Hey Esquilax, I hope your day went well? I've had a long day today, I'm tired, but I wanted to give you a partial response to our dialogue. 
Oh, I also rearranged what you had said so my response reads better.
The “Mr. Scientist” thing? Pffft! That’s my own personal incredulity; it’s not an argument. I do hope you understand my joke though? It’s an equivocation, “Mr. Scientist” might as well have said “just because.” Evolutionary psychology could not possibly be contradicted; it espouses unverifiable narratives of cultural and human behavior that amounts to nothing more than fluff and ‘ad hoc’ nonsense.
Yes, things evolve, I agree. I’m not arguing against evolution per se, I’m arguing about the substance of the mind and how evolutionary psychology has it’s propositions “profoundly backwards.”
If the mind is simply matter than the mind becomes nothing more than a mechanical process that reacts to certain stimuli in the brain, and it would mean that some form of determinism is true. If that’s the case, than anything we say or believe is the result of heredity and our environment; it would effectively nullify science because we would be measuring our own sense impressions, not the external world.
This isn’t “imperfect evidence,” you’ve totally switched to a metaphysical position about science. You might as well be appealing to your own cognitive ability on this one because you assume that other’s can be relied upon. You’ve exited ‘empirical rationalism,’ and entered into a metaphysical presupposition. It is one thing to infer from the past to all future cases, it’s another to be able to justify that position using science.
Help me out here; explain why you believe this to be a “dishonest equivocation?” Because it would seem you have some sort of double standard as to what’s “rational” to believe.
It’s not that I’m simply not listening to you, it’s that I have reason to believe you’re wrong. Video recordings, writing, audio are all taken in as ‘sensory input’ and you assume that our cognitive faculties are capable of more than ‘sensory impressions.’ I’ve made this statement before; it’s a presupposition of science, we could not do good science apart from it. You have not provided “evidence of the reality of the past,” and my point still stands that apart from evidences it is rational to believe some things.
Right now, it's like... 12:34. Although I haven't given a reason for "mind-body dualism," but you have an opportunity to formulate a response.
The parts about materialism, Plantinga, and your deffinition of evidence are all in the works.
I need sleep.
Hey! how would you feel about an "open dialogue," we could make a new thread for you and I. Or, there's always the option of a private correspondence? In any case, you're bright guy; fun to talk to. If you're ever in the States (I'm assuming you live outside the States?), specifically Wisconsin we should get coffee, my treat.
Oh, I also rearranged what you had said so my response reads better.
(September 5, 2014 at 12:47 am)Esquilax Wrote: So, let's recap: I bring to the table over a century of research in psychology, evolution, and the intersection of the two, performed painstakingly and rigorously by great minds working with live subjects, and you respond with "I just don't feel that you're right."
As to just-so stories, are you serious? We know things evolve, we know evolution selects for specific instincts and reactions, we know it does so within the context of sexual reproduction, and these are things that have been studied. Following the evidence from the beginning does lead us to the conclusion that attraction to signs of health is a trait that would be selected for. And your proposed alternative, that you're attracted to stuff because it's hot, is profoundly backwards. It's not even a just so story, it mistakes the reaction you have for the reason why you have that reaction. You might as well have just said that you're attracted to blondes just because.
My position is well researched and based on observations of the real world, it's not going to be toppled by your feelings because it's not on the same level as your feelings. It's far better substantiated than that.
The “Mr. Scientist” thing? Pffft! That’s my own personal incredulity; it’s not an argument. I do hope you understand my joke though? It’s an equivocation, “Mr. Scientist” might as well have said “just because.” Evolutionary psychology could not possibly be contradicted; it espouses unverifiable narratives of cultural and human behavior that amounts to nothing more than fluff and ‘ad hoc’ nonsense.
Yes, things evolve, I agree. I’m not arguing against evolution per se, I’m arguing about the substance of the mind and how evolutionary psychology has it’s propositions “profoundly backwards.”
If the mind is simply matter than the mind becomes nothing more than a mechanical process that reacts to certain stimuli in the brain, and it would mean that some form of determinism is true. If that’s the case, than anything we say or believe is the result of heredity and our environment; it would effectively nullify science because we would be measuring our own sense impressions, not the external world.
(September 5, 2014 at 12:47 am)Esquilax Wrote: Oh? You don't agree that I can go to pretty much anyone and interview them and find that they agree that the sun rises in the morning and sets at night? I can't record that with machines? I don't have any recordings at all, both scientific and otherwise, that demonstrate observations of the past and evidence that nature has behaved the way it does for the entirety of recorded human history?
… This is the dishonest equivocation that these kinds of argument tries to make, of pretending that something with imperfect evidence is the same as something with no evidence at all.
This isn’t “imperfect evidence,” you’ve totally switched to a metaphysical position about science. You might as well be appealing to your own cognitive ability on this one because you assume that other’s can be relied upon. You’ve exited ‘empirical rationalism,’ and entered into a metaphysical presupposition. It is one thing to infer from the past to all future cases, it’s another to be able to justify that position using science.
Help me out here; explain why you believe this to be a “dishonest equivocation?” Because it would seem you have some sort of double standard as to what’s “rational” to believe.
(September 5, 2014 at 12:47 am)Esquilax Wrote: I'm not going to play games with you, we have a vast world filled with continuous personal experiences and recordings in writing, video, audio, that count as evidence of the past.
It’s not that I’m simply not listening to you, it’s that I have reason to believe you’re wrong. Video recordings, writing, audio are all taken in as ‘sensory input’ and you assume that our cognitive faculties are capable of more than ‘sensory impressions.’ I’ve made this statement before; it’s a presupposition of science, we could not do good science apart from it. You have not provided “evidence of the reality of the past,” and my point still stands that apart from evidences it is rational to believe some things.
(September 5, 2014 at 12:47 am)Esquilax Wrote: Absent any evidence that the mind exists independent of the brain… there is no reason to believe that the mind is not tied to the brain, which is what the evidence tends to indicate.
Right now, it's like... 12:34. Although I haven't given a reason for "mind-body dualism," but you have an opportunity to formulate a response.
The parts about materialism, Plantinga, and your deffinition of evidence are all in the works.
I need sleep.
Hey! how would you feel about an "open dialogue," we could make a new thread for you and I. Or, there's always the option of a private correspondence? In any case, you're bright guy; fun to talk to. If you're ever in the States (I'm assuming you live outside the States?), specifically Wisconsin we should get coffee, my treat.
Call me Josh, it's fine.
