Can you tell a progressive Christian (who may be religious in the sense that they have a belief in God) and is also a progressive Democrat and a member of ISIS (who is also religious in the sense that they have a belief in God). Do all *theists *(*progressive Christian* and* ISIS member*) look the same in the eyes of the "scientific atheist"?
So scientists have turned science into a religion, but scientists (mostly) aren't as bad as ISIS members. @philipthrift On Tuesday, June 25, 2019 at 1:30:13 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > So Feyerabend can't tell ISIS from NASA or the National Academy of Science > from the Papacy. > > Brent > > On 6/24/2019 10:09 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > > "Feyerabend felt that science started as a liberating movement, but over > time it had become increasingly dogmatic and rigid, and therefore had > become increasingly an ideology and despite its successes science had > started to attain some oppressive features, and it was not possible [any > longer] to come up with an unambiguous way to distinguish science from > religion." > > *Epistemological anarchism* > From Wikipedia > > @philipthrift > > > On Monday, June 24, 2019 at 6:04:04 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> I think one could be most on the mark by calling this "how bad money >> chases out good money." I joined this list last fall, and in the last >> couple of months it seems to have fallen over to various humbugs promoting >> nonsense. these threads of late have degenerated into pure rubbish, bad >> thinking chasing out good thinking. >> >> LC >> >> On Sunday, June 23, 2019 at 10:46:37 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> I changed the title of this thread, I don't even know what the old one >>> means. >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 8:31 AM Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > *the natural transplant you mention might be the result of an analog, >>>> continuous process. *It would make a difference if all the decimals >>>> plays a role in consciousness. >>>> >>> >>> Even if you ignore the fact that it has been experimentally proven that >>> Bell's Inequality is violated and you claim there if a difference between >>> one Hydrogen atom and another, that is to say somewhere along that infinite >>> sequence of digits there is a difference, what you say makes no sense. The >>> atoms in my brain HAVE been replaced and yet I know for a FACT I have >>> survived; I *don't* know for a fact that the same is true for you but I >>> think it's reasonable to assume it is. So even if there is something analog >>> going on inside an atom, if we're talking about consciousness and >>> survival it's irrelevant. >>> >>> >>>> *>Of course, Darwin theory of evolution would become inconsistent, but >>>> logically, we cannot exclude the possibility* >>>> >>> >>> If a mathematical statement, even a well formed grammatically correct >>> one, contradicts a well established observation then it would be logical to >>> conclude the statement does not correspond with reality; after all every >>> language can write fiction as well as nonfiction. The fiction could be fun >>> to read and the very best might even have some sort of vague poetic >>> relationship to a truth, but there is not a literal correspondence to >>> reality. >>> >>> >> Even if a Hydrogen atom has some secret analog process going on >>>>> inside of it when one atom gets replaced by another atom, that is to say >>>>> when one analog process gets replaced by another analog process, I >>>>> *STILL* survive. >>>> >>>> >>>> *> That is the mechanist assumption. You can truncate the infinite >>>> decimal expansion in the analog process running a brain.* >>>> >>> >>> It's not an assumption it's a *OBSERVATION*! Atoms in my brain have >>> been replaced many many times and yet my consciousness has continued. >>> My only *ASSUMPTION* is that you are like me and are also conscious. >>> >>> >> So that hypothetical secret mysterious analog process is the >>>>> Hydrogen atom's business not mine, it has nothing to do with me. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *> Assuming that you substitution level is above the truncation of the >>>> decimals used in the atom. But a non computationalist can assert that his >>>> consciousness requires all decimals. * >>>> >>> >>> Then the non computationalist must logically conclude that he is not >>> conscious. I thought solipsists were bad but at least they thought they >>> were conscious even if nobody else was, but your non computationalist >>> doesn't even think he is conscious. How a non conscious person is able to >>> think of anything I will leave as an exercise for the reader. >>> >>> >>>> >>> In which theory? >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >> In the very controversial theory that says if I have observed X then >>>>> I have observed X. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *>You cannot observe a philosophical assumption. * >>>> >>> >>> You can observe that a philosophical assumption is dead wrong, such as >>> the philosophical assumption that an infinite string of digits in an analog >>> process is always needed to continue consciousness. >>> >>> >>>> >> Proof is not the ultimate, direct experience outranks it, and I >>>>> have direct experience I have survived despite numerous brain transplant >>>>> operations. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> > *Yes, and that is good for you,** but* [...] >>>> >>> >>> But nothing! It's good enough for me to say yes to the doctor and it's >>> good enough for me to say yes to being frozen. And if your experience has >>> been similar to mine, if your consciousness has also continued despite your >>> many brain transplant operations, and if you are a true fan of logic, then >>> you must conclude it's good enough for you too. >>> >>>> *> Personal experience is not available when doing science,* >>>> >>> >>> True, and that is exactly why no consciousness theory ever devised is >>> scientific, and none every will be. But theories about how intelligence >>> works are most certainly scientific. >>> >>> >> It doesn't matter if I can communicate my reason for saying yes to >>>>> the doctor (or yes to being frozen). I have no obligation to justify my >>>>> actions to you or anybody; based on the evidence I have at my command it >>>>> is >>>>> the logical thing to do. >>>> >>>> >>>> > *Personally, perhaps. Not sure about the guy above, though.* >>>> >>> >>> I'm not sure about the other guy either, he might be a zombie for all I >>> know, everybody except me might be, all I know for certain is I'm not. The >>> other guy is going to have to make his own decision, I can't help him, >>> nobody can. >>> >>> John K Clark >>> >>> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2b8c0ed5-be48-451c-b847-7ca0bd073144%40googlegroups.com.
