pl0bs wrote:

Spinozasgalt wrote:I'm coming around to the invisible elephant view. It's parsimonious, I'll give it that. For starters, this behaviour can be predicted on the elephant view whereas the God view requires a rationalisation. Further, we needn't multiply entities beyond necessity: we already know there are elephants and that they can become angry and be destructive. We're really only adding one attribute to a sort of being we're already familiar with: invisibility. There are also various reasons why we might simply not have encountered such an elephant. We don't for instance, know the inherent qualities of matter, so they may present themselves this way. And we also have good reason to doubt that we know all of the attributes of other animals. Finally, we have the fact that elephants never forget; so, we have an elephant's entire lifespan in which to look for the justification for its behaviour here. For all these reasons, I think the elephant view is the strongest.

1. to suppose a new state of matter in an elephant is equivalent to an extra entity on occams scale.
2. god is not an extra entity, since minds are known to control physical objects (example: human minds and bodies)
3. in the video it can be seen that 3 cars on different sides of a large intersection are lifted at the same time. Elephants are not large enough to do that. If it is so big, then its basically another extra entity
4. for an elephant to care about traffic violations, it would need to have read a book about chinese traffic rules. Thats another extra entity for having read the book, and other one for having learned to read chinese, and another one for having enjoyed education in a chinese school among human children

I could go on and on

You're taking the piss, right?

pl0bs wrote:4. for an elephant to care about traffic violations, it would need to have read a book about chinese traffic rules.

Elephants are always already ideological.

Rumraket wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

Spinozasgalt wrote:I'm coming around to the invisible elephant view. It's parsimonious, I'll give it that. For starters, this behaviour can be predicted on the elephant view whereas the God view requires a rationalisation. Further, we needn't multiply entities beyond necessity: we already know there are elephants and that they can become angry and be destructive. We're really only adding one attribute to a sort of being we're already familiar with: invisibility. There are also various reasons why we might simply not have encountered such an elephant. We don't for instance, know the inherent qualities of matter, so they may present themselves this way. And we also have good reason to doubt that we know all of the attributes of other animals. Finally, we have the fact that elephants never forget; so, we have an elephant's entire lifespan in which to look for the justification for its behaviour here. For all these reasons, I think the elephant view is the strongest.

1. to suppose a new state of matter in an elephant is equivalent to an extra entity on occams scale.
2. god is not an extra entity, since minds are known to control physical objects (example: human minds and bodies)
3. in the video it can be seen that 3 cars on different sides of a large intersection are lifted at the same time. Elephants are not large enough to do that. If it is so big, then its basically another extra entity
4. for an elephant to care about traffic violations, it would need to have read a book about chinese traffic rules. Thats another extra entity for having read the book, and other one for having learned to read chinese, and another one for having enjoyed education in a chinese school among human children

I could go on and on

You're taking the piss, right?

No for example: is a rat that is as big as planet earth a new entity to occams razor? It sure is. So too is a giant intersection-sized elephant.

pl0bs wrote:...a book about Chinese traffic rules.

There aren't any.

Fallible wrote:Please do.

For example:

How did the invisible elephant arrive at the intersection, and how did it leave (where to)? Did it escape from a secret lab, or come straight out of the jungle? is there even a jungle nearby? Why are there no footprints? Did it have a device to cancel gravity? Why is there no shit, is it invisible too and cannot be smelled? So take your pick: it came from earth and evolved in the jungle / it came from a secret lab / its an alien. All options are ruled out and occam exists precisely to deal with such things.

pl0bs wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

pl0bs wrote:

Spinozasgalt wrote:I'm coming around to the invisible elephant view. It's parsimonious, I'll give it that. For starters, this behaviour can be predicted on the elephant view whereas the God view requires a rationalisation. Further, we needn't multiply entities beyond necessity: we already know there are elephants and that they can become angry and be destructive. We're really only adding one attribute to a sort of being we're already familiar with: invisibility. There are also various reasons why we might simply not have encountered such an elephant. We don't for instance, know the inherent qualities of matter, so they may present themselves this way. And we also have good reason to doubt that we know all of the attributes of other animals. Finally, we have the fact that elephants never forget; so, we have an elephant's entire lifespan in which to look for the justification for its behaviour here. For all these reasons, I think the elephant view is the strongest.

1. to suppose a new state of matter in an elephant is equivalent to an extra entity on occams scale.
2. god is not an extra entity, since minds are known to control physical objects (example: human minds and bodies)
3. in the video it can be seen that 3 cars on different sides of a large intersection are lifted at the same time. Elephants are not large enough to do that. If it is so big, then its basically another extra entity
4. for an elephant to care about traffic violations, it would need to have read a book about chinese traffic rules. Thats another extra entity for having read the book, and other one for having learned to read chinese, and another one for having enjoyed education in a chinese school among human children

I could go on and on

You're taking the piss, right?

No for example: is a rat that is as big as planet earth a new entity to occams razor? It sure is. So too is a giant intersection-sized elephant.

I should have been more specific. I was talking about #4. Why do we need to postulate that whatever caused this cares about traffic violations?

I thought 2. was quite good. 1. and 3. tell us that attributing further to already counted entities counts against simplicity (let's not torture Ockham), but rather than countenancing how a description of God as a mind with an attribution of various powers has us committed to doing just what we found problematic in 1. and 3. it sneaks these attributes in through a vague description of minds and their doings. That is an apologetic trick.

pl0bs wrote:

Fallible wrote:Please do.

For example:

How did the invisible elephant arrive at the intersection

It paints it's toenails red. Oh wait. No, that's how they hide in Cherry trees. Sorry.

Rumraket wrote:I should have been more specific. I was talking about #4. Why do we need to postulate that whatever caused this cares about traffic violations?

Whats the alternative and how is it more plausible? Also, what definition of "caring" do you use?

Spinozasgalt wrote:I thought 2. was quite good. 1. and 3. tell us that attributing further to already counted entities counts against simplicity (let's not torture Ockham), but rather than countenancing how a description of God as a mind with an attribution of various powers has us committed to doing just what we found problematic in 1. and 3. it sneaks these attributes in through a vague description of minds and their doings. That is an apologetic trick.

If you combine the argumentative weight of refutations 1,3 and 4, ignore point 2, then the sum still does not support the position of an existing creature that is more plausible than known natural forces such as those that can be found in many organisms with minds (it doesnt even matter whether one is a physicalist, idealist, panpsychist, or whatever else). But ok, suppose we ignore 1 and 4... does that make 3 sufficient to carry the burden of proof required to accept the existence of it? What if we ignore 3 too and only 2 is left? If all else is ruled out, should we not accept the only remaining option? I dont think anyone reading this still believes the elephant explanation.

pl0bs wrote:

Fallible wrote:Please do.

For example:

How did the invisible elephant arrive at the intersection,

Zeppelin.

and how did it leave (where to)?

Rocket ship (to Mars).

Did it escape from a secret lab,

Yes.

or come straight out of the jungle?

Don't be ridiculous. How would it find a zeppelin in the jungle?

Is there even a jungle nearby?

Irrelevant.

Why are there no footprints?

How do you know there aren't?

Did it have a device to cancel gravity?

Yes.

Why is there no shit, is it invisible too and cannot be smelled?

Yes.

So take your pick: it came from earth and evolved in the jungle / it came from a secret lab / its an alien. All options are ruled out

Obviously your reasoning is flawed and you just don't understand how invisible elephants work. You are elephantually blind.

and occam exists precisely to deal with such things.

Oh no it doesn't.

pl0bs wrote:Btw look at the video again and the cable is actually ruled out. Its simply not possible for a cable to do such things. For instance, the pedestrians on the left would all have been beheaded of sliced in pieces if a car-ripping metal cable was swinging around like that. They are standing directly in the path of where the topsecret cable needed to be to lift the cars. The pedestrians should be dead, but instead they act like no cable exists. It surprises/puzzles/amazes them that the cars are thrown about. Also, the cars arent just lifted in the air, they are swung left and right, shaken by an angry punishing force. It even removes a tire from the perpetrator that defied the zebracrossing. The others are punished accordingly, they comitted less offenses.

There is no explanation for that. The vans are swung left and right, and at different height and angles too.

pl0bs wrote:

Rumraket wrote:I should have been more specific. I was talking about #4. Why do we need to postulate that whatever caused this cares about traffic violations?

Whats the alternative and how is it more plausible? Also, what definition of "caring" do you use?

SECRET UNDERGROUND CIA MAGNET EXPERIMENTS, obviously. This has the benefit of using things we already know exist (the CIA, underground constructions, strong magnets) while also explaining why even nearby and non-traffic-violating vehicles were moved by the magnetic field( which God can't explain very well). Basically the whole "accidental" look of the thing, plus the fact that the effect seems to have an epicenter of greatest effect that quickly drops off with distance. Fucking CIA MAGNETS, dude.

Rumraket wrote:SECRET UNDERGROUND CIA MAGNET EXPERIMENTS, obviously. This has the benefit of using things we already know exist (the CIA, underground constructions, strong magnets) while also explaining why even nearby and non-traffic-violating vehicles were moved by the magnetic field( which God can't explain very well). Basically the whole "accidental" look of the thing, plus the fact that the effect seems to have an epicenter of greatest effect that quickly drops off with distance. Fucking CIA MAGNETS, dude.

Why CIA? You think the Chinese counterpart can't pull that off as well? After all, they seem to be more competent than their American counterparts. No known names (what's the Chinese CIA called?), no scandals (who's the Chinese Snowden?), no illegal wars (that anyone know of), etc.

quas wrote:

pl0bs wrote:Btw look at the video again and the cable is actually ruled out. Its simply not possible for a cable to do such things. For instance, the pedestrians on the left would all have been beheaded of sliced in pieces if a car-ripping metal cable was swinging around like that. They are standing directly in the path of where the topsecret cable needed to be to lift the cars. The pedestrians should be dead, but instead they act like no cable exists. It surprises/puzzles/amazes them that the cars are thrown about. Also, the cars arent just lifted in the air, they are swung left and right, shaken by an angry punishing force. It even removes a tire from the perpetrator that defied the zebracrossing. The others are punished accordingly, they comitted less offenses.

There is no explanation for that. The vans are swung left and right, and at different height and angles too.

Almost like bucking wild Zebras!

Tide goes out,,,

Rumraket wrote:SECRET UNDERGROUND CIA MAGNET EXPERIMENTS, obviously. This has the benefit of using things we already know exist (the CIA, underground constructions, strong magnets) while also explaining why even nearby and non-traffic-violating vehicles were moved by the magnetic field( which God can't explain very well). Basically the whole "accidental" look of the thing, plus the fact that the effect seems to have an epicenter of greatest effect that quickly drops off with distance. Fucking CIA MAGNETS, dude.

How do they work?

Vans swung left, vans swung right, never a miscommunication. You can't explain that.

pl0bs wrote:

Spinozasgalt wrote:I thought 2. was quite good. 1. and 3. tell us that attributing further to already counted entities counts against simplicity (let's not torture Ockham), but rather than countenancing how a description of God as a mind with an attribution of various powers has us committed to doing just what we found problematic in 1. and 3. it sneaks these attributes in through a vague description of minds and their doings. That is an apologetic trick.

If you combine the argumentative weight of refutations 1,3 and 4, ignore point 2, then the sum still does not support the position of an existing creature that is more plausible than known natural forces such as those that can be found in many organisms with minds (it doesnt even matter whether one is a physicalist, idealist, panpsychist, or whatever else). But ok, suppose we ignore 1 and 4... does that make 3 sufficient to carry the burden of proof required to accept the existence of it? What if we ignore 3 too and only 2 is left? If all else is ruled out, should we not accept the only remaining option? I dont think anyone reading this still believes the elephant explanation.

There are problems with all of these points, of course. Here we will speak fluently and brilliantly to defence of the elephant case.

1. We are not clear that we should say a new attribute in an already confirmed entity is equivalent to a new type of entity, particularly if we have independent reasons for positing the former where we lack said reasons for positing the latter. We may want to test such a principle when applied to cases if we were faced with a stark choice between these two cases with nothing further to tilt the scales in favour of one or the other, but we've already seen why we should prefer an invisible elephant to God. So, we shall take that point as conceded by the theist.

2. We continue to suspect that God is an extra entity and a metaphysically extravagant one. We might construe him as a mind to make him somethwhat familiar, but if so he is also a timeless mind with omni- attributes possessed by no other mind. He is not even one of a kind - he isn't a kind at all. If God, for all his difference, does not count as an extra entity, then we are convinced that nothing should so count. He is about as extravagant an entity as one might posit. Next to God, our old fashioned platonism looks earthy. We shall take this point as conceded, too.

3. The two vehicles furthest over and clustered together actually move first and the third vehicle further away moves later. The elephant need only move the first two into each other in such a way that they continue to bound with each other while it moves onto the third vehicle and our view is maintained. We also note that some mystery of movement is given room on our view because of our positing's state of visibility, whereas the theist cannot say why only these three cars should move and not the others. We are further perplexed as to why something's size turns it into more than one entity without a better statement of such a principle. We shall also take this point as conceded.

4. As with points the other points offered, we note with disappointment that the fourth does not remotely follow. So we shall take all points as conceded.

We thus conclude that the case for the God of theism fails and that the invisible elephant remains the most powerful explanatory contender for this case. We may, however, supplement such a view with CIA magnets should such a supplement be required. We shall also consider how a case for camouflage may give an already sheer simple theory a further advantage over its rivals.

If you'd only managed to say "epistemic warrant" it would have been perfect.

Could this not have been done by a disembodied elephant mind? We do, after all, have evidence for elephant minds, while we have no evidence whatsoever for a God mind.