Upright Biped has announced the launch of his site via this UD post: Writing Biosemiosis-org
All of the unique physical conditions of dimensional semiosis have already been observed and documented in the scientific literature. It is an intractable fact that a dimensional semiotic system is used to encode organic polymers inside the cell. The conclusion of intelligent action is therefore fully supported by the physical evidence, and is subject to falsification only by showing an unguided source capable of creating such a system.
http://biosemiosis.org/index.php/a-scientific-hypothesis-of-design
Discuss!
fifthmonarchyman,
What kind of materialism?
Peas
I want to be sure I understand you.
Suppose I have a belief that a table is in front of me and I hold that belief because my natural reaction when faced with certain stimuli is to infer that a table in in front of me.
Are you saying that the burden of proof is on me to demonstrate that there is in fact a chair in front of me and not on the fellow claiming that my facilities are faultily?
Do you honestly think I have no warrant to hold the belief that a table is in fact in front of me?
Thanks in advance
peace
No, that’s exactly the opposite of what I said! In the case of perception you DO have warrant of what is apparently the case. In attribution of ‘mind(s) behind the universe’ you don’t. One is indispensable to there being any knowledge at all, the other is not.
When human’s look at the universe we perceive that mind(s) is behind it. So you agree we have warrant for that belief?
How so??
It seems that the two things are equivalent. In one case I perceptive a table in front of me as a result of certain stimuli. In the other I perceptive mind(s)/intention behind a phenomena as a result of certain stimuli.
The same process is at work in both cases as far as I can tell. What am I missing
peace
No.
.
The two situations are not at all alike as I’ve explained three or four times now. You should go back and look at some previous posts of mine on this.
I don’t think you have explained as much as asserted. You need to qualify exactly what is the difference between perceiving a table and perceiving a mind/intention. The seem to me to be the same thing
Of course you know I would disagree and would expect you to demonstrate how exactly you know which perceptions are necessary for knowledge and which are not.
peace .
Very different. In one case we’re taking items to have the properties they appear to have (like greeness and hardness). In the other there’s mostly wishful thinking.
We are not talking about greenness or hardness we are talking about a table or a mind. In both cases we are presented with certain stimuli and infer certain things.
The only difference as far as I can tell is you accept the existence of tables and reject the existence of minds
Peace
FMM, I really can’t believe you’re entirely serious about assimilating those two wildly different inferences. Let me quote from something of mine on this.
That’s the sort of stuff you get to rely on, not odd metaphysical claims about mind(s) being behind the universe (like the Wizard of Oz behind his curtain, or that thinking is a function of mouths. Those latter claims are theories that utilize basic (unproven) perceptual claims but are not strictly entailed by them; that there is a mind (or a bunch of minds) “behind the universe” or that we think with our mouths, comes with a heavy epistemic burden whether they are believed “naturally” or not. And I note that the proponents of neither of these theories can meet these burdens.
I’m sure you can understand this difference if you try a little harder. It seems obvious to me, at any rate.
No it doesn’t, everyone has to show evidence that which they claim. No free rides. Sorry haven’t time yet to respond, some of us poor simple folks have to work on the weekend
newton,
Indeed. The Your Logical Fallacy Is site covers this nicely:
“You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.”
I haven’t been following this thread too closely, but it seems that burden of proof should be simple enough to understand. Whoever is making a positive claim has it.
They aren’t wildly different inferences. In the one case you are presented with certain stimuli and you infer a table in the other you are presented with certain other stimuli and infer a mind.
There really is not any difference in the processes in the two instances the inferences are arrived at in virtually the same way.
The belief that there is mind(s) behind a phenomena is not a metaphysical claim it is a simple “innate” inference that occurs naturally when we are presented with certain stimuli. We arrive at the belief in exactly the same way that we arrive at the belief that there is a table in front of us.
I would venture that your inability to see the equivalence stems from your unique metaphysical perspective, If you had a deep objection to the existence of tables you would discount the table inference in the same way you poo-poo the inference to other minds.
peace
Please show evidence for this claim
peace
Since this is a positive claim the burden of proof is on you to prove it’s validity.
I’ll be waiting
peace
What are you, 5?
No I just have a real problem with inconsistent argumentation. it’s sort of a pet peeve of mine. 😉
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
How frequently things descend to this level! The only reason people could have for denying ‘The Mind’ is a ‘deep objection’ to it. Nothing to do with not actually sensing it or anything?
Meanwhile, it would be hard to have a deep objection to the existence of something one is currently bashing one’s head against.
We are working on the assumption that it is a universal human trait to infer the existence of mind(s) behind the universe. So “not actually sensing it” would appear to be a nonstarter.
If you want to go that route you would need to refute the studies that seem demonstrate that we humans do in fact sense intention behind all sorts of phenomena .
peace
The trouble that you have is that you can only be inconsistent. When you are making it up as you go along the price for that is inconsistency.
Please show me where I have been inconsistent. I need spesific examples and not vague generalities.
peace
When I’m done with your game (scheduled in for this week) I’ll turn my attention to this and demonstrate my claim. Until then, patience.
fifthmonarchyman,
You are using the word ‘sense’ in an equivocal manner. So no I don’t.
fifthmonarchyman,
Not to people who don’t actually sense it it wouldn’t. But I guess you would prefer to call me a liar or wilfully blind to the sense than admit the possibility that your universal is not a universal.
I’m enjoying the idea that if every kidling believes that we think with our mouths it must have been disconfirmed, because adults don’t believe this. But if every kidling believes that there is “mind(s) behind the universe” (even though they probably don’t know what minds or the universe is–never mind that!) it’s not the case that it’s been disconfirmed, even if most adults don’t believe it. In the latter case, it can’t be disconfirmed because, well, it’s not the sort of thing that anybody could disconfirm. (I agree with that last bit: it’s not clear enough what the hell it even means.)
If this sort stuff floats one’s boat, I leave him or her to it. But it’s a mighty thin reed on which to place one’s eternal hopes IMHO.
I sensed that there were little people in the radio. I could even hear ’em. Don’t tell me they weren’t real!
Funny, when I was little, I used to say I wanted to be “the man inside the television” when I grew up. He was the guy who said things like “We are experiencing broadcast difficulties” and was not anybody I could see on the screen. I guess he was behind the television universe.
Btw, could I have proven there was no man inside the tv by breaking it open and not finding one? Maybe he was tiny and invisible. If I tickle my lawn and nothing giggles, isn’t that a similar sort of refutation?
You just don’t grok.
Sorry, it is my innate belief, you prove it it is not true.
I just did 😉
How so. I think I’m using it in exactly the same way
I sense a table in front of me when presented with certain stimuli
I sense intention behind a phenomena when presented with certain stimuli.
The stimuli would be different but the mental process would be the same.
peace
We are not talking about kids we are talking about everyone sans reflection. Your kids diversion is simply a red herring.
Why not deal with what I’m actually saying instead of attacking strawmen?
peace
Is your “sense” shared by the rest of mankind?
If you tickle your laptop and nothing giggles is that proof their is no mind behind the placement of the pixels displayed there that are signed fifthmonarchyman?
peace
It’s simply not the case that most adults “sans reflection” believe that there is “mind(s) behind the universe.” I put the kids in because maybe you could make a case with them. If you prefer to make it about adults, your case is worse.
This is an empirical question we can test it
yea science
check this out
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/23412801_Being_Human_Religion_Bound_to_Believe
and
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121017102451.htm
You get the idea. How would you go about disproving these findings?
peace
I glanced at those papers, FMM. They aren’t saying the same thing and neither is saying precisely what you’ve said.
So many moles, so little time. Pick one thesis and stick with it, please.
Heh. I see what you did there. 🙂
The other point, which I’ve made probably a dozen times already is that it doesn’t matter. You can’t get warrant from numbers–even really high numbers. To make a decent analogy with realism or the existence of other minds you need something like indispensibility for rationality or communication. The world doesn’t actually make any sense, if we’re brains in a vat. You can’t get that for this Wizard of Oz belief. Doesn’t matter if it’s kids or adults, a majority, a super majority or every-frigging-body. That doesn’t make it evident.
Oh I agree,
I would say the papers are complementary.
When we are dealing with an empirical claim the evidence will be cumulative and definite sharp precision is more of a logic thing than a empirical one.
The first paper is giving a neurological/ evolutionary case for why atheism is not the default for humanity. The second paper is an actual study that shows that folks assume teleology when looking at natural phenomena.
IMO both papers support a thesis that humans are hardwired to infer mind(s) behind “natural” phenomena. I would say there is more where that came from.
What sort of evidence would you think it would take to support my thesis?
peace
I understand you feel that it improves your position to characterize the positions of the other side in such a manner but it would probably serve the purpose of fruitful dialogue if you tried to deal with what is actually being said.
The existence of other minds is no more of a Wizard of Oz belief than the belief that there is a table in front of me.
I don’t directly sense a table.
I infer a table when In the presence of certain stimuli. This is the same process I undergo when I infer the existence of other minds no matter where they are.
The dispute is not about the reliability of our senses but the reliability of our mental faculties so brain in a vat arguments are not at all relevant.
peace
IMO you actually DO directly sense tables, but do not directly sense other minds. You base the latter belief on noticing that other things that look like you react to stuff much as you would do. The world doesn’t do that though. My lawn doesn’t giggle, wince, laugh at my jokes. It’s a BAD ANALOGY.
I’m tired of repeating this stuff though. Perhaps others here DO remain interested in your various (morphing) arguments. If so, I hereby turn over my mole whacking mallet to them.
Cheers!
No, you sense things like hardness and flatness and sharp angledness and infer a table. A stone age hunter gatherer would not infer a table because he has never experienced a table.
When it comes to other minds you sense something like movement or pattern that is not consistent with random or “determined by law” and infer intention.
neither do the pixels on your computer screen but I hope you infer a mind is behind some of them at least.
Me too. It’s a shame that you felt you needed to repeat tired talking points instead of actually having a discussion. That is the way it goes I guess
Thanks for trying at least
peace
That’s a lot of bullshit, as I think you know: but if that’s how you want to end this, whatever.
BTW, I completely disagree with this:
You might consider reading a bit more on philosophy of perception before pontificating on that subject. You could start with Reid, who completely disagrees with you.
fifthmonarchyman,
No. It’s not even shared by me. It’s not a sense in the perceptual … uh … sense, and I didn’t continue to hold it when I grew up. Is your sense that there’s a table in front of you shared by the rest of mankind?
You’re just equivocating for funzies.
The ‘sense’ that there is a mind behind the universe is neither a sense, nor shared by the rest of mankind. As witness: me for one, the Black Swan. No doubt I’m blind in that ‘eye’ – of course, that’s it: the only possible explanation! Let’s hope I go to Hell for my deformity, eh?
Anyway, morality’s objective, species are real and my coffe’s getting cold.
I’m sure I’m not as well read as you are but I’m not wholly ignorant either.
I’ve read a lot of Reid I’m not sure that he disagrees but regardless my opinions are my own I never claimed otherwise.
I don’t want to end this yet. That was your call.
I can’t force you to interact with my arguments beyond a surface level of talking about tickling lawns and 4 year olds who believe that thought originates in the mouth but I hoped you could do that .
I do appreciate that you held the profanity and mockery to a minimum.
Thank you
peace
Reid does disagree with your indirect perception position, just as he disagreed with Hume. You don’t use him as an authority on this matter, however.
Regarding our interactions, what I saw was you making arguments, asking questions, and posting links, me patiently (or sometimes impatiently) responding to your arguments, questions and links time after time, and you just altering your argument and asking different questions and posting more links. That’s not what I consider a conversation myself.
I liken it to having dinner with somebody whose sole goal all night was to make sure I paid. Nothing else really mattered to him. Not that fun.
then why bring it up?
Nope. That is a good point.
To bad you negated it by saying that you don’t actually believe what you claimed to believe about radios. This might have gotten interesting.
I think you are missing the point. I am talking about what you do sans reflection.
You could I suppose come to believe that tables don’t exist so that when you encountered one you could with a little effort explain it away as a hallucination.
However when you unexpectedly stubbed your toe on a table your first response would always be something like “where did that table come from?”
peace
Perhaps what was happening was that you were not responding to the actual arguments being made and I was trying to clarify and get you see what I was actually talking about. Is that possible?
peace
Perhaps you’ve misunderstood my “indirect perception position”. Is that possible?
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
To ridicule your point.
I no longer believe it. But still, I don’t see how the point about tables becomes less of a good one because of my little ‘radio’ illustration. It must have been obvious I no longer held that view before you read my point about tables. Is this like a retroactive Fall?
Unless I think about something, I’m not aware of thinking about it. Unless I open my eyes, I don’t see thinks. I mean things.
I really doubt it. If it continues to provide me with sensory input, it is not a hallucination. One might try some sophomoric dodge along the lines of “how do you ever rilly, rilly know anything, maaan?”, but I would be yawning before one got the words out.
I get no sensory input from God in the sense that I do from my traditional 5 senses, proprioception, bladder etc. Nor in any other. And I’m willing to bet you don’t either. Your parents told you about God. That’s the power of suggestion at work. You need to pee – now! Don’t think about penguins!
Yes, of course. The provenance of an object is always my first thought when abruptly confronted by it … “Where did that table come from?” “IKEA”.
“Where did that God come from?” Oh, sorry, have we abruptly unsaddled that particular horse?
fifthmonarchyman,
Possible, but not actual.