Are you all good with the possibility that we cant know some empirical facts? I.e we should 'just give up', philosophically speaking, on answering certain Qs in practical terms? — AmadeusD

What are "empirical facts"? Empirical evidence is a body of facts (such as observations, measurements...), so "not knowing" empirical facts sounds self-contradictory.

What if 10,000 years from now, we've surveyed millions of promising planets, have found no life anywhere else and still have no consensus on how it got started here? Would you just assume we got incredibly lucky somehow? — RogueAI

What do you mean by "lucky"? The universe is vast (possibly infinite) - if life is possible, then it's a near certainty that it would occur somewhere/somewhen. What does luck have to do with it?

Regarding your hypothetical, you seem to be suggesting that anything we haven't figured out within the next 10,000 years, should be deemed miraculous. Personally, I don't have that much faith in our ability to figure things out. We have our limitations.

I did read the post in its entirety, and I still don't understand what you were agreeing with, when you said "I agree." You followed that assertion with:

"Pretending that everything will eventually fit a certain, current, descriptive paradigm probably isn't a good idea."

I'm merely explaining that I'm a naturalist, not defending any particular scientific paradigm.

That does not mean it wont fit into that framework either. But currently, is not explained by it. — AmadeusD


This is hte point. This is true. And this is why we're talking about it. The emergence of life is mysterious. So we explore :) It's one of hte only things we cannot yet explain under that paradigm. That is interesting in itself, even if it proves merely a longer run-up. — AmadeusD

It is indeed a scientific puzzle, and it's being investigated. The investigators obviously believe there's a natural origin. But their belief shouldn't persuade anyone. A theist's belief that God created life isn't threatened by the beliefs of these scientists, nor should those scientists belief in natural causes be threatened by the theist's belief. Metaphysically, it's moot: the existence of life is consistent with both naturalism and theism (or any other metaphysical system I can think of). The fact that we don't understand life's origin doesn't tip the scales in either direction. Do you agree or disagree with this?

There is no evidence of anything in the world that does NOT behave consistently with physics, so why should we assume otherwise?

I am a metaphysical naturalist because it's clear the natural world exists, and that its behavior is a entirely a consequence of laws of nature (approximated by physics). So I'd be very interested in hearing of something that disconfirms this.

Okay, so explain it to me in terms of chemistry and physics, I can wait. — NotAristotle

I'm neither a biologist, chemist nor physicist, but everything I've read in these fields is consistent with this statement (from a class on Physics for Biology and Pre-Health-Care Majors):

"Biology is integrative– Biological phenomena emerge from and must be consistent with the principles of chemistry, physics, and math. " (source)

This sort of thing is the basis for my belief. You're claiming the above is false, so please show how you justify that belief.

You said life "does not seem explicable by physical mechanisms". That seems unwarranted because every aspect of biological function is consistent with chemistry and physics. That seems to be why some theists focus on abiogenesis, rather than the physical processes of living creatures (albeit that they tend to make arguments from ignorance).

I began this discussion because I believe that I've found some flaws in his theology. — BillMcEnaney

The only "flaws" I've noticed is that his views aren't consistent with Thomist metaphysics. That's not a logical flaw that connotes incoherence; it's just disagreement on certain first principles. I've spent a good bit of time trying to understand Craig's philosophy, and it seems coherent - even though far-fetched (compared to naturalism), so I'd be very interested in examining an incoherence in his views. So please explain: are you claiming Craig's view is incoherent?

Perhaps you should start a thread where you show Thomist metaphysics is likely to be true. It appears to me that the Aristotelian concept of essence (which Thomas inherits) was embraced by the early church because it rationalized transubstantiation (and the Trinity). So you kind of need something like this to be true. However, it's an absurdity, and (IMO) that makes it a good reason to reject Catholicism. I'm eager to know if I'm wrong about it being an absurdity.

Which as a slight tangent leads me to think that should we create "artificial intelligence" using the same principles and laws of natural selection and replication in computing as nature has done with biology: then we ought to probably treat it as just an intelligent being. — Benj96

What do you mean by "intelligent being"? Why would it matter that we label it such? I grieve when my pets die, but I wouldn't grieve when a machine stopped functioning - even if it exhibited some sort of intelligence.

No Catholic expects the Catholic dogma about God's absolute simplicity to convince non-Catholics merely because it's a dogma. But suppose that dogma is true... — BillMcEnaney

Suppose that dogma is false.

The Catholic Church regards the great Protestant Reformers as heretics. I don't think Craig would mine being grouped with them. So I don't know why you obsess on the fact that Craig does not embrace Catholic dogma.

I'm an atheist (and former Catholic). I've examined Craig's theistic arguments and found their weaknesses. Why don't you do likewise: examine Craig's theology and find its weaknesses? It seems pointless to just dwell on his differences with Catholic dogma unless you can show thid dogma is more likely to be true.

What do you believe? — Benj96

I believe in metaphysical naturalism: everything that exists is part of the natural world, and all causes are natural. Our understanding of the natural world is incomplete, and this will probably always be the case. It seems silly to focus on one aspect of the world that is not fully understood and jump to the conclusion naturalism is false.

Let me sum up my point about a vicious infinite regress. In a YouTube video, Dr. Craig says that without creation, God is timeless and temporal after it. On the other and, classical theists believe that God is absolutely simple with no parts of any kind. And potentials are metaphysical parts. — BillMcEnaney

I'm pretty sure Craig would disagree that "potentials are...parts".

So, if God is purely actual, there's no potential in him. But Dr. Craig implies that God is metaphysical parts when he, Craig, says that God went from being possibly in time to being actually in it.

I doubt Craig believe God is "purely actual". Craig's view is that God is timeless "sans creation", and temporal with creation, but this temporal/timeless characteristic is a relational property, not an intrinsic property.

Any object with potential is a composed object. And each composed object needs cause to put the parts together.

Craig embraces divine simplicity; he does not embrace Thomist metaphysics. So what if he's inconsistent with a metaphysical system he does not embrace? If you are committed to Thomist metaphysics, then you can certainly reject Craig's philosophy. But perhaps you should reconsider Thomism.

Miracles are not contrary to nature, but only what we know of nature' — Wayfarer

That's an epistemological definition of "miracle". I prefer a metaphysical definition, wherein a miracle is an event involving something unnatural (irrespective of anyone perceiving it as such).

Re: Armstrong - his main achievement was the development of a comprehensive, physicalist metaphysics (described in A World of States of Affairs). I've found it a useful framework when debating theists who suggest that an unnatural basis is somehow needed to account for the natural world.

What's your issue with his theory of mind? He's influenced a lot of other philosophers.

Interesting you mention universals, they are not spoken of much in most contemporary discourse about naturalism. What's your view of their role? — Wayfarer

David Armstrong's physicalist metaphysics utilizes universals (existing immanently, not in a "third realm") and they're accepted by all law realists. I'm not aware of a more plausible alternative, so I accept them.

Their "role" is ontological. Single properties (and sets of properties) can be instantiated in multiple particulars. e.g. -1 electric charge is a universal, with multiple instantiations. Electron is a universal (a set of properties) instantiated in each individual electron.

naturalism assumes an order of nature, without which it wouldn't be able to get started. But it doesn't explain the order of nature - nor does it need to. — Wayfarer

The order in nature is observed, not merely assumed. Both metaphysical systems should explain it. Naturalism best explains it as law realism: there is order, because there are laws of nature that necessitate it; and laws of nature are relations between universals.

If theism explains order by assuming an omnipotent intelligence just happens to exist that chooses to establish order, that entails a rather enormous assumption.

Again, "substance" means "essence." So what do you mean by "inside" when I'm not talking bout spatial relationships. I'm doing metaphysics instead of science. — BillMcEnaney

Aren't you treating Thomist metaphysics as dogma? Why accept it? Isn't it to rationalize other dogma (including transsubstantiation)?

When you demand evidence for belief in God, I think a perfectly rational theistic response is 'look around you, you're standing in it'...And let's not forget that while science discovers and exploits the order of nature, it doesn't explain it. — Wayfarer

Naturalism is a metaphysical theory - just as is theism. A metaphysical theory provides the explanation. The theory must explain all the objective facts of world (what we see by "looking around") - both can do that, but theism depends on more ad hoc assumptions.

That's what I mean about the shortcoming of empirical demands - 'show me where this "god" is. You can't produce any evidence'. It's a misplaced demand. But, that said, I'm not going to go all-in to try and win the argument, it's take it or leave it, and most will leave it.

The proper demand is: show me evidence (facts) that can't be explained by naturalism.

The disciples knew that they were going to be persecuted, and apparently, most of them were tortured to death. — Brendan Golledge

There is no reliable evidence of disciples being tortured to death for their beliefs about Jesus. There was sporadic persecution by Rome for Christian's failures to give tribute to the state gods, and Nero used Christians as scapegoats for fires.

On the Reliability of Eye-Witness Testimony: — Brendan Golledge

What eyewitness testimony? The earliest Gospel was written ~5 decades after Jesus death by educated Greek speakers outside Palestine, not by his illiterate, Aramaic speaking disciples. There were stories being ciculated orally, some probably based on actual anecdotal accounts, but with legendary elements added. Also bear in mind the Gospels are not independent accounts: Matthew & Luke were largely copied from Mark and a source of alleged sayings of Jesus'.

Possible Explanation of Some Miracles — Brendan Golledge

Jesus seems to have had a reputation for faith healing and exorcisms. That does not entail actual miracles.

The bottom line: you give to much credence to the Gospels. Critical NT scholars extract some likely history; e.g. Jesus lived and was executed by crucifixion for Treason or sedition; he was probably an apocalyptic prophet, preaching the imminent end of the then-current world order and establishment of a "Kingdom of God" on earth.

God's nature establishes some truths that can't be contradicted. It still boils down to the logically possible.

BTW, I found a transcript wherein Craig discusses Ignatius, transubstantiation, and the Lutheran alternative of co-substantuation:


https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-1/s1-the-doctrine-of-the-church/the-doctrine-of-the-church-part-7

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-1/s1-the-doctrine-of-the-church/the-doctrine-of-the-church-part-8

Can an all-powerful God make a rock that he can't lift? No, he can't do that. The question implies that though he can do anything, there's something he. can't do.. It implies a self-contradiction. But that's alright because classical theists believe that God can do any logically possible thing that his nature allows. — BillMcEnaney

Craig agrees that omnipotence entails the ability to do anything that is logically possible. It is not a limitation to be unable to do the logically impossible.

if you read St. Ignatius of Antioch's 2nd-century letter to the Smyrnaeans where he warned them to avoid anyone who denied that bread changed into Christ's body and blood. — BillMcEnaney

Which implies that some people in the early 2nd century believed in transubstantiation.

Catholics pay attention to what the Early Church believed. But many Protestants ignore it because they believe sola scriptura. — BillMcEnaney

They believe scripture is the inspired word of God. The writing of the Apostolic fathers is not scripture.

Thanks for clarifying the question- sorry I had missed it.

Regarding the question "are we in a simulation?" I interpret this as similar to "is solipsism true?" It's impossible to prove one way or another, but nevertheless - it's rational to believe we are not.

Regarding the Turing test: it has been passed - to a degree. See: https://www.reading.ac.uk/news-archive/press-releases/pr583836.html

Conversely, humans have "failed" the Turing test (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna163206) -- observers inferred that a human's responses were not humans.

Regarding "true" AI: IMO, it would entail a machine engaging in thoughts, learning as we do, processing information as we do, and producing novel "ideas" as we do. Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) seem the most promising way forward on this front. Progress would not be measured by fooling people, but by showing there are processes that work like our brains do. Benefits include confirming our theories about some of the ways our brains work. The long game: success makes the "simulation hypothesis" that much more incredible, but never impossible.

And if a machine passes the test (it's a text test, so there's no robot body that also has to be convincing), then it exhibits intelligent behavior. The test is not too weak. — noAxioms

The Turing Test is passed by fooling people into believing there's a human giving responses in a conversation. This is feasible today at least within a limited range of conversation topics. What more are you looking for? A wider range of topics? Regardless, human responses are the product of thought processes (including feelings, reactions, influenced by motivations that could change during the course of the conversation). Example: a human can express true empathy; a computer can produce words that sound like it's expressing empathy - but it actually is not. The human may change her behavior (responding differently) based on this; will the computer?

Do you really want a self-driving car's actions to be (partly) directed by emotion?

The worst thing that you can do in an emergency is panic.

If the self-driving car is programmed correctly then it will probably do the best thing. — Agree-to-Disagree

Probably the right thing, sure - but only if the particular situation has been anticipated and programmed. I have in mind situations that aren't anticipated, but there are objectives imbedded in the thing along with the capacity to create a solution that meets that objective.

Just to be clear: I'm skeptical we can build a machine with actual emotions. Looking beyond that, if we could build such things, I'm assuming we can tailor its emotions toward usefullness and with fail-safes to prevent it doing something harmful or stupid due to panic . That's what I had in mind with my "emotional" self-driving car. We wouldn't build it with a "panic mode" that induces suboptimal behavior. A kid running in front of the car triggers an "emotional reaction" that results in the car temporarily abandoning its travel objective and focusing on figuring out how to avoid killing the kid. Alternatively, if a certain orange politician runs into its path, it would seek a course of action consistent with the zeroth law of robotics.

If you build a machine that has a sense of self, then one of its motivations is likely to be self survival. Why build a machine that will destroy itself? — Agree-to-Disagree

If we are building it, then we are building in the motivations we want it to have. Asimov's 3 laws seem reasonable.

Well, some people claim that they can't think at all! Are you conceding that they can think, just not creatively? Can you give a definition of "creative thinking " that could be used in a Turing-type test? — Ludwig V

It depends on how you define thinking. Digital computers can certainly apply logic, and Artificial Neural Networks can perform pattern recognition. One might label those processes as thoughts.

The Turing Test is too weak, because it can be passed with a simulation. Simulating intelligent behavior is not actually behaving intelligently.

What I had in mind with my comment about creativity was this. When you drive, if a child runs into the street, you will do whatever is necessary to avoid hitting her: brake if possible, but you might even swerve into a ditch or parked car to avoid hitting the kid. Your actions will depend on a broad set of perceptions and background knowledge, and partly directed by emotion. A self-driving car will merely detect an obstacle in its path and execute the action it is programmed to take. It can't think outside the box. A broader set of optional responses could be programmed into it, giving the impression of creativity- but the car wouldn't have spontaneously created the response, as you might.

Machines do lots of things better than we do, but they can't think creatively. Self-driving cars are possible, but their programming is very different from the way we drive.

Do we really want to? (Somebody else suggested that we might not even try) — Ludwig V

Sure: for proof of concept, it should be fine to produce some rudimentary intentionality, at the levels of some low level animals like cockroaches. Terminating it would then be a pleasure.

Give AI senses and the possibility to act, then the difference to human behaviour will diminish on the long run. Does this mean that we are just sophisticated machines and all talk about freedom of choice and responsibility towards our actions is just wishful thinking? Or is there something fundamentally wrong about our traditional concepts regarding mind and matter? I maintain that we need a new world-picture, especially as the Newtonian view is nowadays as outdated as the Ptolemaic system was in the 16th century. But this will be a new thread in our forum. — Pez

The possibly insurmountable challenge is to build a machine that has a sense of self, with motivations.

This NY Times Article indicates Bradley had a falling out with Wade, and subsequently helped Merchant build her case against Willis and Wade - implying that Bradley may have been a bit loose with the facts when helping Merchant.

Merchant would like to judge to infer that his prior statements to her about the start of their relationship are true, and (by implication) he's choosing to be uncooperative on the stand. But this has to be weighed against the possibility Bradley was simply being vindictive when he helped Merchant, and unwilling to stand by his statements to her because he's under oath. IMO, this cancels out any negative effect of Bradley's testimony or communications with Merchant.

In her court filing, Willis wrote: "“Conflict arises when a prosecutor has a personal interest or stake in a defendant’s conviction - a charge that no defendant offers any support for beyond fantastical theories and rank speculation.”

If that is true, then there is no conflict of interest. If she actually hired Wade because of her personal relationship, rather than perceived qualifications, the impact would be a poor prosecution - not a consequence that hurts the defendants in the RICO case.

The Fulton County Board of Ethics is holding a hearing next week to evaluate an ethics complaint against Willis. IMO, there's a better chance she'll be held to account in that venue, than in the disqualification hearing. But that won't get her disqualified.

My bad: I didn't think about the fact this would constitute solicitation. I've edited that out.

I tend to assume scam unless it's verifiably from a known source for a clear purpose, and that source has no history of scamming.

A gofundme was set up to help Donald pay his just judgement. IN the 10 days since this was set up, they've raised enough money to cover about 10 days worth of interest on the judgement.

The Fox headline was: "New presidential rankings place Obama in top 10, Reagan and Trump below Biden"

Within the article, they did acknowledge Trump came in dead last, but some readers won't look past the headlines.

If Trump wins the election he will listed as the 47th President. Will he then have two places in the ranking?

What is logic? IMO, it's semantics. "And", "or", if...then....else" and "not" have precise meanings, as clarified in truth tables. We apply logic applies to propositions, also semantic representations.

The world does not depend on logic. Our understanding of the world (which is semantical) is improved through valid logic. If we were omniscient, logic would be pointless.

There have been some attempts to return to a realistic view of the world. But neither of them seems to me very convincing. For example Karl Popper: all physical laws brought forward by science are only more a less happy guesses and can be falsified any time by a crucial experiment. — Pez

But their happy guesses of something that is underlying nature: actual natural law. Several philosophers (Armstrong, Sosa, Tooley are the best known) have proposed Law Realism: the notion that there exist actual laws of nature. Under this theory, laws of nature are relations between universals (IOW, they are not mere abstractions: platonic equations that exist in a "third realm").

A universal is a type of thing, something that is typically multiply instantiated. For example, electron and proton are two such universals. It is a law of nature that electrons and neutrons attract: "attraction" is a relation between the universals electron and neutron.

Laws of physics constitute our best guess at laws of nature, and are falsifiable - but that just means we've erred in the approximation of the actual law.

Law realism is a metaphysical theory, and in Armstrong's case - it's a fundamental aspect of the comprehensive metaphysical system he described in his life's work.

This abstract to Tooley's paper provides more background. If you want something more comprehensive, a used copy of Armstrong's "What is a Law of Nature" can be bought for $4 on Amazon.

The Trump cult has weaponized victimhood, and the GOP has embraced and furthered this paradigm because they perceive it to be successful. (Here's a paper submitted to the 1/6 committee on the topic).

And yet, the Pro-Trump media continues to feed the "witch hunt" narrative. The article Fox posted yesterday announces the verdict, then proceeds to describe Trump's grievances and repeats his courtroom defense - as if the prosecution never mounted a case.

The problem I see with claims that QM actually is deterministic is that it's like saying it is computable. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It's at least probabalistically deterministic, and a pure state quantum system is fully deterministic.

Does Fernee embrace a Many-Worlds Interpretation of QM?

Why didn't Hur just leave it there? He is not qualified to make as assessment of Biden's cognitive capacities and it is extraneous to the assessment he was tasked and is qualified to make. — Fooloso4

I guess because he wanted to be thorough in presenting potential defenses. Biden IS old, and sounds old. Is a failure to remember specific years when something happened indicative of cognitive impairment? I don't think so, but it fits easily into the narrative.

Biden stole classified documents and gets off. — NOS4A2

Your allegation is unsupported by evidence. Here's a statement from the Hur report:

“We have concluded that there is not a prosecutable case against Biden. Although there was a basis to open the investigation based on the fact that classified documents were found in Biden’s homes and office space, that is insufficient to establish a crime was committed.The illegal retention or dissemination of national defense information requires that he knew of the existence of such documents and that he knew they contained national defense information.It is not a crime without those additional elements. Our investigation, after a thorough year-long review, concludes that there is an absence of such necessary proof. Indeed, we have found a number of innocent explanations as to which we found no contrary evidence to refute them and found affirmative evidence in support of them.”

In Trump's case - he knew he had national security documents, refused to turn them over when requested, hid them, and lied about it. And as you know, the classification level of the documents is not directly related to the crimes he is charged with - which stem from the espionage act.

Aside from the crimes, I continue to be astounded that Trump supporters think his alleged blanket declassification of national security documents somehow eliminates the national security risks of doing so.

But you have to accept that you’re in the minority and the median voter disagrees with you. — Chisholm

None of us have the facts necessary to make an objective judgment of the cognitive capacities of either candidate. The fact that more people believe Biden is cognitively incapable of doing the job is a tribute to the success of right-wing media at pushing that narrative. Consequently, it's an issue for Biden's campaign to deal with it. They may, or may not, be successful.

That said, I absolutely would prefer a younger, more dynamic candidate - who is a better campaigner. My main criticism of Biden is that he's a poor politician. I nevertheless think he's done a good job in his Presidential duties.