tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post2124189737856496151..comments2024-03-28T19:14:33.619-07:00Comments on The Splintered Mind: Waterfall SkepticismEric Schwitzgebelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-69611344873886626602014-10-01T17:23:00.523-07:002014-10-01T17:23:00.523-07:00We know what we are. We know rational thought is n...We know what we are. We know rational thought is not possible unless there is free will. <br /><br />When what amounts to simpletons saying only things like --which path to take in a fork in the road or which color car to choose is what free will is, we know in fact-- in a conversation alone....there would be a choice on every single word... its inflection, melody, percussion, length, tone, velocity,amplitude ,and pauses...and thats all besides the choice of arrangement of the idea itself.<br /><br />Picture your kitchen right now. You had to retrieve that information that builds your kitchen and *You had to see it internally using your will and you will have to retrieve information from all over to formulate a response, how you would word that response and when and if you will respond. You could not move a single thing around to form concepts if you could not move the matter in your brain. You know this. You have to be talked out of it--usually by someone who has an agenda for denying it.<br /><br />We know we are not sims, we know we there are not copies of ourselves, we know this world was created for Us. Yes, how arrogant. I say-- how arrogant to even begin to deny it. I see more confusion from the self refuting philosophy of naturalism and it all stems from denying what we already Know.<br /><br />The fine tuning was what we would expect if this was true. The Big was what we would expect. DNA code is what we would expect. We have discoveries that were obviously not even a factor in virtually all of humanity's conclusion that God is the best explanation for the world we see and experience. To suggest a multiverse after these finding is lunacy-but again, there is an agenda. Many have realized this though--atheism has only 17% retention rate--but with the all the books and speeches these atheist give..as if there whole life's purpose is to debunk what everyone believes, it is predictable. With all the angry rants they have committed its almost as if they feel they must be doomed by now. If they admit what the data is telling them--how can they sleep at night?<br /><br />anyway ,sorry for the long post. I just hate to see how turned around these scientists have got people.John Burgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06021462296956618398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-51271440345654116372013-05-23T20:47:09.777-07:002013-05-23T20:47:09.777-07:00I loved this post. Essentially, this is (to me an...I loved this post. Essentially, this is (to me anyway) a snapshot of what goes on in a philosophical mind...never-ending arguments and counter-arguments. Thanks for posting! Amitabha Palmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09302663284135239000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-9890001456755716812013-05-01T09:59:31.019-07:002013-05-01T09:59:31.019-07:00Thanks for the comments folks! I can't addres...Thanks for the comments folks! I can't address them all, but:<br /><br />@ Scott: Yes, that sounds about right. Except I'm not sure about this "too seriously" business. Is philosophy just supposed to be a game? Maybe I should take it somewhat seriously but not *that* seriously? (I'm tempted to draw a parallel to my work on the moral behavior of ethics professors.)<br /><br />@ Anon Apr 30 01:40: "If Bolzmann brains exist, aren't they much more likely to have experiences and pseud-memories that are almost completely crazy?" Right, but I run the conditional differently. Given that I do have experiences and apparent memories of the sort that I seem to have, what are the odds my being a BB? If BB's vastly outnumber evolved consciousnesses, then high. If I give the hypothesis that there is a vast number of BB's out there a subjective credence of 15%, then my subjective credence that I am a BB should be almost 15%. (There are various views of the epistemology of subjective credence here that come into play, as explored by Bostrom and Weatherson in discussing the simulation case; and that we also see in discussion of the "Sleeping Beauty" case; so I shouldn't say that like it's entirely straightforward.)Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-12208867776214387362013-05-01T09:38:03.506-07:002013-05-01T09:38:03.506-07:00"Sextus Empiricus was wrong; I have not found..."Sextus Empiricus was wrong; I have not found that skepticism leads to equanimity."<br /><br />That just means you still take philosophy too seriously! Or in other words, that you're not actually a skeptic at all, but a philosopher stuck on the verge of becoming one. Scott Bakkerhttp://rsbakker.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-83245870186333295582013-04-30T06:24:54.295-07:002013-04-30T06:24:54.295-07:00It might be off-topic, but I feel the need to writ...It might be off-topic, but I feel the need to write this to you. I was watching the coronation ceremonies in Holland and my friend turned to me and said:<br />"when a king enters usually people, envision rich invaluable crowns."<br />I asked him what he meant but he acted as if he didn't say it. I hope this message arrive when it is supposed to arrive.Realitynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-70574345027818467002013-04-30T01:40:47.995-07:002013-04-30T01:40:47.995-07:00If Bolzmann brains exist, aren't they much mor...If Bolzmann brains exist, aren't they much more likely to have experiences and pseud-memories that are almost completely crazy? It seems like there are far (far, far!) more ways of putting together a Boltzmann brain that has incoherent beliefs and memories than the coherent sort we would be were we B-brains. Even if it's more likely we're B-Brains than not using the standard argument, it's also more likely we'd be totally nutty B-brains than sane B-brains, given how many more nutty configurations there are than sane ones. So why am I (are you) a B-brain that has such non-random pseudo-memories?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-85971642792644845902013-04-29T18:46:27.385-07:002013-04-29T18:46:27.385-07:00In regards to the Boltzmann idea, it's just de...In regards to the Boltzmann idea, it's just depends on how much emphasis you put on the time between now and the first formation of life on this planet.<br /><br />If you treat that time as merely the blink of an eye, then yes, you did just spontaniously form. <br /><br />And you are possibly seeing things from such a (fairly valid) viewpoint.Callan S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15373053356095440571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-37194740254203158692013-04-29T12:48:18.095-07:002013-04-29T12:48:18.095-07:00Hi, a most excellent post... I clicked on it beca...Hi, a most excellent post... I clicked on it because the waterfall in the thumbnail looked to me like a dophin... and the name...<br /><br />Now Boltzman, statistics? somewhere between Bose-Einstein and Fermi? We that is quite an existental cosmology moment you said clearly... hey check out my (well more entertaining lately than formal) blog on these issues which are hot topics lately....<br /><br />including computational <br /><br />cheers L. Edgar Otto http://www.pesla.blogspot.comL. Edgar Ottohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00525169618204198073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-47709932760607104602013-04-29T12:29:33.804-07:002013-04-29T12:29:33.804-07:00Yes. But there are people who argue that thought i...Yes. But there are people who argue that thought is embodied. If so, thoughts and consciousness along with thoughts are things bodies do. Can you tease consciousness away from thoughts and feelings? Would you argue further that computers in possession of consciousness have feelings and selves? No computer humans have built possess feelings and selves. <br />All the issues here may be thrown together in one big pile, but if my points are valid, you probably have answersHowie Bermannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-52074128938960903312013-04-29T12:16:55.782-07:002013-04-29T12:16:55.782-07:00Howie: Re #1: I think a computational view of the ...Howie: Re #1: I think a computational view of the universe makes more likely but does not imply the simulation possibility. Re #2: I don't see why consciousness needs to imply life, esp. as life is often defined in terms of reproduction, etc.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-2823539936024279282013-04-29T12:02:22.641-07:002013-04-29T12:02:22.641-07:00Two questions: what's the difference between t...Two questions: what's the difference between the skeptical position you are entertaining and the position held by some scientists that the universe is some kind of computer, say a quantum computer? also, if computers are conscious then doesn't this imply they're alive and also as a corollary of computers being conscious that machines are somehow alive?Howie Bermannoreply@blogger.com