tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post3059314132235849277..comments2024-03-19T02:00:34.750-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Red herrings don’t go to heaven eitherEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger206125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46848266671356389512015-11-23T10:16:43.674-08:002015-11-23T10:16:43.674-08:00Don Jindra: She said, "I'm just thankful ...Don Jindra: <i>She said, "I'm just thankful God was taking care of us." Victims of natural disasters frequently make this sort of statement. I doubt many realize the dubious nature of their reasoning.</i><br /><br />That wasn't an argument, it's just a statement. And you are welcome to try to prove that she was wrong, but that's not even relevant to your point, let alone mine.<br /><br /><i>I think it's because the first response in any argument is to use evidence your opponent believes, and use that evidence against him</i><br /><br />Of course. Which again has nothing to do with what I said.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24227409158901413772015-11-18T22:44:52.102-08:002015-11-18T22:44:52.102-08:00Mr. Green.
"And even if somebody could be wr...Mr. Green.<br /><br /><i>"And even if somebody could be wrong in that way, it is implausible that everyone defending the argument would make that same mistake."</i><br /><br />When I read your post this morning the news was on. They interviewed a woman who had a close encounter with a tornado. She said, "I'm just thankful God was taking care of us." Victims of natural disasters frequently make this sort of statement. I doubt many realize the dubious nature of their reasoning. So I'm not convinced psychology works as you say. Large numbers of people do make the same mistakes in reasoning. They quite often overlook the same errors. <br /><br /><i>"And it is surely impossible that those who in fact do not think the argument works would make that very mistake out of believing it!"</i><br /><br />As I said above, in a quick search I found two cases of people who saw the same problems I do. But I'll mention a different example that's a similar issue. It's normal when a non-believer like me argues with a Bible believing Christian, for the Christian to quote Bible verses. It's also normal for the non-believer to use that same Bible to show where the believer is wrong. Why would someone who puts no authority in the Bible use it as evidence? I think it's because the first response in any argument is to use evidence your opponent believes, and use that evidence against him -- to show that his use of the evidence is flawed. Resolution is possible only when two people agree to start with the same basic evidence.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75369344549834888912015-11-17T07:59:12.853-08:002015-11-17T07:59:12.853-08:00Don Jindra: Those who believe something is true ma...Don Jindra: <i>Those who believe something is true may have a tough time seeing when the question is begged.</i><br /><br />Perhaps, but psychology doesn't usually work that way. Most people who believe most true things are quite rational in their assessments thereof. And even if somebody could be wrong in that way, it is implausible that everyone defending the argument would make that same mistake. And it is surely impossible that those who in fact do not think the argument works would make that very mistake out of believing it! Didn't you consider the far more credible possibility, that you might simply be wrong in this case?<br /><br /><br /> <i>I applaud your creativity. More of it would liven up the place. </i><br /><br />Thanks. Despite our disagreement, I appreciate that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9060122412758401292015-11-16T06:29:16.864-08:002015-11-16T06:29:16.864-08:00Mr. Green,
I applaud your creativity. More of it ...Mr. Green,<br /><br />I applaud your creativity. More of it would liven up the place.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39255359305417183742015-11-15T15:00:36.376-08:002015-11-15T15:00:36.376-08:00His keen nose [twitched] as he opened the door...
...<i>His keen nose [twitched] as he opened the door...</i><br /><br />...and, sure enough, there was Mr. Green, Tracer of Lost Understandings.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34661876801152651142015-11-15T09:40:13.538-08:002015-11-15T09:40:13.538-08:00Laubadetriste: "Controversy equalizes fools ...Laubadetriste: <i> "Controversy equalizes fools and wise men in the same way,—*and the fools know it.*"--Holmes, *The Autocrat of the Breakfast-Table*</i><br /><br />Ah! One of my favourite Holmes’ adventures...<br /><br /><br />>… I eyed Holmes across the breakfast table. I was intrigued by this sudden revelation coming from a man who didn’t know that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Did this interest in hydraulics portend a new discovery in the field of criminal investigation? Perhaps my friend had invented a method to determine how much water a culprit would displace in his bath-tub. As Holmes lit his pipe and sat staring at nothing in particular, I cast a glance at the morning’s paper, which he had apparently tossed carelessly to one side, and observed that it lay open to an article entitled, “Astonishing Puzzles of the Scientific Age!” <br /><br />“It is indeed the Modern Age,” said I. “Before long, the Analytical Engine will replace detectives in use of the deductive process."<br />Holmes waved a hand dismissively. “Machines perform by mindless rote. The creative aspect must perforce be missing, saving in so far as the calculator embeds it in the information fed to the apparatus.”<br />“I take it then you agree with Leibniz about what one could discern — or fail to discern — in a tour of the mechanism."<br />“I am sure he has more experience with these contrivances than you or I, Watson; but it will be apparent to any mind that cares to reflect on the matter that they two are distinct.”<br />“You maintain that the mental exceeds the material, of course.” <br />“Re <i>le mental</i>, my dear Watson,” Holmes spoke with determinacy, “when the machine has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however probable, must be interpreted.” <br /><br />At that moment we heard the sound of footsteps advancing up the stairs.<br />“Ah, Watson — it is the butcher’s boy with a rasher of bacon!” <br />“Now, Holmes, how you could possibly know that?” cried I.<br />“I summoned him for that purpose whilst you were shaving,” he replied quickly. “I deduced that Mrs. Hudson had burnt the scones again.” His keen nose wrinkled as he opened the door and wordlessly pressed some coins into the lad’s hand.<br />“Beggin’ yer question, guv’nor,” said the boy, “but a man downstairs gave me this to bring to you.” He handed Holmes a slip of paper, which he read and held out to me.<br />“Why, it is an invitation to Poul Hall from Lady Tiffany of Oakeshott,” I declaimed with surprise.<br />Holmes was already shrugging into his overcoat. "How do you fancy," said he, "breakfast at Oakeshott's?"<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41380112813506630202015-11-15T09:27:47.313-08:002015-11-15T09:27:47.313-08:00Mr. Green,
"although that formulation — taki...Mr. Green,<br /><br /><i>"although that formulation — taking it at face value as you gave it — is rather trivially true."</i><br /><br />My formulation is textbook question begging. But maybe you reveal the root of the problem. It could be as simple as human nature. Those who believe something is true may have a tough time seeing when the question is begged. Rather it becomes "trivially true." A tautology, perhaps.<br /><br />Your conspiracy theory is a straw man. I'm thinking I see people who want to believe so earnestly and blindly, that the belief is assumed a "trivial" truth in one context, then that same triviality is blown into a profound truth in another context.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43612508578760380402015-11-15T01:05:18.006-08:002015-11-15T01:05:18.006-08:00Don Jindra: He begs the question […] I'll show...Don Jindra: <i>He begs the question […] I'll show you what I mean. […]<br />I could simplify Ross's sentence even more</i><br /><br />Except that isn’t a simplification. It isn’t a paraphrase at all, it says something quite different. (And it’s still not question-begging even in the non-equivalent substitution you gave, although that formulation — taking it at face value as you gave it — is rather trivially true.)<br /><br /><i>First, I haven't read every response to Ross. In fact, I've read very few.</i><br /><br />Well, I was right to call it a conspiracy-theory. You don’t have to buy and read the articles — just look at the abstracts — to see that “Ross begs the question” is not a charge being laid at his door. Unless of course you think that I, and Feser, and everyone else here, not to mention the professional philosophical journals involved are all part of a plot to conceal the Truth™ and create this smoke-screen… including the philosophers who are <i>objecting</i> to Ross (or only <i>pretending</i> to object to him, in this B-movie scenario, I guess). No, just ignore the “poorly-written” and "unheard-of" article published by a century-old peer-reviewed journal and the responses by Feser or Dillard in another, nearly as venerable, peer-reviewed journal in favour of random comments from two nobodies on the Internet. (The fact that they’re nobodies just proves that as outsiders they have no ulterior motives! If they even are nobodies and not courageous professional philosophers themselves who are posting under pseudonyms like “Contrarian” only in order to avoid repercussions of leaking the Truth!™ from the Clandestine Council of Philosophical Overlords. (Meetings every other Thursday in secret Vatican underground dungeon 4b. Free coffee and doughnuts provided by Opus Dei every first meeting of the month outside Lent.))<br /><br /><i>To claim a calculator is a random function generator strikes most people as an absurdity.</i><br /><br />?!?!?!? (And that’s a rhetorical question.)<br /><br /><i>These people are not being dishonest. They're sloppy thinkers. […] So begging the question seems perfectly acceptable, even honest.</i><br /><br />But we weren’t talking about people who accidentally beg a question by mistake. It is a fallacy and not, as you claim, acceptable or unavoidable — someone who is aware he is begging a question and does so anyway is indeed intellectually dishonest. Nobody is ever obliged to make a false argument: he can instead simply drop the faulty argument, and should do so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81160284975373760022015-11-13T09:56:51.612-08:002015-11-13T09:56:51.612-08:00I was being overly general, and thus imprecise, wh...I was being overly general, and thus imprecise, when I wrote, "3. And its content still escapes your sharp, eagle eye." This instead should be,<br /><br />3. And some of its pertinent content still escapes your sharp, eagle eye.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75070722545290547032015-11-13T09:23:04.792-08:002015-11-13T09:23:04.792-08:00If Ross has done so explicitly, there must be dire...<i>If Ross has done so explicitly, there must be direct quotes that lead you to believe this. Could you please copy and past those quotes?</i><br /><br />IOW, <br /><br />1. You have read the paper.<br />2. You have even scrutinized the paper.<br />3. And its content still escapes your sharp, eagle eye.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85310471382020322432015-11-13T07:06:36.440-08:002015-11-13T07:06:36.440-08:00Glen,
"1. Ross does not deny that physical ...Glen,<br /><br /><i><br />"1. Ross does not deny that physical processes can be determinate. In fact, he explicitly indicates that they can be."<br /><br />"3. Ross does not deny that thinking can be physical. In fact, he explicitly indicates that it can be."</i><br /><br />If Ross has done so explicitly, there must be direct quotes that lead you to believe this. Could you please copy and past those quotes? Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11725674484016458072015-11-13T05:06:34.534-08:002015-11-13T05:06:34.534-08:00Correction:
s/b "3. Ross does not deny that ...Correction:<br /><br />s/b "3. Ross does not deny that thinking can be physical. In fact, he explicitly indicates that it can be."Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58298169108898475862015-11-13T05:03:08.333-08:002015-11-13T05:03:08.333-08:00Don Jindra,
Glen: "(1) x is P; (2) no y is P...Don Jindra,<br /><br /><i>Glen: "(1) x is P; (2) no y is P; (3) Therefore x is not y<br /><br />I don't dispute that. I don't need to dispute a human being (x) is not a calculator (y). Ross used 'determinate' for (P). But he also used "physical" for (not P). Throughout his paper, 'indeterminate' and 'physical' are used synonymously for (not P). Even though his rhetoric makes it appear these are two separate properties, they are one property using two badly chosen names. So he starts with formal thinking != physical. No surprise he ends there too.</i><br /><br />Yeah, well... um... fumble, fumble... the fact of the matter is that:<br /><br />1. Ross does not deny that physical processes can be determinate. In fact, he explicitly indicates that they can be.<br /><br />2. Ross does not deny that thoughts can be indeterminate. In fact, he explicitly indicates that they can be.<br /><br />3. Ross does not deny that thoughts can be physical. In fact, he explicitly indicates that they can be.<br /><br />And,<br /><br />4. You obviously have no idea what the paper actually is about.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28674167222983457502015-11-13T01:18:38.202-08:002015-11-13T01:18:38.202-08:00Correction:
"when he should question first w...Correction:<br /><br />"when he should question first whether it makes sense to ask if we should say that brains think"<br /><br />should read<br /><br />"when he should question first whether it makes sense to say that brains think"<br />pcknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-68860342325361961032015-11-13T01:16:57.447-08:002015-11-13T01:16:57.447-08:00pck: "You said:'[...] the most basic prel...pck: <i>"You said:'[...] the most basic preliminary of modern science is that if it can't be detected and measured it's of no use in a search for explanations.' So you either need to retract that or show us your number-detector.</i><br /><br />You're correct. I should have been more clear. I meant only what science uses as corroborating evidence. Tools help build the house. They are not in the structure of the house.<br /><br /><br />Glen: <i>"(1) x is P; (2) no y is P; (3) Therefore x is not y</i><br /><br />I don't dispute that. I don't need to dispute a human being (x) is not a calculator (y). Ross used 'determinate' for (P). But he also used "physical" for (not P). Throughout his paper, 'indeterminate' and 'physical' are used synonymously for (not P). Even though his rhetoric makes it appear these are two separate properties, they are one property using two badly chosen names. So he starts with formal thinking != physical. No surprise he ends there too.<br /><br /><br />Glen: <i>"When Mr. Green said that no one else has noticed that it 'begs the question', he was not saying that no one else has hallucinated that it 'begs the question'."</i><br /><br />You now beg the question when attacking opponents who don't adopt your view. That might explain a lot.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70043364766724164102015-11-12T23:38:55.704-08:002015-11-12T23:38:55.704-08:00laubadetriste said...
↑Like pck, my fever has ...<i>laubadetriste said...<br /> ↑Like pck, my fever has run its course.<br /> "[...] Controversy equalizes fools and wise men in the same way,—*and the fools know it.*"</i><br /><br />Too true. Jindra and others of his type, rather than trying to clear up their own muddy waters first, take what obscures their thought and attempt to pollute opposing views with it. They end up like the guy who stands at the foot of a mountain asking where its shoe might be.<br /><br />While inventing metaphors ("the mountain's foot") or extending existing concepts (e.g. "I think" to "my brain thinks") is not a problem per se, applying metaphors or extended concepts where they no longer make sense (that is, within the logical scope of the original terms they are derived from) is. Jindra foolishly takes the literal truth of "brains think" for granted, when he should question first whether it <i>makes sense</i> to ask <i>if we should say</i> that brains think. Thus Jindra not only begs the question but in addition, even more foolishly, takes the symptoms of the poison he swallowed as proof that it is the others who are sick.<br /><br />To someone who cannot differentiate between the empirical and the conceptual, the distinction is not even intelligible.<br /><br /><i>(Let that be a lesson, kids. Be careful who you hang out with. One day you're in math class discussing the origins of the calculus--and then before you know it, you're lurking around a Thomist blog, itching for your next fix...)</i><br /><br />I very vividly remember being puzzled by a version of Zeno's paradox when I was first introduced to calculus in school. Later when I was studying physics I was told that the problem could be resolved entirely by mathematical means (which is partly, but not completely true). After I had switched to math and was gravitating towards axiomatic set theory, the problem would come up again in the form of the continuum being modelled, paradoxically, as a point set. Once more, it became clear that no technical answer could possibly satisfy all of the questions one might have.<br /><br /><i>"[...] 'Reality is not a proposition.'"</i><br /><br />An excellent point. My entryway into philosophy open up when I realized that terms like "reality" and "cause" could never be derived from or justified by purely empirical knowlege. After all, they did not even have symbolic expressions or models among the equations of physics/math. It took me until the end of my 20s to realize this because I was just too scientifically minded. I knew too little else and had had no guiding hand which might have introduced me to other ways of thinking. Unlike Jindra and his ilk, I was fortunate enough to realize I was missing something, I just couldn't point my finger at what it was exactly. I turned to linguistics in a first attempt, but after another year, having written a paper on Russell's criticism of causality, it dawned on me I needed to look into conceptual analysis, aka philosophy.<br /><br />Thus today, whenever I witness the proponents of scientism, I'm quite grateful I was never tempted to make a virtue out of my intellectual shortcomings. I owe this mostly to the guys in my math study group, where we would discuss not so much the technical details of formalisms but instead engage in their clarification. The goal was to remove the surprise one inevitably faces when all of the parts of a proof, apparently miraculously, come together neatly at its end. Our motto was, unless you're like "duh" at the end of it, you have not understood the proof.<br /><br />So always question your assumptions and your concepts, especially when faced with a paradox.<br />pcknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79498472421016182692015-11-12T12:33:52.719-08:002015-11-12T12:33:52.719-08:00↑Like pck, my fever has run its course.
"Do...↑Like pck, my fever has run its course. <br /><br />"Do you think I don’t understand what my friend, the Professor, long ago called the hydrostatic paradox of controversy? / Don’t know what that means?—Well, I will tell you. You know, that, if you had a bent tube, one arm of which was of the size of a pipe-stem, and the other big enough to hold the ocean, water would stand at the same height in one as in the other. Controversy equalizes fools and wise men in the same way,—*and the fools know it.*"--Holmes, *The Autocrat of the Breakfast-Table*<br /><br />So, on to better things.<br /><br />@Step2: "...there is a strategy in it that strongly reminds me of Zeno's paradoxes. At its core both appear to be finishing problems, the motion/meaning can never be completed because there is an infinity proposed at a boundary condition."<br /><br />I agree that there do seem to be similarities. You know, it was the power of Aristotle's response to Zeno's paradoxes that first caused me to take Aristotle seriously as a thinker (as opposed to merely a historically important person).<br /><br />(Let that be a lesson, kids. Be careful who you hang out with. One day you're in math class discussing the origins of the calculus--and then before you know it, you're lurking around a Thomist blog, itching for your next fix...)<br /><br />"While this may or may not be relevant, the most interesting bit of advice I ever received online about the limits of logic and argument (somewhat oddly considering our political differences) was from John Kekes who wrote: 'Reality is not a proposition.'"<br /><br />John Kekes! That man always picks the most wonderful quotes for his chapter headings. And what delightful bibliographies! Yes, and he makes some good arguments, too... :) I especially enjoyed *A Case for Conservatism.*<br /><br />I notice you said his was *interesting* advice, and not, say, *good* advice, or *true* advice. How *suggestive.*laubadetristehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17742748003334437454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75286135581108856012015-11-12T12:29:10.193-08:002015-11-12T12:29:10.193-08:00Don Jindra,
I wondered when someone would ask tha...Don Jindra,<br /><br /><i>I wondered when someone would ask that question. <br /><br />...I don't know if these two people are professional philosophers, but they both noticed what I notice:<br /><br />MC.Pearce -- "Separating out humans from physical processes is rather begging the question."<br /><br />Contrarian -- "You are merely showing that a certain subset [formal thinking] of the possibilities embraced by the 'physical system' is not equivalent to or coextensive with the entire system, or has properties (takes predicates) which are not true of the entire system.'"</i><br /><br />When Mr. Green said that no one else has noticed that it "begs the question", he was not saying that no one else has hallucinated that it 'begs the question".<br /><br />No one has noticed that it begs the question for the simple reason that it does not beg the question.<br /><br />And those who think they notice it begs the question -- i.e., those who think they 'notice' it begs the question -- are hallucinating (and whether fleetingly, temporarily or persistently depends on how long it takes for them to come to their senses (or to acquire the those senses in the presence of which the hallucination will dissipate)).<br /><br />Further, a demonstration, explanation, recounting or showing of how something was, is and/or can be arrived at does not qualify as "begging the question" either on the grounds that that something was arrived at, or on the grounds that that something is presented first when the demonstration, explanation, recounting or showing is made, given or presented.<br /><br />Lastly, even when being patient, calm and emotively neutral in laying out the basis of your claims, you display an obvious misunderstanding of the argument made by Ross.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3685793722103870162015-11-12T11:05:03.683-08:002015-11-12T11:05:03.683-08:00@laubadetriste
Thank you for the kind words. Als...@laubadetriste <br />Thank you for the kind words. Also, I'm quite impressed with your Sherlock-like sleuthing ability. I have been mistakenly accused multiple times of being a lawyer but my educational background is in biology.<br /><br />Of course I may still be misunderstanding Ross's argument but there is a strategy in it that strongly reminds me of Zeno's paradoxes. At its core both appear to be finishing problems, the motion/meaning can never be completed because there is an infinity proposed at a boundary condition. The arguments differ tactically because of what is needed to resolve either meaning or motion. If that is a reasonable comparison in terms of strategy then there isn't anything about Zeno's paradoxes that are logically invalid or question-begging but various responses against it have shown its weakness by other methods.<br /><br />While this may or may not be relevant, the most interesting bit of advice I ever received online about the limits of logic and argument (somewhat oddly considering our political differences) was from John Kekes who wrote: "Reality is not a proposition."Step2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11057564753639281152015-11-12T09:36:05.345-08:002015-11-12T09:36:05.345-08:00Mr. Green,
"Ross, of course, does offer a re...Mr. Green,<br /><br /><i>"Ross, of course, does offer a reason why "mind ≠ brain" - he starts with some of your beloved empiricism and observes that thought can be determinate, and then follows the implications step by step to the conclusion that it's impossible for brain-processes (alone) to account for thought."</i><br /><br />Sure, he starts with empiricism, but he merely shows (at best) that a physical system (the brain) can execute determinate functions. He begs the question with his assumption that this observation is outside the set of physical processes.<br /><br />I'll show you what I mean.<br /><br />Skip down to Ross's section on functionalism. There's an example of how sloppily Ross entertains the possibility that our thinking is a physical process:<br /><br /><i>"Since we can add, we know our thought process is not the same as any function among brain states because no such function is determined ... by physical states."</i> <br /><br />Note that Ross uses "brain states" as an example of physical states. A series of physical states are also known as a physical process. Also note that "add" is an example of Ross's "pure" adding, aka, a determinate function. So, plugging in the synonymous terms, Ross's sentence is actually saying this:<br /><br /><i>Since humans execute a determinate function, we know our thought process is not the same as any function among physical processes because no such function is determined by physical processes.</i><br /><br />I could simplify Ross's sentence even more:<br /><br /><i>We know a physical brain can't add via a series of physical brain states because adding can't be a series of physical brain states.</i><br /><br />This sentence is as close as Ross comes to making the argument that "mind ≠ brain." As I've repeatedly said, when Ross attempts that argument he merely begs the question as he has obviously done here. When I point this out I'm confronted with other question-begging assertions, like pck's recent, <i>"The brain does not think. Human beings do. Human beings (persons) are not the same as their bodies..."</i>Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1226497742551445682015-11-12T09:32:45.449-08:002015-11-12T09:32:45.449-08:00Mr. Green ,
How is it that "among all the pe...Mr. Green ,<br /><br />How is it that <i>"among all the people, including professional philosophers who have never heard of you, who dispute Ross's argument, that not a one has noticed that it "begs the question", that it "offers no reason whatsoever". How could such a simple and glaring flaw go unnoticed for decades?"</i><br /><br />I wondered when someone would ask that question. <br /><br />First, I haven't read every response to Ross. In fact, I've read very few. Mention has been made here of responses I'd like to read. But I'd have to pay to read them. I'm not willing to do that. Nevertheless, proper research would take weeks or more. I don't have time for that. So although I can't deny what you say is true, I can't confirm it either. However, I did do 30 minutes of research and discovered a conversation on the <a href="http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/immaterial-aspects-of-thought-38489-4.html" rel="nofollow"> Philosopy Forums.</a> I don't know if these two people are professional philosophers, but they both noticed what I notice:<br /><br />MC.Pearce -- <b>"Separating out humans from physical processes is rather begging the question."</b><br /><br />Contrarian -- <b>"You are merely showing that a certain subset [formal thinking] of the possibilities embraced by the 'physical system' is not equivalent to or coextensive with the entire system, or has properties (takes predicates) which are not true of the entire system.'"</b><br /><br />So you're wrong to claim I'm the only one to notice Ross has begged the question by creating two mutually exclusive sets, namely, formal thinking and physical processes.<br /><br />Second, Ross's paper is very poorly written. It's hard to understand and vague in its use of terms. It's as if he wrote it to scare away all but the most interested. I doubt many have read the paper or even heard of it. I doubt there's much interest, even among professional philosophers, of responding to it.<br /><br />Third, those who do suffer through the paper, probably do so because they're highly interested in support for the "conclusion" which Ross reveals in the first page. He didn't bury his lead. Ross's typical reader is rooting for Ross.<br /><br />Fourth, Ross's propositions themselves are controversial so it's not surprising that rebuttals start there. To claim a calculator is a random function generator strikes most people as an absurdity. So it seems an easy place to start. But it's also easy to get lost there, especially when all Ross means is that humans know what they want to do while calculators do not. Ross's lack of clarity practically demands tedious disputes about nothing.<br /><br />Btw, you characterize begging the question as "a form of intellectual dishonesty." I guess I see people more charitably. I often debate Christians elsewhere. They typically quote Bible verses to support their claims. I point out that they cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible. These people are not being dishonest. They're sloppy thinkers. I think they are so committed to their POV that they cannot question it. So begging the question seems perfectly acceptable, even honest.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34497329281291372262015-11-11T14:50:51.240-08:002015-11-11T14:50:51.240-08:00So this is Ross without begging the question:
1. ...<i>So this is Ross without begging the question:<br /><br />1. For formal thinking (aka, brain process) to be fully determinate, every output for a function would have to occur; but<br />2. For an infinite function, that is impossible; therefore<br />3. Formal thinking cannot realize an abstract function.<br /><br />But that's false. Formal thinking (brain processes) do realize abstract functions. </i><br /><br />This is certainly you begging the question. Here you assume, and not simply for the sake of argument as Ross does (because it is hard to see how your assumption could be useful in a non-begging argument), that formal processes and brain processes are the same. <br /><br />Of course, you either realise this, or just don't care. You are not interested in proper discussion and understanding or basic intellectual honesty. Your entire purpose is just generally to make some noise and kick up dust against us theists, blissfully secure in your dogmatic materialism. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29779019830205178542015-11-11T08:09:02.160-08:002015-11-11T08:09:02.160-08:00Don: "That day will never arrive if engineers...<i>Don: "That day will never arrive if engineers take your advice. I know engineers. They'll ignore you and probably make a bucket load of money because supposed<br />"pop science educated google-monkeys" are way smarter than you think."</i><br /><br />It is not my business to give advice to engineers. And financial success hardly adjudicates truth. The google monkey reference was specifically directed at you and the many IT guys out there who "argue" along the same lines as you do, mistakenly believing that being able to write an if-then-else statement plus some wishy-washy "you can't break the laws of physics" type of belief in materialism makes them experts in logic and in the explanation of the nature of the world in general or humanity in particular. It doesn't.<br /><br />What will happen, and what in fact has already happened, is that once certain performatory successes (such as computers beating humans at chess) have been achieved, it will be claimed (triumphantly but falsely) that "machines can now think/play chess/have emotions/etc." But performance does not equal thought, intelligence or emotion. It does not even equal being able to play chess. A chess playing computer knows as much about chess as a CD player knows about music. Only naive materialists believe that all that matters here is <i>output</i>. The more intelligent AI people understand this, see for example<br /><br />http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/douglas-r-hofstadter<br /><br />In which Hofstadter says:<br /><br />"[...] and certainly the computer program that plays chess doesn't have any intelligence or anything like human thoughts."<br /><br />(And just to be clear, I disagree with Hofstadter on AI issues a lot more than I agree with him. He still endorses a lot of confusions. But he does not fall into the standard category of those who explicitly or implicitly operate on the notion that performance equals understanding, ability or skill.)<br /><br /><i>pck:"But according to you we cannot use numbers unless we have measured them too."<br /><br />Don: No, that's not what I said.</i><br /><br />Yes you did. You said:<br /><br /><i>"[...] the most basic preliminary of modern science is that if it can't be detected and measured it's of no use in a search for explanations"</i><br /><br />So you either need to retract that or show us your number-detector.<br /><br /><i>Don: How many apples are there? Four in that bucket, because those four things I generically call apples are all the apples that currently interest me.</i><br /><br />Does this mean you will disappear if you no longer interest me?<br /><br /><i>pck: "How do you know 'the true' exists if you have not measured it?"<br /><br />Don: We can measure nature with pretty good accuracy these days. Do you actually think that's nonsense?</i><br /><br />How is this even remotely close to an intelligible reply to what I asked? Once again, the nonsense is all yours.<br /><br />I would like to cordially invite you to do yourself and everyone else a favour and stop posting these endless heaps of bizarre inanities here. You have a deficit of at least 10 years of a proper education in philosophy, logic, math and science. My advice is to enroll at STF U.<br />pcknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7287204886860315872015-11-11T07:58:45.789-08:002015-11-11T07:58:45.789-08:00Don Jindra said...
I had a tedious response prepa...<i>Don Jindra said...<br /><br />I had a tedious response prepared until I reached this:</i><br /><br />It's hard to imagine any response more tedious than the one you posted. I'll reply one last time and then I'm done with your ever growing pile of confusions and uneducated nonsense.<br /><br /><i>I'll ignore every thing above that.</i><br /><br />Given the quality of your responses I sincerely wish you had ignored all of it.<br /><br /><i>Now you changed your tune. Now it's all about subjectivity. Now it's simply that we won't be able to explain what you *feel* while you think.</i><br /><br />Nonsense. Here are the facts: 1) Our ordinary meaning of "thought" and other terms which express 1st person experiences is what we want to clarify in philosophy. 2) What must happen on the material level in order to make human experiences possible must be examined by science. 3) It was ever thus.<br /><br />Nobody changed their tune here, least of all me. Unless you count yourself, as you have managed to get more dissonant with every post you have made in this thread. Being unable to differentiate between the empirical and the conceptual has been your problem all along. And we can be almost 100% sure the distinction will continue to elude you.<br /><br /><i>That has nothing to do with understanding how the brain performs "formal thinking."</i><br /><br />The brain does not think. Human beings do. Human beings (persons) are not the same as their bodies. You have rights and duties. Your body does not. You can get drunk. You body cannot. You have a pain in your hand. Your hand does not. All of these are <i>conceptual</i> remarks, not descriptions of a part of the physical order of the world. Our ordinary use of "thought" makes no references to brain processes. (And neither does our use of "drunk", "pain", or "rights".) Hence you cannot hope to find out what "thinking" is by looking at what happens in brains.<br /><br /><i>Any philosophical exercise will do a miserable job of explaining self.</i><br /><br />Nonsense. Philosophical (meaning: conceptual) investigation is the only way to clarify what "self" means. Science is completely useless for this task. There are no experiments that can decide what the meaning of "self" or <i>any</i> other term is. This even includes entirely material concepts like "mass", "force", "energy", etc. All of those go <i>into</i> theories, they cannot possibly come out of them.<br /><br /><i>Don: 'But you're going to feel pretty funny if engineers create that machine which, solely through its mechanics, knows exactly what it means when it says, "it's such a nice sunny day."'</i><br /><br />There is no way to empirically prove that even a human being "knows exactly what it means when it says ...". Proving it for a machine is equally impossible, whether "through its mechanics" or by any other means.<br /><br />As I have explained, mechanical language is hopelessly inadequate when it comes to replacing our ordinary, everyday concepts which we use to express our experiences.<br /><br />On your view, if you received a Hallmark birthday card, you would have no way to decide whether it is the card itself that wishes you a happy birthday or the sender of the card.<br /><br />(continued)<br />pcknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6493296947105257042015-11-11T03:00:03.872-08:002015-11-11T03:00:03.872-08:00Don Jindra: Math didn't form out of thin air.
...Don Jindra: <i>Math didn't form out of thin air.</i><br /><br />Of course not. Math doesn't depend on anything so grossly physical as air! Perish the thought.<br /><br /> <i>"Begging the question" [...] doesn't bother me because I know there's no way of avoiding it. [...] Why should I ignore my belief and adopt his for the sake of his argument? It's not that Ross offers no compelling reason for me to do this. He offers no reason whatsoever. </i><br /><br />Well, apparently the root problem here is that you misunderstand what "begging the question" means. Of course it's avoidable; it is a form of intellectual dishonesty, it means intellectual <i>cheating</i>, and so it is easy to avoid simply by being honest and rational.<br /><br />Ross, of course, does offer a reason why "mind ≠ brain" — he starts with some of your beloved empiricism and observes that thought can be determinate, and then follows the implications step by step to the conclusion that it's impossible for brain-processes (alone) to account for thought. That Ross does not accept your question-begging physicalism does not mean he is begging the opposite question. Logic simply doesn't work that way.<br /><br />Now the fact that you do not like that argument, or do not agree with it, or even do not understand it is not why people call you a troll. It's because you insist on accusing Ross of begging some question even though numerous people have patiently time and again explained that this is not the case. (Well, that and because you say, "To me, neither trivia nor navel gazing count as real knowledge", apparently including philosophy, and yet persist in hanging around a metaphysics site.) That nobody else might share your opinion is possible; yet they all aver, all in the same way, not just that they <b>disagree</b> with your conclusion, but that you are <b>misunderstanding</b> what Ross says in the first place. Well, even that might be explained by a conspiracy planned when we all congregate at the underground meetings of the Secret Society of Feser-Commenters to formulate our devious plot against the Nefarious Don Jindra. Except other people have attempted to rebut Ross's argument. Feser's oft-cited piece is a response to those attacks, and his piece has in turn been replied to itself. Yet none of these counter-arguments claims that Ross simpy "begs the question".<br /><br />So here's the question for Don: how exactly do you view this conspiracy, what is going on in your head when you imagine that among all the people, including professional philosophers who have never heard of you, who dispute Ross's argument, that not a one has noticed that it "begs the question", that it "offers no reason whatsoever". How could such a simple and glaring flaw go unnoticed for decades? I really wonder how you fit this into your mental picture of the landscape. Is it simply the case that Don Jindra Cannot Be Wrong, and so therefore regardless of what they say, the Conspirators cannot be right?<br /><br /><br /> <i>Demands for certainty are irrational. </i> <br /><br />Are you sure about that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com