excreationist

Well what if I said I could count in my head with good timing, and tell you how long a minute or two minutes - or five minutes is, with an accuracy of say 5% or 10%? I guess it could also be done if someone was imagining the hands or numbers on a clock moving or changing every second... but personally my imagination would involve me imagining myself pronouncing the numbers.
Can you do a similar feat without using internal imagination? i.e. can you say, after about 2 minutes - "it's 2 minutes... now!" ?

rainbow walking

Hi again Theli,
And thank you for the welcome back. It's always my pleasure and I appreciate your contributions to this thread. Now...

I'm guessing that you don't believe that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence?


Well, as far as this exorcise goes that question is essentially irrelevent, since I'm not the one here with the burden of proof, nor am I trying to justify the theists belief that a literal god exists. I'm checking your standards of proof by challenging you to prove something you know exists right there "as close as it gets" to see if you can live up to your own standards. Most theists don't mind meeting this challenge head-on, of course, you don't have a prime directive to go out and evangelize the world into thinking the same way you do, so there's not as much riding on actually taking this proverbial bull by the horns in comparison with the theists motivation...but I had hoped to see some atheists take up the challenge and actually focus on it.


And that the theist makes a claim about the entire world, and not just something in his head.


Well, I don't think you're taking into consideration the universality of this methodology of thinking and reading with ones "internal voice". It seems to be just as, if not more of, a universal axiomatic claim than the existence of god. Whether the actual object, (the internal voice, god etc.), is believed to originate "in here" or "out there" is also irrelevent to this exorcise. The fact that the phenomenon does appear to be axiomatic in nature, man's nature, is all we're focusing on.


Wich would mean that the theist must also (beyond proving the voice in his head) show the connection between that and a yet onproven god.


And I agree with you in principle Theli, but remember, this isn't about proving the existence of a god but the existence of a phenomenon you, nor anyone else, can honestly deny exists. You, myself, and all other atheists, can honestly deny the existence of a god. There's no evidence of it. But I'm actually challenging us to prove something we all know to be true. Now, if we can't do that, on what basis do we deny the existence of a god...something we likewise, (or at least some of us), know to be false?

Isn't that the big difference, even if you believed his claim of hearing a voice that doesn't mean that you should believe it to be more than just a local (his head) phenomenan (hearing voices).

And I reiterate, the origination or location of the phenomenon is not in question here. We all know that our "inner voice" resides "in here". In here being within our own minds and brainstems. So the challenge assumes the location of that voice to be from within.


Someone saying that they hear a voice is not sufficient evidence to change your entire worldview on. Atleast I wouldn't.


And, again, I agree. This is not an exorcise designed to change anyone's worldview...just to stimulate our thinking processes to justify some of our defense mechanisms when responding to the claim of an existent god...or anything else we might have reason to doubt. If you can't prove something you know to be, not only true, but an experience shared by all, how are we to develop our logic to justify our claims about things we think are false?




Not really. If it is to do anything it may show the atheist to be irrational aswell. But no more than that, it doesn't increase the evidencial value of the theist's claim one bit.

Then you are satisfied with considering your skepticism about an existent god to be irrationally founded?



Are you saying that we should base our conclutions on Ad Hominem?


No, I'm saying that perhaps the ad hominem, if based entirely on empirical standards of proof, may be unjustified.

Noone in their right mind would argue that the theist's claims are wrong because the theist is "irrational".

Of course not, and neither am I. But, if you can't prove an empirically justified phenomenon you know to be true...you can't very well label a theist "irrational" just because he can't prove his claim, a claim which you believe to be false, by those same standards. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

rainbow walking

In any case, the other posts reminded me that I should point out I don't think the theist could use this example (if correct) as support either.

Depends on what they are trying to support.


Someone who says he doesn't think in words is only making a claim about himself, in particular his subjective experience.


Well, this is only true iff his subjective claim isn't a universally accepted experience. The fact that this particular phenomenon is so axiomatic makes it more than just a personal subjective claim. Everyone believes they think and read to themselves internally, with an inner voice. So they would say that their internal voice exists and that this claim is true. Now, I think you are making a sincere effort to prove it in a round about way. If I may, I suggest you take this bull by the horns and focus your efforts directly on the truth value of the claim. Prove your inner voice exists.


Someone who says God exists is making a claim about something external, outside of himself. I think the simple fact is we do demand a lot less evidence for claims about ourselves than claims about other, objective things.

Agreed, in principle, however, as I've said time and again, the originating location of this phenomenon is not the issue, nor is the existence of a god the issue here. The only issue, the challenge is, can you prove your inner voice exists? If you can, it will suffice as proof sufficient to all such claims of this phenomenon for everyone. If you can't...well...then someone has to take a serious look at the standards of proof and the logic supporting those standards. If logic has develped that demands all empirical truths be supported by evidence and we are aware of an empirical phenomenon for which these standards cannot suffice to establish the truth value of the phenomenon, then either we're all irrational or logic is lacking in this area.

rainbow walking

Hi excreationist,
I appreciate your direct focus on the challenge. You are, IMO, moving in the right direction with regard to this exercise( I did it! I spelled it correctly!).



Well what if I said I could count in my head with good timing, and tell you how long a minute or two minutes - or five minutes is, with an accuracy of say 5% or 10%?

An appeal to a mathematical proof? How would this prove to me that you are using an "inner voice" to do so? As you say below, this could be done entirely visual without reference to a voice.

I guess it could also be done if someone was imagining the hands or numbers on a clock moving or changing every second... but personally my imagination would involve me imagining myself pronouncing the numbers.

Exactly.


Can you do a similar feat without using internal imagination? i.e. can you say, after about 2 minutes - "it's 2 minutes... now!" ?


Sure, I could begin tapping my foot in time with the movement of a clock or metronome and come reasonably close after 120 taps.

excreationist

Thanks.

Well I don't think imagining the sounds of numbers is that much different from imagining their shapes... I mean both involve the use of imagination that is similar to our external experiences.

How do you know when it's been 120 taps? When you "sense" it's been 120 taps? I guess you could use visual imagination for counting... BTW, using your foot to tap is cheating. You're supposed to rely only on your internal thoughts for keeping the time.

Well let's say that a person has learnt to count to 100 or more by speaking but they have never learnt how to use written numbers... or how to count with their fingers. Would they be able to do that challenge? Would they be able somehow sense when it has been 2 minutes, or 5 minutes?

Or what if they were illiterate and you got them to memorize something... e.g. the Lord's prayer. (it's a long thing that would be known worldwide)... after they count accurately recite the long thing, you could say that they need to "think" (not speak or move their lips) of the first word when you hit a drum. Then on the second beat, they think of the second word, etc. Then when they reach the end, they need to say out loud "stop!" and then you stop hitting the drum. You could have other people there that have the Lord's prayer (or whatever) written out in front of them, and they can point to the words as the drum beats, and check to see if the person stops at the right time. So would an illiterate person be able to do that task? If so, what would be going through their head while they're doing it? They would only know of the spoken form of the words and not the written form...
Would they explicitly know in their thoughts what part of the thing (the Lord's Prayer, etc) they are up to? Or would they have no idea, then suddenly sense that it was time to say "stop!" ?

rainbow walking

Well let's say that a person has learnt to count to 100 or more by speaking but they have never learnt how to use written numbers... or how to count with their fingers. Would they be able to do that challenge? Would they be able somehow sense when it has been 2 minutes, or 5 minutes?

Or what if they were illiterate and you got them to memorize something... e.g. the Lord's prayer. (it's a long thing that would be known worldwide)... after they count accurately recite the long thing, you could say that they need to "think" (not speak or move their lips) of the first word when you hit a drum. Then on the second beat, they think of the second word, etc. Then when they reach the end, they need to say out loud "stop!" and then you stop hitting the drum. You could have other people there that have the Lord's prayer (or whatever) written out in front of them, and they can point to the words as the drum beats, and check to see if the person stops at the right time. So would an illiterate person be able to do that task? If so, what would be going through their head while they're doing it? They would only know of the spoken form of the words and not the written form...
Would they explicitly know in their thoughts what part of the thing (the Lord's Prayer, etc) they are up to? Or would they have no idea, then suddenly sense that it was time to say "stop!" ?

I see where you’re going with this. Devising experiments to show a correlation between correct answers and symbolic language problems as evidence that man’s thinking processes are generated by symbolic articulation. While very clever, I fear they only provide evidence that man’s thinking processes often lead to correct conclusions. Myself, and my three million comrades, are not questioning your intelligence. We’re not questioning your ability to arrive at correct answers. We are acutely aware that you can read and count. But our thinking processes do not utilize an “inner voice”. Never have. Never will. Neither do we believe that yours do. We are persuaded that you are either self deluded or making these claims to serve your own interests. We remain highly skeptical.

Theli

Rainbow Walking...

But, that's the difference. The "standards" are different depending on the claim. Very seldom can a certain "amount" of evidence (in this case the person saying so) merit the same probability in 2 seperate claims. And if they were to merit the same probability I would be wrong and inconsistent in my approach if I were to suddenly lower my standards.
They would remain the same, and I would admit that I cannot prove my point to you no more than you could prove yours to me.
But I wouldn't start believing your claim all of a sudden, unless I had heard the same voice that led you to your conclution.
To correctly prove a point to another person, that person must have the evidence available also.
Although in this example I could perhaps take your word for it regarding hearing the voice, but I would not accept your conclution.

Not really. If I were to accept your claim, then I would also have to accept your conclution. That the voice you hear is one of a god.
But the most reasonable thing for me to do is disregarding your conclution and base my own on the actual observations you made. This is ofcourse, if I were to trust you in your claim at all.
As I stated before, I cannot hear the voice you claim to hear.

That seems abit strange to me. You are asking me for my approach on such a claim, yet you tend to censor my response by calling it irrelavent.

On the same basis as you can deny me having a voice talking in my head. For you to make a positive claim, you must have the evidence available to you aswell. Lacking such, and not trusting the person making the claim I would say that "no" is the only reasonable answer. Ofcourse that can be false, the theist might be hearing voices and they might be the voice of god.
Because we can only define reality from our own observations (subjectively) anything lacking evidence, observations or probability must be said to not exist.

Are you talking about the origin of the voice?
Well, one of the origins is our head, if we want to trace it backwards and name even more origins then we would need some evidence to do so. As there is no absolute named source for it until we indeed discover it. We could ofcourse name the creation of the universe as one probable cause, but then the question arises when the voice became a "voice". And if it even could be classified as a voice.

TO be continued...

Theli

You missunderstood. The irrationality I was refering to was not that of holding the oponents claims to be false because it lacked evidence, but that of thinking you could prove your own claim by simply pointing out that you were hearing voices.

Perhaps if the person was completely insane and the nature of his claim was consistent with his mental desease. But, you never mentioned that.

That completely depends on his conclution, if he reads things into his observations that does not logically follow from them then I may call him irrational.

Thanks for an interesting topic, I hope you reply.

excreationist

rainbow walking:
Only three million comrades? Are you saying that the rest of the world's population have been indoctrinated into believing that they have a "voice" in their heads? I don't remember being brainwashed into my belief - or rather *actual experience*.

Anyway, in my last post I talked about an experiment involving an illiterate person, a drum and the Lord's Prayer.

Here are my questions - which you forgot to answer...
Would an illiterate person be able to do that task? If so, what would be going through their head while they're doing it? They would only know of the spoken form of the words and not the written form...
Would they explicitly know in their thoughts what part of the thing (the Lord's Prayer, etc) they are up to? Or would they have no idea, then suddenly sense that it was time to say "stop!" ?

Vorkosigan

And I re-iterate, I am not asking you to prove that you are thinking, nor am I asking you to prove that the thoughts you are thinking are your thoughts. I am asking you to prove that the verbalization method by which you form and concieve those thoughts is real and if so can you prove it. You concieve and percieve your thoughts verbally.

RW, the processes by which a human verbalizes are real to the extent that they can be detected and disrupted by electrical and chemical means, and that these detections and disruptions can be reported by the one who experiences them, and by outsiders who witness them on instruments. I'm not really clear on why this is more interesting, it simply being a variation on the old question of "prove the world exists."

Vorkosigan