letter Newton wrote to Richard Bentley in 1692/93, where he said:

Quote:"That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else... is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it."

This is Newton saying, "If you believe in an immaterial force acting across a distance, you must be an idiot."

That's an interesting reach for an ad hominem, but it doesn't tell us what his reasoning was so it's a non sequitur. You realize you're quoting a believer in alchemy for support.

The existence of invisible forces is beyond dispute. How do you think vision works? Electromagnetic radiation is invisible. If it weren't, you wouldn't be able to see objects at a distance.

(2 hours ago)Angrboda Wrote:

(2 hours ago)Jal Wrote: Yes it does, and Newton affirmed it does. I cannot pull you from a distance. I must reach out and touch you. Quick google: 

"Even stronger is a letter Newton wrote to Richard Bentley in 1692/93, where he said:


This is Newton saying, "If you believe in an immaterial force acting across a distance, you must be an idiot."

That's an interesting reach for an ad hominem, but it doesn't tell us what his reasoning was so it's a non sequitur.  You realize you're quoting a believer in alchemy for support.

The existence of invisible forces is beyond dispute.  How do you think vision works?  Electromagnetic radiation is invisible.  If it weren't, you wouldn't be able to see objects at a distance.

You need that reasoning explained? And you guys call me idiotic? Seriously? Ok I'll explain it. You and your 10-year old daughter are standing on opposite sides of a swimming pool.  both of you are outside the pool. Unexpectedly she finds herself in the water.  She then blames you for pulling her into the pool. Are Newton and I the only ones who see a problem with this accusation? Wouldn't you have to reach out and touch her, to pull her into the pool?  I can't believe I have to explain this. 

"The existence of invisible forces is beyond dispute."  You mean immaterial forces acting across a vacuum?  Baloney. That's a metaphysical assumption, it seems to be idiocy. Certainly it is at least disputable.

(1 hour ago)Jal Wrote:

(2 hours ago)Angrboda Wrote: That's an interesting reach for an ad hominem, but it doesn't tell us what his reasoning was so it's a non sequitur.  You realize you're quoting a believer in alchemy for support.

The existence of invisible forces is beyond dispute.  How do you think vision works?  Electromagnetic radiation is invisible.  If it weren't, you wouldn't be able to see objects at a distance.

You need that reasoning explained? And you guys call me idiotic? Seriously? Ok I'll explain it. You and your 10-year old daughter are standing on opposite sides of a swimming pool.  both of you are outside the pool. Unexpectedly she finds herself in the water.  She then blames you for pulling her into the pool. Are Newton and I the only ones who see a problem with this accusation? Wouldn't you have to reach out and touch her, to pull her into the pool?  I can't believe I have to explain this. 

"The existence of invisible forces is beyond dispute."  You mean immaterial forces acting across a vacuum?  Baloney. That's a metaphysical assumption, it seems to be idiocy. Certainly it is at least disputable.

I thought we'd been over this with Hume and your previous inapt analogy. Your analogy is not sufficiently analogous, thus it shows nothing.

(2 hours ago)Jal Wrote:

(4 hours ago)Angrboda Wrote: On what basis do you conclude it is less probable?   We know that mind comes in varying expressions among animals.  We don't know that there is an expression of it in rocks, for which there is no evidence.  That's an asymmetry you need to answer with something other than assuming pansychism.

  
Innate isn't opposed to epiphenomenal.  Try learning what words actually mean.


Gravity doesn't present any obvious contradiction any more than sentient rocks presents a contradiction to what we know.  The charge of a double standard remains unanswered.

"Innate isn't opposed to epiphenomenal.  Try learning what words actually mean."  Don't exaggerate.  I don't think my usage of the term was exponentially skewed. Quick google:
 
"Most epiphenomenalists have been physicalists or property dualists who think consciousness arises when matter is organized in certain complex ways, such as in brains. On this view:

• Electrons are not conscious.
  
• Rocks are not conscious.
  
• Conscious experience emerges from complex neural activity.
  

"Emergent consciousness" is, in my understanding, antithetical to innate consciousness.  In my view, for example, electrons ARE conscious.

Google is not your friend. At least not until you learn how to use it properly.

(2 hours ago)Jal Wrote:

(2 hours ago)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: This isn’t one of those agree-to-disagree moments. You’re simply wrong.



If you don’t accept the underlying nature of gravity, then you don’t accept the concept of mass. If you don’t accept the concept of mass, you’re a hopelessly stupid person.

Boru

You're pretty naive to assume that one version of physics is authoritative and apodictic. I suggest you take PHL 101.

I don’t assume either of those. All science is, by its very nature, provisional. Right now, the best explanation for the nature of gravity is the Newton-Einstein model (or, if you prefer, the Classical-Relativistic one). 

For this to be superseded, a new model would have to explain what is already known and offer further explanations for what isn’t. ‘God putting his hand on matter’ doesn’t do that.

For my degree, I was required to take three full credits of philosophy. Easiest classes I ever had. 

‘The difference between science and the fuzzy subjects is that science requires reasoning, the others merely scholarship.’ - Heinlein 

Boru

@Jal

Quote:“That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else... is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it."

And yet light from the Sun (one body) acts upon the Earth (another body) at a distance without the mediation of anything else.

Looks like Newton was wrong. Maybe you should take everything he said as authoritative or apodictic.  

Boru