Being a "realist"
Most scientific materialists pride themselves on their "realism," their tough-minded rejection of "religious fantasy."
These are the same people who continually entertain completely fantastic, utterly ridiculous rubbish like "the universe might be a simulation," "one day we can upload our brains into a computer," or "every time we make a choice, the universe branches into multiple copies." These "ideas" are literally as dumb as thinking "my house is supported by millions of tooth fairies."
And as a bonus, here is Ed Feser on this sort of nonsense.
These are the same people who continually entertain completely fantastic, utterly ridiculous rubbish like "the universe might be a simulation," "one day we can upload our brains into a computer," or "every time we make a choice, the universe branches into multiple copies." These "ideas" are literally as dumb as thinking "my house is supported by millions of tooth fairies."
And as a bonus, here is Ed Feser on this sort of nonsense.
As far as I can see Feser just defines "computer" in such a way that the brain cannot possibly be one, and then claims victory !
ReplyDeleteNothing in his article had anything to do with the universe being a simulation, uploading our brains into a computer, multiverses, or tooth fairies supporting Gene's house. But I suppose anyone stupid enough to believe that the brain might actually be a kind of computer might fall prey to all or any of these ridiculous ideas.
As far as I can see, rob is incapable of reading any material above third-grade level.
Delete" But I suppose anyone stupid enough to believe that the brain might actually be a kind of computer might fall prey to all or any of these ridiculous ideas."
DeleteYes, anyone stupid enough to believe that might fall prey to these other idiocies as well.
No rob, Feser defined computer based on EXAMINING THE ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF THINGS COMMONLY CALLED COMPUTERS. Then he noticed that brains have NONE of those features.
DeleteDo you realize that there is absolutely no other way to determine "Is X a type of Y?" than having a good definition of Y, and seeing if X fits it?!
'Do you realize that there is absolutely no other way to determine "Is X a type of Y?" than having a good definition of Y, and seeing if X fits it?!'
DeleteYes, that is why I am challenging Feser's definition - it is a bad definition . You can 'win' any argument by redefining things sufficiently.
"Yes, that is why I am challenging Feser's definition - it is a bad definition "
DeleteNow you're lying rob: you weren't challenging his definition in your first comment, you were mocking him for trying to decide the question by using a definition. It was only after I pointed out that there is no other way to decide such matters that you shifted gears and complained about the definition he was using. And no coherent complaints at that.