Kairosfocus has a new OP at UD entitled Putting the mind back on the table for discussion. His argument begins thus:
Starting with the principle that rocks have no dreams:
Reciprocating Bill points out that since KF denies physicalism, he has no principled basis for denying the consciousness of rocks:
If the physical states exhibited by brains, but absent in rocks, don’t account for human dreams (contemplation, etc.) then you’ve no basis for claiming rocks are devoid of dreams – at least not on the basis of the physical states present in brains and absent in rocks. Given that, on what basis do you claim that rocks don’t dream?
Needless to say, KF is squirming to avoid the question.
I’ve got popcorn in the microwave. Pull up a chair.
In contrast to this puerile and pointless example of ridicule from William Dembski:
Dembski – A Classless Bitter Soul
Gralgrathor,
Torley is my favorite IDer. I also think he’s the ID supporter most likely to deconvert.
I think he must be the first ID-proponent I’ve read to not only demonstrate an understanding of arguments against ID, but to portray them more or less accurately. Of course then he goes on to make a few classic mistakes, but still. Kudos.
Yeah but Torley is still an unashamed Catholic last I heard. It doesn’t matter if he’s not shit-for-brains like other creationists when he’s shit-for-morals like every other supporter of his murderous church. Kudos? No. Not unless he can think himself out of that cesspool first.
I like Torley too. I have had a few respectful interactions with him (and none that were otherwise.) He actually reads what is written and grapples with the implications for his arguments.
However, while he advocates some informed positions, he also goes way off the deep end in some instances, particularly concerning human evolution. A surpassing weird mix results.
walto,
Certainly beats looking at pretty girls any day of the week!
Well, yeah, that too, of course. But there’s not so much self-congratulation in that. (Self-other stuff, I guess).
But knowing who the best IDer is, and how he/she is almost sentient–but not quite up to getting keiths’s “arguments”–which, as he’ll tell you are just tip-top stuff. That’s gotta trump pretty much everything.
Meeeoooow!
Bill is like a weasel with a rag soaked in rabbit juice:
He just wont let go. BRAVO!
walto:
Richard:
Poor Walt. This can’t be healthy for him.
RTH:
My wife whispered same to me just the other night. Needless to say…
Poor Walt. This can’t be healthy for him.
I think it’s funny that you call me “Walt.” You’re generally funny though. Anyhow, it’s one more of many, many mistakes of yours.
Well, why didn’t you say so! Do you prefer to be called ‘walto’, ‘Walter’, or something else?
No. I’m sorry, you’ll have to go back and fix each occurrence of “Walt” in every post you’ve made (presumably by asking the moderators to delete them), or I will do what you do–continue to link one of the old incorrect ones and ask why you refuse to admit your mistake when it’s such a simple thing to do.
But that seems too mean and keiths-like. So, I’ll tell you what, you can also admit that your continuing claim that I want increased moderation after I said, “whoops” was just irritating nonsense on your part (using those exact words). [I was thinking of adding three additional requirements, but let’s see how you make out on this one first.] Otherwise, I’ll just keep saying you’re wrong wrong wrong about my name and that everyone should use those many mistakes inductively with respect to all your other posts.
walto,
That’s not very rational.
That’s your own tactic you’re talking about! I mean, did you or did you not continue to say I was one here who wants more moderation and repeatedly link a post of mine in which I asked for more moderation, after I’d clearly repudiated that post as being hasty and not really what I meant? (And you must have done this knowingly because I’ve complained about it maybe five times now.)
Yeah, it’s obnoxious and irrational, but it’s your tactic, bro.
Mebbe. But doesn’t beat looking at pretty boys. 😛
You know what’s really nice, though? “Cheerful acknowledgement.”
walto,
If you can show me an instance in which I misrepresented your views on moderation, then I will indeed cheerfully acknowledge my error.
LOL
This was a lot of trouble, and as it’s exactly the kind of crap you pull on many threads, I don’t know why you couldn’t have done this yourself, but here you go I’ll put your gems in italics.
walto on May 23, 2014 at 8:07 pm said:
FW(little)IW, I don’t like any “don’t address the poster” type rules. Many valid and important points can be made by addressing the poster and one philosopher wrote a book (I think his name was Johnston–I’ll have to look it up) making a pretty good case that ALL philosophical argumentation must be ad hominem to be any good.
There are valid “genetic” arguments.
Jones was drunk–so you shouldn’t believe what he said then.
Jones said exactly the opposite thing yesterday.
Jones has a financial interest in people agreeing with that remark.
Jones has a history of racist behavior so should not be believed when he asserts that X.
Jones is, himself engaged in Philadelphia in just the activity he is deriding you for in Chicago.
Etc.
It’s my view that sometimes posters SHOULD be attacked, and it’s not really the post that’s the problem. If people are engaging in behavior that lacks integrity (intellectual or otherwise), I think they should be called on it–not the post, their untoward pattern of behavior.
Anyhow, I understand that not only is this not my site, I’m just a freaking opinionated newbie. And I understand that people here see things somewhat differently than I do (and may have wonderful reasons for doing so). I want and expect you to do what Lizzie and the Elders here want. What the hell do I know?
walto on May 24, 2014 at 1:09 am said:
I do think though, that there should be lots of kinds of forums available. And if people enjoy the rough and tumble, dissembling, weaseling, altering others’ quotes, hearing denials of obvious truths regarding what has taken place there, etc. it’s good that they have places where that kind of stuff is viewed with equanimity–or at least as part of the game, or a necessary cost of doing biz or whatever. I’m daintier than that, myself, but I think you’re right both that (i) a dainty site requires a “king” or council or something–because I don’t think you can ever get a batch of rules quite right or specific enough, and a ton of process for this kind of stuff isn’t really worth the trouble, and (ii) that one runs the risk of throwing out a few wheaty comments for a bunch of chaffy behavior if one is quick to expel people. I’ll even add (iii) sometimes the only people who keep a forum active are the schmucks there and when they get banned, the whole place falls asleep. So, as I said, it’s a difficult balance. I would not like to be a moderator myself. On the other hand, I WOULD like to know about a few more of those places that you say are run by philosopher kings.
walto on May 27, 2014 at 11:47 pm said:
The master baiter points out that I wrote And ridiculous accusations of keiths(hmendric’s) kind are exactly the kind of shit that should be pulled, and for which posters should be disciplined.
He’s right: rather than say “exactly the kind of shit that should be pulled, and for which posters should be disciplined” I should have said “exactly the kind of shit that I would pull, and for which I would discipline posters on my site.” I put that badly because I absolutely do not think they should be pulled or he should be disciplined here. They and he obviously are right where they belong.
keiths on May 28, 2014 at 11:27 pm said:
Neil,
Patrick isn’t asking for a vote. He wants to know why you, SophistiCat, Walt, and hotshoe are calling for more moderation.
walto on June 14, 2014 at 3:02 am said:
“I cheerfully acknowledge my mistakes”
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
[Walto eventually becomes able to breathe again and gets up off the floor]
Actually, you do not acknowlege your mistakes, cheerfully or otherwise. Examples? You suggested that I was an anti-semite who doesn’t think Jews (and/or socialists) should have the same rights “as the rest of us.” When both hotshoe and I explained to you that my remarks were simply a matter of quoting Hitchens and pointing out that his argument was no good, instead of apologizing and saying something like, ‘Ah, I now see what you mean,’ you just kept on with your absurd bullshit (as you will no doubt do again now). Again, when I and others have said repeatedly that we don’t want increased moderation, you have continued to insist that we do (as, of course, you would know better than we what our views are). What people DO want is simply for you to stop acting like a dick on every thread in whIch someone has the audacity not to agree with every jot and tittle that you post.
walto on June 14, 2014 at 1:26 pm said:
As I’ve mentioned several times before, it’s my belief that, if anything, there are too many moderation rules. The failure is not one of moderation. Hotshoe put very eloquently what is required–a willingness by participants to restrain from assholishness. Without that, you fail, regardless of rules; with it, no moderation is needed. In particular, as I’ve discussed at length already, I would lose the rules against addressing the poster. Rational conversation often requires that.
keiths on June 14, 2014 at 4:35 pm said:
Walt,
I see that your imagination is still as active as it was when you left….
You did call for more moderation.
upon death one can speculate that we take our memories with us. We are meshed to them on earth and so trapped by the memory mechanism.
It is a machine but is also specially attached to our soul.
so we must take our memories with us.
our memory is fantastic. its all there that we ever thought or saw or did.
Its only the triggering mechanism that slows or interferes with our retrieval of our memories.
Why are we speculating, Robert?
Well, Robert, since there’s no reason to think that there’s any part of consciousness that survives the death of the brain, I suggest you get all your speculating done before death, while the speculating’s good, so to speak.
So memory is a non-physical thing too? Same category of entities as the soul? Or even part of the soul?
And how do you know this, Robert? Same way you know about the existence and nature of the soul?
walto,
If you want people to believe you, it’s best not to deceive them. You’ll lose their trust if you keep doing that. Did you really think no one would notice that you quote-mined my comment?
Your quote-mined version:
My actual comment:
walto,
Also, your call for heavier moderation wasn’t just a single comment that you later “repudiated”. There was a whole series of them…
link,
link,
link,
link,
…including one in which you bizarrely suggested that the moderators should insert bolded orange comments into people’s posts!
Those were all bad ideas that were immediately rejected, and I’m sure you were (and are) embarrassed by that. But they were your comments, and you are responsible for them.
Take responsibility, walto. Your comments are yours and no one else’s.
There it is folks. Cheerful acknowledgement.
Um…. in the form of continued denial and additional attacks.. As predicted, an utter waste of time. No ‘yeah I guess you’re right. Sorry. Let’s move on.’ Your sole interest is in winning. When I take your advice and self-reflect, I always end up realizing that it’s really unpleasant to try to discuss anything with you and time would be better spent trying to explain Russellian types to a pair of socks.
Back to looking at pretty boys or girls, I guess.
I think you’ve put your finger on or close to Torley’s core problem. Like nearly all creationists in my experience, he knows that his religion is true, so evidence to the contrary must be wrong. Unfortunately for him, he demonstrates more intelligence than the average (or even above average) IDCist, which makes him capable of experiencing cognitive dissonance.
As you note, refusal to address that dissonance leads to “shit-for-morals”.
I think “Between a rock and a tard place” may have been a better title.
RTH:
I was sorely tempted, believe me!
KF has not yet responded to Bill’s latest. I hope Montserrat is not undergoing another constitutional crisis.
Richard,
Constitutional crises are nothing for KF. It’s the ‘malevolent supernatural’ behind Saturday morning cartoons that really has him worried.
BYDAND it’s getting good!
KF leads off with;
“R-Bill:
This is now obviously a red herring led away to a strawman.”
And then goes on a major deflection-blurt complete with Fred Hoyle, FSCO/I, “Glasgow type tests”, A PS, A PPS, A PPPS and a note to onlookers but at no time addressing the question “on what basis do you claim that rocks don’t dream?”
This is Weasily the best UD thread for some time. Keep at it Bill. Rabbit Juice!
Richard,
And a “prezactly”. These are all good ‘approaching meltdown’ indicators. Let’s hope that conditions remain favorable.
KF edges closer to meltdown:
KF has abandoned the thread for a new one, but to his great dismay, Reciprocating Bill is right there asking his question again.
I’m not sure why KF is so adamant that rocks can’t dream, since his Lord and Savior was quite comfortable with the idea of sentient rocks:
Ah, assuming the conclusion, that always helps.
Once more unto the breach, dear Bill, once more
William weighs in:
William,
Like KF, you’ve failed to answer RB’s question.
Suppose you are correct that the “mind/soul” can dream but the brain cannot. RB’s question is this: If brains are unnecessary for dreaming, then how do you know that rocks don’t dream?
How do you know that rocks don’t have “mind/souls” of the kind you mentioned above?
KF’s argument begins with the claim that rocks don’t dream. A physicalist can reasonably make that claim, but what about you and KF? If brains are unnecessary for dreaming, then how do you know that rocks don’t dream?
keiths,
RBills question is one about how kf’s metaphysics explains why he can “know” that rocks don’t dream, given that it is not the brain that generates dreams. We’ve given the answer; according to the metaphysics, neither rocks nor human brains dream. Matter by itself cannot dream or be self aware.
Duh. So if neither shouldn’t be able to*, but one can, why can’t the other?
*For the sake of argument.
So, rocks can dream as brains do if, for example, the “beam of dream” is directed accidentally (or indeed on purpose) at a rock, just as the “beam” is normally directed at fleshy organic brains causing them to dream.
You are in the same boat as KF. Rocks can and sometimes do dream in your reality (as errors always happen).
Who are you to say what the “dream beam” can or cannot be aimed at?
I have as much grounding to say that the “dream beam” can point at rocks as you have grounds to say he human body is a diving suit, driven by the “dream beam”.
And “capacity for service” means what exactly? Can’t a rock dream about one day being ground up and used as mortar? Being part of a nice wall might be what all rocks desire!
Who are you to say that a rock cannot dream?
You know nothing of the desires of any “individualized consciousness” other then your own. I would jump at the chance to cause a rock to dream, if only to see what it would dream about!
And we know it can dream as it’s not the rock doing the dreaming, it’s the “dream beam” that causes all it points at to dream even if it can’t actually then do anything about it!
Making many assumptions there I think William. What “service” is it that is required and who are you to set limits on what can and cannot be considered a service?
Perhaps to the thing aiming the beam there need be no “service” at all, the mere fact of causing a rock to dream is sufficient.
That too. Simpler them my version. I think William may have missed RB’s point entirely as he’s supporting his case, not arguing against it but seems to think the opposite himself!
Do stick insects dream William? They have “potential for service” don’t they? They could, for example, fall down a shirt collar and change the course of the world by causing an accident?
Do stick insects dream William? What dreams are beamed in? From where? How do you know all this stuff? Been initiated into the secret ways have you?
Richard,
You’re apparently not understanding the answer. According to the metaphysics, brains do not dream. Just like computers do not dream. And rocks do not dream. It is that which is operating through the brain which dreams.
Reciprocating Bill’s question involves a categorical error. He’s asking that if it is not the brain (the matter) from which dreams come, why cannot a rock (which is matter) dream, after he’s already been told that it isn’t matter of any sort or arrangement or refinement or configuration that dreams.
RB@UD
So William’s answer to that is that rocks “cannot be of service”.
This seems to presuppose many things about the entities doing the beaming of dreams.
And further consequences in the real world.
William, as you seem to know all about it, when someone goes into a coma or otherwise loses the ability to control their body do they lose the ability to dream? Is the “dream beam” switched off? That seems a bit mean! What if a mistake is made and the beam is switched off but the person recovers? Have they lost their soul at that point?
etc etc. I can see how people can make a lot of money typing this tripe out. You can say anything you want, nobody can contradict you and all you have to be is slightly more intelligent then the mark is and you can take them for the rest of their life! No wonder you started writing books William, I can see the attraction! But it ain’t gonna work round here and you don’t seem to have realized that yet. Stick to UD would be my suggestion. I think some of their “dream beams” have already been turned off!
Perhaps something like this happens when the “dream beam” stops working:
Hypoxia – 4 of spades
You have to wonder why, if the “beam” is still there, beaming in consciousness why that happens at all. Can you explain that William?
You are just reinforcing RB’s point.
Brains cannot dream.
Rocks cannot dream.
Brains can dream if the “dream beam” is pointed at them.
Rocks can dream if the “dream beam” is pointed at them.
The only difference is that rocks cannot do anything about it. But both rocks and brains can dream.
It’s quite simple, point the “dream beam” at a brain, it dreams. Point it at a rock and it dreams also.
Perhaps beaming your consciousnesses into a rock is a punishment for criminals out in the place where dreams come from.
Or perhaps beings that have ascended to higher levels conduct some sort of Zen-like mediation by “being a rock” for a few thousand years.
William,
You’re not understanding the question.
If humans have some extra, immaterial thing (what you called the “mind/soul”) that allows them to dream, then how do you know that a rock does not have a mind/soul that enables it to dream?
Why can’t that operate through a rock and make it dream, other then your desire to win this argument?
Some take the view that everything has consciousness, everything is “alive” in that sense, but only some things can express it. If I were William I’d actually be arguing for that, not against it, as it solves many problems (e.g. where did consciousness come from? It was always there) for his metaphysics.
I suspect he understands it, but like KF cannot answer it so answers a different question. I’ve tried to clarify for him as best I can 🙂 but I can’t imagine he reads my comments at this point 😛