ansynth_skeptic's profile picture. PhD candidate, statistics/ML, measuring human cognition. Still waiting for MCMC to converge.

Focused on sciencing for now.

Analytic/synthetic skeptic

@ansynth_skeptic

PhD candidate, statistics/ML, measuring human cognition. Still waiting for MCMC to converge. Focused on sciencing for now.

ปักหมุด

Sophisticated™ theology:

ansynth_skeptic's tweet image. Sophisticated™ theology:

Analytic/synthetic skeptic รีโพสต์แล้ว

Muslim evolution critic Subboor Ahmad often quotes the philosopher of biology, Elliott Sober, to support his case. So I thought it would be fun to get Sober himself to review Subboor's bad arguments, and Sober does n to hold back youtube.com/watch?v=83oX2Q…

skydivephil's tweet card. Creationists debunked by his own source. Subboor Ahmad vs Elliott...

youtube.com

YouTube

Creationists debunked by his own source. Subboor Ahmad vs Elliott...


The claims that 1) Our best explanations of concrete facts are relational, 2) Intrinsic properties cannot be relationally explained, and 3) Phenomenal properties are intrinsic. Justify the rejection of pt. 3 at least as much as they create a hard problem of consciousness.


Arguments from design in a nutshell: "The method of ‘postulating’ what we want has many advantages; they are the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil." Bertrand Russell


Analytic/synthetic skeptic รีโพสต์แล้ว

It turns out that if you want to do Bayesian updating then you have to do the Bayesian updating

Forgive me, for I am about to Bayes. Lesson: Don't trust intuition, for even simple prior+likelihood scenarios defy it. Four examples below, each producing radically different posteriors. Can you guess what each does? Revealed in next tweet >>

rlmcelreath's tweet image. Forgive me, for I am about to Bayes. Lesson: Don't trust intuition, for even simple prior+likelihood scenarios defy it. Four examples below, each producing radically different posteriors. Can you guess what each does? Revealed in next tweet >>


🔥 new hiddenness argument: If human intelligence (INT) was divinely created, then INT would lead humans to recognize its Creator. (If A then B) For some, their INT led to disbelief in a Creator (see Oppy, Sobel, Mackie). (Not B) Thus, human INT was not divinely created.

Argument from Reason

RTB_KSamples's tweet image. Argument from Reason


If we cannot appeal to common sense, then why think that physical objects have a true intrinsic nature? Maybe it's all relational, or 'turtles all the way down'. In other words, what explanatory gains do we get from positing an intrinsic nature?

“Hence common sense leaves us completely in the dark as to the true intrinsic nature of physical objects, and if there were good reason to regard them as mental, we could not legitimately reject this opinion merely because it strikes us as strange.” #BertrandRussell #Panpsychism



Loading...

Something went wrong.


Something went wrong.