tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post106707687001613718..comments2024-01-25T13:46:11.967-06:00Comments on The Bronze Blog: Doggerel #56: "You Want to Disprove Love!"Ryan Michaelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14750814560493466382noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-8345689365336640452008-09-04T14:05:00.000-05:002008-09-04T14:05:00.000-05:00Well, checked my site traffic, and bumped into wha...Well, checked my site traffic, and bumped into what appears to be <A HREF="http://amnap.blogspot.com/2007/09/unsolved-problems-in-neuroscience.html" REL="nofollow">a rough point of origin of our anonymous logical positivist</A>. He was apparently a woo pretending to be an "ultra-skeptic". Not surprising in the least, since there's no woo out there too stupid to make you wonder if he's a fake. He also demonstrated zero understanding of skepticism. Glad I decided to err on the side of generosity and initially assume he was an inarticulate logical positivist (which qualifies as woo, though one don't specialize in).Bronze Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10938257296504189967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-13653641023610410502007-11-15T07:45:00.000-06:002007-11-15T07:45:00.000-06:00Hint- before you write it, read up a bit on terms ...<B>Hint- before you write it, read up a bit on terms like "phenomenal consciousness" and "qualia".</B><BR/><BR/>Translation: before you write it, read up on a bunch of pseudo-Platonic philosophical claptrap because some self-important philosophers think that they are not yet obsolete. You opinion will not matter until you pay respect to the subgroup of philosophers of mind, themselves already a subgroup of philosopers in general, who give a damn about qualia and phenomenal consciousness. Nevermind that there are philosophers of mind who think qualia and suchlike are silly; you, BD, cannot possibly take their side.<BR/><BR/>Remember, folks, if <I>any</I> philosopher says it, it must be paid due deference.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06661441668625677468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-44233400933519964262007-11-15T03:43:00.000-06:002007-11-15T03:43:00.000-06:00"Of course, given that 'subjective' gets abused or..."Of course, given that 'subjective' gets abused or just honestly confused enough to merit a possible doggerel entry, I could be missing some other definition."<BR/><BR/>That'll be a laugh, considering how patently ill-informed and confused you are on the issue - I look forward to your doggerel.<BR/><BR/>Hint- before you write it, read up a bit on terms like "phenomenal consciousness" and "qualia".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-34325465875536206922007-09-12T09:57:00.000-05:002007-09-12T09:57:00.000-05:00This seems appropriateThis <A HREF="http://xkcd.com/32" REL="nofollow"/> seems appropriateWikinitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16662942824534085891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-33605698089246461782007-09-12T09:30:00.000-05:002007-09-12T09:30:00.000-05:00That's kind of what I mean: It's 'subjective' beca...That's kind of what I mean: It's 'subjective' because we don't have a magic machine that'll let the wearer go through every brain state.<BR/><BR/>Of course, given that 'subjective' gets abused or just honestly confused enough to merit a possible doggerel entry, I could be missing some other definition.Bronze Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10938257296504189967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-7529115016132453632007-09-12T09:01:00.000-05:002007-09-12T09:01:00.000-05:00Of course, I tend to think the stuff is only "subj...<I>Of course, I tend to think the stuff is only "subjective" because we don't have the tools necessary to explore every possible brain state.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, that's a interesting issue... I'm not convinced that an infinitely advanced ability to inspect or modify brain states (up to and including a Culture-esque ability to store and reproduce them) gets you any closer to the subjective experience of any given brain state.<BR/><BR/>To give an extreme example - no matter how much you know about the biochemical action of LSD, the only way to know what it actually <I>feels like</I> is to take it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-33525151602597426282007-09-11T10:11:00.000-05:002007-09-11T10:11:00.000-05:00This guy's certainly no skeptic. He used woo tacti...This guy's certainly no skeptic. He used woo tactics through every step so that he could get a quote mine that only means what he thinks it means when you go by his crazy, arbitrary definitions of "material" and "immaterial", and probably an equally crazy definition of "subjective".<BR/><BR/>Of course, I tend to think the stuff is only "subjective" because we don't have the tools necessary to explore every possible brain state. Yet.<BR/><BR/>Incomplete knowledge is not that big a problem unless you claim to know everything. Like the typical woo implicitly claims.Bronze Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10938257296504189967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-32598765190543135732007-09-11T06:49:00.000-05:002007-09-11T06:49:00.000-05:00What I really like is how his "fake stance" kept c...What I really like is how his "fake stance" kept claiming we were arguing for magical, immaterial woo emotions and was wrong, and now, in his "grand reveal" or something, he's claiming that we're arguing against subjective emotions, when (correct me if I'm wrong) the entire impetus of the debate in the first place was to defend subjective experience against a crazy logical positivist...<BR/><BR/>Somebody is missing the boat here. Claiming a materialist reduction of emotion is not the same as denying subjective experience. This guy wants us to be on the other side of the fence from him no matter which fence he's using.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06661441668625677468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-55762736639590571322007-09-11T06:25:00.000-05:002007-09-11T06:25:00.000-05:00Declaring victory by fiat and irrelevant subject c...Declaring victory by fiat and <A HREF="http://rockstarramblings.blogspot.com/2006/08/doggerel-31-looks-like-ive-touched.html" REL="nofollow">irrelevant subject change</A>. Just like a standard woo.<BR/><BR/>Why, oh why, do they never bother putting up actual logical arguments?<BR/><BR/>He wasn't even trying to debate us. He was just apparently waiting for a buzz phrase so that he could "creatively reinterpret" it, just like he's been "creatively interpreting" our stance by forcing his conception of "material" and "immaterial" on us.<BR/><BR/>So, yes, Akusai, this guy's an asshole.Bronze Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10938257296504189967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-52078052041182832092007-09-11T00:28:00.000-05:002007-09-11T00:28:00.000-05:00So, in other words...You're just an asshole?So, in other words...You're just an asshole?Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06661441668625677468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-30112076776652330262007-09-11T00:05:00.000-05:002007-09-11T00:05:00.000-05:00Well now that I’ve clarified that you’re not claim...Well now that I’ve clarified that you’re not claiming to have subjective feelings, I’m sorry.<BR/><BR/>But in case I’m tempted to indulge in any more of these inanities, thanks for banning me anyway.<BR/><BR/>Seriously though, you guys are cracking me up, so I’m going to have to end this.<BR/><BR/>I’m actually an experience loving property dualist (please don’t confuse this with substance dualism) and skeptic. <BR/><BR/> The fact that you took all that guff seriously confirms for me the poverty of materialism. <BR/><BR/>Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-86954781100639832632007-09-10T20:51:00.000-05:002007-09-10T20:51:00.000-05:00Akusai said it a lot nastier, but I'll make this e...Akusai said it a lot nastier, but I'll make this explicit, anonny: If your next post isn't an apology for misrepresenting our materialist views, you can join our favorite YEC troll, Cocksnack, on my ban list.<BR/><BR/>Somehow, though, I don't think your post-ban posts will be funny enough to allow, like his spasmatastic posts usually are.Bronze Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10938257296504189967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-36568139120931002062007-09-10T20:44:00.000-05:002007-09-10T20:44:00.000-05:00Why must you continue ignoring what's really being...Why must you continue ignoring what's really being said instead of projecting wooness onto us time and time again?<BR/><BR/>We are all materialists here, and none of us are Platonists.<BR/><BR/>I offered you an objective way to verify the presence of emotions, i.e. linguistic labels for particular chemical arrangements in the brain, i.e. <I>material states of being</I>.<BR/><BR/>You claim again "They are not verifiable! Boo hoo!"<BR/><BR/>If you're just going to come around here and continually say the <I>same goddamn things</I> while accusing us of believing <I>shit we have not said or even implied</I> all the while simply assuming your inherent rightness while not offering a single real argument in favor of your claims, you can go eat a sack of soggy dicks.<BR/><BR/>Seriously, fuck off, you arrogant douche.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06661441668625677468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-52311275338926794522007-09-10T20:28:00.000-05:002007-09-10T20:28:00.000-05:00On the other hand, the God, Chakra and feelings an...<I>On the other hand, the God, Chakra and feelings analogy is quite valid - in all cases there is reference to immaterial, objectively unverifiable concepts.</I><BR/><BR/>It's statements like that that convince me you're just a reverse-woo. You're defining stuff as "material" or "immaterial" before you even consider them.<BR/><BR/>If someone comes up with a chakra theory and can successfully do stuff with it, chakra is then material/natural/whatever. And scientific.<BR/><BR/>If someone comes up with a god theory and can successfully do stuff with it, the same is true.<BR/><BR/>The reason why deities and chakra are, thus far, woo is because the various hypotheses are either consistently falsified, expressed in an unfalsifiable manner, or simply lack empirical evidence. It's not because of some magic label. If labeling it as "supernatural" doesn't work as an excuse to accept it, I don't see how the same act serves as an excuse to reject it. You're supposed to do science: Test predictions.<BR/><BR/><I>In fact in the “generation” of feelings from the brain there is a further fallacy in that the immaterial, rather than originating from it’s own domain, supposedly arises magically from the material.</I><BR/><BR/>Who here defines feelings as immaterial? Hint: <B>ONLY YOU!</B><BR/><BR/>I reject the idea of immaterial feelings. Feelings are chemicals bouncing around in our head and fuzzily labeled. Chemicals are material, therefore feelings, emotion, and so forth are material. The only person I see who's using "immaterial" in his arguments is you. Like "supernatural" it's essentially a nonsense word. The difference is that you're buying the woo line that certain things are "immaterial."<BR/><BR/>Material chemicals in our material brains interact in some material fashions we just label in different ways. One of those labels is "love." If you're against labels, why are you speaking in language?<BR/><BR/>Either take your "A != A" pseudophilosophy somewhere else or apologize for misrepresenting our views.Bronze Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10938257296504189967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-76784942646913390112007-09-10T19:52:00.000-05:002007-09-10T19:52:00.000-05:00I don’t know WTF that last comment is supposed to ...I don’t know WTF that last comment is supposed to mean.<BR/><BR/>Re the existing, seeing and feeling analogy - I think this is invalid because that you exist and see are objectively verifiable whereas having feelings (in the “subjective” sense) is not. <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, the God, Chakra and feelings analogy is quite valid - in all cases there is reference to immaterial, objectively unverifiable concepts. In fact in the “generation” of feelings from the brain there is a further fallacy in that the immaterial, rather than originating from it’s own domain, supposedly arises magically from the material.<BR/><BR/>I don’t see the problem with 1’s and 0’s in a computer program being converted to electrical signals on a screen, giving rise to photons hitting eye receptors which then cause electrical signals in the brain, which may then further lead to output signals causing motor behaviours such as hand and mouth movements.<BR/><BR/> The problem is when “feelings” or “inner experiences” are unnecessarily and redundantly interjected into the whole process.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-42373069915992070092007-09-04T20:24:00.000-05:002007-09-04T20:24:00.000-05:00I put my 1 in your mom's 0I put my 1 in your mom's 0Wikinitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16662942824534085891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-53807295272924951842007-09-04T18:16:00.000-05:002007-09-04T18:16:00.000-05:00And what a particular arrangement of 1s and 0s it ...And what a particular arrangement of 1s and 0s it is.Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06661441668625677468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-75297283525133778182007-09-04T10:04:00.000-05:002007-09-04T10:04:00.000-05:00I've largely left Bob and Akusai to deal with this...I've largely left Bob and Akusai to deal with this guy, since they seemed pretty fired up in private discussions.<BR/><BR/>To use an analogy on the "prove emotions" thing, it strikes me as the same as demanding that I prove that I have Cave Story on my laptop because my hard drive only has 1's and 0's on it. It just has a particular arrangement of them that I call "Cave Story", just like my brain shuffles chemicals in collection of ways I call "love".Bronze Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10938257296504189967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-19305675869856157522007-09-02T15:14:00.000-05:002007-09-02T15:14:00.000-05:00Anonymous,You seem to want to project Platonism on...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>You seem to want to project Platonism onto us when rather than claiming that "love" (happiness, sadness, etc.) is some external thing into which we tap when we experience emotions, we are instead taking the linguistically expedient of referring to a particular chemical state of the brain, a particular configuration of neurotransmitters that causes, in the consciousness emergent from the physical brain, a particular feeling, as "love."<BR/><BR/>How to establish? Perhaps hook subjects up to an fMRI, show them a picture of their mothers, and ask them what they feel. The neural activity registered is "love." Not some magical floaty goodness, that neural activity.<BR/><BR/>But really that's all beside the point. Demanding "Prove you experience emotion" is like demanding "Prove you can see," and, in a way, like demanding "Prove you exist outside my head." If you have it set in stone that I do not feel, see, and/or exist, nothing I do will be able to prove it to you.<BR/><BR/>And please do not try again to compare this to "feeling God" or "feeling chakras." It is one thing to say "What you feel is not the external presence of a deity/life force but rather something generated from your own brain that needs no further explanation" and another entirely to say "You don't feel anything and if you think you feel something you're being a woo."Donhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06661441668625677468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-13510844333773644522007-09-02T13:47:00.000-05:002007-09-02T13:47:00.000-05:00I don't remember saying they were anything "more t...I don't remember saying they were anything "more than physically observable and measureable properties."Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14802726808119471002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-40499578782533554052007-09-01T23:37:00.000-05:002007-09-01T23:37:00.000-05:00"I have emotions..."Substantiate the claim or retr..."I have emotions..."<BR/><BR/>Substantiate the claim or retract the statement, Mr Claimant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-83583163709379410812007-08-29T08:36:00.000-05:002007-08-29T08:36:00.000-05:00The way I see it, this post is about woos claiming...The way I see it, this post is about woos claiming that skeptics are trying to "disprove love" (in the colloquial sense), which is not the case. If anything, it seemed you had come over here with the express purpose of doing exactly that.<BR/><BR/>I am not a woo simply because I have emotions and express them in terms other than neurochemical reactions in the brain.<BR/><BR/>That said, I'm happy with the falsification criterion, which is to be distinguished from the verification prinicple. For a moment you seemed to be conflating the two.<BR/><BR/>Now I'm afraid we've derailed this thread in the process of talking past one another.Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14802726808119471002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-31875671232608395072007-08-29T07:12:00.000-05:002007-08-29T07:12:00.000-05:00I was using "prove it" in the colloquial sense, wh...I was using "prove it" in the colloquial sense, which could apply to verification or withstanding repeated attempts at falsification, depending on one's preference. <BR/><BR/>Re the independent grounds, I'm not going to atempt to present a whole philosophy in a blog post. "Neurophilosophy" or "Consciousness Explained" are works I would recommend if you're interested. <BR/><BR/>Suffice it to say, once cognitive functions have been explained in terms of brain processes there is no need to expect a residuum of "subjective experience" that requires further explanation. Why do you think there is?<BR/><BR/>In any case, the onus of proof here is on the claimant. I cannot disprove the existence of subjective experience (and hence the meaninglessness of terms associated therewith) any more than I can disprove the existence of God.<BR/><BR/>It is up to those who claim a term such as "love" refers to something more than physically observable and measureable properties to substantiate their claim or, if not, join their Woo brethren at the next Sylvia Browne conference.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-39824163986884416792007-08-28T20:06:00.000-05:002007-08-28T20:06:00.000-05:00"...because the former can be argued for on indepe...<I>"...because the former can be argued for on independent grounds.</I><BR/><BR/>And until you do so, your argument remains circular.<BR/><BR/><I>"The important point is that if you can’t prove it, it don’t mean nuth’n."</I><BR/><BR/>Yet another bald assertion of the verification principle (that makes three). I maintain that it is incoherent and thus untenable for the above given reasons.<BR/><BR/>Or perhaps you misunderstand the falsifiability criterion. If you can't falsify it, it ain't science.Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14802726808119471002noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13030925.post-62629588071854541842007-08-28T07:18:00.000-05:002007-08-28T07:18:00.000-05:00As I said earlier, I agree that LP needs to be upd...As I said earlier, I agree that LP needs to be updated and supplemented- this is consistent with my rejection of Wittgenstein’s bootstrapping. <BR/><BR/>I also do not see verificationism both demonstrating that subjective terms are meaningless and allowing them to be classed as so as a vicious circularity, because the former can be argued for on independent grounds.<BR/><BR/>But I’m not a dogmatist. If a position such as falsificationism (appropriately excised of Popper’s Platonic fantasies) can provide a more secure foundation for the philosophy of science and act as a bulwark against relativism, postmodernism, idealism, dualism, subjectivism, newageism, fundieism and other such rubbish, then I am happy to endorse it.<BR/><BR/>Once this foundation has been established, neuroscience and the likes of Dennett and Churchland can do the work of showing that subjective terminology does not refer to anything real.<BR/><BR/>The important point is that if you can’t prove it, it don’t mean nuth’n.<BR/><BR/>Which is why I think it is intellectually inconsistent to disparage Woos for using words like God, Chi and Chakras and then bandy about meaningless, subjective terms such as “love” and “Compassion”. This undermines the skeptical position.<BR/><BR/>Words are our weapons - we must use them wisely.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com