Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[brewer]

Not going to get involved but curious, how many times has Anima given/used his credentials? From a previous post: "I have numerous degrees in mathematics, engineering, business, and law." I think he claims science at another time.

[bennyboy]

Your opinions about my world view or moral sense are irrelevant to my process of making decisions.

And your opinion of your world view or moral sense are irrelevant to the reality.  Realism prevails :p

1.  You have not yet evidenced person much less that world view is essential to that person.  I would be careful in arguing because you are a person and you have a world view such is essential to all persons.  Since one may just as easily argue they are person and they know of god, thus such is essential to all persons.

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.

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?

3.  However, If the world view is as inherent to person as you state than we may say person = world view or that world view = person.  Now under our argument of moral determination we once again must state that world view being equated to person does may not serve as the determinate anymore than person may serve as determinate in a subjective morality.  The world view will change in accordance with the whims of the person and thus person may readily adopt a world view which leads to all acts committed by them being moral.

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.

2.  You are conflating justice (ethics) with morality.  The rapist does not need to think the ends of his acts are just (ethical utility),  he does not need to think the means are just (ethical medium), nor does he need to give consideration to the thoughts of others (ethical consensus).  Simply because he likes the end, he is not opposed to the medium, and others cannot stop him from initiating the act (and likely completing it.  We may punish after, but cannot preempt the act) he may determine the act is good under subjective morality.

Yes, he may. Because morality is subjective.

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.

Interesting and paradoxical.  You argue your world view will ultimately be policed by other persons world views.  Yet you see no utility in proving others are real?  So you are fine with being limited by fictitious person(s)?  What if there were just one other limiting fictitious person?  Still not concerned with proving they are real?  What if this one other fictitious person lived in the sky?

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.

2.  These two entire paragraphs may simply be supplanted by the phrase for those who adhere to belief in God; (the idea of god seems sensible to me...), (it is up to you to prove your fairy tale world view isn't a fairy tale, because if you fail, I will continue on with my day perfectly unaffected...)

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

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.

[bennyboy]

Not going to get involved but curious, how many times has Anima given/used his credentials? From a previous post: "I have numerous degrees in mathematics, engineering, business, and law." I think he claims science at another time.

Irrelevant.  Ad hom is a fail, and so is an appeal to authority (of the self).  If Anima wants to give credentials, then it's a waste of typing time, but has nothing to do with whether his/her arguments are valid or correct.  But I don't see any such arguments.  For me, though, I'd say inserting yourself into a thread to ask this kind of question DOES represent an ad hom, and is arguably trolling.  If you don't want to get involved, please just pull up a chair and a bowl of popcorn, and watch quietly. If you DO want to contribute some actual ideas, then you are of course very welcome.

[brewer]

Not going to get involved but curious, how many times has Anima given/used his credentials? From a previous post: "I have numerous degrees in mathematics, engineering, business, and law." I think he claims science at another time.

Irrelevant.  Ad hom is a fail, and so is an appeal to authority (of the self).  If Anima wants to give credentials, then it's a waste of typing time, but has nothing to do with whether his/her arguments are valid or correct.  But I don't see any such arguments.  For me, though, I'd say inserting yourself into a thread to ask this kind of question DOES represent an ad hom, and is arguably trolling.  If you don't want to get involved, please just pull up a chair and a bowl of popcorn, and watch quietly.  If you DO want to contribute some actual ideas, then you are of course very welcome.

Point taken.

[Anima]

Not going to get involved but curious, how many times has Anima given/used his credentials? From a previous post: "I have numerous degrees in mathematics, engineering, business, and law." I think he claims science at another time.

I have read many books on science. But I do not have a degree in physics if that is what you are getting at (I am not sure if there is even a general science degree). In regards to the fields of science my formal education only includes engineering degrees in Aeronautics/Astronautics, Mechanical, and Electrical. I am planning on doing Computer Science Engineering soon, but have not started as of yet.

[SteelCurtain]

Not going to get involved but curious, how many times has Anima given/used his credentials? From a previous post: "I have numerous degrees in mathematics, engineering, business, and law." I think he claims science at another time.

Irrelevant.  Ad hom is a fail, and so is an appeal to authority (of the self).  If Anima wants to give credentials, then it's a waste of typing time, but has nothing to do with whether his/her arguments are valid or correct.  But I don't see any such arguments.  For me, though, I'd say inserting yourself into a thread to ask this kind of question DOES represent an ad hom, and is arguably trolling.  If you don't want to get involved, please just pull up a chair and a bowl of popcorn, and watch quietly. If you DO want to contribute some actual ideas, then you are of course very welcome.

I'd say a member is free to make an observation about any thread and it is up to the staff to determine and admonish trolling. If a person suspects trolling, that person should report a post rather than call a member out in the public forum.

[Anima]

Science is not based on repeating the same thing twice (a classic tautology). It's based on a continual accumulation of evidence and hypothesis testing.

As stated earlier science is more often based on the most plausible fictional story explaining the observed phenomena. Over time that story is refined to better and better stories. But the simple fact and limiting principle of science is it does not determine actual or causality. Regardless of our explanation of what is happening (which may be actually what is happening or may not be but describes what we observe) what is truly happening will continue to do so as it always has. Admittedly the story is continuously tested and revised with a better story should one come along, but do not be mistaken in asserting that story necessarily describes what is actually happening when in truth if it does it is really just a coincidence. This is not to say the story is not useful or that we do not endeavor to intertwine stories across multiple fields.

As it happens I am an advocate of the correspondence theory of truth. At the same time I must recognize what Kant states:

"(...) Truth, it is said, consists in the agreement of cognition with its object. In consequence of this mere nominal definition, my cognition, to count as true, is supposed to agree with its object. Now I can compare the object with my cognition, however, only by cognizing it. Hence my cognition is supposed to confirm itself, which is far short of being sufficient for truth. For since the object is outside me, the cognition in me, all I can ever pass judgement on is whether my cognition of the object agrees with my cognition of the object. The ancients called such a circle in explanation a diallelon. And actually the logicians were always reproached with this mistake by the sceptics, who observed that with this definition of truth it is just as when someone makes a statement before a court and in doing so appeals to a witness with whom no one is acquainted, but who wants to establish his credibility by maintaining that the one who called him as witness is an honest man. The accusation was grounded, too. Only the solution of the indicated problem is impossible without qualification and for every man. (...)"

While Kant is stating truth may not be given in terms of the correspondence of knowledge to the object. I am of the view the base level of truth must be able to give explanation to the rudimentary knowledge of the object which flows directly from perception of it. But that is a long argument for another thread or time.

At one time, I was (as many atheists were) somewhat religious. My family background is both protestant and catholic, so I have experience with both. Overall, not bad experiences, although I've never found religion particularly useful. Some may, and it may have utility, but that's different than debating the veracity of its claims.

Quite frankly, if we had the sort of society that produced good critical thinkers, the utility that religion may have right now, would probably evaporate.

I don't need myths to compel me to behave myself, treat others kindly, etc. Maybe some people do ... and in those cases, they (along with society) probably do benefit to some degree from religion. But anyway, as I've said, I'm not really interested in battling religion. I am interested in a more egalitarian and intelligent society that uses an evidence based approach to formulating public policy. What people do on Sunday's is their business.

As far as religion goes I have not argued much of it. I have argued mainly in lines with realist philosophy. I recognize religion is useful to some and not to others and fully expect those who find it useful to use it and those who do not to discard it (though they may pick it up again when they think it will be useful. I believe the saying is every man finds faith at the end of the game!).

Hmm. If you have been following this thread it may turn out in the end you do need myths and imaginary friends to behave yourself and be nice to people. Let us see where this thread goes . Since you have made no argument to the means by which you act morally I may either say it is likely along the same lines of Benny and Nestor (in which case imaginary friends abound) or it is in some manner which I have yet to hear or conceive of where imaginary friends are not required. Feel free to share.

In regards to the society of egalitarian intellectuals. I do not think this society would be as ideal in truth as it is in fiction. Take for example the very subject of mercy/compassion. The truth is mercy is an injustice. It is to give more to the one without mercy (the merciless?) than they deserve. From an intellectual standpoint it is foolish to give to more than is deserved to that which is undeserving of it. It is smarter to eliminate the needy from society than to endeavor to make them productive. It is far more logical to compel their productivity than to hope for it. In short a state of intellectuals is quick to utility and slow to humanity. History has shown as much in the various atheistic communist societies which have and do presently exist.

And I also don't dispute the contention that science has been wrong, it's been abused, etc. The good news is, when we discover mistakes, we fix them, because we have no boogeyman who we think we'll anger by going against its fictitious doctrines. Unlike religion, we don't live by words like "immutable" in science, for precisely this reason. Basically, you're basing an attack on science on precisely the feature that makes it so awesome, which with all due respect, is sort of ridiculous (especially for someone who has a science background). As far as how science is used by industry or governments or whatever, this isn't really a scientific problem, this is a social problem. My personal philosophy is based on anti-authoritarianism. And under that construct, I agree with most of what you said, I just think your grievance is misdirected. Unfortunately, science doesn't happen in a vacuum. We depend on the society we live in for funding and eventual application of our work. But then, looking at the destructive creations of science, it's a very long conversation. Just think about the creation of the atom bomb. We were fighting the Nazi's on one hand and imperial Japan (who bombed Pearl Harbor) on the other. For all intents and purposes, it was basically the US (and tiny Britain) against the world. We did what we had to do. It wasn't pretty ... some may argue (post hoc) that some of the things we did wasn't necessary, but to expect perfection under such circumstances, is just absurd. So I would defend science on that count.

For clarification I have no grievance. I am a fan of science (I would not have studied it otherwise) and I am well aware that misappropriation of humans to their own ends is not a reflection of science anymore than it is a reflection of a religion. My point was to show that when one focuses on the negative aspects and argues to discard the whole thing because of it there is far more justification in discarding science As previously said. Defense will be made by blaming something other than science. I would expect the same treatment of misappropriation of religion. Misapplication is not a religion problem it is a social problem.

Regarding anti-authoritarianism there is a lesson I learned a long time ago. My father bought me a cool glass figurine that I wanted of a dragon (I was like 10). However, he would not give it to me until I had researched and study the history of glass making, artistry, and the labor and time it takes to make that figurine. After I had done so he gave it to me under one condition that I would do what he said with it next. Naturally I agreed and he told me to smash it. Then he asked me what I had learned. I told him nothing. He told me, "What you have learned is that it takes years if not centuries of effort, study, and skill to make something so beautiful and valuable. And any idiot can just come along and smash it. So do not be so quick to smash things. First understand how and why it was made. Then you are more likely to appreciate it for all its flaws than to render it utterly useless by smashing it."

With regard to transcendent experiences or whatever, sure, maybe you can have a great experience (toss in some Gregorian chants and a little incense, I can see where one would feel like they're having a spiritual experience). Obviously this can be easily explained with conventional psychology and neuroscience, but nonetheless, if people enjoy these experiences, then they should enjoy them (and they have every right to do so). I enjoy an occasional jog (and if you run long enough, you do get a nice endorphin rush, which sort of feels transcendent .... if you want to phrase it that way).

Ha ha. I am not talking about the warm and fuzzies. In which case eat a lot of chocolate. I am talking the transcendental nature of reason itself (which I know you know is more than just warm fuzzies; but I enjoy the caricature). I believe the quote is as follows:

"I would not give a fig for the simplicity this side of complexity, but I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity." - Oliver Wendel holmes

[bennyboy]

Irrelevant.  Ad hom is a fail, and so is an appeal to authority (of the self).  If Anima wants to give credentials, then it's a waste of typing time, but has nothing to do with whether his/her arguments are valid or correct.  But I don't see any such arguments.  For me, though, I'd say inserting yourself into a thread to ask this kind of question DOES represent an ad hom, and is arguably trolling.  If you don't want to get involved, please just pull up a chair and a bowl of popcorn, and watch quietly.  If you DO want to contribute some actual ideas, then you are of course very welcome.

I'd say a member is free to make an observation about any thread and it is up to the staff to determine and admonish trolling. If a person suspects trolling, that person should report a post rather than call a member out in the public forum.

Oh, I'm not questioning brewer's right to make that comment, or any other.  I'm stating a preference that he/she either contribute to the conversation currently going on, or at least let it proceed uninterrupted.  But I'm not a mod, and nobody has to listen to me.

Except for the frequent "Haaaa. . . haaa!" comments, I think Anima is arguing fairly enough.  I think some of the posts are a bit strawmanish, but ya know. . . that's how it goes sometimes.  Certainly, I haven't seen any appeals to credentials.

[nihilistcat]

Well, you certainly like to type words Anima ... but I haven't heard anything substantive. Like, religion gives you some higher sense or worth or whatever. Okay great, enjoy?

I mean, anecdotes about daddy guiding you through childhood isn't the type of authoritarianism I'm talking about (so excuse me for saying, I see exactly no value in your analogy).

And with the whole myth thing (the implication being, if I'm reading you correctly, we all need myths) ... same old bullshit I hear from every other religious apologist. It's always been a silly argument, and it always will be (although that never stopped religionists)

Anyway, cheers & best of luck ... and give Francis my best!

[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?