tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post4517649345428746993..comments2023-12-28T17:14:24.356-08:00Comments on Monkey Trials: YOUR HOST: Onward, With A CaveatScott Hatfield . . . .http://www.blogger.com/profile/00363885800131794994noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-20067577393295046582008-02-29T01:21:00.000-08:002008-02-29T01:21:00.000-08:00Stan,No need to apologize because I never detected...Stan,<BR/>No need to apologize because I never detected any rudeness at all, only forthright statement, which I appreciate.<BR/><BR/>My point about Platonic Ideals is only that I have great disdain for them. Is there an ideal thing such as "circle" that encompasses the perfect, well…ideal circle? IMO, no, for one thing that would imply an ideal instance, and circles are determined by a single Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-33649569170740510742008-02-28T09:46:00.000-08:002008-02-28T09:46:00.000-08:00For my complete position on determinism, please se...For my complete position on determinism, please see my latest post here:<BR/><BR/>http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-14783951741301584642008-02-28T07:25:00.000-08:002008-02-28T07:25:00.000-08:00Beelz,I know, I know, but just one more... I faile...Beelz,<BR/>I know, I know, but just one more... I failed to address your comment on Platonic Ideals, circles, unicorns and M-sets.<BR/><BR/>While I don't fully see the point of that part of your comment, I suspect that we might be saying the same thing: that things exist which we cannot physically address with measuring tools, because their existence is not physical... is this close? <BR/><BR/>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-46576598520497549002008-02-28T07:07:00.000-08:002008-02-28T07:07:00.000-08:00Ok one more:Random access is not a technique, alth...Ok one more:<BR/>Random access is not a technique, although it is a capability. If a cpu were to randomly address memory, only chaos would result. I still contend that your comparison is apples and oranges, and is inverted because of that. However, I will abandon picking at this nit at this point. Determinism is far more interesting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-41551059819290677162008-02-28T07:01:00.000-08:002008-02-28T07:01:00.000-08:00Beelz, one more short question:You said,"In fact r...Beelz, one more short question:<BR/><BR/>You said,<BR/><I>"In fact regular expressions are usually conceived nondeterministically and then converted to deterministic machines."</I><BR/><BR/>How would regular expressions be determined deterministically? <BR/><BR/>Conversion to determinism is not a particularly convincing argument. Conversion from determinism to nondeterminism, coupled with Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-55894071796641822802008-02-28T06:54:00.000-08:002008-02-28T06:54:00.000-08:00Beelz, can you give me an example of a nondetermin...Beelz, can you give me an example of a nondeterministic state machine, please? My experience is that state machines, if they are to give reliable, expected outputs, are deterministic. Otherwise they would generate opinions rather than factual reflections of internal decoding. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps you are considering a random number generator? But those are actually psuedo-random, being mired Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-72222418252778918132008-02-28T06:41:00.000-08:002008-02-28T06:41:00.000-08:00Beelz,I was too terse and rude in yesterday's comm...Beelz,<BR/>I was too terse and rude in yesterday's comments, sorry. I'm feeling better today. I'll shoot for more civility, please accept my apologies.<BR/><BR/>StanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-9640760859200387602008-02-28T02:36:00.000-08:002008-02-28T02:36:00.000-08:00[Beelzebub says:]Stan,Thanks for your full frontal...[Beelzebub says:]<BR/><BR/>Stan,<BR/>Thanks for your full frontal assault with 2 armored units.<BR/><BR/>You're right about my misuse of "material." I'd been obsessing about how one would detect the supernatural and just blew right past the word "materialism" and went on with ontology.<BR/><BR/>But...<BR/><BR/>Platonic ideals. Do they have any significance at all? Is there any more meaning in Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-56689804293595031242008-02-27T10:04:00.000-08:002008-02-27T10:04:00.000-08:00Beelz, There are several disconnects in your comme...Beelz, <BR/>There are several disconnects in your comment. <BR/><BR/>First, mathematics, such as the Mandelbrot Set, or any mathematical concept, is not material. A plot or graph of a mathematical concept is material; the concept is not. Even basic numbers, such as "two", are not material, they are human constructs. When we see two dogs, what we actually see is an instance of a dog; another Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-15914911215819062352008-02-27T01:58:00.000-08:002008-02-27T01:58:00.000-08:00[Beelz said...]Sorry, for now I'm going to have to...[Beelz said...]<BR/>Sorry, for now I'm going to have to be Anon. I've had a hard time getting my Google/Blogger id to work here.<BR/><BR/>You said:<BR/>"In a nutshell, simple materialism seems difficult to justify given that there are emergent phenomena which are real, but which are not predicable from material causes, as in the mental 'flip' experienced when staring at a Necker Cube."<BR/><BR/>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-53240140171006875862008-02-26T16:12:00.000-08:002008-02-26T16:12:00.000-08:00Wow. You've given me a lot to digest here in the ...Wow. You've given me a lot to digest here in the comments. For now, I'll just reply to this:<BR/><BR/><I>"..Scott, what sort of specific evidence is viable to verify or falsify either metaphysical naturalism or determinism?</I><BR/><BR/>My reflex response is 'none'. That's why neither is a scientific position per se, though I am sure a non-believer would be quick to point out that they tend toScott Hatfield . . . .https://www.blogger.com/profile/00363885800131794994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-12862232361434992382008-02-26T14:16:00.000-08:002008-02-26T14:16:00.000-08:00Scott said"I just wanted to make sure you were cle...Scott said<BR/><I>"I just wanted to make sure you were clear that one could be a naturalist without being a materialist and (of course) that methodological naturalism implies no metaphysical commitments, materialist or otherwise."</I><BR/><BR/>and, refering to deterministic sentences,<BR/><BR/><I>"I'm just not sure that follows."</I><BR/><BR/>I don't want to proceed from a position of doubt. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-46136026101288712292008-02-26T10:27:00.000-08:002008-02-26T10:27:00.000-08:00Scott said,"Whereas, the broader position that onl...Scott said,<BR/><I>"Whereas, the broader position that only the natural exists seems more difficult to doubt, as it keeps open the possibility that such phenomena have a natural explanation which does not rely upon material causes."</I><BR/><BR/>It seems to me that defining "everything that exists" to be "natural" is creating a tautology, i.e. a definition which cannot be refuted.<BR/><BR/>Under Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-53798091538490231742008-02-26T10:12:00.000-08:002008-02-26T10:12:00.000-08:00Scott, I have copied (below) several dictionary de...Scott, I have copied (below) several dictionary definitions of both naturalism and materialism, obtained from web searches. I have previously researched and written articles that are available on the atheism-analyzed blog at the following location: <BR/><BR/>http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/search/label/naturalism <BR/><BR/>These articles contain more detail obtained from proponents of bothAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-39976935505718797922008-02-26T09:59:00.000-08:002008-02-26T09:59:00.000-08:00I was about to leave some definitions and discussi...I was about to leave some definitions and discussions on the meaning and scope of materialism and naturalism, when I came across the last comment by Scott. <BR/><BR/>I think Scott defines materialism in the conventional manner, wherein if all material is removed from the universe, nothing is left.<BR/><BR/>And Naturalism as including mental states and other "emergent" but so far unexplained Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-35479618571690823562008-02-26T06:47:00.000-08:002008-02-26T06:47:00.000-08:00Welcome, Beelzebub!If you click on the 'Stan-Ding ...Welcome, Beelzebub!<BR/><BR/>If you click on the 'Stan-Ding Discussion' tab at the front of my blog, you'll see that Stan and I have been talking for a while. Stan has an agenda, which is to develop a case for his views, which he also expounds on his <A HREF="http://www.atheism-analyzed.net/" REL="nofollow">web site</A>. Stan apparently feels that he has a line of reasoning that, independent ofScott Hatfield . . . .https://www.blogger.com/profile/00363885800131794994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-30402014998949505212008-02-26T01:09:00.000-08:002008-02-26T01:09:00.000-08:00Scott,Just popped over from Vox Day's wacky blog. ...Scott,<BR/>Just popped over from Vox Day's wacky blog. I had expected you to be a fellow atheist. Hmmm, guess I miscalculated. I was quite impressed with you dealings with Larry, and left a rather crude comment. Perhaps you can explain your reasons for not being a materialist or why you're a Christian for that "matter," ahem. Sorry for coming in mid-discussion.<BR/><BR/>[Beelzebub]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-89211838809405349972008-02-24T20:43:00.000-08:002008-02-24T20:43:00.000-08:00Actually, Stan, I don't feel the need to go into a...Actually, Stan, I don't feel the need to go into all that. I'm perfectly willing for the sake of discussion for you to continue. I just wanted to make sure you were clear that one could be a naturalist without being a materialist and (of course) that methodological naturalism implies no metaphysical commitments, materialist or otherwise.Scott Hatfield . . . .https://www.blogger.com/profile/00363885800131794994noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-58169126003742917702008-02-24T19:56:00.000-08:002008-02-24T19:56:00.000-08:00Scott, this seems like a good time to recalibrate ...Scott, this seems like a good time to recalibrate with some definitions, specifically of Materialism and Naturalism. (Capitalized as a recognition of their philosophical qualities). This could take some time, because I have found a great many different takes on what each means.<BR/><BR/>Since the presence of reductio- type thinking is prevalent in each of these, it seems to me that the terms can Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4953644170899103489.post-28075158340695062522008-02-24T07:56:00.000-08:002008-02-24T07:56:00.000-08:00hey scott,This is Loren from Calladus. you can em...hey scott,<BR/>This is Loren from Calladus. you can email me at loren at newcov. I would enjoy meeting sometime.<BR/><BR/>Yours,<BR/>LorenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com