Feb 12 20:21
@RayButterworth And consistently spoiling all visual recordings of the event for years would in itself be a miracle, but no one is claiming that This is a good point, but Travis Dumsday actually does mention that there were many cases of photographs not showing anything, even though the witnesses did see apparitions with their eyes. I don't remember which interview and which timestamp, but Travis did address that point.
Feb 12 20:21
@RayButterworth "In fact, if the event in Egypt was a hoax, I'd expect there to be convincing photographs that expose the hoax" - Not if the hoax is performed by aliens or by the CIA with advanced secret technology. Anyways, the identification problem is indeed a problem, but the arguments given for this being the Virgin Mary are that (1) it cannot be demonic given the healings, the conversions of Muslims to Christianity, etc.; (2) Zeitoun is supposedly near one of the locations where the Holy Family stayed during their flight into Egypt; (3) it happened in a Coptic Church devoted to Mary.
Feb 12 20:21
@RayButterworth What evidence is there that the apparitions of Jesus after his alleged resurrection were not a hoax performed by an alien civilization with advanced technology?
Feb 12 20:21
@RayButterworth Right, and the same explanation can be equally applied here: it was not part of God's plan that high quality camera recordings of the apparitions were produced. Thus, you are left with testimonies and not-as-great-as-one-would-like photographs. But if this is strong reason to dismiss the apparitions, then it should be an even stronger reason to dismiss the resurrection, and so this epistemology ends up backfiring. Of course, an atheist would be happy with that.
Feb 12 20:21
@RayButterworth If God is omnipotent, explain why he hasn't performed an undeniable miracle on camera. Explain why God didn't miraculously broadcast the resurrection of Jesus worldwide and throughout all history. I can play the same atheist/skeptic card.
Feb 12 20:21
@RayButterworth If this firsthand eyewitness account doesn't do it for you, probably nothing will: youtu.be/GC1Bm_MVaCI?t=214. What he describes doesn't match with "green men" nor mere "strange lights".
Feb 12 20:21
@RayButterworth The first question requires images (photographs) to be answered, so it cannot be answered in a few words (unless you figure out a way to make an image fit into few words). The second question, answered in a few words, would be that you can abductively argue that this being Mary makes more sense (if you ask "why?", that would require more words).
Feb 12 20:21
@RayButterworth Why it makes for sense that this was Mary rather than demonic: youtu.be/A0YRTRezSeM?t=2498
Feb 12 20:21
@RayButterworth More on photographs: youtu.be/A0YRTRezSeM?t=978
 
Jan 5 06:25
@NotThatGuy I guess you could suspect the presence of something like strong emergence if we manage to reach an extremely accurate understanding of low-level physics, then we simulate a physical system with enough computing power and simulation accuracy, and the results of the simulation turn out to be widely divergent compared to the real phenomenon, indicating that the real phenomenon must be influenced by "someting else" which cannot be reasonably attribituted to the low-level physics. The nature of that "something else" would be a mystery though (paranormal? supernatural? strong emergence?)
 
Jan 2 09:54
@Philomath The term "reducibility in principle" comes directly from SEP: plato.stanford.edu/entries/chemistry/#CheRed
Jan 2 09:54
@Philomath I'm NOT talking about practical/pragmatic reduction, I'm talking about “reducibility in principle” (look up that expression here: plato.stanford.edu/entries/chemistry/#CheRed). Causative explains very well here: philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/120848/80226
Jan 2 09:54
@Philomath "What you are referring to is epistemic reduction" - Please read this answer by causative. What I mean is reduction in principle, which is the first sense mentioned by his answer.
Jan 2 09:54
@keshlam Baking a cake is ultimately reducible to particles being rearranged over time, and a TOE could very well make sense of that. My problem is with consciousness, because I don't see how particles rearranged over time can produce that.
Jan 2 09:54
@keshlam From Wikipedia: "A theory of everything (TOE), final theory, ultimate theory, unified field theory, or master theory is a singular, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all aspects of the universe." How am I possibly misunderstanding the scope of the word "everything"? Isn't consciousness an aspect of the universe?
Jan 2 09:54
@keshlam But then the objection I raised applies: if a TOC is describing particles and their evolution over time, you only get new arrangements of particles, so how could that possibly give rise to conciousness? It's not the in the equations. The equations predict particles moving around, not consciousness.
Jan 2 09:54
"I think reduction in principle works" - But your whole answer seems to be arguing against reductionism in all cases, and my question explicitly mentions the in practice vs. in principle distinction, which you completely ignored, which can be interpreted as both being false for you. If that's not the case, please edit your answer. Now, if you do agree with reduction in principle, then it must follow that you agree that consciousness is reducible in principle to a TOC. Or is your position that consciousness cannot be reduced to a TOC, not even in principle?
Jan 2 09:54
In short, this answer can be summarized as (1) reductive physicalism is false, (2) reduction in practice is false, (3) reduction in principle is also false, (4) TOCs cannot explain consciousness (ignoring the rant about LLMs). Is this a fair summary?
 
Dec 28, 2024 15:03
@JonathanZ "what if not even object permanence?" - Strawman. I didn't ask that.
Dec 28, 2024 15:03
@JD If consciousness is an illusion, there is no consciousness. My question is not asking whether consciousness is an illusion, but whether the "self" is an illusion. There could be consciousness and the self might still be an illusion. I'd be happy to grant the duplicate charge if you can prove that the self exists if and only if consciousness exists.
 
Dec 26, 2024 21:42
@JonathanZ Maybe. But then you would also need to concede that people just kind of know that they have free will, etc. It can get controversial pretty fast.
Dec 26, 2024 21:42
@Syed If consciousness is not important, why did you ask What is the I in "I think therefore I am"??
Dec 26, 2024 21:42
@keshlam Continuity of what?
Dec 26, 2024 21:42
@Syed Post an answer ;)
Dec 26, 2024 21:42
@keshlam "I don't think identity is the right measure. Continuity may be." - Why?
Dec 26, 2024 21:42
@mudskipper Good point. Edited.
Dec 26, 2024 21:42
@mudskipper I don't know. That's why I'm asking the question in the first place. I find it a fascinating and puzzling mystery.
Dec 26, 2024 21:42
@mudskipper About the house example, technically many atoms change every day, so if you define "my house at time t1" as the set of atoms arranged in a particular way at t1, then no, it would not be the same house.
Dec 26, 2024 21:42
@mudskipper I'm using "ontologically" to mean different entities. Because if we both buy the "same" video game, it's not the "same" ontologically because we would actually have different copies of the original video game, but they are different ontologically nonetheless. I want to avoid that confusion. If you know a better way of avoiding that sort of confusion, I'm all ears.
Dec 26, 2024 21:42
@mudskipper Are two electrons the same? One could say that they are essentialy the same kind of fundamental particle, but at the same time electron X and electron Y are two different entities that exist, and one could track electron X through spacetime and electron Y through spacetime. They are different entities (ontologically distinct), even though they are essentially the same kind of thing.
Dec 26, 2024 21:42
To the close voter: I'm asking a single question. I just listed examples of other questions that are subsumed under my single question, but I'm only asking that single general question. It's like asking a single general question about dogs and showing how many specific questions asked about specific breeds of dogs are subsumed under a single general question about dogs.
 
Dec 25, 2024 01:37
@IdiosyncraticSoul Edited.
Dec 25, 2024 01:37
Correction: you believe that there are other people apart from yourself (based on your subjective experience of your memories) who claim to see their hands. You also believe to see directly two hands based on the subjective experience of visual qualia interpreted as seeing two hands. That's all consistent with metaphysical solipsism. And by the same token, people claim to see/experience ghosts, angels, God, etc., so they have trivially a probability of 1 as well?
Dec 25, 2024 01:37
@Syed By the same logic, only having one hand is more probable than having two hands. Or your mind is more probable than your mind + an external world.
 
Dec 24, 2024 09:42
 
Dec 20, 2024 13:13
@mudskipper See the last edit.
Dec 20, 2024 13:13
@ProfessorSushing Question edited.
Dec 20, 2024 13:13
@keshlam Question edited.
Dec 20, 2024 13:13
@ProfessorSushing Right. Likewise, my question is not opinion-based, even though it is asking something about opinions.
Dec 20, 2024 13:13
@ProfessorSushing Put another way: are statistics opinions? In particular, are statistics about opinions opinions? Consider the polls conducted prior to presidential elections to estimate the distribution of opinions in a population. Are the results of these polls opinions?
 
Dec 20, 2024 13:13
@mudskipper I think you are confusing probing a view with promoting the rejection of a view. If a view is solid, it will stand up to scrutiny. However, if a view is considered sacred and orthodox, some people might knee-jerkly react to its probing as a blasphemous act (how dare you challenge my view!). I'm just probing views.
Dec 20, 2024 13:13
@mudskipper I'm curious. What philosophy am I supposedly pushing through this specific question?
Dec 20, 2024 13:13
@keshlam Good point. Strictly speaking, I mean the ultimate foundation of reality, which according to physicalism is physical. But at the same time, there is the epistemological component of our knowledge, which we categorize into mathematical, logical, physical, etc., in which case what's relevant is physics as the scientific discipline.
Dec 20, 2024 13:13
@Barmar The thing is, if physicalism is true, then you need to place mathematics somewhere in physical reality. You cannot place mathematics in a Platonic realm, because the Platonic realm doesn't exist under physicalism. You cannot place mathematics in the mind of God, because God doesn't exist under physicalism. The only option you have is something physical, namely, brain states or computer states or stuff like that.
Dec 20, 2024 13:13
@keshlam "Mathematics certainly does not reduce to physics" - You should read the answers to How does physicalism interpret mathematical theorems in physicalist terms?
Dec 20, 2024 13:13
@Barmar On the other hand, if physicalism is true, mathematics itself reduces to (or supervenes on) physics. So whatever we know about mathematics is a direct consequence of physics (under physicalism).
Dec 20, 2024 13:13
@tkruse Would you agree that your objection would equally apply to Is number π empirical or a priori? and, likewise, to many other questions on this site?
Dec 20, 2024 13:13
[Preemptive message] Looking forward to the constructive feedback accompanying the down votes/close votes in the comment section. Thanks.
 
Dec 19, 2024 07:50
@Syed I still don't understand. Sounds like you can simply withhold from betting at all and keep all your money. Actually that's optimal. Do you have a link to an article that explains your bet more clearly?