LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

[PensFanInDC]

What if C-A-T really spelled dog?

[MRandall25]

What if 6 was 9?

[Willie Kool]

What if 6 was 9?

I don't mind, I don't mind.

[Kraftster]

I agree with you, redwill, that there is a breakdown at the point that he tries to suggest that the belief and the content of that belief are somehow different. He seems to be suggesting that the belief (the particular neurophysiological composition) is something more general, like "presence of beer in fridge" and that the content can be either "beer is in the fridge" or "beer is not in the fridge."

Of course that is not the case at all. The np composition constituting the belief will be different for "beer in fridge" vs. "no beer in fridge."

Still, even giving him the benefit of the doubt on that point and treating his statement as being something like the belief in your mind can be either true or false in reality, there's other points where it breaks down.

I didn't quote the rest of his discussion on this point. I think its worth reading if you want to be even more flummoxed. He basically tries to construct something like this.

Materialism
According to materialism, beliefs are neurophysiological arrangements of chemicals/particles in the brain. (yes)
Beliefs cause us to act. (yes)
Beliefs may be either true or false. (too rigid, but ultimately could be true)
Beliefs cause us to act regardless of their truth or falsity. (way too black and white a view)

Then from there he goes on and creates even more confusing, basically arguing that the belief that both materialism and evolution are true is self-refuting:

Evolution
Evolution would require that we have beliefs that cause adaptive actions.
But beliefs cause actions because the belief exists not because the belief... is true or adaptive (I'm guessing here).
Evolution will select belief-producing processes that produce beliefs with adaptive np properties, but not for belief-producing processes that produce true beliefs. (Huh?)

Now the big payoff:

Therefore, given materialism and evolution, any particular belief is as likely to be false as true. (lol wut?)

So now that beliefs have about a 50% chance of being correct, he gives us this. I honestly cannot follow this guy.

If a belief is as likely to be false as to be true, we'd have to say the probability that any particular belief is true is about 50 percent. Now suppose we had a total of 100 independent beliefs (of course, we have many more). Remember that the probability that all of a group of beliefs are true is the multiplication of all their individual probabilities. Even if we set a fairly low bar for reliability -- say, that at least two-thirds (67 percent) of our beliefs are true -- our overall reliability, given materialism and evolution, is exceedingly low: something like .0004. So if you accept both materialism and evolution, you have good reason to believe that your belief-producing faculties are not reliable.

[Kraftster]

Who created your creator never really got to me so much as the perhaps more general "why is there something as opposed to nothing?" To which I guess I would say, what if "something" just always was.

[columbia]

And as I said in the science thread, in reaction to that debate at the creationism museum: "Why does there have to be a purpose?"

[count2infinity]

And as I said in the science thread, in reaction to that debate at the creationism museum: "Why does there have to be a purpose?"

There doesn't, but the idea that we're here for absolutely no purpose doesn't sit well with people. We are far too... what's the word here? Selfish? I don't know if that describes it, maybe self-important to think that we're just here, and there's no reason for us to be here, we just are.

[Kraftster]

I definitely think the predisposition to belief in the divine that is apparently present in a large number of people stems from one or many of the many pain-avoidance mechanisms that exist in humans. It is a frightening thought to be purposeless, one that many could not really handle.

[redwill]

And as I said in the science thread, in reaction to that debate at the creationism museum: "Why does there have to be a purpose?"

This is why the "fine-tuning" argument the guy mentions in the article is so ridiculous. It begs the question in that it assumes that intelligent life is a goal of the universe.

It's not. It's just a by-product.

[shmenguin]

I definitely think the predisposition to belief in the divine that is apparently present in a large number of people stems from one or many of the many pain-avoidance mechanisms that exist in humans.

more specifically, death. my wife's uncle died young. her grandmother passed away a couple years ago, and a popular sentiment at her funeral was that now she would be reunited with her son. i hid my disagreement, obviously, but whenever i hear stuff like that, i just feel like it's such an absurd idea, and i also feel some sadness about how there really is just nothing after you die. so i do envy believers in this regard.

[count2infinity]

well... they are united in death as neither now recognizes that they're not alive, as... like you, think once it's over, it's over and you don't know it because you're dead. There is nothing. Almost like the deepest of sleep.

[Kraftster]

Yeah, I agree. My mom passed away last year after a long battle with cancer. While I appreciate that people are just trying to say something comforting when there is nothing comforting that can be said, it was difficult for me to quietly accept the "better place" comments. It was even difficult for me to accept the comments about "no more pain" because I know that is not how my mom viewed death. She would have preferred to experience suffering than to experience nothing at all. This was not borne out of a fear of death but a tremendous sadness that there is no way to experience or a be a part of the lives of her children and grandchildren after death.

There were days where I would feel that envy you mention but that is really only fleeting and in the moment. I think the believers should be envious of those who do not believe that there is anything when we die because it opens the door to a depth of appreciation for life that I do not believe believers are capable of experiencing. Perhaps that's just self-delusion, though.

[shmenguin]

well... they are united in death as neither now recognizes that they're not alive, as... like you, think once it's over, it's over and you don't know it because you're dead. There is nothing. Almost like the deepest of sleep.

people think it's impossible to imagine being dead. i think it's pretty easy. you experience nothingness every night. it doesn't matter if it's for 8 hours or forever, you wouldn't know the difference unless you wake up afterwards.

[shmenguin]

Yeah, I agree. My mom passed away last year after a long battle with cancer. While I appreciate that people are just trying to say something comforting when there is nothing comforting that can be said, it was difficult for me to quietly accept the "better place" comments. It was even difficult for me to accept the comments about "no more pain" because I know that is not how my mom viewed death. She would have preferred to experience suffering than to experience nothing at all. This was not borne out of a fear of death but a tremendous sadness that there is no way to experience or a be a part of the lives of her children and grandchildren after death.

i'm sorry about this.

if i ever experience something similar, i'm probably not going to be quite as polite. the first person who says, "everything happens for a reason" is in for it.

[Kraftster]

Yeah, I agree. My mom passed away last year after a long battle with cancer. While I appreciate that people are just trying to say something comforting when there is nothing comforting that can be said, it was difficult for me to quietly accept the "better place" comments. It was even difficult for me to accept the comments about "no more pain" because I know that is not how my mom viewed death. She would have preferred to experience suffering than to experience nothing at all. This was not borne out of a fear of death but a tremendous sadness that there is no way to experience or a be a part of the lives of her children and grandchildren after death.

i'm sorry about this.

if i ever experience something similar, i'm probably not going to be quite as polite. the first person who says, "everything happens for a reason" is in for it.

Thankfully, I did not encounter any of those comments. I did flip out on someone who said this about a friend who was killed in a car accident in high school. I can't really stand that comment in almost any context, especially in the context of a death. The other comments I mentioned are more benign to me.

[largegarlic]

I always feel like the Problem of Evil really shifts the burden of proof to theists in this debate. For me, the Problem of Evil presents not conclusive, but pretty strong, reason to believe that the traditional, anthropomorphic conception of God (as omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent) doesn't exist. And like others, I'm not persuaded by the "there's a reason for everything," "God is just testing us, and we'll be stronger," or "evil comes from our free choice to sin" types of responses. There's plenty of awful stuff that happens for absolutely no discernible purpose and isn't a product of human choice to sin.

From my point of view, then, any sort of convoluted anti-materialist or anti-evolution arguments that Plantinga (the guy interviewed) throws around don't really do much to address that basic problem, even if he's right.

[Willie Kool]

I always feel like the Problem of Evil really shifts the burden of proof to theists in this debate. For me, the Problem of Evil presents not conclusive, but pretty strong, reason to believe that the traditional, anthropomorphic conception of God (as omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent) doesn't exist.

I spent a semester studying the Summa Theologica, which probably makes one of the best cases to refute the Problem of Evil. The prof apparently liked my contrary participation.

[columbia]

@Kraftster


Searching for the “Free Will” Neuron
Gabriel Kreiman’s single-neuron measurements of unconscious decision-making may not topple Descartes, but they could someday point to ways we can learn to control ourselves.

http://www.technologyreview.com/feature ... ll-neuron/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Kraftster]

That was a great read on the Cherry Capital Airport yesterday as my flight waited for permission to take off for Chicago.

Thanks for the find.

[Kraftster]

This is probably going to meander all over the place, but I'll still give it a go.

I like to think of myself as a very happy person. The happiness that I derive from life is borne out of what I guess one could call my existential awakening. The absurdity of life/my own existence provides the path for savoring and enjoying every moment that I have in this brief lifetime. In this sense and to the extent that this sort of existential fulfillment from all things no matter how mundane equates to happiness, I would consider my happiness to be something that has been cultivated over my entire life.

A friend of mine's father had a saying that he used to describe people sometimes: "He's happy about the whole thing." I have generally associated the people described with the saying as being blissfully ignorant and unaware--totally plugged into the matrix. However, recently I realized that the one guy I know who is definitely "happy about the whole thing," is definitely a thinker--acquainted with the existential hum of his existence. That got me wondering...

One of my favorite professors loved referring to the four stages of competence:

Unconscious incompetence-->Conscious incompetence-->Conscious competence-->unconscious competence

In thinking about this happy-about-the-whole-thing fellow, I found myself trying to plug his happiness into this sort of continuum. So, based upon how I normally look at people that are happy about the whole thing, I'd put them in "Stage 1" since that is sort of the starting point from which everyone begins. And I would want to put myself at Stage 3, working towards stage 4. So the happy-about-the-whole-thingers would be "below" where I'd like to put myself, so to speak. But I got to wondering, what if they are actually stage 4. Its not the "enlightened" stage 4 that I think about, but is it really any different?

So then I was thinking, well, how would that continuum work for happiness? In order to have the same progression, it would be:

unconscious unhappiness-->conscious unhappiness-->conscious happiness-->unconscious happiness

But as I've been thinking about the happy-about-the-whole-thingers, I've been thinking of them as stage 1, which I've thought of as unconscious happiness. So what is the continuum then? Is stage 1 really the same as stage 4? And if so, should I think of people living happily at stage 1 as really any less than someone living happily at stage 4?

But, I want to work with the idea of this continuum, so I guess my general question with that rambling background:

Is man happy or unhappy by default--in the "state of nature," if you will? Or is it not that simple?

[Troy Loney]

I think as a child we are intrinsically happy. Unhappiness is a product of discontent. We become impatient and critical with ourselves. I think unhappiness is a direct internal creation spawned by internal ideals and values that create an idea of the person we are and the person that we want to be.

[Kraftster]

I see some merit in that. Which would mean that Stage 1 is the same as Stage 4. Which is a pretty fascinating and startling discovery to me.

[columbia]

I see some merit in that. Which would mean that Stage 1 is the same as Stage 4.

I would say that's not true.

Someone not being aware that they can't play the guitar is not equal to someone who doesn't have think about it, when they do.

That's probably poor grammar, but you get the point.

[Kraftster]

Oh I agree with that. In terms of competence, there's no question that the stage1->stage4 structure applies.

I'm just talking specifically about happiness. If we try to use the same idea and apply it to happiness. And if Stage 1 and Stage 4 are the same, I guess that makes the continuum not that at all--it makes it a circle. Which is kind of fascinating to me.

[count2infinity]

I was getting my coffee the other day and the lady at the cash register had down syndrome. She was very happy, very pleasant to be around, and as we left, I said to my wife, "If I ever own a business like this, I'd hire someone like her over some random teenager any day of the week." And she asked if being happy and pleasant is a part of having down syndrome, and I had never thought about it before. I don't think I've ever met some one with down syndrome that wasn't happy. I've met some that are shy and take some time to warm up to people but once they have, they are the most pleasant people to be around. Is it that they do not develop past that state you're talking about of being intrinsically happy? In any regard, I've been around a lot of children down syndrome through volunteer work and teaching, and there is not a single group of people that I would rather hang out with. When they are in that constant state of happiness (sure, they get angry or sad just like anyone else, but for the most part, they're happy) it's hard not to be happy as well.