Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion Subject: Re: More Atheistic Wishful Thinking Message-ID: <1805@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sun, 29-Sep-85 02:14:27 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1805 Posted: Sun Sep 29 02:14:27 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 2-Oct-85 01:12:58 EDT References: <27500123@ISM780B.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 96 Xref: watmath net.philosophy:2755 net.religion:7828 >>Tell me, Charlie, what does blue look like? >>Objectively? I'm not looking for an answer describing the wavelength of >>light, now, the question is does blue look at certain way in an objective >>sense? Or is the individual human brain responsible for a distinct >>interpretation of what blue looks like? We can show scientifically that blue >>is called blue by every person without colorblindness and with knowledge >>of colors. But how do you know that sticking your brain into another >>body will result in the same "feelings" of "blue"? [ROSEN] > Rich, your own words answer your questions elsewhere: > your knowledge of what blue looks like is subjective knowledge. > It certainly isn't objective, and it certainly isn't mere belief. > This "feeling" of blueness is not explainable mechanically. > You may mess around in the brain and note when the feeling happens, > but you won't find the feeling itself. That is located only within your > personal experience. Before you start devising a response, think about > whether you have a vested interest in contradicting what I have said. > Is your response obvious, or do you have to hunt for it? [BALTER] Very obvious, because I happen to agree with what you said (up to the point where you seems to assume that I would disagree with you). Except the words "subjective knowledge" are perhaps inappropriate. The feeling of blueness is indeed explainable "mechanically": it is the sensation produced by blue light (light of specific wavelengths). The fact is that in different people their network of brain connections may produce a different set of sensations. > Are you being > objective and scientific? Note that I am not arguing against determinism > or a mechanistic view of the universe or for souls; I am only arguing that > subjective experience exists in a way that is not explained by the familiar > mechanical view. I don't quite understand why subjective experience exists, > but I have a feeling that it has something to do with the fuzzy nature of > linguistics, description, and perception. Then you seem to understand it quite clearly, at least in comparison who make bold claims about its nature. > As for > >>"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" (Haldane). The only >>proper conclusion is that you can draw no conclusion. If I sit in this >>room (which has no windows) and assert that "the car in the first parking >>space is blue," it is indeed possible for there to be a blue car in the >>first parking space. If one does not actually examine the parking space, >>one is not in a position either to confirm or to deny my statement. >>The ONLY correct response is "there is no evidence"; one cannot DENY the >>statement, because to do so is to make the assertion that "there is no >>blue car in the first parking space." Since this statement is not >>supported by evidence either, the situation is quite symmetrical. >>Neither statement can be claimed to be true; therefore neither can be >>claimed to be false. All that can be said is "there is no evidence." > > Rich, I'm surprised you let Charles get away with this, and have dragged > the argument out so far. Aside from the name dropping (was that Haldane > the geneticist, or Haldane the revivalist evangelical?), as long as this > conversation is going on in net.*philosophy*, as opposed to net.religion > where it belongs, there is a most powerful argument for the rejection > of souls, resurrection, and blue cars in parking lots. It is called > ***Occam's Razor***. For the purposes of fruitful discussion, the situation > is most certainly not symmetrical at all. Rather, the existence of a blue > car in the parking lot should be rejected (not denied) barring evidence that > can be more readily explained by positing such existence. I certainly won't > *deny* the existence of Odin and Asgard, but I reject them as unnecessary to > the explanation of the world as it is. It seems to me that almost all > *logical* religious arguments involve ignoring Occam's Razor at some point. > If you want to "argue" religion based on faith, that is, belief out of desire > to believe, you are welcome to it, but in net.religion. Bra-vo! Yes, I avoided mentioning Occam, but only out of being sick of doing so only to hear "Oh, yeah, that, so what?" every time. >>I am NOT arguing at all the ressurection takes place (or >>rather, I am not arguing for objective evidence for it). I am simply arguing >>that there are no objective objections to it (i.e., that there is no >>counter-evidence). [WINGATE] > Charles, do you have any objective evidence that we don't all turn into > mosquitoes with our souls buried in the right hind leg where they can't > express themselves, when we die? *Who cares*? Philosophic inquiry > is a game that requires analysis and evidence as part of the rules. > The "anything is possible" game is stupid and childish; it is like playing > dealer's choice and declaring all the cards wild. Intelligent people who > have played the game for a while get tired and bored of yokels who come along > with "you can't prove me wrong" like it was something *deep* and *original*. Bravo again, Jim. Charles can step back and claim that he's not arguing that resurrection takes place (and thus take in a few people), but obviously he believes this despite the apparent knowlege he has that he cannot defend that belief. Apparently even to himself. More importantly, the game of "anything is possible" is played in another way: assume a desired conclusion (because anything is possible, but...) and rebuild your axiomatic system to "make" the conclusion "true". -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com