Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Politics & Current Affairs / Re: The ???? Seven
« Last post by ProfessorDavey on Today at 06:30:08 PM »
Nope. Not unless you are saying that the Gang of Four might have ousted Michael Foot and been good enough to negate the positive boost that Thatcher gained by beating th Argentine Junta and Arthur Scargill.
That argument works for 1983 as Foot was already ensconced as leader. But let's not forget that Foot resigned straight after the 83 election.

So in a game of 'what if' had the Gang of Four not set up the SDP we might have seen David Owen, rather than Neil Kinnock, take over as Labour leader in 83. Had that been the case then perhaps the complexion of the 87 election result might have been significantly different.
2
Christian Topic / Re: Searching for GOD...
« Last post by Stranger on Today at 06:15:35 PM »
You accused me of making stuff up, implying that I did it deliberately.
Now you are trying hard to explain why I did not deliberately make stuff up because it somehow just happened to be what my deterministic brain chose to do without any deliberation from me.

The claim is that you are your deterministic brain. When you contrast the "deterministic brain" with yourself, as if they were mutually exclusive, you are assuming your conclusion.
3
Christian Topic / Re: Searching for GOD...
« Last post by bluehillside Retd. on Today at 06:11:48 PM »
AB,
Quote
Can you fully define what comprises conscious thought?
If not, how can you possibly lay claim to know what determines a thought?

Can you fully define what comprises gravity?

If not, how can you possibly claim to know what causes an apple to fall from a tree?

Quote
Can you not tell the difference between a lie and a genuine disagreement?

Yes, which is why we know you’re dishonest. To have a “genuine disagreement” the parties have to engage at least with what the argument actually is. When arguments are put to you though you either ignore them or misrepresent them. If just for once you’d stop lying for Jesus and instead tried at least to be honest about what’s actually being said to you then – but only then – would there be something to disagree about.       

Quote
I have never claimed that there is no randomness.
What I have claimed is that conscious choices are not random.
If they were, choosing whether to overtake on a busy road could soon wipe out much of our population.

What you have “claimed” is “it’s magic”, only it would embarrass you to say that so you call it “spiritual” instead. Either way, it’s just more dishonesty. 

Quote
I have never claimed a choice can be made for no reason.
I claim that for it to be a genuine choice, it can't be predefined by physically predetermined reactions alone - otherwise it is not a choice because it is an inevitable reaction.

Please stop misquoting what I have posted.

He didn’t, and your hypocrisy here is breathtaking. What you actually claim to get you off the binary determined vs random hook is magic, which is epistemically worthless. How would such a claim be investigated so as to distinguish it from just guessing?

And, as you know full well but keep ignoring, the choice is “genuine” inasmuch as – at a shallow level of thinking – that’s a reality that for day-to-day purposes works well enough. If you want to keep cheating though by defining “genuine” as “free from both determinism and randomness” then of course all you have is an irrational, logically impossible straw man version of “genuine”.   
4
Christian Topic / Re: Cardinal Newman - on way to sainthood
« Last post by Nearly Sane on Today at 06:11:39 PM »
Ignore him. He just pressed the nuclear button.
Nope, probability is methodologically naturalistic. You don't understand going nuclear.
5
Christian Topic / Re: Searching for GOD...
« Last post by Stranger on Today at 06:11:03 PM »
Can you fully define what comprises conscious thought?
If not, how can you possibly lay claim to know what determines a thought?

I don't claim to know what determines it, but if it is not fully determined by whatever led to it, then, to the extent that it isn't so determined, it must be determined by nothing, and therefore random.

This is not a complicated argument. You've had it explained many times and by several people and you've never been able to point out what is wrong with it. You just resort to incredulity and baseless assertions that it is "flawed" or "shortsighted".

Can you not tell the difference between a lie and a genuine disagreement?

Because the disagreement is about how our experience of conscious thought and choice making comes about, and nobody is denying those things. Everybody who attempts to explain them is attempting to explain the same things. Claiming those things as evidence for your idea alone is lying about what other people are claiming.

A genuine and honest disagreement would acknowledge that you can't claim the phenomena we are all attempting to explain as evidence for your own explanation.

You are like somebody with a new theory of gravity trying to claim that the evidence for it, and against all the other theories, is that things fall towards the ground.

I have never claimed that there is no randomness.
What I have claimed is that conscious choices are not random.
If they were, choosing whether to overtake on a busy road could soon wipe out much of our population.

Since the whole subject of this debate is conscious choices, why on earth would you think I was claiming that you said no randomness about anything else?

I'm not saying that there is significant randomness either, but the implication of your claim that choices are not fully determined by the reasons for them, is that they involve randomness.

FFS, you keep claiming you are understanding what is said to you, so why do I need to go over this time and time again when you post things like this that strongly suggest you've been paying no attention whatsoever?

I have never claimed a choice can be made for no reason.

Did you even read the quote you put this under?

To the extent something is not entirely determined by the (existing) reasons for it, it is for no reason - which means random.

And no, you can't just magic a reason into existence in "the present" (which you still haven't said what you mean by in any logically significant way) because the reason itself would have to either be due to prior reasons or random.

I claim that for it to be a genuine choice, it can't be predefined by physically predetermined reactions alone - otherwise it is not a choice because it is an inevitable reaction.

Now the pointless mantra about the "physical", which is (as different people have explained many times) totally irrelevant to the logic.

Please stop misquoting what I have posted.

I didn't. How about you actually paying some attention to what is said to you?
6
Politics & Current Affairs / Re: The ???? Seven
« Last post by Spud on Today at 05:47:52 PM »
Insert your own adjective for the 7 MPs who have left Labour

The Secret Seven.
7
Politics & Current Affairs / Re: Brexit - the next steps
« Last post by Spud on Today at 05:46:48 PM »
Ha ha. Most of the UK don’t give a rats arse about Christian denominations and they probably think iconography is the pretty pictures you see on an iPhone.
It's relevant to the Irish border issue though.
8
Christian Topic / Re: Searching for GOD...
« Last post by Alan Burns on Today at 05:40:10 PM »
OK, so you're talking about creativity.  I think this is still consistent with a deterministic account of mind function.  if you remember we covered this sort of ground way back with the capital cities thought experiment, which illustrates aspects of the relationship between conscious and subconscious levels of mind.  Since Freud we have understood that subconscious mind is a vast storehouse of what we are, our memories, habits, dispositions etc, whereas conscious mind has only a tiny amount of just very current issues.  Think about what happens when you recall a memory - the memory is not in conscious mind so we cannot retrieve it as if by some unique key or as if we already knew what we were trying to recall; rather what happens is we exert a vague pull request and receive whatever it is that subconscious mind delivers up to us. So, when you are being creative, making stuff up, say, you are using this relationship between different levels of mind.  Our conscious mind does not generate ideas up front, that would be impractical.  What we can do is assess the ideas that do come up from 'below' with against our preferences.  It is still deterministic as we do not specify exactly what to retrieve from memory, and again, we have no control over our preferences.
You accused me of making stuff up, implying that I did it deliberately.
Now you are trying hard to explain why I did not deliberately make stuff up because it somehow just happened to be what my deterministic brain chose to do without any deliberation from me.

Can you not see the obvious that we are all free to choose how, when and where to use our many gifts in a creative imaginative way?  I fail to comprehend how you can possibly believe that it is all done before we become consciously aware of what we have done.
9
Politics & Current Affairs / Re: Brexit - the next steps
« Last post by jeremyp on Today at 05:34:17 PM »
When I try and come up with a solution I always end up with the fact that the UK is Protestant and the rest of the European Union are either Catholic or Orthodox.
This is relevant because Protestants are opposed to the Catholic and Orthodox practice of iconography. They believe that this breaks the 2nd commandment.
Apart from that I can't see any sincere reason why the UK would leave the EU, with the hindsight I now have.
Ha ha. Most of the UK don’t give a rats arse about Christian denominations and they probably think iconography is the pretty pictures you see on an iPhone.

10
Politics & Current Affairs / Re: The ???? Seven
« Last post by jeremyp on Today at 05:27:01 PM »
I remember the 'gang of four' stuff doing the same thing to a divided Labour party with an inept leader. The result, unfortunately, was two more Thatcher governments.
Nope. Not unless you are saying that the Gang of Four might have ousted Michael Foot and been good enough to negate the positive boost that Thatcher gained by beating th Argentine Junta and Arthur Scargill.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10