you're welcome, I'm happy to offer another point of view.
Thanks
for the kind gesture. I bet that is the best greeting a naturalist can
give to each other. Kinda reminds me of the hunger games (1) where they
say "...may the odds be with you..." to which I respond "how funny"
because the odds don't even care neither do they know that they exist
hahaha. But from a social POV, thanks for cheering me up :D"And do you accept the notion/ proposition that "Choices are Free"?" - they cannot be free, but virtually any definition of free will has been debunked.
saying "they cannot be free" is a
blanket assertion or argumentum ad lapidem. Please, show us your
credible logical arguments. You made that claim, that burden of proof is
on you.
saying "virtually any definition of free will has been debunked."
does not provide any negation to the logically warranted arguments that
freewill does exist. Consider your word "virtually" which according to
the dictionary (2) means
"for the most part; almost wholly; just about:"
which by your own definition, and to avoid the fallacy of appealing to populations/ commonalities, there exists a definition of freewill that must be correct.
Now
you appear to just Poison the Well rather than make the well better. In
order to avoid making a fallacious toupee fallacy of appealing to
personal incredulity, can you tell us what would make "Freewill"
ACTUALLY "Freewill"?
How do you believe we ought to recognize Freewill if you and I saw one?
Then
after you have provided this criteria, show us how every human freewill
is NOT actually freewill but (pre)determined-will etc :)
"This "...we..." you keep using, who are the "we"? lol..." - the scientific community.
This is where I totally disagree with you. Your own bias is scientism (3). There are many things science has no authority over, in my opinion:
(1) Metaphysical or Existential Truths
(2) Moral or Ethical Truths
(3) Logical and Mathematical Truths
(4) Historical Truths
(5) Experiential Truths
(6) Aesthetics Truths
(7) Science itself
LONGER EXPLANATION
(1) Metaphysical or Existential Truths
: Many Metaphysical truths cannot be proven using science. For instance
(and these questions have existed for a LONG time now) Science cannot
prove that you aren’t merely a brain in a jar being manipulated to think
this is all actually happening. (Think of something like in “The
Matrix”.) It also cannot prove that the world wasn’t created 5 minutes
ago with the appearance of age (and with fake memories in your head, and
half-digested food in your stomach, etc). However it’s still rational
to believe that our memories are true and that the world is real. How do
you know you’re not dreaming right now? What if your mind is the only
one that exists and your just imagining everyone else? None of these
things can be proven but we’re not only reasonable for not believing
them but believing one of them may land you in a mental ward lol.
(2) Moral or Ethical Truths
: Science can’t prove any ethical truths. Science cannot prove that
rape is evil. While it is possible to demonstrate, for example, that
there are negative physical or psychological effects of rape, there is
no scientific test that can prove it is evil. Science can describe how
the natural world is, but moral truth carries an “oughtness” (how things should be) about it that goes beyond what merely is. There will never be an ONTOLOGICALLY SUFFICIENT AND OBJECTIVE/ ABSOLUTE scientific reason that survives logically warranted scrutiny for why what the Nazi’s did was wrong. Yet I think we’re all reasonable to believe they’re wrong.
(3) Logical and Mathematical Truths : Science cannot prove logic to be true because it assumes and requires
logic in order for it to work. You can’t prove that logic or math work
because the only way to do so would be to use logic or math. If all you
follow is reason then how can you prove that reason works? This doesn’t
mean we should never use logic or math it just means that it’s
reasonable to believe in some things regardless if they can be proven.
(4) Historical Truths
: Science cannot prove that Barack Obama won the 2008 United States
presidential election. There is no scientific test we could perform to
prove it. We could have an investigation if we wanted to confirm that he
did actually win, but the method for proving historical truths is different from testing scientific truths since historical truths are by nature non-repeatable.
(5) Experiential Truths
: Science cannot prove that your spouse loves you. When asked why
so-and-so loves you, you may cite precedent (times when their behavior
demonstrates their love for you) but this is a particular type of historical truth. There is no scientific test that can confirm a lifetime of experience of knowing a person.
(6) Aesthetics Truths
: Science can’t prove truths about beauty. Science, try as it might,
can’t explain why I like one poem over another. Still we’re all
reasonable to believe that some things are beautiful and that some
things aren’t - irrespective of qualia and the the golden ratio.
(7) Science itself
: Consider the statement “Science is the only way to really know
truth.” How could you prove that statement by science? It is actually
self-refuting (circular reasoning) because there is no scientific test
you could use to prove that it is true! Science (as hilarious as it is)
can’t prove itself. Similar to number 3, for science to prove that it
works it would have to use science. It’s impossible, yet we all are
reasonable to believe in science.
Questions regarding scientism
(1)
Could the scientific Community ever be wrong? e.g. there was a time the
scientific community thought the sun revolved around the earth.
(2) What makes the scientific community correct in this case?
(3) What makes the scientific community an authority over this issue of "freewill"?
(4) Who makes up the scientific community?
(5) Does everyone
in the scientific community unanimously agree within themselves
concerning this issue or are you fallaciously appealing to certain
(majority) population or are you fallaciously appealing to personal
incredulity of the (certain population in this) scientific community?
(6)
Which scientific community? Medical Doctors? Biologists? Neurologists?
You mean neurologist like Wilder Penfield and Roger Sperry?
(7) Can you prove that everyone in the scientific community agrees with this or are you just philosophically assuming it?
"...irrelevant. The fact that 'others' believe the earth is 6000 years old doesn't support the fact you (and they) are wrong (just an example, don't mean to imply you hold this view)..."
But that still proves my point. "Who are this ..."we"...
" ...that is the question I want to know and you make a non-sequitur
point I agree with. You see, that same argument also falls on you. Watch
me use your own arguments logically warranted back at you:
The fact that 'others' believe they dont have freewill doesnt support the fact that you (and they) are wrong...
So
it seems to me that you agree with me that this "we" you keep talking
of is totally misplaced as a hasty generalisation fallacy as "others"
really do exist who dont agree with you :P
"...numerous metaphysical and philosophical presuppositions have been debunked in light of scientific investigations. This is another such instance..."
Again
an appeal to population. This does not logically lead to the warranted
justification that there are other philosophical arguments that science
agrees with.
"...One could say you're appealing to dualism here" - no."
I'm glad you're not appealing to dualism. That is one factor cut out in trying to better understand you :)
"are you implying that we have wrongly locked criminals in prisons" - no.
"and condemned them wrongly because they are not the self-originators of the crimes they performed?" - yes.
So
when a psychopathic serial killer and rapist rapes you, your family,
kills your family, cuts your limbs in pieces but keeps you alive to
traumatize your for 1 whole year. Can you honestly tell me that that guy
is not at an moral fault because, as per your argument, he is not the origination and performer of his own action??? Im curious. _
"please demonstrate how Sam Harris semantically deals with the dichotomy between fatalism and determinism" - I invite you to watch his talk(s).
Yeah, please, refer me to his relevant talks :)
"So please, demonstrate a hypothesis to show how "the material world is all that there is". - I do not need to. Ask your doctor, when you are sick, to prove to you that your illness is material. Hint: non sequitur.
So, after my hypothesis that I gave to you - none
of which you logically debunked, you refer me to go ask a doctor.
hahahahaha ... you sound like the opposite version of a young earth
creationist (YEC) who does not know how to argue his case but
fallaciously commit an onus probandi lol.me: demonstrate an hypothesis to show that "the earth is 6000 years old"
YEC: i do not need to. Ask my pastor to show you your sin is spiritual hahahaha
This is a category error and false dichotomy. I do not see the logical dichotomy between "immateriality" and "illness"
in this context. The no-sequitur fallacy is in your court bro. This is
the core for you bro... if you cannot explain that "materialism" is all
that exists... it just seems to me that there is no good
counter-argument or good-defeater to use the postulations of
(1)
Quantum Physics - and its irregular nature to prove that another nature
exists different from the nature of this material world. eg and electron
could be in two places at the same time. (4)
(2) String Theory - and its 11 dimensions (5)
(3)
Super String Theory - as if String Theory was not enough, now our
mathematics is very much coherent with SUPER STRING THEORY (6).
(4) Wilder Penfield and Roger Sperry's experiments of dualism and idealism (7).
(5) The concept of infinity and its repeatable assumption in nature. eg fractals (8)
I'm
sorry I am not convinced as you have not tackled the arguments that
make me so convinced. This materialistic 3D dimension, in my opinion, is
not all that exists - there is more as per the links i've provided you.
And yes, I'm not the only one saying it, your very same scientific
community is saying it.
God bless you :)
REFERENCES
(8) http://sh.st/vZpZW
No comments:
Post a Comment