Bill's Worldview

[Vincent Maycock]

You believe in God, don't you, Bill?

[D. Spencer Hines]

So did Einstein and Planck...

...Certainly no wacko Creationists condemning Darwin.

DSH

"To be turned from one's course by men's opinions, by blame, and by
misrepresentation shows a man unfit to hold an office."

Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus Cunctator - [ c. 280 B.C. - 203 B.C.) -
From Plutarch's Lives

"Vincent Maycock" wrote in message
news:crs6uahpq4f5399p6...@4ax.com...

[raven1]

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 12:12:00 -1000, "D. Spencer Hines"
<d_spenc...@america.com> wrote:

>So did Einstein and Planck...

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not
believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have
expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called
religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the
world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein, 1954

[Glenn]

"raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message news:kfh8uatob3vbep419...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 12:12:00 -1000, "D. Spencer Hines"
> <d_spenc...@america.com> wrote:
>
>>So did Einstein and Planck...
>
> "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
> convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not
> believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have
> expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called
> religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the
> world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein, 1954
>

"[T]he fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who-in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'-cannot hear the music of the spheres."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein

[Bill]

Vincent Maycock wrote:

> You believe in God, don't you, Bill?

I have limited my remarks about my opinions to what I have posted.

Bill

[Bill]

Atheism is a declaration of certain knowledge about things atheists claim
don't exist. It is a kind of smug arrogance telling people that they don't
know what they know, that the atheists know more and have perfect
understanding. In this newsgroup, the pretense is that they know science and
the workings of nature while non-atheists wallow in a dark and murky
ignorance.

Most people, theist or not, will find this kind of thing too extreme, too
irrational to have any value. Atheists claim that science supports their
philosophy but that is just a natural consequence of limiting nature to what
suits their dogma. Nature, apart from and free of any philosophical agenda,
is supremely indifferent to what we think about it; it supports no
philosophy, has no agenda and takes no sides.

What is especially annoying is that, by their measure, seeing the absurdity
of atheism is only possible is you are a theist. They will then absolve
themselves from making rational replies to whatever the non-atheist may
propose. In this stunted alternate reality, if you are not an atheist or not
persuaded by atheist arguments, you must be a raving theist who has nothing
to offer. By this logic, atheism always wins.

Bill

[Robert Camp]

On 8/31/15 10:16 AM, Bill wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
>>
>> "raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
>> news:kfh8uatob3vbep419...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 12:12:00 -1000, "D. Spencer Hines"
>>> <d_spenc...@america.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So did Einstein and Planck...
>>>
>>> "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
>>> convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not
>>> believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have
>>> expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called
>>> religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the
>>> world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein, 1954
>>>
>>
>> "[T]he fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the
>> weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle.
>> They are creatures who-in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of
>> the people'-cannot hear the music of the spheres."
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein
>
> Atheism is a declaration of certain knowledge about things atheists claim
> don't exist.

Atheism can be many things, ranging from an entirely benign lack of
belief to strong claims of non-existence of deities.

As usual, you are voluble but ignorant.

> It is a kind of smug arrogance telling people that they don't
> know what they know, that the atheists know more and have perfect
> understanding.

The substantive content expressed by atheists (who are seldom as smug as
theists) is the exact opposite of your claim - it is almost always a
request for evidence of what others claim to know.

As usual, you expound on that which you don't understand.

> In this newsgroup, the pretense is that they know science and
> the workings of nature while non-atheists wallow in a dark and murky
> ignorance.

It is the self-selecting nature of this newsgroup (it draws quite a few
creationists and IDists) that such an imbalance is inevitable.

> Most people, theist or not, will find this kind of thing too extreme, too
> irrational to have any value. Atheists claim that science supports their
> philosophy but that is just a natural consequence of limiting nature to what
> suits their dogma.

Even if we accept that there are people out there who meet your
convenient caricature, you still (as usual) get it wrong. No one limits
nature (except perhaps fundamentalist theists). But without constraints
upon that which can qualify as evidence there can be no knowledge at all
(certainly those like yourself, with no education or experience who
still wish to bloviate, find this bit problematic).

> Nature, apart from and free of any philosophical agenda,
> is supremely indifferent to what we think about it; it supports no
> philosophy, has no agenda and takes no sides.

"And the sun is hot, water is wet, and things are what they are, never
what they're not."

> What is especially annoying is that, by their measure, seeing the absurdity
> of atheism is only possible is you are a theist.

Does it hurt when you say things like that?

> They will then absolve
> themselves from making rational replies to whatever the non-atheist may
> propose. In this stunted alternate reality, if you are not an atheist or not
> persuaded by atheist arguments, you must be a raving theist who has nothing
> to offer.

If you ever wish to be taken seriously (and your behavior indicates you
do), then you really must develop enough integrity to take issue with
actual arguments made by actual opponents, not the dancing scarecrows of
your mind.

> By this logic, atheism always wins.

As usual, you talk, and say nothing.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 12:16:25 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Glenn wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
>> news:kfh8uatob3vbep419...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 12:12:00 -1000, "D. Spencer Hines"
>>> <d_spenc...@america.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>So did Einstein and Planck...
>>>
>>> "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
>>> convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not
>>> believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have
>>> expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called
>>> religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the
>>> world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein, 1954
>>>
>>
>> "[T]he fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the
>> weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle.
>> They are creatures who-in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of
>> the people'-cannot hear the music of the spheres."
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein
>
>Atheism is a declaration of certain knowledge about things atheists claim
>don't exist. It is a kind of smug arrogance telling people that they don't
>know what they know, that the atheists know more and have perfect
>understanding. In this newsgroup, the pretense is that they know science and
>the workings of nature while non-atheists wallow in a dark and murky
>ignorance.

Bill refuses to talk about his theism, probably because he's
embarrassed about it.

Who would want to worship the Jolly Green Giant the way the theists
do?

>Most people, theist or not, will find this kind of thing too extreme, too
>irrational to have any value. Atheists claim that science supports their
>philosophy

Science? All of reality does this.

> but that is just a natural consequence of limiting nature to what
>suits their dogma. Nature, apart from and free of any philosophical agenda,
>is supremely indifferent to what we think about it; it supports no
>philosophy, has no agenda and takes no sides.

True. But now that you've admitted to being a theist (as deduced from
the questions you refuse to answer), that raises the question of:

What kind of theist are you? Probably Christian, but what kind of
Christian are you? Southern Baptist? Lutheran? Methodist?

>What is especially annoying is that, by their measure, seeing the absurdity
>of atheism is only possible is you are a theist. They will then absolve
>themselves from making rational replies to whatever the non-atheist may
>propose. In this stunted alternate reality, if you are not an atheist or not
>persuaded by atheist arguments, you must be a raving theist who has nothing
>to offer. By this logic, atheism always wins.

No, I wouldn't say you're "raving," just very mistaken.

[Bill]

Vincent Maycock wrote:


...

>>
>>Atheism is a declaration of certain knowledge about things atheists claim
>>don't exist. It is a kind of smug arrogance telling people that they don't
>>know what they know, that the atheists know more and have perfect
>>understanding. In this newsgroup, the pretense is that they know science
>>and the workings of nature while non-atheists wallow in a dark and murky
>>ignorance.
>
> Bill refuses to talk about his theism, probably because he's
> embarrassed about it.

Can you explain why that matters to you? Do you suppose that by labeling me
you somehow discredit my posts? You would seem less like an idiot if you
addressed the post rather than the poster.

Bill

[Glenn]

"Bill" <fre...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ms2osg$pn0$1...@dont-email.me...

Most atheists I have encountered do use what they think is knowledge to support their positions.
It is certainly true of those here. Of those that do not, the more intelligent ones shy from the label
and call themselves "agnostics", but even they are often wont to argue against the existence of
a creator. My opinion is that science is more handicapped by atheism than fundamentalism.

[David Canzi]

This quote is very far from being supportive of religious belief.
In likening a subset of atheists to recently escaped ex-slaves,
Einstein likened religion to slavery. This is probably not the
message you intended his quote to convey.

--
David Canzi | "No single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood."
| http://www.despair.com/irresponsibility.html

[Glenn]

"David Canzi" <dmc...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message news:ms372p$bj5$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...

That takes the cake.

"science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"

[Sneaky O. Possum]

"David Canzi" <dmc...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote in

news:ms372p$bj5$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca:

> On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 08:48:50 -0700, "Glenn" <g...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:

[snip]

>>"[T]he fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the
>>weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle.
>>They are creatures who-in their grudge against the traditional 'opium
>>of the people'-cannot hear the music of the spheres."
>>
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein
>
> This quote is very far from being supportive of religious belief.
> In likening a subset of atheists to recently escaped ex-slaves,
> Einstein likened religion to slavery. This is probably not the
> message you intended his quote to convey.

The unedited quote is even less supportive:

I was barked at by numerous dogs who are earning their food
guarding ignorance and superstition for the benefit of those who
profit from it. Then there are the fanatical atheists whose
intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious
fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who

are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown

off after hard struggle. They are creatures who - in their grudge
against the traditional 'opium for the people' - cannot bear the
music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature does not become smaller
because one cannot measure it by the standards of human moral[s] and
human aims.

(Quoted from *Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology* by Max
Jammer, Princeton University Press 2011, p. 97. Jammer cites a 7 August
1941 letter in the Einstein Archive, reel 54-927.)
--
S.O.P.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 18:46:04 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Vincent Maycock wrote:
>
>
>...
>
>>>
>>>Atheism is a declaration of certain knowledge about things atheists claim
>>>don't exist. It is a kind of smug arrogance telling people that they don't
>>>know what they know, that the atheists know more and have perfect
>>>understanding. In this newsgroup, the pretense is that they know science
>>>and the workings of nature while non-atheists wallow in a dark and murky
>>>ignorance.
>>
>> Bill refuses to talk about his theism, probably because he's
>> embarrassed about it.
>
>Can you explain why that matters to you?

It might make some of your arguments easier to debunk if everyone
involved knows you're a theist.

For example if you say something like, "Science is built like a house
of cards, where hypotheses are piled high on top of speculation after
speculation," the reader will not respond with

"Well, there's one neutral participant Bill who, serendipitously for
IDiots, happens to use one of the arguments that Intelligent Design
supporters are interested in."

Instead they'll will respond with,

"Well, Bill is a supporter of Intelligent Design, so we should
evaluate his claims in that context -- probably no one involved thinks
that science is so speculative, since Bill is just talking about his
religion when he implies that."

> Do you suppose that by labeling me
>you somehow discredit my posts?

Yes, and no.

Yes, because the more people understand your theism, the less
credibility you'll have in situations where your theist background
will make a difference ...

and

.... no, because so many of your posts have already been thoroughly
discredited by other posters, that other methods of discrediting them
are not really necessary.

>You would seem less like an idiot if you
>addressed the post rather than the poster.

All your posts are trivially refuted, so there's not necessarily a
whole lot of purpose in going over that ground again.

Now that we've put you in perspective as a theist, we begin to wonder
what types of theist beliefs could be polluting your posts in
discussions about Intelligent Design Creationism.

Do you believe that the Christian god is the "Designer" in the idea of
Intelligent Design?

And you *do* believe in Intelligent Design to some extent, right?

[Robert Camp]

I don't know if there's anyone here who has *less* respect for Bill's
"reasoning" than I, but if you're going to essentially recommend
something akin to ad hominem as a legitimate approach to his arguments,
I think I actually have to side with him on this one.

[Bill]

I believe that you are indifferent to logic and good sense. You admit that
the poster is more important tan his posts which is exactly what an idiot
would do. You admit that you only want to debunk and not discuss. You admit
that you judge a point on its philosophical implications rather than its
content which makes you look like a fool. You have proven that you're not
too bright which means I can ignore you from now on.

Bill

[Vincent Maycock]

Ad hominem.

>You admit that
>the poster is more important tan his posts which is exactly what an idiot
>would do.

Ad hominem.

>You admit that you only want to debunk and not discuss

Ad hominem.

> You admit
>that you judge a point on its philosophical implications

Ad hominem.

> rather than its
>content which makes you look like a fool.

Ad hominem.

>You have proven that you're not
>too bright

Ad hominem.

> which means I can ignore you from now on.

How are those for "something akin to an ad hominem," Robert?

Also, you seem to have missed the fact that the methods I was using on
Bill were supposed to be used in addition to standard methods; they
were not meant to replace them.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 08/31/2015 01:16 PM, Bill wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
>> news:kfh8uatob3vbep419...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 12:12:00 -1000, "D. Spencer Hines"
>>> <d_spenc...@america.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So did Einstein and Planck...
>>>
>>> "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
>>> convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not
>>> believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have
>>> expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called
>>> religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the
>>> world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein, 1954
>>>
>>
>> "[T]he fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the
>> weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle.
>> They are creatures who-in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of
>> the people'-cannot hear the music of the spheres."
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein
>
> Atheism is a declaration of certain knowledge about things atheists claim
> don't exist. It is a kind of smug arrogance telling people that they don't
> know what they know, that the atheists know more and have perfect
> understanding. In this newsgroup, the pretense is that they know science and
> the workings of nature while non-atheists wallow in a dark and murky
> ignorance.

We know the God portrayed in the contradictory renderings of Genesis is
both MPD (hardcore) and cannot exist given cosmology, geology,
evolutionary biology, and stuff. There are non-atheists (agnostics and
theistic evolutionists) who aren't as ignorant as creationists ;-)

> Most people, theist or not, will find this kind of thing too extreme, too
> irrational to have any value. Atheists claim that science supports their
> philosophy but that is just a natural consequence of limiting nature to what
> suits their dogma.

We do part ways with pragmatic methodological naturalism and run the
court as far as possible.

> Nature, apart from and free of any philosophical agenda,
> is supremely indifferent to what we think about it; it supports no
> philosophy, has no agenda and takes no sides.

Nature has no dog in the fight so to speak as it is devoid of
overarching intelligence, knowledge, values, or preferences though has
produced beings capable of such.

> What is especially annoying is that, by their measure, seeing the absurdity
> of atheism is only possible is you are a theist. They will then absolve
> themselves from making rational replies to whatever the non-atheist may
> propose. In this stunted alternate reality, if you are not an atheist or not
> persuaded by atheist arguments, you must be a raving theist who has nothing
> to offer. By this logic, atheism always wins.

Or if you are Ray Martinez anyone professing to be a Christian theist
not totally on board with his way of thinking is one of us. Are you one
of us?

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 08/30/2015 05:20 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
> You believe in God, don't you, Bill?

This thread was intended as a bit of a hit piece now wasn't it? Without
less cantankerous folks like Bill where would this group be? Folded into
some Civil War re-enactment group somewhere, perhaps?

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 18:14:13 -0400, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

We should probably Monitor that, although I Grant you it's
unlikely...

[Burkhard]

I'd general lee agree with you on this

[Earle Jones27]

*
Did you detect a "world view" in the postings of "Bill"?

If so, could you please give us a quick abstract – Thanks,

earle
*

[*Hemidactylus*]

I don't recall obligating myself to do such a thing. Can you produce a
notarized document where I did? Otherwise WTF did you ask?

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 22:02:09 -0400, the following appeared in

talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:

Now, now; be nice. He almost certainly asked because he
could detect no coherent worldview in Bill's posts (for that
matter, neither can I), and wondered if he was just missing
something profound. ;-)

[Burkhard]

Pretty bad, I'd say. The first five clearly aren't, the last is a bot
boderline and could be interpreted as an ad hom, but there are more
natural interpretations that render it just an inductive inference.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 11:21:11 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

Bill's worldview is that of a Christian design proponent; every now
and then in one of his posts he'll make an off-hand remark or
argument that seem to place him squarely in this category.

Then he has some other, more peripheral, posts that have nothing to
do with attacking evolution or the accompanying Design Creationism
nonsense, that are just simplistically idiosyncratic.

Bill is embarrassed about his worldview, or at least thinks in it's in
his best interests to keep people from talking about it; however,
Robert Camp says we're not supposed to needle him about these things
because that would constitute "ad hominems."

[Robert Camp]

Sorry, I didn't notice this until Burkhard responded to it.

As I suggested before, I have very little respect for Bill's
argumentation. But I also agree with Burkhard that most of the above,
while silly, and typical of Bill's strawman dominated style, does not
constitute ad hominem.

> Also, you seem to have missed the fact that the methods I was using on
> Bill were supposed to be used in addition to standard methods; they
> were not meant to replace them.

I don't recall you referencing other means of rebuttal and refutation,
but if I missed them I apologize. It seemed to me you were calling Bill
out for not admitting his theism, and then badgered him further as if
whatever flavor of theism he favored was important. It isn't.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 17:39:44 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com>:

>On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 11:21:11 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 22:02:09 -0400, the following appeared in
>>talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
>><ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
>>
>>>On 09/03/2015 09:25 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>>>> On 2015-09-02 22:14:13 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 08/30/2015 05:20 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>>>>> You believe in God, don't you, Bill?
>>>>>
>>>>> This thread was intended as a bit of a hit piece now wasn't it?
>>>>> Without less cantankerous folks like Bill where would this group be?
>>>>> Folded into some Civil War re-enactment group somewhere, perhaps?
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>> Did you detect a "world view" in the postings of "Bill"?
>>>>
>>>> If so, could you please give us a quick abstract – Thanks,
>>>
>>>I don't recall obligating myself to do such a thing. Can you produce a
>>>notarized document where I did? Otherwise WTF did you ask?
>>
>>Now, now; be nice. He almost certainly asked because he
>>could detect no coherent worldview in Bill's posts (for that
>>matter, neither can I), and wondered if he was just missing
>>something profound. ;-)
>
>Bill's worldview is that of a Christian design proponent; every now
>and then in one of his posts he'll make an off-hand remark or
>argument that seem to place him squarely in this category.

Could be, although I don't see any clear evidence.

>Then he has some other, more peripheral, posts that have nothing to
>do with attacking evolution or the accompanying Design Creationism
>nonsense, that are just simplistically idiosyncratic.
>
>Bill is embarrassed about his worldview, or at least thinks in it's in
>his best interests to keep people from talking about it; however,
>Robert Camp says we're not supposed to needle him about these things
>because that would constitute "ad hominems."

They'd be ad hominems if his personality or beliefs were
cited as evidence that his assertions are incorrect, but
that hasn't been the case in every instance I've seen. His
assertions have been refuted solely on their content and the
evidence contradicting that content. Of course, he either
ignores the contradictory evidence or invokes special
pleading of one sort or another (usually personal
definitions) to deny it, but that's a separate issue.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Sure man. If you're linkin' puns to interminable threads.

[James Beck]

Now you're just Stonewallin' him.

[Bill]

This kind of thing is a favorite dodge of dimwits, should I expect something
better? What I believe is rarely the substance of my posts yet, somehow,
becomes the primary focus. It may be that these posts are too difficult to
think about or maybe offend some dearly held biases or maybe they're
irrefutable. Since my posts seem to be beyond any rational dispute, the only
recourse is to discredit me. This has become part of my worldview.

Bill

[Bill]

I've asked for contradictory response to my posts but none have been
proposed. If such a refutations exists, please present it here.

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 2:27:54 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> Bob Casanova wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 22:02:09 -0400, the following appeared in
> > talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
> > <ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
> >
> >>On 09/03/2015 09:25 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
> >>> On 2015-09-02 22:14:13 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:
> >>>
> >>>> On 08/30/2015 05:20 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
> >>>>> You believe in God, don't you, Bill?
> >>>>
> >>>> This thread was intended as a bit of a hit piece now wasn't it?
> >>>> Without less cantankerous folks like Bill where would this group be?
> >>>> Folded into some Civil War re-enactment group somewhere, perhaps?
> >>>
> >>> *
> >>> Did you detect a "world view" in the postings of "Bill"?
> >>>

> >>> If so, could you please give us a quick abstract - Thanks,

> >>
> >>I don't recall obligating myself to do such a thing. Can you produce a
> >>notarized document where I did? Otherwise WTF did you ask?
> >
> > Now, now; be nice. He almost certainly asked because he
> > could detect no coherent worldview in Bill's posts (for that
> > matter, neither can I), and wondered if he was just missing
> > something profound. ;-)
>
> This kind of thing is a favorite dodge of dimwits, should I expect something
> better? What I believe is rarely the substance of my posts yet, somehow,
> becomes the primary focus. It may be that these posts are too difficult to
> think about or maybe offend some dearly held biases or maybe they're
> irrefutable. Since my posts seem to be beyond any rational dispute, the only
> recourse is to discredit me. This has become part of my worldview.
>
> Bill

When people respond directly to your arguments, you ignore the substance of their posts and claim that they are unable to see how good your arguments are because of their preferred worldview. When they turn around and ask you about your own preferred worldview, you complain that they are ignoring the substance of your posts. There's a certain symmetry there.

[Vincent Maycock]

On Mon, 07 Sep 2015 13:21:54 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 22:02:09 -0400, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
>> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
>>
>>>On 09/03/2015 09:25 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>>>> On 2015-09-02 22:14:13 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 08/30/2015 05:20 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>>>>> You believe in God, don't you, Bill?
>>>>>
>>>>> This thread was intended as a bit of a hit piece now wasn't it?
>>>>> Without less cantankerous folks like Bill where would this group be?
>>>>> Folded into some Civil War re-enactment group somewhere, perhaps?
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>> Did you detect a "world view" in the postings of "Bill"?
>>>>

>>>> If so, could you please give us a quick abstract ? Thanks,

>>>
>>>I don't recall obligating myself to do such a thing. Can you produce a
>>>notarized document where I did? Otherwise WTF did you ask?
>>
>> Now, now; be nice. He almost certainly asked because he
>> could detect no coherent worldview in Bill's posts (for that
>> matter, neither can I), and wondered if he was just missing
>> something profound. ;-)
>
>This kind of thing is a favorite dodge of dimwits, should I expect something
>better? What I believe is rarely the substance of my posts yet, somehow,
>becomes the primary focus. It may be that these posts are too difficult to
>think about

Nope.

> or maybe offend some dearly held biases

Nope.

>or maybe they're
>irrefutable.

Nope.

>Since my posts seem to be beyond any rational dispute,

They're highly irrational pieces of nonsense.

> the only
>recourse is to discredit me. This has become part of my worldview.

Okay, forget about what "discredits" you for now.

If you post Design-friendly ideas while trying to leave the impression
that you're not a theist, that would tend to strengthen the idea that
an unbiased individual is likely to believe in Intelligent Design.

So if you're avoiding religious questions in order to seem more
objective, maybe you should stop doing that.

[jillery]

Apparently, Bill's worldview is that anybody who disagrees with him,
and/or points out errors in his logic, is attacking him personally.

It's not exactly a profound worldview, but I suppose that's the most
he can handle.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Bill]

Maybe you could post something somewhat more informative than, "Nope". You
discredit yourself in your effort to discredit me. You might also explain
how you intuit that I am a theist and how that it is even relevant to
anything I've posted. Or, more likely, you could pretend that you have
something to back up your remarks without actually backing them up.

Bill

[Bill]

I probably do all that but there is a kind of predictable development in the
threads I participate in. I rarely offer anything as fact but rather,
talking points, ideas I find interesting. I seldom assert anything but talk
instead about how this or that might be understood. My posts are not
intended to establish my opinions as fact but to have a conversation.

A typical response is that I have some agenda or am motivated by some
unstated purpose; my posts are dismissed without review. Since, I am told, I
have some secret reason hiding between the lines, what I actually say
doesn't matter. I have come to believe that this newsgroups is populated by
morons and dishonest dissemblers who have no interest in open discussion. I
keep trying though so I must be partly at fault.

Bill

[jillery]

And from your quoted text above:

"Since my posts seem to be beyond any rational dispute, the only
recourse is to discredit me"

How do you regard either of the above as part of an intelligent
discussion of ideas?

[Bill Rogers]

Sure, a typical response is that you have some agenda. But that's exactly your response to everybody here, too. You tell everyone that they are motivated by some agenda to avoid some implications of your arguments. You consistently do exactly what you accuse everyone else of doing. And you eliminate the usefulness of evidence and argument by claiming that everybody simply interprets evidence in the light of whatever theoretical agenda they have. Well, you are part of everybody, so if nobody looks at evidence or arguments except in the light of what they want to believe is true, then there's really no point in discussing anything. The faults you ascribe to everybody else are your faults, too.

[Bill]

You're right, I can't claim any moral superiority. But was there no
provocation? What I recall of the various exchanges is that I proposed
something and the proposal wasn't addressed. Rather than genuine rebuttal,
something worth thinking about, my points have been labeled as evidence of
something else. I have taken some care in making my remarks clear and
complete yet they are dismissed with dismissive characterizations.

This thread exists to talk about me instead of what I've said, the title
says it all. If my posts are as flawed as people claim, why bother even
replying to them? What's even more frustrating is that everything I've said
follows the scientific worldview more closely than those who object to my
posts.

For example, I based a view of reality derived from the implications of
quantum physics. I said nothing that contradicts what has been proposed by
quantum physics. I merely acknowledged what can be inferred from that view
and how it shows the insufficiency of philosophical materialism. I brought
it up in the first place because others had been basing their views on the
belief that everything is wholly material, entirely physical and fully
explained in that context.

Because I questioned a materialistic worldview, the discussions veered off
into speculations about me and why I interpreted nature in a non-standard
way. My intent, originally, was to discuss something I find interesting. I
let myself be sidetracked into pointless meanders that have become tiresome
and boring.

I have asked for meaningful rebuttal in every post and there have been none.

Bill

[jillery]

To turn your own question back on yourself, if other people's posts
are as flawed as you claim, why bother even replying?

[Vincent Maycock]

Do you have any evidence that just these "nopes" don't suffice?

> You
>discredit yourself in your effort to discredit me.

What would you consider being "discredited"?

>You might also explain
>how you intuit that I am a theist

Well, we start with some statements you make (in another one of your
recent posts, for example, you said you questioned a materialistic
worldview, which is exactly the way a theist would think); and then we
add to that the fact that you refuse to say whether or not you're a
theist, which would make sense if you were a theist hoping people
would assume you were not a theist -- in order to make your points
seem more forceful.

What's your explanation for why you won't say whether you're a theist
or not?

>and how that it is even relevant to
>anything I've posted. Or, more likely, you could pretend that you have
>something to back up your remarks without actually backing them up.

How would I provide support for the idea that your posts are not "too
difficult to think about," for example?

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 07 Sep 2015 13:21:54 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 22:02:09 -0400, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
>> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
>>
>>>On 09/03/2015 09:25 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>>>> On 2015-09-02 22:14:13 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 08/30/2015 05:20 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>>>>> You believe in God, don't you, Bill?
>>>>>
>>>>> This thread was intended as a bit of a hit piece now wasn't it?
>>>>> Without less cantankerous folks like Bill where would this group be?
>>>>> Folded into some Civil War re-enactment group somewhere, perhaps?
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>> Did you detect a "world view" in the postings of "Bill"?
>>>>

>>>> If so, could you please give us a quick abstract ? Thanks,

>>>
>>>I don't recall obligating myself to do such a thing. Can you produce a
>>>notarized document where I did? Otherwise WTF did you ask?
>>
>> Now, now; be nice. He almost certainly asked because he
>> could detect no coherent worldview in Bill's posts (for that
>> matter, neither can I), and wondered if he was just missing
>> something profound. ;-)
>
>This kind of thing is a favorite dodge of dimwits, should I expect something
>better? What I believe is rarely the substance of my posts yet, somehow,
>becomes the primary focus. It may be that these posts are too difficult to
>think about or maybe offend some dearly held biases or maybe they're
>irrefutable. Since my posts seem to be beyond any rational dispute, the only
>recourse is to discredit me. This has become part of my worldview.

Now, for extra points, state exactly what in the above
exchange supports your claim that "What I believe is rarely

the substance of my posts yet, somehow, becomes the primary

focus". All I see is statements that your worldview is a bit
opaque, not that it's used as argument against your
assertions; those have been quite thoroughly refuted with
facts.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 07 Sep 2015 13:24:12 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 17:39:44 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Vincent Maycock <vam...@aol.com>:
>>
>>>On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 11:21:11 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 22:02:09 -0400, the following appeared in
>>>>talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
>>>><ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
>>>>
>>>>>On 09/03/2015 09:25 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>>>>>> On 2015-09-02 22:14:13 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 08/30/2015 05:20 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>>>>>>> You believe in God, don't you, Bill?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This thread was intended as a bit of a hit piece now wasn't it?
>>>>>>> Without less cantankerous folks like Bill where would this group be?
>>>>>>> Folded into some Civil War re-enactment group somewhere, perhaps?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> Did you detect a "world view" in the postings of "Bill"?
>>>>>>

>>>>>> If so, could you please give us a quick abstract ? Thanks,

Denial is not a river in Egypt.

> If such a refutations exists, please present it here.

Every thread in which you've participated in which common
terms, understood by nearly everyone ("unique" and
"habitable zone" come to mind) but used by you in a (dare I
say it?) *unique* manner, has contained multiple examples.
Google is Your Friend; use "Bill" and either of the terms
noted as search filters.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 07 Sep 2015 17:54:09 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

As a response to a rhetorical question, what else is
required?

"Are my posts too difficult to think about?" "No"

"Do my posts offend some deeply-held bias?" "No"

"Are my posts irrefutable?" "No" (with the understanding
that many, if not most, have been refuted)

"Are my posts beyond rational dispute?" "The assertions in
your posts are not rational."

Seems pretty clear to me (although the last could benefit
from a couple of examples, which Vince should be able to
find).

> You
>discredit yourself in your effort to discredit me. You might also explain
>how you intuit that I am a theist and how that it is even relevant to
>anything I've posted.

You mean beyond the fact that ID is thinly-disguised
religious belief, with no actual evidence in support, and
that religious beliefs are relevant to claims about reality?

> Or, more likely, you could pretend that you have
>something to back up your remarks without actually backing them up.

Been done, multiple times by multiple people. You ignore
them, or simply re-state your assertions as if they're
somehow obviously correct. And *then* ignore the responses
which point this out.

[Bill]

What is the title of this thread?

Bill

[Robert Camp]

On 9/7/15 12:03 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Sep 2015 13:21:54 -0500, Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 22:02:09 -0400, the following appeared in
>>> talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
>>> <ecph...@allspamis.invalid>:
>>>
>>>> On 09/03/2015 09:25 PM, Earle Jones27 wrote:
>>>>> On 2015-09-02 22:14:13 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 08/30/2015 05:20 PM, Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>>>>>> You believe in God, don't you, Bill?

<snip>

>> the only
>> recourse is to discredit me. This has become part of my worldview.
>
> Okay, forget about what "discredits" you for now.
>
> If you post Design-friendly ideas while trying to leave the impression
> that you're not a theist, that would tend to strengthen the idea that
> an unbiased individual is likely to believe in Intelligent Design.

This, I think, is a valid point. One that I had not considered. It
doesn't justify an ad hom. attack on an individual's theism, but it
*does* offer a rationale whereby someone's personal philosophy becomes
relevant to the conversation (if in an ancillary way).

[Bill]

Explain to me how one's worldview in general discredits one's understanding
of the particular things of the world. One could be, and probably is,
mistaken about the general characteristics and yet be correct in
interpretations of some of those characteristics. Or, put another way, any
reference to anyone's personal beliefs are almost always irrelevant. Ad
hominems are always fallacious.

The points I've made stand alone and require no philosophical support. My
points have been clear and direct and logically valid. For instance, it is a
rational and logical consequence of observation to infer that the existence
of intelligent observers imparts intelligent observation to the universe; we
are the universe observing itself. This has not been addressed.

Another example is that, through quantum physics, one can infer that the
reality we observe is an illusion, like the images we see on a computer
display or a TV screen. We view an average of many individual picture
elements and that average is our reality.

This illusion persists all the way to the smallest possible level of
existence. Following quantum physics, it is impossible to observe the most
basic constituents of reality which can be reasonably inferred as meaning
reality itself, at any level is illusion.

There is no need to invoke religion or deities to infer that our existence
as intelligent observers is a special case. We are within the universe, we
are part of it and we participate in it; we cannot see it objectively. This
is a natural and valid extrapolation from science and at no point
contradicts or minimizes science. There is no inherent religious content
though there may be religious implications.

What has happened is that posters here see only the possible religious
implications and immediately reject the science that it emerges from. If
this is not the case then where are the specific rebuttals to the specific
issues I've raised?

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 4:07:52 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:

> >> So if you're avoiding religious questions in order to seem more
> >> objective, maybe you should stop doing that.
> >>
>
> Explain to me how one's worldview in general discredits one's understanding
> of the particular things of the world. One could be, and probably is,
> mistaken about the general characteristics and yet be correct in
> interpretations of some of those characteristics. Or, put another way, any
> reference to anyone's personal beliefs are almost always irrelevant. Ad
> hominems are always fallacious.
>
> The points I've made stand alone and require no philosophical support. My
> points have been clear and direct and logically valid. For instance, it is a
> rational and logical consequence of observation to infer that the existence
> of intelligent observers imparts intelligent observation to the universe; we
> are the universe observing itself. This has not been addressed.

Of course it has been addressed. I and several others have pointed out that if by "the universe is conscious" you mean "something within the universe is conscious," then your point is trivially true. But it is no more true than the claim that the universe is mammalian because it contains mammals, or elastic because it contains rubber bands.

>
> Another example is that, through quantum physics, one can infer that the
> reality we observe is an illusion, like the images we see on a computer
> display or a TV screen. We view an average of many individual picture
> elements and that average is our reality.
>
> This illusion persists all the way to the smallest possible level of
> existence. Following quantum physics, it is impossible to observe the most
> basic constituents of reality which can be reasonably inferred as meaning
> reality itself, at any level is illusion.

That, too, has been addressed. It has been pointed out to you that for all our understanding of the quantum world is based upon illusions, nevertheless, those illusions allow us to predict quantitatively the results of experiments to within one part in 10^8. It seems pretty unlikely that that sort of experimental success could occur if the "illusion," bore no relationship to reality. This is a old and familiar issue in philosophy of science - and not even the anti-realist camp goes for the degree of epistemological nihilism that you do.

>
> There is no need to invoke religion or deities to infer that our existence
> as intelligent observers is a special case. We are within the universe, we
> are part of it and we participate in it; we cannot see it objectively. This
> is a natural and valid extrapolation from science and at no point
> contradicts or minimizes science. There is no inherent religious content
> though there may be religious implications.

Here your argument is weaker. In what sense are we as intelligent observers a special case? If you mean that there are no other intelligent observers, then that conclusion is premature. But that hardly matters, does it? The widespread existence of intelligent observer would not affect the argument you make about intelligent observers making the universe conscious and participating in it.

>
> What has happened is that posters here see only the possible religious
> implications and immediately reject the science that it emerges from.

What religious implications? You've previously said that you had no religious agenda, and I take you at your word. The implications of your argument are delightful. What could be more gratifying than knowing that you were the point of the whole magnificent universe and that your consciousness elevated and gave self-awareness to the universe? It's hard to imagine an implication more comforting and gratifying to the ego. So if people reject your arguments it is far more likely that they do so because your arguments are weak; the implications of your argument are entirely pleasant.

>If
> this is not the case then where are the specific rebuttals to the specific
> issues I've raised?

The specific rebuttals are scattered throughout your previous threads, and summarized above. You ignore those rebuttals and say that they are simply based on on attachment to some favored world view on our part. That is the context in which Vincent asked about *your* world view. You've made the argument repeatedly that we just cannot see the good sense of your arguments because of our attachment to our preferred world views. In that context, once you've brought world views into the discussion, it's entirely reasonable to ask about your world view, on the off chance that it might be warping your ability to see the good sense in the rebuttals given to your arguments.

>
> Bill

[Robert Camp]

By definition, yes. Which was why I took pains to distinguish the part I
took to be relevant from simple ad hom. Did you bother to read what
you're responding to?

Vince's point is worth considering: if every, e.g., ID, proponent kept
secret his/her religious beliefs it would give a false impression of the
kind of support the "theory" has in the intellectual community. That may
be irrelevant to a methodological discussion of ID (I actually don't
believe that ID argumentation is obligately linked to religion), but it
is quite relevant to discourse regarding the rhetorical arguments and
p.r. campaigns advanced by the ID crowd. This is why it was a legitimate
tactic to expose the religious affiliations shared by virtually *all* ID
"theorists."

In any case, this is just an example that may not have much relevance to
your specific beef with Vince.

> The points I've made stand alone and require no philosophical support. My
> points have been clear and direct and logically valid. For instance, it is a
> rational and logical consequence of observation to infer that the existence
> of intelligent observers imparts intelligent observation to the universe; we
> are the universe observing itself. This has not been addressed.

The frequency with which you say stuff like this stands in contrast to
your insistence that all you're doing is throwing out ideas and looking
for conversation. The fact that you continually dismiss most, if not
all, of the relevant, substantive comments you receive suggests you're
looking for validation, not conversation.

> Another example is that, through quantum physics, one can infer that the
> reality we observe is an illusion, like the images we see on a computer
> display or a TV screen. We view an average of many individual picture
> elements and that average is our reality.
>
> This illusion persists all the way to the smallest possible level of
> existence. Following quantum physics, it is impossible to observe the most
> basic constituents of reality which can be reasonably inferred as meaning
> reality itself, at any level is illusion.
>
> There is no need to invoke religion or deities to infer that our existence
> as intelligent observers is a special case. We are within the universe, we
> are part of it and we participate in it; we cannot see it objectively. This
> is a natural and valid extrapolation from science and at no point
> contradicts or minimizes science. There is no inherent religious content
> though there may be religious implications.
>
> What has happened is that posters here see only the possible religious
> implications and immediately reject the science that it emerges from.

No, that is not what has happened. That is the broad brush with which
you wish to paint the overall reaction you receive, when in fact it is
quite a small number of individuals who act that way.

> If this is not the case then where are the specific rebuttals to the specific
> issues I've raised?

You don't raise specific issues. You dance around the periphery of
possible new-agey perspectives so as to maintain plausible deniability
when directly confronted.

[Bill]

Robert Camp wrote:

...

>
> Vince's point is worth considering: if every, e.g., ID, proponent kept
> secret his/her religious beliefs it would give a false impression of the
> kind of support the "theory" has in the intellectual community. That may
> be irrelevant to a methodological discussion of ID (I actually don't
> believe that ID argumentation is obligately linked to religion), but it
> is quite relevant to discourse regarding the rhetorical arguments and
> p.r. campaigns advanced by the ID crowd. This is why it was a legitimate
> tactic to expose the religious affiliations shared by virtually *all* ID
> "theorists."
>
> In any case, this is just an example that may not have much relevance to
> your specific beef with Vince.

In the first place, this entire thread has the express purpose of
discrediting my posts. It started with one of the least perceptive posters,
asking, "You believe in God, don't you, Bill?" which made the entire thread
an ad homenim from the beginning. All that has followed is in the same vein.

Secondly, a person can have perfect correct views and still have perfectly
incorrect views; it's basic to human thought. It does not matter in the
least what a person believes if their opinions touch on valid points worthy
of discussion. An honest person can lie and liar can tell the truth, we
don't know until we listen to them.

>
>> The points I've made stand alone and require no philosophical support. My
>> points have been clear and direct and logically valid. For instance, it
>> is a rational and logical consequence of observation to infer that the
>> existence of intelligent observers imparts intelligent observation to the
>> universe; we are the universe observing itself. This has not been
>> addressed.
>
> The frequency with which you say stuff like this stands in contrast to
> your insistence that all you're doing is throwing out ideas and looking
> for conversation. The fact that you continually dismiss most, if not
> all, of the relevant, substantive comments you receive suggests you're
> looking for validation, not conversation.

Maybe you can provide one of these relevant, substantive comments that have
addressed my points. What I see are variations of the original post above.

>
>> Another example is that, through quantum physics, one can infer that the
>> reality we observe is an illusion, like the images we see on a computer
>> display or a TV screen. We view an average of many individual picture
>> elements and that average is our reality.
>>
>> This illusion persists all the way to the smallest possible level of
>> existence. Following quantum physics, it is impossible to observe the
>> most basic constituents of reality which can be reasonably inferred as
>> meaning reality itself, at any level is illusion.
>>
>> There is no need to invoke religion or deities to infer that our
>> existence as intelligent observers is a special case. We are within the
>> universe, we are part of it and we participate in it; we cannot see it
>> objectively. This is a natural and valid extrapolation from science and
>> at no point contradicts or minimizes science. There is no inherent
>> religious content though there may be religious implications.

>>relevant, substantive comments

>> What has happened is that posters here see only the possible religious
>> implications and immediately reject the science that it emerges from.
>
> No, that is not what has happened. That is the broad brush with which
> you wish to paint the overall reaction you receive, when in fact it is
> quite a small number of individuals who act that way.

Why is it that this small number of individuals seem to dominate these
discussions?

>
>> If this is not the case then where are the specific rebuttals to the
>> specific issues I've raised?
>
> You don't raise specific issues. You dance around the periphery of
> possible new-agey perspectives so as to maintain plausible deniability
> when directly confronted.

I offered a brief summary of some the points I've raised above. You did not
reply to any one of them. These were specific issues. Your response is,
again, an ad homenim. By characterizing these specific issues as new-agey,
you immediately dismiss them with no explanation and then excuse yourself
because you believe they are new-agey. You see only the implications and
ignore the substance and then claim there is no substance. How would you
know, you never even considered the specific issues in the first place.

So, the dodges and fallacies and empty labels continue as the default
thought avoidance strategy by which posters exempt themselves from thinking
about the implications of science. It is massively ironic that these same
people pose as defenders of science. Keep up the good work, there are some
who will agree with you.

Bill

[Bill]

Bill Rogers wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 4:07:52 PM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
>
>> >> So if you're avoiding religious questions in order to seem more
>> >> objective, maybe you should stop doing that.
>> >>
>>
>> Explain to me how one's worldview in general discredits one's
>> understanding of the particular things of the world. One could be, and
>> probably is, mistaken about the general characteristics and yet be
>> correct in interpretations of some of those characteristics. Or, put
>> another way, any reference to anyone's personal beliefs are almost always
>> irrelevant. Ad hominems are always fallacious.
>>
>> The points I've made stand alone and require no philosophical support. My
>> points have been clear and direct and logically valid. For instance, it
>> is a rational and logical consequence of observation to infer that the
>> existence of intelligent observers imparts intelligent observation to the
>> universe; we are the universe observing itself. This has not been
>> addressed.
>
> Of course it has been addressed. I and several others have pointed out
> that if by "the universe is conscious" you mean "something within the
> universe is conscious," then your point is trivially true. But it is no
> more true than the claim that the universe is mammalian because it
> contains mammals, or elastic because it contains rubber bands.

I see a sophomoric dodge. There is no "within" the universe which may be why
it's called the universe. Whatever exists in the universe is an integral
part of the universe and not some independent abstraction. There are
intelligent observers so the universe intelligently observes - itself.

Since intelligent observation is not a solely physical phenomenon, like
mammals for instance, it can't be reduced to a solely physical phenomenon.
It is a characteristic that the universe has acquired from it's physical
constitution that grants it something new.

>
>>
>> Another example is that, through quantum physics, one can infer that the
>> reality we observe is an illusion, like the images we see on a computer
>> display or a TV screen. We view an average of many individual picture
>> elements and that average is our reality.
>>
>> This illusion persists all the way to the smallest possible level of
>> existence. Following quantum physics, it is impossible to observe the
>> most basic constituents of reality which can be reasonably inferred as
>> meaning reality itself, at any level is illusion.
>
> That, too, has been addressed. It has been pointed out to you that for all
> our understanding of the quantum world is based upon illusions,
> nevertheless, those illusions allow us to predict quantitatively the
> results of experiments to within one part in 10^8. It seems pretty
> unlikely that that sort of experimental success could occur if the
> "illusion," bore no relationship to reality. This is a old and familiar
> issue in philosophy of science - and not even the anti-realist camp goes
> for the degree of epistemological nihilism that you do.

I do not deny that knowledge exists, what I question is the confident
assertion that what we know is universally applicable. We experience the
macro scale of existence and forget that it due to our existence at the
macro scale that makes it appear real. Through the science we know that
there are many scales of existence, most of which are invisible to the
others. People here claim, at least by implication, that the scale of
existence we experience is the really real scale, the one that matters.

>
>>
>> There is no need to invoke religion or deities to infer that our
>> existence as intelligent observers is a special case. We are within the
>> universe, we are part of it and we participate in it; we cannot see it
>> objectively. This is a natural and valid extrapolation from science and
>> at no point contradicts or minimizes science. There is no inherent
>> religious content though there may be religious implications.
>
> Here your argument is weaker. In what sense are we as intelligent
> observers a special case? If you mean that there are no other intelligent
> observers, then that conclusion is premature. But that hardly matters,
> does it? The widespread existence of intelligent observer would not affect
> the argument you make about intelligent observers making the universe
> conscious and participating in it.

Intelligent observation cannot be reduced to some magical chemical process.
Intelligent observation is something in addition to the physical entity
experiencing it. Intelligent observation is something the universe developed
and now posses as a fundamental attribute in the same way it possesses
gravity or electric charge. We cannot excise intelligent observation from
the universe and study it independently from its environment.

>>
>> What has happened is that posters here see only the possible religious
>> implications and immediately reject the science that it emerges from.
>
> What religious implications? You've previously said that you had no
> religious agenda, and I take you at your word. The implications of your
> argument are delightful. What could be more gratifying than knowing that
> you were the point of the whole magnificent universe and that your
> consciousness elevated and gave self-awareness to the universe? It's hard
> to imagine an implication more comforting and gratifying to the ego. So if
> people reject your arguments it is far more likely that they do so because
> your arguments are weak; the implications of your argument are entirely
> pleasant.

We'll never know since no one has addressed it. What is substituted is
comments like yours that there is no substance without saying why or in what
way. I am not the one invoking religion since it is only a possible
implication and not the main point. The argument is not weak until it is
shown why it is not strong.

>
>>If
>> this is not the case then where are the specific rebuttals to the
>> specific issues I've raised?
>
> The specific rebuttals are scattered throughout your previous threads, and
> summarized above. You ignore those rebuttals and say that they are simply
> based on on attachment to some favored world view on our part. That is the
> context in which Vincent asked about *your* world view. You've made the
> argument repeatedly that we just cannot see the good sense of your
> arguments because of our attachment to our preferred world views. In that
> context, once you've brought world views into the discussion, it's
> entirely reasonable to ask about your world view, on the off chance that
> it might be warping your ability to see the good sense in the rebuttals
> given to your arguments.
>
>>
>> Bill

As you've just demonstrated, the issues raised are only characterized and
dismissed based on the characterization. These issues have been called woo
and new-agey without any explanation. It makes discussion impossible.

Bill

[Robert Camp]

On 9/8/15 2:23 PM, Bill wrote:
> Robert Camp wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>
>> Vince's point is worth considering: if every, e.g., ID, proponent kept
>> secret his/her religious beliefs it would give a false impression of the
>> kind of support the "theory" has in the intellectual community. That may
>> be irrelevant to a methodological discussion of ID (I actually don't
>> believe that ID argumentation is obligately linked to religion), but it
>> is quite relevant to discourse regarding the rhetorical arguments and
>> p.r. campaigns advanced by the ID crowd. This is why it was a legitimate
>> tactic to expose the religious affiliations shared by virtually *all* ID
>> "theorists."
>>
>> In any case, this is just an example that may not have much relevance to
>> your specific beef with Vince.
>
> In the first place, this entire thread has the express purpose of
> discrediting my posts. It started with one of the least perceptive posters,
> asking, "You believe in God, don't you, Bill?" which made the entire thread
> an ad homenim from the beginning. All that has followed is in the same vein.

I'm sorry, but that is just nonsense. Yes, the thread started that way,
yes much of the thread has continued that theme, but no, the "express
purpose" of the "entire thread" has not been to discredit your posts.
And not "all that has followed" has been in the same vein.

> Secondly, a person can have perfect correct views and still have perfectly
> incorrect views; it's basic to human thought. It does not matter in the
> least what a person believes if their opinions touch on valid points worthy
> of discussion. An honest person can lie and liar can tell the truth, we
> don't know until we listen to them.

I'm guessing that's supposed to be relevant to something I said, but I
have to ask again, did you read that to which you're responding?

>>> The points I've made stand alone and require no philosophical support. My
>>> points have been clear and direct and logically valid. For instance, it
>>> is a rational and logical consequence of observation to infer that the
>>> existence of intelligent observers imparts intelligent observation to the
>>> universe; we are the universe observing itself. This has not been
>>> addressed.
>>
>> The frequency with which you say stuff like this stands in contrast to
>> your insistence that all you're doing is throwing out ideas and looking
>> for conversation. The fact that you continually dismiss most, if not
>> all, of the relevant, substantive comments you receive suggests you're
>> looking for validation, not conversation.
>
> Maybe you can provide one of these relevant, substantive comments that have
> addressed my points. What I see are variations of the original post above.

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? What you "see" is so often quite
different from what is there. What can I say but that you just don't
"see" very well?

>>> Another example is that, through quantum physics, one can infer that the
>>> reality we observe is an illusion, like the images we see on a computer
>>> display or a TV screen. We view an average of many individual picture
>>> elements and that average is our reality.
>>>
>>> This illusion persists all the way to the smallest possible level of
>>> existence. Following quantum physics, it is impossible to observe the
>>> most basic constituents of reality which can be reasonably inferred as
>>> meaning reality itself, at any level is illusion.
>>>
>>> There is no need to invoke religion or deities to infer that our
>>> existence as intelligent observers is a special case. We are within the
>>> universe, we are part of it and we participate in it; we cannot see it
>>> objectively. This is a natural and valid extrapolation from science and
>>> at no point contradicts or minimizes science. There is no inherent
>>> religious content though there may be religious implications.
>>> relevant, substantive comments
>>> What has happened is that posters here see only the possible religious
>>> implications and immediately reject the science that it emerges from.
>>
>> No, that is not what has happened. That is the broad brush with which
>> you wish to paint the overall reaction you receive, when in fact it is
>> quite a small number of individuals who act that way.
>
> Why is it that this small number of individuals seem to dominate these
> discussions?

They really don't. This gets back to you seeing what is going on through
a really distorted lens.

>>> If this is not the case then where are the specific rebuttals to the
>>> specific issues I've raised?
>>
>> You don't raise specific issues. You dance around the periphery of
>> possible new-agey perspectives so as to maintain plausible deniability
>> when directly confronted.
>
> I offered a brief summary of some the points I've raised above. You did not
> reply to any one of them.

None of them were relevant to the issues under discussion (your original
reply to my remarks about Vince's post), and I had no desire to head
back down the rabbit hole with you.

This is yet another of your tactics when confronted, you change the
subject. Had you not done so; had you commented only on the subject of
my response to Vince without digressing into your long list of
grievances, I probably would have had very little else to say, and you
would have had far less vexation over your terribly unfair treatment.

> These were specific issues. Your response is,
> again, an ad homenim.

Yes, it was a direct comment on the way you think. No, it wasn't ad hom.
because I wasn't dismissing any particular comment or position of yours
based upon irrelevant personal beliefs. I was addressing the general
tenor of *all* of your remarks in direct reply to a question you asked.

> By characterizing these specific issues as new-agey,
> you immediately dismiss them with no explanation and then excuse yourself
> because you believe they are new-agey. You see only the implications and
> ignore the substance and then claim there is no substance. How would you
> know, you never even considered the specific issues in the first place.

I've considered and discussed your issues previously, and saw no
indication that my, or anyone elses, perspectives were of any interest
to you. The issues you've raised are not particularly new or profound.
We've all visited those places, and most of us left because there wasn't
any "there" there.

> So, the dodges and fallacies and empty labels continue as the default
> thought avoidance strategy by which posters exempt themselves from thinking
> about the implications of science. It is massively ironic that these same
> people pose as defenders of science. Keep up the good work, there are some
> who will agree with you.

Good lord, do you ever stop whining?

[Bill Rogers]

That intelligent observation is not a solely physical phenomenon is a world view to which you seem to have a prior commitment. No problem; just remember that you cannot complain if others do not share your commitment to that view.

> It is a characteristic that the universe has acquired from it's physical
> constitution that grants it something new.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> Another example is that, through quantum physics, one can infer that the
> >> reality we observe is an illusion, like the images we see on a computer
> >> display or a TV screen. We view an average of many individual picture
> >> elements and that average is our reality.
> >>
> >> This illusion persists all the way to the smallest possible level of
> >> existence. Following quantum physics, it is impossible to observe the
> >> most basic constituents of reality which can be reasonably inferred as
> >> meaning reality itself, at any level is illusion.
> >
> > That, too, has been addressed. It has been pointed out to you that for all
> > our understanding of the quantum world is based upon illusions,
> > nevertheless, those illusions allow us to predict quantitatively the
> > results of experiments to within one part in 10^8. It seems pretty
> > unlikely that that sort of experimental success could occur if the
> > "illusion," bore no relationship to reality. This is a old and familiar
> > issue in philosophy of science - and not even the anti-realist camp goes
> > for the degree of epistemological nihilism that you do.
>
> I do not deny that knowledge exists, what I question is the confident
> assertion that what we know is universally applicable.

Well, if you could give an example of any poster here making the confident assertion that what we know is universally applicable then I might think you were at least reacting to a position which someone held.

>We experience the
> macro scale of existence and forget that it due to our existence at the
> macro scale that makes it appear real. Through the science we know that
> there are many scales of existence, most of which are invisible to the
> others. People here claim, at least by implication, that the scale of
> existence we experience is the really real scale, the one that matters.

Funny, but nobody here seems to imply anything of the sort. It's hard to call this even a straw man, it's so far from anything anyone has actually said to you.

>
> >
> >>
> >> There is no need to invoke religion or deities to infer that our
> >> existence as intelligent observers is a special case. We are within the
> >> universe, we are part of it and we participate in it; we cannot see it
> >> objectively. This is a natural and valid extrapolation from science and
> >> at no point contradicts or minimizes science. There is no inherent
> >> religious content though there may be religious implications.
> >
> > Here your argument is weaker. In what sense are we as intelligent
> > observers a special case? If you mean that there are no other intelligent
> > observers, then that conclusion is premature. But that hardly matters,
> > does it? The widespread existence of intelligent observer would not affect
> > the argument you make about intelligent observers making the universe
> > conscious and participating in it.
>
> Intelligent observation cannot be reduced to some magical chemical process.
> Intelligent observation is something in addition to the physical entity
> experiencing it. Intelligent observation is something the universe developed
> and now posses as a fundamental attribute in the same way it possesses
> gravity or electric charge. We cannot excise intelligent observation from
> the universe and study it independently from its environment.

Sure, I get it. You reject physicalism. That rejection is part of your preferred world view and colors your response to all arguments that appear here.

>
> >>
> >> What has happened is that posters here see only the possible religious
> >> implications and immediately reject the science that it emerges from.
> >
> > What religious implications? You've previously said that you had no
> > religious agenda, and I take you at your word. The implications of your
> > argument are delightful. What could be more gratifying than knowing that
> > you were the point of the whole magnificent universe and that your
> > consciousness elevated and gave self-awareness to the universe? It's hard
> > to imagine an implication more comforting and gratifying to the ego. So if
> > people reject your arguments it is far more likely that they do so because
> > your arguments are weak; the implications of your argument are entirely
> > pleasant.
>
> We'll never know since no one has addressed it. What is substituted is
> comments like yours that there is no substance without saying why or in what
> way. I am not the one invoking religion since it is only a possible
> implication and not the main point. The argument is not weak until it is
> shown why it is not strong.

The point is that nobody would reject your argument simply because they did not like the implications. The implications of your argument are entirely pleasant and agreeable.

>
> >
> >>If
> >> this is not the case then where are the specific rebuttals to the
> >> specific issues I've raised?
> >
> > The specific rebuttals are scattered throughout your previous threads, and
> > summarized above. You ignore those rebuttals and say that they are simply
> > based on on attachment to some favored world view on our part. That is the
> > context in which Vincent asked about *your* world view. You've made the
> > argument repeatedly that we just cannot see the good sense of your
> > arguments because of our attachment to our preferred world views. In that
> > context, once you've brought world views into the discussion, it's
> > entirely reasonable to ask about your world view, on the off chance that
> > it might be warping your ability to see the good sense in the rebuttals
> > given to your arguments.
> >
> >>
> >> Bill
>
> As you've just demonstrated, the issues raised are only characterized and
> dismissed based on the characterization. These issues have been called woo
> and new-agey without any explanation. It makes discussion impossible.

What makes discussion impossible is your unwillingness to make a specific argument. You do just run on in a flood of woo/new-ageism/epistemological nihilism.

So go ahead and make an explicit argument against physicalism. You simply claimed above that "Intelligent observation cannot be reduced to some magical chemical process. Intelligent observation is something in addition to the physical entity experiencing it." Go ahead an explain why you think there is something beyond the physical in consciousness. You've never made any argument to support the assertion, you've only repeated the assertion and the claim that we reject it due to a philosophical bias against religion. [I swear, I have no such bias. I would be delighted to find that theism in general or Christianity specifically were true.]

In the meanwhile, I'll give you my arguments as to why consciousness is simply physical.

1. All the things we know are conscious have brains.
2. If you destroy the brain, the thing that was conscious becomes unconscious.
3. If you alter the brain, by stroke, infection fever, trauma, or chemicals, consciousness changes.
4. Electric stimulation of regions of the brain during surgery for intractable epilepsy produces specific memories, thoughts, emotions, and movements.
5. When you examine the behavior of the components of the brain, you observe no physical laws being violated.
6. When you observe animals of increasing neural complexity, consciousness becomes more obvious as the complexity increases (in a general way, without giving too precise a definition of neural complexity).

1,2, and 6 all suggest that a physical substrate is necessary for consciousness. 3 and 4 suggest that the specific conscious state depends on what is physically happening in the brain. 5 suggests that consciousness does not involve something more than physical interfering with the normal course of physical interactions among physical components of the brain.

If you want to argue that consciousness simply does not feel like something physical, on the basis of direct experience or introspection, then you also need to remember all the arguments you have made as to why we should not trust our macroscopic perceptions of what the world is like. And you should not think of matter in a 19th century way as little mechanical balls flying round in the void.

>
> Bill

[Bill]

Robert Camp wrote:

> On 9/8/15 2:23 PM, Bill wrote:
>> Robert Camp wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> Vince's point is worth considering: if every, e.g., ID, proponent kept
>>> secret his/her religious beliefs it would give a false impression of the
>>> kind of support the "theory" has in the intellectual community. That may
>>> be irrelevant to a methodological discussion of ID (I actually don't
>>> believe that ID argumentation is obligately linked to religion), but it
>>> is quite relevant to discourse regarding the rhetorical arguments and
>>> p.r. campaigns advanced by the ID crowd. This is why it was a legitimate
>>> tactic to expose the religious affiliations shared by virtually *all* ID
>>> "theorists."
>>>
>>> In any case, this is just an example that may not have much relevance to
>>> your specific beef with Vince.
>>
>> In the first place, this entire thread has the express purpose of
>> discrediting my posts. It started with one of the least perceptive
>> posters, asking, "You believe in God, don't you, Bill?" which made the
>> entire thread an ad homenim from the beginning. All that has followed is
>> in the same vein.
>
> I'm sorry, but that is just nonsense. Yes, the thread started that way,
> yes much of the thread has continued that theme, but no, the "express
> purpose" of the "entire thread" has not been to discredit your posts.
> And not "all that has followed" has been in the same vein.

Your post here, this one right here, follows the same the pattern as all the
others. The part you seem to be referring to is about ID which has nothing
whatsoever to do with anything I've said yet my remarks are tossed into the
same category. In what way do my posts in any way relate to any religious
point of view?

...

>> Maybe you can provide one of these relevant, substantive comments that
>> have addressed my points. What I see are variations of the original post
>> above.
>
> Well, that's the problem, isn't it? What you "see" is so often quite
> different from what is there. What can I say but that you just don't
> "see" very well?

Explain how else should I parse the posts here, yours included.

...

>>>> ... where are the specific rebuttals to the

>>>> specific issues I've raised?
>>>
>>> You don't raise specific issues. You dance around the periphery of
>>> possible new-agey perspectives so as to maintain plausible deniability
>>> when directly confronted.
>>
>> I offered a brief summary of some the points I've raised above. You did
>> not reply to any one of them.
>
> None of them were relevant to the issues under discussion (your original
> reply to my remarks about Vince's post), and I had no desire to head
> back down the rabbit hole with you.

I was referring to the various points I've made in this newsgroup, not just
this one. This particular thread is all about how I allegedly have some
unspoken agenda.

I addressed your remarks about Vince above.

>
> This is yet another of your tactics when confronted, you change the
> subject. Had you not done so; had you commented only on the subject of
> my response to Vince without digressing into your long list of
> grievances, I probably would have had very little else to say, and you
> would have had far less vexation over your terribly unfair treatment.

So, what was the subject I changed? By what evidence do you perceive a
tactic? What do you suppose I should have said in this thread?

>
>> These were specific issues. Your response is,
>> again, an ad homenim.
>
> Yes, it was a direct comment on the way you think. No, it wasn't ad hom.
> because I wasn't dismissing any particular comment or position of yours
> based upon irrelevant personal beliefs. I was addressing the general
> tenor of *all* of your remarks in direct reply to a question you asked.

You just said in the paragraph above that I use devious tactics. You just
said above that I changed the subject without saying what the subject is.
You admit that the way you perceive my way of thinking is more important
than what I actually say. You claim to discern a tenor to my posts that you
then allow to influence your understanding what is really said. Because of
your preference for labels, you substitute the label for substance which you
seem to believe excuses not thinking about what is said.

Bill

[Earle Jones27]

*
Bill (Rogers):

That is an extremely detailed description of your "world view" as
regards conciousness.

Now then, Bill (the other Bill): Your turn.

What is your "world view" as regards consciousness?

Thanks,

earle
*

[*Hemidactylus*]

The Battle of the Bills begins.

[*Hemidactylus*]

The notion that via humans the universe has become self-aware is
something that is dumbfounding and I find it nifty. Both Teilhard and
Julian Huxley subscribed to this view. But it do not find it any more
than a nifty curiosity. The big bang produced beings that contemplate
it. Evolution is likewise "self-reflective" when confined to humans and
any possible other life forms that have stumbled upon it.

I agree with most of what you say, but you might have expressed things
better below ;-)

> 1. All the things we know are conscious have brains.
> 2. If you destroy the brain, the thing that was conscious becomes unconscious.

Really depends on what you mean by destroy the brain. If you destroy
parts of the brain responsible for life supporting functions like
breathing the thing that was conscious becomes dead, not unconscious. If
you destroy parts of the brain responsible for what we consider
conscious awareness, there may be unconscious processes still at play.
Blindsight comes to mind here or how there's at least two streams of
visual processing, one that we consciously see with and one that we
react with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindsight

Or people who get damage to their hippocampus and can't form new
memories (anterograde amnesia) may still have an emotionally salient and
unconscious means (amygdala mediated) where they can't recall a person
interacting with them, but have bad vibes due to previous negative
interaction. Claparede was known for this sort of thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89douard_Clapar%C3%A8de#Trauma_experiment

http://discovermagazine.com/2003/mar/cover

And the focus on human consciousness may be way too superficial:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Unconscious-Social-Cognition-Neuroscience/dp/0195307690

> 3. If you alter the brain, by stroke, infection fever, trauma, or chemicals, consciousness changes.

People dealing with loved ones with brain trauma or metastasis or senile
dementia know this all too well.

> 4. Electric stimulation of regions of the brain during surgery for intractable epilepsy produces specific memories, thoughts, emotions, and movements.
> 5. When you examine the behavior of the components of the brain, you observe no physical laws being violated.
> 6. When you observe animals of increasing neural complexity, consciousness becomes more obvious as the complexity increases (in a general way, without giving too precise a definition of neural complexity).
>
> 1,2, and 6 all suggest that a physical substrate is necessary for consciousness. 3 and 4 suggest that the specific conscious state depends on what is physically happening in the brain. 5 suggests that consciousness does not involve something more than physical interfering with the normal course of physical interactions among physical components of the brain.
>
> If you want to argue that consciousness simply does not feel like something physical, on the basis of direct experience or introspection, then you also need to remember all the arguments you have made as to why we should not trust our macroscopic perceptions of what the world is like. And you should not think of matter in a 19th century way as little mechanical balls flying round in the void.

I agree completely that consciousness is brain dependent.

[Bill]

*Hemidactylus* wrote:

...

>> That intelligent observation is not a solely physical phenomenon is a
>> world view to which you seem to have a prior commitment. No problem; just
>> remember that you cannot complain if others do not share your commitment
>> to that view.
>
> The notion that via humans the universe has become self-aware is
> something that is dumbfounding and I find it nifty. Both Teilhard and
> Julian Huxley subscribed to this view. But it do not find it any more
> than a nifty curiosity. The big bang produced beings that contemplate
> it. Evolution is likewise "self-reflective" when confined to humans and
> any possible other life forms that have stumbled upon it.
>
>

The only fact we have is that no one knows what's really real. We have
innumerable opinions and guesses and hypotheses and optimistic explanations.
By that same measure, we don't know what is wrong either. We are expert in
understanding our own opinions and indifferent to all others. That's why I
avoid expressing my observations as fact.

Bill

[Bill]

I can distinguish between conjecture and fact.

Bill

[Robert Camp]

They don't, as far as I'm concerned. And I made quite plain the fact
that I was using ID as an example of how Vince's point was relevant (you
did respond to my remarks to Vince, remember?). I spelled it out - "this

is just an example that may not have much relevance to your specific

beef with Vince." I really don't see how I could have been more clear.
Yet here you complain that I've transgressed somehow.

If you would spend a lot less time worrying about how your profound
pronouncements are not appreciated, and a lot more time actually
addressing the substance of the comments you've received, you would
likely enjoy more conversational success.

>>> Maybe you can provide one of these relevant, substantive comments that
>>> have addressed my points. What I see are variations of the original post
>>> above.
>>
>> Well, that's the problem, isn't it? What you "see" is so often quite
>> different from what is there. What can I say but that you just don't
>> "see" very well?
>
> Explain how else should I parse the posts here, yours included.

Sorry. As I said, I'm not going down that rabbit hole again. I've done
it before, and watched others do it, too many times without anything to
show for it.

>>>>> ... where are the specific rebuttals to the
>>>>> specific issues I've raised?
>>>>
>>>> You don't raise specific issues. You dance around the periphery of
>>>> possible new-agey perspectives so as to maintain plausible deniability
>>>> when directly confronted.
>>>
>>> I offered a brief summary of some the points I've raised above. You did
>>> not reply to any one of them.
>>
>> None of them were relevant to the issues under discussion (your original
>> reply to my remarks about Vince's post), and I had no desire to head
>> back down the rabbit hole with you.
>
> I was referring to the various points I've made in this newsgroup, not just
> this one. This particular thread is all about how I allegedly have some
> unspoken agenda.

What matters is not what "this particular thread is all about" but what
I was saying that prompted your response. Threads drift.

> I addressed your remarks about Vince above.

With little of relevance, then abruptly changed course.

>> This is yet another of your tactics when confronted, you change the
>> subject. Had you not done so; had you commented only on the subject of
>> my response to Vince without digressing into your long list of
>> grievances, I probably would have had very little else to say, and you
>> would have had far less vexation over your terribly unfair treatment.
>
> So, what was the subject I changed? By what evidence do you perceive a
> tactic? What do you suppose I should have said in this thread?

I said nothing about "should have." I merely noted that the issue was
diverted (and that you do this quite often). You have every right to
direct your remarks along whatever path you choose. And I have every
right to decide either to ignore or address them.

>>> These were specific issues. Your response is,
>>> again, an ad homenim.
>>
>> Yes, it was a direct comment on the way you think. No, it wasn't ad hom.
>> because I wasn't dismissing any particular comment or position of yours
>> based upon irrelevant personal beliefs. I was addressing the general
>> tenor of *all* of your remarks in direct reply to a question you asked.
>
> You just said in the paragraph above that I use devious tactics. You just
> said above that I changed the subject without saying what the subject is.
> You admit that the way you perceive my way of thinking is more important
> than what I actually say. You claim to discern a tenor to my posts that you
> then allow to influence your understanding what is really said. Because of
> your preference for labels, you substitute the label for substance which you
> seem to believe excuses not thinking about what is said.

Have you ever noticed that, with you, everything gets back to how your
substantive arguments are being ignored? Have you ever considered that
maybe they're just not that substantive?

I've read what you've "really said," and I've understood what you've
"really said." There's "really" not much there.

[Bill Rogers]

That's a substantive rebuttal? You complain that nobody deals with the substance of your posts, and that's the best argument you can mount against my defence of physicalism? And what about an argument to support your claim that consciousness is more than physical? Or is that simply an idle conjecture which needs no support because it is offered only as a speculation?

[Bill]

Bill Rogers wrote:

...

>>
>> I can distinguish between conjecture and fact.
>>
>> Bill
>
> That's a substantive rebuttal? You complain that nobody deals with the
> substance of your posts, and that's the best argument you can mount
> against my defence of physicalism? And what about an argument to support
> your claim that consciousness is more than physical? Or is that simply an
> idle conjecture which needs no support because it is offered only as a
> speculation?

You're right,I was flippant. You were speculating about what might be true
that would validate physicalism. You believe that consciousness is entirely
physical. You believe that the brain's health affects consciousness. I have
been saying that consciousness is subjective, something that can't be
directly measured. Because of your speculations, I now also have something
else to think about.

Conscious may emerge from a brain but, once it has emerged, it becomes
personal, a subjective sense of being conscious. Regardless of what happens
to the brain, the consciousness remains; you would have to destroy the brain
to affect the sense of consciousness.

Modification of the brain may affect the quality of consciousness, but it's
still there. If this is true then consciousness is not the same as the state
of the brain; it is something other than and addition to the brain. I don't
know and I doubt that anyone else does either.

Consider that an atom is mostly empty space making everything made from them
also empty space. Anything physical is mostly not there; it's an averaged
approximation that appears solid because of the senses that perceive them.
The senses themselves only emerge when a configuration of mostly empty space
enable their development. The brain is not a thing, it is a fortuitous
arrangement of vast numbers of atoms that permit the emergence of
consciousness. The brain is the means by which consciousness becomes
possible.

Consciousness may not require an extensive collection of senses nor require
any of them to be particularly acute; an amoeba may be conscious. Since this
might be the case, consciousness, once attained may be independent of the
mechanism that enabled it in the first place. An automobile can be thought
of as just a machine but that won't tell us anything about why we bought or
how we use it or where we go for vacation. The brain and consciousness of
the same kind of thing.

Again, no one knows regardless of their airy conjectures.

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 12:20:57 -0500, the following appeared

This thread, unlike the multiple others in which your
assertions have been refuted on their content, is *about*
your worldview. I suspect that the OP (whoever that was, was
curious. And I suspect he's *still* curious. BTW, I'm not;
your worldview is irrelevant to your assertions, which stand
or fall on their merits. Or the lack thereof.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 08:34:07 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

Dammit: *ir*relevant.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 16:52:21 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

<snip to one specific point>

>...There is no "within" the universe which may be why

>it's called the universe. Whatever exists in the universe is an integral
>part of the universe and not some independent abstraction.

You might want to re-think that, *after* doing a bit of
reading on the generally accepted meaning of "integral part
of". The fact that something exists within something else
does not mean that the first is an integral part of the
second, or the bottle of diet soda in my refrigerator would
be an integral part of the refrigerator, which it definitely
isn't. Nor does that make it an "independent abstraction".
The universe does not require our presence for existence,
and the only difference between "universe with humans" and
"universe without humans" is the presence of humans; the
universe would exist, and existed quite handily for billions
of years without humans, so they're not an "integral part"
of it.

> There are
>intelligent observers so the universe intelligently observes - itself.

The universe has no capability to "observe" anything,
regardless of the fact that its inhabitants do. Does Hawaii
have the ability to "observe" itself because humans live on
it (although not as "integral parts)?

>Since intelligent observation is not a solely physical phenomenon

Really? What then is it, since so far as we know only
physical entities exhibit that phenomenon?

>, like
>mammals for instance, it can't be reduced to a solely physical phenomenon.

That's your assertion, but you have yet to support it with
anything beyond "that's what I think" combined with some
rather unique personal definitions.

>It is a characteristic that the universe has acquired from it's physical
>constitution that grants it something new.

Thhe universe has acquired nothing new beyond an infestation
of inhabitants, although those inhabitants have.

<snip>

[Inez]

On Monday, August 31, 2015 at 10:18:20 AM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
> Glenn wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > "raven1" <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in message
> > news:kfh8uatob3vbep419...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 12:12:00 -1000, "D. Spencer Hines"
> >> <d_spenc...@america.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>So did Einstein and Planck...
> >>
> >> "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
> >> convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not
> >> believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have
> >> expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called
> >> religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the
> >> world so far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein, 1954
> >>
> >
> > "[T]he fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the
> > weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle.
> > They are creatures who-in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of
> > the people'-cannot hear the music of the spheres."
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein
>
> Atheism is a declaration of certain knowledge about things atheists claim
> don't exist. It is a kind of smug arrogance telling people that they don't
> know what they know, that the atheists know more and have perfect
> understanding.

I don't know that I count as an atheist since I go to church most every Sunday (I'm a Unitarian), but I don't believe in any anthropomorphized god. I don't think anyone has certain knowledge about anything whatever, but nevertheless I am able to be certain about things in my own little way. Is it automatically smugness to be certain about things, or think other people are wrong? It seems to me that other people are wrong all the time. For example, Donald Trump.

> In this newsgroup, the pretense is that they know science and
> the workings of nature while non-atheists wallow in a dark and murky
> ignorance.

I suspect your ignorance is bright and shiny or else you'd have done something about it by now.
>
> Most people, theist or not, will find this kind of thing too extreme, too
> irrational to have any value. Atheists claim that science supports their
> philosophy but that is just a natural consequence of limiting nature to what
> suits their dogma. Nature, apart from and free of any philosophical agenda,
> is supremely indifferent to what we think about it; it supports no
> philosophy, has no agenda and takes no sides.

I don't consider atheism to be a philosophy. Science could very well support the existence of God if only He were visible and/or did stuff you could detect. Mighty strange that He doesn't if you ask me.

> What is especially annoying is that, by their measure, seeing the absurdity
> of atheism is only possible is you are a theist. They will then absolve
> themselves from making rational replies to whatever the non-atheist may
> propose. In this stunted alternate reality, if you are not an atheist or not
> persuaded by atheist arguments, you must be a raving theist who has nothing
> to offer. By this logic, atheism always wins.
>
We will, we will rock you!

[Bill Rogers]

On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 11:27:49 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:
> Bill Rogers wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >>
> >> I can distinguish between conjecture and fact.
> >>
> >> Bill
> >
> > That's a substantive rebuttal? You complain that nobody deals with the
> > substance of your posts, and that's the best argument you can mount
> > against my defence of physicalism? And what about an argument to support
> > your claim that consciousness is more than physical? Or is that simply an
> > idle conjecture which needs no support because it is offered only as a
> > speculation?
>
> You're right,I was flippant. You were speculating about what might be true
> that would validate physicalism. You believe that consciousness is entirely
> physical. You believe that the brain's health affects consciousness. I have
> been saying that consciousness is subjective, something that can't be
> directly measured. Because of your speculations, I now also have something
> else to think about.

Well, no, I was not speculating about what might be true that would validate physicalism. I was listing things that are pretty clearly true that might be considered to validate physicalism. If you are unwilling to admit, say, that destroying the brain destroy consciousness, or that drugs can alter it, or that electrical stimulation can produce memories, sensations, or emotions, then your definition of what is true is so stringent as to exclude pretty much anything. That sort of hyper-skepticism is philosophically defensible, but it pretty much ends discussion.

>
> Conscious may emerge from a brain but, once it has emerged, it becomes
> personal, a subjective sense of being conscious. Regardless of what happens
> to the brain, the consciousness remains; you would have to destroy the brain
> to affect the sense of consciousness.

Yes, that's what I said. Destroy the brain, destroy consciousness. And do you honestly doubt that physical changes to the brain, stroke, drugs, fever, trauma, affect consciousness, even if they don't obliterate it?

>
> Modification of the brain may affect the quality of consciousness, but it's
> still there. If this is true then consciousness is not the same as the state
> of the brain; it is something other than and addition to the brain. I don't
> know and I doubt that anyone else does either.

You'd better flesh that argument out a bit. Destroy the brain, destroy consciousness. Modify the brain without destroying it, and you modify consciousness without destroying it. You'll have to do some work to show that consciousness is something in addition to the brain.

>
> Consider that an atom is mostly empty space making everything made from them
> also empty space. Anything physical is mostly not there; it's an averaged
> approximation that appears solid because of the senses that perceive them.
> The senses themselves only emerge when a configuration of mostly empty space
> enable their development. The brain is not a thing, it is a fortuitous
> arrangement of vast numbers of atoms that permit the emergence of
> consciousness. The brain is the means by which consciousness becomes
> possible.

Yeah. Most matter is mostly empty space. Or you can think of it all in terms of fields. That gives me no reason to think that consciousness is something non-physical.

>
> Consciousness may not require an extensive collection of senses nor require
> any of them to be particularly acute; an amoeba may be conscious.

OK, an ameoba may be conscious. What experiment will you do to decide whether it is conscious or not?

>Since this
> might be the case, consciousness, once attained may be independent of the
> mechanism that enabled it in the first place.

If you had some ham you could make a ham and cheese sandwich. If you had some cheese. And some bread.

>An automobile can be thought
> of as just a machine but that won't tell us anything about why we bought or
> how we use it or where we go for vacation. The brain and consciousness of
> the same kind of thing.
>
> Again, no one knows regardless of their airy conjectures.

The simple observations, that destroying the brain destroys consciousness and modifying the brain without destroying it, modifies consciousness without destroying it, put significant constraints on airy speculation.

In any case, I've given you a more thorough response than simple complaints about new agey woo.

>
> Bill

[Bill]

The more you pretend to misunderstand, the more ridiculous your arguments. I
have elaborated my point, many times, there is no excuse for feigned
confusion. Since you persist in garbling very simple points for the point of
insinuating an argumentum ad absurdum, you make my points by depending on
fallacies.

Bill

[jillery]

Apparently you have no idea how silly your feigned mindreading makes
you sound.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Bill]

Ah, the new-agey, woo ploy. Now no one will have to think about anything I
said. How very clever. You seem to prefer that physicalism be an established
fact and strain to make it work.

A brain can be damaged or modified and consciousness can still exist. People
have recovered from comas and regained their sense of identity and
consciousness without serious affect. People have actually died, lost all
physical signs of life and been revived, apparently unaffected. In the
normal course of any one day, most people will experience variations of mood
and thought, most of us are not blocks of stone.

The brain allows the emergence of consciousness without actually being
consciousness. Intelligence, sensitivity, insanity is not consciousness. We
can reduce all manifestations of conscious to exclusively physical
phenomenon, but there is no unambiguous evidence. Without evidence
physicalism is just another philosophical preference.

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

As I said, I gave you a substantive argument, NOT a complaint about new agey woo.

I have given you arguments for physicalism based on observations. You have given me no evidence that anything beyond the brain is required for consciousness.

>
> A brain can be damaged or modified and consciousness can still exist.

Sure, but the consciousness is altered, often in dramatic ways.

>People
> have recovered from comas and regained their sense of identity and
> consciousness without serious affect.

Sure, when the brain returns to a normal physical state, normal consciousness can return.

>People have actually died, lost all
> physical signs of life and been revived, apparently unaffected. In the
> normal course of any one day, most people will experience variations of mood
> and thought, most of us are not blocks of stone.

Sure. Do you dispute that destroying the brain destroys consciousness. Do you dispute that physical changes to the brain, stroke, disease, drugs, trauma, alter consciousness?

Yes, some people have had their hearts stopped and been revived and become conscious again. Some, who were immersed in cold water, have been clinically dead for tens of minutes and yet been revived. How does any of that alter the observations I have made?

>
> The brain allows the emergence of consciousness without actually being
> consciousness. Intelligence, sensitivity, insanity is not consciousness. We
> can reduce all manifestations of conscious to exclusively physical
> phenomenon, but there is no unambiguous evidence. Without evidence
> physicalism is just another philosophical preference.

There is certainly no evidence that there is something non-physical required for consciousness, and I have cited many obvious observations that suggest that consciousness depends on the physical state of the brain. You can speculate that the physical bit is necessary but not sufficient, but you've not given any evidence to suggest that anything more than the physical is required.

>
> Bill

[Bill]

Bill Rogers wrote:

...

> Sure. Do you dispute that destroying the brain destroys consciousness. Do
> you dispute that physical changes to the brain, stroke, disease, drugs,
> trauma, alter consciousness?
>
> Yes, some people have had their hearts stopped and been revived and become
> conscious again. Some, who were immersed in cold water, have been
> clinically dead for tens of minutes and yet been revived. How does any of
> that alter the observations I have made?
>

You seem to equate consciousness with it's source as if one is fully
explained by the other. There is no objective fact supporting this view. A
brain is the mechanism from which consciousness arises. In the same way a
car is not the same as its ultimate destination; we have one layer of
meaning superimposed on another.

>>
>> The brain allows the emergence of consciousness without actually being
>> consciousness. Intelligence, sensitivity, insanity is not consciousness.
>> We can reduce all manifestations of conscious to exclusively physical
>> phenomenon, but there is no unambiguous evidence. Without evidence
>> physicalism is just another philosophical preference.
>
> There is certainly no evidence that there is something non-physical
> required for consciousness, and I have cited many obvious observations
> that suggest that consciousness depends on the physical state of the
> brain. You can speculate that the physical bit is necessary but not
> sufficient, but you've not given any evidence to suggest that anything
> more than the physical is required.

As I have said, consciousness emerges, maybe emanates from or is an addition
to the physical brain. This simply means that whatever consciousness is,
can't be measured and is continually changing. Your view ignores the very
obvious fact we aren't automatons. Our consciousness takes many forms, none
of which is determined by any known physical process.

If we is just hardware then we should expect our thoughts to follow some
kind of program. There would be no latitude for spontaneity or free thought
or inspiration or insight, just reaction. This seems to describe some
insects but only barely, it certainly doesn't describe human behavior.

In fact it may be that all living things share the kind of consciousness and
its physical configuration shapes it. Consciousness would manifest itself
according to the limitations of the morphology of the thing having it. It
may be that all consciousness has exactly the same quality and only varies
with whatever physical attributes available to it.

Neither of our points has any physical evidence supporting it; it just
conjecture. We are each conscious of ourselves in unique ways so our
respective realities will be different. We are not the product of some
unobserved and unobservable program.


Bill

[Bill Rogers]

Clearly we disagree. That's fine. Now, would you characterize my argument with you here as consisting simply of vague, substanceless accusations that you are full of "new agey woo"? Or did I present an actual argument about the substance of your claims, even if you found my argument unconvincing?

[Bill]

I find the discussion worthwhile. More so since neither of us has attacked
the other. It shows that it's possible to disagree without spiraling off
into nonsense. So far it's been my posts that have been characterized as
new-agey and woo, not yours so you haven't had that kind of distraction. You
did not address my points with vague, substanceless accusations so there is
something of value to discuss. I find no fault so all is well.

Alas, I still can't find any value to the philosophy of physicalism and find
materialism to be a superficial oversimplification so there are still things
to talk about.

Bill

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/9/15 4:10 PM, Bill wrote:
> [...]

> The brain allows the emergence of consciousness without actually being
> consciousness.

Likewise, the automobile allows transportation without being
transportation. Yawn.

> Intelligence, sensitivity, insanity is not consciousness.

Consciousness is thought. Thought is what the brain does.

> We
> can reduce all manifestations of conscious to exclusively physical
> phenomenon, but there is no unambiguous evidence. Without evidence
> physicalism is just another philosophical preference.

What you fail to mention is that there is tons of evidence for the
physical phenomenon, and zero evidence for anything else. Physicalism
is not without evidence; your woo view is.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Keep the company of those who seek the truth; run from those who have
found it." - Vaclav Havel

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 09 Sep 2015 17:44:03 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Sep 2015 16:52:21 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> <snip to one specific point>
>>
>>>...There is no "within" the universe which may be why
>>>it's called the universe. Whatever exists in the universe is an integral
>>>part of the universe and not some independent abstraction.
>>
>> You might want to re-think that, *after* doing a bit of
>> reading on the generally accepted meaning of "integral part
>> of". The fact that something exists within something else
>> does not mean that the first is an integral part of the
>> second, or the bottle of diet soda in my refrigerator would
>> be an integral part of the refrigerator, which it definitely
>> isn't. Nor does that make it an "independent abstraction".
>> The universe does not require our presence for existence,
>> and the only difference between "universe with humans" and
>> "universe without humans" is the presence of humans; the
>> universe would exist, and existed quite handily for billions
>> of years without humans, so they're not an "integral part"
>> of it.

[Crickets...]

>>> There are
>>>intelligent observers so the universe intelligently observes - itself.
>>
>> The universe has no capability to "observe" anything,
>> regardless of the fact that its inhabitants do. Does Hawaii
>> have the ability to "observe" itself because humans live on
>> it (although not as "integral parts)?

[Crickets...]

>>>Since intelligent observation is not a solely physical phenomenon
>>
>> Really? What then is it, since so far as we know only
>> physical entities exhibit that phenomenon?

[Crickets...]

>>>, like
>>>mammals for instance, it can't be reduced to a solely physical phenomenon.
>>
>> That's your assertion, but you have yet to support it with
>> anything beyond "that's what I think" combined with some
>> rather unique personal definitions.

[Crickets...]

>>>It is a characteristic that the universe has acquired from it's physical
>>>constitution that grants it something new.
>>
>> Thhe universe has acquired nothing new beyond an infestation
>> of inhabitants, although those inhabitants have.

[Crickets...]

>The more you pretend to misunderstand, the more ridiculous your arguments. I
>have elaborated my point, many times, there is no excuse for feigned
>confusion. Since you persist in garbling very simple points for the point of
>insinuating an argumentum ad absurdum, you make my points by depending on
>fallacies.

Uh-huh. "You just pretend to misunderstand my brilliance".

I addressed *exactly* what you posted. If you meant
something other than what you posted that's your problem,
not mine.

Oh, and how 'bout them Mets?