And I never said anything about "every religion in the world". We're talking about theism. And theism is an umbrella term for a wide variety of views that differ greatly in the content of their claims, and the available evidence for/against those claims.

Given this diversity, its not clear whether (and actually fairly implausible to suppose that) the most appropriate position wrt one form of theism (say, evangelical young earth Christianity) will also be the most appropriate position wrt another completely different form of theism (deism, for instance). Chances are, what is the most appropriate will differ from case to case, such that e.g. atheism is the most appropriate response to one type of theism, while agnosticism is more appropriate to others. — Seppo

You didn't have to bring out Christianity into this thread. Or were you intending to confuse?

Its explicitly a self-contradiction. "A doubting theist is not a theist" is like saying "a doubting racecar driver is not a racecar driver". If they're a doubting theist, then it follows necessarily that they're a theist. And there is no definition of "theism" or "atheism" that says anything about varying levels of commitment or certitude. Theism is a view or belief. People can hold beliefs, to varying degrees of commitment or certitude, or with varying levels of open-mindedness to reconsidering that view, and theism/atheism is no exception. You're conflating things that are completely separate- whether one is a theist, and how committed, certain, or open-closedminded they are about their theism. — Seppo

I think you are self-contradicting yourself grossly. In no reference of history, theist is the people who doubt. Theist is people who believes. Not doubt.
He can doubt of course he can, but then from the moment he is not a theist.

And yes, we are talking about specific cases, including the example of evangelical literalist Christianity. Because, as I mentioned, some cases of theism may warrant atheism, while others do not: wrt the literalist young earth variety of Christianity, agnosticism is not warranted- atheism is. There's no reason to think either theism, atheism, agnosticism must be most rational or warranted across the board, and every reason to think it will vary from case to case, which is the more appropriate position for a given variety of theism or god-concept. — Seppo

We are talking about the OP. Not every religion in the world. If you want to extend it to this far, then I tell you read the OP again. It is not clear which religion he is talking about. It is vague. We must assume that the OP is talking about general God in philosophy of religion. If you want to talk about a particular religion, then you must start a separate topic for the religion.

No, nothing about the definition of theist or atheist says anything about their level of commitment, certitude, or open-mindedness. These terms denote a certain belief (or disbelief): either in, or against, the existence of God. One can hold that belief with varying levels of commitment, certitude, or closed/open-mindedness, without being any more or less a theist or atheist.

If we are talking about the definitions, then doubting theists are not theists

This is a self-contradiction. A doubting theist is still a theist. "Doubting theists are not theists" is trivially/logically/definitionally false: you said it yourself, they're a doubting theist. So they're a theist... one with doubts. — Seppo

Where did you get the doubting theist definition from? Where does it say theist are people who doubt?
Just screaming out "This is self-contradiction" is not making sense.

Some Felicia is man
My cat is called Felicia
Therefore my cat could be a man.

Logic has little to do with experience, sense organs or the external world.
It is the way human mind works from the faculty of mental processing called reason.

Not for being nosey but just out of curiosity: what are the notes about? Which makes that you start at the end? ☺ — Prishon

No probs. :) I scribble some of my thoughts from readings on the notebooks. ^0^

It took a while to get a grip (I have read this sentence over and over again, with different emphasis, even loudup, th annoyance of my wife...Women...). But now I have that grip its crystal clear, another example of how concourse is done). If you have not eaten yet: buon appetito! ☺ — Prishon

:100: :up:

Thanks for the great OP - very interesting, and I learnt a lot via the thinking and dialectic process.
Just returned from lunch. Thanks. You too.

Ideas without experiments are empty, and experiments without ideas are blind. - Kant

Many books are written backwards. Effect proceeding the cause. — Prishon

:up: :100:

I write notebooks starting from the last page, and ending at the front.

According to Hume, causality doesn't exist. There is no impression of causality in the external world. But we form the idea of causality by habit of looking at events happening one after the other.

Like this the brain looks more like a digital one... Or maybe a quantized analogue one. — Prishon

Analogue signals can always be converted to digital signals using ADC within the system. I don't see much significance in making and emphasising difference in their nature here.

What can be measured from human brain via monitoring instruments is analogue voltage signals, not the digital signal. Maybe the workings of the brain can be explained in digital signal forms.

Whatever the case, it seems human mind cannot be reduced to the workings of the signals. But the signals could be converted to replicate / emulate some of the functions of human brain.

And the problem with saying that it’s ‘merely’ an invention of the human mind, is that it doesn’t allow for the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. — Wayfarer

"the unreasonable effectiveness" is also a product of human mind? which is synthetic analytic judgement?

I have no apparent reason — 180 Proof

Could it also mean "you have possible reason"?
"no apparent" sounds like suggesting possibility.

Philosophy has explored subjectively, and objectively, as well as intersubjectively, in so much detail, — Jack Cummins

intersubjectively?
Can a person have multiple consciousness? or share consciousness with other minds?

This isn't anything special or unique to agnosticism, there's nothing about atheism or theism that prevents one from investigating further or changing ones view if warranted by the evidence. One can be atheist or theist, and open-minded, or agnostic and closed-minded. They're just separate things. — Seppo

Doubting theist? Unsure atheist?
But the definition of theist means that they are the ones who are fully committed to believing in God.
Atheist means the ones who do not believe in God.

If we are talking about the definitions, then doubting theists are not theists. Unsure about their own belief that God does not exist are not atheists either. In real life, these are possible, but clearly they are contradictory, which are unfit for logical discourse.

Why agnostics have to be viewed as the middle position only? It is not some geographical concept.

Agnostics can be also dualists, who can believe and at the same time disbelieve in God. It is the privilege that only agnostics can take.

Because agnostic means, doubt, uncertainty, or scepticism regarding any subject of dispute.. Doubt, uncertainty, or scepticism regarding the existence of a god or gods.. The view that absolute truth or ultimate certainty is unattainable, especially regarding knowledge not based on experience or perceivable phenomena.. The view that the existence of God or of all deities is unknown, unknowable.

Uncertainty doesn't mean either belief in the existence or nonexistence. Its position is uncertain, not in the middle. This is only applicable concept to the agnostics.

We are not particularly talking about only Christianity here. It would be God in general sense. You would need another separate thread to discuss what God is.

I think you did already enough! At least, for me, by participating in this discusdion.. — Prishon

Sorry, what I meant was "doing my other things for making living" here in the office. :)
Wish I was a full time student of philosophy not having to think about other things than philosophy.
I will keep buying the lottery :D

This was a very interesting thread in that initially I had no clear idea about the whole thing and the concept of "analogue computer" sounded contradictory but interesting.

It was only after exchange of many conversations questions and answers with you, things were getting clearer and clearer. This morning I was reflecting about it again briefly and was able to come up with more ideas about it.

But great, that you found interesting too. Keep having dialectic discourse and reflecting about the topics until the truths emerge out of the pure reason just like Socrates and his interlocutors had done, seems still one of the best ways doing philosophy. I must thank you for that. cheers.

Im glad you came back! Very good last reply to your "opponent", by the way... :smile: — Prishon

Thanks! I tend to be around here on and off most days. I might be doing other stuff, and not able to engage more than would like to. :)

You have answered my question! :love: — Prishon

Glad to hear it sir. :strong: :wink:

Got a new book called "Young William James Thinking" by P.J. Croce. Didn't know William James was elder brother of the novelist Henry James until getting this book.

An ideal bedtime reading.

Mea culpa; I meant to refer to the PDP-8 as having no microprocessor... the PDP-11 did have one. Then again, I note that you mutated this from "microprocessor" into "processor". — InPitzotl

I don't think anyone would be interested in PDP-8 or 11 in this thread. See you are the one who keeps bringing these dinosaur devices insisting they are the computers?

What is relevant to OP with the analogue devices would be their in/outputs being continuous voltage rather than digital 0/1 bits, that is same with the human brain. When the electronic probes are attached to the human brain, what can be measured is continuous voltage. That is all measurable from the human brain activities. So the human brains and analogue devices share the type of signals they generate which is the continuous electric voltages, measurable and monitor-able by oscilloscopes or voltage monitoring meters.I think this is a significant point for the OP. In this regard the human brains and analogue devices have common data type output. I think the human brains also generate some sort of radio waves which can be monitored via the wave receivers and monitoring apparatus. But I don't know about it in detail off hand.

Your main interest in your posts in this thread seems to keep pointing out that I have done this and that, and that is wrong blah blah ... instead of focusing on the OP, and trying to come up with some conclusions after clarifying the concepts via seeking logical arguments for it. No one would be interested in what you are pointing out about me, I am sure, and that is a waste of time in my view.

As I said earlier, the only point that you brought and presented to us and insisted the analogue computers do exist was the Wiki pages on the internet. And your explanations had little to do with the OP in any ways.

I don't blindly reject Wiki. I am sure there are excellent Wiki contents on some topics, but also there are poor and wrong contents too. So always be open minded to them.
But we are not here to keep bringing in the Wiki pages and insist something is truths, just because someone wrote about it in there. I could register to Wiki, and blab about something shifting some data from some other places, and put it up there. Would it make more certain information because it is in Wiki than someone's argument in the forum threads? I doubt it. It is a methodical doubt in principle.

Being in Philosophy forums means that we try to avoid that type of truth gullible tendency, but try to be critical on all the issues we meet, and trying to come to some conclusions and truths by our own discourse based on reasoning and basic logical sense, and also clarifying the concepts. If one says that is a waste of time, then I will say, No! you are wrong.

Not true. I told you a PDP-11 doesn't have a microprocessor, an OS is optional (gave you the term "bare metal"), and told you how I did the compiling for that 6800 I programmed. IOW, I am dismantling your arbitrary criteria. — InPitzotl

PDP-11 had processor in the form of LSI. PDP stands for Programmed Data Processor.
To me, your talks on the analogue computers didn't make any sense at all. And brining up those ancient analogue devices insisting they are computers, into the philosophical discussion discussing human brain as computer just didn't sound right.

Incidentally, again, the thread isn't about whether brains have silicon wafers in it. It's not asking whether brains run an operating system. It's not asking whether brains run on software written in programming languages. So all of these are fanciful distractions. There's nothing clarified here about how the brain works, and how it doesn't work, and how that might compare to what we call analog computers and what we call digital computers, to be found in these criteria that don't always apply to the things we call analog computers and digital computers anyway. — InPitzotl

For the OP, it was hugely meaningful to clarify the contradictory concept "analogue computer". Without the clarification of concepts, the discussions tend to degrade into long drawn chitchats.

Your definition is one of niche and habit; not generalized applicability. If we're going to discuss whether the brain is some form of analog computer, we're probably not going after whether it has a microprocessor in it; and despite your diatribes, philosophy isn't hanging in the balance over whether or not we count the brain as a non-computer because there's no silicon wafers in it. You are lacking all sense of proportion here. — InPitzotl

I feel that it is important to clarify the concepts involved in the debate, otherwise you will end up talking about rivers and cakes and mountains, when the topic is human brains and computers.

Nope. You basically said, all swans have white feathers. That thing has black feathers, so there's no way it's a swan. — InPitzotl

I have asked you about the details on the TR-10 you were talking about in its specs and SW/OS it uses, but you have not given your replies at all. All you ever then seem doing is just going on about lecturing and Wiki and irrelevant details for the dialectic process.

But you're not doing any philosophy here. You were directly asked what was so confusing about calling the TR-10 an analog computer. Instead of replying, and giving an argument, you chose to lecture me on how trusting random blokes on the internet yada yada yada, yada yada yada. In other words, you went on a tirade, which is not an argument. — InPitzotl

I think I have given out the clear reason why analogue devices are not computers with all the necessary conditions for being computer in one of my posts with the HW and SW specs.

The reason that I mentioned about the Wiki and stuff was that your only argument for believing the analogue machines were computers was that you have seen that page in Wiki, and someone's write up on it, and was presenting it as some infallible necessary universal truth rather than telling us your arguments why analogue devices are computers.

I have my points, which are obviously different from yours. I was just responding to your raised points. To be honest, I didn't know who you were until you joined the discussion and kept engaging with us. Why do you see it as lecturing?

You're giving me the wrong lecture. I'm not buying what some unknown bloke (Corvus) wrote out and put them on the net (philosophy forum). Why should I trust you? — InPitzotl

I don't expect you trust me. Never said that.
It is a principle in philosophical discussion (finding truths via dialectic discussion and let the reason reveal). If one reject that, then there is no point in discussion.

I understand Transcendental as "before experience or prior to experience", and Aesthetic as "sensory perception" in the CPR. So, transcendental aesthetic denotes a priori sensory perception or knowledge, which are non experiential sensory perception or knowledge .i.e. metaphysical perception or knowledge such as on God and Souls.

My understanding and interpretation on the CPR texts I am reading, might be wrong, different from yours or the formal views in the commentary books.  If you see or spot any points wrong, different, unclear, or simply points for discussions, please let me know. Thanks.

I did my nightly CPR readings last night, and picked out some contents from the Transcendental Aesthetic.

Empirical intuition
"The effect of an object upon the faculty of representation, so far as we are affected by the said object, is sensation. That sort of intuition which relates to an object by means of sensation is called an empirical intuition.

The undetermined object of an empirical intuition is called phenomenon."

Pure intuition
"I call all representations pure, in the transcendental meaning of the word, wherein nothing is met with that belongs to sensation. And accordingly we find existing in the mind a priori, the pure form of sensuous intuitions in general, in which all the manifold content of the phenomenal world is arranged and viewed under certain relations. This pure form of sensibility I shall call pure intuition."


Form
"That which in the phenomenon corresponds to the sensation, I term its matter; but that which effects that the content of the phenomenon can be arranged under certain relations, I call its form.
But that in which our sensations are merely arranged, and by which they are susceptible of assuming a certain form, cannot be itself sensation. It is, then, the matter of all phenomena that is given to us a posteriori; the form must lie ready a priori for them in the mind, and consequently can be regarded separately from all sensation."

"Thus, if I take away from our representation of a body all that the understanding thinks as belonging to it, as substance, force, divisibility, etc., and also whatever belongs to sensation, as impenetrability, hardness, colour, etc.; yet there is still something left us from this empirical intuition, namely, extension and shape. These belong to pure intuition, which exists a priori in the mind, as a mere form of sensibility, and without any real object of the senses or any sensation. The science of all the principles of sensibility a priori, I call transcendental aesthetic." - The CPR, Transcendental Aesthetic

Now suddenly you're rambling something about microprocessors and lecturing me on the thing I'm using to type messages at you. — InPitzotl

My point is that rather than accepting the concepts and ideas from the Wiki or other internet sites just because they have typed up and uploaded unto there, but why not try come to the knowledge by discussing and arguing for the clearer concepts and conclusion with the philosophical and logical discourse.

The meanings and concepts reveal in this process seem far clearer and logical than some unknown bloke written out and put them on the net. This is the whole point of philosophy. We don't take anything prima facie. We discuss and debate till the truths emerge from the pure reason.

None. The TR-10 includes interchangeable plug-in components including coefficient setting potentiometers, integrator networks, function switches, comparators, function generators, reference panels, tie point panels, multipliers, and operational amplifiers, as described in the operations manual.

Is there a point to this game or are you just going to indefinitely annoy me? You mentioned something in just the last post about confusion. Now suddenly you're rambling something about microprocessors and lecturing me on the thing I'm using to type messages at you. — InPitzotl

I am just trying to clarify the points that you have been throwing at me. No emotions here.

Computers must have,

the microprocessor
input and out device
storage device for very minimum for HW.

For SW, it must have the OS for the central instruction processing and ROM (booting)

And computers must be able to process data, and take new instructions via the programming languages.

Now which analogue device is equipped with above components and capabilities?

The biggest confusion here is your weird claim that to your knowledge there has never been an analog computer, followed by denying that what everyone else calls an analog computer is an analog computer. If that's the confusion you're talking about, I have another idea of how to resolve it. — InPitzotl

What microprocessor did TR-10 have? Which programming languages does it operate on?
And what is the O/S for the TR-10?

..then all you're saying is you have not seen a square circle. So what? — InPitzotl

It is not as simple as that.

The most significant difference between analogue device and computer is that, the computers have microprocessors equipped in. The processors have the pre-programmed instructions for processing the data. So, it is flexible and versatile. Computers can be interfaced with other specially designed interfaces to perform other myriad of functions too.

Analogue devices don't have the microprocessors in them. They cannot process any data. They are purely mechanical in their design and structure, and cannot perform even 1% of what the modern digital computers can. They are data monitoring devices or receivers / players at best.

The absolute best you could do with this argument is to argue that an analog computer doesn't match your definition of a computer, which is uninteresting.

Per linguistic standards, insofar as your definition does not fit the established usage, its your definition that's wrong. — InPitzotl

Normally I go with the dictionary definitions on most concepts, but wiki? I don't trust wiki sorry.
And in my profession, I have dealt with myriads of analogue devices, so I know exactly what they do, and are for. In real life and the world, they cannot be classed as computers.

For computers, they must be able to store, retrieve, compute and search for data, and process them into useful and organised form of information. Analogue devices cannot do that from the limitation of their structure. OK, if you are desperate, you can call an ancient abacus a computer.

But due to the misuse and widening of the concepts, you will find that the confusions will never go away in the discussions and even in real life. I try to narrow the concepts whenever possible.

Just picked up a copy of "Naming and Necessity" by Kripke.

I could have been born in Curiocity myself! — Prishon

Thank you for being a patient and respectable dialectic interlocutor Prishon in this thread. From the dialectic process I have learnt something new today. It was cool. Never a waste of time. I salute ~

For a decent definition of computer in modern times, computers must be able to store, search, compute, and recover data for its minimum functions. With analogue structure of the device, they cannot perform these functions in any practical ways.

An analog(ue?) computer doesnt actually compute. — Prishon

Great point, mate. :up:

There isn't any doubt about the existence of analogue computers, just try to read and understand what people are saying to you. — Daemon

I questioned until it was clear. I am still in denial of those old machines as computers, but did admit that someone went and wrote them into wiki.
BTW, Your attitude is not philosophical, actually despicable. You don't allow people doubt and question on things which are murky in origin.

Thanks for your explanations. Excellent.