Last chance for fans & supporters! Want to secure a dinner conversation with me? Here’s how. Not only will I be at Skepticon this November 13th-15th (not to speak but just for fun!), but I’m helping Bo Bennett & Kile Jones launch their Secular Backstage service by offering up an opportunity to join me for dinner when I’m there!
We are auctioning the opportunity, minimum bid $100. Closes in two weeks or so, so spread the word, and let everyone know whom you think might be interested. Or put in a bid yourself! The money goes to support my ongoing independent scholarship and activism. So this is a worthwhile way to offer me your patronage, as well as bend my ear or pick my brain for at least an hour.
The occasion will be Friday the 13th (Day of Evil!) at or around 7pm. In Springfield, Missouri. And Skepticon itself, BTW, is free, so this is all the more reason to go. Their website has all the info you need to plan.
Things we can talk about include…
- Critical thinking and public education
- Historical methods and the logic of history
- The philosophy of naturalism and other worldviews
- Humanism, feminism, and the concept of social justice
- Ancient Greco-Roman history, esp. science, technology, religion
- The historicity of Jesus and the origins of Christianity
- Polyamory and the future of human relationships
- Richard’s involvement in exposing fraudulent Hitler quotes
- Bayes’ Theorem and Bayesian reasoning
- The skills and tactics of debate
- Christian apologetics
- Any of my books or articles
Richard,
Is this strictly dinner or would you be open to alternative uses of the time? Thinking of something more intimate, if you’d be into it. I believe you and I have some common interests I’d love to explore together. 😀
I doubt it. Someone who actually wanted to date me would neither have to pay for it nor would they ask me by posting a comment like this here.
You are either a troll or not smart enough to have thought of either of those two points.
Neither makes you datable.
Well I didn’t expect that I would have to pay you for a date. To clarify, I was inquiring about whether you would be open to using the time for a date rather than dinner with a patron.
Sorry, I confess to being confused by this. As you had previously written on this blog looking for a date, I guess I didn’t see why my comment to that effect would be seen as inappropriate in any way. Apparently I read the signals incorrectly.
I’m not a troll. As to whether I’m “smart enough to have thought of either of those two points” I guess you are right on that front. I wasn’t not smart enough to realize that you would see my previous comment as some kind of offer to pay you for a date. The idea of paying you for a date just never entered my mind and it did not occur to me that you would interpret it that way.
In any case, it sounds like you aren’t interested. Too bad, sounds like it’s my loss, that’s for sure.
Note, if anyone is interested in dating me, they should contact me privately, not comment publicly on a blog post about paying for a professional meeting.
And also note, I do not want to date anyone I have to explain that to.
I suspect that some of the Jews of Jesus’ time probably became convinced that a traditional military messiah who would emerge to overthrow the Romans was never going to come, so they began to search their scriptures for a different way to see how the messiah might come. And this is what Paul did. In 1 Corinthians 15:3 Paul said Christ died for our sins “according to scripture.” What scripture would Paul have had in mind if not Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22? Paul clearly thought Christ’s atoning death was part of what it meant for Christ to be the messiah.
That wouldn’t have been Paul’s invention. It was foundational. So it was what Peter did, most likely. I discuss exactly this theory you describe and the background evidence supporting it in On the Historicity of Jesus, in the first elements starting Chapter 5 (Elements 23-26 or so) and the first elements starting Chapter 4 (Elements 1-9 and 18).
I wish you wouldn’t do this stuff.
The feeling is mutual.
I think the gospel Peter had was that salvation was attainable for Jewish followers of Christ, or gentiles who wanted to convert. I think Paul took that one step further and preached salvation to everyone, regardless of whether they were Jews or not, like Luke saying “all flesh will see the salvation of God (Luke 3:6).” It seems that Acts wanted to harmonize the differences between Paul and James, but they stand out as pronounced in Paul’s letters.
Dr. Carrier,
For clarification when you say that you would be happy to discuss “any of [your] books or articles” does that include your blog posts or your comments on other blogs as well? Or are you only referring to published articles in academic journals? Or…?
Just trying to better understand what’s on the table and what’s not in terms of potential discussion topics.
Anything I’ve said or written.
Although blog comments (as also live q&a remarks) are often obsolete or too brief to capture every nuance of my thoughts on a subject, so those probably would not make very satisfying conversation. Just FYI.
Richard,
I cannot be there. Too bad. I would love the opportunity to pick your brain and challenge you. How about I do it here? Here is my challenge: I was reading your book “Sense and Goodness Without God”. You hold to the belief that mind is a computer and this has been proven by neuroscience. In your book you answer John Searle’s “Chinese Room” thought experiment. However you say that John Searle has his own naturalistic explanation of the mind. Yet you do not examine and rebut his explanation. Maybe you can do that here. In fact I challenge you to write a future blog post that rebuts his explanation against your belief that the mind is a computer.
I would also love to see you answer his rebuttal to the mind-computer theory:
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Papers/Py104/searle.comp.html
So whadaya say Dick? 🙂
My argument against his is already in Sense and Goodness without God. That is, I there refute his claim that the mind cannot be a computer. My argument is conclusive on that point. There is nothing more to be said.
In the paper you point to, Searle even concedes the point without realizing it (he agrees the mind can be simulated on a computer; he doesn’t realize that this entails the mind is a computer; but then, it’s clear he doesn’t know what “computer” means in actual computer science).
You are pointing to a paper on a different subject: whether the human mind is a digital computer. I granted that it was not already in SaG. It’s an analog computer, not a digital one. That you don’t know this tells me you haven’t read my book or that paper very carefully at all.
Although neorophysicists might disagree. Since the mind is produced by the brain. The brain is nothing but a circuit of neurons. Neurons fire on action potentials, which are either on or off. That is literally a digital mechanism, although probably not a Turing mechanism. And Searle does not seem to even know the difference. When he argues against the mind being a digital computer, his arguments are against it being a Turing computer. But not all digital computers are Turing computers.
So Searle does not seem to know what he is talking about. He doesn’t know what a computer is. He doesn’t know the difference between Turing and digital. And he doesn’t know that neuron connections are digital. He even confidently declares that the brain does not do information processing, yet all leading theories of cognition in brain science today are information processing theories. Searle is ignoring science, and ignorantly sitting in the armchair doing pseudoscience instead.
However, though neuron links are digital, what activates or drops action potentials in them is not. And their collective action which becomes an output in producing new action potentials is not. So I would still agree the brain as a whole is not a digital computer. It’s an analog computer, e.g. generating enough activity to initiate a desire or perception is a rough balance of potentials and not a precise digital one; likewise we measure distance in visual space by an analog to distance in neuron spacing, through timing potentials, which is an analog process; and so on.
Notably, this is not one of Searle’s arguments. More evidence that he doesn’t know what he is talking about. He doesn’t even know what an analog computer is, or the evidence of analog computation in brains well studied by neuroscience.
Searle is a terrible philosopher who doesn’t know jack about brain science. Read a philosopher who knows the science and takes it seriously. Like Patricia Churchland.
Richard,
Here is my answer…
“My argument against his is already in Sense and Goodness without God. That is, I there refute his claim that the mind cannot be a computer. My argument is conclusive on that point. There is nothing more to be said”
What I read was a rebuttal to his “Chinese Room” thought experiment. I did not read any discussion or rebuttal to his alternative. If there is nothing more to be said than you have no nothing to say of his alternative.
“In the paper you point to, Searle even concedes the point without realizing it (he agrees the mind can be simulated on a computer; he doesn’t realize that this entails the mind is a computer; but then, it’s clear he doesn’t know what “computer” means in actual computer science).”
This has to be the silliest response I have read from you yet. A hurricane can be simulated on a computer. That does not imply that a hurricane is a computer.
“You are pointing to a paper on a different subject: whether the human mind is a digital computer. I granted that it was not already in SaG. It’s an analog computer, not a digital one. That you don’t know this tells me you haven’t read my book or that paper very carefully at all.”
Richard, in all honest to goodness I thought you were arguing that the brain is a digital computer in your book. When you talk about patterns being recognized and computers being able to describe relationships between patterns that sounds like a digital computer. Maybe if you had discussed the difference between the two in your book maybe readers like me would not get so honestly confused.
“Although neorophysicists might disagree. Since the mind is produced by the brain. The brain is nothing but a circuit of neurons. Neurons fire on action potentials, which are either on or off. That is literally a digital mechanism, although probably not a Turing mechanism. And Searle does not seem to even know the difference. When he argues against the mind being a digital computer, his arguments are against it being a Turing computer. But not all digital computers are Turing computers. ”
Well silly me. Would you care to clarify the difference in your book if you have a revised edition printed?
“So Searle does not seem to know what he is talking about. He doesn’t know what a computer is. He doesn’t know the difference between Turing and digital. And he doesn’t know that neuron connections are digital. He even confidently declares that the brain does not do information processing, yet all leading theories of cognition in brain science today are information processing theories. Searle is ignoring science, and ignorantly sitting in the armchair doing pseudoscience instead.”
This gave me a good chuckle. Most Bible scholars would say that you do not know what you are talking about. Talk about an irony that is probably lost on you already! So what is the difference between Turing and digital. I am seriously asking you. If you do not have the time to explain it fine and well. Maybe a link explaining the two would be helpful. I know a bit about Mr. Turing and his work. While all digital computers are Turning computers not all Turing computers are digital. I agree.
I am happy to agree with you however. All neural connections are digital.
“However, though neuron links are digital, what activates or drops action potentials in them is not. And their collective action which becomes an output in producing new action potentials is not. So I would still agree the brain as a whole is not a digital computer. It’s an analog computer, e.g. generating enough activity to initiate a desire or perception is a rough balance of potentials and not a precise digital one; likewise we measure distance in visual space by an analog to distance in neuron spacing, through timing potentials, which is an analog process; and so on.”
I see no reason to disagree so far. I just want to know what on earth is wrong with Searle’s alternative theory of the brain. Its not enough to say that his criticism of your fails. I want to know what is wrong with his.
“Notably, this is not one of Searle’s arguments. More evidence that he doesn’t know what he is talking about. He doesn’t even know what an analog computer is, or the evidence of analog computation in brains well studied by neuroscience.”
Of course he does not. He is probably still getting over the shock of having witnessed an asteroid killing off dinosaurs!
“Searle is a terrible philosopher who doesn’t know jack about brain science. Read a philosopher who knows the science and takes it seriously. Like Patricia Churchland.”
Touch’e. I will start reading her books.
I don’t understand what you think you are arguing. You asked me to demonstrate Searle was wrong. I demonstrated Searle was wrong. That’s the end of that.
As to the specifics of how the brain actually processes information so as to produce consciousness, that’s for cognitive science–repeat: science–to figure out. And they are making considerable progress on that. Which I mention in SaG (e.g. bibliographies, pp. 144, 159, 192). And that was ten years ago. Searle ignored the science then. And continued to do so, as I just showed here again, with your own ignorant example (you evidently don’t know the science either, as otherwise you’d have never imagined the article you sent me was any good).
That’s fundamentally bad philosophy.
End of story.
-:-
Meanwhile, the rest has nothing to do with what you asked here, or what I argued in SaG. But since you are fond of the fallacy of moving the goal posts, I can adjust to accommodate your abuse of rationality:
1. “A hurricane can be simulated on a computer. That does not imply that a hurricane is a computer.” Yes, it is. Computation theory entails that the most efficient computer for calculating the behavior of a system is the system itself (see Labyrinths of Reason). All systems are information processing computers. The only question is what the input and output are, i.e. what is being computed. In weather’s case, what is being computed is where atoms go. Given the inputs, you get the outputs. The laws of physics are just the software code, implemented in the hardware of the shape of spacetime (and perhaps particles moving in it, although even they might just be knots of spacetime). Searle does not know information theory (all thermodynamics analogs to information theory, for example…in other words, all of physics is just information theory played out on a computer made of spacetime and particles). He does not know computation theory (he does not know that analog computers are a thing, for example, or that a Turing computer is just one type of computer, and indeed just one type of digital computer, which is also in turn just one type of computer).
There is a reason that “Even rocks, hurricanes, and planetary systems — contrary to appearances — are computing systems. Pancomputationalism is quite popular among some philosophers and physicists.” That reason is simple: there is no non-arbitrary distinction between human-made computers (physical systems that play out as planned) and nature-made computers (physical systems that play out as set-up). If you believe in atheistic evolution, you must agree (no one planned the computers in our cells called genomes; they are computers all the same; so “planned computation” is no part of the definition of a computer).
2. “I thought you were arguing that the brain is a digital computer in your book.” Then you didn’t read it.
That’s on page 142. Right where I discuss Searle.
Or are you as ignorant as Searle, and don’t know that “analog” is the opposite of “digital” in describing computers?
That would be strange. Because I started that analysis with this remark:
That’s on page 141. I went on to explain that he has failed to rule even that out, but that we don’t need it anyway, because brains can be analog computers (hence the concluding remarks on page 144).
So. In the very section you claim to have read and know better than, I explicitly said we are not limited to digital computers, and went on to describe one such alternative for the human (and any animal) brain: analog computers. And yet. You thought I was arguing the brain was a digital computer.
You must have scored very badly on the reading comprehension section of the SAT.
Next time, when you read an author say the brain need not be a digital computer but could be an analog computer, and you don’t know what the difference is, look up what the difference is so you will know what the author is talking about.
Why, indeed, maybe you should even, you know, use the bibliography the author provided for the purpose! (Wow! What a crazy fucking idea!)
-:-
“Most Bible scholars would say that you do not know what you are talking about.” I’m assuming you are an ignorant Christian then. Because only Christian apologists say such a thing about me. And as with most things they say, it’s false.
“I just want to know what on earth is wrong with Searle’s alternative theory of the brain.” That’s not what you asked. But since you are asking it now… It is unevidenced pseudoscience that ignores all existing science on how the brain works. As you would know if you’d listen to my demonstrations that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and then read my actual bibliographies, which direct you to experts on how the brain works who actually do know what they are talking about, and whose explanations I am relying on in my own analysis.