>> ^Almanildo:
^HadouKen24
That doesn't address my main point, which is that determinism isn't really relevant.


Generally not, but under something like Penrose's conception of the mind, it would be. The arguments that quantum indeterminacy is insufficient for free will break down if the mind is fundamentally a quantum phenomenon.

I think it's fairly obvious that quantum indeterminacy is generally incapable of showing that we have something like free will. There are arguments which may show that, under certain conditions, quantum indeterminacy is quite capable of generating something more or less like free will. Roger Penrose (the brilliant mathematician, physicist, and philosopher who co-formulated the Penrose-Hawking theorems) advanced such an argument, attempting in Shadows of the Mind to show quantum effects in microtubules of the brain are responsible for both consciousness and free will. However, further research into the physics of the brain showed this line of reasoning to be ultimately defunct.

>> ^Almanildo:
>>
However, it's not a given that determinism is even relevant for the problem of free will. Daniel Dennett argues (quite convincingly in my book) that it's not.

In the current (read: last fifteen years or so) state of the discussion of the philosophy of mind, the argument for or against dualism does not hinge upon whether science has yet provided a coherent account of consciousness--we all know it hasn't--but whether it can in principle provide such an account. It is not obvious that any advance in science could provide us with a satisfactory account of consciousness. It is thus not an argument from ignorance.

Granted, there are few substance dualists around in philosophy anymore--most dualists are property or predicate dualists. Nonetheless, the claim that dualism is simply an argument from ignorance applies equally to both.

>> ^Psychologic:
The substance dualism argument is an "argument from ignorance". It rightfully points out that current theories of perception are not complete, but then begins filling in those gaps with unsupported speculation. The fact that our theories are not complete is not evidence for the existence of souls any more than a person's inability to identify a light in the sky is evidence of alien visitation.

I am very tired, so this post may be extremely error-ridden.

Notes as I proceed through the video:

Uh-oh. QualiaSoup's first point seems quite wrong-headed. He claims that "non-physical substance" illegitimately smuggles in the physical concept of "substance." But here I think he's problematically confusing our everyday colloquial use of the word "substance" with the philosophical meaning(s). To speak of a substance in philosophical jargon is merely to say that the "substance" is that which underlies all other properties of a thing and make it what it is. Thus, Spinoza was able to say that there is only one substance, underlying all materiality but not itself material. Leibniz made a somewhat similar claim, but allowed for the existence of an infinite number of substances called monads.

Second, even if it's true that speaking of a "non-physical substance" requires an analogy from physical substance, it's not at all obvious that this is problematic. Insofar as the non-physical shares some subset of properties with the physical, or has similar but somewhat different properties, one may legitimately borrow physical language to speak of it. The substance dualist might easily accept that there is some shared subset of properties.

Next, QS claims that substance dualists often conflate mind, soul, and consciousness without substantiating argument. This is either a straw man or an attack on the very weakest defenders of substance dualism. Waste of time making this point.

Next, QS offers an apparently coherent account of the public and private access of "physical" and "mental" events respectively, as against the dualist argument that such an account seems impossible. However, it is not at all obvious that he genuinely succeeds. A robust dualist argument would proceed under the assumption that the contents of the mind can be inferred perfectly from the contents of the brain (this is acceptable even under substance dualism). Even under such conditions, it is not obvious that the processes so identified are identical to my conscious experience. It has been argued even by atheist physicalists like Thomas Nagel that there is something in subjective experience uncaptured by physical accounts. As Nagel says in his most famous essay, even the most robust physical theory seems incapable of telling us what it would be like to be a bat. A dualist account might provide us with a coherent way to deal with this problem in a way that physicalism is incapable of.

Next, some nonsense about split brains. Yawn. No ground is going to be gained or lost for dualism on these grounds; the most QS can show is that a monist account is equally capable of accounting for such phenomena. I suppose he's correct that this can't be used as a good argument against

Next, a discussion of replacement of all one's cells every seven years. Not only is it not the case that this happens, but this would be a particularly bad argument for dualism. Is QS just going after the easy objections to his position and leaving alone the strong ones?

Next, damage to the body causing changes and/or damage in mental functioning. So what? Under substance dualism, there must be reciprocal causal relationships between the brain and the mind. This kind of thing is just what one expects under substance dualism.



This may be QS's most poorly argued video. At the most compelling point in the video, QS offers an apparently coherent account of private and public access which, if the dualist position is correct, should not be at all likely, if even possible. And, to be sure, there are philosophers of mind who will agree with him, such as Daniel Dennett. Yet there are just as many who will not, including very prominent philosophers like David Chalmers and Thomas Nagel. At every other point, he is either wrong or irrelevant.

Left 4 Dead 2 is more of a sequel than Modern Warfare 2 is--and I could probably name any number of other sequels, as well.

Is there a similar feel? Sure. That's why it's Left 4 Dead 2, rather than a completely different game. But there are enough changes--including more campaigns than the original at release--that it more than qualifies as a complete game unto itself. If you don't like sequels, that's fine, and perhaps Yahtzee doesn't. But it's a lot more than an expansion pack.

I only count nine.

>> ^bobknight33:
Read the news - Global Warmer is a HOAX -- Someone stole the scientists emails and documents and leaked them to the world--- go find them and read them.


No, I haven't taken the time out of my week to read 1000 e-mails and 79 other documents cherry-picked out of many, many other documents.

But I do know enough about online communication to know that any immediate conclusions are tremendously premature. And I also know enough about science and scientists--I have three siblings in engineering, and my own mindset is not all that divorced from a scientific perspective--to know that idiosyncrasies in terminology might sound incriminating, but not in fact be incriminating.

If the stuff that made it into the papers is the most incriminating that they have, then we should have no worries more worries about the climate science than we would have otherwise. It gives us no real information than that climate scientists have just the opinions and judgments that we should expect they would have.

>> ^demon_ix:
>> ^Trancecoach:
The kids got his own fan page on facebook.

Who doesn't?


I don't.

* weeps *

>> ^DuoJet:
I don't get it. What mistake was made? Even before I learned that the giant boobs were fake (at the 5:30 mark), I suspected this was a gay male. This person looks, behaves and speaks like a gay male.


Her boobs were fake? I doubt it. At the very least, not they're entirely fake. Hormone treatments--or for someone with Klinefelter's syndrom (XXY sex chromosomes), the cessation of hormone treatments--would cause such growth in breasts. Though this woman could have gotten implants as well, I find that somewhat unlikely. That kind of surgery requires money, which she doesn't seem to have.

EDIT: Also, she probably has something other than Klinefelter's as well, if her genitals were ambiguous enough at birth to require surgery. Klinefelter's alone results in apparently normal male children. Which makes the "cessation of hormone treatments" explanation even more plausible.

Upvote for the last minute and a half.

>> ^ponceleon:
I really liked Fry's analogy of the Catholic church's obsession with sex to that of food with anorexic or the morbidly obese.
As for the topic at hand... I really am not that interested in this level of minutiae. Those of you who know me from posting here know that I really don't see much of a difference between Catholics, Protestants, Scientologist, Satanists, and Zoroastrians. It is all just some stuff made up by some guy (usually a guy, except in very rare occasions) to control and tell others what to believe. No religion has any proof that they are right, anyone who claims they do is about as trustworthy as someone who says they are Napoleon.


There are two major problems here.

First, it's not possible to say that all religions are something that "some guy" made up. For a great many religions--Hinduism, Judaism, and Shinto are good examples--there is not one single individual one can trace the religion to. Rather, they seem to have arisen organically, on the basis of the agreement and common practice of communities and tribes. If they arose to control people, it was not the action of a single autocrat, but the same kind norm creation that goes on in any community.

Second, not all religions make onerous demands on belief. Again, Hinduism and Shinto are good examples. While particular schools of Hinduism may demand assent to certain beliefs, one may hold nearly any set of beliefs and be a good Hindu, so long as one meets a baseline set of behavioral norms. There are even atheist schools of thought. (There is even a patron god of atheism, strangely enough. Attributed to it by other schools of thought, of course.) Much the same is true of Shinto, though it is less philosophically sophisticated--atheism may not be as acceptable, but there is room for a great diversity of opinion.

Before Christianity and Islam, in fact, this non-belief-centric approach to religion was the norm everywhere Judea and a few Zoroastrian communities. The notion that religion demands belief is not the norm in human society--only in Christian and Muslim society.

>> ^Krupo:
I think the "big guns" and "lightweights" comment is more revealing than just calling this an "as usual" situation. I've heard MUCH better orators who would've turn H&F's points to shreds much more efficiently.


It could be the case that a better orator might better persuade the audience that the Catholic church is a force for good, but I doubt it would be strongly sustained by facts and reason.

Even at its best, the Church does great damage to freedom of thought and human dignity. In the 20th century alone, it has been responsible for tremendous damage in perpetuating colonial oppression. Where it spreads, it breaks apart or perverts traditional social structures and--by its teachings of exclusivity and damnation to Hell--splits societies apart. The Rwandan genocide, as Hitchens pointed out, was at least in part caused by the Church.

And this has been the case throughout its entire history, going back to the destruction of temples and lynching of Pagans by angry Christian mobs from the moment it attained political power. Before then, the twisted passive-aggression of voluntary martyrs--a not insubstantial proportion of Christian martyrs--and aggressive, even militant rhetoric of its leaders made it clear how they might act if given power.

>> ^Enzoblue:
Lightweights against Hitchens, I guess the big boys couldn't be bought.


Hitchens himself is only a welterweight. He's a master of the bon mot and a wonderful rhetorician, but doesn't have the ordered, logical mind necessary to formulate and attack logical arguments. Remember, he only graduated university with a third class degree--putting him well below what would be required for a post-graduate education.

Fry, on the other hand, has a formidable intellect. He certainly shows it here. While Hitchens' opening was a bit chaotic and logically disjointed, Fry's was well structured and buttressed even against the bad arguments his opponents might bring up.

If the deaths for Mary Fallin's district seems high, that's because her district is one of the most densely populated areas in the state, and includes a high number of retirement communities.

I live in her district, actually, though I did not vote for her. She's running for governor of Oklahoma right now. I still won't vote for her; my vote is probably going to Drew Edmondson, if he makes it through the primaries.

>> ^Nithern:
Fake. A golf ball might be able to slice with enough wind. To do the same, with a basketball would require a category 5 hurricane. But, they did it once. They can do it again, right?


You clearly wasted your childhood not playing baseketball.

A basketball hit with a baseball bat will do that kind of thing almost every time. The real trick is getting it to go straight.

The lower mass to volume ratio and increased drag with increased volume make it much easier to put a high spin on the ball, and easier for the ball to slice or hook.

Also, it's not wind that's primarily responsible for slicing or hooking in golf. Even (especially?) a bad golfer will learn this on a day with calm winds.