Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Anima]

Perplexing.  "World view" is a label for the collective ideas one has about the world.  The evidence for world views is that people talk about them all the time, and seem to act on them.  If you want to go solipsism, and argue that we can't prove that other minds exist at all, then I'm with you.  But for me, there's utility in viewing others as minds with ideas, and no utility in viewing the universe as under the control of a goofy God who can create the universe but not save sick babies.

Again your argument is readily adaptable by that of the theist. And it is paradoxical how you can say the existence of even a fictitious world view of another is of utility, but the the idea there is a goofy God (who has a world view, which includes not saving sick babies and in not killing healthy ones) has no utility. If there is utility in viewing others as having minds (though they may not) the same argument for that utility suffices to say there is utility in a single authoritative mind (to resolve disputes between all the various fictitious minds).

2.  Now it would seem you are trying to say world view functions as an operating system.  To which I would point you to the same as stated to Nestor.  A calculator receives complex inputs and provides complex outputs.  The calculator is no more aware of the world beyond the inputs and outputs than a meat automaton may be.

Why do you keep saying that it seems I'm saying things I'm not saying?  I'm saying that one's ideas are intrinsically linked to one's experience of life, and to one's decision-making process.  What does this have to do with computer operating systems?

I am effectively saying your are not giving due consideration to the impacts of what you are saying. I understand you wish to say something and have it only go as far as you intend and not one step further. So does the intelligent design guy intend for his argument to go until he may claim god exists and then stop right there. NOT ONE STEP FURTHER!! This would constitute special pleading (even if there is no specific plea).

I am saying an approximation of your previous statement is that world view was the medium by which our person perceives and thinks of things (aka an operating system). To which it may be argued that complex responses may arise form a system without an operating system (the calculator) just as complex responses from reactionary meat may arise without a world view.

Now it appears you are saying one's ideas are intrinsically linked to one's life experience (which John Locke would disagree with in accordance with the Tabula Rasa, by which our experience is not intrinsically linked to a world view which has not had sufficient input to exist. May one have a world view of nothing?). And one's decision process. To which I would argue evidence is required in support of your assertion and we are both painfully aware that not all decisions are based on a world view (more implicit evidence in opposition to your assertion).

As there are not only reactionary decisions (which are of such imminence as to not give rise to rational consideration), subconcious decisions (which may not be said to operate according to a conscious world view), instinctual decisions (which react more according to stimuli of the corporeal than to any world view), emotional decisions (which may be considered simply meta-physical decision in reaction to our sentiments which are not necessarily in consideration of a grandeur world view). As stated by Desiderius Erasmus:

"Jupiter, not wanting man's life to be wholly gloomy and grim, has bestowed far more passion than reason. You could reckon the ration as twenty-four to one. Moreover, he confined reason to a cramped corner of the head and left all the rest of the body to the passions.”

My big toe is inherent to my existence, but I wouldn't say person = big toe or that big toe = person.  That's a pretty strange argument.

Your big toe is not inherent to your person. Your person does not cease to exist with the deprivation of your big toe. That which is inherent to your person is essential to your person such that your person may not exist without it. For a world view to be inherent to your person is to state world view is a subset of person such that devoid of that subset there is no person. Thus it may be argued that your person is your world view.

Yes, he may.  Because morality is subjective.

Which is why subjective morality is untenable and is as useful as a diet that states one may eat as much of whatever they want when they want. Morality may not be subjective; else we end up stating what is immoral is moral and immoral or what is moral is immoral and moral.

3.  Furthermore your argument to consensus remains invalid (Kant endeavored to argue the same sensus communis) for two main reasons.  First the argument assumes the existence of other persons.  You fail to evidence your own person yet wish to presume the existence of other persons (virtual particles anyone?  Maybe they are all terminators designed to infiltrate your trust by agreeing with you... )  

I'm not much bothered by this, since we cannot provide conclusive evidence for ANY part of the subjective perspective in humanity: ideas, thoughts, mind, will, etc.  But this doesn't matter-- while accepting that any of these things may be illusory, I'm willing, on the basis of utility, to make the philosophical assumption that those things are as they seem to me: that other people aren't robots, for example.

I see people, talk to them about their ideas, learn how these ideas affect their views of what acts are right / wrong.  I can see how mores are affected by culture, by age, by gender, and by many of the other aspects of people's humanity.

My lack of conclusive evidence (by which you mean proof) doesn't matter, because interacting with people as though they are really sentient is central to my experience of life.  The idea of any objective morality, or of a God who might have created such, is irrelevant, and plays no part in my experience of life.

Once again these paragraphs may readily be converted for the theist who takes the philosophical assumption things are as they seem to them and that God is present, for example.

"He is part of their world view, and his existence (in combination with the ideas of His person associated with Him) affect their acts. While accepting this thing may be illusory they are willing, on the basis of utility, to make a philosophical/theological assumption those things are as they seem to them: that god exists...

Their lack of conclusive evidence (by which you mean proof) doesn't matter, because interacting with God as though he is really sentient is central to their experience of life. The idea of any subjective morality, or of no God who might have created such, is irrelevant, and plays no part in their experience of life."

Is this answer satisfactory for God's utility or existence? I believe you will say it is not.

I can see people.  They act as though they have minds, and I'm willing to take the philosophical position that they are as they seem.  I could be wrong, but it is useful for me to assume in this case that SEEMS = IS.  There is nothing that SEEMS to me to represent an existent God, and I do not therefore even have to confront the philosophical question of whether to take the seeming as being.

You can see meat. And that meat seems to have a mind. You can also see a man who seems to have bitten a quarter in half, a woman who seems to have bent a spoon with the power of her mind, you can see a priest seem to cast out demons by the power of god, and any other number of things which may be, but are not necessarily as they seem. Since it is useful for you to assume that SEEMS=IS than the man has bitten the quarter in half, the woman did bend the spoon with the power of her mind, and the priest did case out demons by the power of God. What it seems to be as seen so it is and there is no need to even confront the philosophical question of whether to take seeming as being.

I have here a placebo that seems to cure what ails you, grow your hair back, improve your sex life, and make you irresistable to the opposite sex (or same sex if that be your interests). It seems to be derived from love potion #9. Just $10.... because I like you. Your good people (even if you are illusory people)

You seem to find my existence pretty compelling, since you've written many words in response to my ideas.

Indeed I do take your existence pretty compelling. But for that matter I also take the existence of God as pretty compelling such that I subscribe to a religious view and set of mores in accordance with that belief. So... does that mean he exists just as your person exists?

Look, if I'm trying to prove to someone that other subjective minds exist, then I will be in big trouble; if I think the Bennotron3000 robot really thinks, and want you to believe so, it's going to be impossible to convince you.  But I have plenty of experience with human shaped objects which behave as though they have human minds, and take a philosophical position.  I do not have any experience with a God-shaped object which behaves as though it is God, and so I do not take a philosophical position.

Out of curiosity do you have much experience with intangible, immaterial, or metaphysical things? Thoughts, feelings, a metaphysical world view perhaps? Would you say those things exist though they are devoid of shape? If so may one who has an experience with the presence of God (though not necessarily the God-shaped object) say God is as real as the personalities (which are not human shaped) or the other immaterial things you assert as real? What would you say is a reasonable philosophical position on that?