The Great Contradiction

[Wiploc]

Reply to post 48, by Remez:

Here is your chance to show us where [Haldane] is wrong.

Like that's hard.

“It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”

― J.B.S. Haldane, Possible Worlds

First refutation:

We can reverse the argument and it is exactly as strong.

• "I seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-produce of gods. For, if my mental processes are determined wholly by gods, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true."

Now the argument "proves" the contrary of what it "proved" before. The logic is the same, so the proof is exactly as strong as before. If you accepted the previous version, you should logically accept this one too.

If an argument, with equal strength, can concludes both X and not-X, then that argument is worthless. It weighs zero in the scales of persuasion.

Haldane's logic equally proves that mental processes both are and are not magical.

Therefore, as should be obvious to anyone but a motivated believer, Haldane's argument is worthless. It weighs zero in the scales of persuasion.


Second refutation:

“It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”

― J.B.S. Haldane, Possible Worlds

Let's try to find the argument in that word salad. Perhaps something like this:

• 
  P1: If mind were naturalistic, we wouldn't have a well-founded belief in the truth of our beliefs.
  P2: But I do have the belief -- well-founded or not -- that my beliefs are true.
  C: Therefore, mind is not naturalistic.

Well, that's generous. Haldane's word salad was nothing like that cogent. He didn't actually make an argument. But I've done the best I can for him.

In any case, it is obvious that Haldane's argument is not coherent, nor sound, nor even valid.

 

[abaddon]

Wiploc,

I think you should change "naturalistic" to "materialistic" in your syllogism to be consistent with what Haldane is saying.

Naturalism and materialism are not precisely overlapping categories so distinctions can be important. The argument is against scientific materialism. The doubt expressed is that science can explain consciousness materialistically (by reducing it entirely to material processes).

Yes, remez attacks naturalism as well as materialism because he's arguing for supernaturalism. But Haldane does not (or is not known to have done so, from what we've seen of his ideas in this thread), regardless any conjectures he might ever have entertained about a "universal mind". Something like that can very well be a naturalistic hypothesis -- it doesn't matter if that's against the rules of your own personal philosophy because it's not against the rules of philosophy (reason) more generally. There are alternatives to "mind's not wholly material" that aren't supernaturalism nor theism.

Why does it matter? Because remez thinks if he can jab holes in naturalism by jabbing holes in materialism then supernaturalism (and thus his Christian God) becomes the alternative. This is his mistake. And it's several atheist's mistake as well, so you share the same basic "it's either science or supernaturalism" error he keeps making and therefore never address the central misconception in his promotion of supernaturalism as the reasonable alternative if science is incomplete.

Naturalism isn't defined by science - all things outside science's purvey don't instantly fall into the class "supernatural". God as creator of heaven and earth is supernatural not because there's no scientific evidence but because he's defined as being outside of nature (for being the purported creator of nature). But otherwise if a proposed idea is described as within nature (regardless of the state of evidence) it's naturalistic.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The existence of everything has to be explained. The existence of my creator being does not have to be explained.

Just to go right back on topic, would it be more accurate, I wonder, to call this The Great Exception, rather than The Great Contradiction?

Back in the 80's Carl Sagan introduced his readers to question why it is that we can accept the permanence of a creator being, but cannot accept the permanence of the Cosmos. At the time I was myself asking, "Where did everything come from? which is a typical creationist refrain. So he convincingly answered my question without having to invoke woo.

Thinking myself clever when someone would question my atheism by asking "Then where did everything come from? I would respond, "Where else is there?" Pretty clever, huh?

But then I got really clever so that when I was asked, "Then where does everything come from?" I would respond, "That's a very good question, where DO creators come from?"

But I was missing the entire creationist's point when it came to explaining the existence of the universe. They were coming at me from a position of duality, that there is the material world and there is also the greater world of woo. Woo wasn't anything material or mundane so only an idiot like me was going to ask such a silly question such as where does magical woo come from. Obviously it doesn't come from anything because if it did it wouldn't be magic and it wouldn't be woo, it would be just like everything else. Duh!

Hence the great contradiction, the existence of everything needs to be explained but the existence of my woo doesn't need to be explained.

For what it’s worth, this (below) seems to be the key, if somewhat off-topic section of the essay, at least as regards the woo whoops I mean pantheism:

“Without that body it [my mind] may perish altogether, but it seems to me quite as probable that it will lose its limitations and be merged into an infinite mind or something analogous to a mind which I have reason to suspect probably exists behind nature. How this might be accomplished I have no idea.”

This quote is expressing that same duality I just talked about, namely that this existence we all experience can only be understood and accepted by invoking some manner of woo. It sounds like the author is equating "infinite mind" with the more familiar "higher power." To me that's just a distinction without a difference.

Having said that, however, I do not discount the possibility that there are sufficiently advanced intelligences capable of creating universes or that the universe we experience and are part of is part of a larger organism. This isn't woo to me because woo involves what I would call "real magic" for a believer, not the fake magic we see onstage, but the real deal where the wave of a wand actually happens, kinda like Professional Wrestling matches and how real they are too.

And woo just doesn't apply to creators but woo lets each of us have a woo creature that lives with us and that flies away to be with its woo master automatically, somehow, magically, when we die. And that woo doesn't have to come from anything because the existence of my woo does not have to be explained. It's real magic, remember?

So yes, believers in woo are not experiencing the jetliner passing a foot over their heads when they rather rhetorically ask the question, "Where did everything come from?"

 

[remez]

Wiploc,
I have been waiting for you. I usually learn a lot from you. Please allow this shared memory for some context……………

You asserted that they have all been defeated and were childish to begin with. I simply took a shot and mimicked your response back at you (to the contrary) to expose the arrogance.

I own the arrogance. I like to make people laugh, which was part of the purpose of my post.

So…..We do understand one another.

But before you begin I give you permission to skip to the post 101 portion at the end for your response. You see I responded to theses post 81-84 prior to seeing that. But feel it is important to leave these responses here on the table for future reference.
Also you put forth a great deal of material that required response.
So….
The length of this post is not totally my choosing.
(Side bar. Yes I have experienced issues with the quotes as well)

Posts 81-84

“It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”
― J.B.S. Haldane, Possible Worlds

It seems to me immensely unlikely that my mind is a mere product of magic. For if my mental processes were determined wholly by a magic, eccentric, and self-contradictory stranger, I would have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true. They might be sound magically, but that wouldn't make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be the product of a magic-throwing god.

Me too.
But
Your presented interpretation does not reflect theistic reasoning. It slightly hints of a Calvinistic structure painted by your disparaging imagination.
So…………
Keep this in mind…….latter on you warn me about presenting misinterpretations of atheism…..to not “characterize arguments against free will as "atheistic." And yet you provided that as your interpretation of theism.

Freewill is assumed and yet argued against in atheistic reasoning.

Many atheists argue for free will. Many theists argue against it.

Obviously concur with both.
But
My point there was the contradiction that there are atheists that do indeed exercise their assumptive free will to argue against free will. Clear?

Don't characterize arguments against free will as "atheistic."

Again that was presented in the context of the OP. I even quoted it. A search for a materialistic (brain simply lacks the neural connections) or naturalistic explanation (natural selection). Read it.

So my point was not THAT all atheists argued against free will. The OP set it up the quest that way. So I presented the contradiction put forth the biologist Haldane. A contradiction of materialism to counter the OP in that specific context. Thus I had reason to believe that those confronting me were operating within that clearly stated context provided in the OP. Again I challenge you to go back and read it for yourself.

Additionally…..you cannot deny that………….
Most atheists do in fact hold to a materialistic worldview meaning in this case…..that if our mind/mental processes are just chemical reactions in the brain, then there is no reason to believe that anything is true. Including the theory of materialism. Chemicals can’t determine/evaluate whether or not a theory is true. Chemicals don’t determine/reason, they simply react.

I was hoping an atheist would provide a materialistic explanation for free will. I don’t see how one can exist.
As well….
Most atheists espouse that only natural explanations are reasonable. Thus what is the naturalistic explanation for the existence free will? If it even exists at all.

The QUOTE button isn't working for me, so I won't be quoting or attributing as much or as well as usual. This is in response to post 43 by Remez.

Haldane’s point is from a naturistic viewpoint (foundational to atheism) there is no thinking.

That's not Haldane's point, and naturalism is not foundational to atheism.

I own the arrogance on that.

But……..your contrary statement raises two serious questions I would like you to respond to……….

Then what was Haldane’s point?
And…..
Are most atheists in your experience open to super natural explanations?
Because…
That has certainly not been my experience. The OP certainly didn’t leave the door open to the super natural (or anything immaterial like free will, even though he was clearly using it.) It was actually created to disparage the super natural.
And again….
The OP was my context.
And thus……………..
Most of your objections to my reasoning were out of context.
Be fair.


Now post 101.

We can reverse the argument and it is exactly as strong.

Again it was NOT offered as an argument. It was offered as a statement of contradiction to confront the OP. I could have chosen other quotes reflecting my same point there. For example……

The Astonishing Hypothesis is that “You,” your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.” Crick
Or
“But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” Darwin
Or
Dennett’s consciousness is an illusion.

That was the first one that my atoms brought to brain.

Again each essentially eludes to the point that if MATERIALISTICALLY our mental processes are just chemical reactions in the brain, then there is no reason to believe that anything is true. Including the theory of materialism. Chemicals can’t determine/evaluate whether or not a theory is true. Chemicals don’t determine or reason, they just react.

But let’s, as you wish, examine that it as an argument.

We can reverse the argument and it is exactly as strong.

• "I seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-produce of gods. For, if my mental processes are determined wholly by gods, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true."

First of all I’m not a pure Calvinist, I reason the libertarian free will exists. So the “determine wholly” tenant of your reversal does not address the contradiction I purported. Thus has no bearing on the contradiction. You can try again if you choose to construct a reversal that reflects a libertarian free will position.

So none of this…………….

Now the argument "proves" the contrary of what it "proved" before. The logic is the same, so the proof is exactly as strong as before. If you accepted the previous version, you should logically accept this one too.

If an argument, with equal strength, can concludes both X and not-X, then that argument is worthless. It weighs zero in the scales of persuasion.

Haldane's logic equally proves that mental processes both are and are not magical.

Therefore, as should be obvious to anyone but a motivated believer, Haldane's argument is worthless. It weighs zero in the scales of persuasion.

………. addresses my purported contradiction.

Again not all theists are Calvinists. Didn’t you warn me about assumptions like that? If I were a Calvinist, I would never have presented the contradiction in the first place.

Second refutation:

“It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”

― J.B.S. Haldane, Possible Worlds

Let's try to find the argument in that word salad. Perhaps something like this:

• 
  
  P1: If mind were naturalistic, we wouldn't have a well-founded belief in the truth of our beliefs.
  P2: But I do have the belief -- well-founded or not -- that my beliefs are true.
  C: Therefore, mind is not naturalistic.

Well, that's generous. Haldane's word salad was nothing like that cogent. He didn't actually make an argument.

No kidding Wiploc. (Sorry……I’ve been waiting to say that Sherlock…again I own the arrogance)

Hence my point from the beginning that it was not an argument. You’re are quoting me from post 48, yet you completely ignored the first sentence regarding that it wasn’t an argument. And now you are chastising me for it being a poor argument.

But that’s the way you want it so…………p1 does not accurately represent Haldane’s context…

P1: If mind were naturalistic, we wouldn't have a well-founded belief in the truth of our beliefs.

Side bar….As abaddon has correctly pointed out that terms materialistic and naturalistic are not exactly synonymous. And yet he then went I to correct my reasoning based on his assumption of what I meant rather than asking for any further clarification. Something he and others have warned me about many times.

All that to make this point…….In p1 you use the term naturalistic. I was clearly and specifically inferring as Haldane was…. a materialistic explanation….meaning again………….. that if our mental processes are just chemical reactions in the brain, then there is no reason to believe that anything is true. Including the theory of materialism. Chemicals can’t determine/evaluate whether or not a theory is true. Chemicals don’t reason, they just react.

So I, since you challenged me would have structured the argument of Haldane’s statement this way ………

P1. Materialism states that our mental processes are just chemical reactions in the brain.
P2. Chemical reactions can’t evaluate truth.
C1 Materialism can provide no reason to believe anything is true.
C2 No reason to believe materialism is true.
So…..
In the context of the OP….that is the great contradiction.

P2: But I do have the belief -- well-founded or not -- that my beliefs are true.

Fine. I get that. All I’m stating is that you can’t account for them materialistically. Or construct a purely natural explanation. Which is what the OP was challenging.

C: Therefore, mind is not naturalistic.

Again….context to Haldane was materialistic only. Which is why I posted it as a contradiction to the OP which was begging for one.

Get it yet?

In any case, it is obvious that Haldane's argument is not coherent, nor sound, nor even valid.

It was not an argument Wiploc.
If properly placed into an argument representing Haldane’s reasoning
Then…..
As I see it……completely coherent, sound and valid.

But of course you are encouraged to attempt refutation.
The game is on.

 

[remez]

Skep,
You could/would not address the contradiction, or declare your position when I asked you for clarification. No you began this campaign to chastise me for claiming atheists think a certain way.

Again, none of that makes any sense to me whatsoever.
My spidey-sense is warning me of the proximity of Sophistry.

Remez's 'argument' does amount to one of the more elaborate straw men I have seen. He spins an absurd story that "all atheists must believe" to show why atheism is wrong... a disingenuous argument at best. Anyone who is basing their argument on what they claim someone else believes is someone that should be ignored. No matter how much Remez wants atheists to worship Haldane, reality is that even atheists know that he often writes philosophical nonsense.

But then…………… you just had to tell us how theists think…………..

Of course they are. For the theist, anything that isn't obvious is attributed to god or can be found in the holy book... No further attempt at understanding is necessary or maybe even sinful.

Followed again with this self-righteous statement continuing his campaign.

Both Lion and Remez have a tendency to declare what atheists believe and why then try to argue against their strawman. Neither can be depended on to directly address what atheists actually post.

JUST LIKE THIS……………..Yes again………………

…….Possibly Moogly was referring to a typical theist/atheist exchange such as:

T... If science explains everything then how did life begin?
A... There are several theories as to how abiogenesis happened but we can't know which, if any, of them actually happened.
T... If science can't explain it then how could science discount god as doing it?
A... For science to take god as the answer, there would first have to be some evidence of a god with such a power.
...etc.
...etc.

Theists, in many such 'debates', insist that someone supporting science must explain in detail how and why something happened or they take science as merely anti-god. However, they seem quite comfortable in accepting some poorly defined, magic entity performing miracles. They seem to take god as a given that has so need of explanation.

I knew you would come through if I waited.
Thanks.
Happy New Year

 

[remez]

You offered the circumstance of the argument coming from Haldane rather than from some random internet user, to Bilby, as a reason to change his thoughts about its merit.

Not at all. I simply stated and corrected MY wrong assumption that the point was well known. Thus I properly represented the quote and asked if he now wanted to change is reply, because as I perceived his reply….it did not reflect the reasoning I was referring to. And it was my fault.

Secondly….it was not an argument. It was a statement Haldane made regarding the contradiction that strict materialism can account for reasoning at all. That was the point I was making against the OP.

In the words of the master, "That is a classic example of the genetic fallacy."

How so? I was not attempting to refute anything there. I was simply clarifying my errant assumption.

As your link says, "Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized among informal fallacies, more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance." An ad hominem is usually a fallacy, because the characteristics of the arguer are usually irrelevant to the merit of the argument. But that's not what's going on in this case.

You have it mixed up there. I did not allege that bilby made a mistake. I alleged you made the fallacy when you attempted to refute Haldane by addressing his personal politics and where he got his reasoning, instead of addressing the reasoning itself.

But that's not what's going on in this case. In this case, you made an argument from authority.

No I did not. I didn’t infer that you had to believe Haldane just because he was Haldane. I simply quoted an advocate of the reasoning I was putting forth. I could have quoted the similar concerns by quoting others like Crick, Dennett, Dawkins and Darwin. Simply quoting someone does not make it an appeal to authority. Now if I inferred you had to believe my reasoning because some authority agreed with me then that would indeed be an appeal to authority. But you’re learning.

An ad hominem is perfectly relevant to the authoritativeness of a purported authority.

Nice try.

The fact that Haldane was an idiot is irrelevant to whether his argument is logical, true; but it's entirely relevant to whether Bilby should care to change his thoughts on account of you telling him Haldane was the source of the argument.

Not at all. Again I was only attempting to clarify the reasoning, because what bilby wrote did not reflect the reasoning. I thought perhaps I had mislead bilby. You greatly misunderstood the intent of my question to bilby.

What, is "someone's or something's history, origin, or source" relevant when you appeal to it but irrelevant when I appeal to it?

Again the intent is important here. You were trying to refute the reasoning by attacking the messenger. I agree with you that Haldane’s personal politics were not agreeable to my reasoning as well. But they had nothing whatsoever to do with his materialistic reduction.

It would be like me trying to refute relativity by stating the Einstein was an adulterer. Simply fallacious.

When you make an argument from authority, you open your alleged authority up to non-fallacious ad hominems.

That I agree with. But that I did not do. I have an entire thread of posts as evidence that I was not inferring you had to believe him bc he was an authority. You incorrectly implied that from my clarification to bilby.

...If determinism is the way of the universe then you don’t have the free will to think or reason at all. Choice does not exist. Think about it. ...

You have attempted to make your case that my belief in substance dualism is assumed. Yet I’ve addressed all of the concerns you presented so far. Thus I have reasonably demonstrated to you my position is not assumed. Your baseless allegations there are quite insulting.

Oh, come off it. How dare I suggest you made an assumption; but it's perfectly fine for you to suggest I haven't thought about it? Dude, we come here to argue -- to tell other people why they're wrong. That means telling them they relied on false premises, or telling them they made reasoning errors, or telling them they didn't think. If you're going to feel insulted whenever others don't just roll over and accept you as their patronizing professor and themselves as your respectful students, you're going to feel insulted a lot.

You cherry picked to different comments there in different contexts to allege me of bad reasoning. Other fallacy btw. You have a new one to look up.

Lets look at each quote in its proper context………first…You had just said….

Well, in the first place, free will is an irrelevance to the issue at hand. If people have no choice about what to think then some brains will have to think correctly and others will have to make errors because of how the brains' pieces fit together, but that hardly changes the fact that the ones that think right, think right, and know it.

And I responded with…………..

You’re missing the reasoning here. Free will is the RELAVENCE here. No free will….no choice. All is determined by moving atoms. Reasoning is just an illusion.
To be specific here….
By free will I’m mean that our thinking, reasoning are influenced but not caused by the material world. To believe our thinking is caused by the material world is not free will. It is determinism.

If determinism is the way of the universe then you don’t have the free will to think or reason at all. Choice does not exist. Think about it. If you just freely chose to think about it then you just proved to yourself that free will exits. Your thought was not caused solely by the movement of atoms.

Do you see the dilemma yet? Hence Haldane’s assertion.

For you to say that free will was irrelevant to the issue at hand, meant that you did not understand what I was reasoning, not that you haven’t thought about the topic. So I presented my reasoning to you as why it was important. And simply asked you to think about it. I did not infer you hadn’t thought about the topic. I clarified my reasoning on the topic which you clearly did not understand. Calm down.

Not half a page latter in a different context you said this………….

So of course you deduce contradictions. I'm not blaming you for this -- deleting the premises one takes for granted is ***hard***. But it's something you have to discipline yourself to do if you want to draw correct conclusions.

I responded this…………

I concur with your thoughts on epistemic duty.
But…..
I disagree with your baseless assertion that my deductions are based on unexamined assumptions.

You have attempted to make your case that my belief in substance dualism is assumed. Yet I’ve addressed all of the concerns you presented so far. Thus I have reasonably demonstrated to you my position is not assumed. Your baseless allegations there are quite insulting.

In your own words you said…………. “deleting the premises one takes for granted”. I went through a great deal of effort to address your concerns then and now. If I took my premises for granted/just assumed them, then I wouldn’t have addressed them, but I did. That fact that I did meant your charges of my assumptive behavior were insulting in the face of the evidence that I redressed everyone that you presented.

I understand the insulting nature of this board (at times) but you took that to a different level of mention. How could you charge me with assuming my premises, if I out right defended everyone you challenged?

Stop calling him bibly. He's bilby.

No insult was meant. I simply had it pronounced in my head the wrong way, and thus spelled it incorrectly. I was unaware I had it wrong there. Perhaps I had it wrong bc it was so close to bible, idk. I never had the inclination the look up bilby. But now due to the critter lesson, I’m fairly certain I’ll get it right from now on. Cute critter mind reference. I’ll have my atoms store that new one into my brain for better reference in the future.

I'll address our substantive dispute over substance dualism when I have more time...

….looking forward to it.

Happy New Year.

 

[remez]

Wiploc,

The edit feature was not working for my last post to you.

No worries....I was only adding ........

Happy New Year

 

[aupmanyav]

Hi Abaddon.

Are atoms blind?

No, they are not blind. They have their feelers.

Answering LionIRC:
1. (Atheistic) Materialism - atoms don't decide to evolve. You need a God particle.
Atoms evolved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark–gluon_plasma - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryogenesis - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis, etc.
2. A non-theistic explanation of consciousness - the more science you throw at the problem, the harder it gets to solve.
Whatever, confined to brain.
3. Abiogenesis - blind chance or panspermia. Those are your two Hail Mary pass theories?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phototroph - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotroph
4. Artificial Intelligence - that Holy Grail of atheism is and always will be a dream as long as the Being who observes the AI they created knows that it's still artificial.
Is coming. It defeats a Chinese master at some game recently. Even now, runs a huge number of things in the world, including internet.
5. Intelligent Design - your alternative explanation is to conjure up an infinite number of possible universes.
Yes, that is a possibility, but not the only one. Virtual articles arising from 'absolute nothing', perhaps the boundary of existence and non existence is false. Who knows if Space\energy which gave rise to Big Bang can fold up back into nothing.
6. Free will (consciousness) - your only response is that dualism must be just an illusion.
Yeah, that is nothing other than that, a Christian fable, trying to cover the problem of evil. I do not know if Jews also had it.
7. The afterlife - why don't atheists just admit that this is NOT an AvT dichotomy. You don't have to be a theist to think there's life after death.
Absolute BS. More BS if talked about in the next world.
8. (Non-theistic) moral epistemology. Without God, you still can't get any further than https://bittersweetaspects.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/im-right-youre-wrong.jpg
Society dictates it. It is so even in the animals from which we evolved.

materialism works in mysterious ways: It does not. We are making steady progress in what we do not know.
Note: I have not been visiting the forum regularly, so kindly excuse me (and inform) if I have transgressed some forum rules.

 

[atrib]

But specifically here is the contradiction of trusting your reasoning when from a naturalistic paradigm it is totally deterministic thereby rendering reasoning itself an illusion. Yet you believe your reasoning.
So……
Instead of creating straw men of the theistic position, why not address the contradiction from the book of Haldane.

This is the proposition you and Haldane are apparently arguing: The workings of human minds and the conclusions they reach cannot be considered trustworthy if human minds are solely made up of atoms and nothing else. Or more generally, "if human minds were solely constituted from matter/energy interacting in ways that we understand, or have the potential to understand using naturalistic principles". Please clarify if my understanding of your argument is incorrect.

These are apparently the premises you are basing this argument on (I have no idea what premises Haldane used):

1. Humans have free will (and you need to define free will in the context of your argument).
2. The universe is deterministic if we base our epistemology on naturalistic principles.

In order for a logical argument to work, the following have to be accomplished:

1. The premises supporting the argument have to be demonstrated as factual, or likely factual.
2. The conclusion has to follow from the premises.

You have done neither. You have not demonstrated that humans either possess or lack free will, however free will might be defined. You have not demonstrated that the universe is deterministic. And you have not explained how the conclusion (the inferences of human minds are unreliable) follows from the premises. In other words, all you offer is puffery, with no meaningful content.

 

[ruby sparks]

But specifically here is the contradiction of trusting your reasoning when from a naturalistic paradigm it is totally deterministic thereby rendering reasoning itself an illusion. Yet you believe your reasoning.

That's so confused it's hard to know where to even start.

Except of course that it was (at the time of your first post in this thread on page 4) and still is, basically a topic derail. But that's about the only thing that's clear.

"So……
Instead of creating straw men of the theistic position addressing the OP, why not address the contradiction from the book of Haldane my incoherent whataboutery instead."

Fixed.

 

[Wiploc]

Responding to Remez, in post 104:

Originally Posted by Wiploc

“It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”
― J.B.S. Haldane, Possible Worlds

It seems to me immensely unlikely that my mind is a mere product of magic. For if my mental processes were determined wholly by a magic, eccentric, and self-contradictory stranger, I would have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true. They might be sound magically, but that wouldn't make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be the product of a magic-throwing god.

Your presented interpretation does not reflect theistic reasoning. It slightly hints of a Calvinistic structure painted by your disparaging imagination.

I'm skewering Haldane's reasoning. I can be said to be skewering Christian reasoning only to the extent that some Christians reason like Haldane.

I don't know what Calvin has to do with it.

Originally Posted by Wiploc

Originally Posted by remez

Freewill is assumed and yet argued against in atheistic reasoning.

Many atheists argue for free will. Many theists argue against it.

Obviously concur with both.
But
My point there was the contradiction that there are atheists that do indeed exercise their assumptive free will to argue against free will. Clear?

Your points, I believe, are as follows:

• 1. There's something screwy about assuming that free will exists in order to argue against the existence of free will.
  2. Atheists--at least some atheists--do that screwy thing.

1. I can grant you that item 1 seems screwy on its face. I'm not familiar with that happening, and I'm only familiar with your side of the argument, but, yes, that seems screwy.

2. I'll have to take your word for this. There are a lot of atheists. There are even a lot of screwy atheists.

3. I don't see what points 1 and 2 have to do with my pointing out that Haldane's argument is garbage.

Originally Posted by Wiploc

Don't characterize arguments against free will as "atheistic."

Again that was presented in the context of the OP. I even quoted it. A search for a materialistic (brain simply lacks the neural connections) or naturalistic explanation (natural selection). Read it.

Okay, I read the OP of this thread. Several times. I retain none of it.

I don't think it bears on the issue of whether Haldane's argument is garbage.

Haldane's argument is garbage.


-

So, now, because of the glitch, and because the QUOTE button is off the top of the screen, which makes doing these tripple quotes awkward, I'm going to what I've got here, and I'll probably be back with another post responding to more of your post.

 

[remez]

Very very briefly……………

When I read the OP….. it immediately stuck me as being blind, arrogant and self-refuting.

Your points, I believe, are as follows:


• 1. There's something screwy about assuming that free will exists in order to argue against the existence of free will.
2. Atheists--at least some atheists--do that screwy thing.

1. I can grant you that item 1 seems screwy on its face. I'm not familiar with that happening……..

Thank you and Thank you.
But
That is exactly what was happening in the OP by way of assuming context of materialism…..neural nets…natural selection….etc. The OP assumes All is materially determined (no free will) but then blindly askes for the reasoning (free will) for the blind spot of his theistic straw man.

Thus…………

1. There's something screwy about assuming that free will exists in order to argue against the existence of free will.

….is the real contradiction in the OP.

I grant that he was not directly arguing against free will,
But he….
Was operating from an assumption that did…..
While
At the same time asking us all to exercise our free will.
Hence…..
The real…………great contradiction.

 

[remez]

But specifically here is the contradiction of trusting your reasoning when from a naturalistic paradigm it is totally deterministic thereby rendering reasoning itself an illusion. Yet you believe your reasoning.
So……
Instead of creating straw men of the theistic position, why not address the contradiction from the book of Haldane.

This is the proposition you and Haldane are apparently arguing: The workings of human minds and the conclusions they reach cannot be considered trustworthy if human minds are solely made up of atoms and nothing else. Or more generally, "if human minds were solely constituted from matter/energy interacting in ways that we understand, or have the potential to understand using naturalistic principles". Please clarify if my understanding of your argument is incorrect.

These are apparently the premises you are basing this argument on (I have no idea what premises Haldane used):

1. Humans have free will (and you need to define free will in the context of your argument).
2. The universe is deterministic if we base our epistemology on naturalistic principles.

In order for a logical argument to work, the following have to be accomplished:

1. The premises supporting the argument have to be demonstrated as factual, or likely factual.
2. The conclusion has to follow from the premises.

You have done neither. You have not demonstrated that humans either possess or lack free will, however free will might be defined. You have not demonstrated that the universe is deterministic. And you have not explained how the conclusion (the inferences of human minds are unreliable) follows from the premises. In other words, all you offer is puffery, with no meaningful content.

I’m not trying to present a formal argument here at all.
I’m presenting a contradiction that occurs in the reasoning of the OP.
Explained further in post 112.
Happy New Year.

 

[Treedbear]

...
I’m not trying to present a formal argument here at all.
I’m presenting a contradiction that occurs in the reasoning of the OP.
Explained further in post 112.
...

Post 112:

...
... The OP assumes All is materially determined (no free will) but then blindly askes for the reasoning (free will) for the blind spot of his theistic straw man.
...

You really ought to provide an argument for why reasoning requires free will.

 

[atrib]

Lion I hope this helps.

Let me first begin this response with an acknowledgement that I’m sure we both agree wtith…. that god of the gaps philosophy (gotg) does exist and is wrong. When you DON”T HAVE REASON for some gap of understanding you simply ASSUME god did it. It happens and has happened throughout history. But all should be aware that it is just as wrong and prevalent to assume a nature of the gaps (notg) philosophy.
But
It is also true that many skeptics have FALSELY accused theists of that errant reasoning. For if the skeptic ignores the inferences/reasons being provided by the theist and instead arbitrarily opts to mislabel or ignore the provided theistic reasoning as purely assumption then the error lies with the skeptic.

This is important. For many false narratives by the skeptic toward the theist spin off this pseudo philosophy. Ex: You shut down science/understanding when you assume god into the gaps. God is not an understanding just an assumption. Skeptic epistemology is more virtuous because we can admit that we don’t know. Etc. I’m pretty sure several more examples are about to present themselves following this post.

With that on the table let me begin…………

Is it?
Or
Is it?

Careful....Lion………Think about it.

There are two levels of inference going on there that skeptics are lazily conflating.

Level 1. Obviously it is honest at the level of not being certain, to assert we don’t know.
Theists are not denying that.
But ……
To arbitrarily extend that honest level 1 admission
To a level 2 pseudo philosophy …….that it then remains honest to arbitrarily deny/ignore all positive reasonable inference about what we don’t know…..is in no way honest. To charge gotg here in this thread, in the face of all the reasoning that has been provided, is pure ignorance and/or DISHONESTY.

How can we formulate "positive reasonable inferences about what we don't know"? How can we test and verify these inferences?

This is an honest question I have asked you more than once, and you have always dodged it. So set the atheists straight once and for all. Describe the epistemological tools we can use to learn about and test the unknown/supernatural world you claim exists, the world where gods create universes and intervene in their affairs.

 

[atrib]

But specifically here is the contradiction of trusting your reasoning when from a naturalistic paradigm it is totally deterministic thereby rendering reasoning itself an illusion. Yet you believe your reasoning.
So……
Instead of creating straw men of the theistic position, why not address the contradiction from the book of Haldane.

This is the proposition you and Haldane are apparently arguing: The workings of human minds and the conclusions they reach cannot be considered trustworthy if human minds are solely made up of atoms and nothing else. Or more generally, "if human minds were solely constituted from matter/energy interacting in ways that we understand, or have the potential to understand using naturalistic principles". Please clarify if my understanding of your argument is incorrect.

These are apparently the premises you are basing this argument on (I have no idea what premises Haldane used):

1. Humans have free will (and you need to define free will in the context of your argument).
2. The universe is deterministic if we base our epistemology on naturalistic principles.

In order for a logical argument to work, the following have to be accomplished:

1. The premises supporting the argument have to be demonstrated as factual, or likely factual.
2. The conclusion has to follow from the premises.

You have done neither. You have not demonstrated that humans either possess or lack free will, however free will might be defined. You have not demonstrated that the universe is deterministic. And you have not explained how the conclusion (the inferences of human minds are unreliable) follows from the premises. In other words, all you offer is puffery, with no meaningful content.

I’m not trying to present a formal argument here at all.
I’m presenting a contradiction that occurs in the reasoning of the OP.
Explained further in post 112.
Happy New Year.

Happy New Year.

Post 112 doesn't answer any of the questions I have asked.

Call it what you will, a formal argument, or a casual discussion. The fact remains that you have made the assertion I outlined in my post. You have quoted Haldane directly, and have elaborated on his assertion further using your own words, thereby testifying to your support of Haldane's position. I am asking you to explain how the argument works: namely, to elaborate on the premises and support them with facts, and then show us how the premises lead to the conclusion. Considering how many times you have repeated this naked assertion in this thread, I find it strange that you are apparently not willing to support it any further, or at all, really, for that matter.

Or are you now conceding that your argument is flawed?

 

[remez]

I’m not trying to present a formal argument here at all.
I’m presenting a contradiction that occurs in the reasoning of the OP.
Explained further in post 112.
Happy New Year.

Happy New Year.

Post 112 doesn't answer any of the questions I have asked.

Call it what you will, a formal argument, or a casual discussion. The fact remains that you have made the assertion I outlined in my post. You have quoted Haldane directly, and have elaborated on his assertion further using your own words, thereby testifying to your support of Haldane's position. I am asking you to explain how the argument works: namely, to elaborate on the premises and support them with facts, and then show us how the premises lead to the conclusion. Considering how many times you have repeated this naked assertion in this thread, I find it strange that you are apparently not willing to support it any further, or at all, really, for that matter.

Or are you now conceding that your argument is flawed?

Is the OP asking for us to reason for a materialistic explanation as to why the brains of theists are so blind to their damaged reasoning?

 

[Lion IRC]

...
I’m not trying to present a formal argument here at all.
I’m presenting a contradiction that occurs in the reasoning of the OP.
Explained further in post 112.
...

Post 112:

...
... The OP assumes All is materially determined (no free will) but then blindly askes for the reasoning (free will) for the blind spot of his theistic straw man.
...

You really ought to provide an argument for why reasoning requires free will.

Reasoning by its very method presumes an open-mindedness to competing answers to the same question. If you lack free will, how can you be open-minded?
You aren't deciding anything.

 

[remez]

How can we formulate "positive reasonable inferences about what we don't know"? How can we test and verify these inferences?

This is an honest question I have asked you more than once, and you have always dodged it. So set the atheists straight once and for all. Describe the epistemological tools we can use to learn about and test the unknown/supernatural world you claim exists, the world where gods create universes and intervene in their affairs.

I have not dodged you. I have told you that again and again that all belief should be based on sufficient reasoning. Philosophically reason through the evidence and alternatives. Again you are hinting at philosophically limiting sufficient reason to only scientific reasoning. Which as I have pointed out to you many times is self defeating.

So again.........
Is the OP asking for us to reason for a materialistic explanation as to why the brains of theists are so blind to their damaged reasoning?

 

[Treedbear]

...
You really ought to provide an argument for why reasoning requires free will.

Reasoning by its very method presumes an open-mindedness to competing answers to the same question. If you lack free will, how can you be open-minded?
You aren't deciding anything.

Exactly the way I'd describe reasoning. But the brain isn't just a mass of chemical reactions. It has structure and intricate feedback mechanisms that allow ideas to compete. In order to evolve in size and complexity you have the need for support mechanisms to limit runaway heat generation. The brain has evolved over millions of years in order to survive by making choices (i.e.; making decisions). Evolution is all about competition. Think of the mind as an ecosystem where randomly generated connections increase or decrease the level of energy requirements. This provides your open-mindedness as well as creative impetus. The brain has everything it needs for open-minded decision making. What could free will add to this method of reasoning that isn't already provided? I assume that reasoning means seeking the logical choice, right?