[MD] tiny skull... change... nothingness...

[Case]

Ham--
I was attempting to give you a pass by not addressing the content of what
you said. On occasion I have had a sneaking feeling that I might actually
agree with you on a point or two but since I do not speak Hamish I have been
unable to tell. 

For example I do agree with the statement:
"We can NOT KNOW the truth about ultimate reality."

But I stand by my statements regarding your technique of reasoning and if
you really, really want me to do so I will provide several examples from
your online term paper.

But for the present let's take a look at the name you dropped, Pascal and
your use of his famous Pascal's Wager. I think it further illustrates the
points I have made.

An summary of his life and works can be found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal

If you look there you will note that he is one of the fathers of modern
probability theory. He undertook a mathematical analysis of probability at
the urging a gambler friend who was interested in increasing his winnings.

So the man you are citing is one of the founders of probability theory which
you have rejected in the past as having nothing (no-thing, other than thing,
the negation of the essence of thingness) to do with the ultimate nature of
things. He was in fact the discoverer of logical techniques for approaching
the unknown (quantifying uncertainty).

Pascal's triangle for example is a fairly simple yet astonishing
mathematical object which presages fractal geometry.

Pascal's wager, the concept you seem to take a face value, was never
presented as a proof of God's existence. It was suggested merely as a way of
convincing some agnostics to consider the question. The problem itself is an
exercise in decision theory. In this case the uncertainty of God's existence
is weighed against the probable consequence of competing choices of belief.


As an example of decision theory it works very well but as Pascal knew it is
a lousy proof of God's existence.

The reason it is a lousy proof for the existence of God (which, to review,
it was not intended to be) is that is sets up a FALSE DICHOTOMY. This is a
logical error anyone who has read any of your stuff will find familiar.

I quote from: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

"Pascal's Wager suffers from the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy,
relying on the assumption that the only possibilities are:

the Christian God exists and punishes or rewards as stated in Christian
theology, or
 
God does not exist. 

The wager does not account for the possibility that there is a God (or gods)
who, rather than behaving as stated in certain parts of the Bible, instead
rewards skepticism and punishes blind faith, or rewards honest reasoning and
punishes feigned faith, or does not punish belief or disbelief at all."

I phrased this a bit differently earlier as point 3 below but as I said I
was only concerned with your general technique and not at all with your
substance or lack there of:

1. Your premise is drawn from thin air.
2. Your conclusion is unrelated to the premise.
3. The dichotomy you construct has little to do with the conclusion or the
premise.
4. You drop a name to lend some needed weight.
5. Mix and stir.

Ham said earlier:
Again, for your edification, my on-line thesis is not now, nor was it ever,
a "term paper".  I can only assume that your repeated reference to it as
such is an attempt to degrade it.  Despite the allegation that I've resorted
to some fallacious "technique" in developing these thoughts, you haven't
successfully demonstrated it to me.  All it has proved is that you're still
"full of it".

Case responds:
I did not mean to suggest that you ever actually turned in your term paper
it is clear that it has never undergone academic scrutiny. Your do however
use the term "thesis". Some would recognize that you are using the first
dictionary definition of this term:

1. a proposition stated or put forward for consideration,

Or perhaps the second:

2. a subject for a composition or essay.  

But there may be others misled into thinking you are using the third
definition:

3. a dissertation on a particular subject in which one has done original
research, as one presented by a candidate for a diploma or degree.  

Which it clearly is not. Give your penchant for making up terms and
definitions I am just trying to help clear the air.

Case









Case --


> Ok, Ham, lets focus on what you say here.
> It is a beautiful illustration of how you apply reason.
>
> You state:
> 
>
> You conclude:
> "Therefore, we have a choice."
>
> How does this conclusion follow from the statement?
> What in the statement even asks for a conclusion?

For your information, these statements were an attempt to answer Marsha's
question concerning whether the "interconnection" of everything and that
fact that "everything changes" are absolutes.  SA's response also implied at
least one question on this topic: How do we know?

My answer is that we can not know; we can only choose a belief.  One either
believes in something beyond existence or not.  Ultimately the choice comes
down to believing in a transcendent source (which is religion, mysticism,
spiritualism, pantheism, or supernaturalism) or beliving in nothing(ness)
which is nihilism.

> Now based on a conclusion that unconnected
> to your premise you go on:
>
> "We can either believe that ultimate reality is
> Nothingness -- which is to deny an ultimate reality,
> or we can believe that it is Absolute -- which is to
> believe in a primary source (i.e., Oneness, Essence,
> Being, or God)."
>
> You construct a dichotomy out of thin air asserting
> them to be the only possible choices. ...

Existence is indeed a dichotomy, but I haven't "constructed" it here.

> Next you drop a name.
>
> "In the theistic language of Pascal"
>
> Then you imply expertise in the works of the dropped name:

I don't think quoting Pascal's wager implies any particular "expertise"; but
it does set forth an intellectual choice between belief in a primary source
and nihilism.

> So to review:
> 1. Your premise is drawn from thin air.

So are most hypotheses.  Except that anyone with intellectual discernment
would refer to what you call "thin air" as intuive reasoning.

> 2. Your conclusion is unrelated to the premise.

If by my "conclusion" you mean the statement that "man is the measure of all
things", I beg to disagree.  Value is defines what is meaningful and
significant in life.  Accordingly, what one believes may be the most
significant value in existence.  Man is the measure of this value, as well
as everything he experiences.

> 3. The dichotomy you construct has little to do
> with the conclusion or the premise.

What dichotomy?  Do you consider belief or non-belief a dichotomy?

> 4. You drop a name to lend some needed weight.

I used Pascal's wager as an illustration of man's ultimate choice.  I
assumed it was vaguely familiar to most people here, and thus an appropriate
analogy for the point I was making.

> 5. Mix and stir.
>
> This same pattern is repeated many times in your
> online term paper. I frankly admit that I quit reading
> both it and your posts after the third time you insist
> on this technique.
> I chose this simplified example because at least it
> spared us all a review of how you define terms.

Again, for your edification, my on-line thesis is not now, nor was it ever,
a "term paper".  I can only assume that your repeated reference to it as
such is an attempt to degrade it.  Despite the allegation that I've resorted
to some fallacious "technique" in developing these thoughts, you haven't
successfully demonstrated it to me.  All it has proved is that you're still
"full of it".

Cheers,
Ham


moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/