Alex Strait

Enlightenment stands in tyranny's way.

Yeah I'm concerned. I wish we could agree, but I'm ok if that doesn't happen. At the end of the day I think we can all get along, but I do think that your stance will statistically decrease the chance you'll respect those who you think are just spellbound by a delusion. But I have to ask since both of us have said goodnight does that mean one of us is dreaming right now? Whose dream is it yours or mine and how could we tell?

@AlexTheStrait You’re really concerned about this

I get that, but couldn't it better be explained by that we see patterns and then fit them into our broader understanding of our reality? The faces in the clouds and monsters under the bed are only real to us if they make sense in the context of our broader beliefs. The pareidolia gets explained by randomness sometimes aligning to create an illusion the monster as a paranoia, but the experience of ultimate meaning persists across time and space even today. How does that not put that experience in a different category altogether? Why not see that pattern matching as based on something actually substantial? What makes you so confident as to conflate them all? Have a good night 🙂

@ArchTheAtheist I'm sorry, but you have not. You gave your theory but pretty much no clarification. You gave two examples of transient beliefs (face in the clouds and monsters under the bed) and then claimed they are like belief in God which is not transient at all. Quite the opposite, actually.

@AlexTheStrait I’ve already clarified this

@AlexTheStrait I thought I’d been pretty clear so this is the last time We see patterns and assume agency behind them, because we’ve evolved to do so to avoid predators and find food This has the side effect of shapes in clouds, monsters under the bed, and gods Goodnight

Why is it that theists feel a need to have some sort of ultimate purpose?

@ArchTheAtheist Sry, not trying to be pedantic I'm genuinely confused on why you choose to frame humanity's pattern of seeing ultimate purpose as a psychological "need" over an experience they cannot help but observe and express. It's like you are embedding the bias into your framing, why?

@AlexTheStrait It kinda feels like this conversation is getting meaningless fast

@ArchTheAtheist You've seen a pattern of people having this "need", and you say the persistence and transmission is "cultural", which is more patterns, right? Why can't those just be your faces in the clouds? How did you rule that out?

@AlexTheStrait With respect I think it’s very similar which I’ll explain but spanning across time is rather irrelevant here. How and why it’s transmitted is a cultural topic largely but why I made the cloud comparison is we are evolved to see patterns and assume agency

With respect, it's not even close to seeing faces in the clouds (pareidolia). This is a persistent observation the spans across time and culture with potent staying power. Generalized pattern matching says nothing about how and why it's adopted and continued to be transmitted and independently corroborated. You can say "people feel a need" and call it a coping mechanism, but the problem with that is that your belief that it *is* some kind of need could *also* be a need you have to frame it that way. How do you rule that out? Alternatively, you can call it an actual observation instead of a perception. That's why it independently emerges because it's something we notice not something we internally feel the need to find an expression for.

@AlexTheStrait We absolutely have evolved pattern seeking skills I often say it’s the same reason we see shapes in clouds But that doesn’t mean there’s a shape there, and when it comes to gods and sense of purpose, we should be smarter than our most base instincts

@darwintojesus What about this?

Weird because God actually tells me I’m supposed to love the people I naturally want to hate.

@LyingWrongAgain He was just too high strung.

“It appears the learning … was moah than he could beah”

@vivoplt Then I move to the power drill over the screwdriver full time. One thing that AI can't do is take legal responsibility for the code. We're always going to need someone to man the intelligence even if it surpasses us. That said, it's a long ways from being able to intuit like us.

Software Engineers, what’s your plan B if Artificial Intelligence writes better code than you in next 6 months?

@MobiusDick @TJadlow @darwintojesus I'm pretty sure that's what he claimed, yes. Why do you ask?

@AlexTheStrait @TJadlow @darwintojesus @AlexTheStrait , did Jesus die for our sins?

Sympathy is a trait, an ability, and evolution determines if you get it or not. It has nothing to do with being moral on your view. Judging a person that doesn’t have sympathy, on atheism, is like judging a person for being mentally handicapped. At most it’s a genetic disorder, and if anything YOU should have sympathy for them (because they’re disabled). Think about it.

@MobiusDick @TJadlow @darwintojesus Groups don't inherently survive better than individuals it depends on the environment. If the environment supports individuals they will thrive and the groups will get selected out. Appealing to evolution is just tautological and explains literally nothing. It's just description.

@AlexTheStrait @TJadlow @darwintojesus Because groups are able to survive better than single individuals. If we look at the world and truly understand EVOLUTION completely, we realize that everything is as it is supposed to be right now.

@MobiusDick @TJadlow @darwintojesus Why does evolution select for groups over individuals? What about the structure of reality causes that? If we were solitary creatures you might say "evolution selects for solitude because groups are harder to manage" so it's just an incomplete explanation for our reality.

Evolution has selected for sympathy and empathy bc we survive better in. groups. It’s as simple as that. The group dynamics started to appear long before we were primates with the first animals to understand they survived better as a group, than as an individual. Even watching politics is still watching evolution in action.

@hookskat No, I don't think contention is related to prosperity, but a lack of security both real or perceived.

Does prosperity breed contention?

@theerealtao Capital-G doesn't fit Zeus. He's not the Source he's a descendant of it. Even Zeus admits as much.

The God I serve: Zeus. Prove to me he doesn't exist.

Parsimony is just a method and methods don't count as evidence. If you apply it to any agent with intention you can always say that intention is not present and appeal to the simplest explanation. Why not just say everyone you meet is a philosophical zombie? That's simpler than ascribing intention is it not?

@AlexTheStrait @kepilar77 @LyingWrongAgain @darwintojesus "Intention" is unfalsifiable. And an infinite number of agents can be asserted as having intentionality towards any specific natural act we see. Is that where you want to head? Forget the principle of parsimony?

@darwintojesus suggested I write about The Fine Tuning Argument ⚙️ I think what I wrote ended up being pretty devastating for The Fine Tuning Argument 💥 Is it? Link below 🔗👇

Explanatory success isn't evidence of sufficient explanation it's evidence of *some* explanation. The leap is that it's *sufficient* explanation. I've given you two examples of the blind spot, but you are ignoring them. As you're not engaging with the substance I will bow out. Wish you well.

@AlexTheStrait @LyingWrongAgain @darwintojesus Because it’s not just an assertion, it’s based on explanatory success. Non-intentional explanations already work. You’re still burden shifting - you said there are blind spots, but havnt identified one yet - or explained how intent actually improves the explanation.

@kepilar77 @LyingWrongAgain @darwintojesus My critique is not that you're ruling out intent, but ruling it out as *necessary* and I've given examples of how your method has glaring blind spots with respect to intent. "Intent isn't necessary" is an assertion and it's baked into everything you've been saying.

@AlexTheStrait @LyingWrongAgain @darwintojesus I’m not claiming prediction rules out intent, science does do that either. I’m saying prediction success doesn’t require us to assume intent. You keep trying to turn that into a claim that isn’t being made. Which is a little odd.

@kepilar77 @LyingWrongAgain @HellHound61X49 @darwintojesus You keep acting like I'm trying to prove anything which is a red herring at best. Your explanation that "accounts for the phenomenon" begs the question as it just assumes that sufficient account has somehow been reached. You can't do that simply by appealing to/describing nature.

@AlexTheStrait @LyingWrongAgain @HellHound61X49 @darwintojesus It doesn’t - that’s the point. If non-intentional explanations already account for the phenomenon, then adding intention is an extra assumption. You need to show it’s necessary - which you still havnt offered.

In other words you're asserting that consistent successful prediction is enough to rule out intent as necessary which doesn't follow. You can consistently and successfully predict that a person will avoid being burnt. Does that mean that that that success is sufficient explanation? That method has a glaring blind spot and will miss the intent that is actually there to discover.

@AlexTheStrait @LyingWrongAgain @darwintojesus In science a ‘sufficient explanation’ in science means itexplains the phenomenon predictively, consistently, and without gaps that require new entities. Not: “we’ve proven no other kind of cause exists. There’s no leap - you also still havnt offered up a need for intention.