chasteh

>You're just busting his balls for the sake of busting his balls. I hope he doesn't get sucked into arguing with you further. Actually, I illustrated my point quite well before. I wanted to show the problem with tkhayes assertion concerning the frequency that Christians contribute to charities, and I did. Further, I also was curious about georgerussia's statement about tending to the atheist's causes for charitable acts. I wanted to make sure he was going to remain consistent. >You're just busting his balls for the sake of busting his balls When you claim that having an egoistic end being served by "altruism," you open yourself to ball-busting. >I hope he doesn't get sucked into arguing with you further. He thrives on it. We shall see. Nothin like a good ol' logic battle. Mmm.

>Further, I'd love to hear chasteh's explanation of the inner working of a quantum computer. From what I can see, it functions on inductive probability. Still a logical process. Hmmmm

>Jury trials. Deductive validity, inductive strength, emotion. Twelve angry men illustrates this process quite well. They show how those arguing "guilty" in that case do not have deductively valid arguments. Then they are shown how their arguments arent even possible. Then the last man voting "guilty" ends up in an emotional rage, until finally he says "not guilty." They still use logic. >Quick question - what practical purpose does this hypothesis/idea/theory that you're discussing serve? Not trying to be a jerk - I am genuinely curious In other words, "can you make your hypothesis seem attractive to me? I am concerned with pragmatism, and this doesn't look like it tickles me well." Sorry. Venting. What purpose does it serve? To show that religion and science use arguments based on assumptions. To show that scientists who try to "disprove" the existence of god are guilty of assumptions in the same light. You know, like "The failed Hypothesis" tries to do.

>probabilistically You mean to say, they function on inductive probability? Blasphemy! Science using logical terms again, how is that possible! >Deep space communication links are electrical circuits Looks like there are a few here who disagree. Also, deep space communication is more of a network than a circuit, is it not? "An electrical circuit is a network that has a closed loop, giving a return path for the current. A network is a connection of two or more components, and may not necessarily be a circuit"

>So if someone smashes your foot with a hammer, the pain and broken bones do not prove that both the hammer and your foot exist? Absolutely not. IF someone smashes your foot with a hammer, then someone smashes your foot with a hammer. Reiterating the antecedent makes a valid argument, but you have only restated an assumption. It doesn't prove that it exists outside of an assumption. Absolutely not. They depend on "sensory experience," which in many phases of our lives, including what we are sensing now, are very capable of lieing to us. Ever had a dream that you thought you were having sex? Woke up to find it wasn't true, but you ejacked anyways? Looks like your senses lie to you. That reason tells us that what is "broken bones" or "nerve stimulation" can all be false inputs. However, I do have an interesting theory on making knowledge of nerve inputs necessarily true, but we can leave that one for PMs. edit: I still believe that they are real, and that my boken bones are real. I believe I have had that experience, when I forced my humerous bone against my ribs in a motorcycle crash, but even with the horrible pain that I think I feel, it doesn't make it real. It may, however, show that there exists an "I" that is real, but it doesn't show that the "I" as in Chasteh are real, nor the pain that Chasteh "experiences." >Sounds like one of those existential post hit-off-the-bong thought experiments; and nothing more. Maybe. If you decide to attach Descartes meditations as such, that is fine. Unfortunately for you, he gave science quite a challenge. Prove sensory experience to be truthful. Ya can't. >Or one of those Matrix-like mind fucks where you can not prove anything either way because it always rests on some other thing, and so on and so forth. Are you able to describe a Matrix-like mind fuck without saying things like "and so on and so forth" to describe it? The Matrix parallels the BIV scenario and Descartes points pretty well. It seems outlandish to think of it as true, but you cannot determine that it is false, just like I cannot determine it as true. It is merely possibility, one we can't eliminate. >Fun thought experiments, but otherwise utterly useless. Yep! Just like electrical engineers, computer programmers, and the philosophies that you endorse are utterly useless! Fabulous. edit: Oh yea, the Logic that Philosophy and Math endorse are useless for you too, then. How are you able to argue with me here were that true? Uh oh. edit(again) Also, without philosophy or logic, lawyers and judges wouldn't be employed. That could be a good and bad thing. Ask lawrocket how much philosophy he had to read for law school. It is a wee bit important. >Or at least (as mentioned in Hitchhiker's Guide) only useful for keeping philosophers employed. Philosophy and income are nearly oxymorons. They have been since Greece, and they probably will be forever. Does that discount what they say, or the philosophy that you might endorse? >So what was this about? Ah yes, the failed God hypothesis. Maybe it should be the failed reality hypothesis. Yea huh. >All perceptions of reality are equally valid since none can be proven or disproven. What does logical validity have to do with proven or disproven, again? Logical validity means that it is not possible for a set of premises to be true and their conclusion false. It is possible for religious and scientific premises concerning God to be true and their conclusions false, thus, they are invalid. Blasphemy, right? Find a court case that doesn't use this method where the attorneys or judge aren't being subject to emotional conviction. Find a functional electrical circuit that doesn't follow logic.

>If you "believe" science is an ever increasing ability to more accurately describe how the universe works, I think you do. So which one is it, science presents an ever increasing ability to explain the universe, or will it eventually "figure it out?" Does it after all have the ability to explain whether or not it is the actual universe, or just representation of other "things?" I can't say. Neither can you. >At the very least it systematically proves all previous religions are based upon stories that simply can't possibly be true. Yep. Unfortunately for religion, it makes many claims about the content of the empirical world. Unfortunately, that is science's realm. Science, using its ability to record information about the empirical world, has the ability to assign truth-values to propositions, and uses logic in combination with those propositions to show that religious claims about the empirical world's content are false. Unfornately, it can't extend to a "God."

I have to admit, your replies are starting to look more like a smear campaign than negations to my point.

>Those that believe really have nothing that proves their point any more than those that don't. There you go. Although you dont "have to" align yourself with either of them.

>Oh i know what he's doing. Do you or don't you?

>He's using the ambiguities of language Actually, terms like "certainty" and "truth" and "knowledge" are less than ambigious. >in a logical argument to suggest there may be more to reality than we can ever hope to perceive and challenging us to prove that's not the case. Sort of. There isn't room for science to challenge it, but I would enjoy watching you try. >Great. Whatever. Just because I can't prove Santa Claus doesn't exist doesn't mean he does. Right. However, it also means that were you to stipulate that Santa Claus doesn't exist, you would leave room for error, despite how inductively strong such an argument is. (Quite strong, I myself don't believe in Santa Claus. However, I cannot, no matter how crazy this sounds, say that he doesn't exist.)

>i must be stupid...because i don't get you No, your not stupid. I enjoyed your responses, and think you are intelligent. Just a little bit off track, is all. >so once more...are you hypothesizing that the empirical world IS NOT REAL? Absolutely not. I am saying that it is still possible for the empirical world to not be real, and that possibility eliminates science's ability being able to make deductively valid arguements concerning actuality and the "truths" it stipulates.

Yet it doesn't achieve the goal that science may be studying something that isn't real, and that religion also believes in something that isn't real. It also doesn't negate my thesis. Whatever inductive strength you guys are relying on, it doesn't complete the argument. That is all I need. Also, I have further interest in being proven that Logic is inferior to science, and that logic can be disproven by science. It would be neat to see you guys find a situation where science disproves logic, and then negate the statement "science is inferior to logic" without using logic. I'll save him some time. You can't.

You are correct there, however, I apologized and corrected the statement to include "rocks." Now that he can't delete any of the posts where he has done this in the recent past, I can actually show him his rock wall. In that case, I would have contributed to the discussion by working to eliminate some of the biggest providers of rocks, rushmc.

>It's OK, using the Rehmwa criterion you are well in the lead. Explain.

>It's not big or clever. Correct. I'm still waiting for your response, so I admit guilt of adopting big-man-itis for a little bit. (edit:) Your turn! "And with that, anything you think you know has to dissapear into a puff of your own logic." Uh oh! >I don't care what your theory is, if it doesn't match experiment it's wrong. Sort of. Why don't we start by showing where the theory is wrong? We can even leave the issue of the possibility of BIV scenarios to let you "prove" where this has occured. Show me where science has proven logic wrong.

>I see even at this level, it works...... I stand corrected.

>The replies are the whole reason they do that Yea, as if there were no value added whenever they post. Maybe its not the whole reason after all. Shit.

>This and health reform. no difference between the two....... >+1 >And, probably the "financial reform" that Barney Frank and his guys are pushing. Barney Frank is an equal rewards guy, not an equal opportunity guy. Maybe its a Massachusetts thing? Oops!

>Nearly all perform altruistic acts because of some benefit they receive, You just don't get it, do you? The definition of altruism is expicitly incompatible with selfishness. > I readily admit that I am no saint. I do things for the latter reason - the satisfaction and happiness that it brings me. Not the lauding that I get from others - that is hollow to me. And the world thanks you for your contribution. However, your ends are selfish, and your means are not. Still selfish. Shit. >That's all I was saying. Yep. Got it. You just have to rewrite the definition of altruism in order to use it the way you have, considering that altruism is the polar opposite of egoism. >Madoff was a prized philanthropist As are Bill Gates and other absurdly wealthy individuals.

>I find it incredibly difficult to believe one can look at the newest versions of ubuntu and declare it less user friendly than Vista. Youch! Experiences indicate otherwise, apparently. Hey, if someone had a viable alternative to Windows Vista or the other crap operating systems that MS is going to be putting on the market, I just might switch over. This could be increasingly likely, depending on how persistent MS is in releasing faulty software. edit: I would like to note, however, I find other MS products to be highly useful. MS World, Powerpoint, Excel, and pretty much MS Office are great products. They are great in the same way that Adobe Photoshop is a great product. They must have different people writing those products than the people who write newer versions of windows.

>As far as I'm concerned, logic is subordinate to science. Unfortunately, "as far as I am concerned" doesn't cut it bucko. You need a little bit more unput than: "Well shucks, I think logic is subordinate to science." >Like it or not, we live in the empirical world You only have inductive probability with such a claim, dude. >if philosophy and logic cannot tell me anything truthful about the empirical world then engaging in it is nothing more than mental masturbation IF philosophy and logic cannot tell you anything about the empirical world? Do you know anything about electronics? Do you know anything about computer programming? Likely no, because you would'nt be able to do anything in those fields without the use of logic. The same goes for physics, for astronomy (think Aristotle.). Do you not realize that logic is what forced Copernicus to realize that the phases of venus were incompatible (thus logically inconsistent) with an Earth-centered Universe? (edit: Galileo confirmed it, Copernicus hypothesized it) Uh oh. Looks like the empirical world really is subordinate to logic after all. Shit. Lets go back to your hypothetical case. >if philosophy and logic cannot tell me anything truthful about the empirical world then engaging in it is nothing more than mental masturbation, of no practical use whatsoever IF ~L > (E & ~P) Unfortunately for you, the antecedent is false. Logic and philosophy can tell you something truthful about the empirical world, and they indeed force the empirical world to remain consistent with itself. Shit. >then engaging in it is nothing more than mental masturbation, of no practical use whatsoever Not necessarily, especially since your antecedent is false. Shit. >I don't care what your theory is, if it doesn't match experiment it's wrong. Ok. Where have you, even once, shown this? I have several examples indicating your theory is false. Cmon man. Give me SOMETHING interesting to fight here.

>Anyway, got the specifics of how I "ram myself into a brick wall"? Sorry. Did'nt mean that. I should have said something like: It is fun watching you build rock walls. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3611870;search_string=rock;#3611870

That would be a misunderstanding. In another thread Lawrocket attempted to combine self-interest and altruism. We are not discussing his career here. Also, please do not assume that being a lawyer means that you are helping people. He helps people because he wants to, because it makes him feel good. He helps people for the purposes of achieving a self-interested goal, not for the purposes of helping others. Just like the Christian often helps others for the purposes of meeting a self-interested goal of not going to hell, as opposed to just helping others. If we can make a claim against Christians for helping others to save their own ass, maybe we can also make a claim against self interest in general being a motivator for helping others.

Wow. That makes sense. >Also, there is video of people with both hands wrapped by the line. Even with a ADD fire, the reserve goes up into the raft above. Oohhh... Thats horrible. Now that I have an A-license i've started wondering about the possible deaths out there, or what it would be like. Not that I ever want to watch someone die or get hurt skydiving, although that much is possible or even likely with enough time.

>Then it seems like vast majority of Christians are just selfish people, who help others not because they "find spirituality" or have some high moral values, but because of selfish desire of saving themselves from hell. For the purposes of illustrating my point in this thread, you would be correct of the percentage we are discussing. Of course I think there are many christians who are altruistic. However, it doesn't change the fact that they are helping others as a means to the end of saving themselves. They still are, although in a sick way, helping others in a method that many people, including myself, value. Thus, removing them from the picture would still remove their value to the world, even though their ends are self-interested. >I would definitely stick with atheists then. At least they help people not because they're scared to suffer some consequences in afterlife if they do not to. What about someone like Lawrocket, then, who helps other people for the purposes of benefitting himself? His end is still far apart from his means. Would you rather stick with someone who benefits others for the purpose of benefitting others? What if sticking with the self-interested ends resulted in greater benefit to others than strict altruism did?