tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38436816.post44197017497261152..comments2024-01-21T14:29:38.613-08:00Comments on Dangerous Idea 2: A Bayesian AFRVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38436816.post-10385841024689081522009-06-14T11:50:27.459-07:002009-06-14T11:50:27.459-07:00@Robert Becker - The Church has always maintained ...@Robert Becker - The Church has always maintained that soul and body are inseparable, and in fact has put down as heresy any assertions to the contrary.<br /><br />I always find it remarkable when people insinuate that mind-body independence is an innovation of the only organization that has held the banner of bodily resurrection for 2,000 years. The philosophy of mind-body split predated Descartes by a long shot, going back at least to the Greeks.JSAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00681934865643964687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38436816.post-59686781376617202412009-04-04T21:39:00.000-07:002009-04-04T21:39:00.000-07:00This seems to be an argument for panpsychism, not ...This seems to be an argument for panpsychism, not theism.Blue Devil Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12045468316613818510noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38436816.post-8717995241381850012009-03-29T18:38:00.000-07:002009-03-29T18:38:00.000-07:00Crucial here seems to me impossibility of comprehe...Crucial here seems to me impossibility of comprehension how Mind could emerge from Matter. A possible solution could be a meta-hysical, somewhat occamite, principle of simplicity. First, let's assume Matter as necessary condition for existence of Mind. Secondly, let's assume the Universe could be exhaustively described in a finite sentence (a sequence of terms ordered by a grammar). Now, the Universe we know actually contains a mental mode of being. I assume this to be isomorphically related to the material dimension (in a 1-to mirroring function), and then that the description sentence could be considerably reduced in size through semantical compression without loss of consequential information. Accepting a correspondence theory for Truth (like in Wittgenstein's Tractatus), this sentence could then be transposed to a new, material Universe, essentially congruent to the first one, though far simpler. By Simplicity Principle, this Universe will be the one likely to exist, not the first one. From this consideration I tentatively conclude a dual Mind-Matter Universe is simpler than an all Matter one. So, by something like an Ocham's Razor, Mind occurs, NOT due to material causes, but indeed do meta-physical preconditions. You might call these God. I will elaborate this idea on my blog Window Mirror.<BR/><BR/>Yours,<BR/>- Peter Ingestad, SwedenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38436816.post-42294730581675028292009-03-23T09:05:00.000-07:002009-03-23T09:05:00.000-07:00... all those debates over the nature of the divin...... all those debates over the nature of the divine ...<BR/><BR/>This is oddly(?) similar to Buddhist's debate between the Yogacara ("reality" is the creation of the mind), and Madhyamaka ("reality" has roughly the same validity as moon's reflexion on water).<BR/><BR/>After Descartes, it was thought that Mind and body are separate entities (I think, therefore, I am), while modern doctors (like old medicine men) would agree you'd have to take body and mind as a whole.<BR/><BR/>In recent times, until quantum physics, it was thought that matter was solid, while most of it is in fact empty.<BR/><BR/>So, if you cannot prove that your body actually exist (where are the atom-sized limits of 'you' ?), how could you even attempt to prove that you actually think independently ?<BR/><BR/>"I" write words, but those are inspired by "my" past readings, conversations, experiences, biology, genetics, physiology, ... in all these things, "I" ultimately find interaction with "others" (not even talking about the mystic side of the argument).<BR/><BR/>If history shows us ONE thing, it is that ideas regularly seem to spring uncoordinatedly at the same time in unrelated places of the Earth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38436816.post-6906602625336710922009-03-14T06:13:00.000-07:002009-03-14T06:13:00.000-07:00We have the Bayesian formula,Pr(F/E) = Pr(F).Pr(E/...We have the Bayesian formula,<BR/><BR/>Pr(F/E) = Pr(F).Pr(E/F)/Pr(E)<BR/><BR/>Suppose we concede that Pr(F) is .5 and try to determine whether E confirms F. The way it is set up E confirms F, just if Pr(E/F) > Pr(E/~F), since, as you (rightly) assume,<BR/><BR/>Pr(E) = <BR/>Pr(E/F).Pr(F) + Pr(E/~F).Pr(~F)<BR/><BR/>But, to my mind, the case has not been made for the claim it is more likely that minds should exist given a mind cause than given a non-mind cause. That is, the case has not been made for this unless you're assuming an (interactionist) dualist picture of the mind. But suppose the mind is epiphenomenal. Or suppose mental events just are physical events. I see no reason to believe that such things are any more likely on a mind cause than on natural cause.Mike Almeidahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12001511002085064198noreply@blogger.com