Free will
in [Lisp]
|
From: Bob Felts on 3 Jun 2010 19:01 RG <rNOSPAMon(a)flownet.com> wrote: > In article <hu8hmo$tpn$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Raffael Cavallaro > <raffaelcavallaro(a)pas.despam.s.il.vous.plait.mac.com> wrote: > > > You can't escape subjective experience in building the logical > > foundation of science. > > Of course you can. You and Bob Felts are both simply wrong about this. > Read David Deutsch's book. You are arguing ad ignorantum. > Is this still going on? Since I cited Russell to another poster just a minute ago, let me provide yet another quotation from his "Problems of Philosophy": | In one sense it must be admitted that we can never prove the existence | of things other than ourselves and our experiences. No logical | absurdity results from the hypothesis that the world consists of | myself and my thoughts and feelings and sensations, and that | everything else is mere fancy. (pg. 23). [...] > > > Note that this is *not* about the Copenhagen interpretation of QM - we > > never get to QM, let alone interpretations thereof, except by first > > going through plain old human observation of the world, which is > > precisely subjective experience. > > > > IOW, you can't jump out of your own skin. Your (and my) whole way of > > knowing the world is through your subjective experience of it. > > No, that is absolutely and demonstrably false. I have never personally > experienced being in a quantum superposition of states. Indeed, I have > never personally witnessed any QM experiment that actually demonstrated > the quantum nature of anything. (I've seen polarization experiments and > interference patterns, but nothing that I have personally witnessed > rules out the possibility that light is merely a wave and not a > particle.) So my way of viewing the world (which is the scientifically > accepted way of viewing the world) is not only not dependent on my > subjective experience, it is completely and utterly at odds with my > subjective experience. > That's a really interesting argument. On the other hand, your imagination can be at odds with your "subjective" experience. The problem with your rebuttal is that you don't know the limits of your mind. [...]
From: mdj on 5 Jun 2010 19:54
On Jun 4, 8:51 am, w...(a)stablecross.com (Bob Felts) wrote: > > Since accepting <insert theological belief system here> requires an > > act of faith, there's no choice but to conclude you're not being > > entirely Truthful about your belief in experiment and rational > > argument. > > The problem with your rebuttal is that _everything_ requires an "act of > faith." Bertrand Russell, in his book, "Problems of Philosophy", wrote: Yes, Russell is arguing that application of philosophical discipline leads, effectively via successive approximation, to a system of knowledge that becomes ever less likely to contain further errors. > | All knowledge, we find, must be built up upon our instinctive beliefs, > | and if these are rejected, nothing is left. (pg. 25) > > | Philosophy should show us our hierarchy of instinctive beliefs, > | beginning with those we hold most strongly, and presenting each as > | much isolated and as free from irrelevant additions as possible. It > | should take care to show that, in the form in which they are finally > | set forth, our instinctive beliefs do not clash, but form a harmonious > | system. There can never be any reason for rejecting one instinctive > | belief except that it clashes with others; thus, if they are found to > | harmonize, the whole system becomes worthy of acceptance. (pg. 25) > > So, please, don't call me a liar unless you have some actual proof. I said you were not being entirely truthful, just as when you above leave out the next paragraph of Russell's text. It *is* intellectually dishonest to cherry pick quotes from the work of a man you know full well did not support the argument you're making. The untestable limit of course is the assumption that there actually *is* a universe for our sense data to interpret, as Russell points out. To suggest that this supports believing an unfalsifiable hypothesis (ie theology) to be equivalent *not* believing it indicates you are either: 1. Being intellectually dishonest (probably as a result of cognitive dissonance due to unsupportable beliefs) 2. An ignoramus > > > Straw arguments are easy, Ron. I'd continue the discussion, but I don't > > > want to have to put words in your mouth, and "Mu" doesn't advance > > > anything. > > > Ad homs are even easier, as you're adequately demonstrating here. > > Where did I attack Ron? The only examples of straw arguments I've seen here are yours. An unsupported accusation is of course, such an attack. Matt |