Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument

Thanks Straggler, No, I am exploring your assertions about alien life for consistency regarding logical extrapolations.Do you, or do you not, agree that increasing the numbers of planets increases the probability of intelligent space traveling alien life visiting earth?Remember that your argument about the existence of life is made on the basis of our experience with life on earth and that increasing the numbers of planets increases the probability of alien life on other planets. Do you, or do you not, agree that one possible result of actual alien visitations would be occasional sighting of aliens and space ships? Do you, or do you not, agree that there are a large number of claims from people regarding seeing aliens and space ships?Note that I'm not asking you if these claims are true or not, just (1) whether such experiences would be consistent with actual visitations, and (2) whether claims of such experiences exist or not.Would you also agree that tying apparently unrelated phenomenons together would be one of the ways to logically validate a good scientific theory? That depends on whether you think all these concepts are based on the same type of logic and initial evidence: Message 148

quote:

---

If there is life on earth, then there is a probability of alien life on other planets ... if it is probable on one planet out of 200, then it is more probable as the number of planets is increased.

​

If there is intelligent life on earth, then there is a probability of intelligent alien life on other planets ... if it is probable on one planet out of 200, then it is more probable as the number of planets is increased.

​

If there is space traveling life on earth, then there is a probability of space traveling alien life on other planets ... if it is probable on one planet out of 200, then it is more probable as the number of planets is increased.

​

Further, if there is intelligent alien life, then it is probable that some alien life is more intelligent than humans (and some that is less intelligent than humans) ... and if more intelligent alien life is probable on one planet out of 200, then it is more probable as the number of planets is increased.

​

If there is space traveling life on earth, then there is a probability of space traveling alien life on other planets ... if it is probable on one planet out of 200, then it is more probable as the number of planets is increased.

​

Further, if there is space traveling alien life, then it is probable that some space traveling alien life is more technological advanced than humans (and some that is less technological advanced than humans) ... and if more technological advanced space traveling alien life is probable on one planet out of 200, then it is more probable as the number of planets is increased.

​

Does, or does not, the increase in the number of planets increase the likelihood of alien visitations?

---

Do you, or do you not, agree that increasing the numbers of planets increases the probability of intelligent space traveling alien life visiting earth?Do you, or do you not, agree that all these arguments use the same foundation of our experience of life on earth and are logically extrapolated in the same way?I note that when my Grandfather was born, there were no cars, and no planes, but by the time he died man had driven a car on the moon. I note this, because we are only beginning to develop the technology for space travel, and do not know what the limitations are.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks onifre, Message 160
Yes, and people that have such an experience may see things differently from those that don't. Message 159
Ah, I used to think that, but I have been forced by experience to change my mind. On the contrary, we are talking about the validity of experience as evidence that something occurred. Message 159
One of the effects of the world view cognition issue is that one will try to reconcile an experience in terms of their world view: you will interpret the experience to fit what you consider reasonable and logical.This is one of the reason that eye witness accounts are not reliable in courts as evidence but that they are still regarded as evidence non-the-less.Courts consistently make decisions on less perfect evidence than is used in science. Different levels of courts also have different levels of what needs to be shown or proven to make your case. The system is not impervious to errors, yet by-and-large I have to think that it is more often right than wrong.To bring this back to the topic, I have to say that, for me anyway, the fact that people have experiences that we cannot explain does not mean that such experiences cannot be true. Thus I cannot reject all claims of alien experience as necessarily being the mysterious workings of a deluded mind. I can be open-minded but skeptical of such claims, and I am willing to conclude that the evidence may not convince me, but still may represent an experience. Because experiences are by nature subjective they cannot be tested or compared against a scientific standard, as Straggler keeps trying to do.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hello again RAZD,
If we work together, maybe we can find our way to a solution on this, eh? Given the fact that the IPU is used to show issues with believing in certain classes of entity, given that frequently when somebody brings up the entity it is commonly brought up with regards to the IPU you make some comment about it being off topic or similar, I think it is highly relevant to bring up other entities. If you want to rule them off topic too - then you are going to be guilty of a hasty generalisation (see below for why).You see, if we're going to see if the IPU is ever applicable we need to start from the bottom and work our way to up. So we start with certain made up entities (with properties that might be close enough to the IPU to render the argument applicable), then we move onto entities people have actually believed it (which may or may not also have been made up), and at that time we can start to decide what properties all those entities might have in common. You seemed reticent to start with other entities people have actually believed in, so I thought we'd start where we most likely can reach an agreement.Or would you rather repeat the same argument over and over again, never advancing the debate in any constructive direction? If so, let me know and I'll not bother.If you do want to try this crazy experiment in moving the debate forward, please go with me on this.Now, if you don't mind I'm going to take your answer and extrapolate slightly - I hope you don't disagree. You said "I've never seen any reason to actually believe in the IPU", and I am assuming the same goes for Garage Dragon? So, the next question is: If somebody proclaimed belief in the Garage Dragon - would you agree that it would be a valid argument to point out that there is no reason to prefer Garage Dragon to the IPU and vice versa? Would it be valid to therefore point out that choosing to believe one or the other is somewhat arbitrary, that it might be somewhat special pleading?If so, can we conclude that the IPU argument can be successfully employed in the case of the Garage Dragon? If so, can we also then conclude that there are a certain class of entities for which the IPU argument is applicable (even if it later turns out that all those entities are made up and 'silly')? That's right, they are both things for which there is no conclusive evidence pro or con. Would you agree that if the IPU argument was meant to show the problems with holding a belief things for which there was no conclusive evidence then the IPU would be applicable here and that since we all seem to agree that it isn't applicable here that might actually be an indication that 'lack of conclusive evidence' might not be the relevant property?I think all participants have agreed that invoking the IPU when we are talking about believing that propositions are tentatively held to be true with only a smattering of supporting evidence alluding to it, is a poor or outright misuse of the IPU argument. I think we likewise agree that the IPU and the Garage Dragon are definitely not propositions that have a smattering of supporting evidence alluding to their existence (and if we want to argue they do have such evidence, we can at least agree that the nature of the evidence is significantly different from the alien life case).Now - just because you have identified one class of objects (those without conclusive evidence that definitively demonstrates their existence) that doesn't mean that the IPU is innappropriate to apply to all classes of objects does it? To conclude that would be...a hasty generalization.

We only experience one consciousness. The only way I can know who "you" are is through analogy. You have to explain it.So, yes, I find a solipsists world view to be plausable, cogito ergo sum, right?Show me evidence against it? Materialism?[ABE]: Either way, I would say I hold more to idealism, phenomenalism, or mentalistic monism philosophy. Yes, if you start with the premise that materialism is the proper reality I would agree with you, but there is no objective evidence to support your materialistic philosophy other your subjective interpretation of the reality that you personally experience.The point is that both of our world views are subjective, our personal experiences/qualia are subjective, and they are private. This makes them infallible to oursleves. Because they haven't given any empirical claims about their experiences. IPU makes the empirical claim that there is a pink unicorn that is invisible. In all fairness to both RAZD and Percy, that have not made equal claims. Materialism? That's yours?Shall we measure to see whos is bigger?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : Make point as to where I personally stand

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Our individual world views are subjective and vary from person to person.Even though I may not agree with someone elses world view, for me to know the persons experiences I would have to be that person. I cannot know anythig other than my own mind. I can understand that. Our sensory input is what directs our minds. Experiences are all we have, whether it be subjective or objecitve, they are both equally influencial in the building of peoples world view. I agree, but I also don't equate the experiences as confirmation for god/dieties. The experience is one thing, it has validity, the connection humans make to a god/diesty that created the universe is something completely different. I don't see how we can correlate the two, I'd be curious to see how you do? I agree, it's tough having a brain. I agree. This seems to be because Straggler, and, I think, Rrhain, have a materialistic world view. But even though it's a materialistic world view, it's still their own subjective experiences that tells them that. Seems rather wrong for them to think one world view is better than the other, or that it can be proven wrong empirically. Edited by onifre, : a few added thoughts

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

onifre responds to me:

quote:

---

So, yes, I find a solipsists world view to be plausable, cogito ergo sum, right?

---

But I think, too. Therefore, I exist, too, and thus the solipsistic argument fails.

quote:

---

Show me evidence against it? Materialism?

---

How about your lack of control?

quote:

---

Yes, if you start with the premise that materialism is the proper reality I would agree with you, but there is no objective evidence to support materialism

---

Really? You mean you're in control of me? So why is it I never seem to do what you want? If you're the consciousness and I am not, why are you having a hard time convincing me of that claim?Too, this gets around to the question of Cartesian Doubt: If the illusion is so perfect such that you cannot distinguish between reality and the illusion of reality, how is the illusion not reality? A difference that makes no difference is no difference and since there is no justification for an identical construct with the addition of chocolate sprinkles, we are left concluding that the solipsistic argument fails.And no, I am not advocating "materialism." I am not saying that the only thing that exists is matter. I am saying that matter does exist, but that isn't a claim that it is the only thing.

quote:

---

so your argument is your subjective interpretation of the reality that you personally experience.

---

But other people experience it, too. How subjective can it be if it isn't just me?

quote:

---

Because they haven't given any empirical claims about their experiences.

---

You don't know much about the IPU (BBHH), do you? There are plenty of empirical claims about her.

quote:

---

IPU makes the empirical claim that there is a pink unicorn that is invisible.

---

You seem to be implying that that's the only one.

quote:

---

In all fairness to both RAZD and Percy, that have not made equal claims.

---

What part of "supernatural" is not equivalent to "invisible and pink"?

quote:

---

Materialism? That's yours?

---

No.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I agree with pretty much all of that. No No No No No No No. That is not what I am trying to do at all.What I am trying to do is explain to you that non-belief in the objective existence of entities for which no objective evidence exists whatsoever is the only rational option.Personal experiences like love can only "exist" as long as the person experiencing them. I have no problem "believing" in the human experience of love. I do deny that love will "exist" in the universe if we remove all those capable of experiencing love.If you are claiming that the deity in which you believe is nothing more than a personal experience that has no reality or meaning in any objective sense and which will die when you die then......we have no argument?So which is it? Is your deity purely a personal experience or do you claim it actually exists external to you in any way at all? It seems that we have moved onto stage 2 of the theists playbook "My subjective evidence is as relevant as your objective evidence"Top marks for originality then Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yes I do. Regarding the LOGICAL POSSIBILITY of alien visitations - Yes I do agree that the logc is the same even if the objective factors involved in determining probability are very different.The logical factors involved would suggest that alien visitatons are considerably less probable than the mere existence of life elsewhere in the universe and may even be impossible to all practical intents and purposes.Either way there is no objective evidence to suggest that any alien visitations actually have occurred. By the terms set out in your OP the possibility of alien life and the actual existence of the IPU ARE logically equivalent. Your position rests on there being a logial distinction and there isn't one.The thing that seperates the possibility of alien life (or the considerably more remote possibility) of alien visitations from the existence of the IPU is EVIDENCE.But are we ever going to get to the real question at hand?What objective factor separates the IPU from deities?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Thanks again onifre, Yes, and the degree to which such views agree with one another can be taken as evidence of some reflection of reality. This is the basis of science after all: repeated experiences under controlled conditions.The problem is that many experiences cannot be repeated, or repeated at will, and that in many cases conditions cannot be controlled to reproduce results. We can still, however, have evidence of repeated experiences. Let's talk about the experiences of those who claim to have seen aliens or alien spaceships.The way I see it, if one admits that there is a possibility of alien life on other planets, then by the same logic one should admit that there is a possibility of actual alien visitations. There are a number of factors involved here, not least of which is that I don't think humans are necessarily the ne plus ultra vanguard of intellectual and technological development, among all the possibilities of life on planets throughout the universe. We could well be behind the curve of development.The question is, would people that have had an alien experience be more or less inclined than the general population to believe in the probability of alien visitations?The question seems almost a tautology, a begging the question fallacy, but consider this aspect of it: do you think any of those people changed their mind due to the experience? I do, so let's assume we are talking about people who changed their minds, based on experience.The next question to address is whether such belief in alien visitations involves special pleading (I believe X but not Y but cannot say whY), or does the experience qualify as a causal agent for changing their mind?

quote:

---

It should be noted that the Principle of Relevant Difference does allow people to be treated differently. For example, if one employee was a slacker and the other was a very prodictive worker the boss would be justified in giving only the productive worker a raise. This is because the productive of each is a relevant difference between them. Since it can be reasonable to treat people differently, there will be cases in which some people will be exempt from the usual standards. For example, if it is Bill's turn to cook dinner and Bill is very ill, it would not be a case of Special Pleading if Bill asked to be excused from making dinner (this, of course, assumes that Bill does not accept a standard that requires people to cook dinner regardless of the circumstances). In this case Bill is offering a good reason as to why he should be exempt and, most importantly, it would be a good reason for anyone who was ill and not just Bill.

​

While determing what counts as a legitimate basis for exemption can be a difficult task, it seems clear that claiming you are exempt because you are you does not provide such a legitimate basis. Thus, unless a clear and relevant justification for exemption can be presented, a person cannot claim to be exempt.

---

I would say that an experience, even if it cannot be confirmed, is a Relevant Difference between people who have, and those who have not had, that experience.Certainly, when it comes to a court of law, a place where hard scientific evidence is always nice, but not always possible, the court consistently finds that people that had experience in (the case) are more relevant to finding a conclusion than those who have not had experience. Courts will use subjective anecdotal evidence to reach decisions, and they will continue to do so, because (a) the experience is a "Relevant Difference" and (b) it is a practical way to reach a conclusion when hard scientific evidence and logic are absent, one that is not error free, but likely more right than wrong overall. I don't like the term "materialistic" (perhaps from more discussions with Ray and others than I care to repeat), and would rather say that it is a reductionist approach, one that only considers what we can know by hard science, evidence of objective reality, reproduce and replicate.Personally I think there is a lot of territory between logically and empirically derived knowledge and the rest of the bounds of rational knowledge and beliefs. And thus I cannot reject out of hand the validity of an experience I have not had.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks Straggler, Either way there is no objective evidence to suggest that alien life has developed on any other planet. Once again it is a difference of degree, not in the kind of logical extrapolation. Nope, try again. If you don't understand this, perhaps that is why you don't understand the rest. So you agree that the possibility of alien visitations cannot be compared to the IPU? Good, that's one baby step taken.Now let's discuss the objective evidence of numerous people claiming experience with alien visitations: regardless of how valid you think these claims are, do you think there is a difference between them and the IPU argument? You mean the admission that the IPU comparison is not a logical argument?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

I don't think we're on the same page as to what solipsism is.From wiki:

• My most certain knowledge is the content of my own mindmy thoughts, experiences, affects, etc..
• There is no conceptual or logically necessary link between mental and physicalbetween, say, the occurrence of certain conscious experience or mental states and the 'possession' and behavioral dispositions of a 'body' of a particular kind.
• The experience of a given person is necessarily private to that person.

Basically, all I can know for sure is whats in my mind. I never said I would be in control of you.Here's a quote from Immanuel Kant Critique of Pure Reason, A367 f.:

quote:

---

We are perfectly justified in maintaining that only what is within ourselves can be immediately and directly perceived, and that only my own existence can be the object of a mere perception. Thus the existence of a real object outside me can never be given immediately and directly in perception, but can only be added in thought to the perception, which is a modification of the internal sense, and thus inferred as its external cause ... . In the true sense of the word, therefore, I can never perceive external things, but I can only infer their existence from my own internal perception, regarding the perception as an effect of something external that must be the proximate cause ... . It must not be supposed, therefore, that an idealist is someone who denies the existence of external objects of the senses; all he does is to deny that they are known by immediate and direct perception ...

---

Yes, and from Cartesian doubt is how Descartes came to the conclusion that in order for the doubt to exist, his own conscious self must exist - I think therefore I am.

I'm not arguing against reality not being "real", I'm saying that there is no clear distiction between our minds, ideas and the physical world, the true nature of reality is shown to us by our minds. Pink? ...Maybe invisible, but not pink. And the unicorn part would also be a bit far fetched too.But this does not mean that what RAZD is claiming can only be claims for the supernatural. The statement "I believe there is a god" is simply a statement about a personal subjective experience. It is private and infallible to the person. It is a claim about an experience, period.I have asked RAZD how he correlates the experience to an actual god per se, I will wait for his reply.But, with that aside, his experience is not diminished in any way because I lack the same experience. Nor does claiming "I believe in pink invisible unicorn/s" the same as " I believe there is a god"... IMO, one has established characteristics and as such carries with it empirical claims, while the other is simply a claim to an experience - be it subjective - in the persons mind. Which is the only thing one can know for sure exists - our thoughts, ideas and experiences. I can see where we differ in this opinion, though.So, what would suit RAZD and Percy better, to follow whats in their own mind, or take our word for it? Where do you draw the line between materialism and idealism then, whats your position?

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

I will be away on work all next weekThe rest of today will be dedicated to final preparations,Every day next week will be filled to the brim with work,and I foresee very little time to reply until further notice.This machine will be left on as I am running BOINC forWorld Community GridThus the appearance of my name as a logged in member does not necessarily mean I am attending the forum.Thank you for your understandingEnjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

ANY possibility, no matter how practically improbable, derived from evidence is NON-equivalent to the IPU.ANY possibility which is NOT derived from ANY evidence IS equivalent to the IPU.The original grouping of the IPU and the possibility of alien life was defined by the terms of the OP that you wrote. Evidential terms.You have since agreed that both the possibility of alien life and the tangential possibility of alien visitation are in fact NOT equivalent to the IPU in evidential terms.However the concept of deities, the concept which the IPU was specifically designed to be equivalent to in evidential terms, REMAINS evidentially equivalent to the IPU.To Separate the IPU from any other concept by means of anything other than evidential terms, the evidential terms originally specified by you in your OP, would be to commit the logical fallacy of special pleading.The IPU IS a logical argument when discussing evidence and the belief or non-belief in wholly un-evidenced entities.EnjoyEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Add absurdityEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

A = Those conceptual possibilities which are not derived from any objective evidential basis or foundation at all.B = The existence of the IPUC = The existence of DeitiesD = The existence of alien life elsewhere in the universe.E = The concept of potential alien visitation.B is an example of AC is an example of AThe possibility of both life on other planets and alien visitation are derived from the objective empirical facts that life exists on this planet and that other planets also exist.RAZD has agreed that this is indeed true.The probability or improbability of such concepts being true is irrelevant. Only the basis of the possibility is at issue by our definition of A.Therefore:D is not an example of AE is not an example of AIf all A are classed as "absurd" on the basis of lacking any objective empirical foundation then deities and the IPU are both "absurd" whilst all evidentially founded concepts are not.No subjective definition of "absurd" in terms subjective world view is required to differentiate the two classes of concept.I believe that this is exactly the conclusion that Rrhain arrived at about a 100 posts ago. And he probably said it more succinctly.But having just "got it" myself I thought it was worth repeating.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Straggler,While agreeing with your points on aliens and life elsewhere in the universe, I take issue with this. I think you're trying to force the "belief in a diety" into a conceptual concept, which I would argue that it's not.I agree that the IPU is literally a conceptual concept, but a belief in a diety does not have any conceptual images attached to it like pink or unicorn.I have argued before that IMO god is the default explanation, for lack of a better word, that people go to when they have these experiences. But I don't feel that the subjective experiences they have is made lessen by the fact that they attach it to a diety, I see the experience itself as unique and unexplained. That they personally connect it to a diety does not make them conceptually imagining a diety.Again, I feel RAZD has not made any empirical claims about a diety, he simply states that he believes a diety exists on the basis of these experiences themselves. Who are we, humans who also view the world subjectively, to tell him no such connection should be made because no evidence for a conceptual diety exists? We lack the evidence to prove that.If he were claiming to have seen Jesus, or Allah, or any other god concept that has existed, I would agree with you. But I don't think RAZD fits that.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky