tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post7641011732166153736..comments2024-03-28T21:43:44.433-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Gonzaga lectures onlineEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76680569619691012952012-12-14T04:35:07.623-08:002012-12-14T04:35:07.623-08:00Dear Mr. Kasparov,
We are in receipt of your rece...Dear Mr. Kasparov,<br /><br />We are in receipt of your recent letter of complaint, and take note that you exhibit therein the same intensity of energy you so ably displayed in the event about whose name your complaint is in reference to.<br /><br />Our use of 'simultaneous' in labeling the events we organize as Simultaneous Exhibitions is loosely patterned on the template established by The Philosopher some while ago. <br /><br />We take it as a given that you know to whom we refer when we say, "The Philosopher". And we likewise take it as a given that you will recall his having written that, "[T]hose species which are distinguished one from another and opposed one to another within the same genus are said to be 'simultaneous' in nature." <br /><br />We view each event organized by ourselves as corresponding to a 'genus', and each game of a particular event as corresponding to a 'species' of that 'genus'. This being so, it is only natural that we should also view the individual games of a particular event as being ‘simultaneous’ in nature. Since our events are exhibitions of a number of games all of which are ‘simultaneous’ in nature, we label our events as Simultaneous Exhibitions.<br /><br />We thank you for your correspondence, and appreciate the opportunity afforded thereby to clear up any confusion regarding the naming of our events.<br /><br />Sincerely yours,<br />The Organizers<br /><br />PS Our intention is to organize yet another event, tentatively scheduled to take place six months hence. This event will be held in the Cayman Islands, and we would very much appreciate your willingness to participate. As with all our prior events, this event too will be referred to as a Simultaneous Exhibition. <br /><br />In the event that you continue to find the naming of our events to be troublesome, however, we are willing to accommodate your concern by considering a slight modification to the naming of this particular event. One possibility which comes to mind is: A Simultaneous Exhibition, Wherein Mr. Kasparov Will Display His Chess Playing Prowess In A Successive Manner. <br /><br />Please advise at your convenience.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9179612717335729892012-12-13T05:08:58.491-08:002012-12-13T05:08:58.491-08:00Oh darn, messed it up.
s/b "...insisted that...Oh darn, messed it up.<br /><br />s/b "...insisted that in the future such events be called Successive Exhibitions."Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75804484748667691432012-12-13T04:29:41.848-08:002012-12-13T04:29:41.848-08:00One day Mr. Kasparov wondered en passant, "Ho...One day Mr. Kasparov wondered en passant, "How can the claim of 'simultaneous' be made when 'tis clear and obvious that events transpire in succession?" <br /><br />The thought was still present in Mr. Kasparov's mind when he awoke the following morning. He was puzzled. "How can this be? The narrator said the thought was en passant. No matter. I will head to Zurich in search of an answer." <br /><br />At about 0:44 local time <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coCbpx2ep10" rel="nofollow">there</a> Mr. Kasparov mimed, "Hm, what might 'simultaneous' mean?" Some six seconds later (at about 0:51 local time), and as confused as ever about the matter, he pantomimed, "No, it can't mean <i>that</i>." <br /><br />When later leaving the country, a customs official said to Mr. Kasparov, "We hope you have enjoyed your stay in Switzerland." <br /><br />Checked by this innocent remark, Mr. Kasparov let loose with a crushing combination of criticisms. "How could I have? You Swiss pay no interest on large deposits, and take no interest in important definitions. I make a move on one board, move to the next board and make a move there. Then I move to the next board, and make a move on <i>that</i> one. Again and again, round and round in a circle. Yet you guys call it a <i>simultaneous</i> exhibition. Makes a man dizzy it does. I have filed a letter of complaint with the organizers, and insisted that from now on such displays be called Successive Exhibitions."Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51970795266309413482012-12-12T13:00:15.589-08:002012-12-12T13:00:15.589-08:00@Anon
Thanks.
From a Scientific perspective usin...@Anon<br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />From a Scientific perspective using the word "simultaneous" has a specific connotation. I was just trying to form my thoughts around not using it. Just wanted to make sure I fully understood the essence, so I could replace it. (I know it would be a point of contention at people I may frame it to and would rather avoid it) I understand the sentiment from Dr. Feser. I do think it might be helpful to replace or clarify why simultaneous is being used in his description of causal effects. <br /><br />Regardless, great stuff Dr. Feser!! Yusaf Akermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03917752847186143984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16988763569203185092012-12-12T07:52:15.657-08:002012-12-12T07:52:15.657-08:00Yusaf,
If you haven't done so already, read t...Yusaf,<br /><br />If you haven't done so already, read this post, and maybe the comments as well:<br /><br />http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-incompetent-hack.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67488000425893393362012-12-11T22:05:44.473-08:002012-12-11T22:05:44.473-08:00When you were describing the difference between ac...When you were describing the difference between accidentally and essentially ordered causal events you described the latter as simultaneous. <br /><br />I was wondering if there was a specific definition here or if it was a more relative description. Of course, the hand moving happens very fast from when the thought that triggered it to the neurons firing it isn't exactly simultaneous. By definition simultaneous implies no order, thus no chain of causal effect. <br />Yusaf Akermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03917752847186143984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36664230396157725042012-12-07T10:36:27.412-08:002012-12-07T10:36:27.412-08:00By the way reading that comment that Krauss refute...By the way reading that comment that Krauss refuted that idea... <br /><br />woah, some pop science site I was reading said that Krauss was defending exactly what you just mentioned him refuting.<br /><br />... but since I am no fan of pop science, maybe the guy was just wrong that is all.Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-38348017067986552962012-12-07T10:12:41.852-08:002012-12-07T10:12:41.852-08:00Anon
I think Ismael means, Krauss won't accep...Anon<br /><br />I think Ismael means, Krauss won't accept String Theory but he will use when it suits him got it?Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89985401345728785772012-12-07T09:56:06.789-08:002012-12-07T09:56:06.789-08:00"Krauss also criticizes String Theory, yet ST..."Krauss also criticizes String Theory, yet ST is one of the main players in trying to solve the question on how the universe started.<br /><br />So much for his scientific integrity."<br /><br />I would cringe at "We now know exactly how the universe came to be." as well, but I don't think it's fair to attack his scientific integrity in terms of his quote about ST. If his criticisms are honest and cogent, then it’s perfectly fine for him to disagree with a mainstream theory. Also, didn't Krauss refute the whole atheist soundbyte "The matter/energy of the universe (+), when added to gravitational energy (-), equals zero so we are actually nothing that came from nothing." I mean, it was a pretty bad argument in the first place, but Krauss actually explained why it’s bad from a scientific standpoint. This is from Maudlin's review of Krauss's book:<br /><br />“Krauss’s main argument for denominating the initial state “nothing” arises from considerations of energy. He argues that according to a certain way of quantifying the total energy content of the universe, including the gravitational energy, the entire present universe might have zero energy. Wouldn’t that mean that we could get the universe “for free”: something from nothing?<br /><br />Well, no. As Krauss acknowledges, the calculation of total energy in Newtonian gravitational theory uses an arbitrary choice of gauge for the gravitational potential energy. The amount of potential energy can be changed at will without affecting the physics, and can in particular take negative values by choosing one particular state as the “zero potential energy” state. Given this freedom, one can make a choice that sets the total energy to zero, but one can also just as legitimately set it to any value one wishes. <br /><br />Shouldn’t we be using the General Theory of Relativity rather than Newtonian gravity in any case? But, as Krauss also admits, there is no accepted method for ascribing a gravitational potential energy in the General Theory, much less a precise value of negative energy. Krauss does argue that we have good reason to think that the present universe is (nearly) flat, but this is not the same as “zero energy”.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15682944062503606692012-12-07T09:53:37.622-08:002012-12-07T09:53:37.622-08:00Krauss is really fun because he doesn't like S...Krauss is really fun because he doesn't like Strings, but damn he will shove them up there good if that means XD saving him from G*d... or anything spooky.Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29899970645464313372012-12-07T09:34:10.295-08:002012-12-07T09:34:10.295-08:00Well D'Souza was particualrly weak... Hutchino...Well D'Souza was particualrly weak... Hutchinon was better.<br /><br />Krauss was a complete ass. His phrases like ' We now know exactly how the universe came to be' made me cry as a scientist!<br /><br />Maybe Krauss should know that how the big bang came about it's still under heavy debate.<br /><br />Krauss also criticizes String Theory, yet ST is one of the main players in trying to solve the question on how the universe started. <br /><br />So much for his scientific integrity. <br /><br />I really dislike scientists who propose a theory based on other theories and talk about it like it's a fact.<br /><br />Sincerely I like Susskind much more. he's an atheist as well, yet in his lectures I have seen he never aced stupidly as Krauss does.<br /><br /><br />Shemer was a complete ignoramus as well... phrases that imply that morality is better without religion or that can be based on science would make atheists like Nietzche or Freud cry...<br /><br /><br />Yet they stole the show... I think that if WL Craig was there instead of D'Souza it would have gone much better (even if I often disagree with Graig theistic personalism)Ismaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8189968983230421592012-12-07T08:43:17.129-08:002012-12-07T08:43:17.129-08:00LOL ... that is kind of cruel don't you think....LOL ... that is kind of cruel don't you think.Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26972647607346118312012-12-07T08:19:46.852-08:002012-12-07T08:19:46.852-08:00I prefer written debates as well. I feel as if the...I prefer written debates as well. I feel as if the exchanges are better, since there's less pressure and it gives both sides to proofread and evaluate what they are about to say.<br /><br />"Lately D'Souza and Hutchinson debated Krauss and Shemer... and although Krauss and Shemer really gave the same old faulty answers (like 'the one god further' argument), D'Souza and Hutchingson did not really do a good job at all at debunking the 'Last Superstistion' perpetrated by Krauss and Shemer."<br /><br />I agree that the who created god objection is a weak one, but some day, someone should just go "Gee, I guess there must be in infinite regress of creators! You sure showed me! Now instead of having to refute one god, you have to refute an infinite number of gods. And don't forget, infinite causal regresses are (apparently) ok."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14128668923874768202012-12-07T07:22:49.463-08:002012-12-07T07:22:49.463-08:00Quite sincerely I like written debates, or maybe r...Quite sincerely I like written debates, or maybe read books with opposing views XD. <br /><br />Most debates out there, I feel like each side could have strenghten their position way more and you could have seem 2 titans fighting each other!!! wouldn't that be great?<br /><br />But no... what you get is one side acting naughty and the other side trying to be smart, so you have to go on about digging stuff see if you find anything useful on both sides and sometimes the arguments are just presented to shallow so you have to either put your head to work or read the person's books or work, which in the end make the debate useless, since you could have just be more efficient and just read the books!<br /><br /><br />Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34023477863160877802012-12-06T16:54:24.893-08:002012-12-06T16:54:24.893-08:00Dr. Feser, you ought to really debate in the Intel...Dr. Feser, you ought to really debate in the Intelligence Square debates.<br /><br />Lately D'Souza and Hutchinson debated Krauss and Shemer... and although Krauss and Shemer really gave the same old faulty answers (like 'the one god further' argument), D'Souza and Hutchingson did not really do a good job at all at debunking the 'Last Superstistion' perpetrated by Krauss and Shemer.<br /><br />I think you would have done a much better job! Ismaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14448635218994376632012-12-06T07:14:34.836-08:002012-12-06T07:14:34.836-08:00It would be pretty cool if you more nerdy about ph...It would be pretty cool if you more nerdy about philosophy were to engage Monsieur Johan!!!<br /><br />Damn me for being so s***ty at everything. Except mocking trolls... Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84915826346202039202012-12-06T06:19:02.092-08:002012-12-06T06:19:02.092-08:00Granted that we are Aristotelians, it seems also e...Granted that we are Aristotelians, it seems also effects external to the water cycle can be determined by the essence and a telos determined by that essence. <br /><br />It seems to me that for example liquid water does not have a telos in an absolute sense. It seems not to be the case that it has as its goal to evaporate unconditionally, rather, its essence determines a set of conditional goals. For example when warmed it will cook and evaporate, when cooled it will freeze to ice, when mixed with soap it will produce bubbles and so on, when drank it will quench thirst and so on, all of this by virtue of its essence.<br /><br />So how does the essence determine the cycle by itself. Is in not more true to say that given the environment of the earth and the requirements of the ecosystem, water, thanks to its essence, fills an important role that can be described in terms of the water cycle?Johan Mårtenssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02285986991146844686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84045286262417930552012-12-06T05:56:06.048-08:002012-12-06T05:56:06.048-08:00Johan, it seems to me that there can only be an ob...Johan, it seems to me that there can only be an objective process intrinsically related to "the same basic stuff" if one thinks about it in terms of essential teleology. <br /><br />Essence is what restricts the scope of the process to water, and the teleology appropriate to that essence describes the directedness of water throughout the various stages, in virtue of which we have a "process" at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62137608165964149142012-12-06T03:42:22.211-08:002012-12-06T03:42:22.211-08:00I agree with most of what you say in those lecture...I agree with most of what you say in those lectures but it worries me that I find your (Oderbergs?) examples of inorganic teleology in the rock and water cycles somewhat unconvincing.<br /><br />You say that teleology is needed to distinguish those effects that belong to the cycle from effects that don't. For example, in the case of the water cycle: Both pain in someones toe and condensation are supposed to be effects of evaporation, but only condensation seems to belong to the cycle. <br /><br />Your explanation of this inclusion/exclusion from the cycle is that condensation is one of the (characteristic?) goals (teloi) of evaporation but this pain is not.<br /><br />It strikes me that for those two examples you could explain the difference not involving the concept of a telos: The "effects" that are contained in the cycles are states of the individually same basic stuff: this water and this rock respectively, whereas the other effects you mention seem to be states of some other individual substance if you like.Johan Mårtenssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02285986991146844686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89180806268633134192012-12-06T00:58:31.709-08:002012-12-06T00:58:31.709-08:00As best I can tell Tony you're conflating two ...As best I can tell Tony you're conflating two separate questions that I asked.Thursdayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13002311410445623799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65675756825728606342012-12-05T19:51:18.460-08:002012-12-05T19:51:18.460-08:00Audio versions of the Steubenville lectures are av...Audio versions of the Steubenville lectures are available here:<br /><br />http://www.monergism.com/mp3/2012/01/can_science_inform_our_underst.php Cale B.T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08473503761858760056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88580963062756487972012-12-05T18:11:40.618-08:002012-12-05T18:11:40.618-08:00Wow, the doc is over 7 ft tall!Wow, the doc is over 7 ft tall!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35642378525727907702012-12-05T17:43:33.781-08:002012-12-05T17:43:33.781-08:00You're right that it isn't the same creatu...<i>You're right that it isn't the same creature, but it is the same organ.</i> <br /><br />Thursday, you have a conceptual problem. If it is an organ in a different <i>individual</i> but (you think) an individual of the same species, then you have to justify that it is indeed "the same species" because you cannot know a-priori that the two individuals have the same species. Conceptually, though, once you establish that the organ performs a different function in the different individuals, you thereby establish the initial basis for the possible conclusion: different function implies that they are different species. Then you have to backtrack on what constitutes species differentiation, and that's <b>very sticky</b>. It is much more sticky in darwinian theories, because Darwin basically said "species" is just a name we put on enough differences that we are willing to categorize differently: it's subjective. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43382027440879590262012-12-05T17:37:36.064-08:002012-12-05T17:37:36.064-08:00many of the species we find a nature would be inev...<i>many of the species we find a nature would be inevitably just a variation of the same kind. Like biologists analysing genes of snakes and discovering that they are 3 different species because fo their DNA make-up.</i><br /><br />Yes, I think that's right. Probably, for example, all of the great cats would constitute just one species. The fact that tigers and lions can mate and get ligers and tigons strongly suggests that they are the same species properly understood. I guessing the same would go for elk, carribou, mule deer, and even moose. Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50926111898743771792012-12-05T10:30:30.088-08:002012-12-05T10:30:30.088-08:00Not the same organ in the same creature.
You'...<i>Not the same organ in the same creature.</i><br /><br />You're right that it isn't the same creature, but it is the same organ.Thursdayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13002311410445623799noreply@blogger.com