Atheistforums.com

Hello,

I am challenging anyone who is up for it to a Formal Debate on the existence of God. We will need a moderator and a structured set of rules for the debate. This thread is for hashing out all of those details.

So who's game?

There's nothing to debate.

Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 09:52:56 PM
We will need a moderator and a structured set of rules for the debate. This thread is for hashing out all of those details.

What we really need is your input on the forum's overall design.  Wolf has been working hard to put together a useable format, but I'm sure he would appreciate your input, since you seem to know all about stuff.

Which perspective do you wish to argue?

One cannot have a logical debate unless the premises are agreed upon. This only results in an irrational quarrel and pissing contest. Solitary.

Quote from: Casparov on April 18, 2014, 09:52:56 PM
Hello,

I am challenging anyone who is up for it to a Formal Debate on the existence of God. We will need a moderator and a structured set of rules for the debate. This thread is for hashing out all of those details.

So who's game?

What's a god?

Are you a Christian?

As the_antithesis pointed out, you have to outline your definition of a god or gods before you can start debating it's existence. Usually you'd do this based on observational evidence and discuss the significance of the evidence, but in this case there isn't any evidence so you don't have a starting point.

Quote from: Icarus on April 19, 2014, 02:36:34 PM
As the_antithesis pointed out, you have to outline your definition of a god or gods before you can start debating it's existence.

More than that, I think. We say we don't believe in god, but that's not accurate. What we don't believe is theists when they tell us about this god-thing. So a theist asking to debate the existence of god is more a debate about why we find them to be untrustworthy, shiftless bastard and not accept every crazy piece of shit that comes out of their mouths without question.

Quote from: the_antithesis on April 19, 2014, 07:04:40 PM
More than that, I think. We say we don't believe in god, but that's not accurate. What we don't believe is theists when they tell us about this god-thing. So a theist asking to debate the existence of god is more a debate about why we find them to be untrustworthy, shiftless bastard and not accept every crazy piece of shit that comes out of their mouths without question.

That's worked for them a long time now. I have a hunch they're going to stick to that format.

It is true that my debate partner and I will need to come to an agreement on the definition of God. I will first need a debate partner to discuss this with. Are there any challengers?

Mister Agenda and Hakurei Reimu seem like good candidates.

I will also need a moderator who will be fair and thorough. Are there any moderator candidates?

Quote from: _Xenu_ on April 19, 2014, 07:37:12 AM
Which perspective do you wish to argue?

I will argue that god exists.

Quote from: PopeyesPappy on April 19, 2014, 12:29:37 PM
Are you a Christian?

"Yes I am. I am also a [Hindu], a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew" - Gandhi

Quote from: Casparov on April 20, 2014, 12:02:10 AM
It is true that my debate partner and I will need to come to an agreement on the definition of God. I will first need a debate partner to discuss this with. Are there any challengers?

Mister Agenda and Hakurei Reimu seem like good candidates.

I will also need a moderator who will be fair and thorough. Are there any moderator candidates?

Since you're the believer it's your burden to come up with the definition of god and to be as specific as possible. I don't know how you expect an atheist to help you define something that is only found in the imagination of believers. Why do you need someone to help you define what you believe in? Seems rather dishonest.

Quote from: Casparov on April 20, 2014, 12:33:49 AM
I will argue that god exists.

That's going to be a short argument.

Quote from: Casparov on April 20, 2014, 12:38:05 AM
"Yes I am. I am also a [Hindu], a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew" - Gandhi

And there you go. I might be interested in a debate on the existence of the god or gods of one of those religions, but I am not going to enter into a debate with a Christian that won't argue for their owe specific set of beliefs. What does it say about your faith if you are unwilling to argue the case for your own personal god?

I challenge you to a formal debate to STFU. Actually I don't really care to debate it, but I'm entitled to wishful thinking too.

Quote from: Casparov on April 20, 2014, 12:02:10 AM
It is true that my debate partner and I will need to come to an agreement on the definition of God. I will first need a debate partner to discuss this with. Are there any challengers?

So what definition of "God" you debate over is going to be dependent on who decides to debate with you. Huh.

Yeah, I think it's clear to all of us that you don't have a clue what you mean by "God", yet you're going to debate us over it. What a dishonest cunt.

Quote from: Casparov on April 20, 2014, 12:02:10 AM
Mister Agenda and Hakurei Reimu seem like good candidates.

I don't debate dishonest cunts. Even were I to accept, I doubt it will make it past the preliminaries.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 20, 2014, 11:48:45 AM
So what definition of "God" you debate over is going to be dependent on who decides to debate with you. Huh.

That's a typical bullshit ploy used by apologists... Keep the definition of God a moving target to keep him safe from reason.  In one moment this God is a first cause necessary for setting the Big Bang in motion that is so elemental and simple as to be plausible (to those who wish to delude themselves), but in the next moment this God is possessing of all manner of non-elemental properties such as the capacity for love, supreme intellect, interaction with humans, concern for human destiny, possessing of a plan for salvation and an active participant in the plan, etc., etc., etc.

Quote from: Casparov on April 20, 2014, 12:02:10 AM
It is true that my debate partner and I will need to come to an agreement on the definition of God.

Actually, you'll have to bring that. We don't even know what this god-thing is. You'll have to provide the definition and then we'll get to watch you change the definition when you get backed into a corner because you will kill your own children and eat their flesh before you admit you are wrong.

I don't see this thing happening. It's already happened too many times and it's depressing.

 :wtff:
I am getting a whole lot of hostility just for requesting a debate...

Look people, I am simply interested in putting this section of your nice forum to use. You have a "The Debate Hall" and an empty section called "Formal Debates" which is supposed to be one-on-one and moderated. I am challenging you on your home turf to a fair fight and I'm getting attacked just for bringing up the subject... WTF? Why even have this section in your forum then???

OF COURSE there are people out there that disagree with you in the world. I am one of those people. This does not mean I am a piece of shit scum bag that you now have the right to kick face first into the mud and spit on. Regardless of whether or not you believe in god, what kind of a person does that just because someone disagrees with them? ATHEISTS!? ARe you serious?!?

I am interested in a one-on-one debate.

I know that as soon as I present a definition of "god' on this thread it will be instantly contended from all angles and 15 pages later I will have conducted informal debates with a large number of people and still have not organized an actual one-on-one formal debate. I have no problem presenting a definition for god, I have done so in my introduction thread already. http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=4329.30 (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=4329.30) This thread is not for that.

The purpose of this thread is to find a challenger, a moderator, and to hash out the rules and regulations of the debate. If we need to define the word "god" before the debate occurs that is fine, but I am not going to hash out the intricacies of a definition with 20 different people simultaneously in this thread. The person I debate and I can clarify and come to an agreement on a definition before the debate begins.

So who's going to step up to the plate and answer the challenge of the big scary theist?

Quote from: Casparov on April 21, 2014, 01:19:11 AM
I know that as soon as I present a definition of "god' on this thread it will be instantly contended from all angles

Because every definition you've ever given us is a load of horseshit that can be rejected out of hand, no debate required, bye bye, see you later. When you can offer something that is falsifiable, I'll debate you myself. Until then, as I stated in the beginning: There is nothing to debate.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 20, 2014, 11:48:45 AM
So what definition of "God" you debate over is going to be dependent on who decides to debate with you. Huh.

Yeah, I think it's clear to all of us that you don't have a clue what you mean by "God", yet you're going to debate us over it.

I have provided a concise definition of god no less than 5 separate times on this forum already. The definition of god I will defend is the exact same one. I simply refuse to debate it on this thread with all of you, though I have no problem presenting my definition to my challenger and refining based on his/her ease of understanding or communication whathaveyou, so that we have a mutual understanding of what we are debating over before we begin debating.

QuoteWhat a dishonest cunt.
I don't debate dishonest cunts. Even were I to accept, I doubt it will make it past the preliminaries.

I'm sorry but after being called a "dishonest cunt" without provocation I withdraw my statement that you are good candidate. I seem to have mistaken you for a decent human being able to converse in a civilized manner with people who disagree with you.

I don't debate with people who lead with ad hominem attacks.

Call me a crazy optimist but I really feel like this debate is going to change some minds.

Quote from: Casparov on April 21, 2014, 01:41:47 AM
I don't debate with people who lead with ad hominem attacks.

Insults aren't ad hominem attacks, dipshit.

I'm all for this debate. I say we do it. I just don't want to do it... and I don't know how to moderate a debate.

I don't think casparov suffers from the worst cognitive dissonance that I've ever seen. Who knows? He might be swayed a bit.

Can you imagine how good it would make everyone feel in this forum if we deconverted someone??? That would be fucking awesome. I'ts highly unlikely, but still. Casparov isn't an asshole or anything. A debate might be fun. Why do we have this debate section if we aren't going to use it?

How does the debate-section work anyways? Is it like a normal topic only open to two or three (moderater included) people? Or is it supposed to be face-to-face with webcams or something? Or is it like opening statement, picking apart eachother's opening statement, and then questions? Or ...

We could work out the format,  but only the two debating and the mod would be allowed to post in it

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Casparov on April 21, 2014, 01:19:11 AM

I am getting a whole lot of hostility just for requesting a debate...

Perhaps this is because you fit the profile of a troll. You may not actually be a troll, but "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and and shits through feathers, it's a duck."

Quote from: Casparov on April 21, 2014, 01:19:11 AM
:wtff:
I am getting a whole lot of hostility just for requesting a debate...

You're a theist. There is no debate. Just you being evasive, moving the goal post and generally being a frustrating little shit.

We're tired of it. You should be too, but your delusion apparently goes far enough that you don't even see how boring talking to you is.

Quote from: the_antithesis on April 21, 2014, 10:27:27 AM
You're a theist. There is no debate. Just you being evasive, moving the goal post and generally being a frustrating little shit.

We're tired of it. You should be too, but your delusion apparently goes far enough that you don't even see how boring talking to you is.

No different than talking to a BigFooter, a UFOer, or a "The Gubbermint dun it!"er.

Quote from: Casparov on April 20, 2014, 12:02:10 AM
It is true that my debate partner and I will need to come to an agreement on the definition of God. I will first need a debate partner to discuss this with. Are there any challengers?

Mister Agenda and Hakurei Reimu seem like good candidates.

I will also need a moderator who will be fair and thorough. Are there any moderator candidates?

Thanks for the kind words, Casparov! I'm afraid all I really have to say about the God of monist idealism is that evidence for or against it is impossible because under that system, evidence can't refer to anything real. The most it can be is internally consistent with God's mental construct, until God changes its mind and something else is consistent. That's pretty much it: it's not impossible that monist idealism is the case, but it's impossible to support the contention with evidence, which only makes sense in the context of a universe which is not purely a mental construct. If we're in a simulated universe within an actual physical universe, it's conceivable to obtain evidence of that, but not in a purely mental universe. Any such evidence would be mere illusion, as we would not actually be in a simulated universe within a physical universe.

If I felt that I had much more than that to offer on the topic, I would volunteer, although I usually avoid formal debates due to fear of committment. :)

 

Quote from: Casparov on April 20, 2014, 12:38:05 AM
"Yes I am. I am also a [Hindu], a Muslim, a Buddhist and a Jew" - Gandhi

Buttt  buddhists don't believe in a creator god. Infact that's a wrong view according to the Buddha. :winkle:

Hi Casparov! You and I have never interacted (yet anyway), and I was willing to take you up on the offer. So I got interested in learning a thing or two about the interlocutor, as I usually do, and I just got caught up, mostly, with your "I believe god exists".
And after having read almost all of it (I have about 6 pages to go out of 26), I have come to the conclusion that to agree to a debate would be, ultimately, a fruitless endeavor at best, a time waster at worst. And if I were to be asked by somebody to pick one of the best reasons, based on the thread I mentioned above, it would be this statement:
"this is the opinion of a Neurologist, not evidence"
And the reason that stands out the most is because it appears to be the common tactic in dismissing counter-arguments, and yet in the same reply you do the same thing - use what anyone else would be justified to likewise label "not evidence, just the opinion of XYZ".

I hope you find what you are looking for Casparov, but what you've offered thus far is very underwhelming, unpersuasive and in fact shows supect debate tactics.
I can understand how it can be frustrating to not find what you are looking for. You should also ask yourself "what did I do to contribute to this issue".

Quote from: Casparov on April 21, 2014, 01:41:47 AM
I have provided a concise definition of god no less than 5 separate times on this forum already. The definition of god I will defend is the exact same one.

No, no you haven't. You've come up with mealy-mouthed vague notions of something divine-like, but no definitions as required for a logical debate.

Quote from: Casparov on April 21, 2014, 01:41:47 AM
I'm sorry but after being called a "dishonest cunt" without provocation I withdraw my statement that you are good candidate. I seem to have mistaken you for a decent human being able to converse in a civilized manner with people who disagree with you.

Oh, I have no problem discussing things with people who disagree with me. It's the dishonest cunts I have problems with.

Quote from: Casparov on April 21, 2014, 01:41:47 AM
I don't debate with people who lead with ad hominem attacks.

And I don't debate people who lead in with dishonesty. Hence, calling you a dishonest cunt.

Reimu is a Touhou fan and is, by default, a decent human being. :P


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk. Titty sprinkles.

HEY! There'll be NO japanese love fest while I am here!

Quote from: Shol'va on April 21, 2014, 05:19:49 PM
Hi Casparov! You and I have never interacted (yet anyway), and I was willing to take you up on the offer. So I got interested in learning a thing or two about the interlocutor, as I usually do, and I just got caught up, mostly, with your "I believe god exists".
And after having read almost all of it (I have about 6 pages to go out of 26), I have come to the conclusion that to agree to a debate would be, ultimately, a fruitless endeavor at best, a time waster at worst. And if I were to be asked by somebody to pick one of the best reasons, based on the thread I mentioned above, it would be this statement:
"this is the opinion of a Neurologist, not evidence"
And the reason that stands out the most is because it appears to be the common tactic in dismissing counter-arguments, and yet in the same reply you do the same thing - use what anyone else would be justified to likewise label "not evidence, just the opinion of XYZ".

I hope you find what you are looking for Casparov, but what you've offered thus far is very underwhelming, unpersuasive and in fact shows supect debate tactics.
I can understand how it can be frustrating to not find what you are looking for. You should also ask yourself "what did I do to contribute to this issue".

If I find a neurologist that says that consciousness exists independent of the brain, would you accept that as proof? If not, then I don't understand why you are concerned that I do not accept it as proof when someone presents to me a neurologist who has the opposing opinion.

Debating the evidence is something else entirely. If someone presents to me an experiment conducted by neurologists that seems to indicate that the brain produces consciousness, I will be very interested in examining and discussing the evidence presented. But I will accept the "opinion" of an expert as evidence no more readily then you will accept the "opinion" of an expert as evidence. Otherwise I could just find a biologist who's opinion is that creationism is true, and this would be evidence of creationism.

The point is, there is a distinct difference between "evidence" and "the opinion of an expert".

I hope you reconsider, but I respect your decision if you decline.

I would think only forum Mods should be eligible to be Debate Moderators. The Formal Debate thread itself should be limited to posts by the two debaters and the Moderator and all speculation on the ongoings should be limited to the Peanut Gallery.

If the existence of God is too grandiose a topic perhaps we could break it down into smaller topics. Here are a few I am prepared to debate:

The Existence of Life After Death

The Ramifications of Quantum Physics

Materialism vs Idealism

and of course The Existence of God remains on the table as well

Quote from: Casparov on April 22, 2014, 12:47:43 AM
If the existence of God is too fucking stupid a topic

FIFY.

Quote from: Casparov on April 22, 2014, 12:40:19 AM
If I find a neurologist that says that consciousness exists independent of the brain, would you accept that as proof? If not, then I don't understand why you are concerned that I do not accept it as proof when someone presents to me a neurologist who has the opposing opinion.

You could probably find a neurologist that will say anything.   What you need to do is demonstrate that consciousness exists independently from a brain.  Good luck with that!

Debates do nothing but contribute to AGW.

I'm afraid I'm still very much unclear of whatever the fuck you mean when you use the word 'god'.

Is it the hive mind thing you said we share with rocks and stuff?
The "ultimate reality" whatever that is?

Quote from: Casparov on April 22, 2014, 12:40:19 AM
If I find a neurologist that says that consciousness exists independent of the brain, would you accept that as proof? If not, then I don't understand why you are concerned that I do not accept it as proof when someone presents to me a neurologist who has the opposing opinion.

Hellow again Casparov.

Firstly, there is a difference between proof and evidence; the discussion was about evidence. Secondly, the point I was making was that if you dismiss the conclusion of a neurologist on the basis that it is just an opinion, then, like I said, you're hardly in a position to provide counterpoints because they can likewise be simply dismissed as counter opinions and that leaves us nowhere.
In other words what you did there was nothing less than hand-waiving since you provided nothing to support your dismissal. A proper dismissal would be one that addresses the argument and shows that despite the fact that the author is an expert in his own field, his conclusion is not supported by any evidence and is therefore a scientifically unsound hypothesis.

As to your question if you find a neurologist that has proof (maybe you meant evidence) that consciousness exists independent of the brain, it doesn't matter to me who the neurologist and what they are saying. What matters to me is the evidence. Is it valid?
I do not wish to open a discussion here since that other thread exists, but as it stands all current scientific knowledge points to the fact that consciousness is an emergent property of our physical brain. I am sure that Sam Harris is waiting with baited breath for evidence to the contrary, that he can examine. In fact, he said so himself on numerous occasions. Most scientists do; most find that being wrong is as exhilarating as being right, since it opens the opportunity for discovery.

As to the definition of god, after having reviewed the other thread, I am inclined to agree with what has been said here, that I have yet to see a comprehensive, intelligible definition of what you mean when you say "god".
There are many outstanding, unresolved logical issues with proposed attributes to the concept that humans describe as a god. As a very simple example, consider the attribute of absoluteness. Absolutely just and absolutely merciful. One cannot be both, it is illogical.
The other issue is that of attributing traits to the concept of deities that are highly desirable or sought after by humans. And then you can clearly see, throughout the history of cultures, how these traits have changed along with the deities.

Quote from: Bibliofagus on April 22, 2014, 12:51:21 PM
I'm afraid I'm still very much unclear of whatever the fuck you mean when you use the word 'god'.

Is it the hive mind thing you said we share with rocks and stuff?
The "ultimate reality" whatever that is?

I am a Monist Idealist Pantheist if you understand this term you understand my definition of god.

The god i believe in is very similar to the description of "Brahman" described in Hindu traditions, if you understand the concept of Brahman, you understand my definition of god.

I believe god is analogous to the tenth dimension in Rob Bryanton's description of ten dimensions: http://youtu.be/hf2CxZPl7KI (http://youtu.be/hf2CxZPl7KI) If you understand what the tenth dimension is in conjunction with Idealism, you understand my definition of god.

In a single word, I identify as a Panentheist, and in a concise definition, I have provided:

god noun \gäd also gȯd\
   : The supreme or ultimate reality : The ground of all being : Infinite Mind.

I believe there is only one thing that actually exists, and it is God, and we are all parts of it.

Casparov, okay, but you have to understand a self-description is just a starting point of a conversation. It is not the conclusion of one. The definition you provided raises more questions than it provides answers.

Quote from: Casparov on April 22, 2014, 03:36:06 PM
I am a Monist Idealist Pantheist if you understand this term you understand my definition of god.

The god i believe in is very similar to the description of "Brahman" described in Hindu traditions, if you understand the concept of Brahman, you understand my definition of god.

I believe god is analogous to the tenth dimension in Rob Bryanton's description of ten dimensions: http://youtu.be/hf2CxZPl7KI (http://youtu.be/hf2CxZPl7KI) If you understand what the tenth dimension is in conjunction with Idealism, you understand my definition of god.

In a single word, I identify as a Panentheist, and in a concise definition, I have provided:

god noun \gäd also gȯd\
   : The supreme or ultimate reality : The ground of all being : Infinite Mind.

I believe there is only one thing that actually exists, and it is God, and we are all parts of it.

This explains a lot, you're confused about the god you believe in so you have refrained from outlining your belief until now. Unfortunately this outline is flawed.

Monist: You believe the universe is made of one form of matter, energy
Idealist: You believe that there is a material and immaterial world (thus contradicting your assertion to being a monist)
Pantheist: God encompasses the entire universe and is everything
Panentheist: "Panentheism differentiates itself from pantheism, which holds that the divine is synonymous with the universe. Unlike pantheism, panentheism maintains the identity and significance of the non-divine in the world."

You have contradicted yourself twice when attempting to outline how you would define god, why would you ever attempt to debate someone about a topic you've clearly put very little thought into. Troll much?

Quote from: Casparov on April 22, 2014, 03:36:06 PM
I am a Monist Idealist Pantheist if you understand this term you understand my definition of god.

The god i believe in is very similar to the description of "Brahman" described in Hindu traditions, if you understand the concept of Brahman, you understand my definition of god.

I believe god is analogous to the tenth dimension in Rob Bryanton's description of ten dimensions: http://youtu.be/hf2CxZPl7KI (http://youtu.be/hf2CxZPl7KI) If you understand what the tenth dimension is in conjunction with Idealism, you understand my definition of god.

In a single word, I identify as a Panentheist, and in a concise definition, I have provided:

god noun \gäd also gȯd\
   : The supreme or ultimate reality : The ground of all being : Infinite Mind.

I believe there is only one thing that actually exists, and it is God, and we are all parts of it.

If you think that the universe is god, then there's nothing to debate.   Most of us agree that the universe exists.

Icarus, Jason78, you gentlemen bring up good points, which further strengthen my already present suspicion that, at this point, the goal of a debate is to strengthen the belief in a god, whatever that may be, for Casparov, rather than being an honest opportunity of sharing of ideas and arguments.
I could be completely wrong but in my experience, more often than not, the desire for a formal debate unmistakably follows after a set of beliefs or a world view was challenged and put under scrutiny.

Quote from: Casparov on April 22, 2014, 03:36:06 PM

I believe there is only one thing that actually exists, and it is God, and we are all parts of it.

Saying god is everything is the same as saying god is nothing.

Quote from: Icarus on April 22, 2014, 03:51:47 PM
This explains a lot, you're confused about the god you believe in so you have refrained from outlining your belief until now. Unfortunately this outline is flawed.

Monist: You believe the universe is made of one form of matter, energy

No silly. You are very very confused, because you are a Materialist, and you believe that everyone everywhere must also be a materialist, you have concluded that "monism" means that the universe is made of one "form" of matter/energy. You demonstrate how limited your view of the world is.

Monism : Monism is the philosophical view that a variety of existing things can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance. (this has absolutely nothing to do with matter/energy, but only indicates that the fundamental nature of reality is singular rather than dualistic.)

QuoteIdealist: You believe that there is a material and immaterial world (thus contradicting your assertion to being a monist)

No silly. You are entirely ignorant of any view of the world outside of your own limited conception. Therefore you have incorrectly identified the meaning of Idealism in a gross demonstration of your own ignorance and laziness. A simple google search of "Idealism" and "Monism" would have cleared all of this up for you very quickly, but apparently that was too much to ask, so here I am having to do the work for you.

Idealism does not mean "that there is a material and immaterial world" that is called Dualism, which I do not subscribe to obviously, because I have stated that I am a Monist.... I do not believe that there is a material world, only an immaterial world.

Idealism : is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial.

QuotePantheist: God encompasses the entire universe and is everything

I do not typically identify as a Pantheist but in conjunction with "Monist Idealist" I (wrongly) thought this would assist you in comprehending what I mean by the word "god". Consciousness as the fundamental singular reality and God encompassing all. But you have demonstrated the amazing ability to turn "Monist Idealist" into "Dualist/Materialist" and so "Pantheism" in conjunction with your definitions has become the same old tired "The Material Universe with the label God slapped onto it" ideology which I do not subscribe to even a tiny bit.

QuotePanentheist: "Panentheism differentiates itself from pantheism, which holds that the divine is synonymous with the universe. Unlike pantheism, panentheism maintains the identity and significance of the non-divine in the world."

Without the qualifier "Monist Idealist" I refrain from calling myself "Pantheist" because people typically hear that word and think "Material universe as God" which is not an accurate description of my ideology, so when I give a one word description of my beliefs I give the word "Panentheism" to distinguish what I believe from the typical conception of Pantheism.

Panentheism : In panentheism, God is viewed as the eternal animating force behind the universe. Some versions suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifest part of God. In some forms of panentheism, the cosmos exists within God, who in turn "transcends", "pervades" or is "in" the cosmos. While pantheism asserts that 'All is God', panentheism goes further to claim that God is greater than the universe.

QuoteYou have contradicted yourself twice when attempting to outline how you would define god, why would you ever attempt to debate someone about a topic you've clearly put very little thought into. Troll much?

This post of yours is the perfect example of why I hesitated to provide a description of god in a public thread like this. Now I am forced to make replies like this one, explaining to the lowest common denominator of the forum the simple definitions which anyone can easily look up on their own to clear up the false information you are spreading. You simply made up your own definitions and then said they were incoherent.

Yes, your made up definitions were incoherent. Well done. The actual definitions however, are not. You insinuate that "monism" is not compatible with "Idealism" according to how you have defined them. (maybe because you defined "Monism" as "Materialism" and "Idealism" as "Dualism")

I am astounded by the ignorance of this post, this is exactly what I was trying to avoid having to do....

Quote from: Jason78 on April 22, 2014, 03:58:39 PM
If you think that the universe is god, then there's nothing to debate.   Most of us agree that the universe exists.

Most of you agree that Materialism is true, which is to say that an external Material Universe exists. To call this "god" would be silly, which is the point you are making.

You seem to have ignored the part where I say I am a "Monist Idealist" which means I am not a Materialist, I believe that consciousness is fundamental rather than material objects, therefore I am saying something entirely different than simply "the material universe is god". I am saying that consciousness is fundamental to reality, and I define god is the entire consciousness system as a whole, which we are parts and pieces of.

I am astonished that you read "Monist Idealist Pantheist" and took from it that I was simply saying "the universe is god" I doubt you are an Idealist rather than a Materialist, and so I doubt that you "agree" that what I am talking about is true.

Again, I am forced to defend simple definitions against willing ignorance.

Quote from: Shol'va on April 22, 2014, 04:12:52 PM
Icarus, Jason78, you gentlemen bring up good points, which further strengthen my already present suspicion that, at this point, the goal of a debate is to strengthen the belief in a god, whatever that may be, for Casparov, rather than being an honest opportunity of sharing of ideas and arguments.
I could be completely wrong but in my experience, more often than not, the desire for a formal debate unmistakably follows after a set of beliefs or a world view was challenged and put under scrutiny.

I find it more of a concern when people are not willing to debate their ideas. When I find someone who has strong convictions about the nature of reality, so strong that they tell other people that they are wrong, but at the same time refuse to formally debate those ideas, there is something quite disconcerting about that. The unwillingness to put their ideas on the table head to head against competing ideas seems to demonstrate an underlying insecurity.

People afraid to debate their ideas seem to be protecting themselves from the possibility of discovering that they are harboring absurdities and their cherished world view is truly flimsy and weak when exposed from behind the armor of puffed up certainty. One who is not willing to put their world view to the test is afraid to be wrong, and afraid to have their cognitive dissonance laid out for all to see.

Im sure if a fundamentalist Christian walked in here claiming that evolution is wrong and the earth was 6000 years old and demanded a debate, there would be no less that 100 takers competing to be the one who gets to the slaughter the lamb at the alter. Atheist love shooting fish in a barrel, but never want to go deep sea fishing.

If you all are going to refuse to debate me then you should shut down this section of the forum. I'm not going to sit here and beg you to have the balls to have a formal debate. And Im not going to continue to sit here and listen to you come up with lame excuses as to why you aren't going to debate. "The goal of debate is to strengthen the belief in god." ARe you serious??? That's you're excuses??? I am entirely tired of the bullshit. How bout maybe I want to put my world view to the test against a competing world view one-on-one in a formal setting in order to gauge it's strengths and weaknesses? What's my other option? Go to a Creationist forum and debate them? if you think Atheists are opposed to my worldview you should see how fundamentalists christians react to it! But the cognitive dissonance is strikingly similar.... I'm shocked at the garbage I am receiving on this forum in particular though... it is truly remarkable...

I've never seen such intellectual cowardice in my life....

Quote from: Shol'va on April 22, 2014, 03:37:59 PM
Casparov, okay, but you have to understand a self-description is just a starting point of a conversation. It is not the conclusion of one. The definition you provided raises more questions than it provides answers.

Of course it is "just a starting point of conversation" hence the debate...  :eyes:

Quote from: the_antithesis on April 22, 2014, 11:25:29 PM
Saying god is everything is the same as saying god is nothing.

If that were true that would mean that everything is nothing.

Quote from: Casparov on April 23, 2014, 12:06:13 AMI am saying something entirely different than simply "the material universe is god". I am saying that consciousness is fundamental to reality, and I define god is the entire consciousness system as a whole, which we are parts and pieces of.

This is actually a lot clearer than your answer to me. Not exactly clear yet but okay.
So you're saying the universe is all a shared dream and that dream is god?

Also please define 'the entire consciousness system as a whole'. This means nothing to me. How does this system work? Please describe the interacting or interdependent components, and also the laws (of nature?) that govern the interaction. Or does gravity have influence on this 'conciousness system as a whole'?

Quote from: Casparov on April 23, 2014, 12:26:15 AM
How bout maybe I want to put my world view to the test against a competing world view one-on-one in a formal setting in order to gauge it's strengths and weaknesses?

I'm starting to understand your definition of god, but since you appear  to have tossed al we can know about reality out of the window, I'm very much confused about how you think the universe works (i.e. your worldview). Could you please describe the laws that govern your universe?

Quote from: Casparov on April 23, 2014, 12:26:15 AM
Im sure if a fundamentalist Christian walked in here claiming that evolution is wrong and the earth was 6000 years old and demanded a debate, there would be no less that 100 takers competing to be the one who gets to the slaughter the lamb at the alter. Atheist love shooting fish in a barrel, but never want to go deep sea fishing.

In all fairness, Casparov, I think you should realize most on this forum don't see your claims as a challenge to go deep sea fishing but rather as one for shooting a fish in a barrel. So I don't thing that's  a truthfull analogy. If Walker_Lee, for instance, were to want to debate any of us, I don't think you'd get that kind of response either. Sure, shooting fish in a barrel is fun, but a lot won't want to commit themselves and their time to one rediculous claim when there are so many out there and presented so often even on this bastion of rationality we call Atheïst Forums. Because that's all we see it as; another ridiculous claim.

I know that in your introduction-topic you've stated that you enjoyed that conversation because it made you feel like neo fighting off a horde of agent smiths. (I'm paraphrasing here.) But, whether or not this position is correct for us to have, all we saw was someone dodging the points in posts either on purpose or just because he didn't get them. We see your claims and see there is an equal amount of proof for it as for the 6000 year old argument from a fundamentalist Christian. We didn't see a Neo fighting us off with intelligent reasoning, good arguments and well-thought-out logic. All we saw was someone unwilling to understand what was being said to him and repeating the same unproven statements as if they were dogma in his mind. All we saw was someone who berated people for not living up to a standard of proof his claims could never live up to and who berated positive claims with some evidence as being 'mere assumptions' while making them himself without any kind of evidence.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 23, 2014, 02:53:54 AM
In all fairness, Casparov, I think you should realize most on this forum don't see your claims as a challenge to go deep sea fishing but rather as one for shooting a fish in a barrel. So I don't thing that's  a truthfull analogy. If Walker_Lee, for instance, were to want to debate any of us, I don't think you'd get that kind of response either.

I know that in your introduction-topic you've stated that you enjoyed that conversation because it made you feel like neo fighting off a horde of agent smiths. (I'm paraphrasing here.) But, whether or not this position is correct for us to have, all we saw was someone dodging the points in posts either on purpose or just because he didn't get them. We see your claims and see there is an equal amount of proof for it as for the 6000 year old argument from a fundamentalist Christian. We didn't see a Neo fighting us off with intelligent reasoning, good arguments and well-thought-out logic. All we saw was someone unwilling to understand what was being said to him and repeating the same unproven statements as if dogma in his mind.

If my arguments are just "shooting fish in a barrel" to you then put your money where your mouth is in and debate me one-on-one.

I don't think I'll be able to show you, probably the only person on this forum who'se not convinced it's shooting fish in a barrel, that it is actually shooting fish in a barrel.

That being said, I don't mind the idea of a one-on-one debate. I'm just a tad confused as to what you hope to accomplish with it. Because regarding your statements I've pretty much said everything I've had to say in your opening topic. And it's clear from that introduction topic that you will sway exactly no-one on this forum. You've also already made your argument to just about everyone on the forum, and nobody here is really impressed. What will repeating that in a one-on-one conversation with me add to that? It'll be like we hit the re-start button.

Quote from: Casparov on April 23, 2014, 12:06:13 AM
Most of you agree that Materialism is true, which is to say that an external Material Universe exists. To call this "god" would be silly, which is the point you are making.

I thought that was the point you were making.  I'm not making a point.

Quote from: Casparov on April 23, 2014, 12:06:13 AM
You seem to have ignored the part where I say I am a "Monist Idealist" which means I am not a Materialist, I believe that consciousness is fundamental rather than material objects, therefore I am saying something entirely different than simply "the material universe is god".

Since it can already be demonstrated that conciousness comes from a material brain, you've got a lot of work on your hands to try and turn that around.

Quote from: Casparov on April 23, 2014, 12:06:13 AM
I am saying that consciousness is fundamental to reality, and I define god is the entire consciousness system as a whole, which we are parts and pieces of.

I am astonished that you read "Monist Idealist Pantheist" and took from it that I was simply saying "the universe is god" I doubt you are an Idealist rather than a Materialist, and so I doubt that you "agree" that what I am talking about is true.

Again, I am forced to defend simple definitions against willing ignorance.

What exactly do you think consciousness is?

Quote from: Casparov on April 22, 2014, 11:57:29 PM
No silly. You are very very confused, because you are a Materialist, and you believe that everyone everywhere must also be a materialist, you have concluded that "monism" means that the universe is made of one "form" of matter/energy. You demonstrate how limited your view of the world is.

Monism : Monism is the philosophical view that a variety of existing things can be explained in terms of a single reality or substance. (this has absolutely nothing to do with matter/energy, but only indicates that the fundamental nature of reality is singular rather than dualistic.)

No silly. You are entirely ignorant of any view of the world outside of your own limited conception. Therefore you have incorrectly identified the meaning of Idealism in a gross demonstration of your own ignorance and laziness. A simple google search of "Idealism" and "Monism" would have cleared all of this up for you very quickly, but apparently that was too much to ask, so here I am having to do the work for you.

Idealism does not mean "that there is a material and immaterial world" that is called Dualism, which I do not subscribe to obviously, because I have stated that I am a Monist.... I do not believe that there is a material world, only an immaterial world.

Idealism : is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial.

I do not typically identify as a Pantheist but in conjunction with "Monist Idealist" I (wrongly) thought this would assist you in comprehending what I mean by the word "god". Consciousness as the fundamental singular reality and God encompassing all. But you have demonstrated the amazing ability to turn "Monist Idealist" into "Dualist/Materialist" and so "Pantheism" in conjunction with your definitions has become the same old tired "The Material Universe with the label God slapped onto it" ideology which I do not subscribe to even a tiny bit.

Without the qualifier "Monist Idealist" I refrain from calling myself "Pantheist" because people typically hear that word and think "Material universe as God" which is not an accurate description of my ideology, so when I give a one word description of my beliefs I give the word "Panentheism" to distinguish what I believe from the typical conception of Pantheism.

Panentheism : In panentheism, God is viewed as the eternal animating force behind the universe. Some versions suggest that the universe is nothing more than the manifest part of God. In some forms of panentheism, the cosmos exists within God, who in turn "transcends", "pervades" or is "in" the cosmos. While pantheism asserts that 'All is God', panentheism goes further to claim that God is greater than the universe.

This post of yours is the perfect example of why I hesitated to provide a description of god in a public thread like this. Now I am forced to make replies like this one, explaining to the lowest common denominator of the forum the simple definitions which anyone can easily look up on their own to clear up the false information you are spreading. You simply made up your own definitions and then said they were incoherent.

Yes, your made up definitions were incoherent. Well done. The actual definitions however, are not. You insinuate that "monism" is not compatible with "Idealism" according to how you have defined them. (maybe because you defined "Monism" as "Materialism" and "Idealism" as "Dualism")

I am astounded by the ignorance of this post, this is exactly what I was trying to avoid having to do....

So much hatred in this one, point out the errors and he goes nanners. I don't know where you got your definitions but they don't fit any of the ones that are posted on websites explaining the different between these ideologies and the dictionary definitions themselves. I'm sorry that your grasp of the English language isn't good enough to understand that 1 does not equal 2. I'm also sorry that you think you have the power to tell me what I think without me telling you and for it to be true. This is called having a god complex; now your belief in a god makes sense, in your mind you are god.

Quote from: Casparov on April 23, 2014, 12:26:15 AM
Im sure if a fundamentalist Christian walked in here claiming that evolution is wrong and the earth was 6000 years old and demanded a debate, there would be no less that 100 takers competing to be the one who gets to the slaughter the lamb at the alter. Atheist love shooting fish in a barrel, but never want to go deep sea fishing.

Please note that the Formal Debates subforum, the one that's actually moderated, is a barren wasteland that has all of two threads in it, and that's in the peanut gallery. Are you really saying that no fundamentalist Christians have waltzed in demanding a debate from us since its creation?

No, you don't offer any deep sea fishing. It's the same kind of shallow shit those fundies present, and like them you don't seem aware of how shallow your position is, and how it is based on strawmanning and semantics whoring. Both of these are dishonest debate tactics, by the way. This is why I refuse to debate with you, because regardless of whether you believe yourself to be dishonest or not, you are in fact dishonest, and in a formal debate, your honesty or dishonesty is very much at issue.

Your definition of "God" is so far removed from its roots that it is unrecognizable. Even the omnipresence doctrine of the Catholic church still had God as a separate, distinguishable thing from the rest of creation, and still a person in his own right that has cares and its own thoughts separate from that of the universe. You have squeezed God out of "God" â€" so what's the point?

Quote from: Casparov on April 23, 2014, 12:26:15 AM
If you all are going to refuse to debate me then you should shut down this section of the forum. I'm not going to sit here and beg you to have the balls to have a formal debate.

While I agree that the debate forum has not earned its keep in years, you're hardly in a position to demand anything.

Quote from: Casparov on April 23, 2014, 12:26:15 AM
And Im not going to continue to sit here and listen to you come up with lame excuses as to why you aren't going to debate. "The goal of debate is to strengthen the belief in god." ARe you serious??? That's you're excuses??? I am entirely tired of the bullshit. How bout maybe I want to put my world view to the test against a competing world view one-on-one in a formal setting in order to gauge it's strengths and weaknesses?

No, you don't. You've already rejected the ground rules of empiracism in other threads. After that, there's nothing more to be said.

Quote from: Casparov on April 23, 2014, 12:26:15 AM
I've never seen such intellectual cowardice in my life....

There is nothing intellectually cowardly about not debating a child who insists that the sky is green. I wish I could say that I have never seen such an overinflated intellectual ego in my life, but sadly, your ilk is very common.

Quote from: Casparov on April 23, 2014, 12:06:13 AM
Most of you agree that Materialism is true, which is to say that an external Material Universe exists. To call this "god" would be silly, which is the point you are making.

Have you really established that most of us agree that materialism is true, or have you merely demonstrated that most of the people you're talking to think you haven't disproved it?

Quote from: Casparov on April 23, 2014, 01:16:52 AM
If that were true that would mean that everything is nothing.

Not to go into the cosmology that is suggestive that it actually is the case that everything is nothing (2+1-3=0), if that were true, it would mean that God isn't everything.

Quote from: Casparov on April 22, 2014, 12:40:19 AM
If I find a neurologist that says that consciousness exists independent of the brain, would you accept that as proof? If not, then I don't understand why you are concerned that I do not accept it as proof when someone presents to me a neurologist who has the opposing opinion.

Does the neurologist you have in mind base their contention on neurology? If so, it would at least be interesting to hear their position.

However, it would seem that under monist idealism, both evidence for and evidence against would be an illusion, with no reason to think it indicates the actual state of affairs.

I think the ghost in the closet is Deepak Chopra. Solitary

Quote from: Casparov on April 23, 2014, 01:16:52 AM
If that were true that would mean that everything is nothing.

Ever heard of Laurence Krauss' ultimate free lunch ( see http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/21/science/space/cosmologists-try-to-explain-a-universe-springing-from-nothing.html?_r=0)

Hmm. Our totally intellectually honest friend chose to ignore my questions.
Big surprise.

Quote from: Casparov on April 23, 2014, 12:26:15 AM
I find it more of a concern when people are not willing to debate their ideas. When I find someone who has strong convictions about the nature of reality, so strong that they tell other people that they are wrong, but at the same time refuse to formally debate those ideas, there is something quite disconcerting about that. The unwillingness to put their ideas on the table head to head against competing ideas seems to demonstrate an underlying insecurity.

Hi Casparov!
Let me assure you that between my job and my family, I am a very busy individual. It is out of respect that I typically do not engage in formal debates. Formal debates require a certain level of commitment and investment, two things which if I know I cannot hold myself up to, then I shouldn't. My activity here is sporadic, uncertain, sometimes it is day after day, other times there are long gaps.
Because of the reasons above I am also highly and extremely selective of interlocutors when I do choose to engage in formal debates.
Another reason I usually don't engage in debates is because I don't see a point to them.
So, allow me a moment to be blunt for the sake of clarity, I hope you don't take it the wrong way.
Why should I not only have a formal debate, but why should I have one with you specifically. What sets you apart from the multitude of deists I interact with online?

You are welcome to hold your own opinions (even if they are wrong) and think that refusal to commit to a formal debate is evidence of cowardice, flimsy world  views, etc etc.

I am still not clear. Why is a formal debate so important to you? If you think your world view is so well supported by facts and backed up by evidence, then there should be no reason why you shouldn't be able to, in the absence of a formal debate, simply open up a thread in one of the other sections and see where that goes. If people bother you, then just add them to your ignore list and filter them out.

Quote from: Casparov on April 23, 2014, 12:26:15 AMHow bout maybe I want to put my world view to the test against a competing world view one-on-one in a formal setting in order to gauge it's strengths and weaknesses?

You can put your world view to the test at any point, it doesn't have to be against another world view.
You seem to be under the wrong impression that if you disprove another world view, it validates your own.

I love to debate, so much so in fact that sometimes I am accused of doing it for the sake of doing it, to the point that I become argumentative when agreement and consensus can actually be reached. But the only difference between a regular thread and one in the formal debates section is that of commitment; if I fail to follow up and follow through, if I fail to conclude a discussion, that might lead to incorrect and false perceptions of the other person.

Last point. I was Christian. My skepticism is a result of your metaphorical "deep sea diving". I view myself first and foremost a skeptic, and atheist by consequence. In other words, I don't disbelieve that a god could exist, I just don't believe you (where "you" doesn't have to mean specifically you, it means any deist/theist/etc).

Quote from: Casparov on April 23, 2014, 12:28:00 AM
Of course it is "just a starting point of conversation" hence the debate...  :eyes:

Let me clarify. You did not properly establish specifically what concept you'd like to debate, as you understand it. All you did was provided several textbook definitions of what views you hold and I pointed out that since these definitions are not the end all be all, you did not actually follow through with the request to provide a definition of what it is you'd like to debate.

I can use Google just fine, anyone can. But that still leaves the question unanswered.

I have decided to re-read the "I believe god exists" thread, however tedious that may sound, and I must say that if the definition of god that we are to debate is indeed this definition (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=4329.msg1008360#msg1008360), then I can probably summarize what the debate with me would probably sound like.
I stand corrected, it seems that you did in fact provide the closest definition you probably could, as to how you envision god to exist and to be. I don't mean to make fun, but it sounds an awful lot like out of the movie Avatar.

If you were to open the formal debate with that introduction, I would probably say that I don't see the point at all. It sounds like there is no stake we have in accepting this proposition of god or rejecting it. So an atheist, or materialist or any other non-believer would be perfectly justified in living out their life, pardon my bluntness, not giving a fuck. In other words I don't see a necessity to consider a supreme moral code to uphold to, there's no personal stake or consequence that I see in rejecting this proposed deity. If you were to open up the introduction with that proposition of god, I would also say that it is so vague in its description, to the point that I don't actually see what tangible impact it would have on the way one would conduct themselves out there in the world.

You must understand that atheists, humanists, etc. usually mobilize and become activists when the religious try to impose their moral code, holy books, etc etc upon those that are not part of the same faith. You have none of that, so I see you as completely harmless and I see myself perfectly capable of getting along with you just fine. I hear you, I acknowledge your world view, but it has zero effect on me and offers absolutely nothing compelling for me to consider.

It seems that a significant portion of your world view is based on a very fundamental misunderstanding. You say this:

Quotewhoever is a Materialist is making the assertion that Materialism is true. I am simply skeptical of this claim, and am requesting proof. Evidence of any kind will suffice. I challenge you all to prove the positive claim you are making.

That is not a positive claim, my friend. It goes like this

Quotewhoever is a Materialist is making the assertion that Materialism is true ...

... because there has not been presented compelling evidence to the contrary.

It is not a positive claim. It is the negative; the default position.

As to the Bostrom equation, a rudimentary search yields plenty of rebuttals, objections, counter-arguments etc.
I am fairly alarmed at the complete lack of interest to seek out information by yourself. And to demand others debate you ...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Simulation_argument

If you want a debate on if god exists or not, Ill go ahead and debate you.

Heres my first argument:


Prove it. Show me TESTABLE VERIFIABLE PROOF that god exists.





















Ill wait.

^ Are you holding your breath? Should I be worried?

I think he knows better than to do that.

5 pages in and nobody wants to step into the ring. I'm not going to turn this thread into a "me vs the atheist forum" debate thread. I created this thread for the purpose of finding an Atheist on this forum willing to have a legitimate debate in the way this section of your forum was intended to be used. I still have no takers.

If there is anyone who is willing to accept the challenge the offer is still on the table.

I say this not having read any other posts; I am not sure what you want to debate.

If you want us to prove the Abrahamic God is false, that is quite easy as he is a logical impossibility and proves himself nonexistent. If you want us to prove the Greek Pantheon to be false, all we need do is travel to Mt. Olympus.

However there are some mainstream Gods (not to even get into the millions of ways "God" can be personally interpreted) that cannot be proven to not exist... though likewise they cannot be proven to exist and thus require "faith". There is no point arguing over the existence of these because ultimately it would be like arguing if there is a rock on Pluto the shape of Texas that's gravity caused 50 pounds of dirt to shift over the past 10,000 years... it is quite possible there could be but there is neither any way to prove it or any reason to just assume its true.

There are very few god's I can see that are worth debating over; the one's that are wrong have been proven wrong from centuries of arguments and the one's that cannot be proven or disproven have no reason to be debated.

You may want to check my reply on page 4

Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 01:10:53 AM
I still have no takers.

For the second time:

Offer a concrete, falsifiable position, and I will debate you myself.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 24, 2014, 02:13:43 AM
You may want to check my reply on page 4

My answer to your reply on page 4 is: Humor me.

If you are accepting the invitation let's get this party started.

I think a good rule would be to go post for post. After a post, we must wait for the response before posting again. There should be no double posting. we should also have a page limit. I think 21 pages would be a decent number. Should we flip a coin to see who goes first? I guess we will let the normal forum mods be considered the "moderators". I'm sure they'll jump in when they see fit. Any other rules that would be beneficial?

Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 02:26:20 AM
I think a good rule would be to go post for post. After a post, we must wait for the response before posting again.  There should be no double posting. we should also have a page limit. I think 21 pages would be a decent number.

agreed

But claryfication needed on what consists of 'double posting'.

Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 02:26:20 AM
Should we flip a coin to see who goes first?

How would that work online? You pick.

Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 02:26:20 AM
I guess we will let the normal forum mods be considered the "moderators". I'm sure they'll jump in when they see fit.

I think they should be asked if they want to spend any time on that rather than assuming something like that.

Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 02:26:20 AM
Any other rules that would be beneficial?

Not any rule that I can think of. Except perhaps a timeframe
Though a clear idea of what the debate would be about would be helpfull.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 24, 2014, 02:39:31 AM
agreed

But claryfication needed on what consists of 'double posting'.

by "double posting" I mean it should go: You, me, you, me, you, me, you... post for post.
Not: You, me, me, me, you, you, me, me, me, me, you.

QuoteHow would that work online? You pick.

Okay, I'll go first since this debate is my idea.

QuoteI think they should be asked if they want to spend any time on that rather than assuming something like that.

True. I'll just assume they'll jump in if they want to for any reason. I doubt there will be any need for moderation.

QuoteNot any rule that I can think of. Except perhaps a timeframe
Though a clear idea of what the debate would be about would be helpfull.

Do we agree that the debate ends after 21 pages? Im open to suggestions. I propose the topic be "The Existence of God" since this is an Atheist forum. Bases on previous discussion and definitions provided I assume you understand what I mean when I say the word "god"? Or do I need to further clarify?

Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 03:04:09 AM
Do we agree that the debate ends after 21 pages? Im open to suggestions. I propose the topic be "The Existence of God" since this is an Atheist forum. Bases on previous discussion and definitions provided I assume you understand what I mean when I say the word "god"? Or do I need to further clarify?

Come to think of it, 21 pages may be a long time. What is it, 15 posts per page? That would be 315 posts just between the two of us. Perhaps 11 pages would be better, 165 comments by two people is still much more than I think we would fill. I'm actually afraid that it'll get repetitive way before that.

I think I'm as close to understanding your definition of God as I'll ever be.

How about we let the people vote on the number of pages? 11? 21? Somewhere in between? Less? More?

Once they've reached a decision, we shall begin. (unless there's anything else)

Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 03:29:25 AM
How about we let the people vote on the number of pages? 11? 21? Somewhere in between? Less? More?

Once they've reached a decision, we shall begin. (unless there's anything else)

I don't mind, but I'd actually be surprised if anyone is vested enough in this debate for that. I'd actually be surprised if people other than us would start to read what is essentialy going to be a conversation between the two of us.

I will read it, but the amount of pages is really kinda irrelevant to me. I cant see it going past 3 pages w/o getting too repetitive... perhaps 6?

You could make the debate 10000 pages and you'd accomplish as much as a 1/2 page debate. Length is irrelevant when there is no purpose.

I for one can't wait to find out what Casparov thinks conciousness is.

How about this rule.
You can't move forward with the argument unless you have addressed all the points the other person raised, in a concise, explicit, clear and conclusive manner.

And on the other hand, do not be insincere and raise a point just to score a "gotcha" point. The contentions must be legit.

Here's another rule. No dishonest debate tactics, no engaging in semantics, no clever attempts to misrepresent and shift the burden of proof.

No logical fallacies, no assertions without at least an explanation as to why to back them up and/or external references.

The intros should also clearly establish each person's views: are you a skeptic, atheist, materialist, theist, etc. to rule out the possibility of talking past each other.

Make NO statements about the other person's positions without explicitly asking them first where they stand. For example, no "you're a materialist" or "you're a nihilist"!


I would be willing and more than happy to moderate and interject when necessary. I'm no stranger to objectivity. In fact my profession requires it.

I think a limit on pages makes sense, but this limit may be extended at the discretion of the moderator if a good reason is provided and inquiry is necessary for further clarification.

Agreed?

Now You just took every possible way for Casper to make his point. All he does is semantics, shifting burden of proof and logical fallacies, assertions and least of all making clear, concise and coclusive arguments.

Quote from: Shol'va on April 24, 2014, 09:23:16 AM
How about this rule.
You can't move forward with the argument unless you have addressed all the points the other person raised, in a concise, explicit, clear and conclusive manner.

And on the other hand, do not be insincere and raise a point just to score a "gotcha" point. The contentions must be legit.

Here's another rule. No dishonest debate tactics, no engaging in semantics, no clever attempts to misrepresent and shift the burden of proof.

No logical fallacies, no assertions without at least an explanation as to why to back them up and/or external references.

The intros should also clearly establish each person's views: are you a skeptic, atheist, materialist, theist, etc. to rule out the possibility of talking past each other.

Make NO statements about the other person's positions without explicitly asking them first where they stand. For example, no "you're a materialist" or "you're a nihilist"!


I would be willing and more than happy to moderate and interject when necessary. I'm no stranger to objectivity. In fact my profession requires it.

I think a limit on pages makes sense, but this limit may be extended at the discretion of the moderator if a good reason is provided and inquiry is necessary for further clarification.

Agreed?

I can get down with that.

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on April 24, 2014, 11:35:05 AM
I can get down with that.

I can agree with these as well.

Shol'va you are welcome to moderate. I guess we can agree on an 11 page limit and if Shol'va decides it should be extended he can make that decision.

Another rule I thought of should be no videos or copy and pasted articles.

How about no Slick Maneuvers allowed as a rule? Solitary

I think it goes without saying, no insults either or passive aggressiveness. Let's stay objective.
Casparov, go ahead and initiate the thread and we'll see you there!

Quote from: Shol'va on April 24, 2014, 02:04:14 PM
I think it goes without saying, no insults either or passive aggressiveness. Let's stay objective.
Casparov, go ahead and initiate the thread and we'll see you there!

One debate thread coming your way. Play ball!  :vegetasmiley:

This should be fun! OK all you rationalist and logic knowers---let's see how many fallacies we can count in the debate? Solitary

Quote from: Casparov on April 24, 2014, 12:48:42 PM

Another rule I thought of should be no videos or copy and pasted articles.

One last question; that counts for 'links to articles' as well, right? Not just copies of abstracts or paragraphs?

References are fine, as are short abstracts. If we start quoting lengthy articles, the thread is going to be hard to follow.
The expectation is that each individual will follow the reference and read the article themselves.

Quote from: Casparov on April 25, 2014, 01:48:02 AM
It is either the case that reality exists in such a way that god exists, or reality exists in such a way that no god exists. Both of these propositions bear the full weight of the burden of proof because both make a positive claim about the nature of reality.

Oh dear...

It is either the case that reality exists in such a way that GHOSTS exist, or reality exists in such a way that no GHOST exists. Both of these propositions bear the full weight of the burden of proof because both make a positive claim about the nature of reality.


:hang:

Right off the bat a Non Sequitur and false dichotomy with faulty logic from Caspar the master of Slick Maneuvers.  Solitary

Round 1: C Zero, S One.

I have also noted other issues but for now I'm going to leave it to Mr Obvious to address.
I did bring that issue to the attention because it is a fundamental one, not to mention pretty serious.

I've seen a few philosophical debates, and I've never seen one where anyone admitted losing or changed their position. This won't be any different.

Quote from: Shol'va on April 25, 2014, 03:52:12 PM
I have also noted other issues but for now I'm going to leave it to Mr Obvious to address.
I did bring that issue to the attention because it is a fundamental one, not to mention pretty serious.

Just to clarify: It is still Mr. Obvious's turn and I am to address your concerns when it's my turn again. Is this correct?

I do not wish to risk either derailing the discussion or making it seem like I am overbearing, so if you feel that can be addressed perhaps as a side-note within the same response to Mr Obvious, that would be OK. As long as you gents are on the same page we are OK, I want to make sure you don't talk past each other based on a fundamental misunderstanding of terms.

Quote from: Casparov on April 25, 2014, 03:05:25 PM
If the answer is yes, we can continue immediately to the meat of my argument, which is that Idealism is a better model than Materialism because it is more consistent with both philosophical and scientific evidence. I refute the idea that I am merely "adding unnecessary and invalidated complexity to a working model" because I don't believe that Materialism is a working model and hasn't been for the past 100 years or so.

I submit that Materialism does not explain the evidence, and clinging to it causes more problems than it resolves. In light of the evidence, the only real reasons I can see to hold to Materialism are 1) to keep reality limited according to our limited understanding, 2) because Materialism is a comfortable and familiar ideology, 3) because it keeps us from having to think about or seriously consider that so called "supernatural" phenomena may actually be "natural", 4) because it is easier to ignore facts than change preconceptions. In short, it is a form of dogmatism that makes challenging Materialism "blasphemy."

No. I'm sorry. I have to call Casparov out on this. To my knowledge, every piece of evidence we have fits quite comfortably under materialistic theories. No, despite what Depak Chopra and other woo-pushers would have you believe, quantum mechanics is a wholly materialistic theory.

Unless, of course, your definition of materialism is wildly different from the rest of us.

I would like to ask what you think materialism is, Casparov. You've built a strawman of materialism before, and I caution Mr. Obvious to nail this down with Casparov before getting too far into their debate.

But Reimu, it's got "quantum" in it, so it must be magical! Haven't you ever seen Star Trek: Voyager?

Quote from: Casparov on April 23, 2014, 01:16:52 AM
If that were true that would mean that everything is nothing.

My overly-pithy post was a play on the phrase "saying everyone is special is the same as saying no one is special." This is true because being special is a rarity by definition, or else the term falls into meaninglessness.

I think we can agree that "god" is something special, or should be should such a thing exist. To say everything is god is like saying everything is special.

Also, things are defined as much by what they are not as by what they are. To say a specific thing is everything fails to define the specific thing, rendering it meaningless.

 :wall: A debate can't ascertain what the facts or truth are. At best, it just shows who is better at debating, or using slick maneuvers. Even sound logic cannot ascertain what the facts are.  :blahblah: Solitary

Indeed. But being the peanut gallery I shall enjoy myself from the sidelines.

Quote from: Casparov on April 26, 2014, 01:09:22 AM
So let’s say this debate ends and you say, “haha stupid Casparov. What a troll. He couldn’t prove to me god exists. Fail.” And you leave the debate with your disbelief in god firmly intact. What are the things you would walk away from the debate actively believing in? That evolution is true? That the Big Bang happened? That the universe is fundamentally matter and energy? That you have a material brain? It is these things, which you actively believe in that are positive assertions about the nature of reality, and they are subject to the burden of proof just like any other positive assertion about the nature of reality is.

Thing is, all these things have already met their burden of proof. They are proven to me to my satisfaction, and I dare say to the satisfaction of just about every one of your detractors. Each of these propositions had to go through their own hurdles and challenges, and these propositions have aced them all. They are now the default positions, no longer needing specific justification (even though their continued veracity offers it anyway). The only thing I ask is that your concept of God go through the same paces.

As such, your screams of "U BELIEF STUFF 2!" will elicit no more response than, "Fucking DUH!"

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on April 25, 2014, 11:47:56 PM
But Reimu, it's got "quantum" in it, so it must be magical! Haven't you ever seen Star Trek: Voyager?

It's simple, really. His phase coils are out of alignment, easy problem to rectify.

Now, the issue with his nacelles are going to require an entire engineering team several days to fix. 

On a side not, I  can't remember a time there was such a polite debate on here. Or a debate at all.

Quote from: Harbinger on April 27, 2014, 03:25:00 AM
It's simple, really. His phase coils are out of alignment, easy problem to rectify.

Now, the issue with his nacelles are going to require an entire engineering team several days to fix. 

On a side not, I  can't remember a time there was such a polite debate on here. Or a debate at all.

About Star Trek... skip to 0:52 (or not) :))))))

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG2EP-iPUro

Heh.

I admit it. I'm having a blast watching Casparov make a fool of himself.

Quote from: Casparov on April 28, 2014, 03:06:03 AM
We are in very much the same situation with regards to Realism/Materialism. If Idealism is true and Realism/Materialism false, it will have looked exactly the same as it does and has.

So, you deny that there is any evidence that we can observe about the world that will make you give up Idealism? Then the debate is de facto dead then, and there really is nothing more to discuss about your position. The only interesting discussion can only be between two positions that are empirically distinguishable. Otherwise, it's just philosophical nicities.

Quote from: Casparov on April 28, 2014, 03:06:03 AM
Now as far as the predictive capabilities of Methodological Materialism goes, it works for a great many things, don’t get me wrong, but it also is the cause of a great many paradoxes and it’s explanitory abilities are quite limited in certain areas, suggesting it is not the whole story. For instance, Materialism does not predict the existence of consciousness. There is no material fact or experiment that demonstrates or predicts the existence of consciousness, if it were not the case that our own consciousness is undeniable, there would be no reason to postulate it’s existence using a Materialist Model of reality.

Said as if the last 100 years of psychology and neurology never happened. Yes, we can empirically detect consciousness, and we can even correlate faults in that consciousness to specific alterations to the brain. No methodological method bound to empirical evidence confirms or denies a priori the existence of any phenomenon in a physical system. It seeks to explain what is observed, and that understanding is confirmed with prediction. We observe consciousness, and we use science to tease out the details by making predictions about it. Where we have made firm predictions about consciousness, we do indeed confirm.

Quote from: Casparov on April 28, 2014, 03:06:03 AM
This is the cause of what is known as “The Hard Problem of Consciousness.” The existence of consciousness is an "unsolvable problem" only because it is unsolvable using Methodological Materialism. Idealism by contrast, does not attempt to deny or explain away consciousness as an illusion, but instead embraces it as the one thing we know with absolute certainty exists and places it as the foundation of reality.

Idealism does not in fact explain the "hard problem" of consciousness â€" a problem which there is significant argument over whether or not it exists at all (that's how useless philosophy is). The only thing Idealism does is sweep the "hard problem" under the rug and hoping you won't ask the obvious question: "Okay, but how does it work to give consciousness to us but not to a rock (which is supposedly the same substance)?"

Quote from: Casparov on April 28, 2014, 03:06:03 AM
Further, the Realist/Materialist model of reality does not predict the effects observed in Quantum Mechanics, and in fact, the effects of Quantum Mechanics directly contradict the Realist/Materialist model.

Amazing that a complete nonprofessional in quantum physics has figured out what all the professionals who investigate that strange world missed for the last century. The only explanation you have is what is akin to dogma... in an institution where you get rewarded for successfully showing that the prevailing "dogma" is wrong.

Quote from: Casparov on April 28, 2014, 03:06:03 AM
The Realist/Materialist model is incompatible with the fact that one material object can pass through another material object. It is incompatible with the fact that one material object can be in several locations at the same time. It is incompatible with the fact that one material object can instantaneously effect another material object over a distance without physically interacting with it in any way. But most of all, it is incompatible with the idea that material objects disappear into a mathematical probability calculation when unobserved and reappear as material objects only when observed. And the Realist/Materialist model would never and could never have predicted these effects because they are impossible and incompatible the model.

I applaud Mr.Obvious for calling out this strawman for what it is. Quantum mechanics is materialist because it does not propose any roles for the immaterial. The probability calculations Casparov aludes to is a mathematical tool to get answers, not a stuff in and of itself. The form of the probabilities are wholly dictated by what the matter under consideration is doing. Indeed, anyone working with quantum electrodynamics with any depth will immediately recognize it as analytical mechanics with a probabilistic flavor. If the "Realist/Materialist model" would have a problem with QM, then it would have had a problem with Lagrangian or Hamiltonian mechanics, and it did not.

I only read Shol'va's responses cause the rest of this shit bores me. I am impressed with this one.

^ Well, someone needs to jeer from the sidelines provide blow-by-blow commentary.

Quote from: Casparov on April 29, 2014, 09:30:51 PM
1) How Virtual Reality is a Falsifiable Hypothesis.
2) Why Quantum Mechanics conclusively disproves the statement, “The entities described by the scientific theory exist objectively and mind-independently.”

This again...

None of the experiments sited by Casparov ever demonstrate that entities do not exist objectively, nor that those entities do not exist mind-independently. In each experiment, the funny phenomena are never experienced directly, but by instruments. Furthermore, in each experiment, the funny phenomena never happen merely when one of the experimenters simply want it to happen. Some switch has to be thrown, some physical change to the system has to be effected in order for these strange things to happen. The phenomena are always experiment-dependent, not mind-dependent as Casparov claims.

As to objective... well, these entities are as objective as anything in science, like the inside of a brick. Radiation composed of any of those entities will kill you in high enough doses, whether you know about them or not. Also, if such phenomena were subjective, how come quantum physics surprises us so often?

Quote
Consciousness: The having of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings; awareness. The term is impossible to define except in terms that are unintelligible without a grasp of what consciousness means. Many fall into the trap of confusing consciousness with self-consciousness - to be conscious it is only necessary to be aware of the external world. Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomenon: it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does, or why it evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written about it.

Take note of the bolded statement. "To be conscious it is only necessary to be aware of the external world." Not the internal world of your own consciousness, the external world. This flies in the face of Casparov's own previous statements to the effect that the first thing we are conscious of is our own consciousness, because your consciousness is internal and consciousness requires external awareness. According to Casparov's own reference, you cannot be conscious until you become aware of the external world.

Quote from: Casparov on April 29, 2014, 09:30:51 PM
Consciousness is what necessarily exists in all worlds. To postulate anything at all, you must first postulate consciousness. Consciousness is what exists whether you are in a purely Solipsist World, an Idealist World, a purely Materialist World, an Idealist World, a Dream World, a Simulated World, a Virtual World, etc.

Note that we have access to at most one of these kinds of worlds. As such, this claim cannot be verified. Our kind of consciousness may only manifest in Materialist worlds (because it is an emergent phenomenon of matter), and cannot be sustained in Solipsist worlds, Idealist worlds, a Dream world, ect. Or such consciousnesses may only exist Simulated worlds because they are tailor made to test the limits of knowledge of an unknown species with their own form of "consciousness" incomparable to our own.

So the notion that consciousness exists in all of these worlds is just so much pure, unadulterated speculation.

Quote from: Casparov on April 29, 2014, 09:30:51 PM
It exists whether you are hallucinating, dreaming, being fooled by an illusion, or directly experiencing an objective external reality.

Missing from this list:

• Anesthesia.
• Persistent vegitative states.
• Death.

It also conveniently leaves out classes of psychoactive drugs other than pure hallucinogens â€" as if any psychoactive drug is purely a hallucinogen. Cocaine, for instance, causes a host of symptoms up to and including delusions. Not mere differences in perception, but actual changes to how one thinks and what one believes about the world.

Quote from: Casparov on April 29, 2014, 09:30:51 PM
No matter what you postulate, you cannot get outside of, nor deny, consciousness. And this is precisely because, in my view at least, consciousness is primary.

Conscious beings cannot deny their own consciousness, but that does not entail that consciousness is in any way primary. Even if this were true, it does not entail that the base-level consciousness is in any way the same as the consciousness that we experience. Thus, this statement is a non-sequitor.

Quote from: Casparov on April 29, 2014, 09:30:51 PM
Consciousness cannot be detected nor measured nor quantified in the same way we can detect measure and quantify that which we are conscious of. No one has ever seen consciousness. It has no pigment, no weight, no mass, no inertia, takes up no space, and has no size. Within the Materialist Model, we know consciousness exists only through ‘Philosophical Evidence’ rather than empirical.

Consciousness, or, that which has experiences, exists, and we know this only through a form of philosophical evidence, or philosophical proof. There is no material evidence that consciousness exists. zero, zilch, none, nada, zippo, zilcharoni, a big goose egg.

Again, said as if the last 100 years of psychology and neurology never happened.

Quote from: Casparov on April 29, 2014, 09:30:51 PM
On the inside flap summary of Terrence Deacon’s seminole work on consciousness, “Incomplete Nature,” he says:

Small gripe here: you mean seminal, from the same root as semen.

Quote“As Physicists work toward a theory of the universe and biologists unravel the molecular complexity of life, a glaring incompleteness in this scientific vision becomes apparent. The “Theory of Everything” that appears to be emerging includes everything but us: the feelings, meanings, consciousness, and purposes that make us (and many of our animal cousins) what we are. These most immediate and incontrovertible phenomena are left unexplained by the natural sciences because they lack the physical properties - such as mass, momentum, charge, and location - that are assumed to be necessary for something to have physical consequences in the world. This is an unacceptable omission. We need a “theory of Everything” that does not leave it absurd that we exist.” - Terrence Deacon

The full title of that book is Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter. Furthermore, here's a brief summary of its content:

Quote
His 2011 book, Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter, explores the properties of life, the emergence of consciousness, and the relationship between evolutionary and semiotic processes. It was published by W. W. Norton in November 2011.[1] The book proposes a scientific theory of how properties, such as information, value, purpose, meaning, and end-directed behavior emerged from physics and chemistry.

How is it that you quote a person who seeks to establish exactly what you rail against, the emergence of consciousness from ordinary matter? I take away from your "inside flap" research that he seeks to complete what physicists and biologists leave out â€" because it's not really their job to figure out what makes us tick as conscious beings.

Typical of your ilk.

Quote from: Casparov on April 29, 2014, 09:30:51 PM
The only evidence of consciousness is your direct experience of consciousness. But this is evidence that can never be ‘peer reviewed’ because no one else will ever be able to get inside your head and observe that you are conscious. You can only tell them you are, and they can either believe you, or not. Just because a computer can say “I am conscious,” does not empirically prove that that computer actually does have the same capacity to experience just as we do.

Which is why the Turing test involves more than just asking a computer whether or not its conscious. It's an extended interview with an entity that may or may not be a computer, where the computer is trying to convince you that it is a human and not a computer â€" a much tougher task, and basically requires something like consciousness to pull off successfully. If the computer passes the test, you are just as much assured of the computer's consciousness as you are of another person's.

It also begs the question: if the computer isn't conscious, yet consciousness is the primal stuff of the universe, how the heck did the computer miss out on it?

Quote from: Casparov on April 29, 2014, 09:30:51 PM
There is no way to prove that anyone else is consciousness, but you know with absolute certainty that consciousness exists, because it is a literal impossibility for you to deny your own consciousness. You are more intimately familiar with consciousness than you are with anything else that could possibly exist.

If neuropsychology can be believed (and I believe it can), you are actually far less familiar with your own consciousness than you think. No, your proximity does not help.

Quote from: Casparov on April 29, 2014, 09:30:51 PM
In a purely mechanistic and Material world there is no room nor need for consciousness. There seems to be no evolutionary purpose for consciousness. A Material World would get along just as well if all creatures were truly just deterministic machines running around and doing things and following the rules of Natural Selection and saying things like “I am conscious” without actually having experiences at all. There is no evolutionary purpose nor physical necessity for consciousness to exist within a Materialist Model of the world.

There's no evolutionary advantage to being conscious (aware) of external dangers? Really? How are you so certain that deterministic machines can't and don't have experiences?

And you wonder why you get laughed at?

Quote from: Casparov on April 29, 2014, 09:30:51 PM
As Richard Dawkins states in his famous quote from “The Selfish Gene:

As much as I like like Richard Dawkins, he is an evolutionary biologist, and as such, speaking outside his field. The Selfish Gene is also a really old book, coming out in 1976. We've made so much progress in neuroscience since then that such statements are going to be horribly outdated.

Quote from: Casparov on April 29, 2014, 09:30:51 PM
The best a Materialist Model can do as far as an explanation for consciousness goes is to state that consciousness is an “epiphenomenon” of Material Processes that happen in the brain. But this is no less than a mystical explanation placed on top of a working model.

Nonsense. There's nothing 'mystical' about supposing that a system may exhibit extra properties that the components do not. We even have a logical fallacy where one improperly denies this principle: the fallacy of composition.

Quote from: Casparov on April 29, 2014, 09:30:51 PM
One day all of these will be fully described within a Materialist Model, but consciousness itself will still remain unaccounted for.

So sure are you?

Quote from: Casparov on April 29, 2014, 09:30:51 PM
These are the things like “this part of the brain is for language” and “this part of the brain raises the right arm” etc. These are mechanisms which explain functions, but they do not explain consciousness.

Interesting that you leave out the seminal case of Phineas Gage and his own brain injury â€" an injury that changed his character so completely that his friends described him as "no longer Gage."

Quote from: Casparov on April 29, 2014, 09:30:51 PM
In 2004, 8 Neuroscientists published a book together called “Human Brain Function” which sought to update the world on current findings and understanding within the field of Neuroscience, on page 269 in chapter 16 "The Neural Correlates of Consciousness" they state:

Quote
"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers...” - Richard Frackowiak and 7 other neuroscientists

Interesting that you take a current statement about the limitations of our understanding of consciousness as a brain phenomenon as proof that there could not be such an understanding. One of the undeniable consensus findings of neuroscience is that brain phenomena and the consciousness are linked.

Quote from: Casparov on April 29, 2014, 09:30:51 PM
The Hard Problem of Consciousness is described as the question, “How can unconscious material objects ever have a rich inner subjective experience.” There are unconscious atoms that form molecules, that form proteins, that form cells, that form a brain. Somewhere between “brain” and “atoms” a miracle happens that Materialists call an “epiphenomenon”. This explains nothing with regards to the question how unconscious material objects can have subjective experiences. It is no less than a mystical explanation that really does no explaining at all.

The non-acidic atoms form molecules, which form solutions with water, which in bulk produce corrosive bodies of liquid. Somewhere between "bodies of liquid" and "atoms" a miracle happens that Materialist call an "epiphenomenon". This explains nothing with regards to the question how material liquids can have corrosive properties. It is no less than a mystical explanation that really does no explaining at all.

The difference here is that we have the knowledge that bridges the gap between chemical structure and corrosive properties. Epiphenomona do in fact happen. They're all over the place in chemistry and physics. The very solidity of matter is itself an epiphenomenon â€" solidity is not inherent to matter, but rather it emerges when you gather it together in bulk. You can even overcome it if you crush it hard enough (as in a neutron star).

And, again, the Hard Problem of Consciousness boils down to the reason why we are conscious and rocks aren't. No amount of semantic juking can change this question.

Quote from: Casparov on April 29, 2014, 09:30:51 PM
But what cannot be described is how all of these unconscious atoms and molecules can have rich subjective experiences as we so undeniably do.

Again, argument from ignorance.

Quote from: Casparov on April 29, 2014, 09:30:51 PM
There is nothing more familiar and real then our own consciousness. And yet, the Materialist Model continues to leave it unexplained, or unsatisfactorily explained by complex “epiphenomena” models that do no actual explaining.

As if it's being left at that. We admit that our understanding is incomplete, but we're not stopping there. You only get to criticise that when we give up.

Quote from: Casparov on April 29, 2014, 09:30:51 PM
There is absolutely no evidence that consciousness is reducible to matter. And further, there is no reason why consciousness should actually exist in a Materialist Model to begin with.

Just like there is no reason why sodium hydroxide should be basic in a Materialist Model, or the phenomenon of basic-ness should exist in the first place. Of course, we have evidence that basic-ness is reducible to matter.

Quote from: Casparov on April 29, 2014, 09:30:51 PM
If we are debating the predictive capabilities of our competing models, then the inability of the Materialist Model to predict or explain consciousness is a resounding victory in favor of Idealism.

Except Idealism says, at its basic, that "consciousness exists." It does not "predict" consciousness in any scientific sense, because predictions mean that you haven't built them into your assumptions from the outset. In this case, ONLY Materialism can predict consciousness because it doesn't have the existence of consciousness built into its assumptions. You have it exactly backwards.

Quote from: Casparov on April 29, 2014, 09:30:51 PM
As an Idealist, by contrast, I regard consciousness in much the same way as Max Planck, one of the Founding Fathers of the field of Quantum Mechanics:

And presumably for the exact same reasons. Thank you.

So you're going to project your reasons for Plank's reasons for rejecting consciousness as being reducable to matter, as if Plank's word is any authority on the matter.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on April 29, 2014, 11:58:35 PM
None of the experiments sited by Casparov ever demonstrate that entities do not exist objectively, nor that those entities do not exist mind-independently. In each experiment, the funny phenomena are never experienced directly, but by instruments. Furthermore, in each experiment, the funny phenomena never happen merely when one of the experimenters simply want it to happen. Some switch has to be thrown, some physical change to the system has to be effected in order for these strange things to happen. The phenomena are always experiment-dependent, not mind-dependent as Casparov claims.

(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/49324870.jpg)

^ We'll see, ghost-boy.

Quote from: Casparov on May 01, 2014, 11:02:03 PM
Two points before I begin: Mr. Obvious, you say that consciousness has not been observed, “outside of the brain” but I contend that it has not been observed, “inside the brain”, either. The only things that have ever been observed “inside the brain” are cells, peptides, neurons, proteins, molecules and atoms etc., never has anyone observed “consciousness inside the brain” or out of it. Consciousness is simply not something that can be objectively observed. So I disagree with your statement.

Again, you are ignoring 100 years of psychology and neuroscience. What, exactly, would you expect to find if consciousness has a material basis? Some stuff within the brain that is identifiable "consciousness-plasm"? Consciousness is an activity, and as such, it is present in brains in the form of the activity of said neurons. As such, only operational tests can detect consciousness. What the material basis of consciousness sharply predicts is that if you interfere with the brain, you interfere with the brain's consciousness. And when there is interference and damage to the brain, there is interference and damage to consciousness.

We can detect gross cases of a person has a brain too damaged to ever regain consciousness, the so called persistent vegitative state. While in some marginal cases this can be difficult, in extreme cases we can definitely tell. If your hippocampus is damaged, you will have crippling anteriograde amnesia. Cut the corpus colosum, and you will have two consciousnesses whose awareness can be manpulated and tested under controlled conditions. You can induce delusions with drugs. You can destroy the visual cortex and the patient will be completely unaware that he cannot see, until he learns otherwise.

This is not anything you would expect if consciousness were really primal as you claim. Indeed, there is no need for a body at all, with all of its limitations and futility, if consciousness were primal. In short, you would have a hard time explaining why there is a real world at all.

And, of course, since consciousness is about experience, you can test for consciousness by simply interviewing the person and figuring out if their responses have the same veracity as yourself, like a reverse Turing test.

Quote from: Casparov on May 01, 2014, 11:02:03 PM
Second, the theory you offered as to why consciousness may have evolved does not necessitate consciousness. A consciousness-less biological machine can accomplish all of the same feats and functions you described and the capacity to have subjective experience is in no sense ever necessary. A biological machine that lacks the capacity to have subjective experience can still evolve the full range of functions as you described.

This is the P-zombie argument, and it suffers from the same flaw. You are trying to draw a distinction between true experience and pseudo-experience, when there is no way to verify if there is an actual difference between the two. It is simply an assertion. You already admit that there is no functional difference, and that functional difference extends so deep that the two are in an isomorphism â€" that any difference at all is simply cosmetic.

Quote from: Casparov on May 01, 2014, 11:02:03 PM
I should also note that the book I cited, “Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged From Matter,” I have read in full, from cover to cover. Deacon does an amazing job of setting up the problem which he seeks to solve in his opening chapters, which is why I refer to his introduction and introductory chapters quite often, but in trying to reconcile Materialism with Consciousness as an emergent property I believe he fails as all other attempts have failed before him. He even admits himself in the book that what he presents can only be considered, “a first hesitant effort to map an unfamiliar and poorly explored domain,” and does not pretend it to be a complete resolution to The Hard Problem of Consciousness. Instead he says, “I hope that by revealing the glaring presence of this fundamental incompleteness of nature, it will become impossible to ignore any longer.” And I do believe that his hope was warranted and achieved by his work.

You have a habit of reading what you want into what is actually there. You admit that Deacon tries and fails in your opinion to establish the materialist basis for consciousness. Unless Deacon explicitly admits that failure, you cannot therefore read into that statement that Deacon hopes that the immaterial basis of consciousness be discovered. Deacon admits that the domain is "poorly explored," in which case no one work can hope to forge the airtight case you clearly want.

I believe that further citation of his work by you would be a grave misrepresentation of that work, and as such would constitute cherry picking.

Quote from: Casparov on May 01, 2014, 11:02:03 PM
It is my argument that Idealism is true, we exist within a virtual reality, and consciousness is the computer. God according to this view of reality is the summation of all consciousness viewed as one holistic entity, of which we are individuated parts. The purpose of this simulation is our evolution and in turn, the evolution of the whole towards lower and lower states of entropy.

Now I will offer my argument for the existence of god but it is intimately linked with the falsity of Realism. Make no mistake, my argument is not, “Realism is false, therefore god,” it is more like, “Realism is false and Idealism is true, therefore god is more likely.”

Note the bait and switch. First he was talking about materialism (capped, of course), and now he's talking about realism as if it were the same thing. He notes that scientists were using "realism" as a term, and he is equating that with his own realism, which he claims to be opposite of idealism... which is actually one of the alternatives to materialism, not realism â€" you can have a realistic idealism â€" and even then, idealism is not the opposite of materialism, because there are positions in between, like substance dualism.

As such, even if Casparov is right that idealism would lead to God, simply negating materialism would not imply idealism. Again, he continues his argument by arguing evidence against materialism, albeit using "Realism" as a stealthily substituted synonym.

Idealism, in saying that what we think of as physical reality does not exist independent of observation, nonetheless makes a distinction between the system and the observation on that system. This is intuitively appealing because on the macroscale it seems true, but it is in contrast what QM actually implies: that every observation is a physical interaction with the system in question. This bears out in actual practice â€" every observation of a quantum system involves scattering of photons, absorption of particles, exchanges of momentum and energy. Observation in QM is subsumed into general interactions with the system, and since you are interacting with the system and not just "observing" it, the puzzlement of how different ways of observing the system changes how the system responds goes away.

This is a point often omitted or even forgotten by real experimenters, because our sense of the observer/observee distinction is so deeply ingraned in us.

Casparov goes on to mention scientific idealism (again, capped) as "The entities described by the scientific theory exist subjectively and are mind-dependent." Let me ask if either of these are true for quantum mechanics.

Is QM subjective? That is, does the answer you get depend on who asks or answers a question in quantum mechanics? No, because what comes out of the theory are measurable phenomena that are at best interpreted by people. While one scientist may argue with another over what their results mean, the fact that a particular experiment showed interference patterns or not is not under dispute â€" it is an objective result. Furthermore, QM in no way asks you to input your expectations of what you will find â€" the measurement operators used are interactions you are putting ON the system to get it to reveal something to you. So QM is objective. It wouldn't really be a scientific theory if it weren't.

Is QM mind-dependent? That is, does the answer you get depend on what real people are thinking but not putting into action? Again, no. Every phenomenon Casparov claims to prove mind-dependency is actually a case of experiment-dependency. In every case, a physical change is imposed on the system in order to effect that change in behavior; in no case does the system's behavior changes because one of the scientists involved simply wanted it to happen. It's always because the experiment had been purposefully set up in advance, and even if a choice is left to a scientist, it still requires the scientist to press a button â€" a physical action on the system. This is especially true in the quantum eraser experiment, where the choice to erase or measure a certain part of the system is made too fast to be made by a human â€" a thoughtless computer does it. And, again, there is no place to put experimenter desires and thought into any QM equation â€" and I challenge Casparov to come up with a single equation that does.

That's the other thing that is puzzling about Casparov's contention that QM implies nonmaterialism. We wouldn't even know where to begin writing down the particulars of someone's thoughts in a mathematical way, yet, QM itself is very much wedded to the maths of the theory â€" the theory is so intuition-breaking that math is our only recourse for figuring out what quantum systems will do. One would expect that if QM were mind-dependent, that any accurate prediction of the theory would depend sensitively upon an accurate description of what the minds around the system are doing â€" something we obviously cannot do... yet QM predictions are quite accurate regardless.

In the end, this is the deal-breaker for any claim that QM denies materialism and is in any way an idealistic theory: it makes accurate predictions of what will happen in quantum systems without referencing what is going on in the minds of the experimenters.

Quote from: Casparov on May 01, 2014, 11:02:03 PM
While the scientists involved have been almost exclusively Realists and therefore have been attempting to prove that Realism is in fact compatible with Quantum Mechanics, they have at the very same time been testing the alternative hypothesis, which is that Idealism is true. Realism is of course the view that physical reality exists objectively and independent of observation. (the reverse claim of Idealism)

I'd like to point out that, under the criterion that Casparov uses for "realism" that nobody could realistically claim the title in the entire history of science. Scientists, even strict realists, have acknowledged that certain methods of observation will quite definitely affect the system in question â€" such observations are so pervasive that a term had to be invented for observations that didn't: "non-destructive testing." Pouring acid on a metal to figure out what it was more often than not involved physically destroying the sample (which itself had to be removed from the object for testing â€" whatever happened, the sample would be contaminated). What quantum mechanic does is deny that there is any such thing as a non-destructive test, even in principle â€" all tests will, to some degree, alter the thing under study. We have already established that QM is objective, and that "independent of observation" is an impossible ideal, but at the same time affirms the thing that "independent of observation" implied in Casparov's speil: mind-independence.

Casparov then goes on to chat about local realism and non-local realism (capitolized of course), and again, claiming all the way that it shows quantum mechanics to prove what it quite obviously cannot: that the reality we see is not there but an artifact of our perceptions. I think that the confusion stems from his use of "Realism" vs. the scientists' use of "realism."

See, physics is quite famous for appropriating common names for quite precise and intuition-breaking technical terms, like work, or action, or energy. I suspect that the same is happening here; there's a subtlety to what is being said that Casparov is simply too blunt to catch out of his eagerness to prove his case. In the rigamarole over 'realism', is what is being denied is the reality of everything... or only of certain things.

This is an important distinction. If only certain things are denied reality by these experiments â€" such as spin or position, then it's an indication that the reason quantum particles lack reality in those select attributes is because they are quite different beasts from those things that have them as well defined attributes. To give a mundane example, take the position of a ball. It seems obvious and unambiguous that the ball has a point position in space, but it isn't because the ball is an extended object â€" it takes up a volume and a literally infinite number of points, each of which could serve equally well as the position of the ball. Furthermore, if we know that the ball is normally perfectly spherical, but is now in a oblate elipsoid, we begin to suspect that the ball may be squished or vibrating. The ball's distortion may be so distorted that the center (the position of the ball by convention) may not even be occupied by the ball's matter. The position of the ball is not actually as well-defined as you expect. It is only because of the way we measure position that imposes an artificial attribute onto the object it doesn't actually have.

The same is true of quantum particles, such that even calling them "particles" is misleading, as that name implies that it has a well-defined position and momentum, when in fact it has neither. Calling such a thing a particle implies that it has a well-defined time and energy, when in fact it has neither. A quantum particle is neither a classical particle nor a classical wave, but a fundamentally new kind of thing that we haven't gotten our head around yet. Even the mass we measure is not an inherent attribute of the particle, but the result of the particle interacting with the Higgs field. Yet the interactions that create the particle mass, spin, ect. are governed in the theory by specific, well-defined calculations that do not involve any sort of woo, just cold, soulless mathematics and number crunching.

As such, Casparov still hasn't gotten around to proving idealism, his stated stepping stone to his god, and has yet to show how an idealistic world even strongly suggests the existance of a god. Even if everything he says is true, and that QM does deny materialism, he still has yet to disprove in-between theories like substance dualism â€" the seeming lack of reality in QM being due to the interference of unnamed woo-stuff, obfuscating and mucking around with the real particles' behavior.

Quote from: Casparov on May 01, 2014, 11:02:03 PM
I have now provided direct and conclusive evidence in favor of Idealism and in contradiction of Realism. That “reality is such that god is not only possible but necessary” becomes much more likely when Idealism is true, as is stated concisely by Professors Richard Conn Henry and Stephen R. Palmquist:

Quote
Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism. http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html

This paper was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, which is roundly critizised for being a woo-promotion rag, rather than a serious scientific journal. The other thing is that the two articles cited by Cas in Nature and Physicsworld are obviously meant for public consumption, and as such are trying to convey difficult subjects in ordinary language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Scientific_Exploration

Quote:
"The Journal of Scientific Exploration is a quarterly peer-reviewed[1][2] academic journal of fringe science that was established in 1987.[3] The journal is currently edited by Stephen E. Braude and published by the Society for Scientific Exploration."

Quote:
"Kendrick Frazier, editor of Skeptical Inquirer and Committee for Skeptical Inquiry fellow has suggested that:

"The JSE, while presented as neutral and objective, appears to hold a hidden agenda. They seem to be interested in promoting fringe topics as real mysteries and they tend to ignore most evidence to the contrary. They publish 'scholarly' articles promoting the reality of dowsing, neo-astrology, ESP, and psychokinesis. Most of the prominent and active members are strong believers in the reality of such phenomena."[12]
Clinical community psychologist and professor of social psychology at the University of Connecticut, Seth Kalichman regards the journal as a publisher of pseudoscience, with the journal serving as a "major outlet for UFOology, paranormal activity, extrasensory powers, alien abductions etc".[13]

So much for Casparov. That is more than enough for me to disregard him.

I like when people are talking about quantum mechanics and it's quite evident that they can't solve a high school algebra problem... :doh:

QuoteMaterialism does not predict the existence of consciousness.

- Casparov

Materialism does not predict the solar system.

Materialism does not predict the Big Bang Theory.

Materialism does not predict life.

Materialism does not predict the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Materialism does not predict the conservation of matter/energy.

Materialism does not predict the conservation of momentum.

Materialism does not predict entropy.

Materialism does not predict the hydrogen atom.

Materialism does not predict Hollywood.

Materialism does not predict gravity.

Materialism does not predict Game of Thrones.

Materialism does not predict sex.

Materialism does not predict booze.

Materialism does not predict Casparov.

Not to mention the fact that idealism never predicted or explained anything whatsoever.
Except maybe consiousness, but that is asserted in the definition. Casparovs position is a great big god of the gaps fallacy, which in this case - ironically - only inflates the gap to epic proportions.

The longer it goes the sillier it gets. I've learned being on here that it is an unwinnable debate for any theist, simply because regardless of philosophical stance, there is no way to quantify a supernatural being. Every piece of evidence Casparov supplied on here is either philosophical or based on (mostly misinterpreted) theory.

You are automatically boxed into a corner when debating a specific belief that lacks no physical evidence. He tried to write off materialism from the beginning to eliminate any evidence we would provide, but has failed to do so. I predicted the outcome some time ago as he said she said nobody admits defeat. Silly.

It is believed that there are "LAWS" of God, nature, and science. This view is unfounded. These Laws are simply human inventions: models to describe observations. Far from helping to advance science, the notion of universal law that came from medieval theology has held back science to this day. Modern science, evolution, and cosmology show the ambiguity of change, but also the absence of hierarchy, that humans are not the result of divine guidance and in the image of a god, in direct contradiction to medieval view.

We share the same genetics with bacteria and the same physics with rocks. Magic, the mind, sorcery, and astrology are not confirmed as separate forces of nature. Science finds no support for revelation as a source information, no sign of intelligent design accept by humans, and to top it off not everything needs a cause. A multiverse is eternal, with no beginning, no end, and no need for a creator. Solitary     

Quote from: Solitary on May 04, 2014, 02:23:21 PM
A multiverse is eternal, with no beginning, no end, and no need for a creator. Solitary   

:think: Sounds like a mystical explanation to me.... I don't believe in magic, you got some hard science to back this up buddy? Evidence? Experiments? Proof? Or are you just making shit up to keep your beliefs intact. Casparov

Solitary doesn't  need evidence for his assertion Casparov.  He only needs the Chuck Norris approval.

Quote from: Casparov on May 04, 2014, 03:18:58 PM
:think: Sounds like a mystical explanation to me.... I don't believe in magic, you got some hard science to back this up buddy? Evidence? Experiments? Proof? Or are you just making shit up to keep your beliefs intact. Casparov

Hard science, evidence, experiments and proof are what we have been giving your for many days now, and you have denied it. And I don't think Solitary is your buddy.

Quote from: stromboli on May 04, 2014, 04:39:00 PM
Hard science, evidence, experiments and proof are what we have been giving your for many days now, and you have denied it. And I don't think Solitary is your buddy.

I find it odd that a guy that has yet to offer one shred of actual evidence is demanding it now...

I wonder how one can debate / assert anything at all based on the view that we live in something like the matrix. Can anyone help me with this? I may be a simple mind but it seems to me that if everything is just an illusion any statement about reality is arbitrary.

Quote from: Bibliofagus on May 05, 2014, 05:15:15 AM
I wonder how one can debate / assert anything at all based on the view that we live in something like the matrix. Can anyone help me with this? I may be a simple mind but it seems to me that if everything is just an illusion any statement about reality is arbitrary.

Like I said earlier, its all he said she said bleep bleep walk away with no agreement and nobody agreeing to losing.
Casparov's entire argument is based on a philosophy that has by definition no ultimate proof. And for the fourth (4th) time, you can't prove the existence of a god, because no one ever has, and Casparov has no new arguments; only reinterpretation of old ones.

If anybody ever had real proof of the existence of god, they would be posting it on every website and painting it on every wall on the planet. Don't see that happening.

Thanks Strom. I guessed as much. All these walls of text replying to him led me to believe there was actually some meat to his argument.

Quote from: Bibliofagus on May 05, 2014, 04:42:05 PM
Thanks Strom. I guessed as much. All these walls of text replying to him led me to believe there was actually some meat to his argument.

Yeah. apparently went all ape in Philosophy 101 and decided to come on here and "school" us.

Quote from: Casparov on May 04, 2014, 03:18:58 PM
:think: Sounds like a mystical explanation to me.... I don't believe in magic, you got some hard science to back this up buddy? Evidence? Experiments? Proof? Or are you just making shit up to keep your beliefs intact. Casparov

No, I'm not like you. You say you don't believe in magic but believe there is a magical man in the sky. And I have also posted hard (physical) evidence to back it up. There are no proofs in science silly. Everything is tentative and theory until further evidence disproves it. Solitary

Quote from: stromboli on May 04, 2014, 04:39:00 PM
Hard science, evidence, experiments and proof are what we have been giving your for many days now, and you have denied it. And I don't think Solitary is your buddy.

Oh contraire, he is my new chew toy. A funda"mental"ist that isn't, but believes in a God that is mental, when it is he and actually realizes it. paranoid schizophrenics are good at rationalizing their delusions.  Sorry! That was poisoning the well. But it is only mental.  Solitary

Well, if God isn't real then he's a figment of the mental activity of our brain, and so perhaps Casparov has a POINT. :rotflmao:

Okay, let's see what Cas has come up with now.

Quote from: Casparov on May 10, 2014, 04:36:09 AM
I present to the jury the following evidence:

That'll be a first.

Quote from: Casparov on May 10, 2014, 04:36:09 AM
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. If it is true that we exist in an external objective observation independent Material Universe, then it logically follows that the existence of god is so unlikely and unnecessary that Atheism would be the most logical conclusion to arrive at as a rational human being.

But! If however it turns out that instead we actually exist in an observation-dependent Consciousness-based Virtual Reality, then it logically follows that the existence of god as described in my opening statement becomes so likely to exist and even necessary that Theism becomes the more logical conclusion to arrive at as a rational human being.

As pointed out many times before, you have spent all of your time disproving materialism/realism/what-the-fuckism and fuck-all time proving idealism. Your campaign is a cheerful march into the false dichotomy fallacy â€" pretending that by disproving a competing theory, your own theory is supported. Sorry, but you still need specific evidence in support of your own theory before it will get any sort of traction. You provide no such evidence.

Quote from: Casparov on May 10, 2014, 04:36:09 AM
The Evidence Against The Virtual Universe:

1) The Virtual Reality model is not currently a widely accepted model.

True.

Quote from: Casparov on May 10, 2014, 04:36:09 AM
2) The proposed tests to falsify the virtual reality hypothesis have not yet been performed.

True. It's even hard to figure out what sort of tests could be performed.

Quote from: Casparov on May 10, 2014, 04:36:09 AM
3) No scientist or experiment has conclusively declared that the Virtual Reality hypothesis is true.

True.

Quote from: Casparov on May 10, 2014, 04:36:09 AM
4) It is counter-intuitive.

True, but irrelevant. The universe is not required to be intuitive. This is most of your problem right here.

Quote from: Casparov on May 10, 2014, 04:36:09 AM
The Evidence Against Realism/Materialism:

1) After hundreds of years as the predominant model of reality it has failed to even begin to suggest an explanation for our most immediate and undeniable experience of the existence of consciousness.

Models which take consciousness to be a fundamental give up at the gate, and have not produced a satisfactory answer in thousands of years. Unfair much?

Quote from: Casparov on May 10, 2014, 04:36:09 AM
2) The Big Bang Theory within a Realist/Materialist framework suggests the miracle of an unexplained uncaused cause which can be categorized as no less than a mystical explanation of the origins of the universe. A time-zero event makes no since in an objective reality.

Get that Kalam shit out of here.

Quote from: Casparov on May 10, 2014, 04:36:09 AM
3) Why the speed of light should be a constant for all observers remains unexplained within a Realist/Materialist framework, as an objective reality has no reason for a maximum speed.

The theory of special relativity, another physical theory you do not understand, does a fine job of explaining how the speed of light is a constant for everyone in a realist, and materialist way. Special relativity is the brainchild of Albert Einstein, the same guy who was bent out of shape by QM's implications, remember?

Why it seems to be the case the the universe is relativistic we don't know, but it has far reaching consequences. Coupled with quantum mechanics it yields the Pauli Exclusion Principle in QFT, which gives us the solidity and chemistry of physical matter.

Quote from: Casparov on May 10, 2014, 04:36:09 AM
4) Non-Locality is completely inconsistent with Materialism/Realism as it violates the Principle of Locality.

Only in your own mind. Looking at the actual definition of materialism and realism, it's clear that non-locality is not forbidden by either. Furthermore, even the principle of locality is not really violated in the form you suppose. The principle of locality only applies to action and information, and it is quite arguable whether or not the "spooky action at a distance" derided by Einstein are actually actions at all.

Quote from: Casparov on May 10, 2014, 04:36:09 AM
5) Causally disconnected effects are completely inconsistent with Materialism/Realism as they violate the Principle of Causality.

Again, only in your own mind. The funny statistical effects seen in quantum mechanics can hardly be called "actions."

Quote from: Casparov on May 10, 2014, 04:36:09 AM
6) Quantum Tunneling is completely inconsistent with Materialism/Realism because a material object cannot pass through another material object in an objective reality.

You do know that what we call "matter" is mostly empty space filled by force fields, right? Even neutronium, the densest stuff known to science, is full of holes. That explains tunneling right there.

Quote from: Casparov on May 10, 2014, 04:36:09 AM
7) Superposition is completely inconsistent with Materialism/Realism because a single global object cannot be in more than one position at one time in an objective reality.

Given that superpositions don't actually place material objects in any position at all in space at a particular time, this is not a concern.

Quote from: Casparov on May 10, 2014, 04:36:09 AM
8) Observation Dependence is completely inconsistent with Materialism/Realism because an objective reality requires that objects exist independent of observation and are entirely unaffected by whether or not they are observed.

There is no such thing as an "observation" conforming to the criterion your realism requires. The reality condition is satisfied vacuously in all cases.

Quote from: Casparov on May 10, 2014, 04:36:09 AM
The Evidence in Favor of Realism/Materialism:

1) It is widely accepted by most working scientists and the majority of intelligent people on the planet. (Argumentum ad populum/Appeal to Authority/Appeal to Common Practice/Appeal to Tradition)

In short, by people who know what the fuck they're talking about, as opposed to someone who clearly doesn't.

Quote from: Casparov on May 10, 2014, 04:36:09 AM
2) While Local Realism has been ruled out, there are still some Non-Local Theories that have yet to be tested, and no scientist or scientific paper exist that explicitly state that Realism or Materialism are false. (Appeal to Ignorance)

There are literally billions of experiments that uphold both realism and materialism. That's a heafty support, and it is not to be swept aside by a handful of experiments no matter what sort of science you practice.

Quote from: Casparov on May 10, 2014, 04:36:09 AM
3) If Materialism/Realism were false, our foundational understanding of science and reality since the birth of science will have been wrong. Nothing would make sense. (False Dilemma)

Again, literally billions of experiments uphold realism and materialism. And since science is about making sense of the world, "nothing making sense" is actually a very real concern.

Quote from: Casparov on May 10, 2014, 04:36:09 AM
4) Materialism has long been a useful and working model especially in conjuction with 19th century Newtonian Physics.

And since you have yet to come up with an entity besides the material that can be verified to exist by experiment, materialism still holds.

Quote from: Casparov on May 10, 2014, 04:36:09 AM
5) Our daily perceptions of reality seem consistent with an external objective observation-independent reality as described by Realism/Materialism. (Naive Realism)

It has already been explained to you why this stance is a strawman of real science.

Quote from: Casparov on May 10, 2014, 04:36:09 AM
The Evidence in Favor of the Virtual Universe:

1) The Big Bang is easily explained as all simulations must be “booted up,” therefore all virtual universes have a “Big Bang”.

Wrong. There is nothing about the virtual universe hypothesis that requires that the universe be booted up in a state that is consistent with a "Big Bang." It can just as easily be booted up in a state consistent with a "Steady State" universe.

Quote from: Casparov on May 10, 2014, 04:36:09 AM
2) The Speed of Light being a constant for every observer is easily explained as every simulation has a maximum refresh rate for observers.

Wrong. There is nothing preventing long-range influences in a simulation, and as such, infinite speeds in simulation. I've done it.

Quote from: Casparov on May 10, 2014, 04:36:09 AM
3) The Planck Limits are easily explained because a virtual reality must be digital in order to be calculable via information processing.

Wrong. The universe can easily be simulated using a long list of arbitrary precision numbers, and as such, there is no bottom limit to the granularity of the simulation, or even a way to predict where that bottom limit is.

Quote from: Casparov on May 10, 2014, 04:36:09 AM
4) Non-Locality is easily explained because a CPU can alter pixels anywhere on a screen in order to render images via set rules of observation built into the virtual reality.

Which directly contradicts #2.

Quote from: Casparov on May 10, 2014, 04:36:09 AM
5) Relativity is easily explained because time dilation and space curvature would be logical results of increased processing loads.

Your knowledge of computer science is just as poor as that for physics. Dealing with a small boost (velocity of a reference frame) is no more computationally expensive as a large one. Also, a processor lag would not be visible within the simulation itself, since it would take processor power to register that lag or if there is poor synching protocols in the simulation. Or if it's built to interact in real-time which is not evidenced either.

Quote from: Casparov on May 10, 2014, 04:36:09 AM
6) Violation of Causality is easily explained because a CPU can alter virtual unobserved pasts in order to render consistent images via set rules of observation built into the virtual reality.

Violations of causality would be invisible to the simulation, and as such, unevidenced.

Quote from: Casparov on May 10, 2014, 04:36:09 AM
7) Quantum Tunneling is easily explained because a program entity distributed across many “instances” can restart at any one and thus seem to “teleport”.
8) Quantum Superposition is easily explained because a program can easily instantiate a single virtual object twice.
9) Observation Dependence is easily explained because a virtual reality does not render images unless a present observer requires images to be rendered.

So, amongst the problems with this universe is clipping, memory leaks, and visual artifacts.

Quote from: Casparov on May 10, 2014, 04:36:09 AM
10) Consciousness is explained as the fundamental substance of reality, and information it's bi-product. Via information processing all that we experience as reality is produced.

That's not an explanation any more than saying the fundamental substance of reality is floo, and that reality we experience is produced through blast processing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlulSyBI2aY).

Yeah, fail.

The Miko Smackdown wins the day once again.

(http://media.giphy.com/media/t0GdApalgA0bm/giphy.gif)

So I guess we (you) scared the ghost away? :(

Grts

I am wondering that myself. The expectation in the thread and via PM was set that he would provide his closing argument, followed by Mr Obvious. I am going to issue a deadline.

Quote from: Shol'va on May 20, 2014, 06:39:35 PM
I am wondering that myself. The expectation in the thread and via PM was set that he would provide his closing argument, followed by Mr Obvious. I am going to issue a deadline.

Good idea...

And hah! 3 pages... Quite a ways away from "21".

Grts

Quote from: josephpalazzo on May 03, 2014, 03:45:26 PM
I like when people are talking about quantum mechanics and it's quite evident that they can't solve a high school algebra problem... :doh:

<---- can't solve algebra problem...doesn't talk about quantum mechanics..

And at last we have come to Casparov's last gasp in his debate.

Quote from: Casparov on May 22, 2014, 05:38:04 AM
I have undoubtedly failed at proving the existence of God. In this sense, perhaps I should concede defeat.

Good. You at least have the presence of mind to know that.

Quote
Science as glorified by the successes of Galileo have held to this assertion about reality since it’s very inception.

Bullshit. You seem to think that science was invented by Galileo. What we now know as "science" (it wasn't even called 'science' until the 19th century) actually started some three thousand years ago by the Ionian Greeks. The Greeks and in particular the Greek natural philosophers were not materialists. They believed in all sorts of woo, and they didn't even have a scientific method as we know it today. Science was practiced in some form right up through the Dark Ages, percolating and being refined, until it reached its present form today.

Both Galileo and Isacc Newton were full-on theists. In particular, Newton believed that his solar system model would need to be periodically reset by God's finger because he couldn't (?) guarantee the long-term stability of the solar system. It took Pierre-Simon Laplace to carry the analysis to higher terms and figure out that the solar system is quite stable in the long term â€" but there was nothing about the mathematics Laplace used that was beyond Newton, only the will to not give up too early for an easy answer.

Quote
But it was Albert Einstein who’s Mathematics and Scientific Theories were so powerful that they seemed to surpass these foundational assumptions. Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics were the first scientifically and Mathematically sound theories of science that contradict our basic foundational assumptions about the nature of reality. These assumptions are so deeply engrained as unquestionable truths that Einstein renounced the Quantum Mechanics he helped to create in favor of Materialism and Realism.

Bullshit. I've already gone at length why QM and SR are materialist, realist theories (though not classically realist in the case of QM). If you actually read Einstein's thoughts on the matter, his principle objection to quantum mechanics was it's indeterminism, not any supposed lack of materialism or lack of realism. And you would disparage the works of Copernicus (heliocentric theory), Charles Darwin (theory of evolution), and Isacc Newton himself (universal gravitation). Each of these people made discoveries that were ground-shaking changes in our thought, and statements otherwise can only be made in ignorance of the history of science.

Quote
We have now had nearly One Hundred Years worth of trying to reconcile science with the assumptions of Materialism and Realism.

...Even though the experiments you cite as proof were only carried out thirty years ago, and even today still aren't convincing proof against materialism and realism to many practicing scientists.

Quote
The theories being proposed to rescue these basic assumptions are even sillier than the theories that were once proposed to rescue Flat Earth Theory, and The Geocentric Universe Model of Reality.

Yes, because a scientific ignoramus like you is going to tell us how sensible these theories are.

Quote
Science worked so well with Materialism up until the 19th Century that it has become unquestionably true in the minds of most working scientists.

And still works even with quantum wierdness, as we have explained at length on many occasions. No matter how you cut it, this does not sound to me like a paradigm that is in any danger of going away soon.

Quote
To consider any other alternative besides Realism and Materialism is considered blasphemy against science itself. Any alternate model of reality that abandons the assumptions of Realism and Materialism, is instantaneously labeled as “woo woo” and dismissed out of hand without further consideration.

To be perfectly honest: All of this reeks of Dogmatism.

Yes, it's not like theories involving "woo" don't have a bad track record or anything... oh, wait!

Quote
I am simply someone who, upon examining the current theories of our modern science, and upon examining the problems that they are attempts to solve, became skeptical of the assumptions of Materialism and Realism. Materialism and Realism are unprovable assertions about reality, more accurately described as opinions, rather than evidence based conclusions.

It is the body of evidence that proves scientific principles, not singular proofs standing out on their own. The continued failure of non-materialist and non-realist theories to rack up any sort of resume of explanitory success is damning. We find no trace of non-material substances or their action anywhere, exactly as materialism predicts. Even you admit that the universe is real and doesn't simply vanish without a trace when you stop looking at it, exactly as realism predicts. Like it or not, these do constitute evidences for materialism and realism.

Your statements that you have not been presented proof of such is patently false. You are simply someone who is uneducated and thinks that Google is a substitute for scientific competency, and as such your rejection of materialism and realism is just about as signficiant as a creationist's rejection of evolution.

Quote
He stated several times that he did not claim that these assumptions were definitely not false. A very smart move indeed.

Yes, keeping to the subject of the debate is very, very smart. Too bad you couldn't do the same.

Quote
Being skeptical and unconvinced that Materialism is a valid assumption, I have found an alternative in Idealism.

Except it's not really idealism, is it, Mr. Of-Course-Reality-Is-Real?

Quote
I do not know for sure that the outside world is not an illusion, but I do know for sure that my consciousness is real.

Your inability to doubt your own consciousness and your ability to doubt the existence of the external world is neither here nor there. It's simply a personal restatement of the Anthropic Principle, and like the Anthropic Principle has the weak, strong, and completely ridiculous forms. Guess which form you subscribe to.

Quote
Philosophically, Idealism is more consistent.

Only because it doesn't even try to solve the puzzle of consciousness and instead glosses over it. No risk, no reward.

Quote
Beyond the Philosophical Consistency though, I also find Idealism to be consistent with the findings of modern science.

Only in your internet-scholar mind, Professor Wogglebug.

Quote
The VR Model of reality sufficiently addressed this main concern of his as he eventually came to admit that this model is indeed a “worthwhile” model of reality.

At best, your "virtual reality" model only replicates what standard physics already states without adding anything to our understanding. It makes no new predictions that may be used to discriminate between a real universe and a virtual reality universe. That's what "predictive models" means â€" the model makes assertions about reality different from alternatives and as such can be used to test the model. Retreading old ground does not advance science no matter how neat you think the model you propose is.

Quote
In the end his only reason for rejecting the VR Model is that it is “not yet falsifiable.” This is half true. The Method of Falsification he was referring to is not yet doable, but as Brain Whitworth stated:

"If the universe is not calculable it cannot use calculating in its operations, and if it cannot operate by calculating it cannot be a calculated reality. Hence VR theory is falsifiable as one could disprove it by showing some incomputable physics. If reality does something that information processing cannot, then the world cannot be virtual, which supports the objective reality hypothesis. Yet while there are many incomputable algorithms in mathematics, all known physics seems to be computable."

The more I hear about Brian Whitworth, the more skeptical I am that he knows what he's talking about in this area. He seems to think that a "computable number" is one that takes a finite amount of time to compute exactly. It does not. It means that if you give a Turing machine a tape with a specification of which digit to terminate on, the Turing machine will terminate in some finite time on that digit. That does not mean that there is an upper bound to calculation time of this computable number for any digit, nor does it mean that any exact calculation involving a computable number will involve a calculation time that is bounded above. Indeed, most physics equations involve a transcendental number somewhere, which by definition cannot be handled digitally in finite time or finite space.

Quote
I ran out of time to address this contention, but rest assured it is definitely contestable. Donald Hoffman, a Neurologist and Cognitive Scientist has produced a beautiful theory of consciousness within an Idealist paradigm which is indeed falsifiable.

Casparov thinks that Donald D. Hoffman's paper supports idealism. Meanwhile, in the real world, we find that this is yet another example of how Casparov reads into what he reads what he wants the papers to say. It was clear to me from the first paragraph that Hoffman is talking about how the perceptions of a creature are often not true to the reality of what is being percieved â€" which is an admission that there is an objective reality that the perceptions are different from. This paper is not an endorsement for idealism â€" quite the opposite. His talk about how our perceptions are adapted for our survival presupposes a real environment to adapt to, for our survival is dependent upon adapting properly to that environment.

Quote
Indeed, Atheists whose Anti-Theistic Position is Materialism and Realism, truly have an unprovable unjustified worldview based on nothing more solid than assumption and assertion.

And out here in the real world, our "unprovable unjustified worldview based on nothing more solid than assumption and assertion" continues to earn its keep with every comprehensive theory that eschews the non-material and the unreality of the universe, and in fact constitutes its greatest evidence for its favor. Meanwhile, you have nothing in favor of idealism.

Again, your statement that there is no empircal evidence to uphold materialism or realism does not make it true. There's plenty. You simply fail to acknowledge it. According to OUR standards of proof, the scientific standard of proof, we have plenty of it.

The scientific standard of proof should be decided by practicing scientists, not internet-scholars like you, Professor Wogglebug.

Quote
It is an informed decision made when taking into account the evidence both philosophical and scientific.

"Philosophical evidence?" :lol:

Quote
But I agree with Brian Whitworth who says:

Something idiotic. Again, the fact that you do not understand what has been explained to you at length is not an indictment on materialism or realism. It is only an indictment on your own knowledge, Professor Wogglebug.

Quote
I may not have been able to convince Mr. Obvious, and I may not have been able to convince a single one of the people who will read this. All I can say is that for me personally, it seems wiser to let go of the common assumptions of Realism and Materialism in light of the mounting evidence that contradicts them, and to instead embrace a paradigm shift in our understanding of reality.

-snip-

You sound like VenomFangX with this statement, where the realm of your imaginary, unproved imagination is larger than the reality that actually demonstrated to exist. I think the world of exploding galaxies, of the intricate dance of chemicals, the dance of nature and the evolution of life are plenty fulfilling in and of themselves without having to imagine a world of fairy tales. Yes, imagining worlds like that is fun on occasion, but best done in moderation and to not conflate it with reality.

I think that you don't find the real world enough to fulfill you is because you are a scientific ignoramus, and have to fill the hole in your mind with fantasy. You can't stand the fact that consciousness is a product of your brain because you think of your brain as a banal thing made of "mere matter." But that matter you're made of is anything but "mere." You are literally made out of the dust of an exploded star. The fish in the sea literally are your very distant cousins. Mortality â€"the fact that we have limited time on this earth before we go back to the stardust we are madeâ€" is what gives life meaning, urgency and purpose. And we have a revulsion of depriving others of that great, literally-once-in-a-lifetime gift that gives us morallity.

Your view has it that whatever you could accomplish could easily be done by someone or something else, all being one and such, and as such your individual life amounts to nothing. You can kill with impunity, because there's no wrong in harming oneself. Further, you can rape the Earth with impunity because it's all just God's game.

(snip quote mining bullshit)

Quote
Reality rewards knowledge, not willful ignorance.

This is ironic because we stand against your view because reality rewards knowledge, and not willful ignorance, as you said. Your entire argument is one from ignorance. It boils down to, "I don't understand how the 'observer effect' works, therefore the world must be made of consciousness and only consciousness." Instead of learning about what is actually known about quantum theory, you go on and invent stuff you know nothing about, and hunt for quotes from "famous people" that apparently support your view. Some drink at the fountain of knowledge; you obviously gargle.

Quote
Just because religion is bad and glorifies ignorance, does not mean that no God exists.

We think that no God exists because of a complete lack of evidence for God. Simple as that, and not because we just want to be contrary to religions.

Quote
Mr. Obvious, is there any evidence that the assertion of Materialism is true? Can one prove Philosophical Realism? Can it be said to be anything more than an opinion or a preferred belief? Or is there definitive proof for such an assertion?

You've already been given as definitive proof as available to us: the entire body of scientific knowledge, with non-materialist and non-realist based theories curiously absent. The reason you reject it is because you have a different (and wrong) understanding of what scientific evidence means, just like creationists reject transitional forms when found.

Quote
The evidence is it’s superior capability as an explanation of the data and it’s consistency with philosophical and scientific evidence. But alas, there is no definite slam dunk proof.

Your myoptic fixation on "slam dunk proof" is one of the big reasons why nobody takes you seriously. We don't demand slam-dunk proof. We want an analysis of why the idealistic view makes more sense than materialist and realist views, but you've failed to provide this â€" quantum mechanics doesn't make any more sense with your idealism than it does with materialism or realism. The equations remain stubbornly the same.

You've offered nothing but rose colored glasses, which while may be comforting, offer no real answers. Your All-God spectacularly fails to explain why there are seven billion people on this planet with conflicting goals and personalities who can't fully understand each other even when they speak the same goddamn language, instead of one universal consciousness/hive mind. Your All-God spectacularly fails to explain why your "universal morality" fails to prevent sociopaths â€"people who completely lack morality as we know it. It explains quantum mechanics with a scientifically unsatisfying, "God wants it to be this way." Your explanation covers all the bases â€"reality can literally look like anything God wants it to look likeâ€" and as such fails to be an explanation as understood by science. Scientific explanations are as much exclusionary as they are inclusionary, and stating what will not be seen is as important to a scientific explanation as stating what can.

Quote
In the end, the conclusion can only be a personal one. Neither can be proven definitively so one must decide a way to conclude for one’s self.

So in the end, instead of doing the intellectually honest thing and conceeding that you have lost on all fronts, you throw up your hands and say there can be no definitive answer, even though you argued with all of your heart before this point to prove your worldview. This, to me, speaks volumes about your intellectual honesty. If it is a personal choice and neither can be proven definitively, why bother with this debate at all? Why bother with presenting your proof with grand pronouncements of "REALISM IS A DEAD MAN WALKING," instead of admitting that it depends on your viewpoint and ask to consider the utility of those viewpoints as you have done here in your closing statement?

It's because you've lost, badly, and don't want to admit to the fact, and lost dispite you stamping your little feet with your grand pronoucements of the death of realism. You are now reduced to taking your ball and going home, blowing a raspberry all the way.

Go home, Professor Wogglebug.

QuoteI have undoubtedly failed at proving the existence of God. In this sense, perhaps I should concede defeat.

Personally, for me, this statement is very important and has some considerable redeeming value. Inception, anyone? :)

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on May 22, 2014, 01:06:12 PM
Casparov thinks that Donald D. Hoffman's paper supports idealism. Meanwhile, in the real world, we find that this is yet another example of how Casparov reads into what he reads what he wants the papers to say. It was clear to me from the first paragraph that Hoffman is talking about how the perceptions of a creature are often not true to the reality of what is being percieved â€" which is an admission that there is an objective reality that the perceptions are different from. This paper is not an endorsement for idealism â€" quite the opposite. His talk about how our perceptions are adapted for our survival presupposes a real environment to adapt to, for our survival is dependent upon adapting properly to that environment.
And out here in the real world, our "unprovable unjustified worldview based on nothing more solid than assumption and assertion" continues to earn its keep with every comprehensive theory that eschews the non-material and the unreality of the universe, and in fact constitutes its greatest evidence for its favor. Meanwhile, you have nothing in favor of idealism.

This makes me giggle.  :winkle:

Tell the truth, you only read one paragraph. Be honest. You obviously did not watch his lecture I provided along with the paper titled, "Physics From Consciousness," : http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/%7Eddhoff/PFCTalk.mov (http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/%7Eddhoff/PFCTalk.mov)

You obviously never got to the paragraph where he places the theory in the philosophical landscape:

QuoteIt is not na ̈ıve realism, which claims that we directly see middle-sized objects; nor is it indirect realism, or representationalism, which says that we see sensory representations, or sense data, of real middle-sized objects, and do not directly see the objects themselves. It claims instead that the physicalist ontology underlying both na ̈ıve realism and indirect realism is almost surely false: A rock is an interface icon, not a constituent of objective reality. Although the interface theory is compatible with idealism, it is not idealism, because it proposes no specific model of objective reality, but leaves the nature of objective reality as an open scientific problem.

The Theory itself is not a direct argument for Idealism itself, yet it is a theory which works within an Idealist Framework and claims that Realism is almost surely false. I offered this source not as proof of Idealism itself, but as an explanation of the origins and nature of consciousness within an Idealist Framework that is both testable and falsifiable, addressing the point that Mr. Obvious brought up.

I find it ironic how you read one paragraph and then accuse me of "reading in" to what the paper is about. Watch the lecture and you will quickly find out that you are the one who was "reading in" to what Hoffman is arguing for. An excellent example of intellectual dishonesty at it's finest.

Go home, Professor Wogglebug. I read the entire paper, and it does not say what you want it to say. It was simply clear from the first paragraph what the paper was going to be about, and reading the entire paper did not change that. When he says the rock is an interface icon, he does not mean that there is not an object that corresponds to it. It's simply presenting the reality to the creature in a way that it can respond in a practical way to it. This would not make sense if there was no reality to respond to. You cannot avoid this paradox.

Realism is the general idea that the real world is out there, existing, and needs to be dealt with. The qualified forms of realism are simply attempts to capture this principle formally.

I didn't watch the lecture, though.

Casparov, if you're still around, here's a video that would clear a few of your misconceptions on naturalism and realism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhSSG76R5sM#t=93

Quote from: josephpalazzo on May 24, 2014, 12:24:56 PM
Casparov, if you're still around, here's a video that would clear a few of your misconceptions on naturalism and realism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhSSG76R5sM#t=93

This man argues against Dualism, which I do not hold to, and his argument for Materialism is An Appeal To Authority and Widespread Belief sprinkled with an "I can go into the specifics but I don't want to," which of course is not at all a convincing argument.

If anyone wants to have a serious debate about whether or not Materialism/Realism is true I am all for it.

Quote from: Casparov on May 25, 2014, 03:46:27 AM
This man argues against Dualism, which I do not hold to, and his argument for Materialism is An Appeal To Authority and Widespread Belief sprinkled with an "I can go into the specifics but I don't want to," which of course is not at all a convincing argument.

If anyone wants to have a serious debate about whether or not Materialism/Realism is true I am all for it.

It's a strange way to look at a body of overwhelming evidence accumulated over 500 years as "An Appeal To Authority"?!!?!

Quote from: josephpalazzo on May 25, 2014, 05:39:55 AM
It's a strange way to look at a body of overwhelming evidence accumulated over 500 years as "An Appeal To Authority"?!!?!

For 500 years materialism has been used as an underlying assumption in science. It is not a conclusion arrived at as the result of any evidence or experiment. To point to the fact that scientists today and in the past have held to an assumption is not evidence of anything, it is indeed only an Appeal to Authority and Widespread Belief.

Science was done under the assumption of a Flat Earth for nearly 1000 years. If someone argued in the year 500, "Flat Earth theory is true because the entire body of scientific evidence to date has been done under the assumption that the Earth is Flat." Would you accept that as evidence? I wouldn't. I would point out that the Earth being flat is only an assumption, and just because it is an assumption widely held by virtually all working scientists now and for the past 100's of years is not proof that it is true. I would ask for actual evidence that the earth is flat and point out that there are only fallacious arguments from authority and widespread belief used to preserve it as deeply held belief, a preconception and foundational assumption. It is just a preferred opinion being asserted as truth. The very definition of Dogmatism.

That science has preferred a particular assumption for a long time and lots of scientists prefer it... IS NOT EVIDENCE.

Quote from: Casparov on May 25, 2014, 03:46:27 AM
If anyone wants to have a serious debate about whether or not Materialism/Realism is true I am all for it.

Didn't you just have a debate that focused on materialism/realism? How are you going to prove either to be true or false without using quantitative data?

Quote from: Casparov on May 26, 2014, 12:45:40 AM
For 500 years materialism has been used as an underlying assumption in science. It is not a conclusion arrived at as the result of any evidence or experiment. To point to the fact that scientists today and in the past have held to an assumption is not evidence of anything, it is indeed only an Appeal to Authority and Widespread Belief.

Science was done under the assumption of a Flat Earth for nearly 1000 years. If someone argued in the year 500, "Flat Earth theory is true because the entire body of scientific evidence to date has been done under the assumption that the Earth is Flat." Would you accept that as evidence? I wouldn't. I would point out that the Earth being flat is only an assumption, and just because it is an assumption widely held by virtually all working scientists now and for the past 100's of years is not proof that it is true. I would ask for actual evidence that the earth is flat and point out that there are only fallacious arguments from authority and widespread belief used to preserve it as deeply held belief, a preconception and foundational assumption. It is just a preferred opinion being asserted as truth. The very definition of Dogmatism

That science has preferred a particular assumption for a long time and lots of scientists prefer it... IS NOT EVIDENCE.

There is a difference that you have neglected: in the years of believing that "the earth is flat", one could have proposed on a theoretical basis a test to see if the earth was flat or not - fly far into the sky and observe if the earth is flat or not . So the assumption - "the earth is flat" - was falsifiable. Such a test couldn't have been carried in those days, as the technology wasn't available. But when it became available, the assumption "the earth is flat" was then easily rejected.

In the assumption, "all is materialism", there is a test that would falsify it -- finding an immaterial object would clearly falsify it. But in your case in regard to idealism, what theoretical test can you provide that would falsify your assumption? How do you get out of your virtual reality? The answer is you can't, and so postulating there is "another reality, an immaterial one" is superfluous. Note: it doesn't prove that the immaterial doesn't exist, all I'm saying is that it is superfluous as you can never find out.

Quote from: Casparov on May 26, 2014, 12:45:40 AM
I'm a solipsist! Everything you say or prove is bullshit!

Meh. Not interested.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on May 26, 2014, 09:13:34 AM
In the assumption, "all is materialism", there is a test that would falsify it -- finding an immaterial object would clearly falsify it.

There are several ways we could test the assumption, "all is materialism". For instance, if one material object can effect another material object without physical or material interaction, this would violate the Principle of Locality, and thus we would have good reason that something beyond Materialism is the deeper reality.

Also, if we could prove that material objects transform into a mathematical superposition of all of it's possibilities while unobserved and only transform into a single global physical object while observed, this would be an indication that "all is materialism" is a faulty assumption and poor explanation of the data. Material objects should be observation independently and there is no explanation for why they should behave otherwise.

Also, if we could somehow prove that our decision to observe a material object in the present affects the past of the material object which lead to what we observe, such a discovery would necessitate a violation of the Principle of Causality, and thus we would have good reason that something other than Materialism is the deeper reality.

If Materialism is true, there are certain things that just cannot happen. If we observe things things happening, we have good reason to believe that Materialism isn't true. If we observe that Material objects do not behave like material objects, we have good reason to believe that they are not actual material objects.

QuoteBut in your case in regard to idealism, what theoretical test can you provide that would falsify your assumption? How do you get out of your virtual reality? The answer is you can't, and so postulating there is "another reality, an immaterial one" is superfluous. Note: it doesn't prove that the immaterial doesn't exist, all I'm saying is that it is superfluous as you can never find out.

A theoretical test just like this test proposed to do just that: http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847)

If the universe is not calculable it cannot use calculating in its operations, and if it cannot operate by calculating it cannot be a calculated reality. Hence VR theory is falsifiable as one could disprove it by showing some incomputable physics.

Why are you still here? We were happy when you were gone.

Quote from: Casparov on May 26, 2014, 07:24:06 PM
If the universe is not calculable it cannot use calculating in its operations, and if it cannot operate by calculating it cannot be a calculated reality. Hence VR theory is falsifiable as one could disprove it by showing some incomputable physics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

What rock have you been hiding under?

Quote from: Icarus on May 26, 2014, 09:00:07 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

What rock have you been hiding under?

CPU's simulate chaos with ease. Virtual Realities are used in chaos theory all the time. It's trivial. What's your point?

If reality does something that information processing cannot, then the world cannot be virtual, chaos is easily produced via information processing. Chaos theory challenges determinism, not Virtual Reality. Yet while there are many incomputable algorithms in mathematics, all known physics seems to be computable. For instance if space-time had turned out to be continuous, this would have necessitated mathematical infinities and would therefore makes reality incomputable and the Virtual Reality Model of reality would be falsified, however we discovered that space-time is discrete, granular, pixelated, digital, we have a Planck Length and a Planck Time instead of continuous space-time which makes space-time computable via information processing, thus the Virtual Reality Model is not refuted.

Quote from: Casparov on May 26, 2014, 10:28:32 PM
CPU's simulate chaos with ease. Virtual Realities are used in chaos theory all the time. It's trivial. What's your point?

If reality does something that information processing cannot, then the world cannot be virtual, chaos is easily produced via information processing. Chaos theory challenges determinism, not Virtual Reality. Yet while there are many incomputable algorithms in mathematics, all known physics seems to be computable. For instance if space-time had turned out to be continuous, this would have necessitated mathematical infinities and would therefore makes reality incomputable and the Virtual Reality Model of reality would be falsified, however we discovered that space-time is discrete, granular, pixelated, digital, we have a Planck Length and a Planck Time instead of continuous space-time which makes space-time computable via information processing, thus the Virtual Reality Model is not refuted.

Wow, you really missed the mark on that one. How did you manage you write an entire paragraph, in response to my post, that has nothing to do with what I posted.

I said "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory What rock have you been hiding under?" in response to "Hence VR theory is falsifiable as one could disprove it by showing some incomputable physics." ie. I'm saying no physics is incomputable. I was pointing out the field that studies that fun part of reality and you somehow took it as a bell signaling it was time to pull out the lotion and tissue paper because the mental masturbation train was about to leave the station.

Kudos to you and your pursuit for the continual mental masturbation, regardless of the outlet.

Quote from: Icarus on May 26, 2014, 11:24:17 PM
I'm saying no physics is incomputable.

sorry I was unable to read your mind and deduce such a specific conclusion from the mere posting of link to a wikipedia page about an entire field of study.

Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions.
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

I would ask you where in the link you provided you expected me to conclude that you were saying that no physics is incomputable, and then I'd point out that you are basically agreeing with me that Virtual Reality is a viable theory, but honestly I have absolutely zero interested in having further interaction with you. I feel like you are attacking me because I don't have the same beliefs you do. Your belief system is threatened so you must defend it by attacking me, and I don't know why, but such an exchange simply does not interest me. No more than being attacked by Muslims who attack those who don't believe what they do, or Christians who attack those who don't believe what they do. You are no different.

It is the mark of an intelligent man who can have a civilized conversation with someone whom he vehemently disagrees with in an open and respectful way. The way you are choosing to conduct yourself says more about your own insecurity and intellectual honesty than it does about whether or not your world view is true.

This is my last response to anything you post.
Peace & Love

Quote from: Casparov on May 27, 2014, 01:32:20 AM
sorry I was unable to read your mind and deduce such a specific conclusion from the mere posting of link to a wikipedia page about an entire field of study.

Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions.
Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.

I would ask you where in the link you provided you expected me to conclude that you were saying that no physics is incomputable, and then I'd point out that you are basically agreeing with me that Virtual Reality is a viable theory, but honestly I have absolutely zero interested in having further interaction with you. I feel like you are attacking me because I don't have the same beliefs you do. Your belief system is threatened so you must defend it by attacking me, and I don't know why, but such an exchange simply does not interest me. No more than being attacked by Muslims who attack those who don't believe what they do, or Christians who attack those who don't believe what they do. You are no different.

It is the mark of an intelligent man who can have a civilized conversation with someone whom he vehemently disagrees with in an open and respectful way. The way you are choosing to conduct yourself says more about your own insecurity and intellectual honesty than it does about whether or not your world view is true.

This is my last response to anything you post.
Peace & Love

Translation:
(http://reelgoodtime.weebly.com/uploads/2/6/5/6/26569731/2460180_orig.gif)

I guess your need to publicly masturbate and me being "terrified" of the universe around us makes us incomparable.

Quote from: Casparov on May 26, 2014, 07:24:06 PM
There are several ways we could test the assumption, "all is materialism". For instance, if one material object can effect another material object without physical or material interaction, this would violate the Principle of Locality, and thus we would have good reason that something beyond Materialism is the deeper reality.

Also, if we could prove that material objects transform into a mathematical superposition of all of it's possibilities while unobserved and only transform into a single global physical object while observed, this would be an indication that "all is materialism" is a faulty assumption and poor explanation of the data. Material objects should be observation independently and there is no explanation for why they should behave otherwise.

Also, if we could somehow prove that our decision to observe a material object in the present affects the past of the material object which lead to what we observe, such a discovery would necessitate a violation of the Principle of Causality, and thus we would have good reason that something other than Materialism is the deeper reality.

If Materialism is true, there are certain things that just cannot happen. If we observe things things happening, we have good reason to believe that Materialism isn't true. If we observe that Material objects do not behave like material objects, we have good reason to believe that they are not actual material objects.

Thanks for proving my point that materialism IS falsifiable.

QuoteA theoretical test just like this test proposed to do just that: http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847 (http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847)

If the universe is not calculable it cannot use calculating in its operations, and if it cannot operate by calculating it cannot be a calculated reality. Hence VR theory is falsifiable as one could disprove it by showing some incomputable physics.

Virtual reality does not depend on reality being completely calculable. The fact is that we can build virtual reality even though we don't know if reality is completely calculable. There is no test to falsify VR. In that paper there are trying to build a model of the universe. Trying to prove a model is "right or wrong" is different than proving a model is "falsifiable or not". I hope you understand the difference.

Quote from: Casparov on May 26, 2014, 07:24:06 PM
There are several ways we could test the assumption, "all is materialism".

Again, you are putting the word "assumption" and materialism in the same sentence and that is a big problem.
If you look into the definition of what an assumption is, that is a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.
And therefore by making that statement, it makes your position highly suspect.
You are already starting with a bold assertion and a logical failure.
Materialism is not an assumption.

Quote from: Casparov on May 26, 2014, 07:24:06 PM
if one material object can effect another material object without physical or material interaction, this would violate the Principle of Locality, and thus we would have good reason that something beyond Materialism is the deeper reality.

No. Absolutely not. That would give us good reason to expect that there is a physical phenomenon, a force, that we do not currently posess the means to measure. This is easy to support by looking back in time and realizing that materialism has consistently been the answer. Nowhere in the history of science and humanity has immaterialism ever been a reliable explanatory power for anything whatsoever, other than argument from ignorance.
Is it possible immaterial is the explanation? Sure! Anything is possible?
Is it probable? Very very very unlikely.
The reasonable assumption is still materialism in that situation, until evidence to the contrary.

So from the beginning it is simply that the material can be measured and quantified, and therefore assumed to be reality, versus the immaterial which can't be reliably measured and quantified because the agreed upon methods of measure are material in nature. Bit of a quandry, that.

Quote from: Shol'va on May 27, 2014, 03:17:44 PM
Materialism is not an assumption.

Interesting. I have been having this conversation with philosophers and scientists and laymen for years now and you the first to slam your foot down and say, "Materialism is not an assumption."

Well go on, explain yourself. How is Materialism not an assumption? I am curious.....

QuoteNo. Absolutely not. That would give us good reason to expect that there is a physical phenomenon, a force, that we do not currently posess the means to measure.

Well yes this the entire point of the EPR paper and Bell's Theorem. They are tests for all possible "physical phenomenon... that we do not currently posess the means to measure." These are called "Hidden Variables". And lo and behold, all possible hidden variable theories which would show that there is indeed an undetectable physical phenomenon which explains these effects have been conclusively ruled out.

QuoteBell’s celebrated theorem(1) states that, in a situation like that considered by Einstein et al.,(2) which involves the correlation of measurements on two spatially separated systems which have interacted in the past, no local hidden-variable theory (or more generally, no objective local theory) can predict experimental results identical to those given by standard quantum mechanics. Over the past thirty years a very large number of experiments have been conducted with the aim of testing the predictions of quantum mechanics against those of local hidden-variable theories, and while to the best of my knowledge no single existing experiment has simultaneously blocked all of the so-called ‘‘loopholes’’ (detector efficiency, random choice of setting, etc.), each one of those loopholes has been blocked in at least one experiment (cf., e.g., Weihs et al.(3)). Thus, to maintain a local hidden- variable theory in the face of the existing experiments would appear to require belief in a very peculiar conspiracy of nature. http://people.isy.liu.se/icg/jalar/kurser/QF/assignments/Leggett2003.pdf (http://people.isy.liu.se/icg/jalar/kurser/QF/assignments/Leggett2003.pdf)

QuoteAccording to Bell’s theorem, any theory that is based on the joint assumption of realism and locality (meaning that local events cannot be affected by actions in space- like separated regions) is at variance with certain quantum predictions. Experiments with entangled pairs of particles have amply confirmed these quantum predictions, thus rendering local realistic theories untenable. Maintaining realism as a fundamental concept would therefore necessitate the introduction of ’spooky’ actions that defy locality. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.2529.pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.2529.pdf)

QuoteBell’s theorem [8] proves that all hidden-variable theories based on the joint assumption of locality and realism are at variance with the predictions of quantum physics. Locality prohibits any influences between events in space-like separated regions, while realism claims that all measurement outcomes depend on pre-existing properties of objects that are independent of the measurement..... Since the first successful Bell experiment by Freedman and Clauser [13], later implementations have continuously converged to closing both the locality loophole [15, 16, 19, 20] on the one hand and the detection loophole [17, 21] on the other hand. Therefore it is reasonable to consider the violation of local realism a well established fact. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.2529.pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.2529.pdf)

Casparov, you are desperately trying to set up the argument that materialism is an unsupported assertion at worst, assumption at best.
Again, both attempt to establish that I am just literally pulling it out of the air, coming up with this without basis.

Materialism is axiomatic as far as our existence is concerned. We would both look at, say, a garden, and see the same thing. And here you are positing there are fairies at the bottom of it too (well, not literally, but in concept pretty much the same, transcendental crap), and that we might in fact be deceived by our senses. Until you offer up anything in ways of compelling substantive, objective, measurable, testable, observable, verifiable, explanatory, coherent, framework as to why fairies exist, how they exist, and more importantly how you know they exist and why, you have nothing to go on.

Like I said in another thread, your doubting that materialism is axiomatic is ultimately completely meaningless and void of either aim, or outcome. Because you go right back to living your life as if this material existence is in fact all there is. If this existence is in fact simulated, then, Neo, why aren't you trying to wake up, bend the rules OR jump between very far buildings. Or why aren't you, Leonardo DiCaprio, attempting to wake yourself up by putting your head on a railway line?
And your attempts at subverting what science actually says notwithstanding, you don't have anything to go by, so as any reasonable and prudent person, don't leap to the attempts I suggest. At least I hope not.

The inescapable fact is that at the end of the day, you have neither choice, nor alternative but to live out your life like the rest of us.

Almost forgot!

Quote from: Casparov on May 27, 2014, 07:12:37 PM
Interesting. I have been having this conversation with philosophers and scientists [...] for years

I don't believe you. Name five of each, with references to these discussions.

Quote from: Shol'va on May 27, 2014, 07:25:32 PM
Materialism is axiomatic as far as our existence is concerned.

You take Materialism as axiomatic, as if it is undoubtable, unquestionable Truth with a capital T. However to take Materialism as an axiom is a personal choice, not a universal unquestionable Truth. It would only be axiomatic if it were undoubtable, but as Philosophical Skepticism shows, Materialism is easily doubtable and is therefore not axiomatic.

The statement "I exist" is axiomatic, because you cannot doubt your own existence. Materialism on the other hand requires an assumption without proof, but if you are willing to look past that or ignore it or deny it, you can choose to and take Materialism as your personal axiom. You can take Materialism as your personal axiom if you choose, but you cannot enforce this onto any others because others may well recognize that Materialism is doubtable and lacks any empirical proof, and therefore may well refuse to accept it as an axiom. Materialism is not a conclusion arrived at via any experiment or scientific evidence, there is no way to prove that Materialism is true, and it is only an axiom if you choose to make it one in your personal world view, but that does not change the fact that Materialism is ultimately an assumption.

Your statement should have been, "I take Materialism as axiomatic as far as our existence is concerned."

QuoteWe would both look at, say, a garden, and see the same thing.

Doesn’t common sense deny that the world which appears so real to us is a virtual reality? Philosophers like Plato have long recognized that the reality of reality is not provable. Bishop Berkeley’s solipsism argued that a tree falling in a wood will make no sound if no-one is there to hear it. Dr Johnson is said to have reacted to that idea the world is created by the mind by stubbing his toe on a stone and saying “I disprove it thus”. However VR theory does not claim that the world is unreal to its inhabitants, only that it is not objectively real.

To clarify the difference, suppose information processing in one world creates a second virtual world. To an observer in the first world, events within the virtual world are “unreal”, but to an observer within the virtual world, virtual events are as real as it gets. If a virtual gun wounds a virtual man, to that virtual man the pain is “real”. That a world is calculated does not mean it has no “reality”, merely that its reality is local to itself. Even in a virtual reality, stubbed toes will still hurt and falling trees will still make sounds when no-one is around. Reality is relative to the observer, so by analogy, a table is “solid” because our hands are made of the same atoms as the table. To a neutrino, the table is just a ghostly insubstantiality through which it flies, as is the entire earth. Things constituted the same way are substantial to each other, so likewise what is “real” depends upon the world it is measured from. To say a world is a virtual doesn’t imply it is unreal to its inhabitants, only that its reality is “local” to that world, i.e. not an objective reality.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0337.pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0337.pdf)

QuoteThe inescapable fact is that at the end of the day, you have neither choice, nor alternative but to live out your life like the rest of us.

In both scenarios this is true, so your statement is pointless and proves exactly nothing.

Quote from: josephpalazzo on May 27, 2014, 10:22:54 AM
Virtual reality does not depend on reality being completely calculable. The fact is that we can build virtual reality even though we don't know if reality is completely calculable. There is no test to falsify VR. In that paper there are trying to build a model of the universe. Trying to prove a model is "right or wrong" is different than proving a model is "falsifiable or not". I hope you understand the difference.

Go through the slides if you are truly interested: http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/savage/Simulation/Universe/ (http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/savage/Simulation/Universe/)

Quote from: Casparov on May 28, 2014, 05:30:18 AM
Go through the slides if you are truly interested: http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/savage/Simulation/Universe/ (http://www.phys.washington.edu/users/savage/Simulation/Universe/)

Notes:

1) In their simulation, brains are simulated just like planets. The underlying assumption is that brains are made of the same stuff as any other objects in this universe.

2) Any simulation aims for the prediction  of the final state of a system and the fundamental laws according to which the system must evolve.

3) They use the principle of least action to determine when a system evolved from state A to state B - this is quantum field theory.

4) They are basing their simulation on the Standard Model as we know so far.

5) They are using similar techniques as in QFT such as Wilson Loops, discretizing space-time on a lattice.

6) they use the Monte Carlo as an approximation method.

Nothing in these methods, which I am very familiar with, will give a ready-made proof that the universe is some virtual reality. In fact, at the end, if you read this carefully, the authors have a stern warning not to interpret their work as virtual reality. I'm quoting directly from that website: "The simulation presented in this work by no means implies the illusion of reality (e.g the Matrix) or the existence of a machine's user (e.g God (s)), who are directly influencing our lives and our perception of reality." Their basic aim is to have a set of initial conditions that would yield the basic laws of the universe that we already know.

Quote from: Casparov on May 27, 2014, 08:24:28 PM
You take Materialism as axiomatic, as if it is undoubtable, unquestionable Truth with a capital T.

No I don't, and the time spent making assertions would be better spent asking me for clarification.
The definition of an axiom is: a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.
My position is that our existence in a material universe is established, accepted, self-evidently true for obvious reasons. Something being axiomatic is not dogmatic, nor is it a view of any absolute position of "Truth" as you call it.
I take materialism as being axiomatic in the sense that it is self evident and the best we have. You wanna come up with something else to refute it? Fine, but you better bring something extremely compelling to the table.

QuoteMaterialism on the other hand requires an assumption without proof

No, it doesn't require an assumption without proof. Materialism is simply a label, a description that we have chosen to identify and describe our shared state of existence. I reach out and touch and feel everything around me. I have to come up with some sort of linguistic descriptor to define the reality in which I exist.

Quotebut you cannot enforce this onto any others because others may well recognize that Materialism is doubtable and lacks any empirical proof

Materialism only lacks empirical proof in the mind of madmen and philosophical mental masturbators.
I am not enforcing anything on anybody else. YOU came to ME with assertions and I am telling you that you've got nothing compelling.

The rest of your post is a string of assertions and appeal to Plato et al, and proves nothing.
Please don't ignore this part of my reply and offer a rebuttal, if you have one:

Quoteyour doubting that materialism is axiomatic is ultimately completely meaningless and void of either aim, or outcome. Because you go right back to living your life as if this material existence is in fact all there is. If this existence is in fact simulated, then, Neo, why aren't you trying to wake up, bend the rules OR jump between very far buildings. Or why aren't you, Leonardo DiCaprio, attempting to wake yourself up by putting your head on a railway line?
And your attempts at subverting what science actually says notwithstanding, you don't have anything to go by, so as any reasonable and prudent person, don't leap to the attempts I suggest. At least I hope not.

The inescapable fact is that at the end of the day, you have neither choice, nor alternative but to live out your life like the rest of us.

I am still waiting for 5 philosophers and 5 scientists you've discussed with over the years, along with links to those conversations. What are their names?

Quote from: Shol'va on May 28, 2014, 02:14:21 PM
My position is that our existence in a material universe is established, accepted, self-evidently true for obvious reasons.

Right, so you take Materialism as an axiom in your personal world view. This does not change the fact that Materialism is an assumption. If it is not an assumption, please provide proof that Materialism is true. Concrete evidence that would prove that we do live in an objective material universe and that would not be consistent and equally explained via the Virtual Reality Model of reality. If Materialism is an axiom that is "self-evidently true", then it should be easy to prove. There should exist concrete empirical evidence which anybody could look at and say, "Oh, well in light of this evidence, Materialism is conclusively true and VR and all other theories cannot explain this evidence."

QuoteNo, it doesn't require an assumption without proof.
Materialism only lacks empirical proof in the mind of madmen and philosophical mental masturbators.

You've made alot of bold claims, now put up or shut up.

QuotePlease don't ignore this part of my reply and offer a rebuttal, if you have one:

Whether materialism is true or virtual reality is true, I will still live my life according to the constraints and rules of the reality I exist in. Therefore, your statements about this fact prove exactly nothing one way or the other.

To clarify the difference, suppose information processing in one world creates a second virtual world. To an observer in the first world, events within the virtual world are “unreal”, but to an observer within the virtual world, virtual events are as real as it gets. If a virtual gun wounds a virtual man, to that virtual man the pain is “real”. That a world is calculated does not mean it has no “reality”, merely that its reality is local to itself. Even in a virtual reality, stubbed toes will still hurt and falling trees will still make sounds when no-one is around. Reality is relative to the observer, so by analogy, a table is “solid” because our hands are made of the same atoms as the table. To a neutrino, the table is just a ghostly insubstantiality through which it flies, as is the entire earth. Things constituted the same way are substantial to each other, so likewise what is “real” depends upon the world it is measured from. To say a world is a virtual doesn’t imply it is unreal to its inhabitants, only that its reality is “local” to that world, i.e. not an objective reality.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0337.pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0337.pdf)

QuoteI am still waiting for 5 philosophers and 5 scientists you've discussed with over the years, along with links to those conversations. What are their names?

Oh how bout you kiss my ass instead?

Quote from: Casparov on May 28, 2014, 07:42:26 PM
Right, so you take Materialism as an axiom in your personal world view. This does not change the fact that Materialism is an assumption.

Once again, you do not understand. It is not an assumption. It is a conclusion on the available evidence.

QuoteIf Materialism is an axiom that is "self-evidently true", then it should be easy to prove. There should exist concrete empirical evidence which anybody could look at and say, "Oh, well in light of this evidence, Materialism is conclusively true and VR and all other theories cannot explain this evidence."

Once again, that is a you problem.

QuoteWhether materialism is true or virtual reality is true, I will still live my life according to the constraints and rules of the reality I exist in.

So your doubting the shared state of existence is neither necessary, nor conclusive to any extent whatsoever.
Therefore, the entire discussion is, as I have stated, nothing more than mental masturbation.

QuoteOh how bout you kiss my ass instead?

The lack of evidence that you have in fact been talking to philosophers and scientists for years makes you a liar.

One last thing

Quote from: Casparov on May 28, 2014, 07:42:26 PM
Virtual Reality Model

A nice definition of scientific modeling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling

There is no such thing as a Virtual Reality Model as how you propose it. I am finding absolutely no scientific references specifically to a virtual reality model, so with no references, the conclusion is you made that term up.
I've brought this to your attention before and it seems you completely ignored it.

Quote from: Shol'va on May 29, 2014, 03:11:00 PM
Once again, you do not understand. It is not an assumption. It is a conclusion on the available evidence.

You are making a positive assertion and I am taking the negative position. I am skeptical of this claim you are making. The Burden of Proof lies with the one making the positive claim, therefore, if you wish to make this claim, positive proof is YOUR problem. Provide the evidence or admit it is an assumption. Very simple.

Physical reality is true because it doesn't go away. Can you say the same for your mind? Is your mind still there when you are unconscious? 

QuoteAtheist: What is mind? Casparov: No matter. Atheist: What is matter? Casparov: Never mind.

:rotflmao: Solitary

Quote from: Casparov on May 29, 2014, 11:11:18 PM
You are making a positive assertion

Nope! I'm not. I'm not making any assertions. I am accepting the reality in which I exist.

Quoteand I am taking the negative position.

No you are not. You are making a fundamental positive assertion about the nature of our shared existence.

QuoteI am skeptical of this claim

You are skeptical of materialism, I get it. What you don't understand is that's a you problem.

You are not merely skeptical. If you were merely skeptical and came up to me and said "I don't believe you that we live in a material universe" I would say "okay, thanks for letting me know, have a nice day!"

But you go one step further. You are rejecting our reality as being axiomatic and making positive assertions of truth as to what reality is NOT. And you don't even stop there. You go on and make up your own "virtual reality model" and as a clueless layman come to the complete wrong conclusions about a scientific field you fail to grasp. Your assertions have already been refuted and you persist in them.

Then, to give some sort of credence to your cause, you then go on and LIE about having talked for years with scientists and philosophers about this topic, which in the end doesn't even demonstrate anything other than the fact that, you lied about it since you cannot produce anything of substance when challenged to prove it. And you further demonstrate you were caught by responding with an insult.


But, let's set all of this aside and let's assume that you and I ran into each other on the street and you said that materialism is false and VR is true. I already asked you "so what", and you essentially responded with "well, nothing". You simply don't have a case. Your assertions simply have zero utilitary value and therefore are unnecessary and devoid of anything of value. Even if I said "I believe you", nothing would change. Therefore this demonstrates that you need a reason to feel smug about yourself and look down on others, in the perceived notion that you know something the rest of us don't.

You're at the prime age when your imagination is running wild. I think you need to set drugs and World of Warcraft aside and focus on things that actually have an impact on your life.

Quote from: Shol'va on May 30, 2014, 02:35:29 PM
Nope! I'm not. I'm not making any assertions. I am accepting the reality in which I exist.

You are asserting that "the reality in which I exist" is an external objective material universe. You are claiming that this is the reality that exists, and instead of offering any proof or evidence or even justification to support your claim, you are simply saying, "Nope! I'm not making any assertions."

Just want to make clear to you what you are doing. If you are stating that Materialism is true, prove it using reason, not just blind and shockingly bold assertions that it's just true because it's true. That is no more convincing than a creationist saying, "I'm not making any assertions, God just exists and I'm accepting the reality in which I exist."

QuoteNo you are not. You are making a fundamental positive assertion about the nature of our shared existence.You are skeptical of materialism, I get it. What you don't understand is that's a you problem.

I see, you are arguing that, "The one making the positive claim doesn't have to please the skeptics, if they don't believe, that's their problem."

QuoteYou are not merely skeptical. If you were merely skeptical and came up to me and said "I don't believe you that we live in a material universe" I would say "okay, thanks for letting me know, have a nice day!"

Kinda like if an Atheist walks up to a Theist and says, "I don't believe you that God exists."

QuoteBut, let's set all of this aside and let's assume that you and I ran into each other on the street and you said that materialism is false and VR is true. I already asked you "so what", and you essentially responded with "well, nothing". You simply don't have a case. Your assertions simply have zero utilitary value and therefore are unnecessary and devoid of anything of value. Even if I said "I believe you", nothing would change. Therefore this demonstrates that you need a reason to feel smug about yourself and look down on others, in the perceived notion that you know something the rest of us don't.

It's kinda like the difference between believing that only our galaxy exists and believing that millions and millions of galaxies exist. What if you believed that only our galaxy exists and I walk up to you and say that millions and millions of galaxies exist, and you reply, "so what?" and I reply, "well, nothing... accept that it's knowledge of what is true..." Even if you said, "i believe you" nothing would change in the way you lived your daily life. Therefore this obviously demonstrates that I just needed a reason to feel smug about myself and look down on others in the perceived notion that I knew something that you didn't. You'd probably just deny that millions and millions of galaxies exist to resist having to admit you were wrong in favor of insisting that I am the one that is wrong. Only our galaxy exists! Better to remain in the delusion of being right then give me the satisfaction and confirmation that I'm on to something even if I truly am right, right? (cuz then you'd have to admit you were wrong)

It's like you walking up to someone in the Matrix and telling them that they are in the Matrix, would it be a good argument if they responded, "nothing will change if you are right, therefore you are wrong and this is a material objective universe!" ??

It's like you walking up to a Christian and saying god does not exist, would it be a good argument if they responded, " I already don't go to church or read the bible, I just believe god exists and jesus is my savior, even if you are right nothing will change, therefore you are wrong and God exists!"???

Rather than deciding what to believe based on what would change if you believed it, devote yourself to seeking the actual truth. According to your logic, "believing in god makes me happy," is a good argument for the existence of god because believing it produces a positive change. The positive and negative benefits of holding a belief have absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not it is true.

QuoteYou're at the prime age when your imagination is running wild. I think you need to set drugs and World of Warcraft aside and focus on things that actually have an impact on your life.

Your arguments are:

1) Materialism is just true because. Period.
2) Plus even if I believed you I wouldn't get anything out of it anyway.

These are the most juvanile arguments I have encountered on this forum by far. The first deserves a legitimate response no more than "God just exists and you can't do anything about it nana nana boo boo," and the second is premised on the idea that the pros and cons of believing in something are an accurate judge of their truth value.

Now excuse me, I need to reload my bong before this raid starts. Good day sir.

Quote from: Solitary on May 30, 2014, 12:27:47 AM
Physical reality is true because it doesn't go away. Can you say the same for your mind? Is your mind still there when you are unconscious?     :rotflmao: Solitary

QuoteAtheist: What is mind? Casparov: No matter. Atheist: What is matter? Casparov: Never mind.

It's no longer, "mind over matter" for Casparov but "I've lost my mind, does it matter?"

Casparov, is it an assertion if I pick up a ball bearing and say it is hard and solid to the touch, has weight, is made of physical particles, that it has concentrating energy called mass, and has enough force if all the mass was converted to energy (which is also a particle) it would make an explosion great enough to crack your thick head and destroy your mind?   :wall: I think I'm done here. Solitary

Quote from: Solitary on May 31, 2014, 01:23:40 PM
Casparov, is it an assertion if I pick up a ball bearing and say it is hard and solid to the touch, has weight, is made of physical particles, that it has concentrating energy called mass, and has enough force if all the mass was converted to energy (which is also a particle) it would make an explosion great enough to crack your thick head and destroy your mind?   :wall: I think I'm done here. Solitary

Solitary, is it an assertion if I pick up a sword in World of Warcraft and say that it is hard and solid, has weight, is made of physical material, and if I swing it at others it will damage them, and if I continue to do so it will damage them until they are dead and essentially destroyed? If I drop the sword, is it an assumption to say it will fall to the ground?

It would be an assumption to claim that the "World of Warcraft" is an objective material reality, not that it's rules of physics apply consistently to everything within it. It is also an assumption to claim that we (definitely without a doubt) exist in an objective material reality, not that the rules of physics in our reality apply consistently to everything within it. This assumption about which many claim such certainty, requires proof to substantiate it.

Quote....to an observer within the virtual world, virtual events are as real as it gets. If a virtual gun wounds a virtual man, to that virtual man the pain is “real”. That a world is calculated does not mean it has no “reality”, merely that its reality is local to itself. Even in a virtual reality, stubbed toes will still hurt and falling trees will still make sounds when no-one is around. Reality is relative to the observer, so by analogy, a table is “solid” because our hands are made of the same atoms as the table. To a neutrino, the table is just a ghostly insubstantiality through which it flies, as is the entire earth. Things constituted the same way are substantial to each other, so likewise what is “real” depends upon the world it is measured from. To say a world is a virtual doesn’t imply it is unreal to its inhabitants, only that its reality is “local” to that world, i.e. not an objective reality. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0337.pdf (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0801.0337.pdf)

Quote from: Casparov on June 01, 2014, 12:22:46 AM
Solitary, is it an assertion if I pick up a  fictional sword in World of Warcraft and say that it is  fictional hard and  fictional solid, has  fictional weight, is made of  fictional material, and if I   fictionally swing it at others it will  fictionally damage them, and if I continue to do so it will  fictionally damage them until they are  fictionally dead and essentially  fictionally destroyed? If I  fictionally drop the sword, is it an assumption to say it will  fictionally fall to the ground?

FIFY

Quote from: Casparov on May 31, 2014, 03:28:04 AM
Your arguments are:

1) Materialism is just true because. Period.
2) Plus even if I believed you I wouldn't get anything out of it anyway.

No, those are the beginnings of a conversation I have no interest in exploring deeply with you because there is no incentive for me to do so. Not only that, but you have clearly demonstrated you are not interested in honest discourse and discussion. And on top of all that, you've also lied about your past dialogue on this subject, and continue to lie and misrepresent scientific discovery to fit your useless and needless hard solipsism.
So while you continue to parade your ignorance and poor excuse of a reason to feel superior to others that disagree with your preconceived notions, I am going to continue to do something useful with my time, while occasionally choosing to entertain your poor arguments.
The "your problem" starts with your doubting the nature of our existence. You have the map in your hands, and are equipped with an absolute refusal to look at it, all the while looking in the hands of others and saying "yeah, that's definitely an illusion".
I can't walk the path for you. That's something only you can do.

What's particularly interesting to me is that you feel both qualified and informed to make any sort of statement as to the nature of this virtual reality "model" and how one would expect it to act, behave, what shortcomings it might have, etc. You've done this in the past by asserting how we would expect the VR model to behave, and then shoehorned bad scientific conclusions right in.

At the end of the day I continue to think he got inspired by philosophy 101 and still lives in his mama's basement.

Is he still here?

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 02, 2014, 10:23:42 PM
Is he still here?

Nope. I noticed that when I put him on ignore, the thread got a whole lot shorter.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 02, 2014, 10:23:42 PM
Is he still here?

Technically, he isn't banned. But he made a thread where he promised to fuck off for good. Yay!

Well, love him or hate him...  He's the first person to actually get us to make use of the debate section...  That is...  If we even exist...  :lol:

Sent via your mom.