tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post6437676786398596741..comments2024-03-18T17:28:44.693-07:00Comments on Rondam Ramblings: 31 Flavors of OntologyRonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comBlogger286125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-19766947701409266902015-04-21T11:24:39.593-07:002015-04-21T11:24:39.593-07:00And yet there is proof all around us. Epigenetics ...And yet there is proof all around us. Epigenetics is proof, archeologically there is proof, historical accounts demonstrate proof.................It is not the quality of the proof at play here. It is the one who contemplates the proof sufficient or not. :DAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03945692913659905176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-57771431292931456162015-04-21T11:22:18.749-07:002015-04-21T11:22:18.749-07:00God is the author of everything and everything exi...God is the author of everything and everything exists because of God. Scripture tells us that MAN will know there is a God by evidence clearly seen all around him. It is not that he doesn't really grasp the idea there is obviously a Creator, it is because that man hates God. However, the Creator made these things clearly evident so that on judgement day you will be left without excuse and Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03945692913659905176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-88489001584495354242015-03-25T11:57:18.446-07:002015-03-25T11:57:18.446-07:00@Luke: "I am claiming that all the bits of in...@<b>Luke</b>: "<i>I am claiming that all the bits of information in our universe are insufficient to perfectly model who God is.</i>"<br /><br />That's fine. You claim, not that you have a huge theory of God, but that if there were a precise theory of God, it would be "larger" than the physical size of the universe. You kind of have a meta-theory of God.<br /><br />But Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04214642122689048677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-47944663376147052572015-03-25T11:38:56.357-07:002015-03-25T11:38:56.357-07:00@Luke: Thanks for explaining your interpretation o...@<b>Luke</b>: Thanks for explaining your interpretation of Grossberg 1999. The actual work is perfectly fine, but I think you grossly overestimate its significance.<br /><br />Yes, of course, human senses can't directly perceive lots of reality. A full model of "what you would observe" in different experiments, needs to include the limitations and bugs of human senses. We have Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04214642122689048677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-10193178790114747372015-03-23T11:15:31.732-07:002015-03-23T11:15:31.732-07:00@Don:
> P.S. We seem to be talking about scien...@Don:<br /><br />> P.S. We seem to be talking about science again. But recall that the task you were intending to go criticize in your own words, was the Correspondence Theory of Truth. You kept posting links (that I explored, but didn't believe) that CTT is "wrong" or "broken". You said you were going to defend that claim yourself, instead of just via links. But you Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-49586977652783111322015-03-23T10:05:59.151-07:002015-03-23T10:05:59.151-07:00@Don:
> Science is a process, for building mod...@Don:<br /><br />> Science is a process, for building models and explanations that correspond ever more closely to objective reality. "God" is a hypothesized entity to possibly explain some observations of reality. (God may or may not also exist in reality; God is <i>at least</i> a hypothesis, possibly something more.)<br />> <br />> "God is bigger than science" doesnLukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-31679580613734086902015-03-23T10:03:28.991-07:002015-03-23T10:03:28.991-07:00@Don:
> No. Your style makes you an a-hole.
B...@Don:<br /><br />> No. Your style makes you an a-hole.<br /><br />By saying this, you declare yourself righteous and me a sinner. The problem couldn't possibly exist in you, so surely it must exist in me. Now, I recognize that I'm not perfect. However, what you've done here is fail to admit any sort of fault on your own. This insinuates, quite strongly, that you are the righteous Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-21544474529157925242015-03-23T09:52:34.380-07:002015-03-23T09:52:34.380-07:00@Don:
> I was on the border of refusing to eng...@Don:<br /><br />> I was on the border of refusing to engage with you further. I'm trying to calm down, and assume that you had good intentions, so let me try to help you be a more productive discussion partner (for me).<br />> <br />> You've been told before, that responding to a direct claim with a mere link is rude. (Or, at least, I receive it as such.) You've said that Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-32568279620358870932015-03-23T09:12:47.816-07:002015-03-23T09:12:47.816-07:00@Luke: I need to tell you, this part actually made...@<b>Luke</b>: I need to tell you, this part actually made me angry. I wrote: "But nothing we actually observe, requires an explanatory theory that includes a real god."<br /><br />You responded: "<i>Ummmm... Grossberg 1999 The Link between Brain Learning, Attention, and Consciousness. :-p</i>"<br /><br />I was on the border of refusing to engage with you further. I'm Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04214642122689048677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-90502161092574798712015-03-23T08:59:29.494-07:002015-03-23T08:59:29.494-07:00@Luke: "'Science' is not a hypothesis...@<b>Luke</b>: "<i>'Science' is not a hypothesis. It is not clear that 'God' is a hypothesis, either. If God is an infinite being, then he is bigger than 'science', not smaller.</i>"<br /><br />Science is a process, for building models and explanations that correspond ever more closely to objective reality. "God" is a hypothesized entity to possibly Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04214642122689048677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-24802323320751049502015-03-22T21:42:09.825-07:002015-03-22T21:42:09.825-07:00@Don:
> And I already gave you an example, qua...@Don:<br /><br />> And I already gave you an example, quantum mechanics, that does not seem to have even been imagined before it was discovered.<br /><br />That's possibly irrelevant, if there are more than human minds around. Which you anticipated. :-)<br /><br />> It's not out of the question to consider God as a hypothesis.<br /><br />Heh, I just went through this with someone Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-28309287355876606052015-03-22T20:00:50.802-07:002015-03-22T20:00:50.802-07:00@Luke: " I am attempting to distinguish betwe...@<b>Luke</b>: "<i> I am attempting to distinguish between: A. mind-dependent reality B. mind-independent reality</i>"<br /><br />And I already gave you an example, quantum mechanics, that does not seem to have even been imagined before it was discovered. If you want more, we have lots of evidence (astronomical, geological, biological) of tremendous activity for billions of years in Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04214642122689048677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-66428131698382328132015-03-22T16:21:00.419-07:002015-03-22T16:21:00.419-07:00@Don:
> OK, so back to external reality. You a...@Don:<br /><br />> OK, so back to external reality. You ask "<i>Can we even know if such a reality exists?</i>"<br /><br />No, I am attempting to distinguish between:<br /><br /> A. mind-dependent reality<br /> B. mind-independent reality<br /><br />The real question in my mind is whether reality is, at its most fundamental ontological category, mind-like or not-mind-like. Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-58730453958493168122015-03-21T08:44:52.929-07:002015-03-21T08:44:52.929-07:00@Luke [...continued...]
"Can we even know if...@Luke [...continued...]<br /><br />"<i>Can we even know if such a reality exists?</i>" Yes, because it's a vastly more successful theory to posit that reality is already there, independent of human thought. Read again (or for the first time?) the example of <a href="http://lesswrong.com/lw/ph/can_you_prove_two_particles_are_identical/" rel="nofollow">how can you prove two Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04214642122689048677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-70780830604065038482015-03-21T08:44:25.291-07:002015-03-21T08:44:25.291-07:00@Luke: Thanks for the followup.
Most of your obje...@Luke: Thanks for the followup.<br /><br />Most of your objections (to me) don't seem especially relevant to a simple theory describing "truth" as a correspondence between a mental model, and external reality. But I'll take a shot anyway.<br /><br />We start first with being born, and Descartes's "I think therefore I am". And it's hard to get much farther Don Geddishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04214642122689048677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-91416242439482244842015-03-20T12:04:59.684-07:002015-03-20T12:04:59.684-07:00@Don:
> Luke: If you really believe this, then...@Don:<br /><br />> <a href="http://blog.rongarret.info/2015/02/31-flavors-of-ontology.html?showComment=1425059326975#c6392515893992580443" rel="nofollow">Luke</a>: If you really believe this, then let's dive deeply into <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/" rel="nofollow">The Correspondence Theory of Truth</a> and <a href="http://www.iep.utm.edu/found-ep/" rel="Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-33956394107149866632015-03-05T22:36:15.398-08:002015-03-05T22:36:15.398-08:00It's still undetermined what will happen to th...It's still undetermined what will happen to the blogger platform if the comments roll over from 999 to 1000 ... Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-70196646610209815632015-03-05T10:50:10.764-08:002015-03-05T10:50:10.764-08:00@Ron:
> Fair enough. It's time to reboot t...@Ron:<br /><br />> Fair enough. It's time to reboot this thread anyway. Might be a few days before I can get around to it.<br /><br />Sounds perfectly reasonable. More retardation has gone down with the situation at the institution I mentioned to you, but I really should get off my butt and grind through some coding regardless. As it turns out, I'm helping a medical resident friend Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-49283597339402865482015-03-05T10:16:31.847-08:002015-03-05T10:16:31.847-08:00> I might also need an in-depth response to thi...> I might also need an in-depth response to this comment. Remember: you told me to read David Deutsch to understand your point of view. Surely it's fair for me to ask you do some work to understand my point of view? <br /><br />Fair enough. It's time to reboot this thread anyway. Might be a few days before I can get around to it.<br />Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-33571077357799766002015-03-05T10:04:16.637-08:002015-03-05T10:04:16.637-08:00@Ron:
> Ron: Religion generally involves faith...@Ron:<br /><br />> <a href="http://blog.rongarret.info/2015/02/31-flavors-of-ontology.html?showComment=1425576630933#c4780206661986548448" rel="nofollow">Ron</a>: Religion generally involves faith, i.e. believing things without evidence. But your theology is pretty unique so maybe you don't require faith. Maybe you'd like to take another crack and explaining exactly what it is you do Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-69450396500476210662015-03-05T10:02:01.309-08:002015-03-05T10:02:01.309-08:00@Ron, cont.:
> Those are the sins Jesus specif...@Ron, cont.:<br /><br />> Those are the sins Jesus specifically spoke out against. It's a plausible theory that the reason he spoke out against lust, divorce and swearing and not slavery is that he considered lust, divorce and swearing to be more serious than slavery.<br /><br />Jesus spoke very harshly in <a href="http://legacy.esvbible.org/search/mt23/" rel="nofollow">Mt 23</a>. Why do Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-11335682767066184542015-03-05T10:01:46.031-08:002015-03-05T10:01:46.031-08:00@Ron, cont.:
> But even on its face your count...@Ron, cont.:<br /><br />> But even on its face your counter-argument is very weak. Sure, if Jesus has spoken against slavery, the result <i>might</i> have been a war. So? God seems to have no compunctions about fomenting war when its suits His purpose (c.f. the entire book of Joshua).<br /><br />So if God did things one way, he must always do them the same way? That makes God a machine, not a Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-19736165689784616462015-03-05T10:01:34.247-08:002015-03-05T10:01:34.247-08:00@Ron:
> Yep. Mostly Evidence, in the form of l...@Ron:<br /><br />> Yep. Mostly Evidence, in the form of lots and lots and lots of discussions with Christians and reading Christian literature and history.<br /><br />Wait a second, you said "everyone". Are you fallaciously reasoning from 'some' ⇒ 'all', or have you done the kind of extensive, scholarly research that allows you to say that you have representatively Lukehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18395549142176242491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-47802066619865484482015-03-05T09:30:30.933-08:002015-03-05T09:30:30.933-08:00@Luke (cont'd):
> So Wikipedia is all you&...@Luke (cont'd):<br /><br />> So Wikipedia is all you've got, and you base strong opinions on that? C'mon.<br /><br />Criticizing someone for citing wikipedia as a source in a blog comment thread is sort of an inverse argument-from-authority fallacy. Wikipedia is far from perfect, but not everything it says is false. It's actually not a bad first-order approximation to the Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-60562208075942367202015-03-05T09:29:58.573-08:002015-03-05T09:29:58.573-08:00@Luke:
> > Of course they were. Everyone ch...@Luke:<br /><br />> > Of course they were. Everyone cherry-picks from the Bible.<br /><br />> Everyone? Did EE&R tell you this?<br /><br />Yep. Mostly Evidence, in the form of lots and lots and lots of discussions with Christians and reading Christian literature and history. Case in point:<br /><br />> I have read Mt 10:34. ... The question, though, is whether it is a war of Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.com