TAG Defective?
Cary Cook
I find TAG sufficient to convince me of the probability (not necessity) of a Supreme Being. But I must admit that my understanding of TAG consists of vignettes connected intuitively, but not rigorously.
I have never seen TAG rigorously stated, neither by Van Till, Bahnsen, Passantinos, Russ Manion, or Brady Lenardos. Brady has agreed to present such a statement to one person I know of, and delivered a beginning, but then dropped the discussion.
Bill Zuersher has shown a defect in TAG as I understand TAG. Brady has said Bill's understanding of TAG is defective, but has not given us his supposedly correct version of TAG.
I still have a sloppy 80% probability judgment that a Supreme Being exists, but that's all.
Cary
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
ucapol...@yahoo.com
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e463e9a.1c69fb81.70af2.8be9SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
This is the reason why "science" (although still partially based on "reason" -- hence on "logic") has effectively replaced "philosophy" at the cutting edge of the advance of understanding. (The critical improvement being the granting of authority to "observation," in addition to just "reason.")
--
ucapol...@yahoo.com
Science doesn't "drop logic," it "adds observation" ( and a "method" to combine the two).
It takes "logic" "on faith" but also takes "observation" "on faith" -- although most scientists seem to be blissfully unaware of the "on faith" part or this dual commitment, as are most atheists.
- Don
> On Feb 14, 2020, at 10:50 AM, 'ucapol...@yahoo.com' via BYS vs MH <bys-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> Regards,
- Don
ucapol...@yahoo.com
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/431DBEC6-E2C5-4428-AB8A-45A0AE99E45D%40yahoo.com.
- Don
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/1016204256.2320596.1581719014226%40mail.yahoo.com.
Cary Cook
Brady,
I'm not going to address all of you points. Only one matters.
Do you, or do you not have a coherent presentation of TAG?
Not a discussion; not a copy-paste of Van Til or Bahnsen; not a long essay with links to references.
Just coherent presentation of TAG.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/1553674853.2168145.1581694502387%40mail.yahoo.com.
ucapol...@yahoo.com
I think I followed most of that; however, I missed how you excluded the possibility of "knowledge" being an accidental-emergent-property in your step #3:
3) By examining the elements of Unintentionalism, we find not only that the elements do not have the necessary and sufficient preconditions that allow for the possibility of knowledge, but they make the possibility of knowledge impossible.
- Don
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/2038900846.2439908.1581781572670%40mail.yahoo.com.
G. Brady Lenardos
|
Cary Cook
Brady,
That’s good. Thanks.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/2038900846.2439908.1581781572670%40mail.yahoo.com.
Cary Cook
Brady,
Can you explain #3 a bit?
May I add this to my TAG essay, and credit you for it?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/2038900846.2439908.1581781572670%40mail.yahoo.com.
Can you explain #3 a bit?
3) By examining the elements of Unintentionalism, we find not only that the elements do not have the necessary and sufficient preconditions that allow for the possibility of knowledge, but they make the possibility of knowledge impossible.
By examining the elements of Unintentionalism, we find that the elements do not have the necessary and sufficient preconditions that allow for the possibility of knowledge.
not only [that], but they [also] make the possibility of knowledge impossible
- Don
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e48a493.1c69fb81.c43a8.ff32SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
Cary Cook
Brady & Don,
I agree with #3.
But if it is not explained, most atheists will get that far, and laugh it off.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/9987C222-A8A5-46DE-A685-B51844D805AF%40yahoo.com.
G. Brady Lenardos
William Zuersher
Hi Brady, I had emailed you after I saw your initial comment on my presentation because I wanted to understand better your objections. I never saw that you had replied to my email. (I’m embarrassed to say that I can now see where they were.) Then I saw that you had added a second comment on my presentation, from the tone of which, and from the fact that I hadn’t seen an email reply, I concluded that you desired no part in communicating with me. I apologize for missing your emails and misinterpreting your attitude.
In the presentation under discussion, my aim was to educate the audience about the type of argument found frequently on YouTube by Sye Bruggencate, Matt Slick, and others of that ilk. I recognize that they may not be the only, or the best, spokespersons for TAG/Presuppositionalism, but felt I was doing my audience a service by critiquing the argument as it is customarily presented.
On related arguments pertaining to reason (by which I mean the package of logic, knowledge, etc.) I have, despite conversations with a patient Russ, only a tenuous grasp. But I am currently trying to put the challenge into my own words. If I want to address this challenge from a skeptical standpoint, I need first to put it into its strongest form. Accordingly, I have cobbled together two draft arguments, below. I think they do quite a bit of theistic work, although they don’t get all the way to “Therefore, God.”
Argument from Consciousness:
1. Human consciousness exists.
2. The source of human consciousness is either materialistic or non-materialistic.
3. The components of materialism (matter and energy) are non-conscious.
4. Consciousness cannot arise from non-conscious components.
5. Therefore, human consciousness does not have a materialistic source.
6. Therefore, human consciousness has a non-materialistic source.
Argument from Rationality:
1. Events in nature, such as a breeze or a sunset, have physical causes.
2. Physical causes do not have truth values.
3. If our thoughts are purely events in nature, then they do not have truth values.
4. Therefore, the only way our thoughts can have truth values is if they are not purely events in nature.
5. We must assume our thoughts have truth values in order to be rational.
6. Therefore, in order to be rational, we must assume our thoughts are not purely events in nature.
Regarding the Argument from Consciousness, I think there is a weakness in premises 3 and 4 -- and it seems to be the same weakness that I detect in the TAG outline you offered Cary in your email. In that outline, Steps 1 and 3 are the sticking points.
Regarding Step 1, in order to exclude the middle properly, I think you need to recast things. Instead of: “Either everything is what it is via intent (intentionalism) or everything is what it is without intent (unintentionalism).” It should read: “Either everything is what it is via intent (intentionalism) or it is not the case that everything is what it is via intent (intentionalism).”
In this corrected form, we can see that the second disjunct opens the logical possibility of: “Some things are what they are by intent and some other things are what they are not by intent.” Now, how could that be?
That brings us to Step 3. We must consider the possibility that consciousness (animal and human) can arise from below rather than presuming it must be vouchsafed from above. Hence, local intentionality might arise within global unintentionality.
How this might work, how the non-physical can come from the physical, is definitely a head-hurter. Nevertheless, there seem to be difficulties with all of the “theory of mind” candidates. Is the answer a type of substance dualism, as in a soul, or is it property dualism, as in emergence or something like panpsychism? I’ve got a lot of reading in neuroscience to do.
Regarding the Argument from Rationality, I’m here trying to state the challenge of going beyond our own consciousnesses and into some correspondence with an allegedly external world. In answer to this challenge, I can only presuppose reason. That is what I said in my presentation. But it seems that this applies to all human beings. You – and your argument -- presuppose reason too. You may disagree and claim that your argument merely points out that we can possibly know things and reason only under intentionalism. But such an objection is itself a reason (be it right or wrong) for adopting intentionalism. Hence, you’re using reason prior to arriving at intentionalism, i.e., you’re presupposing it.
As before, I’d be grateful for your comments on any of this. The difficulties highlighted in the two arguments above are why I consider myself only a 51% atheist -- and why I stated, in my presentation, an openness to theism. But perhaps I have missed your point entirely and need to start over. I’m happy to learn from anyone who can teach me.
Bill Z
Cary Cook
4 truth seekers after the same goal!
This is what life is meant to be!
(assuming intentionality)
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/88467739.3998903.1581906811304%40mail.yahoo.com.
How this might work, how the non-physical can come from the physical, is definitely a head-hurter. Nevertheless, there seem to be difficulties with all of the “theory of mind” candidates. Is the answer a type of substance dualism, as in a soul, or is it property dualism, as in emergence or something like panpsychism? I’ve got a lot of reading in neuroscience to do.
I think your comment here is the right place to start. As I have mentioned, I've done the homework and have written up what I believe to be the correct answers -- and the necessary supporting arguments here: http://dstoner.net/Philosophy_Religion/WDG2017.01.10.pdf (Who DesignedGod?)
The short answer is that I am neither a dualist, nor a normal monist. Instead I am a "thought" monist -- although what I mean by this is not quite what most people mean by "panpsychism." However, understanding what I do mean might require a very long explanation. Unfortunately, my full explanation and arguments (linked above) required many pages of technical and scientific investigation, like this:
I'll try to cover it here with a "very quick" summary (OK, sorry, it's still kind of long):
Part1:
Chapter 1 begins by describing one physics student's reaction to the Michelson-Morley experiment, and how the world is stranger than we normally suppose. It also presents the accepted role of causality, and how we might expect everything in the world ought to fit together. The following single page probably best summarizes what that chapter presents:
Next, Chapter 2 attempts to explain Einstein's special theory of relativity in simple terms. In particular, it attempts to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment using very little math, so the reader can understand what bothered the physics student from chapter 1. (And be bothered too.) It's supposed to begin to separate the reader from a few of the common errors inherent in old-fashioned classical physics.
Chapter 3 builds on special relativity, explaining the role of time as a "fourth dimension" which is both different from, and yet somewhat interchangeable with the other three.
Chapter 4 builds from that understanding, to how a four-dimensional universe can begin at a single point, and expand, from there, into space-time, in all four directions, without having any "outside" surface (other than the single starting point).
Chapter 5 explains Einstein's general theory of relativity (also with very little math) and explains (vaguely) why the real universe is even stranger than the one described in Chapter 4. The result is so strange, in fact, that it becomes difficult to believe that it is "physically" possible for it to "exist."
Chapter 6 kind of finishes that job by explaining quantum mechanics in enough detail to make "physical" reality appear completely impossible in any imaginable sense.
Chapter 7 gives the reader a brief break (before starting part two), and speculates about what kind of "creative agency" might be required to pull off the "big bang."
Part2:
Chapter 8 introduces the problem of stepping from the mechanical world, to minds. (Your "head-hurter.")
Chapter 9 is a whirlwind survey of all of the well-established connections linking quantum mechanics to chemistry, from there to biochemistry, from there to cellular biology, from there to neuroscience, then to "brains." This is done quickly because the concepts are not nearly as weird as modern physics is -- or as what follows is.
Chapter 10 is back to completely-weird again, because there are a bunch of verifiable (simple experiments the reader can try) paradoxes in the way our minds actually work (compared to how it seems they ought to work in a "real" world).
Chapter 11 investigates artificial intelligence, and shows how A.I. researchers are encountering exactly the same weirdnesses we saw in living minds, when they try to construct computer minds.
Chapter 12 is kind of a last-ditch effort to make sense out of the mess we are encountering. It takes a suspicious look at logic itself, as the possible source of our trouble, but encounters the expected problem (that logic can't justify itself) and, instead, settles for the remaining "conditional" situation that: if we are going to proceed at all, we will have to "presume" that logic will work -- noting contingent consequences -- while keeping in mind that we haven't really proved anything at all.
Chapter 13 briefly explores similar oddities (similar to oddities in logic) but in morality.
Chapter 14 summarizes (and kind of tallies up) all of the weird things we've encountered -- all of the things which don't really make any sense.
Part 3:
Chapter 15 tries modifying what is essentially the Chapter-1 causality structure (from the page copied above -- but with several small edits we've made along the way), using recommendations which two leading researchers in consciousness (Christof Koch and Roger Penrose) are almost agreed on (using only the part which they do agree upon). Using this, we make one more rather small, but very weird modification to our causality structure.
The result of this single operation is the resolution of every weird paradox tallied in chapter 14 -- even making some of them seem completely obvious.
See if you can figure out the solution yourself with the following 2-piece puzzle:
Slide 1 illustrate the causality diagram for the parts of us which seem to have thought/intent.
Slide 2 illustrates the remainder of the universe which is free from thought/intent.
The goal is to overlay the to diagrams so that:
1) All causality proceeds in the direction of the arrows, and
2) You are still able to scratch your nose -- or to achieve other effects in the physical world.
Hawking's "fire" (bottom layer of slide 2) is from Stephen Hawking's Brief History of Time. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/4104-even-if-there-is-only-one-possible-unified-theory-it
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I probably haven't really explained this very well, so I'm expecting some questions. Also, it's taken quite a while to compose it, so my inbox is likely to contain enough info to make this all obselete.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e4a0504.1c69fb81.c69d.2dd0SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
- Don Stoner
Hi Bill,Don Stoner here.With Brady in Lost Wages, NV, and Cary, apparently waiting/watching to see what happen next, it's looking like it might be our turn to see if we can work out any kind of agreeable solution here.
How this might work, how the non-physical can come from the physical, is definitely a head-hurter. Nevertheless, there seem to be difficulties with all of the “theory of mind” candidates. Is the answer a type of substance dualism, as in a soul, or is it property dualism, as in emergence or something like panpsychism? I’ve got a lot of reading in neuroscience to do.
I think your comment here is the right place to start. As I have mentioned, I've done the homework and have written up what I believe to be the correct answers -- and the necessary supporting arguments here: http://dstoner.net/Philosophy_Religion/WDG2017.01.10.pdf (Who DesignedGod?)
The short answer is that I am neither a dualist, nor a normal monist. Instead I am a "thought" monist -- although what I mean by this is not quite what most people mean by "panpsychism." However, understanding what I do mean might require a very long explanation. Unfortunately, my full explanation and arguments (linked above) required many pages of technical and scientific investigation, like this:
<image8.jpeg>
I'll try to cover it here with a "very quick" summary (OK, sorry, it's still kind of long):
Part1:
Chapter 1 begins by describing one physics student's reaction to the Michelson-Morley experiment, and how the world is stranger than we normally suppose. It also presents the accepted role of causality, and how we might expect everything in the world ought to fit together. The following single page probably best summarizes what that chapter presents:
<image9.jpeg>
<image1.jpeg>
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/4793760B-E9A7-4D36-AA97-0BB0B21126F0%40yahoo.com.
Cary Cook
Don,
I see slide 1 in previous email. Where is slide 2?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/E42C36A8-D1A9-4A8F-8548-09A50024B5F6%40yahoo.com.
- Don
<image6.jpeg>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<image1.jpeg>
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e4babde.1c69fb81.4ccd6.f9a6SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
<image6.jpeg>
- Don
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e4babde.1c69fb81.4ccd6.f9a6SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
<image6.jpeg>
Cary Cook
Don,
Slide 1
Are you saying conscious minds CAUSE logic & math?
Slide 2
You have electronics & mechanics 3 levels before humans. I assume you mean natural electronic & mechanical events.
No, I was wrong, because you also have other man made things before humans. So I don't get it.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/DAD4F1A5-60D6-4CAF-AB6C-43036D0FB2F8%40yahoo.com.
- Don
Don,
Slide 1
Are you saying conscious minds CAUSE logic & math?
Slide 2
You have electronics & mechanics 3 levels before humans. I assume you mean natural electronic & mechanical events.
No, I was wrong, because you also have other man made things before humans. So I don't get it.
Cary
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: 'Email' via BYS vs MH
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 10:19 AM
To: bys-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TAG Defective?
Hi Cary,
Sorry, I missed a much more elegant answer to your question:
--------------------------------------------------
<image1.jpeg>
--------------------------------------------------
<image1.jpeg>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<image1.jpeg>
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e4c77ae.1c69fb81.1d4ce.5f22SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
<image1.jpeg>
<image2.jpeg>
Slide 1
Are you saying conscious minds CAUSE logic & math?
Slide 2
You have electronics & mechanics 3 levels before humans. I assume you mean natural electronic & mechanical events.
No, I was wrong, because you also have other man made things before humans. So I don't get it.
Cary Cook
Don,
I really don't understand what you're doing here. It appears to be something you have to present in person with the graphics on a table or screen. And even if you were to do that, it sounds like you're asking other people to make sense of it. Is that correct?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/501108F2-133C-4416-98A7-95F8A9574DE1%40yahoo.com.
I really don't understand what you're doing here.
It appears to be something you have to present in person
with the graphics on a table or screen.
And even if you were to do that, it sounds like you're asking other people to make sense of it. Is that correct?
- Don
Don,
I really don't understand what you're doing here. It appears to be something you have to present in person with the graphics on a table or screen. And even if you were to do that, it sounds like you're asking other people to make sense of it. Is that correct?
Cary Cook
Don,
Your bottom turtle approach is essentially the Cosmological Arg. Atheists back into infinite regress, or "I don't know", or "There is no bottom turtle, first cause, first anything". But they refuse to admit they lost the arg. They ask "What caused God?" (the whole point of your book) as though that question neutralizes your logic. Human thinking has been at this impasse since... when? The Enlightenment?
Any attempt to solve your puzzle will just rearrange the pieces with different dogmatic starting points. TAG tries to circumvent the Cosmological Arg. problem. And I think that is where we 4 are presently. Are you not asking us to go back and redo what we've already tried and failed to do?
From: 'Email' via BYS vs MH
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 10:37 PM
To: bys-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TAG Defective?
Hi Cary,
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/68C144AA-A99E-4DC8-800E-BDE124C3501E%40yahoo.com.
William Zuersher
Hi Brady,
This is my second email addressing various issues you have raised. In my first email, I shared my work-in-progress on consciousness and pointed out what appears to be the nub of the issue, namely a serviceable theory of mind. In the process, I raised concerns about a couple of the premises in the TAG outline you provided to Cary. In this email, I want to leave those concerns aside and take a fresh look at your TAG. As I explain below, I don’t see that it is much different from the arguments I critiqued in my presentation.
In order to make our discussion easier to follow, I have paraphrased your argument. I hope I have done so fairly -- if not, please correct me. I believe that at the cost of very little nuance I’ve gained a lot of readability.
1) Either Intentionalism or Unintentionalism.
2) Intentionalism makes knowledge possible.
3) Unintentionalism makes knowledge impossible.
4) We cannot know which is the case.
5) If we make a knowledge claim, then we presuppose Intentionalism.
It seems there are a few problems. The first problem: The premises consist of knowledge claims. Hence -- if the conclusion is correct -- you have already presupposed intentionalism throughout. By doing so, you have contradicted Step 4, which claims that we cannot know whether or not intentionalism is the case.
The second problem concerns recursion in the conclusion itself. If you need intentionalism to make a knowledge claim, then you can’t claim so without circularly presupposing intentionalism.
Any argument that intentionalism is needed for argument implicitly presupposes that very intentionalism. Hence it falls prey to epistemic circularity (where the conclusion is needed in order to establish the premises, as discussed in my presentation). I don’t see how an argument’s designation as ‘transcendental’ rather than ‘deductive’ confers upon it escape velocity from the circuit.
These reflections are related to the point I made in my first email about the human need to presuppose reason. (Once again, by reason I mean the package of logic, knowledge, etc. that I discussed in my presentation.) As an aside: my thinking on this subject has progressed since the time of the presentation. In it, I suggested that a person could presuppose God. I now think that doing that is impossible.
Could a person’s epistemological starting point be to presuppose intentionalism? No, a person first needs reason even to conceive of intentionalism or to distinguish intentionalism from un-intentionalism or even to have the notion of presupposing anything at all. It is possible that intentionalism precedes human reason ontologically. But on the plane of human epistemology, reason must precede belief in intentionalism.
As ever, if I have misinterpreted your meaning, I apologize. I am committed to understanding these issues as best I can. Thank your for your help in that.
Bill Z
Are you not asking us to go back and redo what we've already tried and failed to do?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e4ce51d.1c69fb81.a0da.4f6bSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
<image1.jpeg>
<image2.jpeg>
<image3.jpeg>
G. Brady Lenardos
Cary Cook
Don,
I agree with 1) and 2).
But in that case, in Slide 1 you start with Conscious Minds. Don’t they have to be eternal rather than created? And if so, why plural?
Or are you saying the slide 1 causality diagram is wrong and needs fixing?
Outside of "time" or "space," the concept of "origin" is meaningless
Are you saying that the first created thing was necessarily this universe with its spacetime being the ONLY spacetime?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/F0DF59B5-3815-4439-A811-D098A707ED1E%40yahoo.com.
I agree with 1) and 2).
But in that case, in Slide 1 you start with Conscious Minds. Don’t they have to be eternal rather than created? And if so, why plural?
Or are you saying the slide 1 causality diagram is wrong and needs fixing?
Outside of "time" or "space," the concept of "origin" is meaningless
Are you saying that the first created thing was necessarily this universe with its spacetime being the ONLY spacetime?
- Don
Don,
I agree with 1) and 2).
<image3.jpeg>
On Feb 18, 2020, at 8:12 PM, Cary Cook <cary...@att.net> wrote:Don,
I really don't understand what you're doing here. It appears to be something you have to present in person with the graphics on a table or screen. And even if you were to do that, it sounds like you're asking other people to make sense of it. Is that correct?
Cary
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/68C144AA-A99E-4DC8-800E-BDE124C3501E%40yahoo.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e4ce51d.1c69fb81.a0da.4f6bSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
<image1.jpeg>
<image2.jpeg>
<image3.jpeg>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/F0DF59B5-3815-4439-A811-D098A707ED1E%40yahoo.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e4dcf02.1c69fb81.15c49.49d7SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
<image1.jpeg>
<image2.jpeg>
<image3.jpeg>
Cary Cook
Don,
Our "consciousness" fits cleanly into the "eternal" category, but our "memories" and our "senses" fit cleanly into the "temporal" category.
If mind is split into eternal and temporal parts, does it still work in your causal stack?
This division complicates the puzzle
Yes, seriously!
Can you identify any impossibility of there being some kind of "middle" solution?
No. A middle solution appears likely - which would require further revision of your whole causality stack - or kill it.
So you're conditionally saying that this universe with its spacetime is the ONLY spacetime. That may be all you can say as a physicist, but are you trying to confine all of philosophy within the bounds of physics? Do you deny that philosophy addresses parts of reality that physics does not address?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/67CA36CA-686B-4FC0-A8D5-E89BCF18CBEE%40yahoo.com.
Our "consciousness" fits cleanly into the "eternal" category, but our "memories" and our "senses" fit cleanly into the "temporal" category.
If mind is split into eternal and temporal parts, does it still work in your causal stack?
This division complicates the puzzle
Yes, seriously!
Can you identify any impossibility of there being some kind of "middle" solution?
No. A middle solution appears likely - which would require further revision of your whole causality stack - or kill it.
- Don
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e4e2315.1c69fb81.c8214.a6daSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
<image1.jpeg>
<image2.jpeg>
... and still do it in my retirement.
- Don
<image1.jpeg>
<image1.jpeg><image2.jpeg>
Cary Cook
Don,
each block can be supported by any combination of the blocks which are located anywhere below it in same linear stack
"Can be supported by" is an ambiguous statement. Do you mean "is supported by"? And if so, does "is supported by" mean "is caused by"?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/7BD234A3-B36D-4F67-B25E-44DF30053A7D%40yahoo.com.
each block can be supported by any combination of the blocks which are located anywhere below it in same linear stack
"Can be supported by" is an ambiguous statement. Do you mean "is supported by"?
And if so, does "is supported by" mean "is caused by"?
<image1.jpeg>
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e4f197e.1c69fb81.44963.0dccSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
<image1.jpeg>
<image2.jpeg>
Cary Cook
Don,
Then by "2 is supported by 1" you mean, "1 is a necessary cause of 2", right?
3 is supported by 2, but may also be partly supported directly by 1.
Means 2 is a necessary cause of 3, right?
But then 1 is also a necessary cause of 3, right?
What does "may be partly" have to do with it?
If 1 exists, but 2 doesn't exist, then 3 can't exist, right?
Same with 4, right?
------------------------------
"is supported by" means:
is caused by,
is explained in terms of,
is a result of,
is an abstraction of,
... all are always true.
Great! That's clear.
BUT does "is a result of" mean "is always a result of"?
If so, then all of the above necessary causes are also sufficient causes, which I can't comprehend.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/D3FD414C-881B-4B78-B36E-384FFC18CB04%40yahoo.com.
Then by "2 is supported by 1" you mean, "1 is a necessary cause of 2", right?
3 is supported by 2, but may also be partly supported directly by 1.
Means 2 is a necessary cause of 3, right?
But then 1 is also a necessary cause of 3, right?
What does "may be partly" have to do with it?
If 1 exists, but 2 doesn't exist, then 3 can't exist, right?
Same with 4, right?
------------------------------
"is supported by" means:
is caused by,
is explained in terms of,
is a result of,
is an abstraction of,
... all are always true.
Great! That's clear.
BUT does "is a result of" mean "is always a result of"?
If so, then all of the above necessary causes are also sufficient causes,
which I can't comprehend.
- Don
<image2.jpeg>
<image3.jpeg>
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e4f4fbd.1c69fb81.f0616.3117SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
<image2.jpeg>
Cary Cook
Don,
I totally screwed up. It's necessary and sufficient CONDITIONS - not
necessary and sufficient CAUSES. Now I have to reread the whole thing, and respond more sensibly.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/E307E956-B697-47A8-8AC6-9A22959AFA79%40yahoo.com.
- Don
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e4fa36b.1c69fb81.43c56.9937SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
William Zuersher
I'm looking forward to our discussion.
I could drive down, instead of both of you driving up.
- Don
> On Feb 21, 2020, at 9:29 AM, 'William Zuersher' via BYS vs MH <bys-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> contingent
Cary Cook
Don,
I still think "is an abstraction of" doesn't work for most of these. e.g. something being an abstraction of math.
Re: rows 2 & 3, are you saying everything in row 3 is supported by everything in row 2? or everything in row 3 is supported by at least one thing in row 2?
From: Cary Cook
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 1:31 AM
To: bys-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: TAG Defective?
Don,
I totally screwed up. It's necessary and sufficient CONDITIONS - not
necessary and sufficient CAUSES. Now I have to reread the whole thing, and respond more sensibly.
Cary
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/E307E956-B697-47A8-8AC6-9A22959AFA79%40yahoo.com.
Cary Cook
Don & Bill,
I'm up for this. But first let's go as far as we can go in emails before driving.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/80257162.383885.1582306184501%40mail.yahoo.com.
I still think "is an abstraction of" doesn't work for most of these. e.g. something being an abstraction of math.
Re: rows 2 & 3, are you saying everything in row 3 is supported by everything in row 2? or everything in row 3 is supported by at least one thing in row 2?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e5073b8.1c69fb81.d7921.72a2SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
- Don
Don & Bill,
I'm up for this. But first let's go as far as we can go in emails before driving.
Cary
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: 'William Zuersher' via BYS vs MH
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 9:29 AM
To: bys-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TAG Defective?
Hi Don, Wow and thanks for this. This is a ton of stuff - obviously you've been surveying the headwaters of the this problem for longer than I. Give me some time to digest - maybe Cary and I can drive up and we can wrestle with some of this over lunch. Bill
On Monday, February 17, 2020, 01:19:57 AM PST, 'Email' via BYS vs MH <bys-...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
Hi Bill,
Don Stoner here.
With Brady in Lost Wages, NV, and Cary, apparently waiting/watching to see what happen next, it's looking like it might be our turn to see if we can work out any kind of agreeable solution here.
How this might work, how the non-physical can come from the physical, is definitely a head-hurter. Nevertheless, there seem to be difficulties with all of the “theory of mind” candidates. Is the answer a type of substance dualism, as in a soul, or is it property dualism, as in emergence or something like panpsychism? I’ve got a lot of reading in neuroscience to do.
I think your comment here is the right place to start. As I have mentioned, I've done the homework and have written up what I believe to be the correct answers -- and the necessary supporting arguments here: http://dstoner.net/Philosophy_Religion/WDG2017.01.10.pdf (Who DesignedGod?)
The short answer is that I am neither a dualist, nor a normal monist. Instead I am a "thought" monist -- although what I mean by this is not quite what most people mean by "panpsychism." However, understanding what I do mean might require a very long explanation. Unfortunately, my full explanation and arguments (linked above) required many pages of technical and scientific investigation, like this:
<image8.jpeg>
I'll try to cover it here with a "very quick" summary (OK, sorry, it's still kind of long):
Part1:
Chapter 1 begins by describing one physics student's reaction to the Michelson-Morley experiment, and how the world is stranger than we normally suppose. It also presents the accepted role of causality, and how we might expect everything in the world ought to fit together. The following single page probably best summarizes what that chapter presents:
<image9.jpeg>
<image6.jpeg>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<image1.jpeg>
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e507496.1c69fb81.b5778.be59SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
<image9.jpeg>
<image8.jpeg>
<image1.jpeg>
<image6.jpeg>
- Don
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/9273455F-E5EB-4406-9F03-940A70DDAAC6%40yahoo.com.
Cary Cook
Don,
it's all math
Is that the current majority consensus of physicists? In my admitted ignorance of the subject, whatever percentage of physicists agree with it is the probability judgment I would give it.
Does it include centers of intentionality (aka souls)? If so, it should remove virtually all atheistic objections to afterlife. In fact, any "person" could exist in multiple bodies simultaneously.
In any case, my ignorance of physics makes my criticism relevant only to your ability to communicate to others also ignorant of physics.
Assuming slide 1 as you understand it is correct, it is still hard to understand by non-physicists. We still need an unambiguous statement of the relationships of the elements in the 4 rows.
"Is supported by" [ even when clarified to mean: is caused by, is explained in terms of, is a result of, is an abstraction of] is still ambiguous.
These guesses of mine are incorrect:
1. everything in row 3 is supported by everything in row 2.
2. everything in row 3 is supported by at least one thing in row 2.
You made one clear statement:
In some cases, there will be at least one thing in row 3 which is directly supported by at least one thing in row 1 (completely skipping over row 2).
But we need to know what is true in all cases. We need either a statement that covers all elements in all rows, or the diagram split into sub-diagrams.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/9273455F-E5EB-4406-9F03-940A70DDAAC6%40yahoo.com.
it's all math
Is that the current majority consensus of physicists? In my admitted ignorance of the subject, whatever percentage of physicists agree with it is the probability judgment I would give it.
Does it include centers of intentionality (aka souls)? If so, it should remove virtually all atheistic objections to afterlife. In fact, any "person" could exist in multiple bodies simultaneously.
In any case, my ignorance of physics makes my criticism relevant only to your ability to communicate to others also ignorant of physics.
Assuming slide 1 as you understand it is correct, it is still hard to understand by non-physicists. We still need an unambiguous statement of the relationships of the elements in the 4 rows.
"Is supported by" [ even when clarified to mean: is caused by, is explained in terms of, is a result of, is an abstraction of] is still ambiguous.
These guesses of mine are incorrect:
1. everything in row 3 is supported by everything in row 2.
2. everything in row 3 is supported by at least one thing in row 2.
You made one clear statement:
In some cases, there will be at least one thing in row 3 which is directly supported by at least one thing in row 1 (completely skipping over row 2).
But we need to know what is true in all cases. We need either a statement that covers all elements in all rows, or the diagram split into sub-diagrams.
The correct statements are: At least one thing in row 3 is supported by at least one thing in row 2 (justifying the location on level 3). And: Every single thing in row 3 must be supported by at least one thing in row 2, or by at least one thing in row 1 (supporting everything in row 3).
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e50dd2e.1c69fb81.d67b0.97e3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
Cary Cook
Don,
When I said:
"Is supported by" [ even when clarified to mean: is caused by, is explained in terms of, is a result of, is an abstraction of] is still ambiguous.
I should have clarified that I didn't mean it is ambiguous as a stand-alone statement, but that its application to the diagram could be taken in several ways.
------------------------------
At least one thing in row 3 (e.g. "choices") must at least possibly be supported by at least one thing in row 2 (e.g. morality or logic), (justifying the location on level 3).
I understand that I have to wait for a revised diagram. When working on it, please consider this question:
How does the word "possibly" above relate to "These statements are true in all cases"?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/AAAD8D7D-80D4-443C-A6CD-E17B8BAE31C8%40yahoo.com.
When I said:
"Is supported by" [ even when clarified to mean: is caused by, is explained in terms of, is a result of, is an abstraction of] is still ambiguous.
I should have clarified that I didn't mean it is ambiguous as a stand-alone statement, but that its application to the diagram could be taken in several ways.
------------------------------
At least one thing in row 3 (e.g. "choices") must at least possibly be supported by at least one thing in row 2 (e.g. morality or logic), (justifying the location on level 3).
I understand that I have to wait for a revised diagram.
When working on it, please consider this question:
How does the word "possibly" above relate to "These statements are true in all cases"?
Don,
When I said:
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e51c4de.1c69fb81.a411b.af88SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
<image1.jpeg>
4. Actions which affect the physical world3. Choices, Judgements, Conclusions, Mathematics/Calculations
2. Morality, Logic, Emotion1. Conscious Minds/Sentience
- Don
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/2E99529C-5F91-4BD7-AEC2-A3EE6A6D8D4B%40yahoo.com.
Cary Cook
Don,
Totally agree about emotion in row 2.
Sentience can be eliminated as just logic plus emotion.
Math can be eliminated as a subset of logic.
But morality is also superfluous.
Morality is just logic plus objectified emotion.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/9DD381FA-0584-458E-81A6-2D51867F3A17%40yahoo.com.
Totally agree about emotion in row 2.
Sentience can be eliminated as just logic plus emotion.
Math can be eliminated as a subset of logic.
But morality is also superfluous.
Morality is just logic plus objectified emotion.
On February 11, 2020 at 1:55 AM
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e52142c.1c69fb81.80bbd.e025SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
ucapol...@yahoo.com
Hi Bill,
I am back from Vegas.
Let me go back to your original email and address that.
Emails getting lost? Whoever heard of something like that? LOL! Welcome to the 21st century Internet. It happens. No harm, no foul. They probably landed in your spam folder, which maybe is where they belong. I don’t know. The important thing is we finally made contact.
I understand that you wanted to address some of the popular authors, even mistaken authors, in your presentation. I guess I just had hoped that you would have mentioned that there was another version of TAG that didn’t have the problems you mentioned; if for no other reason but for completeness sake. But, Que sera sera.
Let’s take a look at how a Transcendental Argument works. Perhaps that will clear up some misunderstandings.
A transcendental argument simple looks for the necessary and sufficient conditions for a statement to be true. For instance, if we say we know something, what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for that to be true?
Let me use a mundane example to illustrate how this works, then we can go to the transcendental example.
Let’s say you go out in your front yard and you see your neighbor across the fence. You exchange greetings and you notice that he has a glass of iced tea in his hand. He says he just made a pitcher and offers you a glass. As an inquisitive person, you wonder what are the necessary and sufficient preconditions for his statement to be true. You begin to think and you determine that for his statement about making a pitcher of iced tea to be true he would minimally need:
1) Tea
2) A pitcher
3) Ice
4) Water
5) Some way to heat the water (unless he was a barbarian and used instant tea)
You will note that each of the above ingredients is necessary to make a pitcher of Iced tea; but unless they are all present, there wouldn’t be sufficient conditions to create the pitcher of iced tea. So, a transcendental argument will be looking for the necessary and sufficient conditions for something to be true.
In our case we want to look at different cosmological positions and ask, which, if any, have the necessary and sufficient preconditions that would allow for knowledge?
In examining the different cosmological positions (theories of what exists), we find that there are nine basic cosmologies and some have variant positions within the cosmology. For instance, Judaism and Christianity differ in many aspects; However, they share the same basic cosmology.
These nine basic cosmologies and their variants are at the heart of all philosophical and religious positions.
We can either go through each cosmology (and each variant) one by one to see if they have the necessary and sufficient conditions for knowledge or we can group them (categorize them). We could look at categorizing these cosmologies in a number of ways, but the most efficient would be into the following categories:
!) Those that deny the existence of a physical reality
2) Those that affirm the existence of a physical reality
Regarding the first category, we can do away with them pretty fast. The cosmologies jn that category state that what is perceived as physical reality is just an illusion. This would make all creatures an illusion too; and since illusions can’t have knowledge, these cosmologies would not have the necessary and sufficient conditions for the creatures (including us) to have knowledge. These cosmologies include both an atheistic cosmology and some theistic cosmologies.
The second category can be divided into two sub-categories.
1) Those cosmologies that say that physical reality exists and is what it is via intent. This category consists of theistic cosmologies.
2) Those cosmologies that say that physical reality exists and is what it is without intent. This category would include an atheistic cosmology and some theistic cosmologies where God is impersonal.
The question now is there at least one scenario in both or one of these categories that has the necessary and sufficient conditions that allow for the possibility of knowledge? It is also possible that neither have the necessary and sufficient preconditions for knowledge.
Please note, even though the positions are antithetical, there is at least the logical the possibility that both could have a scenario that would have the necessary and sufficient preconditions that would allow for knowledge. So, a disjunctive syllogism would be out of play here.
Cary
From: 'ucapol...@yahoo.com' via BYS vs MH
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2020 7:46 AM
To: bys-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TAG Defective?
Cary wrote: "Do you, or do you not have a coherent presentation of TAG?"
Yes Cary,
And I gave you a succinct version of it in my last post.
Let me outline it for you. Anything other than the outline will become an essay.
1) We have a necessary antithesis: Either everything is what it is via intent (intentionalism) or everything is what it is without intent (unintentionalism).
2) By examining the elements of Intentionalism, we find there is at least one scenario that has the necessary and sufficient preconditions that allow for the possibility of knowledge.
3) By examining the elements of Unintentionalism, we find not only that the elements do not have the necessary and sufficient preconditions that allow for the possibility of knowledge, but they make the possibility of knowledge impossible.
***** Please note here, even though we have an antithesis we are not doing a disjunctive syllogism.
4) We do not know, nor can we know which of the above two options is the case. Thus there will be no "Therefore, God."
5) However, if one wants to say that he knows something, anything, we have to ask what are the necessary and sufficient preconditions for his knowledge claim to be true? Intentionalism can be part, if not the whole, of those preconditions. It has at least 1 scenario that allows for the possibility of knowledge.
6) Unintentionalism cannot be part, or the whole, of the necessary and sufficient preconditions for one's knowledge since Unintentionalism denies the possibility of knowledge.
7) So, it may be the case, in spite of our declaration of knowing, that there is no knowledge at all. However, if we make a knowledge claim, we must realize that Intentionalism will have to be part of the necessary and sufficient preconditions for the possibility of that claim to be true. That doesn't mean the knowledge claim is true, but for it to possibly be true intentionalism must be accepted as a precondition.
Going back to Bill's "DEFECT", I hope you and others can see I am not denying one leg of a disjunct and then saying that the other leg is therefore true. The above argument is not a disjunctive argument. My big objection is that Bill knew his presentation was wrong days prior to giving his presentation; and he decided to give his strawman presentation anyways. He made the group he spoke in front of weaker; and worse yet, he has not (to my knowledge) tried to go back and remedy the situation. If any of those he taught comes across a theist that knows the above, their attempts to refute the TA will fail, making them look like fools because Bill taught them to refute an argument that is a strawman.
I hope this clears things up, Cary. Should you want an essay explaining any part of the above, let me know.
Regards,
Brady
Brady,
I'm not going to address all of you points. Only one matters.
Do you, or do you not have a coherent presentation of TAG?
Not a discussion; not a copy-paste of Van Til or Bahnsen; not a long essay with links to references.
Just coherent presentation of TAG.
Cary
From: 'ucapol...@yahoo.com' via BYS vs MH
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2020 7:36 AM
To: bys-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TAG Defective?
Hi Cary,
Let me address a few things.
1) It seems that those who reject the argument are the ones that seem to bail on the discussions, William, our friend on FB, wasn't interested in continuing after I created two videos which were the start of my presentation. As for Bill, He wanted to talk about it via phone. I gave him my number so we could talk. After a week and no response, I emailed him again and asked to talk. Still no response.
2) I presented the argument in full on this forum in a discussion with an atheist, I think it was with Sean. That was a number of years ago.
3) What defect do you think Bill found? As I pointed out in my comment on his youtube video. He tries to change the transcendental argument into a deductive argument (modus tollendo ponens). The problem is that a transcendental argument is not a deductive argument. Thus, he created a strawman fallacy (i.e defeating an argument that is not the transcendental argument).; but, maybe you are talking about something else that I missed. Please let me know if you are.
4) Cary wrote: "I find TAG sufficient to convince me of the probability (not necessity) of a Supreme Being." Yes Cary, now you got it. The Transcendental Argument does not end with, "Therefore, God." You are left with two positions, Intentionalism and Unintentionalism. We don't know which one is true. All we can get from it is that Intentionalism has the elements that allow for the possibility of knowledge and Unintentionalism does not have the elements that allow for the possibility of knowledge. If we say we know anything, we have to presume the position that allows for the possibility of knowledge. It makes no sense to assert you have knowledge and them presume a position that doesn't allow for the possibility of knowledge.
So, Cary, do you know anything?
Regards,
Brady
I find TAG sufficient to convince me of the probability (not necessity) of a Supreme Being. But I must admit that my understanding of TAG consists of vignettes connected intuitively, but not rigorously.
I have never seen TAG rigorously stated, neither by Van Till, Bahnsen, Passantinos, Russ Manion, or Brady Lenardos. Brady has agreed to present such a statement to one person I know of, and delivered a beginning, but then dropped the discussion.
Bill Zuersher has shown a defect in TAG as I understand TAG. Brady has said Bill's understanding of TAG is defective, but has not given us his supposedly correct version of TAG.
I still have a sloppy 80% probability judgment that a Supreme Being exists, but that's all.
Cary
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e463e9a.1c69fb81.70af2.8be9SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/1553674853.2168145.1581694502387%40mail.yahoo.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e4742f4.1c69fb81.ffad8.9a41SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/2038900846.2439908.1581781572670%40mail.yahoo.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
Cary Cook
Don,
I think you agreed with me based on an interpretation of my words that I did not intend.
I asserted "Even happiness is not more important than being right" because if one is happy but not right, then that happiness ... will cost more unhappiness than it was worth.
NOT because being right in itself is more important (to any organism) than happiness.
[I assume you remember my definition of happiness.]
"being right" is a moral obligation
Disagree. I assert:
Some rightness/wrongness has no moral/immoral value.
Trying to be right is not necessarily moral.
Trying to be morally right is a moral obligation.
I further assert that the only reason any organism has to care about morality is the affect morality has on his ultimate happiness.
Happiness to a community of organisms is a separate issue.
Happiness to everything in the universe that feels happiness/unhappiness is a separate issue.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/636D1085-536A-45C4-AB6C-DEADEAD4FEBA%40yahoo.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e5311a2.1c69fb81.10b48.1710SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
Cary Cook
Don,
True, but we can still discuss your diagram profitably.
Are conclusions supported by logic, or part of logic?
How are conclusions and calculations different?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/2BE659FE-54CD-47CA-9FF3-0B92D216A10C%40yahoo.com.
True, but we can still discuss your diagram profitably.
Are conclusions supported by logic, or part of logic?
4. Actions which affect the physical world
3. Choices, Judgements, Conclusions, Mathematics/Calculations
2. Morality, Logic, Emotion
1. Conscious Minds/Sentience
How are conclusions and calculations different?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e5316be.1c69fb81.6276f.6da0SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
Cary Cook
Don,
Are you defining these terms such that they are separate or overlapping concepts? If they overlap, this gets mushy - you are drawing arbitrary lines, and anyone can draw boundary lines elsewhere. The result would be that even if your diagram works, any number of counter diagrams can equally work.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/1094C2B3-7D63-4C56-BD45-06A0A7466668%40yahoo.com.
Are you defining these terms such that they are separate or overlapping concepts? If they overlap, this gets mushy - you are drawing arbitrary lines, and anyone can draw boundary lines elsewhere. The result would be that even if your diagram works, any number of counter diagrams can equally work.
Here is a new candidate for the slide-1 causality stack:
4. Actions which affect the physical world
3. Choices, Judgements, Conclusions, Mathematics/Calculations
2. Morality, Logic, Emotion, Initiative (somewhat random), Senses (e.g. "itch" activated)
1. Conscious Minds/Sentience
- Don
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e534ca1.1c69fb81.b1544.44e2SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
3. Actions which affect the physical world
2. Thought processes culminating in choices
1. Conscious Minds/Sentience
Cary Cook
Don,
YES. That's all clear and easily defensible.
Does it do everything you want done?
Cary
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: 'Email' via BYS vs MH
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2020 11:01 PM
To: bys-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TAG Defective?
Cary,
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/4B7C5196-DDB0-4AB9-BBF5-D29CBD23CFD5%40yahoo.com.
William Zuersher
Does it do everything you want done?
- Don
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e5398af.1c69fb81.c25b7.76bcSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
3. Actions which affect the physical world
2. Thought processes culminating in choices (includes Math and Logic somewhere)
1. Conscious Minds/Sentience
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e5398af.1c69fb81.c25b7.76bcSMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
Cary Cook
Don,
That all looks good to me.
Thank you for splitting it into 2 slides.
(How and where are the "programs/instructions/code" added into this diagram?)
Good one! Let's see how atheists answer it.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/1CA096AC-3732-44E3-BB9B-AB21D14A1688%40yahoo.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e546f76.1c69fb81.b09ed.c614SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
Cary Cook
Don,
Maybe.
I think your most recent revisions are worthy of a presentation in front of a mixed audience. E.g. O C Thinkers
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/A9FC50BF-F41C-44D8-BFC1-13566F00961E%40yahoo.com.
Shane Fletcher
(How and where are the "programs/instructions/code" added into this diagram?)
Good one! Let's see how atheists answer it."
Cary Cook
Shane to the rescue!
Don, I think I should let you answer this – at least to start.
From: Shane Fletcher
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 11:44 PM
To: bys-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TAG Defective?
"
(How and where are the "programs/instructions/code" added into this diagram?)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/CAAsswWoiuMvVVY3eFknnSOOd2%2B2Gqjx2_YSz7eAeAFoVP_go%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Shane Fletcher
Brady
- Don
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e54b8a2.1c69fb81.11e22.b4a3SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
Cary Cook
Cary agrees with Shane on this.
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Shane Fletcher
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 3:56 AM
To: bys-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TAG Defective?
Well I'm happy to continue this with Brady. I don't know if there is an easy way to find our previous discussion. I thought it was on Facebook, but maybe it was here just after you asked me to join. A lot of this seems familiar, and I hesitate to repeat myself, but
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/CAAsswWqi3%3Dp6F0E55y%3DMzOZASdk8M0J-ARc3O6TJ%3D%3DcCOaMSJQ%40mail.gmail.com.
(How and where are the "programs/instructions/code" added into this diagram?)
Good one! Let's see how atheists answer it."
I've done my best to follow along, but the minutia have definitely overwhelmed me.
What exactly is the question/problem that you see?
First, Slide 2A: Living Chemistry (Carbon), the unconscious parts:
2A-13. Complete logic-processing brain
2A-8. Complex body parts (e.g. itchy nose, parietal lobe, useful finger)
2A-7. Cellular groups: e.g. nerves (active), skin, bones (passive)
2A-6. Various types of living single cells
2A-5. Molecules (very large range of complexity)
2A-4. Atoms
2A-3. Elementary Particles
2A-2. Quantum Mechanics, space/time
2A-1. Harking's "Fire" (creator? ontological logic/math?)
Next, Slide 2B: Mechanical Chemistry, (Silicon), the unconscious parts:
2B-12. Complete logic-processing computer ("They don't think, they just follow instructions.")
2B-11. Control and sequencing circuits, Math and logic processing, Memory arrays, Routing circuits
2B-10. Electrical interconnections, Logical processing circuits (active), Mechanical structures (passive)
2B-9. Insulators, Conductors, Semiconductors
2B-5. Molecules (very large range of complexity)
2B-4. Atoms
2B-3. Elementary particles
2B-2. Quantum mechanics, Space/time
2B-1. Harking's "fire" (creator? ontological logic/math?)
And, of course, here is our Slide1, the conscious parts:
1-3. Actions which affect the physical world
1-2. Thought processes culminating in choices (might include Math and Logic somewhere)
1-1. Conscious Minds/Sentience
I also have a question on "conscious minds/sentience" ... are you including here the simplest of animal minds, that are essentially doing no more than responding to stimuli?
Slide 2C: A Paramecium:
2C-6. One single living cell
2C-5. Molecules (very large range of complexity)
2C-4. Atoms
2C-3. Elementary Particles
2C-2. Quantum Mechanics, space/time
2C-1. Harking's "Fire" (creator? ontological logic/math?)
And are you including decisions made by the subconscious mind, like the ability to catch a ball sailing along a parabola in the air, whilst not consciously being aware of performing the maths required to plot it's trajectory?
The goal here is to connect the two pieces together in such a way that a human can make a "conscious choice," (not a mere reflex action), which will then start a chain of properly caused events, which will culminate in that person's finger scratching their nose (a specific action which affects the physical world).
I presented some thought experiments in chapter 10 of WDG:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/CAAsswWoiuMvVVY3eFknnSOOd2%2B2Gqjx2_YSz7eAeAFoVP_go%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com.
Shane Fletcher
"like expecting the computer to "lift itself up by pulling upwards on its own bootstraps.""In time, this startup process came to be known as "booting" a computer."Is that where the term actually comes from? Because that's worth the price of admission right there.
Thanks for all the clarification. That helps a lot. Especially the renumbering from 9 to 13.
"The primary nature of the causality stacks is that each row (or layer) must be completely supported by the rows underneath it). Something on row 3 cannot cause anything on row 2 to exist, or to change."Is this what you are going for, or is this how you believe things must be?
Because large macro things can certainly change atomic things. Magnets and batteries come immediately to mind. As does the Large Hadron Collider.
And there are man made elements, that didn't exist until we caused them to exist. And more artificial molecules than I could count.
So while we certainly exist because of the lower levels on the Slide,
there comes a point where it is not simply one way traffic.
The point I am trying to make, is that it doesn't seem like the top levels of the Slides have to be all taking, and no giving.
"The goal here is to connect the two pieces together in such a way that a human can make a "conscious choice," (not a mere reflex action), which will then start a chain of properly caused events, which will culminate in that person's finger scratching their nose (a specific action which affects the physical world). "So what about the Paramecium? Are we asking the same questions about it, making it's "choices" that affect the physical world, or not,
because it doesn't have a brain, and therefore doesn't have consciousness?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/CAAsswWrfszwsSsmpt1qe-Z3JW9ogz1UzCsg72yy_ymve9XB06A%40mail.gmail.com.
Cary Cook
Don,
That section on causes cannot be circular was great!
May I paraphrase it and put it out on Facebook?
But then later you say observations can cause changes to events which appear to have happened in the past. So, I can't follow you there.
Please give us a revision of your slides that has all the numbering correct. That's necessary in order to even begin to follow you.
Cary
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: 'Email' via BYS vs MH
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 1:48 PM
To: bys-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TAG Defective?
Hi Shane,
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/3220DEBA-D599-4BF7-8092-A6CA3688E047%40yahoo.com.
That section on causes cannot be circular was great!
May I paraphrase it and put it out on Facebook?
But then later you say observations can cause changes to events which appear to have happened in the past.
So, I can't follow you there.
Please give us a revision of your slides that has all the numbering correct. That's necessary in order to even begin to follow you.
Slide 2A: Living Chemistry (Carbon), the unconscious parts:
2A-13. Complete logic-processing brain
2A-8. Complex body parts (e.g. itchy nose, parietal lobe, useful finger)
2A-7. Cellular groups: e.g. nerves (active), skin, bones (passive)
2A-6. Various types of living single cells
2A-5. Molecules (very large range of complexity)
2A-4. Atoms
2A-3. Elementary Particles
2A-2. Quantum Mechanics, space/time
2A-1. Harking's "Fire" (creator? ontological logic/math?)
Slide 2B: Mechanical Chemistry, (Silicon), the unconscious parts:
2B-12. Complete logic-processing computer ("They don't think, they just follow instructions.")
2B-11. Control and sequencing circuits, Math and logic processing, Memory arrays, Routing circuits
2B-10. Electrical interconnections, Logical processing circuits (active), Mechanical structures (passive)
2B-9. Insulators, Conductors, Semiconductors
2B-5. Molecules (very large range of complexity)
2B-4. Atoms
2B-3. Elementary particles
2B-2. Quantum mechanics, Space/time
2B-1. Harking's "fire" (creator? ontological logic/math?)
Slide1, the conscious parts:
1-3. Actions which affect the physical world
1-2. Thought processes culminating in choices (might include Math and Logic somewhere)
1-1. Conscious Minds/Sentience
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e572d67.1c69fb81.b0430.2fe0SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
Shane Fletcher
Cary Cook
Don,
The jump in numbering sequence in 2A & 2B is confusing.
Even if you explain it perfectly, it will case confusion.
--------------------------------
I propose this paraphrase:
-------------------------------------
Causes cannot be circular.
This can appear to be complicated, because "loops" do happen -- like a "feedback loop" when you put a microphone too close to a speaker when setting up a P.A. system. But in all of these cases, there are two restrictions which separate them from being causally paradoxical:
1) You have to add energy from a separate source (e.g. the P.A. system's power plug) to keep the system going (the "cause" is not self-sufficient).
2) There is a delay around the loop between each "repetition" of the sound: causes can "trigger" future events (though they cannot also "power" them), and those future events can "trigger" events which are even farther into the future. But those future "effects" can never initiate the whole process.
Though this is an example of one cause triggering a chain of events (like a boot program loading and running other programs) it isn't really an "effect" being it's own "cause."
by physicist Don Stoner http://www.dstoner.net/
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/01431139-676B-4354-8831-87036A9AB94F%40yahoo.com.
Thanks for the reply. I am familiar with the Double Slit & the Delay Choice experiments. Fascinating stuff. But I now understand what you mean about the cause and effect. The confusion about the scale being the issue, was due to the way the list was ordered from smallest to largest.
So ... why isn't Slide 1 simply coming after 2A-13?
You need the brain before you can have a mind, that has thought processes,
and can make actions with the body that affect the physical world?
That's the cause and effect of it all.
I mean it can't occur earlier in the cause and effect chain. What am I missing?
Connect level 1-1 with 2A-1, level 1-2 with 2A-2, and level 1-3 with 2A-3 (and up), (as Penrose and Hammeroff have recommend) and everything will begin to make logical sense -- but in a very different kind of way. (Merges in italics, New edits in bold italics):
2A-13. Complete logic-processing brain
2B-12. Complete logic-processing computer ("They don't think, they just follow instructions.")
2B-11. Control and sequencing circuits, Math and logic processing, Memory arrays, Routing circuits
2B-10. Electrical interconnections, Logical processing circuits (active), Mechanical structures (passive)
2B-9. Insulators, Conductors, Semiconductors
2A-8. Complex body parts (e.g. cerebellum, itchy nose, parietal lobe, useful finger)
2A-7. Cellular groups: e.g. nerves (active), skin, bones (passive)
2A-6. Various types of living single cells
2A-5. Molecules (very large range of complexity)
2A-4. Atoms
2A-3. Elementary Particles
2A-2. Quantum Mechanics, space/time
2A-1. Harking's "Fire" (creator? ontological logic/math?)
1-3. Actions which affect the physical world
1-2. Thought processes culminating in choices (might include Math and Logic somewhere)
1-1. Conscious Minds/Sentience (might include ontological Math and Logic somewhere)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/CAAsswWrPT702bDJ%2BrwUQo2qpxhh4gOW7T5E8dRc3_Z4c7KArtA%40mail.gmail.com.
The jump in numbering sequence in 2A & 2B is confusing.
Even if you explain it perfectly, it will case confusion.
--------------------------------
I propose this paraphrase:
-------------------------------------
Causes cannot be circular.
This can appear to be complicated, because "loops" do happen -- like a "feedback loop" when you put a microphone too close to a speaker when setting up a P.A. system. But in all of these cases, there are two restrictions which separate them from being causally paradoxical:
1) You have to add energy from a separate source (e.g. the P.A. system's power plug) to keep the system going (the "cause" is not self-sufficient).
2) There is a delay around the loop between each "repetition" of the sound: causes can "trigger" future events (though they cannot also "power" them), and those future events can "trigger" events which are even farther into the future. But those future "effects" can never initiate the whole process.
Though this is an example of one cause triggering a chain of events (like a boot program loading and running other programs) it isn't really an "effect" being it's own "cause."
by physicist Don Stoner http://www.dstoner.net/
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e57855b.1c69fb81.56419.3101SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
Shane Fletcher
Cary Cook
Don,
Are you saying it’s like this?
Slide 1 | Slide 2A | Slide 2B |
|
| 13 12 11 10 9 |
| 8 7 6 5 4 | 8 7 6 5 4 |
3 2 1 | 3 2 1 | 3 2 1 |
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/6ABA27FF-E24F-4B42-B9B4-9B79BDE8904D%40yahoo.com.
- Don
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e5855c2.1c69fb81.4cf7d.14b1SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
Cary Cook
Don,
Then like this?
That’s a weird looking paradigm.
I think I’ll wait for your Y shaped paradigm before trying to figure it out.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/2A5D0551-BFCF-429F-AEB8-9AD7290CCF75%40yahoo.com.
Shane Fletcher
Why is there a hard limit on cause and effect at 13?
We’ve agreed that things interact with other levels in all sorts of loops.
If the list is supposed to be physical things, why does 13 exist at all?
Shouldn’t the physical end at 8?
And then it’s the interactions between other things in level 8 that give various cause and effects.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/CAAsswWp--i_qMrMuThLBdJdOCjGP2eW64uHqYwGDn%2BsK4j_jrA%40mail.gmail.com.
- Don
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e5873ea.1c69fb81.2150b.2394SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
Cary Cook
Don,
I agree with slide1 as I understand it.
I agree with 2A & B 1,2,3,4,5 as I understand them.
After that, only vignettes make sense to me, but I can’t put them together as you claim to have done.
Upon re-examination, it looks like this.
Slide 1 | Slide 2A | Slide 2B |
| 13 |
12 11 10 9 |
| 8 7 6 5 4 |
5 4 |
1 | 3 2 1 | 3 2 1 |
Slide 1-2 & 3 don’t appear to correspond to slide 2-2 & 3.
2A-6,7,8, appear right according to my limited understanding of biology.
2B-9,10,11,12 I don’t understand electronics & computers enough to comment on. I just have to take your word for them.
2A-13 appears to go where 2A9 would go if there was one.
That’s all I can do presently.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/0054CEB4-32F9-4F1A-B55C-F78BA32E9361%40yahoo.com.
Shane Fletcher
1-3. Actions which affect the physical world
1-2. Thought processes culminating in choices (might include Math and Logic somewhere)
1-1. Conscious Minds/Sentience
Shane Fletcher
Slide 1-2 & 3 don’t appear to correspond to slide 2-2 & 3.
1-2. Thought processes culminating in choices (might include Math and Logic somewhere)
2A-2. Quantum Mechanics, space/time
2A-1. Harking's "Fire" (creator? ontological logic/math?)
1-2. Thought processes culminating in choices ...
2A-2. Quantum Mechanics, ...
2A-2. ..., space/time
1-2. ... (might include Math and Logic somewhere)
2A-1. Harking's "Fire" (creator? ontological logic/math?)
1-3. Actions which affect the physical world
2A-3. Elementary Particles, ... 2A-4. Atoms, ... 2A-6. Molecules, ... etc. on up the stack
2A-13 appears to go where 2A9 would go if there was one.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e58c403.1c69fb81.a3c0d.1f46SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
Brady
Cary
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2020 7:46 AM
To: bys-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TAG Defective?
Cary wrote: "Do you, or do you not have a coherent presentation of TAG?"
Yes Cary,
And I gave you a succinct version of it in my last post.
Let me outline it for you. Anything other than the outline will become an essay.
1) We have a necessary antithesis: Either everything is what it is via intent (intentionalism) or everything is what it is without intent (unintentionalism).
2) By examining the elements of Intentionalism, we find there is at least one scenario that has the necessary and sufficient preconditions that allow for the possibility of knowledge.
3) By examining the elements of Unintentionalism, we find not only that the elements do not have the necessary and sufficient preconditions that allow for the possibility of knowledge, but they make the possibility of knowledge impossible.
***** Please note here, even though we have an antithesis we are not doing a disjunctive syllogism.
4) We do not know, nor can we know which of the above two options is the case. Thus there will be no "Therefore, God."
5) However, if one wants to say that he knows something, anything, we have to ask what are the necessary and sufficient preconditions for his knowledge claim to be true? Intentionalism can be part, if not the whole, of those preconditions. It has at least 1 scenario that allows for the possibility of knowledge.
6) Unintentionalism cannot be part, or the whole, of the necessary and sufficient preconditions for one's knowledge since Unintentionalism denies the possibility of knowledge.
7) So, it may be the case, in spite of our declaration of knowing, that there is no knowledge at all. However, if we make a knowledge claim, we must realize that Intentionalism will have to be part of the necessary and sufficient preconditions for the possibility of that claim to be true. That doesn't mean the knowledge claim is true, but for it to possibly be true intentionalism must be accepted as a precondition.
Going back to Bill's "DEFECT", I hope you and others can see I am not denying one leg of a disjunct and then saying that the other leg is therefore true. The above argument is not a disjunctive argument. My big objection is that Bill knew his presentation was wrong days prior to giving his presentation; and he decided to give his strawman presentation anyways. He made the group he spoke in front of weaker; and worse yet, he has not (to my knowledge) tried to go back and remedy the situation. If any of those he taught comes across a theist that knows the above, their attempts to refute the TA will fail, making them look like fools because Bill taught them to refute an argument that is a strawman.
I hope this clears things up, Cary. Should you want an essay explaining any part of the above, let me know.
Regards,
Brady
Brady,
I'm not going to address all of you points. Only one matters.
Do you, or do you not have a coherent presentation of TAG?
Not a discussion; not a copy-paste of Van Til or Bahnsen; not a long essay with links to references.
Just coherent presentation of TAG.
Cary
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2020 7:36 AM
To: bys-...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: TAG Defective?
Hi Cary,
Let me address a few things.
1) It seems that those who reject the argument are the ones that seem to bail on the discussions, William, our friend on FB, wasn't interested in continuing after I created two videos which were the start of my presentation. As for Bill, He wanted to talk about it via phone. I gave him my number so we could talk. After a week and no response, I emailed him again and asked to talk. Still no response.
2) I presented the argument in full on this forum in a discussion with an atheist, I think it was with Sean. That was a number of years ago.
3) What defect do you think Bill found? As I pointed out in my comment on his youtube video. He tries to change the transcendental argument into a deductive argument (modus tollendo ponens). The problem is that a transcendental argument is not a deductive argument. Thus, he created a strawman fallacy (i.e defeating an argument that is not the transcendental argument).; but, maybe you are talking about something else that I missed. Please let me know if you are.
4) Cary wrote: "I find TAG sufficient to convince me of the probability (not necessity) of a Supreme Being." Yes Cary, now you got it. The Transcendental Argument does not end with, "Therefore, God." You are left with two positions, Intentionalism and Unintentionalism. We don't know which one is true. All we can get from it is that Intentionalism has the elements that allow for the possibility of knowledge and Unintentionalism does not have the elements that allow for the possibility of knowledge. If we say we know anything, we have to presume the position that allows for the possibility of knowledge. It makes no sense to assert you have knowledge and them presume a position that doesn't allow for the possibility of knowledge.
So, Cary, do you know anything?
Regards,
Brady
I find TAG sufficient to convince me of the probability (not necessity) of a Supreme Being. But I must admit that my understanding of TAG consists of vignettes connected intuitively, but not rigorously.
I have never seen TAG rigorously stated, neither by Van Till, Bahnsen, Passantinos, Russ Manion, or Brady Lenardos. Brady has agreed to present such a statement to one person I know of, and delivered a beginning, but then dropped the discussion.
Bill Zuersher has shown a defect in TAG as I understand TAG. Brady has said Bill's understanding of TAG is defective, but has not given us his supposedly correct version of TAG.
I still have a sloppy 80% probability judgment that a Supreme Being exists, but that's all.
Cary
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e463e9a.1c69fb81.70af2.8be9SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/1553674853.2168145.1581694502387%40mail.yahoo.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/5e4742f4.1c69fb81.ffad8.9a41SMTPIN_ADDED_MISSING%40gmr-mx.google.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bys-vs-mh/2038900846.2439908.1581781572670%40mail.yahoo.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BYS vs MH" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bys-vs-mh+...@googlegroups.com.