Re: if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...


"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1155602012.062785.112840@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Zachriel wrote:
"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1155599183.295499.4240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Zachriel wrote:
"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1155597418.520935.211500@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Zachriel wrote:
snex wrote:
Zachriel wrote:
snex wrote:
Zachriel wrote:
"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1155538624.137164.68360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Stile4aly wrote:
<snip>

I'm not saying there's no evidence that people dream,
I'm
saying that
there's no objective test to verify the content of a
person's
dream
unless that person recites the narrative of their dream.

and ive already given you possible tests to show
otherwise,
for
which
you keep making up ad hoc excuses that requires you to
entertain even
more hypotheses not in evidence.



I had a dream last night. If you would like to know about
it,
you'll have to
ask. That's what Daniel Dennett would do.

and daniel dennett would apply reasonable skepticism to
anything
you
say.


And as there is no non-subjective way of discerning the content
of
those dreams, then you will never know - unless I tell you.

assuming your conclusion.


That is not assuming the conclusion. The first clause is a
statement
concerning fact. There is no way to know the content of someone's
dream, even if you hook the person up to a machine and pry their
eyelids open. Unless they tell you.

how did you obtain the knowledge that there is no way to know the
content of someones's dream? have you tried every way possible to
the
laws of physics? ...


Thank you for asking. You claimed, "if something is not testable, then
there
is no justification to believe in it." There are several
possibilities.

1. There is a scientific test that can read thoughts.
2. There might be a scientific test discovered in the future that
could
read thoughts.
3. Such a scientific test is not possible.

The first option is contrary to fact. You have tried to suggest
otherwise,
but any reasonable reader knows that this technology doesn't exist.
The
last
option is not a valid inference either. As no one knows what mind
really
is;
and as you mentioned elsewhere, there is reason to believe that at
least
some aspects of mind are physical in nature, such a blanket statement
is
unsupported.

Yet, you claimed "If something is not testable, then there is no
justification to believe in it." Well, if you are referring to any
possible
future test, then the statement is vacuous. Perhaps a close
examination
of
the Cosmic Background Radiation will reveal a message from God.
However,
the
assertion that this will happen is scientifically unsupported, even
though
it is testable in principle. So, that leaves your claim with its
apparent
meaning that "If thoughts are not testable [with current technology],
then
there is no justification to believe in them [until such a time that
such
a
test is devised]". And this is certainly the standard scientific
stance.
But...

Thoughts are for the most part private and can only be shared by
conscious
will to communicate. We have to take the word of the person reporting
them
with no ability to independently confirm them. This meets your
request,
"Care to name something specific that is not testable?" And so we have
something not testable that we clearly accept as having validity as a
statement.


John Searle: "We're all conscious and it's real. All you do is pinch
yourself and you know this is real."

one wonders why you bother to ask another what he is thinking if you
dont think its a valid test.


Bob Casanova : Almost nothing subjective (emotions, dreams,
consciousness,
etc.) is testable in a scientific sense. Does that mean they don't exist?
snex: care to name something specific that is not testable?
news:1155160903.042241.219190@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The use of the word "testable" was clear in context as Bob Casanova
defined
at the time you made your challenge, and he used in the typical sense of
objective and subject to independent scientific verification. He even
provided examples. When I suggested a specific thought as something that
fulfilled the condition of your challenge, you repeatedly rejected it;
either by vainly attempting to find some objective validation or positing
some unknown future test. I don't think anyone misread your use of the
word.

However, if that is a clarification, then that's fine.

its pointing out that you cant even seem to be consistent on what
counts for evidence for something. you are engaging in sophistry
because its your only resort, since you obviously cant defend theistic
claims.


You must be kidding. As I showed, "testable" was being used in a very
specific way. This is pure evasion on your part. Is that really necessary?
Is 'winning' so important to you?

Your challenge was met in the very next post. I then provided a detailed
answer to each objection in response to your questions. (See above.)


how did you obtain the knowledge that there is no way to know the
content of someones's dream? have you tried every way possible to
the
laws of physics? ...

Thank you for asking... There are several possibilities.


And you avoided again, quibbling over the semantics of a word that was
defined at the beginning of the exchange.



Zachriel
"I don't talk in my sleep."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/


.

Relevant Pages
Loading