Compatibalism

[The Thinker]

But non-flying parts do not and can not turn into something that flies without direct intelligent intervention. If I give you a trillion years your 4 natural forces could not organize and create a simple biplane, never mind a 747, which when it comes to function and complexity does not come near the complexity of the human brain.

That's totally false. It again assumes your conclusion, classic begging of the question. We do have examples of non-flying parts that can turn into something that flies without direct intelligent intervention: birds. And for that all you need is a few billion years let alone a trillion.

The analogy is simply supposed to show your assumption that the parts has to have the same property as the whole is false because it makes the fallacy of division.

[The Thinker]

We are speaking of properties or functions (rationality and consciousness) that are not inherent to the laws of nature or matter and energy. As a matter of fact rationality and consciousness are opposite of what we find in matter and energy which are non-rational and non-conscious.

The point is that you cannot assume your conclusion from the start. It's more logical to start from an agnostic position and actually do some research since this is an empirical question. I did that and found that rational beings with consciousness can exist who are made of atoms that are described by totally non-rational and purposeless laws. And also, don't confuse non-rational with irrational. Can you define what you mean by non-rational?

Can you give another example (apart from what is under consideration with biological life) where matter and energy create something not inherent, at least in part, in their nature - where they produce something completely opposite of what they are.

[seer]

That's totally false. It again assumes your conclusion, classic begging of the question. We do have examples of non-flying parts that can turn into something that flies without direct intelligent intervention: birds. And for that all you need is a few billion years let alone a trillion.

How do you know there wasn't direct intelligent intervention? Now you are begging the question.

The analogy is simply supposed to show your assumption that the parts has to have the same property as the whole is false because it makes the fallacy of division.

Except there is no one reason why consciousness should show up, or why it to showed up - it certainly is not necessary for survival. And when did atoms suddenly become self aware?

[seer]

The point is that you cannot assume your conclusion from the start. It's more logical to start from an agnostic position and actually do some research since this is an empirical question. I did that and found that rational beings with consciousness can exist who are made of atoms that are described by totally non-rational and purposeless laws. And also, don't confuse non-rational with irrational. Can you define what you mean by non-rational?

I did not confuse non-rational with irrational. Non-rational: without rational deliberation, intent or purpose. And no, you again are assuming there there wasn't intelligent intervention. It is like saying that an automaton could be created without intelligent intervention.


I have no idea what your point is.

[The Thinker]

How do you know there wasn't direct intelligent intervention? Now you are begging the question.

Because we have cosmological and biological evolution that has no need for an intelligent designer.

Except there is no one reason why consciousness should show up, or why it to showed up - it certainly is not necessary for survival.

"Should" is a prescriptive term, we're not arguing what the universe should or shouldn't do. What use does consciousness have is a complicated question. Check this out: What is consciousness good for? It may have benefits even if consciousness isn't causal.

And when did atoms suddenly become self aware?

You're making the fallacy of division again! Jeez, you never learn seer.

[The Thinker]

I did not confuse non-rational with irrational. Non-rational: without rational deliberation, intent or purpose. And no, you again are assuming there there wasn't intelligent intervention. It is like saying that an automaton could be created without intelligent intervention.

I'm not assuming anything. Nature works without intelligent intervention. What would laws of physics even look like with "rational deliberation"?

Give me an example of rational deliberation that isn't due to an underlying physical mechanism, like brains made of atoms that follow non-rational physical laws.

I have no idea what your point is.

You wanted an example of non-biological emergence right? I gave you one. If that wasn't your question, ask it again better.

[seer]

Because we have cosmological and biological evolution that has no need for an intelligent designer.

But you don't know that, you have not observed nature creating a human brain, or human eye. What conditions were necessary to create the first self replicating cell? Why does evolution work at all? Why do we have the very conditions to allow for biological evolution?

"Should" is a prescriptive term, we're not arguing what the universe should or shouldn't do. What use does consciousness have is a complicated question. Check this out: What is consciousness good for? It may have benefits even if consciousness isn't causal.

Then tell me, (NOT BY LINK) what good is consciousness if it has no causal use or effect?

You're making the fallacy of division again! Jeez, you never learn seer.

Really? Tell me how many atoms it takes before they become self aware?

[seer]

It may have benefits even if consciousness isn't causal.

But it can be causal, in your link he says that consciousness can in fact "reprogramme non-conscious tendencies" (19:54 in)

[Tassman]

You are missing the point. Nature in fact does not even care for or programme for survival. As far as rationality, how on earth do you know when you are determined to spit out a truism? Like above? Is what you just posted a fact or were you determined to believe a falsehood to be true?

[Tassman]

But you don't know that, you have not observed nature creating a human brain, or human eye. What conditions were necessary to create the first self replicating cell? Why does evolution work at all? Why do we have the very conditions to allow for biological evolution?

You demand logical answers from other people yet you exist in an empty bubble of logical incoherence yourself.

YOU claim that libertarian free-will exists but cannot explain how it appears from nowhere and (supposedly) acts independently from the antecedent subconscious forces that comprise YOU as a person. Or is there a REAL seer lurking deep down inside who's really

[seer]

You demand logical answers from other people yet you exist in an empty bubble of logical incoherence yourself.

YOU claim that libertarian free-will exists but cannot explain how it appears from nowhere and (supposedly) acts independently from the antecedent subconscious forces that comprise YOU as a person. Or is there a REAL seer lurking deep down inside who's really

And you can not logically demonstrate that you were determined to spit out a truism above. You are just a sock puppet spitting out what the non-rational laws of nature caused you to spit out. Right or wrong, true or not.

[JimL]

And you can not logically demonstrate that you were determined to spit out a truism above. You are just a sock puppet spitting out what the non-rational laws of nature caused you to spit out. Right or wrong, true or not.

Whether beliefs are determined or not, their truth or falsity can only be confirmed observationaly, i.e. externally from the source of the beliefs.

[seer]

Whether beliefs are determined or not, their truth or falsity can only be confirmed observationaly, i.e. externally from the source of the beliefs.

No Jim, because everything is tainted. How you interpret all of reality, how you process what you observe, what you consider evidence or not. Nothing escapes.

[Leonhard]

No Jim, because everything is tainted. How you interpret all of reality, how you process what you observe, what you consider evidence or not. Nothing escapes.

Why is this a problem?

I've been following along on the sides, but it seems to me by this 'skeptical threat' attack that all you at best can force JimL to admit to is that he's made a choice between sollipsism and rationalism. Between thinking that none of senses or thoughts are reliable or truth-worthy, or thinking that they're "reliable enough" that he can at least begin to approach truth.

While I believe there's no natural argument for picking one over the other, I don't see what victory you're gaining.

If he admits that he simply chooses to have a reasonable confidence in his faculties of reasoning, what is the problem?

[seer]

Why is this a problem?

I've been following along on the sides, but it seems to me by this 'skeptical threat' attack that all you at best can force JimL to admit to is that he's made a choice between sollipsism and rationalism. Between thinking that none of senses or thoughts are reliable or truth-worthy, or thinking that they're "reliable enough" that he can at least begin to approach truth.

While I believe there's no natural argument for picking one over the other, I don't see what victory you're gaining.

If he admits that he simply chooses to have a reasonable confidence in his faculties of reasoning, what is the problem?

No problem, as long as we agree that it is a "belief" - one not based on logical deduction. Which has been my argument with Thinker for like forever.