laminustacitus: Knight_of_BAAWA: Knight_of_BAAWA:Let's see if you can demonstrate the ontological existence of the immaterial, rather than simply begging the question. laminustacitus:Begging the question is all that we can do Knight_of_BAAWA:False. Try again. Demonstrate the ontological existence of the immaterial. laminustacitus:Give an ontological proof of the existence of the materialRed herring. And, quite frankly--what is that keyboard you're typing on made out of? Are you seriously that stupid and childish? Yes, I am that silly, and childish. Yes, I actually believe that if you are going to expect an ontological proof of the immaterial that you give an ontological proof of the material. So, refute idealism once, and for all. Prove to me that material objects do, in fact, exist. If you are nearly as intelligent as arrogant than this would be a simple task. So either answer, or be silenced.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Knight_of_BAAWA:Let's see if you can demonstrate the ontological existence of the immaterial, rather than simply begging the question. laminustacitus:Begging the question is all that we can do Knight_of_BAAWA:False. Try again. Demonstrate the ontological existence of the immaterial. laminustacitus:Give an ontological proof of the existence of the materialRed herring. And, quite frankly--what is that keyboard you're typing on made out of? Are you seriously that stupid and childish?
Knight_of_BAAWA:Let's see if you can demonstrate the ontological existence of the immaterial, rather than simply begging the question.
laminustacitus:Begging the question is all that we can do
Knight_of_BAAWA:False. Try again. Demonstrate the ontological existence of the immaterial.
laminustacitus:Give an ontological proof of the existence of the material
Yes, I am that silly, and childish. Yes, I actually believe that if you are going to expect an ontological proof of the immaterial that you give an ontological proof of the material. So, refute idealism once, and for all. Prove to me that material objects do, in fact, exist. If you are nearly as intelligent as arrogant than this would be a simple task.
So either answer, or be silenced.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Demonstrate the ontological existence of the immaterial or be silent.
Demonstrate the ontological existence of the immaterial or be silent.
I am becoming a Burkean Whig.
- F.A. Hayek
Eric: laminustacitus:However, Descartes, before introducing mind-body dualism in The Meditations, had already "solved" the problem of the existence of physical objects through the existence of a non-deceiving God. But, a less famous, and certainly fallacious proof of mind-body dualism in the sixth meditation is based upon the possibility of the mind being distinct from the body as being a trait that differentiates them through a chain of reasoning that relies on a pre-Leibniz principle of the indiscernibility of identicals. I don't know if the indiscernibility of identicals argument is very good. Are you referring to the argument that says since minds are divisible and bodies are not, minds and bodies are not identical? Because I do not think the claim that minds aren't divisible is true.
laminustacitus:However, Descartes, before introducing mind-body dualism in The Meditations, had already "solved" the problem of the existence of physical objects through the existence of a non-deceiving God. But, a less famous, and certainly fallacious proof of mind-body dualism in the sixth meditation is based upon the possibility of the mind being distinct from the body as being a trait that differentiates them through a chain of reasoning that relies on a pre-Leibniz principle of the indiscernibility of identicals.
I don't know if the indiscernibility of identicals argument is very good. Are you referring to the argument that says since minds are divisible and bodies are not, minds and bodies are not identical? Because I do not think the claim that minds aren't divisible is true.
No, I am talking about another proof Descartes' used.
Eric: laminustacitus:An immaterial mind controlling the chemical processes of the brain would not contradict the law of the conservation of energy as long as those chemical processes do not violate the law. Since modern science takes the physical world to be a closed system, no nonphysical thing can affect it. If nonphysical minds affected the physical world in any way, they would also have to change its energy level. But again, this is impossible because the physical world is closed. No mass/energy can enter or leave it. So the immaterial mind would in fact contradict the law of the conservation of energy.
laminustacitus:An immaterial mind controlling the chemical processes of the brain would not contradict the law of the conservation of energy as long as those chemical processes do not violate the law.
Since modern science takes the physical world to be a closed system, no nonphysical thing can affect it. If nonphysical minds affected the physical world in any way, they would also have to change its energy level. But again, this is impossible because the physical world is closed. No mass/energy can enter or leave it. So the immaterial mind would in fact contradict the law of the conservation of energy.
If you really want to see a competent philosopher of mind speak on this subject, I suggest reading Feser's Philosophy of Mind: A Beginners' Guide for I do not have enough knowledge in this discipline to continue this conversation.
laminustacitus:Oh how the proud fall! BAAWA, so haughty in his denial of the immaterial cannot even give a reason for why I should accept the existence of the material!
Look: I know that you're terrified. I know that you know that you can't do what you're required. So just admit it. There's no shame in it. Admit that all you have is a wish and this will all be over. Otherwise: I'll just keep asking you to do that which you are required, i.e. demonstrate the ontological existence of the immaterial. And I'll keep watching you run in terror.
It's nothing personal; it's just the way discussion goes.
Knight_of_BAAWA:And I'll keep watching you run in terror.
I think KOB looks at the world, philosophy discussions included, as one big WoW game.
Human Action Comics Issues 1-6
Lilburne: Knight_of_BAAWA:And I'll keep watching you run in terror. I think KOB looks at the world, philosophy discussions included, as one big WoW game.
And some people seem to jump right into the mix of it all without properly thinking things through first.
"LEEEEERRRROOOOOYYY JJJJEEENNNNKIIIINSSS!"
laminustacitus:I'm sorry, but it seems that you are nothing but a figment of my imagination that continues to annoy me.
Lilburne:I think KOB looks at the world, philosophy discussions included, as one big WoW game.
I did post a nice wiki article on bayesian inference, but you know... I'm willing to spoon feed. Why should you accept the existence of the material? One word, repeatability.
twistedbydsign99: laminustacitus:Oh how the proud fall! BAAWA, so haughty in his denial of the immaterial cannot even give a reason for why I should accept the existence of the material! I did post a nice wiki article on bayesian inference, but you know... I'm willing to spoon feed. Why should you accept the existence of the material? One word, repeatability.
And why would that lead me to accept the material? Bayesian inference has absolutely no weight whatsoever against idealism, nor is it a good proof for the existence of the material whatsoever.
laminustacitus:And why would that lead me to accept the material? Bayesian inference has absolutely no weight whatsoever against idealism, nor is it a good proof for the existence of the material whatsoever.
It would lead you do believe the material exists because whatever confidence level you want can be achieved with enough repetitions. Its not only good proof, its the only proof. If your ideals are valid bayesian inference is how you would come to believe them with some specified confidence. Faith is allowing yourself to believe things with a confidence level of 0.
twistedbydsign99: laminustacitus:And why would that lead me to accept the material? Bayesian inference has absolutely no weight whatsoever against idealism, nor is it a good proof for the existence of the material whatsoever. It would lead you do believe the material exists because whatever confidence level you want can be achieved with enough repetitions.
It would lead you do believe the material exists because whatever confidence level you want can be achieved with enough repetitions.
Or it could lead to me being ever more confident that the world, projected by my mind, functions according to certain immutable laws.
twistedbydsign99:Its not only good proof, its the only proof.
Its neither good proof, nor is it the only proof - Kant attacks idealism in the Transcendental Analytic of his Critique of Pure Reason. His proof for the reality of the material word, in addition, is far better than faith via Bayesian inference.
twistedbydsign99:If your ideals are valid bayesian inference is how you would come to believe them with some specified confidence.
What are you even trying to say here?
twistedbydsign99:Faith is allowing yourself to believe things with a confidence level of 0.
This is just wrong.
Iam I think you might be missing some of the subtle things I was trying to get at I'll try to clear it up some more.
laminustacitus:Or it could lead to me being ever more confident that the world, projected by my mind, functions according to certain immutable laws.
You might not have gained confidence in the nature of the world, but you have gained confidence in its existence, so in that way you have still used bayesian inference. Its not determinable whether you are in some sort of mind matrix or not, only that whatever the nature there are discoverable rules that are real for that world.
laminustacitus:Its neither good proof, nor is it the only proof - Kant attacks idealism in the Transcendental Analytic of his Critique of Pure Reason. His proof for the reality of the material word, in addition, is far better than faith via Bayesian inference.
I didn't make this error, first bayesian inference then logic and reason. Existence isn't something you can reason, its something you have to experience, then from experience you can reason.
laminustacitus:This is just wrong.
Note the confidence in the context I used it meant statistical confidence, not that the person with faith isn't confident :) Bagh overloaded term. I'll give you an example of the two types of belief, faith and bayesian. Lets say that if you have a belief of 0 you don't believe something at all and can never be convinced despite any evidence, 1 would be you have utter belief and could never be convinced otherwise despite any evidence. Someone with faith puts there belief at 0 and 1 with their will. Using bayesian inference you can be between 0 and 1 but you can never reach 0 or 1. Everytime an event confirms your belief you move more towards 1 every time an event denies your belief you most more towards 0.
So when I say a person of faith has 0 confidence level I mean they placed their belief at 0 or 1 regardless or without any evidence. I won't bore you anymore but lemme know if thats not clear, its probably not haha.
laminustacitus:And why would that lead me to accept the material?
Yes, there is a spoon. We're not brains in a vat. We're not free-floating consciousness. It's called reality--grab hold of it.
Knight_of_BAAWA: laminustacitus:And why would that lead me to accept the material?Because you're communicating with us. Yes, there is a spoon. We're not brains in a vat. We're not free-floating consciousness. It's called reality--grab hold of it.
I'd also add that even if we were these things, it wouldn't really change much anyhow. Even if reality was "all an illusion" it is one we still have to experience and deal with. It still operates in a manner as if it is real, concrete, and logical.
twistedbydsign99: laminustacitus:Or it could lead to me being ever more confident that the world, projected by my mind, functions according to certain immutable laws. You might not have gained confidence in the nature of the world, but you have gained confidence in its existence
You might not have gained confidence in the nature of the world, but you have gained confidence in its existence
No I have not, I have only gained confidence that whatever I see, nature or illusion, according to immutable laws. I have gained no answer as the the question whether it is nature, or illusion.
twistedbydsign99: laminustacitus:Its neither good proof, nor is it the only proof - Kant attacks idealism in the Transcendental Analytic of his Critique of Pure Reason. His proof for the reality of the material word, in addition, is far better than faith via Bayesian inference. I didn't make this error, first bayesian inference then logic and reason. Existence isn't something you can reason, its something you have to experience, then from experience you can reason.
But what is "Existence"? You presuppose that "Existence" is external physical objects while it could just be the creation of the mind - Kant tried to show how idealism was wrong in its thesis that reality is a creation of a mind. It is impossible to infer from experience that reality definitely exists for there is no method of disproving that the physical objects on experience are not illusions.
twistedbydsign99: I'll give you an example of the two types of belief, faith and bayesian. Lets say that if you have a belief of 0 you don't believe something at all and can never be convinced despite any evidence, 1 would be you have utter belief and could never be convinced otherwise despite any evidence. Someone with faith puts there belief at 0 and 1 with their will. Using bayesian inference you can be between 0 and 1 but you can never reach 0 or 1. Everytime an event confirms your belief you move more towards 1 every time an event denies your belief you most more towards 0. So when I say a person of faith has 0 confidence level I mean they placed their belief at 0 or 1 regardless or without any evidence. I won't bore you anymore but lemme know if thats not clear, its probably not haha.
I'll give you an example of the two types of belief, faith and bayesian. Lets say that if you have a belief of 0 you don't believe something at all and can never be convinced despite any evidence, 1 would be you have utter belief and could never be convinced otherwise despite any evidence. Someone with faith puts there belief at 0 and 1 with their will. Using bayesian inference you can be between 0 and 1 but you can never reach 0 or 1. Everytime an event confirms your belief you move more towards 1 every time an event denies your belief you most more towards 0.
So you're using a technical term.
Nevertheless, there is absolutely no sound method of reasoning from Bayesian inference to the existence of physical objects. No matter what, the belief that the physical world exists, and that there are other minds is, and only can be a leap of faith.
And yet you cannot give an ontological proof for the existence of reality. The only proofs that you can give are pathetic ("Because you're communicating with us"!? - is that seriously all you have), and require a leap of faith - the faith you proclaim as not having
And yet you prove the ontological existence of reality with every post. Look: I know you dislike anything that smacks of how Hoppe argues, but that's YOUR problem. YOU need to get over it.
Knight_of_BAAWA:And yet you prove the ontological existence of reality with every post.
I don't - all I'm doing is proving that I am willing to converse with an illusion of my mind that I have no control of.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Look: I know you dislike anything that smacks of how Hoppe argues, but that's YOUR problem. YOU need to get over it.
You really need to rethink your philosophy. I'm sorry, but you cannot use argumentation ethics to prove the existence of reality - all that you can do is delude yourself into thinking you are being completely rational when in reality you are making a leap of faith.
laminustacitus:I don't - all I'm doing is proving that I am willing to converse with an illusion of my mind that I have no control of.
is it a real illusion or an illusiary illusion?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
laminustacitus:I don't
So, now that we've proven that not only are you an idiot, but a liar to boot, I'd say that you're done here.
laminustacitus:You really need to rethink your philosophy.
Look, you really need to take Philosophy 101.
laminustacitus:all I'm doing is proving that I am willing to converse with an illusion of my mind that I have no control of.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap