On Tue, Jun 25, 2019, at 08:30, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: > So Feyerabend can't tell ISIS from NASA or the National Academy of Science > from the Papacy.
My mother is fairly religious. She goes to church every Sunday and she particularly likes the Virgin Mary. She is aware that her beliefs are non-justifiable, but she still holds them. Are you saying that there is no difference between my mother and ISIS? Religion is a large spectrum of things and so is science. I might agree with you that Feyerabend takes things too far, but these over-simplifications are not very good arguments. This is my problem with militant atheism: you guys can't seem to resist using the tools of the enemy. Telmo. > > 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/24ee370b-afd9-495e-b203-7c1118d5d717%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/24ee370b-afd9-495e-b203-7c1118d5d717%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > > > -- > 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/fa1ee5a5-b923-ebeb-985b-a10c99bfc0a5%40verizon.net > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/fa1ee5a5-b923-ebeb-985b-a10c99bfc0a5%40verizon.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/e01a1781-42bd-4e19-8abc-0aa8d2a77409%40www.fastmail.com.
