ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (08/09/85)
Read these carefully, and watch... > 1) Religion is partly idiocy. > 2) Faith (an idiotic part) is the essence of > religion. (Faith is the practice of claiming > truth without evidence. I am not concerned > with other meanings of the word, like "trust".) > 3) Arguments from faith are destructive of > net.philosophy . > 4) Therefore it is important to exclude religious > arguments from net.philosophy . > 5) Arguments not from faith are not religious. > 6) Therefore there is no religious interest in > net.philosophy (although some religious people > might have an interest). > 7) Therefore there is no excuse for cross-posting > between net.philosophy and net.religion . > 8) Religion used to dominate philosophy. That > domination was disastrous. > 9) Religion stopped dominating philosophy centuries > ago. > 10) It is still possible for philosophy to be > crushed by the religious boot, if people don't > take preventive care. Now examine this interaction between me and Rich Rosen: ME>Who said science should be shackled? RR>YOU did, by insisting that certain things are "not in the realm" of science.. ..or this one: ME>.. you are apparently dedicated to the beliefs below: ME> The universe of science is All That Is. ME> Science will somehow be able to describe everything. RR>Here we go again with science-hating. The universe of things that are are RR>the things that are. That's my position. There are many more. These are all examples of totally compulsive, unphilosophical, a priori thought that not only assume the notions of what is, and what is knowable, and so on, but which demonstrate a self-righteous indignation that ANYBODY MIGHT EVEN DOUBT OR QUESTION SUCH MATTERS. Is this not religion? Rich, you have wasted this newsgroup for many months by brutally reasserting a single meaningless statement: "free will does not exist" What does that mean? Nothing, as far as I can tell, since you simply have reasserted YOUR definitions, YOUR assumptions, YOUR truth so numbingly, repeatedly, unthinkingly, like a ritual, a chant, a religious mantra, that the network might believe the true word. And is it philosophical speculation to gloss over peoples' careful arguments with wild and unjustifiable accusations of.. ..Wishful Thinking? Rich, the only thing I wish for is that you might think more. Why should anyone engaging in philosophical inquiry want the statement `free will exists' to be true? Making a rigorous definition of a subjective, legal, and philosophical term is a challenging problem, but who cares if your definitions yield falsity? YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SO DESPERATELY WANTS SOMETHING NOT TO EXIST. That is not philosophy. That is religion. YOUR RELIGION. -michael
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (08/09/85)
> >>> Rich >> Not Rich >> BTW, what is it you suppose that that I wish for? >A non-causal world in which you can have your free will and eat it too. >You've said this more than once. Today, using my Free Will, I've decided to be a Materialist again. As a Materialist I do not exist and consequently have little need for Free Will. However, the definitions and arguments by Torek and Dennett are clever. I'm surprised a fellow Materialist would have problem with them -- they utilize nothing but genuine real physical concepts, no souls or other such rot. The evidence for spontaneity and causality is very hard in everything, physical or otherwise, and at all levels. It contaminates everything. Do you wish that the hard Scientific evidence might go away? You are not contemplating some revisionist heresy, are you? >> Then one's own subjective experience of awareness is not valid evidence >> that `awareness' is a real entity. After all, it might have been a >> hallucination. > >If you really believe it's all an illusion, then stab yourself in the arm >with a fork. >If not, don't bother positing such a position for argument's sake. [??] >Objectivity in science is designed to try to ensure within this system an >avoidance of such subjectivity. >I agree. You don't exist. Awareness cannot be imbedded into the Materialist model universe. We have to kluge the system, by adding it as an extra, like God, if we need it, and we don't. >> By Occam! Conscious awareness is as no more real than Santa Claus, >> free will, or even God.. > >As I said in the last article, Occam says to reduce assumptions to a minimum, >not to ignore evidence. And what is the definition of evidence? Well, I like to think of it as a bunch of machines -- measuring instruments, if you prefer, like recording devices and sensing equipment. After all, we cannot take the word of human observers -- that is not verifiable -- thousands of witnesses have been known to simultaneously testify all kinds of preposterous things. Repeatable, verifiable, hard Scientific evidence. That's all that's good enough me. >> You are incorrect when you insist that I hate science. In fact, I like >> science very much, and have devoted a great deal of time to the study, >> although, admittedly, I am not a scientist. Since you have so many >> misconceptions about me, I suggest that we attempt to correct a >> language difficulty that has thwarted our communication somewhat. > >If you don't hate science, then explain what the term "universe of science" >means, if not some debasing term that names a specific subset of the universe >as being in the realm of science. Please. There is no other universe but what our machines can sense and record. Of course, our machines constantly get better. But the limits have been encountered, at the quantum limit, and they are intrinsic limits. Whatever is beyond the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is beyond Science. Speculation about what Science will never sense is heresy, to us Materialists. And then there's also subjective BS like awareness -- all idle metaphysics -- nonexistent. The other part of Science is also machines, too -- the theory -- Except these are mental mathematical machines, like equations and such, which describe the evidence and help us make new machines. They've already converted a large part of the theory to real physical machines, though. Then Science will all machines, except for the theoreticians and practitioners, who are humans. >> I had hoped that you would say "Yes, those are my beliefs" or "No, they >> are not". Unfortunately, you responded with a tautology. > >Because you made remarks about a "universe of science". Sorry, I wasn't a Materialist that day. People should speak about Sc--nce with more respect. Praise Nihil! >> So I will ask you as a straightforward question: When you say something >> exists, do you mean, loosely, that it must be an object or phenomenon >> that could be verified by the scientific method? > >Ass backwards. The scientific method, by its nature, with viable tools, can >determine whether or not an object or phenomenon exists in a physical sense. >Other things that "exist", like "love", "music", etc. are human labels that >are placed upon certain collections and ordering of physical phenomena with >certain causes. Praise Nihil! There IS nothing beyond what our machines can sense and predict, in principle by DEFINITION. I am a Materialist. Nobody out there disagree! And keep those damn Christianoids out of here!!! >> But with so many different viewpoints >> and kinds of people, it is handy to have some way of fairly dealing >> with them all. I certainly cannot assume that what seems true to me >> will likewise be true to others. > >"Seems true"! Now you've got it. Seeming true doesn't make something true. Our machines are reality. -michael
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (08/10/85)
> Rich Rosen >> Not Rich Rosen This Scientific Materialism is scrubbing `my mind' clean of dat ole debbil, Free Will. I do not seem to be able to revert to my normal metaphysical ways! Help! Help! >> I suppose someday we'll know more about these fuzzy concepts. For now, >> all we can do is grope about under the foggy subjective light of >> introspection. > >Given how inaccurate the light has been at casting real illumination on >reality, it's best not taken literally. Yes, we should ignore the vile subjective manure that often flows incessantly from `our minds'. The only truth is hard Scientific Evidence. >> Hopeful causality smashers? Sorry to disturb your slumber, but causality >> is limping badly this century: >> Is it possible to provide causal explanations of QM phenomena? I do >> not know. Van Fraassen argues cogently, on the basis of Bell's >> inequality and relevant experimental results, that "there are well >> attested phenomena which cannot be embedded in any common-cause >> model" (1982). It appears that causal explanations are possible only >> if the concept of causality is fundamentally revised. > >This still sounds a good deal like anthropocentrism to me. Because WE can't >attribute a cause to something, it's "acausal". Idle metaphysical nonsense! The hard Scientific Evidence indicates a universe of acausality tempered by causality, at all levels. Incidentally, Science itself is an anthropocentrism. It was created by humans to overcome heinous subjective devils like religion. As a vocal spokesperson for verifiable Evidence, you must examine the hard Scientific Evidence closely! Your naive heresy is forgivable but, outside our pristine Digital Garden of Eden, the Evidence indicates that heinous spontaneity infests everything. Beware of the temptation of obsolete heretical fallacies. The traditional Doctrine of Causality, which until ~1900, asserted a priori that: 1. All phenomena are caused by something. 2. All phenomena which are repeatably and demonstrably connected must have some causal explanation. ...has been crucified by randomness and nonlocal interactions. The Evidence indicates that: 1. Effects do repeatably and reliably recur without discernable causes. 2. Totally regular correlations in the Evidence are undeniably present that, under rigorous analysis, have been found to be unattributable to traditional causal connections. By Occam's razor, we must abandon the the traditional Doctrine of Causality. Or would you deny the Evidence and cling to defunct and heretical a priori notions? Rich, are you a - a wishful metaphysicist?? O Nihil, God of Scientific Materialism Who art not, as I am not, Lead Rich Rosen away from his spontaneous subjective fantasies and back onto the righteous path of rigorous Objective thought and verifiable Evidence and deliver him into the Garden of Sweet Digital Causality. SMASH SPONTANEITY!!! -michael
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/12/85)
In this article, which Michael Ellis has given a title stolen from a great Public Image Ltd. song, it seems that Michael has gone off the deep end. First he attributes an extended list of arguments against crossposting between net.religion and net.philosophy to me (despite the fact that I have encouraged such crossposting for a number of reasons). Then he begins ranting and raving about nothing in particular. Could this diatribe of his be the strawman that broke the Michael's back? > Read these carefully, and watch... >> 1) Religion is partly idiocy. >> 2) Faith (an idiotic part) is the essence of >> religion. (Faith is the practice of claiming >> truth without evidence. I am not concerned >> with other meanings of the word, like "trust".) ... >> 4) Therefore it is important to exclude religious >> arguments from net.philosophy . [I DON'T EVEN AGREE WITH THIS] >> 7) Therefore there is no excuse for cross-posting >> between net.philosophy and net.religion . [?????] ... >> 10) It is still possible for philosophy to be >> crushed by the religious boot, if people don't >> take preventive care. Though I agree with a good deal of what the author has said, I don't reach his conclusions at all regarding cross-posting. How this extract has any relevance to what Michael discusses later is beyond me. > Now examine this interaction between me and Rich Rosen: > ME>Who said science should be shackled? > RR>YOU did, by insisting that certain things are "not in the realm" > of science.. > > ME>.. you are apparently dedicated to the beliefs below: > ME> The universe of science is All That Is. > ME> Science will somehow be able to describe everything. > RR>Here we go again with science-hating. The universe of things that are are > RR>the things that are. That's my position. > > There are many more. What of them? What don't you like about them. > These are all examples of totally compulsive, unphilosophical, a priori > thought that not only assume the notions of what is, and what is > knowable, and so on, but which demonstrate a self-righteous indignation > that ANYBODY MIGHT EVEN DOUBT OR QUESTION SUCH MATTERS. I would think otherwise, Michael. What these are examples of is a debunking of your apparent presumptions about what science is, and how it should be "limited" to describing only certain things. (After all, you mock the notion that scientific inquiry and method may be able to describe "everything", but you speak little about what things it would be unable to describe.) Self- righteous? It seems that your position is the self-righteous. > Is this not religion? You mean YOUR ideas about how things thought of only subjectively, wishes for souls and free will, MUST exist because you believe in them? Yes, that is religion. > Rich, you have wasted this newsgroup for many months by brutally > reasserting a single meaningless statement: > "free will does not exist" Wasted? I could just as easily (and with more supporting evidence) proclaim that it is the reassertions that "it does it does it does!" are the truly watseful utterances. Brutally? Does it hurt to hear that your precious wishes may not be quite true? Is that why you are left only with your subjective opinions, which you thus must assert the veracity of in the absence of evidence? Is this "brutal"? > What does that mean? Nothing, as far as I can tell, since you simply > have reasserted YOUR definitions, YOUR assumptions, YOUR truth so > numbingly, repeatedly, unthinkingly, like a ritual, a chant, a > religious mantra, that the network might believe the true word. Michael, if decrying Humpty Dumptys who change the meanings of words to suit their conclusions (peacekeeper missiles, eastern European democratic republics?), and presenting evidence to show my point can be considered numbing and unthinking, what shall we make of "SMASH CAUSALITY" "SMASH CAUSALITY" "SMASH CAUSALITY" "SMASH CAUSALITY" "SMASH CAUSALITY" "SMASH CAUSALITY" "SMASH CAUSALITY"? Is that a chant? A ritual? A "mantra"? It certainly qualifies as numbing. Or at least numb. This is called "projection", isn't it? Do YOU present evidence to support your position? Or do you just whimper and whine (as in this article) about how much you want free will? > And is it philosophical speculation to gloss over peoples' careful > arguments with wild and unjustifiable accusations of.. > ..Wishful Thinking? If the shoe fits... (CAREful????? If the evidence shows otherwise, which is has, if the evidence shows gaping holes and wishfulness, well... > Rich, the only thing I wish for is that you might think more. Likewise, Michael. None of us can ever think "enough". > Why should anyone engaging in philosophical inquiry want the statement > `free will exists' to be true? Making a rigorous definition of a > subjective, legal, and philosophical term is a challenging problem, but > who cares if your definitions yield falsity? Do they? > YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SO DESPERATELY WANTS SOMETHING NOT TO EXIST. >From the tone and wild rambling of this message, it is quite clearly YOU who very very desperately wants a particular thing to exist. Do you work from the assumption that it does (a la "this is religion") or from no assumptions about it at all until some evidence is presented to show how human minds differ from any other chemical system in inner content? > That is not philosophy. > That is religion. > YOUR RELIGION. And I would guess a tenet of your religion is to ridicule anyone who doesn't base their thought on similar ideals of faith as you have. What relevance did the original quoted list have to any of this? Are you so positively lost without your free will (as shown in later articles) that you must engage in such utter nonsense? Relax, Michael. Think a little. Then call back. -- "Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/12/85)
| > >>> Rich >> Not Rich [ELLIS] Given his crediting of someone else's article to me in his last diatribe, I no longer think Michael can tell the difference. But then, that's the immaterial world for ya. | Today, using my Free Will, I've decided to be a Materialist again. | | As a Materialist I do not exist and consequently have little need for | Free Will. How does that follow? | However, the definitions and arguments by Torek and Dennett are clever. | I'm surprised a fellow Materialist would have problem with them -- they | utilize nothing but genuine real physical concepts, no souls or other | such rot. And misuse and misapplication of words to "new" definitions for convenience, to "get" what they want out of the world. | The evidence for spontaneity and causality is very hard in everything, | physical or otherwise, and at all levels. | It contaminates everything. Contaminates? | Do you wish that the hard Scientific evidence might go away? | You are not contemplating some revisionist heresy, are you? What for? | >> Then one's own subjective experience of awareness is not valid evidence | >> that `awareness' is a real entity. After all, it might have been a | >> hallucination. | > | >If you really believe it's all an illusion, then stab yourself in the arm | >with a fork. | >If not, don't bother positing such a position for argument's sake. [??] | >Objectivity in science is designed to try to ensure within this system an | >avoidance of such subjectivity. | >I agree. You don't exist. | | Awareness cannot be imbedded into the Materialist model universe. | We have to kluge the system, by adding it as an extra, like God, | if we need it, and we don't. It can't? We "have to"? You're offering some pretty wild assertions without substantiation. But, then again, I forgot, you don't believe in science and thus substantiation is not required to have your position accepted. | >> By Occam! Conscious awareness is as no more real than Santa Claus, | >> free will, or even God.. | > | >As I said in the last article, Occam says to reduce assumptions to a minimum, | >not to ignore evidence. | | And what is the definition of evidence? Verifiable data about the universe not rooted in the cloud of individual subjectivity that alters the conclusions based on individual preconceptions and beliefs. | Repeatable, verifiable, hard Scientific evidence. That's all that's | good enough me. Apparently not. | >> You are incorrect when you insist that I hate science. In fact, I like | >> science very much, and have devoted a great deal of time to the study, | >> although, admittedly, I am not a scientist. Since you have so many | >> misconceptions about me, I suggest that we attempt to correct a | >> language difficulty that has thwarted our communication somewhat. | > | >If you don't hate science, then explain what the term "universe of science" | >means, if not some debasing term that names a specific subset of the universe | >as being in the realm of science. Please. | | There is no other universe but what our machines can sense and record. But anything beyond this, anything beyond what we can observe, the so-called "supernatural" (what is the limit of this sensing and recording?), MUST be the same as some subjective wishful thinking thought that you have. Thus, we have to take the word of our preconceptions for anything we can't see, right? That's the line you're offering, and it's garbage. | Of course, our machines constantly get better. But the limits have been | encountered, at the quantum limit, and they are intrinsic limits. They "have been encountered"? Who's dealing in religion now? | Whatever is beyond the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is beyond | Science. Speculation about what Science will never sense is heresy, | to us Materialists. Speculation and postulation is very different from wishful thinking, simply asserting that what you want to have in the universe is definitively there for no good reason. Your arguments, by the way, are sounding more dogmatic and religious all the time. | And then there's also subjective BS like awareness -- all idle | metaphysics -- nonexistent. Awareness isn't "subjective BS". We are aware of ourselves for very physical reasons, no? Or must you assume something else is involved? Something with a form and shape to YOUR personal liking? | >> I had hoped that you would say "Yes, those are my beliefs" or "No, they | >> are not". Unfortunately, you responded with a tautology. | > | >Because you made remarks about a "universe of science". | | Sorry, I wasn't a Materialist that day. People should speak about Sc--nce | with more respect. Praise Nihil! Perhaps you should speak about ALL things with more definitiveness and clarity, but that would be "scientific", wouldn't it? Being vague makes you able to speak about anything you like and draw any conclusions you like. That's the kind of "universe of mumbojumbo" that you seem to like. This has been a load of bogus bullshit, Michael. | >> So I will ask you as a straightforward question: When you say something | >> exists, do you mean, loosely, that it must be an object or phenomenon | >> that could be verified by the scientific method? | > | >Ass backwards. The scientific method, by its nature, with viable tools, can | >determine whether or not an object or phenomenon exists in a physical sense. | >Other things that "exist", like "love", "music", etc. are human labels that | >are placed upon certain collections and ordering of physical phenomena with | >certain causes. | | Praise Nihil! Excuse me, was there something substantive you had to say? | There IS nothing beyond what our machines can sense and predict, | in principle by DEFINITION. I guess not. You uttered this nonsense already. The minute your hangover or trip or manicdepressive outburst or whatever it is ends, when you decide to engage in conversation with human beings again, let me know. This has become ridiculous. | >> But with so many different viewpoints | >> and kinds of people, it is handy to have some way of fairly dealing | >> with them all. I certainly cannot assume that what seems true to me | >> will likewise be true to others. | > | >"Seems true"! Now you've got it. Seeming true doesn't make something true. | | Our machines are reality. I guess it's still going on whatever it is. Smash THIS, Michael! -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/12/85)
>>> I suppose someday we'll know more about these fuzzy concepts. For now, >>> all we can do is grope about under the foggy subjective light of >>> introspection. [ELLIS] >>Given how inaccurate the light has been at casting real illumination on >>reality, it's best not taken literally. [ROSEN] > Yes, we should ignore the vile subjective manure that often flows > incessantly from `our minds'. > The only truth is hard Scientific Evidence. The only thing we can know to be true. Anything else, that "subjective manure" has no sure positive correlation to reality except in your mind, where it can and should stay when discussing the realities of the physical world. If you can substantiate it, AND if it runs completely contrary to known quantities in the real world, could it be, Michael, could it just possibly be, that these are JUST your own subjective thoughts? > Incidentally, Science itself is an anthropocentrism. It was created by > humans to overcome heinous subjective devils like religion. Overcome? Or show the falsity of? (Actually, that wasn't the intended purpose of science, it was intended just to find knowledge in the most positive way. When this newfound knowledge tore holes in the fabric of religious thought, THAT was when it took on that purpose.) > The traditional Doctrine of Causality, which until ~1900, asserted > a priori that: > 1. All phenomena are caused by something. > 2. All phenomena which are repeatably and demonstrably connected must > have some causal explanation. > > ...has been crucified by randomness and nonlocal interactions. Crucified? Back to religion again, Michael? Can you explain to us the story of this crucifixion (and resurrection)? > The Evidence indicates that: > 1. Effects do repeatably and reliably recur without discernable causes. "Discernable"? By whom? Can you say "anthropo..." > 2. Totally regular correlations in the Evidence are undeniably present > that, under rigorous analysis, have been found to be unattributable > to traditional causal connections. "Traditional"? You mean like Newtonian mechanics? > By Occam's razor, we must abandon the the traditional Doctrine of > Causality. We do? Only the hopeful causality smashers "must" do this, and do it preconceptively to. > Or would you deny the Evidence and cling to defunct and heretical > a priori notions? Defunct? Can you explain to us how so? > Rich, are you a - a wishful metaphysicist?? Yes, my mask is off, my pants are down, my shoes are untied, my wings are borken and so is my hair, I am not in the mood for words. Michael, are you all right? > O Nihil, God of Scientific Materialism > Who art not, as I am not, > Lead Rich Rosen away > from his spontaneous subjective fantasies > and back onto the righteous path > of rigorous Objective thought > and verifiable Evidence > and deliver him into the Garden > of Sweet Digital Causality. Amen. THIS *is* religion! > SMASH SPONTANEITY!!! Smash your head against the wall. I think it needs it. :-? (Or maybe you've been doing just that a little too much. Gotta stay outa them hardcore clubs, Mike. :-) -- "Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr