[Thorsten]

From the mindset I'm working from, credibility doesn't mean much at all. It's about, as you say, true/false.

Please don't misquote me, this is not what I say. What I wrote is: the proposition should be evaluated for true/false, not for pleasant/unpleasant but also I don't go so much for facts as I go for likelihood and May I gently remind you that I am an academy researcher at a university, and that it's therefore unlikely that I have been misled to think anything wrong referring to how science works?.

Credibility does not establish fact, but it does increase likelihoods, and that is an important difference.

I'm sorry, this comes off as social leverage, blending social with investigation.

Let me clear this up for you. I feel in no way compelled to convince you, or to win this argument, or to prove my knowledge or experience to you. My primary motivation in having a discussion is that I might learn something, my secondary is that I might share knowledge and ideas.

As a result, I don't mind spending an hour to type a long explanation of some convoluted thought if I have the feeling it helps my opposite to understand something new. But I do mind wasting my time talking to someone who isn't willing to listen.

We have established:

I don't think that's getting into speculative fiction and trying out the idea - your folding the idea into your axe notion and not entertaining the idea of something that can carpet bomb the forest to hell and back.

When someone says 'What if it's this way?' - it's not really a counter to say 'No, it it's not'. It's just unimaginative.

You're of the opinion that I am unimaginative, at least insofar as this discussion is concerned.

I think you've been misslead to think science involves reasoning. Atleast reasoning in the sense of coming to a conclusion, rather than a conclusion coming to it. Do you think scientists reason a conclusion, then run thousands of experiments just for fun, even though they've already come to a conclusion?

You're of the opinion that I don't know how science is done .

(Note that your reply to my question is factually wrong - detectors are really built to test hypotheses, not to just see what happens, there is really a confirmation bias and scientists are aware of it and try to deal with it - so you do not know how science is in fact done, you're arguing based on how you think it should be done - alas, we don't have infinite funds).

Also 'proof' and 'incompleteness theorem' in the one sentence seems a little jarring.

You are ready to judge one of the most profound mathematical results of the 20th century based on how it sounds.

Also, see above, you are unable or unwilling to represent my positions correctly.

Quick reality check - why should you listen to some guy of whom you're convinced he doesn't know how science is done, who is completely unimaginative and just is around playing games with words. Answer - you shouldn't.

Second reality check - what would it take to make you listen? I would have to convince you that I in fact do know how science works, that the incompleteness theorem is to be taken very seriously and real, I would have to re-iterate my positions again and again till you acknowledge them as they are rather than as you want them to be.

I frankly think you have no real idea how math actually works, what science is fundamentally based on, that there are several ways to analyze fiction, what epistemic relativism is and how it connects to the present discussion, and I am also of the opinion that you have no intention to catch up with these things.

So why on earth should I spend time and effort arguing to you things you don't want to understand? I am happy to concede the argument to you, you may happily continue in your belief that I am misled in how science works and that I am biased, I don't care.

I'm not using any social leverage to win this argument - I simply don't want to spend my time convincing you that there's plenty of things you're apparently not aware of where you demonstrate again and again that you have no interest in learning something new.

[What Came Before]

Once again, Thorsten, I appreciate the time you've spent here. I'm not exactly sure what we can offer each other (as I don't think either of us are arguing each other per say, more oriented by two mutually inconclusive perspectives). Every question I ask seems to be dismissed, rather than hazarded, based on your assertions of improper phrasing.

But I enjoy conversing with you immensely - I don't have the luxury of a peer-group outside of SA and the individuals Bakker's community attracts.

Might you agree that it is a matter of degree, a spectrum, perhaps a gradient?

For instance, there are advocacy groups that highlight the emerging distinctions between the neuroanomalous and neurocommon - that, perhaps, autism shouldn't be treated as something being treated. This could easily jump towards solidarity among sociopaths (unlikely but imaginable).

In certain instances, both aforementioned neuroanomalous groups are better suited towards aspects (as you've previously described) of efficacy in modern society.

With these examples in mind, we might return our lens towards ideas that certain neural organizations, the dynamic architecture of cortical structures, are more or less, better or worse, suited towards experiencing the world as it is outside of our perception, our umwelt.

You mentioned the augmentation of biological perceptions in the previous response towards myself. Doesn't this inherently provide a modicum of evidence towards our specific perceptions, and interpretations of them, being deceptive, in that, we are ignorant of the bootstraps of the matter (seeing fluttering paper instead of butterflies)?

Let me offer my own thought experiment, in lieu of us starting our own research practice:

You meet a woman (or man) that causes a physiological response in you - your heart rate fluctuates, pupils dilate, certain parts of your anatomy (chest, wrist, neck, face, genitalia) flush with altered blood flow.

Now there are a number of documented and theoretical physiological causes for you to reach the conclusion of attraction, biological markers, which translate into the judgment of "attractiveness." Yet very few of these are under conscious purview. You aren't thinking about the compatibilities of immune function based on perception of pheromones, the symmetry of a face, or ovulation cycles, etc.

Likewise, should you experience the breadth of visual sensation of a bee, you might remark that your previous experience is lacking, that being conscious of more allows for a much different exercise in autonomy and in understanding that experience.

The more we subscribe towards "it's just attraction" or "it's just vision," the more we are deceived. As you've described, despite the corroboration of perception and technological prothestics, augmentation or otherwise, the more bootstrapping we conduct, the more we understand our zones of ignorance, the occluded data, of which we previously had no knowledge nor knowledge of that lack.

So how can we assert that math, as our understanding of it stands, is the whole and complete version? Or scientific methodology. Or myth. Or narrative. Or culture. Or society.

Again, I think our mutual confusion boils down to my tentative offerings of perspective based on current evidence as speculative fodder and your assertions of accurate, valid statements - of which I have none to offer.

I don't necessarily subscribe to the nihilistic portions of BBH but I do see the potentials for abuse, if the plebletariat continues to live in ignorance and the commercial and political interests continue trends established in advertising psychology but with a mechanistic, neuroscientific orientation towards the body/mind of their constituents.

Lol, just thoughts - apologies again for any confusion my words cause (connotations, remember). Apparently, I suffer from lack of exposition.

[Wilshire]

I've never read so much text and learned so little in my life.

Hundreds of words and nothing said.

As far as I could tell the TLDR is:

Madness: "Stuff, speculating, thoughts"
Thor: "Nope" (and then 1000 words reiterating the statement "No")
Callen: "Various other things, some questions to thor, more thoughts"
Thor: "All wrong"
Madness: "Uh.. Why?"
Thor: "You have 2 periods in your statement, therefore it is invalid"

repeat for 3 pages of comments.

Annnd now we're here.

[Callan S.]

Credibility does not establish fact, but it does increase likelihoods

I didn't put words in your mouth, Thorston. It's precisely the quote above that I was refering to. And from the background I'm coming from no, credibility does not increase the likelihood at all.

Also, see above, you are unable or unwilling to represent my positions correctly.

By your measure I'm not presenting them correctly.

When you say it's a lady in the window and I say you're actually talking about a lamp, it's your measure that I'm presenting your position incorrectly.

Second reality check - what would it take to make you listen?

Well, you said 'I think science isn't applicable to some problems.'

I don't know how you prove that? Can that be proven scientifically?

where you demonstrate again and again that you have no interest in learning something new.

What amount of skepticism will you allow in regards to these things? Or to show any amount of skepticism is simply taken as no interest in learning something new?

I can only charitably read you as granting some room for skepticism, even if I have overshot the allowed amount of it for now.

[Aural]

Even in rereading Thorsten's ignorance of psychological research is jarring. Writes a decent essay though.

Ad-hominems for the win, eh?

I've never read so much text and learned so little in my life.

Hundreds of words and nothing said.

As far as I could tell the TLDR is:

Madness: "Stuff, speculating, thoughts"
Thor: "Nope" (and then 1000 words reiterating the statement "No")
Callen: "Various other things, some questions to thor, more thoughts"
Thor: "All wrong"
Madness: "Uh.. Why?"
Thor: "You have 2 periods in your statement, therefore it is invalid"

repeat for 3 pages of comments.

Annnd now we're here.

Sorry, but what thread have you been reading? It's more like,

Thorsten: A very well reasoned and thoughtful debunking of Bakker's Argument.
[Bakker fanboy]: HOW DARE YOU??!?!?! You don't even know what you're talking about!
Thorsten: Please explain.
[Bakker fanboy]: Oh yeah?! Well, we've reached the limits of beneficial communication. Go away.

[Wilshire]

lol not sure if you're serious or not, but I respectfully disagree.

I hope you see the hilarity of the dichotomy you/I created. I think it serves the same point though, if he who agrees with either side can believe the other's stance is completely baseless, then more or less, nothing was discussed here at all. Just 2 or 3 monologues. A good debate or dialogue encourages something far more in the listeners/readers.

Missed this before:

Second reality check - what would it take to make you listen?

Well, you said 'I think science isn't applicable to some problems.'

I don't know how you prove that? Can that be proven scientifically?

Also hilarious. This topic is a laugh a minute.

[Madness]

Even in rereading Thorsten's ignorance of psychological research is jarring. Writes a decent essay though.

Ad-hominems for the win, eh?

I never claimed to be unbiased.

Thorsten: A very well reasoned and thoughtful debunking of Bakker's Argument.
[Bakker fanboy]: HOW DARE YOU??!?!?! You don't even know what you're talking about!
Thorsten: Please explain.
[Bakker fanboy]: Oh yeah?! Well, we've reached the limits of beneficial communication. Go away.

Is this me?

[TLEILAXU]

Necromancy initiated:
I was 98% sure Thorsten was lying his ass off until I clicked the link leading to his website. In any case, it's a good lesson that despite how brilliant and eloquent some brains are, that doesn't guarantee that they will be able to see themselves as what they are.

[BeardFisher-King]

Necromancy initiated:
I was 98% sure Thorsten was lying his ass off until I clicked the link leading to his website. In any case, it's a good lesson that despite how brilliant and eloquent some brains are, that doesn't guarantee that they will be able to see themselves as what they are.

1. "98%"? Why the bogus precision? Are you trying to "science up" your claim?

2. Brilliance and eloquence don't "guarantee" anything, but those are good qualities to bet on.

[TLEILAXU]

Necromancy initiated:
I was 98% sure Thorsten was lying his ass off until I clicked the link leading to his website. In any case, it's a good lesson that despite how brilliant and eloquent some brains are, that doesn't guarantee that they will be able to see themselves as what they are.

1. "98%"? Why the bogus precision? Are you trying to "science up" your claim?

2. Brilliance and eloquence don't "guarantee" anything, but those are good qualities to bet on.

@1: No, it's just the way he e.g. said he had a background in quantum mechanics that looked like a tactic I feel I've seen before.
@2: Right. Being a physicist obviously requires a big brain, but having a big brain does not necessarily mean you will realize e.g. the illusion of volition.

[BeardFisher-King]

Necromancy initiated:
I was 98% sure Thorsten was lying his ass off until I clicked the link leading to his website. In any case, it's a good lesson that despite how brilliant and eloquent some brains are, that doesn't guarantee that they will be able to see themselves as what they are.

1. "98%"? Why the bogus precision? Are you trying to "science up" your claim?

2. Brilliance and eloquence don't "guarantee" anything, but those are good qualities to bet on.

@1: No, it's just the way he e.g. said he had a background in quantum mechanics that looked like a tactic I feel I've seen before.
@2: Right. Being a physicist obviously requires a big brain, but having a big brain does not necessarily mean you will realize e.g. the illusion of volition.

Claiming expertise falsely is egregious behavior. I never considered the possibility in Thorsten's case, probably because I don't address issues like volition, self-consciousness, intentionality and the first-person perspective from a physicalist stance.

What I find telling in your brief remark was the "98% sure" qualification. Instead of using vague descriptive adjectives such as "very", "almost completely", "pretty damn", etc., you couldn't resist the false precision of "98%". There's an interesting tactic, if you think about it.

[Wilshire]

Whose idioms are allowed, and whose arent? Are you the decider of that, BFK?
Seems to me like you're claiming some kind of expertise, falsely, which I think someone pointed out is "egregious behavior" - would you like to suggest appropriate punishment?
Must we all communicate on the grounds that you define, else risk ridicule? I certainly don't want to risk being called out as 'egregious' and 'bogus', can you help me avoid that?

But wait, "98% sure" is no more precise than 'pretty damn sure' in this context, is it? Well, unless you're prepared to describe concretely what a % of the esoteric concept of 'sure' looks like. I'd appreciate your expertise on the matter.

Also, please clarify:
"Telling of" what?
"tactic" of what?
I'm having difficultly discussing those parts because I feel I have to guess what you mean, and I wouldn't want to run afoul some kind of obvious conversational ques that might raise your ire.

[Wilshire]

Necromancy initiated:
I was 98% sure Thorsten was lying his ass off until I clicked the link leading to his website.

Why assume he was lying? Habit?
Especially on the first page of this thread, there's some really interesting commentary - though it seems Thorston and Madness were never really engaged fully with each other. I don't really see why his purported expertise, false or otherwise, changes the conversation.

I'm particularly fond of the god/toaster analogy. I felt that the inducting of 'the feeling of god' was a good proof against its existence, but changing it to 'toaster' makes it far more clear that it doesn't really disprove anything.

In any case, it's a good lesson that despite how brilliant and eloquent some brains are, that doesn't guarantee that they will be able to see themselves as what they are.

I'm not really sure I follow you here. Seems's that you've started with the assumption that you are correct, and use someone arguing the opposite of your thoughts as proof of their wrongness, which doesn't really make any logical sense. Can you clarify what you meant?

[BeardFisher-King]

Whose idioms are allowed, and whose arent? Are you the decider of that, BFK?
Seems to me like you're claiming some kind of expertise, falsely, which I think someone pointed out is "egregious behavior" - would you like to suggest appropriate punishment?
Must we all communicate on the grounds that you define, else risk ridicule? I certainly don't want to risk being called out as 'egregious' and 'bogus', can you help me avoid that?

But wait, "98% sure" is no more precise than 'pretty damn sure' in this context, is it? Well, unless you're prepared to describe concretely what a % of the esoteric concept of 'sure' looks like. I'd appreciate your expertise on the matter.

Also, please clarify:
"Telling of" what?
"tactic" of what?
I'm having difficultly discussing those parts because I feel I have to guess what you mean, and I wouldn't want to run afoul some kind of obvious conversational ques that might raise your ire.

When someone chooses a certain idiom as opposed to another, I think it is interesting to analyze that choice. In this case, to use a mathematical percentage to describe a level of certitude might display a desire to ground one's view in the firm terrain of science. Of course, I'm certainly (well, almost certainly...  ) over-interpreting the remark, but if you actually consider the matter, why write "98% sure" when "pretty sure" fits the bill? Well, especially given the nature of the topic under discussion, perhaps there was a subconscious desire to be extra precise.

I don't find anything in my post that demonstrates any ire or that proposes that I desire to arbitrate any usage. I'm merely pointing out an interesting rhetorical device (the faux measurement of certainty) that actually is no more informative than the use of qualifiers like "somewhat and "very". God knows I've used it myself unthinkingly. "I'm about 75% sure that M--- will be late." So, yeah, just a verbal tic. But there's always deeper ways to look at things.

I appreciate TLEILAXU's reference to the necromancy of dead threads. He's a sharp and attentive reader.

[TLEILAXU]

Necromancy initiated:
I was 98% sure Thorsten was lying his ass off until I clicked the link leading to his website.

Why assume he was lying? Habit?
Especially on the first page of this thread, there's some really interesting commentary - though it seems Thorston and Madness were never really engaged fully with each other. I don't really see why his purported expertise, false or otherwise, changes the conversation.

I am a theoretical physicist by profession, working mostly in applied quantum field theory (Quantum Chromodynamics mostly).

This raises alarm bells because claiming to have a background in quantum physics gives the appearance of being an authority on physical matters, i.e. we'd be more likely to think our physicalist (I dislike that word) interpretations were false if he as an authority on physics told us we were wrong, and this could've been known/assumed by a clever intellect with the intent to manipulate.

(As a side note, modern physics is all about what you experience and not at all about what things really *are* - all Quantum Field Theory is concerned with are 'observables', and it is very clear that we don't have a clue what nature is, only how it behaves when we look at it).

This quote also raises alarm bells. I don't know anything about quantum physics, BUT I know that all those new-age interpretations of the double slit experiment (dude, like our minds determine like reality dude) are wrong, and this sounds conspicuously similar ("modern physics is all about what you experience").

In any case, it's a good lesson that despite how brilliant and eloquent some brains are, that doesn't guarantee that they will be able to see themselves as what they are.

I'm not really sure I follow you here. Seems's that you've started with the assumption that you are correct, and use someone arguing the opposite of your thoughts as proof of their wrongness, which doesn't really make any logical sense. Can you clarify what you meant?

Yes I can. Free will being an illusion is just as absolutely true as evolution, gravity etc. in my world. I cannot see any way it can be false. Thorsten's arguments seem to skirt around the issue or mention "emergent properties", but (and I skimmed through the posts) I have still not seen a convincing argument against the notion that what comes before determines what comes after.

Whose idioms are allowed, and whose arent? Are you the decider of that, BFK?
Seems to me like you're claiming some kind of expertise, falsely, which I think someone pointed out is "egregious behavior" - would you like to suggest appropriate punishment?
Must we all communicate on the grounds that you define, else risk ridicule? I certainly don't want to risk being called out as 'egregious' and 'bogus', can you help me avoid that?

But wait, "98% sure" is no more precise than 'pretty damn sure' in this context, is it? Well, unless you're prepared to describe concretely what a % of the esoteric concept of 'sure' looks like. I'd appreciate your expertise on the matter.

Also, please clarify:
"Telling of" what?
"tactic" of what?
I'm having difficultly discussing those parts because I feel I have to guess what you mean, and I wouldn't want to run afoul some kind of obvious conversational ques that might raise your ire.

When someone chooses a certain idiom as opposed to another, I think it is interesting to analyze that choice. In this case, to use a mathematical percentage to describe a level of certitude might display a desire to ground one's view in the firm terrain of science. Of course, I'm certainly (well, almost certainly...  ) over-interpreting the remark, but if you actually consider the matter, why write "98% sure" when "pretty sure" fits the bill? Well, especially given the nature of the topic under discussion, perhaps there was a subconscious desire to be extra precise.

I don't find anything in my post that demonstrates any ire or that proposes that I desire to arbitrate any usage. I'm merely pointing out an interesting rhetorical device (the faux measurement of certainty) that actually is no more informative than the use of qualifiers like "somewhat and "very". God knows I've used it myself unthinkingly. "I'm about 75% sure that M--- will be late." So, yeah, just a verbal tic. But there's always deeper ways to look at things.

I appreciate TLEILAXU's reference to the necromancy of dead threads. He's a sharp and attentive reader.

It's just another way of saying "nearly absolutely certain" I guess. Now, the real thing I don't understand is why you would think I were trying to "science" up my claim when feeling somebody is lying is kind of like, inherently subjective