[Ford Prefect]

The most intelligent among us are guilty of the same fallacies as those at the middle and back of the curve. We all have things we want to believe badly enough to distort the external truth.

Kazan, you're assuming that atheism corresponds 1/1 with intelligence. That is playing with some very hot fire.

[Kazan]

Ford Prefect: the most intelligent ones can be shown their wrong, and will accept it instead of definantly saying "we're right, you're wrong - no matter what you show me!"

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kazan
Ford Prefect: the most intelligent ones can be shown their wrong, and will accept it instead of definantly saying "we're right, you're wrong - no matter what you show me!"

That's not exactly synonymously with aetheism or agnosticism though, is it?  I mean, you can't prove or disprove a concept like God, so you can't show an aetheist or - for example - a Christian they are wrong in that.

[Kazan]

an atheist is taking the wise position of not supporting something they don't have evidence for

[Scottish]

Originally posted by Ace
Going in with a preconceived notion means you have already failed.

Only if my preconceived notion is wrong.

If I magically decided F=MA simply because I decided it does, I wouldn't be wrong, would I?

[Ford Prefect]

an atheist is taking the wise position of not supporting something they don't have evidence for

So what? You're going to measure intelligence according to the logic of a single conclusion? Human intellect is not binary code. You have to look at the aggregate of all a person has said and done in order to even begin thinking about intelligence. We don't even really know what intelligence is.

[Scottish]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect

So what? You're going to measure intelligence according to the logic of a single conclusion? Human intellect is not binary code. You have to look at the aggregate of all a person has said and done in order to even begin thinking about intelligence. We don't even really know what intelligence is.

Yes we do. It's a complex series of autonomic responses based upon stimuli progressing through your 'mind'.

Basically, it's the quasi-random progression of electrical impulses through an ordered matrix of neurons which are linked to senses to provide stimulii and muscle tissue to provide interaction.

[Ace]

Originally posted by Scottish

Only if my preconceived notion is wrong.

If I magically decided F=MA simply because I decided it does, I wouldn't be wrong, would I?

...and unless you do observations to see that your idea (F=MA) matches with reality you don't know that it does.

The problem occurs when you make your observations, they contradict your idea and you're not willing to make new ones (say it's actually F=MA^2 in the universe in question, not F=MA) and also when you come up with ideas that are inherintly untestable. (such as invisible pink unicorns)

[Scottish]

So basically we're stuck with:

If a tree falls in the woods and no-one's around to hear it, does it still make a sound?

[Kazan]

yes

before you ask: we can put a microphone there and be 1000 miles away and detect the sound, we can put a seismograph and detect the impact tremor (sound=vibration)

[Scottish]

But it does still make a sound.

EDIT: Nuts to you and your post-editting antics!

[Kazan]

and that has no relevance upon this discussion

[Ford Prefect]

Yes we do. It's a complex series of autonomic responses based upon stimuli progressing through your 'mind'.

Basically, it's the quasi-random progression of electrical impulses through an ordered matrix of neurons which are linked to senses to provide stimulii and muscle tissue to provide interaction.

That is a neurological explanation of intelligence. It doesn't answer the numerous psychological questions about what defines it.

Kazan, the point of that question is this: We know that it's going to produce a vibration whether we're present or not, but is a vibration still a sound if no one is perceiving it? It's an unanswerable question.

[Kazan]

ford prefect: yes it is still a sound - the most generic definition of sound is vibration moving through a fluid (gas, plasma, liquid) medium

[Grey Wolf]

The real question in the paradox of the tree is not, in fact, whether there is a sound, but whether it matters without an observer. It's a philosophical question, not a scientific question.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Scottish
If a tree falls in the woods and no-one's around to hear it, does it still make a sound?

Although supposedly one of the great questions of metaphysics the "If a tree fell down..." question only exists to seperate those who understand the subject at hand from those who are merely parrotting the ideas that they

a) Have never thought about or
b) Are in capable of understanding.

Anyone who believes whether the tree made a noise or not is a valid question obviously does not.

[Ford Prefect]

But implicit in the definition is our perception of it. The question is not, "Does a tree produce a vibration in the air when it falls?" Of course it does. The question is, how can we know something's true nature if it is beyond our perception? It's an empistemological question, not a scientific one, and if you think you have the answer, you haven't thought about the question in the context in which it was intended.

[EDIT]: Wow, same rebuttal three times. That's impressive.

[Kazan]

our perception is only implicit in older definitions.

[Ford Prefect]

So you're saying... what? Philosophy is antiquated?

[Scottish]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect

That is a neurological explanation of intelligence. It doesn't answer the numerous psychological questions about what defines it.

Yes it does.

As you learn, things are integrated into your memory next-to other things you associate with it. This forms a huge, complicated web.

Stimuli start an electrical impulse. It then progresses through your brain, starting at the memory-point of whatever you saw/hear/tasted/whatever, following the 'train of thought' through several associated memory pieces till it eventually ends up in one of the action-memory portions of your mind. At which time a response is triggered.