welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

June 9: Let's get ready to ruuuuuumble!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 5344
Location: No.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would prefer that, as well.

mostly because you got nothin'
_________________
butts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ChastMastr



Joined: 15 Jul 2012
Posts: 473
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida, US

PostPosted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Heretical Rants wrote:

C.S. Lewis is full of shit tho


I was going to add, but deleted, "particularly ones which tend toward getting aggressive," but decided that that was making assumptions about people on topics like this. Silly me. I believe Dawkins is terribly wrong, but if I were to debate an atheist who has already made it clear they are a Richard Dawkins fan, I would never say "Richard Dawkins is full of shit"--that just adds a layer of needless nastiness to the discussion. Sorry, I won't play.

Off to eat ice cream and watch, in my no doubt silly supernaturalism-believing way to some people, Ghost Hunters with my partner. (For those who aren't into that sort of thing, you could still enjoy the hot, hot beefcakery of about half the men on the show, like Jason and Britt (swoon).)


Last edited by ChastMastr on Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:42 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
diagram12345



Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 162

PostPosted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Heretical Rants wrote:
diagram12345 wrote:
Heretical Rants wrote:
diagram12345 wrote:
chatterbot


completely fucking meaningless

not the way forward


Oh, I don't know, I think it's pretty exciting =)

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/06/09/320374559/human-or-machine-ai-experts-reportedly-pass-the-turing-test


I'm not going to read that article. I already know what it's going to be about.

Utter shit.

It doesn't take much to pass as an idiot throwing around one-liners in a chatroom. If that's your standard for the Turing test, then it was passed around thirty years ago.

I think the way that the Turing Test was worded has actually proven to be harmful in the long run. A chatterbot that had really passed would make Google Translate into something legitimately useful, and add "to machine code" to the language options to boot.

but it's not going to be a chatterbot-type program that ultimately passes


I guarantee you, it isn't even a step in the right direction.


It's nice that you feel so strongly about this! It's always interesting to have conversations with people who have informed opinions about topics that people usually ignore.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 5344
Location: No.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChastMastr wrote:
"Richard Dawkins is full of shit"


not quite as much shit as C.S. Lewis, but yeah, he is, a bit

But wow, Dawkins hasn't even crossed my mind since the last time someone asked me about the origin of the word "meme". I do think he's doing something at least marginally useful, but I think he's merely attacking the symptoms (and some very emotionally charged symptoms at that!), not the disease. His best books are the ones that have nothing to do with religion.

sorry if I attacked your idol or something

well
no
not really that sorry

I suppose it would have been better to say C.S. Lewis's books on apologetics, and the arguments they propound, are shit, and demonstrably so

there, is that better?



I suppose it's also worth pointing out that religion doesn't really play a part in this particular argument for me. If we were to actually have the discussion that got started on the previous page, I'd prefer to leave religion out of it entirely. But you probably wouldn't, so I guess that's moot...
Actually, if we were to have that discussion, I'd actively try to steer it away from religion. Religion isn't the important block in this mess.
_________________
butts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 3429
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChastMastr wrote:
Alas, this appears to be something we'll just have to disagree on based on differing basic philosophical first principles, particularly (but not exclusively) notions like "Anything that exists has to physically exist."


I'll agree to not hound you about it if you don't bring it up again.

I am personally super pissed that anti-science bullshit has led to things like people not vaccinating their kids, inaction on climate change, homophobic/transphobic laws, and a host of other things. So if you do say some nonsense about how scientific methods can't be used to study your pet thing, then I'm going to argue with you.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 3429
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 2:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dawkins is sexist, so I don't appreciate him as much as I do other people. Carl Sagan, Bill Nye, Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Those guys are much more awesome.

I also recommend checking out the Thinking Atheist podcast, as well as Philhellenes. They are excellent.


I'm so tired of hearing about 'those damned angry atheists!' Atheists do have reason to be pissed off. (Though the misogynists ones can fuck themselves.)
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 5344
Location: No.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stripeypants wrote:
Dawkins is sexist


What are you basing this on? "Elevatorgate"? His response to that was oblivious at worst. Methinks you've been reading too many insular blogposts on the topic.
_________________
butts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Midnight Tea



Joined: 15 Jul 2012
Posts: 202
Location: In the Haunted Lands

PostPosted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChastMastr wrote:
Alas, this appears to be something we'll just have to disagree on based on differing basic philosophical first principles, particularly (but not exclusively) notions like "Anything that exists has to physically exist."

Lewis argues it all far, far better than I do anyway--I recommend his books Miracles and (perhaps before reading the former book) Abolition of Man in particular.

In any case, I think if these 'bot-type characters were real, I would assume they have souls of some sort and treat them as people.


I'm not going to get into a science debate myself, others are better suited to it though I'm with stripeypants that it bothers me how much people use science denialism to make destructive decisions or even force them on others (often for religious reasons).

I will say though that what exists has to be observable. It may not be a physical thing -- i.e. an abstract concept like zero -- but it has to influence reality in some way. For the most part, a "soul" as we think of it exists as a philosophical description of individuality-derived qualia and the experience of being aware. I don't have a problem with that definition myself and I do in fact have my own personal cocktail of spiritual belief that I'm not putting to public display here.

My problem stemmed, yeah, when people are using the soul as a logistical plank in their argument that machines cannot be alive. It's having it both ways by using an abstract concept (that is also an unknowable in the concrete) as an observable knowable in the process of evaluating the existence of an individual.

I'm otherwise not here to attack or invalidate anyone's spiritual beliefs. They're none of my business. What gets you through life happily I'm all for. Unless, again, beliefs are being used to justify destructive outlooks or mistreatment of others or excusing the outcome of same.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 3429
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Heretical Rants wrote:
stripeypants wrote:
Dawkins is sexist


What are you basing this on? "Elevatorgate"? His response to that was oblivious at worst. Methinks you've been reading too many insular blogposts on the topic.


If he's not, that's great. I'll have to look more into it. I hadn't heard anything about what he did afterwards, so I assumed he hadn't done anything.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ChastMastr



Joined: 15 Jul 2012
Posts: 473
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida, US

PostPosted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stripeypants wrote:
ChastMastr wrote:
Alas, this appears to be something we'll just have to disagree on based on differing basic philosophical first principles, particularly (but not exclusively) notions like "Anything that exists has to physically exist."


I'll agree to not hound you about it if you don't bring it up again.


Feel free to hound away; that doesn't mean I'll respond.

Quote:
I am personally super pissed that anti-science bullshit has led to things like people not vaccinating their kids, inaction on climate change, homophobic/transphobic laws, and a host of other things.


Strangely, so am I, on all counts. Funny thing, that. Why, one might almost suspect that people with religious views might care about such matters.

Or even--gasp--that "believes in religion/supernatural/spiritual things" is not at all identical to "anti-science."

Quote:
So if you do say some nonsense about how scientific methods can't be used to study your pet thing, then I'm going to argue with you.


I find the idea that "basic spiritual/religious notions common to most religions throughout all of human history, and still held by the majority of humanity worldwide" count as "my pet thing" to be... genuinely, and I sincerely don't mean any rudeness, ridiculous.

And there, I suppose, I shall leave the matter for now, at least on my own end.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ChastMastr



Joined: 15 Jul 2012
Posts: 473
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida, US

PostPosted: Tue Jun 10, 2014 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Except for a PS to say "thank you" to Midnight Tea.

(Tea. Mmmm. Tea. And cookies!)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 5344
Location: No.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 1:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I find the idea that "basic spiritual/religious notions common to most religions throughout all of human history, and still held by the majority of humanity worldwide" count as "my pet thing" to be... genuinely, and I sincerely don't mean any rudeness, ridiculous.


I find the idea that it matters what the majority thinks ridiculous. There is no bar set too low for the majority to miss it completely. All we can do is raise the level of the ground until the bar sinks beneath it and people walk over it by default -- and even then we can't keep them from tunneling under.

C.S. Lewis had some pretty tough rationalization to use as scaffolding to protect his tunnel from collapse, but others may try to wash the ground away entirely. Tunnels make it easier for them.

If you care so much about something and cling to it for less-than-cogent reasons then I see no problem with calling it your "pet thing".
_________________
butts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stripeypants



Joined: 24 Feb 2013
Posts: 3429
Location: Land of the Grumpuses

PostPosted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 2:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Insisting that science isn't real while magic is has pretty much the same effect, no matter why you do it.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Istancow



Joined: 30 Jan 2013
Posts: 1103
Location: Hel

PostPosted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 2:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll admit to being one of those sorts who believes that anything metaphysical, by definition, does not exist.

But I also believe things like:

"The physical cannot be proven to be physical if the senses cannot be proven to be reliable."

"The senses cannot be proven to be reliable without the use of the senses."

"The concept of proof itself cannot be proven at all."

and "Descartes was full of shit when he said 'Cogno ergo sum'."

The cumulative effect of which is that my belief system is very silly, and you shouldn't listen to me.

(Istancow is a nihilist.)
_________________
Greetings, fool mortals.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 5344
Location: No.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
"The physical cannot be proven to be physical if the senses cannot be proven to be reliable."

You're not using the word "physical" in a meaningful way when you say this.

"physical" is in many ways a loaded word

best we can tell, everything is a pattern in the wave function of the universe

every abstraction above that loses a bit of meaning

"particles" are just a useful abstraction that we use to do chemistry

none of that really changes if the substrate of the wave function turns out to be something unexpected, or even if we've hit the bottom and "substrate" turns out to be meaningless in this context

we are the pattern, the process, not the substrate on which that process runs

Quote:
"The concept of proof itself cannot be proven at all."

All evidence is probabilistic.

Quote:
"Descartes was full of shit

full stop.

Yes.

Ontology is silly!
_________________
butts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> Sinfest All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 5 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group