Myths in the Making ...

[Mercutio]

Are machines designed to serve a higher purpose or not? Yes or no?

Define "higher purpose". If you mean "higher than the purpose they were designed for", then the answer is "no".

If not, then what utility do they serve? Obviously none.

They then serve the purpose they were designed to. Not "none". Not "higher".

But then again, why should that matter, if all things are based upon nothing? Correct?

Why should your misunderstanding matter? Perhaps it doesn't. Why should it matter even if all things are based upon the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Perhaps your misunderstanding does not matter at all no matter what belief system you hold.

Now, if somehow this does not follow your logic, please tell me where it differs. Okay?

It differs because you are still conflating the definitions of purpose. Rather than admitting this, you are vainly attempting to redefine all uses identically, and thus in a useless manner. Oh, and then throwing in the "something from nothing" strawman you are so fond of.

 

[Beleth]

Because it requires consciousness to see that it exists and to repeat it to someone else.

That's not what I asked.

Meaning "you" have nothing to say? Of course, I already understood that.

No, that's not what I said.

it's the general theory of materialists that nothing transpires after death.

Says who? That sounds like a gross and misleading oversimplification. Please quote someone who agrees with that.

Do you believe that an individual's consciousness persists after death? Yes or no?

Evasion noted.

Isn't this in effect what you already said? ...

Yep. You apparently needed me to repeat it for you.

You are not furthering your cause by being flippant. If you continue, I will write you off as a nutter and a lost cause.

What is this "we" ◊◊◊◊? What makes you think that "I" am merely an extension of "you?"

That's not what "we" means. Nevertheless, let me rephrase the question:

"A voice," usually implies "a will" behind that voice. Yet if that voice is not attached to "my will," then it ain't me.

Given that I have a voice, and that your statement above is true, what can you conclude about solipsism?

 

[Iacchus]

The main question is actually "What is here?" not "Why are we here?".

No, I think most people -- provided that's what they are -- would ask why? And then, perhaps after thousands of years, they "may" begin to question "what."

You have to be able to define/describe what you mean by "here" before you can start to ask any questions about "here".

Where is "here?"

You are trying to put the cart before the horse, and that very frequently gets you nowhere.

Indeed, where do we go from here, if we have no idea where we came from?

 

[Iacchus]

There is not circular logic at work here. From a materialist point of view, the fact that everyone perceives our external reality in the same way suggests that it is that external reality that is constant, and therefore real.

If so, then what do you need my explanation for?

The external reality is testable, and verifiable.

Yes, but to whom? Or, rather, according to some ... "what?" What is the point behind trying to define anything? Does it serve some kind of inherent need or, purpose?

Obviously, we are all open to evidence to the contrary, but your argument seems to consist only of "What if the external reality is just a figment?" Ok, what if it is? There is no evidence for this, so we work with the best model we have, and that is that there is is a reality outside of our own consciousness. You keep asking what happens if that turns out to be incorrect, but so far, it is correct, unless you have something truly profound to share with us.

The profoundness exists in the fact that an external reality cannot be determined, unless an internal reality exists to interpret it. That indeed, everything springs from the inside out ... not the other way around.

Asking "what if" questions is really kind of pointless without facts to back it up.

Ah, but "you" demand proof, contingent only upon the fact that "you" think you exist. In which case I ask, "who" or, "what" is it that needs to know?

 

[Mercutio]

No, I think most people -- provided that's what they are -- would ask why? And then, perhaps after thousands of years, they "may" begin to question "what."

Or you could start with "what", and have some answerable questions, and not waste the thousands of years that philosophy has tried to answer "why"?

Where is "here?"

I believe that is what Darat asked you. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Indeed, where do we go from here, if we have no idea where we came from?

Precisely the reason to start, as science does, with good operational definitions and empirical questions. If we do not, we waste thousands of years, by your own account.

 

[Iacchus]

I think what Iacchus is trying to say is that, while there possibly could be a universe, the only way we can ever possibly know it is through our senses. What a revelation that is.

Ah, but the senses are merely a means of collecting information. So what?

The only difference is that he seems to think this invalidates everything we have ever learned.

And what is infomation pray tell, without the means to interpret it? I agree, there is certainly nothing to learn there.

 

[Iacchus]

Or you could start with "what", and have some answerable questions, and not waste the thousands of years that philosophy has tried to answer "why"?

Does intelligence articulate the machine? Or, does the machine articulate intelligence? Which is the master and which is the slave in other words? And, while you may provide some of the answers as to how it works, you are clearly unable to answer why it wants to know.

I believe that is what Darat asked you. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

No, I wasn't sure what Darat was getting at?

Precisely the reason to start, as science does, with good operational definitions and empirical questions. If we do not, we waste thousands of years, by your own account.

Provided of course, "the mind" does not transcend physical circumstances.

 

[Mercutio]

Does intelligence articulate the machine? Or, does the machine articulate intelligence? Which is the master and which is the slave in other words? And, while you may provide some of the answers as to how it works, you are clearly unable to answer why it wants to know.

Are you certain that there is a "why"? Seems to me you are really jumping ahead by assuming there is a why, before you know anything about the thing itself.

No, I wasn't sure what Darat was getting at?

Ah, so unintentionally obtuse.

Provided of course, "the mind" does not transcend physical circumstances.

If it does, you will be unable to understand it anyway, so there is no great loss there.

 

[Taffer]

Iacchus. You confuse 'design' with 'pattern'. Machines have a designed, and in turn have a designer. But this is by definition. There was a designer, so it must have been designed. It was designed, so it must have a designer. It's about as much use as say all married men have wives.

The truth is we do not know if humans were designed, do we? We know that humans follow a pattern, but that is a totally different thing. Something can have a pattern and have no function nor have a designer. Where is your reasoning that leads you to believe that humans have a design rather then a pattern?

Also, as a side note, I see you just assume that we must have a reason for being. Proof?

 

[Iacchus]

Iacchus. You confuse 'design' with 'pattern'. Machines have a designed, and in turn have a designer. But this is by definition. There was a designer, so it must have been designed. It was designed, so it must have a designer. It's about as much use as say all married men have wives.

Are you sure?

The truth is we do not know if humans were designed, do we?

Yep, and there you have it.

We know that humans follow a pattern, but that is a totally different thing. Something can have a pattern and have no function nor have a designer. Where is your reasoning that leads you to believe that humans have a design rather then a pattern?

What I see as design, is determined by an established set of rules, like the laws of physics for example.

Also, as a side note, I see you just assume that we must have a reason for being. Proof?

If we need not have a reason, then no proof is necessary, don't you think? So basically, what you're telling me is that you're unwilling to accept my answer, even if I could furnish proof.

 

[Iacchus]

...a conclusion, sadly, that comes only when we begin by assuming that minds exist...

You came so close this time. You admit we have no means by which to verify that it is...and then you make the exact same mistake by failing to acknowledge that the existence of mind is equally unverifiable. The materialists claim that what you perceive as mental is physical...the idealists claim that what you perceive as physical is mental. Neither has the means by which to prove their assumption, but that does not stop them from pointing out that the opposing view is lacking...

And the dualists are just plain nuts of course.

 

[Mercutio]

And the dualists are just plain nuts of course.

Not all of them, I am sure. But I have not seen one yet that is logically consistent. I can't wait for the first.

 

[Mercutio]

What I see as design, is determined by an established set of rules, like the laws of physics for example.

The laws of physics are descriptive; they are our best approximation to what we observe, and as such they are subject to change. In fact, they have changed over the course of history. So...one could easily argue that they are not an "established set of rules" in the same sense as the rules required to design an object.

But since you say that you see design in an established set of rules, could you tell us what the characteristics are which you consider to be evidence of design? How do you distinguish between that which is designed and that which is not?

 

[Iacchus]

The laws of physics are descriptive; they are our best approximation to what we observe, and as such they are subject to change. In fact, they have changed over the course of history. So...one could easily argue that they are not an "established set of rules" in the same sense as the rules required to design an object.

What is subject to change? The laws themselves? Or, how we "interpret" them?

But since you say that you see design in an established set of rules, could you tell us what the characteristics are which you consider to be evidence of design? How do you distinguish between that which is designed and that which is not?

As if to say human beings "established" these rules? No, of course not.

 

[Iacchus]

Not all of them, I am sure. But I have not seen one yet that is logically consistent. I can't wait for the first.

A dualist merely believes (at least in my case) that a happy medium exists between the two extremes. What is so illogical about that?

 

[I'll_buy_that]

so this board ... http://dionysusforums.proboards37.com/index.cgi?board=evolution is where IACCHUS argues with himself? I guess if you use so much circular logic, like he does, this could be interesting.

 

[Taffer]

Are you sure?

Yes.

Yep, and there you have it.

So you have no proof that we are designed, and we have an explanation that does not require us to be designed, correct? Which is the better theory?

What I see as design, is determined by an established set of rules, like the laws of physics for example.

A design implies a designer, due to the mean of the word. You do not know there is a designer, so all you can call it is a pattern until you have this proof.

If we need not have a reason, then no proof is necessary, don't you think? So basically, what you're telling me is that you're unwilling to accept my answer, even if I could furnish proof.

So you don't have proof? How about providing it anyway, and lets see where it leads us? If your proof really is proof, then obviously I would have to believe it, correct? I believe we are not designed from lack of proof. Provide this proof and I cannot logically continue to think we are not designed.

 

[Iacchus]

What is so logical about arguing in favor of either extreme when, in fact there is evidence for both? Well, if it wasn't for extremism, we wouldn't be allowed a sense of "self-importance" out of the whole thing now would we?

 

[Mercutio]

What is so logical about arguing in favor of either extreme when, in fact there is evidence for both? Well, if it wasn't for extremism, we wouldn't be allowed a sense of "self-importance" out of the whole thing now would we?

What is in the middle of two mutually exclusive options?

 

[Taffer]

...when, in fact there is evidence for both?

Care to provide us with that?