Re: Where the **** was Paul?
Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 11:33 pm
The Turing test really works on two levels. On one level it is highly controlled in setting up its initial conditions, but then it relies on human intuition to decide what is personal but because of the conditions it creates it entangles that intuition with elements of inference. The results are a bit mixed in that there are AI programs that can pass the test but there are human beings that fail it. I think it is approaching this from wrong end. There is an aspect of interpersonal relationships that is non-verbal and non-inferential, a place where self meets self. Martin Buber distinguishes this from these relations based on the partial perceptions of, among other things, logical inference, which he calls I-It relations, and calls this type of encounter an I-thou relationship. In this type of relationship we encounter the other and are transformed, we do not infer the other for to infer is to remain outside the other. Where we encounter God we are not inferring him from an experience but encountering him in that experience.captain howdy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:42 pmBut notice—-in the case of the Turing test, you at least have written communication to go by, but you describe a God encounter as not even having that to go by—it’s just some kind of sense you get of being in the presence of an intelligent being like you’re in a seance of sorts. So this puts you in a similar position to the character in the novel, only when faced with the question of am I in contact with a machine or a man you answer “3. A supernatural agent”. I do thank both you and Og3 (and the other believers too) for trying to give me a sense of what such an experience is like the but the logic of it all escapes me. If it’s difficult enough under controlled conditions to be sure of just what or who you’re in remote contact with then you must be able to see how much more uncertainty is introduced by changing starting conditions from “controlled” (Turing test) to uncontrolled and then adding a whole new element of reality as of yet unconfirmed—the supernatural—into things. Your uncertainty about the nature of who you are in contact with goes way up, I would think. IOW, I would think the same underlying uncertainty at work in the ex. of a Turing test would be amplified enormously in your case (not even written communication to go by).
Like a lot of arguments about what God could or should do, this one assumes that things could be exactly the same even if they were completely different. Omnipotence and omniscience are tricky concepts but most theologians seem to agree that they mean God can do or know anything that it is possible to do or know. There may be a sense in which, out of any relationship with creation, absolutely anything is open to God, but the act of creation itself must limit possibilities. Imagine God is going to create a world and he creates just one thing about that world, the thing he creates is the law of non-contradiction. As soon as that law is there, then certain possibilities are excluded. Now God cannot create something that both is and is not the case because that is excluded by the law he has just created. And as God goes on creating things more and more possibilities must be excluded. Now a human mind is a complex system and I simply do not see how the kind of switch you imagine could be incorporated into that system without radically changing the nature of that system. This would seem to me to be a possibility excluded by what has already been created.Such trifles are of little concern to the omnipotent/omniscient. When one of the agents in the relationship has those attributes it throws a spanner into things. People need a switch such as you describe? No problem; he already installed it standard equipment, all humans would have it already. Etc.Moonwood the Hare wrote: I would think there would have to be some corresponding switch in the human mind and belief and disbelief does not seem to work in that kind of binary way.
Because the onus is more with God does not seem to me to imply that God is the only factor involved. From the human side there could be barriers of various kinds. If as Buber implies every encounter with God is also an encounter with the self this implies that there can be resistance not only at an intentional level but also in the Freudian sense; at several levels people may not want or be able to undertake that encounter with self. An encounter with God may facilitate a shattering of the ego, or an alienation from treasured feelings - called the Dark Night of the Soul. Hence the tradition tells us these things may not happen until we are ready for them. In the Eastern Church hell is seen as being in God's presence when one is not adapted to that.But this has implications. Ugly implications. If Christian doctrine re: hell is true, and if the escape from this involves interaction with an omnipotent being that knows how to contact us but frequently doesn’t seem to then something is seriously seriously wrong with this picture.Moonwood the Hare wrote: Yes I would think that too and had not meant to suggest otherwise.
Yes but in this case the apparent contradiction stems in part from an accident of the English language where justice and righteousness are seen as different things and righteousness can include mercy where justice can't. in scripture righteousness does not include the idea of having to punish or withhold mercy. So for example we are told that when Joseph found Mary to be pregnant he decided to divorce her quietly rather than punishing her, and it says he did this because he was just.This is not to say however we cannot rule out certain depictions of God by dint of reason. Ex: Some believers depict God as being both perfectly just and omnibenevolent but these seem mutually contradictory at least if the idea of benevolence includes forgiveness for wrongdoing while “perfectly just” requires punishment for wrongdoing.Moonwood the Hare wrote: I think we are in agreement then. The claim God exists is one we can reason about but not one that can be decided by reason.
They are not all real in anything remotely like the same way. All you have done is replace one indefinite term 'exist' with another 'real'.All of the examples you gave have the common thread of existence—
IOW All of the examples you presented have one thing in common: They're all real.exist
1Have objective reality or being.
‘dossiers existed on almost everyone of prominence’
‘there existed no organization to cope with espionage.’
1.1 Occur or be found, especially in a particular place or situation.
‘two conflicting stereotypes of housework exist in popular thinking’
You are still not recognizing that judgements about what is or is not extraordinary derive from specific social contexts. Here you talk of what 'we' think about reality. But this 'we' would have to be a particular group of people in a particular context. A statement can be regarded as extraordinary by a particular group if it contradicts that group's knowledge base. This means as I said that the extraordinaryness is a property of the reaction to the claim not the claim itself.The aphorism Carl Sagan popularized is admittedly imprecise. When I use the term 'extraordinary claim' I mean that for it to be true would mean that much of what we think we know about reality is not true. Your example of the dinosaur in the driveway would upend a great deal of what we thought we knew about paleontology so it is an extraordinary claim. A leprechaun in the driveway instead would be even more extraordinary due to its introduction of the idea that reality hides a layer we could call the supernatural where magical rules override the known laws of nature and beings unseen by us reside and drunkenly screw with us.
I think you are misunderstanding the idiom being used here. In Biblical symbolism, as often in English usage, see in this kind of context means understand or perceive. It is talking about knowing by experience.You and I are drawing two different conclusions from the lack of available evidence supporting the existence of God. You say the lack of evidence means that the claim God exists is not an empirical claim. However your own scripture disagrees with this--
I Conclude that the lack of evidence means that the existence of God is an empirical claim but it is an empirical claim that has failed. You conclude that the lack of available evidence indicates the claim is not empirical. How do you tell the difference?Romans 1:20--
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse
You seem to have misunderstood me. I was not suggesting that Christianity was more consistent with a skeptical outlook than naturalism but that a personalist approach to epistemology is more consistent with a skeptical outlook than a rationalist approach. If rationalism were true, and correct reasoning lead to truth regardless of personal factors, then these figures would be very different. There would be something close to 100% agreement on metaphilosophy among those trained in the correct use of reason.Hmmm. Look at these numbers, Moon. I'm sure you're aware of the 2013 PhilPapers survey of contemporary philosophers.--Moonwood the Hare wrote: No. I suggested doing it because it is more consistent with a skeptical outlook. Rationalistic modernism was being questioned almost as soon as its basic outlines were being formulated and there is now a vast body of criticism of this approach. Some of its fiercest critics, such as Wittgenstein or Feyerabend have been atheists and many of its early advocates such as Descartes were Christians.
Atheism >70% among contemporary philosophers, philosophical naturalism ~50%. My views at least on those two questions seems to be aligned with those of a large chunk of the philosophers surveyed.God: atheism 72.8%; theism 14.6%; other 12.6%
Metaphilosophy: naturalism 49.8%; non-naturalism 25.9%; other 24.3%
Quite possibly.Interesting exchange. I note with some interest that our thinking seems to run along parallel lines in places.