The study of atoms in the brain doesn't explain the redness of red;Materialism = FAKE

[P.J. Denyer]

It's a proof of concept, showing that it is possible for a 3-D printer to print itself. You claimed it wasn't.

No I didn't the post you're responding to was my first mention of printers in the thread, and the printers you linked to don't print themselves, they print copies of themselves. If you prefer, they replicate, they don't self create. Which was the distinction Artwollipop was pointing out.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

"Your printer didn't print an image of a sunset, it printed a COPY of an image of a sunset."

"Your printer didn't print a screw, it printed a COPY of a screw."

"Your printer didn't print a stapler, it printed a COPY of a stapler."

"Your printer didn't print a printer, it printed a COPY of a printer."

That's really what you're going with here? Can you please tell me the difference between a printer and a copy of a printer?



Well it can.

Because the point was whether something could create itself. We know that things can create copies of themselves, billions of living creatures do it every day.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Everyone but you (and probably JoeMorgue) know the difference between an X and a copy of an X.

If X is a mass-produced item - say, a printer - then no, I don't know the difference, because there is not in fact a difference.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

What I've done is follow the normal rules of any civilized debate.
Someone's using the X word.
I don't see what their use of the X is and I ask, "What do you mean, X?"

That is, in fact, untrue. You used a word, and then asked me to define it

To summarise the conversation so far:

You: It's stupid to suggest science is the only way to investigate reality.
Me: OK, suggest another way.
You: There are problems science can't solve.
Me: That's not an answer.
You: I won't answer till you define "science".
Me: It's your claim.
You: You're the onle who said "science" first, so you define it.

See the problem? No, of course you don't.

Dave

 

[Pixel42]

If X is a mass-produced item - say, a printer - then no, I don't know the difference, because there is not in fact a difference.

Dave

This reminds me of the times I tried to explain to Jabba during his "looking out of two pairs of eyes" confusion that the difference between him and a perfect copy of him would be their different spacetime coordinates.

 

[Robin]

What does not exist is the scientific solution to the problem of moral good. The problem of the moral good is how to find a moral principle that allows the agreement of the greatest possible number of people. .

Couldn't that be done with a series of carefully designed surveys?

But that would not be a useful thing to know.

A majority of people agreeing something is right doesn't necessarily make it right. When I was younger a majority of people thought that homosexuality was wrong.

In order to get a meaningful answer, whether from science or anything else we must first properly formulate the question.

 

[Robin]

I love the deliberate point missing

"A printer can't print itself"

"Yes a printer can print another printer"

 

[Dave Rogers]

By the way, David Mo, let me remind you of your specific words.

Nowhere is it written that science is the only method (if one single exists) of examining reality.

Now, let me make this really, really simple for you. Using the definitions of words that you used to formulate the passage above, can you offer one other useful method than science of examining reality? If you want to know the meaning of the word "science" in this context, use the one you used when you were writing the passage above.

Now, I'm not asking you to respond with a list of questions science can't answer; that isn't a valid answer to the question. I'm not going to accept another demand for a definition of the word "science", because either you were using one yourself when you wrote the passage above, or you were writing words that had no meaning to you. And I'm not going to pay any attention to your utterly vapid claims that I'm not following the rules of civilised debate, because you're the one who's been evading the question. I'm simply asking you, using your own definition of the word "science", to offer one example of another useful method of examining reality. That's all.

Dave

 

[Lithrael]

This reminds me of the times I tried to explain to Jabba during his "looking out of two pairs of eyes" confusion that the difference between him and a perfect copy of him would be their different spacetime coordinates.

I remember that! I still can’t wrap my head around why anyone would think a duplicated person would be one consciousness looking through two bodies. I mean, I can imagine proposing the idea in a spitballing kind of way if you think consciousness is some kind of external entity that’s only tuning in through a body, but aren’t identical twins (a sort of duplicated at-one-time-individual) enough of a proof of concept that it doesn’t actually work that way?

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

I love the deliberate point missing

"A printer can't print itself"

"Yes a printer can print another printer"

"...and there's no difference between them, so it's the same printer!"

Deliberate point missing, I like that choice of words.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Says the guy with a signature from a 19th center philosopher.

Again "But you're doing philosophy too!" is a stupid argument and it seems to be one philosophers are depending on more and more as actual useful means of looking at the world push pure old school philosophy back more and more into meaningless "just sound deepity" word games.

 

[David Mo]

I'm simply asking you, using your own definition of the word "science", to offer one example of another useful method of examining reality. That's all.

Sorry, what is my definition of science? Because I don't remember giving one.

Instead, I think it was you who said that the scientific method was the only useful (your words) of all methods of knowledge. What scientific method were you talking about?

 

[JoeMorgue]

"...and there's no difference between them, so it's the same printer!"

Deliberate point missing, I like that choice of words.

"But it wouldn't be the saaaaaame me!" - Jabba, roughly 30 thousand times while he was trying to prove his was immortal.

Seriously go read the Jabba threads. It's nothing but one person screaming "It's not the same and the reason it's not the same is that they are difference and the difference is they aren't the same" over and over.

Stop looking for a soul with the same passion you're pretending that's exactly not what you are doing.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This reminds me of the times I tried to explain to Jabba during his "looking out of two pairs of eyes" confusion that the difference between him and a perfect copy of him would be their different spacetime coordinates.

Because this is exactly the same discussion.

The difference is Jabba was a crank and these people are "philosophers" which is why literally everyone saw through Jabba's act but people are pretending this is different.

I'm seriously at the point of legit wondering how many people would have been in there defending Jabba if he had just worded his nonsense in more "socially acceptable philosophical" terms.

But the fact that nothing Jabba was saying was functionally different from mainstream beliefs was a point I made in the Jabba thread.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Sorry, what is my definition of science? Because I don't remember giving one.

The one you used when framing the sentence quoted. Are you seriously telling me that you didn't know the meaning of the words you were using? If you didn't, you need to take some remedial English classes; if you did, use the definition you had in mind when you used the word.

Your efforts to avoid answering the question became pathetically desperate a long time ago. Why not just stop embarrassing yourself and admit you were just trying to sound profound but you got busted?

Dave

 

[David Mo]

Again "But you're doing philosophy too!" is a stupid argument and it seems to be one philosophers are depending on more and more as actual useful means of looking at the world push pure old school philosophy back more and more into meaningless "just sound deepity" word games.

I find it quite incongruous (not "stupid", please) to attack the whole of philosophy using philosophical arguments. And pretty bad ones at that.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"We define ourselves as everything so we can't be criticized because any criticism is using our method" strikes me as more then incongruous, it strikes me as downright intellectually dishonest so... I don't care because you'll just sit there and argue that "Intellectual dishonesty" is a valid philosophy so I can't say anything about it because that would also be philosophy...

 

[JoeMorgue]

Are you seriously telling me that you didn't know the meaning of the words you were using?

That's exactly what he's doing.

This whole "We have to have a running parallel discussion about terminology" is how they keep this stuff in the weeds and sound "deep" when they are just phrasing everything in the most overly complicated way for no purpose.

It's why we keep having the onus put on us to define the things they are trying to prove and why they make big dramatic "Oh loordy me I just can't follow what you are sayings" freakouts when terms are used in different context.

 

[David Mo]

The one you used when framing the sentence quoted.[????]Dave

Can you quote my exact words? Because you keep walking around without offering a concrete answer. When did I define science?
You certainly haven't quoted a line of mine.

 

[Dave Rogers]

This whole "We have to have a running parallel discussion about terminology" is how they keep this stuff in the weeds and sound "deep" when they are just phrasing everything in the most overly complicated way for no purpose.

This is a bit more obvious, though; David Mo is pretending that he doesn't have to define his own terms but that I have to define them for him. For all I know, when he says "science," he may mean a variety of small cake typically served with mid-morning coffee in southern Austria, and is therefore utterly unable to comprehend why that should be a means of investigating reality. Since he not only won't say what he means by "science", but refuses to admit that he's using any definition of the word at all, I have to just assume he's semi-literate and is posting whatever random words he thinks will sound clever at the time.

Dave