|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Choosing a faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4409 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
The question is, "Why not?" Why wouldn't you use a saw to saw a board or a drill to drill a hole or a hammer to hammer a nail? Intentional self-delusion like Phat's is a mystery I will never understand. It appears to have damaged every aspect of his life and his ability for rational thought. That's what makes it so astonishing and noteworthy when he says something like this:Phat writes: And then fails to apply that simple lesson and continues to deny the reality of what he just said. It's the Santa clause. That's the real E in EvC. EVIDENCE vs Creationism. It's the whole argument.In general, believers not only need no objective evidence, but they also don't WANT to question.... Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned! What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
A conscious AI would seem to require an objective account of the subjective. Why? Does your consciousness require such? Are you proposing an AC minus emotions? Can there be a consciousness without the accompanying capacity for emotion? Could an AC remain only "aware" of its surroundings without developing emotion? I'm skeptical such a thing could be.
Our objective accounts emerge from our own subjective accounts. Not by my definition. Our objective experiences and knowledge are those independent of us, verifiable with comparisons of fact, unburdened by the emotional baggage that often accompanies subjective evaluations.
If subjective can come from objective, and objective comes from subjective, then that would seem to leave the objective disconnected from reality. This cannot be right. The logic is right but one of the parameters seems way wrong. I can see where an objective experience would elicit an emotional subjective chain of thought but that latter claim seems odd. Objective facts do not flow from our subjective meanderings. Do they?Edited by AZPaul3, : words Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Tangle writes:
You are right but I think that eventually it filters down. NT Wright has had IMHO, a massive change in church thinking that has now gone to the seminaries and is starting to impact what is preached in the church.
Once again the church's preachings to its congregation is different from the scholarly stuff in the seminaries and universities. Tangle writes: I agree, except in my case I never thought about who wrote them Frankly, it is just in the last few years that I ever thought about the question.
I was taught the bible as though it was written by Jesus's actual apostles. Of course Mark and Luke aren't apostles but us kids didn't notice. Without exception both children and adults would have just assumed that it was all eye witness testimony. Tangle writes: I bet they maintain the deception even now. When I mention that no one actually knows who the authors were to everyday Christians they don't believe me - let alone that they could not have been eye witnesses Having belonged to churches in Montreal, Toronto and now on Vancouver Island I can't say that the subject ever came up. Sure it would said simply assumed that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and those names would be referred to when a passage from them was read.
Tangle writes: As I say, in my experience the subject just never came up and the only reason it comes up in discussion now is because I bring it up.
I bet they maintain the deception even now. When I mention that no one actually knows who the authors were to everyday Christians they don't believe me - let alone that they could not have been eye witnesses. Tangle writes: Certainly the church is capable of that and it is what spawned the reformation. However, in my experience it isn't the norm, or even close to it. It's all part of the scam - keep them ignorant, sell the message.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
GDR writes: As I say, in my experience the subject just never came up It will never come up will it? The historicity of your book is never critically discussed inside the the religion with the laity. Try asking a few of your congregation, see what they say.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
A conscious AI would seem to require an objective account of the subjective. Why? Does your consciousness require such? Presumably an AC would need to be designed and built. We would need objective specifications for that. No, our consciousness does not require that because we are not designed. If you can find a way of evolving AC, then there might be a possibility. But would it then be artificial?
Are you proposing an AC minus emotions? I'm not proposing anything. I'm the skeptic of what you have been proposing.
Our objective accounts emerge from our own subjective accounts. Not by my definition. Our objective experiences and knowledge are those independent of us, verifiable with comparisons of fact, unburdened by the emotional baggage that often accompanies subjective evaluations. I'm not sure what you mean by "subjective" and "objective". Experience is inherently subjective. Experience cannot be independent of the experiencer.
Objective facts do not flow from our subjective meanderings. I have not suggested anything about meanderings. Objective facts depend on experience (visual experience, auditory experience, tactile experience for example). And experience is fundamentally subjective because only the subject has that experience.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Presumably an AC would need to be designed and built. Yes. And that design would be based on our new found knowledge of consciousness and how to simulate it. Not good to get into the technology since we have no idea what building that consciousness would involve, but the end product, in my view, would be a consciousness mind, like yours. That is the goal of this project. Are you seeing ghosts behind consciousness that we will be unable to find and simulate?
But would it then be artificial? Well, since this new tech didn't grow out of a cabbage patch but was assembled in a lab by humans I can't see it labled anything but artificial. I think you have other connotations attached to "artificial" that go beyond the physical?
I'm not sure what you mean by "subjective" and "objective". Much too simply but objective: physical ... subjective: mental/emotional How do you define them?
Experience cannot be independent of the experiencer. So true. However, imho, the objective experience is the physical stimulation of our senses and the remembrance of that event. Over time, depending on the experience, more or less emotion gets attached to that experience. You may end up with a subjective memory of this objective event. But, I see the experience as objective, even into the physical mind. I see nothing inherently subjective about the physics of vision, sound, touch and the memory apparatus that records them. So, I'm thinking if we make an artificial mind faithful to our research emotions will follow as an emergent property or an unintended, unplanned, unwired in the diagrams, consequence. Maybe.Edited by AZPaul3, : word Edited by AZPaul3, : another word Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes: Sure, except that with Matthean priority like Farrer does away with a need for Q.
This seems mainly aimed at poisoning the well, by implying bias. It certainly doesn’t address the point that the Farrer hypothesis denies Q but does not endorse Matthean priority. Because Matthean priority has almost nothing to do with Q. PaulK writes: It is the general consensus though.
And I’ll add that a claim that the Gospel According to Matthew was attributed the the disciple in the 1st Century is questionable at best, PaulK writes: I'm not sure of your point but I see no need for Q and Streeter's views require it.
More accurately it has Farrer’s criticisms of the Q hypothesis and Streeter’s arguments in support of it. Obviously if you admitted the latter the problems in your claims would be rather obvious. PaulK writes: Here is a very short summary of the Fourfold Gospel hypothesis by David Alan Black. The problems of Luke using Matthew “go away” if you assume that Matthew was written before Mark? That makes no sense. None. I note that the entire paragraph does not even mention Luke, yet Q is all about the relationship between Luke and Matthew - Mark is not really relevant at all. Well let’s look at Streeter’s points against the Farrer hypothesis. Which are all points AGAINST Luke using Matthew as a source. I think that rather that working from Streeter and Farrar it makes more sense to start with Black. Fourfold Gospel Theory PaulK writes: They were written for different audiences. Also Luke was written from Paul's perspective. Luke would have referenced Matthew but wasn't solely dependent on it.
How does Matthean priority explain these omissions? PaulK writes:
Papias writes that Matthew was first written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek. My own view is that it was Matthew himself who did the translating as the church expanded into the diaspora. Luke could have supplemented his book that was largely influence, probably directly, by Paul. The second is that Luke sometimes preserves a more primitive version of a text that is also in Matthew. Firstly I'm not a NT scholar or a scholar of any kind for that matter. The Farrer proposal also has Matthew written prior to Luke and so the responses that are given to counter the Streeter proposal will also hold true for the Matthean priority of the fourfold Gospel theory.
PaulK writes: Why do you guys have to resort to insult to try and bolster your point. We have different scholars with competing views. They don't have absolute knowledge and certainly I don't. I have formed my own conclusions about who is correct and having read Black's book twice I believe that he is on the right track. If you have any concern for the truth - other than opposing it - it is not visible in this post.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
Sure, except that with Matthean priority like Farrer does away with a need for Q.
But none of your "scholars" can agree on anything. There are as many theories of the primacy of gospels as there are interpretations of the J guy. Probably why there are so many different christian churches.What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Are you seeing ghosts behind consciousness that we will be unable to find and simulate? There are no ghosts. But consciousness is not the kind of thing that can be simulated.
Much too simply but objective: physical ... subjective: mental/emotional Are you seeing ghosts behind emotions? I consider emotions to be very physical.
How do you define them? I don't define them. But I understand "subjective" to refer to that which is based on the experience and judgement of an individual subject, and "objective" to refer to what is the collective assessment of the community. As an example, the appearance of a banana to me is subjective. I have no idea what a banana looks like to you, though I tend to assume it is probably the same as what it looks like to me. But I have no basis for that assumption because I cannot access your visual experience just as you cannot access my visual experience. On the other hand, the way that I talk about and describe a banana is (I hope) objective, because I am able to compare that description and way of talking with other people and there seems to be reasonable agreement about it.
But, I see the experience as objective, even into the physical body. I see nothing inherently subjective about the physics of vision, sound, touch and the memory apparatus that records them. I agree on the physics of vision, sound etc. However, consciousness has to do with the experience of vision, sound etc. The physics of my vision is pretty similar to the physics of your vision. Yet, for all I know, my visual experience of a banana might be like your visual experience of an avacado. That's why the experience is considered subjective.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Percy writes: Ignore an argument once and most people will probably chalk it up to just the way things go. Ignore it again and most people will probably figure the fault was with them, that maybe they didn't make their point clearly enough. But ignore arguments time and again and it's going to get noticed. You're making a career of it, forcing people to repeat the same arguments over and over. Please tell me which argument I have ignored. It seems to me that I answer all the arguments but you guys don't agree with the answer. It seems as if I don't give you an answer that you like it's considered ignored.
Percy writes: We've been over this many times, and it's frustrating to have to go over this yet again. There's only one way way to know things, and that's through evidence gathered through observation using the five senses. Scientific evidence is no different from other evidence except that's its gathering has been formalized and instrumented and calibrated and so forth, and scientific conclusions can only be drawn after sufficient replication to form a consensus. If you think there are other ways of knowing things that don't involve observing the material world, ways that aren't just as friendly toward (for example) Buddhism as they are toward Christianity (in other words, ways of knowing things that lend legitimacy to your belief that Christianity has more legitimacy than other religions), then it's incumbent upon you to explain it to us in ways that aren't full of woo. Well maybe that's the problem. Most of the time on this thread I have simply been arguing for theism with a moral code but not Christianity. Sometimes I've been drawn off topic as per the discussion around Gospel authorship but that is off topic anyway. I think that what I can observe with 5 senses is that the idea of an external intelligence makes sense of the world I live in and the same thing goes for a moral code. That isn't exclusive to Christianity. However the only evidence we have for Christianity is what was written 2000 years ago. I find that, and the rise of the Christian church compelling but it is a faith born out belief and life experience.
Percy writes: True, except for the ancient writings including the Bible, which can't be confirmed. But your subjective conclusions about Christianity are just as valid as other people's about ghosts and UFOs. That's what happens when evidence is absent.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
GDR writes: The point IMHO to that we have hearts that love sacrificially which is not dependent on any particular spiritual belief. However, I contend from my own experience that spiritual belief can help to move hearts in that direction. IMHO Christianity provides me with faith that this world does give us meaning and purpose in that life matters, and good stewardship of the world matters, well beyond the idea of being in good with God when we die. If we are only looking to make things netter for ourselves in this life or the next then we have missed the point.Percy writes: It isn't meant to be. It is simply an observation on how I see things. Repeating what you just said more generally, religious beliefs of every sway have lent peace and comfort to many of all generations throughout time. How is that in any way convincing that there are legitimate reasons for accepting the reality of what you (or anyone) believes spiritually?He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes:
It isn't that it is evidence for the Gospel being written by John, it is simply not evidence that it wasn't.
As a simple matter of logic it can’t be true that third person references are evidence of authorship. It wouldn’t be true even if authors always used the third person to refer to themselves - which is not the case. More importantly if Bauckham does make that claim, it would be a very serious problem. PaulK writes: Yes Bauckham believes in Markan priority but not in Q. Bauckham I concur with Bauckham's take on the eyewitnesses but I have been swayed to think that Black was right concerning Matthean priority, but it is definitely a minority opinion as of now. Reading around I have found that the reality is even worse for you than you are prepared to admit. Bauckham does not endorse Matthean authorship and does endorse Q. The whole idea that Bauckham argued that the use of the third person is evidence of authorship in Matthew is clearly false. He clearly doesn’t endorse your false argument for Matthean priority - that it gets rid of Q - either.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
But consciousness is not the kind of thing that can be simulated. Not at present, no. But that may change.
Are you seeing ghosts behind emotions? No. No ghosts. I see chemistry. I see dissolved rocks.
I don't define them. But I understand "subjective" to refer to that which is based on the experience and judgement of an individual subject, and "objective" to refer to what is the collective assessment of the community. Yes, you did define them and I like your definitions. You say it nicer than I do. You will find no disagreement from me on your banana. We have the subjective memories of our objective experiences. Just like an AC would. So why can’t a consciousness be simulated? Why couldn’t a subjective experience be simulated? By simulated I mean experienced by our new AC friend. I do not see other than technological impediments to an artificial conscious mind which we humans are kinda good at resolving, eventually.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
So why can’t a consciousness be simulated? If it has simulated consciousness, then is it really conscious? I'll remain skeptical.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3
|
It is nice and enlightening to see interaction and debate between posters I respect. An actual discussion with actual substance. Thank you.
Carry on.What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024