161–170 of 180 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you familiar with Russell’s teapot? I question why such horrors were claimed in the first place
The burden of proof has already been sufficiently provided by Christianity. Just because many people don't accept it doesn't mean it's not acceptable.
I would posit this is likely where we diverge
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The burden of proof has already been sufficiently provided by Christianity. Just because many people don't accept it doesn't mean it's not acceptable.
I’m curious what you count as “proof” I would posit this is likely where we diverge
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m curious what you count as “proof” I would posit this is likely where we diverge
Absolutely this is where we diverge. The nature of logical fallacies is that you generally can't recognize when you're committing one. In this case one of us is, and by definition neither can know which. To resolve that, I don't rely entirely on myself, but examine the logic of many others, which I'm sure you also do. But again where we differ is that I only trust the logic of those who have proven to have very good…
>I only trust the logic of those who have proven to have very good moral character as well as high intelligence and much knowledge
Can you explain your epistemological system in more detail?
How do you evaluate claims of fact? Through what process would you demonstrate that a claim is true or false?
For example, would you claim that the process of logic that Franz Haber used on matters about Chemistry to create fertilizer, is incorrect because he used the same methods (in conflict with the proscription of their use by the Hague) to invent chemical warfare gasses that killed thousands in WWI?
What about Bill Shockley? He was an ardent white supremacist yet we live on top of his research in semiconductors
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no evidence of Sagan’s theory though, that in death we will be in a long dreamless sleep. In fact, I would argue that the beauties of this life (suggested in his quote) point to an afterlife. To say that our experience here has much love and moral depth, leads one to ponder, why is there anything at all? And on top of that, why do morals and love exist? And why are these things good? The Christian perspectiv…
Actually I think we have evidence there isn't any existence after death. Many religions claims various different things. Does everyone just get their own wish fulfillment? Probably not. There are various random claims of proof of something happening after death, contradictory and with no real evidence. When there's no evidence, and people make very contradictory claims while claiming absolute evidence but having now,…
I take the position that Jesus is that authoritative eye witness — the whole Christian religion hinges on that. I find his claims, the historical documents, and eye witness testimony that’s been preserved from the 1st century too compelling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no evidence of Sagan’s theory though, that in death we will be in a long dreamless sleep. In fact, I would argue that the beauties of this life (suggested in his quote) point to an afterlife. To say that our experience here has much love and moral depth, leads one to ponder, why is there anything at all? And on top of that, why do morals and love exist? And why are these things good? The Christian perspectiv…
The question of “why” could be a human construct. There doesn’t have to be a “why”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely this is where we diverge. The nature of logical fallacies is that you generally can't recognize when you're committing one. In this case one of us is, and by definition neither can know which. To resolve that, I don't rely entirely on myself, but examine the logic of many others, which I'm sure you also do. But again where we differ is that I only trust the logic of those who have proven to have very good…
> examine the logic of many others >I only trust the logic of those who have proven to have very good moral character as well as high intelligence and much knowledge Can you explain your epistemological system in more detail? How do you evaluate claims of fact? Through what process would you demonstrate that a claim is true or false? For example, would you claim that the process of logic that Franz Haber used on matt…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> examine the logic of many others >I only trust the logic of those who have proven to have very good moral character as well as high intelligence and much knowledge Can you explain your epistemological system in more detail? How do you evaluate claims of fact? Through what process would you demonstrate that a claim is true or false? For example, would you claim that the process of logic that Franz Haber used on matt…
Yeah see there's the logical fallacy. Thanks for confirming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I state it matter-of-factly because I believe the idea of it being supernatural lacks evidence of any sort; there's no reason at all to make that hypothesis in the first place. I feel like the studies (or at least the reporting of the studies) come at the question from the wrong direction - the hypothesis should be that all of these experiences have explanations grounded in the function of the brain and body, because…
I understand your point. And if you also want to take a strictly materialistic worldview, there’s nothing wrong with it. But what’s strange to me is when people take such a hard line in one area but don’t apply the same logic to another. Would you, for example, extend that same logic to claim your loved ones are philosophical zombies incapable of subjective experience? After all, there’s no good proof of the hard pro…
I believe consciousness is an emergent property of the of the brain and body, and the associated connections and (physical/chemical/electrical/etc) interactions
In that context, subjective experiences exist just as much as anything else does, obeying all the laws of physics.
I don't understand why people think the problem is hard, except for hoping and wishing that it is?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand your point. And if you also want to take a strictly materialistic worldview, there’s nothing wrong with it. But what’s strange to me is when people take such a hard line in one area but don’t apply the same logic to another. Would you, for example, extend that same logic to claim your loved ones are philosophical zombies incapable of subjective experience? After all, there’s no good proof of the hard pro…
I apply the same logic in all cases (as much as any fallible person can), which in your example leads me to assume just as confidently that of course other people have subjective experiences and obviously exist separate to my self. It's the logical conclusion using the same reasoning behind believing the after-life does not exist. I believe consciousness is an emergent property of the of the brain and body, and the a…
Can you prove to me, an external observer, that you have subjective experience? Can you prove the “redness” you see?[1] You really can’t, and that’s why the problem is hard. You can show brain scans, you can explain the interaction of wavelength on the eye etc. but that describes objective, not subjective, experience. So by your previous logic, your subjective experience does not exist because it’s not provable. Or, more relevant to HN, can you pinpoint when adding those systems to a computer suddenly makes subjective experience emerges in the machine?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Better yet, consciousness as you’re describing it here is most likely an illusory artifact and evolutionary adaptation, particularly useful for survival and group cooperation. I wouldn’t be so quick to assume about the OP. With that being said I think it’s fair to suggest we can’t prove that others are conscious but we can do a lot more here with science than we can with the alleged afterlife.
I think that’s why it’s generally broken down into the “easy” and “hard” problems of consciousness. Easy in the sense that we can use our existing scientific toolset; hard as in we cannot.
We can't effectively use the tools of science here (at least yet), whereas with consciousness and conscious experience we can at least grapple around the edges.