DavidV
-
Posts
2935 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
13
Posts posted by DavidV
-
-
Nice. 10 minutes are not much time for what you have to do, but you might just pull it off.
I would love to hear/read what your opponent comes up with.
I posted the video and audio here: http://www.rationalmind.net/2009/11/19/deb...-belief-in-god/
-
By David from Truth, Justice, and the American Way,cross-posted by MetaBlog
Here is the video and audio links from my debate.. They are both two hours 40 minutes long. You can also read my opening statement.
-
By David from Truth, Justice, and the American Way,cross-posted by MetaBlog
Here is the video and audio links from my debate.. They are both two hours 40 minutes long. You can also read my opening statement.
-
By David from Truth, Justice, and the American Way,cross-posted by MetaBlog
This is my opening for my debate on the existence of God at tomorrow’s philosophy meetup:
10 minutes is not much time to present an argument against a belief central to the philosophy of the majority of Americans. To show that God isn’t needed, I must not only offer an argument against his existence, but also *for* all the things that God means to people:- *A guide to morality.
- *A justification for causality and the laws of nature.
- *An explanation for the variety of life on earth.
- *A validation of human knowledge.
- *And optimism for the future of humanity.
My opponent on the other hand, can simply say, “God says it is so, and thus so it is.” But as H.L. Menken said “There is always an easy solution to every human problem–neat, plausible, and wrong.”
The conclusions we reach about the existence or nonexistence of supernatural entities are not philosophical primaries. Rather, they are derivatives of our premises about the basic nature of the universe and our ability to know it.
To present an alternative to a theistic worldview, I am going to present two opposing positions on what I consider the fundamental question of philosophy. The side you take on this issue (which everyone does, whether they are aware of it or not) plays a critical choice your life.
What is this critically important issue? It is the nature of the relationship between consciousness and reality. The central question on this issue is whether consciousness is the agency of perceiving reality, or the agency of creating reality.
I believe that once you understand that consciousness has the power to perceive and identify, but *not* to create reality, a naturalistic worldview follows automatically. If however, you assume that consciousness is an entity that can create reality, then emotionalism becomes your epistemological method, and no further discussion or understanding of reality is possible.
Axioms
Why is the most fundamental issue in philosophy the relationship between consciousness and reality? It is because all knowledge of reality rests on certain premises. Such as: there is a reality to be known; that there is a distinction between consciousness and external reality, that reality has identity, that its identity has a specific nature, so that what you learn today is true tomorrow, that the mind is capable of acquiring knowledge of reality, and that the process is not automatic and infallible, but requires conscious and active direction on our part. Answers to these questions form the basic axioms of philosophy, on which all further human knowledge is built.
Although everyone implicitly assumes these premises from early childhood, very few people name them explicitly, and fewer still practice them consistently. As I will show, a belief in the supernatural violates all the basic axioms.
I will summarize the axioms in this sentence: “I am conscious of something.” Let me break that down:
Axiom 1: Existence exists
“I am *conscious*”: By simply looking at the world, we are immediately aware that there is a reality to be conscious of. In short: Existence exists.
Axiom 2: Consciousness is conscious:
“*I* am conscious”: The second thing we are aware of, is that we have an agency of perceiving reality: our mind. In short: Consciousness is conscious.
Axiom 3: Existence IS identity:
“I am conscious of *something*”: We are conscious of something specific, an entity which we perceive in a particular form, which can be differentiated from other entities by its attributes. Note that entities do not possess identity, as something tacked on to a non-entity. A ball does not posses roundness. A ball is a ball because it *is* round. In short: Existence is identity. Or: To be is to be something.
Putting that statement together again: consciousness is the agency of perceiving reality. Existence has primacy over consciousness, which means: reality is, and the function of the mind is to perceive and identify it. We are aware of reality through our senses, which perceive reality according to their particular nature and the nature of the entities we perceive. Existence exists, Consciousness is conscious, Existence is identity.
Observe that I did not prove that the axioms are valid. Proof is the process of logically deriving a conclusion from sensory data. This process presumes that there is something out there to be proved, that we have an agency of proof, and there is something specific to be proved. Existence, consciousness, identity. Any statement about reality presumes the validity of the axioms, including any attempt to deny them. We cannot prove the axioms – but we can validate that they *are* axioms by observing that they cannot be escaped in any statement about reality, that they are implicit in all knowledge, and that they must be accepted in any attempt to deny them.
Truth
The claim that reality exists, that the mind is a means of perceiving reality, and that entities in reality have attributes do not seem very controversial. Nonetheless, a belief in God contradicts all three axioms.
Before I explain why, I want to define one other concept: truth. If the mind is the agency of perceiving reality, then valid knowledge of reality is only possible by perceiving, identifying, and integrating sensory data into a correct mental model of reality. Truth therefore, is the product of the recognition of the facts of reality. To be certain that all our knowledge is true, we must be objective, which means: to volitionally adherence to reality by the use of logic. Logic is the non-contradictory identification of reality. The method by which we confirm that our abstract ideas correspond to reality is reduction to perception, which means: that ultimately, all our knowledge, from that which is directly observed, to that which is many levels abstracted, can be reduced to sensory evidence. Claims which are not based on sensory evidence are neither true nor false – they are arbitrary and have no bearing on reality.
Let’s apply the principles I have just introduced to the idea of God:
Did God create the universe?
How can a consciousness, which is a means of perception, take action? If the universe is the set of all entities that exist, is God not an entity? If he engages in causal interaction, then he must do so by some specific means according to his own identity. What is that identity? We know what it is not – it is not material or temporal, but what is it? All we are told is what God isn’t. Entities do not exist by the lack of attributes, but as the attributes that define them. To be is to be something.
Is God infinite?
But nothing can be infinite. Everything is something specific, in a specific form and quantity. Infinity is only a potentiality. In every sense, God exists in no specific form or measure. He is defined only in negatives. A non-specific age, size, power, perception and a non-specific means of perceiving him. But if existence is identity, he must exist as something specific, which means: not as something else.
Is God good?
For living things, the concept of good is possible because values are not automatic to them: they must act to stay in existence, and their actions must be in accordance with reality. But how can an immortal, indestructible being have values? What possible motive could it have for action? It has nothing to gain or lose – nothing can threaten its existence or cause it discomfort. What loss could be caused by choosing any activity over any other? And without values, what possible motive could it have for action? A being for which no value is possible has no basis for any action at all.
Is there any proof for God?
Evidence is derived from the interaction of an existent’s attributes with the sensory organs of a conscious being. What attributes of God are we aware of? If there are none, then claims about the supernatural are neither true nor false, but arbitrary emotionalism and must be thrown out of the realm of cognition.
Ayn Rand’s summarizes the supernatural thus:
“To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm? They keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say—and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge—God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body,.. A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out.”
In short: God is existence without identity, consciousness without perception, action without a means, change without time, virtue without value. Every one of the attributes ascribed to God not only cannot be proven, but violates all of the axioms.
—
To conclude:
- *Axiomatic concepts form the foundation of cognition and delimit the field of awareness.
- *Existence is identity, consciousness is identification.
- *Truth is certainty reached by the use of reason and logic.
- *Reason man’s only means of knowing reality.
- *Knowledge must be validated by being reduced to sensory evidence.
- *Objectivity is volitional adherence to reality.
- *Ethics derive from the requirements of human life.
—
For Rebuttal:
I want to start by identifying the nature of emotions.
An emotion is an automatic response to an external or internal stimulus based upon your subconscious premises and values. It tells you something about the state of your consciousness, not about external reality. By examining the premises that led to a certain emotional evaluation, we can find the causes for our emotions. By changing our values, we can change our emotional responses to the same stimulus. Two people can have totally different responses to the same stimulus if their values are different. For example, to me a sports car driving by elicits feelings of appreciation and desire, to an environmentalist, a hated object of waste, to a caveman, of bewilderment and perhaps fear.
To me, a nature documentary inspires wonder and awe in the ability of simple rules to create amazingly complex creatures; to a creationist it is evidence of supernatural intervention. Our emotions differ because our subconscious mind has automatized premises and assumptions about the nature of the world.
If you never bother to check your premises, if you default on the task of consciously and honestly examining the world with ruthless rationality, honesty, and integrity, you will never know the origin of your ideas and values. Your subconscious mind will be a jumble of hopes and fears masquerading as evidence.
*Emotions are a subconscious response to values.
- *A guide to morality.
-
By David from Truth, Justice, and the American Way,cross-posted by MetaBlog
How good are your communication skills? How often do you feel that misunderstandings get in the way of your personal relationships or your career? Do you ever avoid talking to people because you don’t know how to express what you feel, or because you are afraid that you will be misunderstood?
What if you could dramatically improve the effectiveness of your spoken and written communication? Would it increase your confidence when speaking to coworkers, friends, and romantic interests? Would you take more chances if you could speak directly to someone’s mind, almost as if you had a telepathic connection with your listener?
The problem with most people’s communication skills is that they think that it is an innate talent. They think that if you’re not a smart, good-looking extrovert with a good voice, you can never be a great communicator. It’s true that these things help. But just because you’re tall and have strong legs doesn’t mean that you can win a gold medal at the olympics. And even if you are short and weak by nature, doesn’t mean that you can’t double or triple your performance. Of course, no workout will make you two feet taller. But unlike your body, your brain is very flexible.
You might think that speaking is something we learn automatically, and don’t have much control over. It’s true that we learn how to talk automatically and subconsciously, just like we learned to run automatically. But, just as a trained athlete can run faster and longer than an amateur, so can a conscious effort to improve your skills vastly improve your performance.
I’m going to share some of the things I learned with you as a kind of test. If my ideas are any good, you will remember most of what I said. After you’re done watching, please leave a comment to let me know how I did.
The five tips are: less is more, use examples, no distractions, repeat, repeat repeat, and five or less.
One: Less is more.
Paying attention is hard. It takes an effort to follow what someone is saying. Don’t make that effort any harder than it absolutely has to be. Keep it simple. Keep it short. Keep it focused.
Long and unusual words take longer to recognize than smaller and more familiar words. Many people use a stilted academic tone when they have something important to say. Don’t do it. Don’t say comprehend, say understand, or follow, or just get. Don’t go on an harangue, tirade, or diatribe, go on a rant.
Same goes for sentence and paragraph size. Ditto for analogies and figures of speech. They need an extra mental cross-reference. Just say it. Don’t give me a piece of your mind. Just say it. And whatever you do, cut it out with the likes and the umms, and the you know. You need to take mental breaks when speaking, but just practice making them silent. Your perceived competency will immediately go up 50%. Yes, I just made that number up. Here’s another made up rule: if your finished work is not 30% shorter than your first draft, it’s too long.
Two: Use relevant visual examples.
Your brain is just a big network of triggers made up of images, sounds, tastes, and sensations. If you want me to remember what you said, you need to tie some of those triggers to what you just said. Use examples I know. If you want us to go out for sushi, remind me of the smoked salmon we ate last week. Yes, examples are not just for English class. See? That’s another one.
Good examples are about important things your audience is already familiar with. Don’t talk to young people about how you applied conflict resolution to your mother in law. Talk about your parents. Talk about shiny, fast, loud, dangerous, smelly things if you want to create strong mental triggers to your message.
Three: No distractions.
“Cue words” are concepts that can trigger emotional responses that block rational analysis. For example, democracy, Obama, guns, abortion. Just by saying those words, I’ve triggered a whole cascade of mental activity. Regardless of your political orientation, your mind is now busy trying to classify me into friend, enemy, or maybe just trying to think of something intelligent to say about them. Don’t distract me by mentioning things that trigger distracting emotional responses, or words with a whole host of irrelevant connotations. I’m not saying that you should not talk about controversial topics – just don’t distract the reader with them unnecessarily, even if you think he sides with you.
Four: Repeat, repeat, repeat.
Repetition is crucial to forming long-term memory. You’ve heard this before: say what you’re going to say, say it, then say what you said. Here’s an advanced trick: you can improve memorization by using spaced repetition. Make your point then repeat it with increasing intervals of time between each repetition.
Five: Five or less.
Most people can only keep a limited number of ideas in their immediate memory at once. Once they exceed that number, they are going to forget some of the things they learned. For most people, that number is five. So regardless of the topic, organize your presentation or argument so that you never list more than five items for any given category.
The five tips are: less is more, use relevant examples, no distractions, repeat, repeat repeat, and five points or less.
-
Some time ago, I debated a local "right to life" committee in a public forum; it attracted about 250 people and the local press; I was essentially alone!
That's really fascinating. I might want to try that myself for the next debate topic. How did it go - did the debate really address the issues? Do you feel like your opponent or the audience learned something? Did you make any mistakes? What did you learn from the experience?
-
God the creator being is inherently irrational and contradictory: A consciousness conscious only of itself, existing in non-existence, acts outside of time.
What do you think about making that my entire argument?
-
Will someone record it? Even if you never publish it, a recording would be a great way to learn what requires improvement.
Yes, I have had many people requested it and my opponent is OK with it.
-
Let's check that assumption that a computer operates on a perfect level of logic. A computer is not capable of an emotional response, but it is also not capable of full logic. A computer has no ability to form concepts, which is an important aspect of the faculty of reason.
I would go further and say that any consciousness capable of concept formation (and thus logic) must also have emotions, as they are two necessary expressions of the same mental capacity. Before identification, you must have evaluation, and with selectivity comes fallibility.
Artificial consciousness would not make better choices because it is artificial, but it would have the capacity for superior choice because of its capacity for exponential self-improvement.
-
Whenever people ask me this question, especially regarding Windows OSes, I recommend that they wait to upgrade until the first "service pack" gets released.
In this particular case, that isn't true. I've been using Windows 7 for about 10 months ago, and it's very stable, even during the beta period. That's because Windows 7 was mainly intended to fix Vista's flaws.
-
Diskeeper is not free, but this is: http://www.iobit.com/iobitsmartdefrag.html
Windows 7 is a great OS. Definitely upgrade if you can afford it. If your computer is slow, it may be a better value to buy RAM instead.
Personally I use Macs at home and work.
-
Give it up and get a Mac.
I used my Macbook to do the Windows 7 demo.
-
On November 18th, I will debate Dr. Joe Hinman on the topic of the existence of God.
-
Buy Gold. You don't need to look elsewhere. It is the only safety in this financial mess the world is in.
I'm not opposed to buying gold, but you should not risk a large portion of your investment in a single asset. Anyway, gold is a means of value preservation and speculation, but not an investment.
-
BoingBoing is exaggerating a little, but the general observation I would make, is that in forming laws today, the concentrated interest of the media industry is pitted against the diffuse interests of the consumers. In reality, there is no such thing as the interests of the consumers vs. producers, but the guiding philosophy of groups which use the power of the state to obtain special privileges is that human interests are inherently conflicting.
-
The third is often ignored or at least treated as minor.
I don't think this is true. Check out http://www.humboldt1.com/~gralsto/einstein/1905.html
-
Can I be an admin of the group?
-
I am hosting a Windows 7 Launch party at my place today. If you're a member of this forum, you're welcome to come. Respond to this thread and I'll send you my address.
There will be free stuff from Microsoft, snacks and cake (it's my wife's birthday too).
More info:
-
The whole idea is that you would be aware of the decline before Wallstreet analysts.
If this was actually possible, I could have retired by now. It takes a Wall Street analyst to make those kinds of predictions - and even they rarely outperform the market.
-
Humans do not need better brains. We need better usage of our brains.
More intelligent people tend to be more rational.
-
Buffet makes the same recommendation. Why would you not make an investment on things which you were more rather then less knowledgeable about?
One reason is that if there is a major recession in my field, I could lose my job and face a decline in my standard of living. Investing in unrelated industries lowers my risk.
-
If you want to speculate, or even if you want to invest, you really should pick up a few books by Benjamin Graham. For starters, "The Intelligent Investor".
Thanks, I've ordered it, and I've been reading and watching videos on fundamental analysis.
If you want to speculate, you will need to start hob nobbing with industry insiders (the industries you want to invest in) and get to know themHmm, I've stayed away from industries that are related to my specialty (software). Do you think it's a good idea to invest in companies with products I personally like?
-
My Philosophy above my Country ?
This question rests on the false premise that "philosophy" is a value that you can act towards. It is not that. A philosophy is your fundamental view of existence. It is the means by which you determine what your values ought to be.
You cannot choose anything "over" your philosophy, since your most fundamental perspective is your philosophy. So for example, if your epistemology is subjective and your ethics altruism, you will be happy to live in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. If your philosophy is reality-oriented and selfish, you will ally yourself with the most free country you can find.
-
Here's another update (Green = me, Blue = S&P 500). I am investing new capital, so I have an opportunity to reconsider my portfolio. I am weighting more towards VEU (all world ex-US) and less gold and China. My thinking is that gold is good for safety, but not good for long-term speculation for the reasons mentioned above. My friend in China thinks it may be a bubble, though I still think its a great opportunity.
I could be wrong, but my impression is that the USA under Obama is behaving worse in terms of monetary and fiscal policy than the rest of the world. Hence VEU. I think Peter Schiff is right that we're due for a crash sometime, but I can't spend the next decade hiding in GLD and missing out on opportunities.
Opportunity
in The Objectivism Meta-Blog Discussion
Posted
By David from Truth, Justice, and the American Way,cross-posted by MetaBlog
With doubt and dismay your are smitten
You think there’s no chance for you, son?
Why, the best books haven’t been written
The best race hasn’t been run,
The best score hasn’t been made yet,
The best song hasn’t been sung,
The best tune hasn’t been played yet,
Cheer up, for the world is young!
No chance? Why the world is just eager
For things that you ought to create.
Its store of true wealth is still meager
Its needs are incessant and great,
It yearns for more power and beauty
More laughter and love and romance,
More loyalty, labor and duty,
No chance–why there’s nothing but chance!
For the best verse hasn’t been rhymed yet,
The best house hasn’t been planned,
The highest peak hasn’t been climbed yet,
The mightiest rivers aren’t spanned,
Don’t worry and fret, faint hearted,
The chances have just begun,
For the Best jobs haven’t been started,
The Best work hasn’t been done.
-Berton Braley
Cross-posted from Metablog