I see.

Yes, appreciatively.

:up:

"Not disproven" doesn't mean: "proven", it means: "possible". — LuckyR

That depends on what sort of possibility you are referring to.

https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-logical-possibility-and-vs-metaphysical-possibility/

:100: :up:

It's not illogical. If you think it is, could you show how? — frank

Vats don't have toes that can be smashed.

The memories I retain are a sense of rapture at the extraordinary beauty of natural things, some vivid hallucinatory experiences, and a sense of 'why isn't life always like this?' — Wayfarer

For me it was the early 80s. I didn't have vivid hallucinations, although people I tripped with did. (I suspect I may be towards the aphantasic end of a aphantasia-hyperphantasia spectrum.)

But yes, the overwhelming beauty of everything was wonderful to experience.

Say I find out that there is some sort of obligation embedded into my genes: ok, is it really the moral thing to do though? — Bob Ross

I was quite surprised when my first child was born, how overwhelmingly protective I felt towards her. I had fully expected to love her, but this went beyond that, to recognition that I wouldn't hesitate to die to protect her.

I suspect most people are naturally inclined to view acting out of that sort of protectiveness to be moral. I myself don't think there are moral fact though.

Anybody want a peanut? — flannel jesus

:lol:

Do you have an opinion of how information exists, mechanistically or otherwise, only an abstraction or something physical? I've noticed some physicalislts use information as an abstraction without identifying a means for it to physically exist. — Mark Nyquist

Learning about Hebbian theory is a good place to start, followed by looking into information processing via neural nets.

But sometimes (not always) the appeal to emergence is just as much of a non-explanation as appealing to a notion of God. In both cases, we need convincing details. — bert1

Understandable, but sometimes convincing details are only available to people who study a lot of relevant stuff.

Me, I'm kind of a Fezzik of neuroscience. :strong: :wink: I've seen lots of convincing details, of the emergence of minds from brains.

Well some times emergence-of-the-gaps is used a bit like a God-of-the-gaps. Of course, lots of instances of novel properties emerging from systems is entirely reasonable and comprehensible. But sometimes people come pretty close to saying "emergence-did-it" without offering convincing details, most obviously when arguing that consciousness is an emergent property of brain activity. — bert1

There is a big difference however, in that instances of emergence are observed all over the place, whereas omniscient minds existing for no reason aren't.

Have I ever! Don't get me started . . . :starstruck: — J

FWIW, the fact that you have such a basis for comparison makes me more interested in hearing more.

In my opinion (and experience), a direct encounter with the mystical is extremely powerful evidence in support of theism. — J

Have you ever tried LSD, as a basis for comparison of altered states that you can experience?

I can certainly understand mystical states of mind as having an intensity that can be surprising, and how people can easily be inclined to think a non-mundane explanation is needed. However, "powerful evidence"?

Quite agree. This seems to be coming to the fore - that there is no single way in which to be conscious. — Banno

:100: :up:

Computer information processing is simply a mechanical procedure --- one thing after another --- as envisioned by Shannon. And some people still expect those assembly-line mechanisms to soon become Conscious, emulating human Sentience, as the data through-put increases. — Gnomon

Your thinking is rather last decade. The systems that run modern AIs use many interconnected processors operating in parallel, and a complex ballet of distributed processing is a more accurate metaphor than an assembly line. Furthermore, neuromorphic hardware that will massively increase the degree of parallelism while also dramatically dropping the power consumption is around the corner.

People often call a NTS fallacy in situations where there is actually a genuine ambiguity at hand. As such, it's not a case of a fallacy at all. — baker

There being a genuine ambiguity at hand, is rather key to a no true Scotsman fallacy being a fallacy.

Because many people have been indoctrinated into believing a false account of human nature and don't want to accept a more accurate (less grandiose) understanding.
— wonderer1

Having high expectations isn't necessarily painful. It is painful if it comes from a position of weakness, of loss, of dependence. If it comes from a position of entitlement or strength, then having high expectations is not painful. — baker

I don't know how your response is supposed to relate to what I said.

Do you consider "grandiose understanding" synonymous with "high expectations"? I sure don't. I didn't say anything about "painful" either. You are jumping to conclusions.

Do you think that religious indoctrination doesn't result in many people believing a false account of human nature?

I also think that saying to an apostate, 'you were never a true Muslim or Christian' is an obvious and often false accusation religions use to defend their own weaknesses. — Tom Storm

Not to mention a no true Scotsman fallacy.

The topic has induced more interest than I thought it would... — Banno

Though I haven't had time to read the book, I've very much appreciated the discussion.

I’d love to hear your thought on how his arguments don’t hold up! — T4YLOR

I'm afraid I'm not that interested in the topic these days, but you can find plenty of people to discuss WLC's arguments with at:

https://knowwhyyoubelieve.org/groups/reasonable-faith-forum/

There are some truly remarkable works in philosophy of religion (especially Christianity). One of my current favorites is William Lane Craig, who is best know for his popularization of the Kalam cosmological argument, writes on the question "What is the bare minimum we need to believe in Christianity?" This does not mean that we discard what is improbable, rather, we should interpret it in a way that is meaningful and in alignment with necessary doctrines. — T4YLOR

Have you spent any time on WLC's forum? You might find WLC's arguments don't stand up so well.

In any case, what is the relevance of "the bare minimum we need to believe in Christianity"? That sounds like a criteria that someone who wants to cling to a belief would be concerned with.

I don't think so, but the question is obviously pressing. And why is it pressing? — Wayfarer

Yeah, the issue of misinformation is a pressing one.

It wouldn't be because those despised 'Intelligent Design' advocates, Michael Behe and others, have actually hit a nerve? Heaven forbid! — Wayfarer

It sounds like you are a cdesign-proponetsist. Perhaps you are fooling yourself about being on the side of the angels here?

Why don’t people change their expectations instead of being mad about human nature? — Skalidris

Because expectations are largely a function of intuitions, and changing intuitions isn't under our conscious control, and can take a long time.

Because many people have been indoctrinated into believing a false account of human nature and don't want to accept a more accurate (less grandiose) understanding.

Gnice...like a gnife to the gnuts... — Janus

:naughty:

So, I re-interpreted Shannon's definition of Information in terms of 1s & 0s, as a reference to Bookends, not the Books ; Carrier of meaning, not the Content. Unfortunately, my groping attempt to describe that unfamiliar & unconventional perspective may sound like "Gnonsense", because it is literally Unorthodox, Atypical, and Eccentric. Maybe, over time, I will be able to find a more Gnomeaningful way to express that contradiction. — Gnomon

I don't see how it means anything to say you have "re-interpreted" Shannon's definition of information, when you show no indication of having ever understood Shannon's definition of information in the first place. You've demonstrated over and over that you have no meaningful understanding of what is meant by "a bit". It is ludicrous to think that you have any meaningful degree of understanding of Shannon's theory, when you don't understand such a basic element of it.

And yet you won't stop pretending that you understand information theory...

It's not eccentric or unorthodox. What it is, is silly pretension to having expertise that you don't have.

For better or worse, I've had enough experience with people who think like you, to know the pattern pretty well.

What is interesting to me though as a non-drinker is the sociological reaction to the non-drinker. I think non-drinkers make drinkers uncomfortable. I'm not sure if they feel judged or something or if they feel guilty for doing something that they'd feel less guilty about if everyone around them were joining in. — Hanover

Yeah, it's interesting. I am not affected by alcohol the way a lot of people are, and I don't get the appeal myself. (Which is not to say I haven't had some great times while drinking socially.)

Perhaps for some people, who get more out of drinking, it is a matter of wanting to feel like others are on their "wavelength" or something like that? That is kind of the impression I've gotten, at least in some cases.

But doing the wrong thing based on what we think we know about global-warming/climate-change is a VERY expensive mistake. — Agree-to-Disagree

You aren't sufficiently informed, to speak with anywhere near the authority you pretend to. The VERY expensive mistake, of allowing the CO2 levels to continue to rise, has been ongoing for decades.

The notion of dumping sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere has been under consideration for a long time:

Mikhail Budyko is believed to have been the first, in 1974, to put forth the concept of artificial solar radiation management with stratospheric sulfate aerosols if global warming ever became a pressing issue.[150] Such controversial climate engineering proposals for global dimming have sometimes been called a "Budyko Blanket".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection#History

It's indicative of how bad we have let it get, that polluting the atmosphere in additional ways has to be considered as a possible option.

I agree there are many facts about perception, including scientific observations about how it works, but that wasn't my point: the point was that whether it is 'direct' or 'indirect' is a matter of looking at it from different perspectives, using different definitions of 'direct' and 'indirect'. Perhaps the terms 'mediate' and 'immediate' would be better alternatives. Phenomenologically speaking our perceptions certainly seem immediate. On the other hand. scientific analysis show perceptions to be highly mediated processes. Which is right? Well, they both are in their own ways. — Janus

Makes sense. Thanks for elaborating.

It is possible that more than one way of thinking about things is valid, in one way or another. But surely some sort of selection will be needed sooner or later. — Ludwig V

I'm inclined to see, thinking of things from a variety of perspectves as a matter of ongoing epistemic necessity. I couldn't do my job, without frequently changing the conceptual framework I am using to consider things. Why would some sort of selection be necessary?

...As I attempted to describe in a post above, Shannon bracketed the meaningful realm of Information mathematically, within a broad range of possibilities from [100% to 0% (White or Black pixels) ] (typically expressed as "1/0" {all or nothing})*1. But the meaningful information is limited to the [something] range between {99% and 1%} : shades of gray.

Those extreme (all or nothing) cases are completely meaningless {entropic} except to denote statistical probabilities. Hence, digital computer "bits" are inherently open & undefined, allowing them to communicate almost infinite expressions of meaning... — Gnomon

Gnonsense.

Many Scientist deny vaccines too because DNA is a fractal and splicing shit into and out of a fractal necessarily ruin said fractal unless developed specifically for that DNA. — Vaskane

Can you cite any articles in scientific journals saying anything like that?

My point was that, in thinking about perception in different ways, using different criteria for what would count as 'direct' and 'indirect', perception can be considered to be either direct or indirect.So my question is, given there is no fact of the matter regarding which is the case. what is the problem? — Janus

It makes more sense to me to think that there are a great many facts of the matter, only some of which we know, but some of those facts can be fairly well understood.

memory recall should be limited to that of a mortal lifespan whereby 7 or 8 decades-old memories are continually "overwritten" by new memories so that an "immortal" remains a psychologically human mortal — 180 Proof

Do these ex-mortals have to pay their way? There's going to be an energy requirement. Why think that humanity wouldn't shut you down, at some point in time, rather than pay the bill?

And we can see very clearly the mess many of them are making in god's name. — Tom Storm

Indeed. Global warming denial tends to be big among the religious.

Were any of the six fundamental constraints different in very small ways, matter would not form, 'the universe' would comprise plasma or something. — Wayfarer

Plasma or something is not nothing.

But that’s where the cosmological constants and fine-tuned universe arguments come into play - Martin Rees' 'six numbers'. They themselves might not amount to laws, but they're constraints in the absence of which nothing would exist... — Wayfarer

No, not constraints in the absence of which nothing would exist. Something would exist, we just wouldn't be a part of what exists.

What we see when we see the cup is not something separate from or independent from what we call it and what we use it for. — Fooloso4

Is that consistent with me using a cup to trap a spider?

People surely have the ability to see ways of using things, in ways no one has before. So surely what we 'see' is more than just previously recognized linguistic and usage associations?

Perhaps jgill had in mind, something along the lines of the following:

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/11/05/antisemitic-hatred-in-palestinian-schoolbooks/

...I can really see how eyes might roll at this presentation - particularly its bankrolling by the Templeton Foundation. — Wayfarer

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/meet-the-money-behind-the-climate-denial-movement-180948204/