Scott Ahten

Technologist. iOS + Mac + Web developer. VJ. Amateur photographer.

[Scott Ahten @lightandshadow]

@ImLunaHey @AndrejKrutak Then you seem to already know the answer to your question?

[Scott Ahten @lightandshadow]

@adir_13 The sequence of Apple logos and other screens seems out of place. Looks like a fake.

[Scott Ahten @lightandshadow]

@usereditable What can slide-out drawers achieve that sidebars cannot? For example, sidebars can be collapsed. And we have inspectors on the left as well.

[Scott Ahten @lightandshadow]

@SantoroSystems This reflects letting engineering drive product development.

[Scott Ahten @lightandshadow]

@darwintojesus How can we substitute God's infallibility when man's fallible reasoning and problem-solving is logically prior to faith and obedience?

[Scott Ahten @lightandshadow]

@reach_vb @twostraws

[Scott Ahten @lightandshadow]

@reach_vb @twostraws Also, the Mac disk image lacks the usual “drag to Applications”, two folder layout. When I ran the app to install as instructed, It ran for a while then locked up, with an incomplete copy.

Just dragging the icon to Applications works.

Running Golden Gate b3.

[Scott Ahten @lightandshadow]

You said, If you own something you get to set the rules.

Is that your opinion? Or is that objectively true. If the former, why should we care about your opinion? If the latter, how do you know?

IOW, this illustrates that human reasoning and problem solving is prior to faith and obedience. That question is more fundamental in your conclusion that you need to have faith and be obedience to God.

[Scott Ahten @lightandshadow]

@darwintojesus "Think about this… if we have no free will, that means there’s no consent. Do you believe people can consent to things?"

You just questioned free will. You took it seriously for the purpose of criticism. You're a fallibilist after all.

[Scott Ahten @lightandshadow]

@darwintojesus Does a current day LLM have conscious? If we cannot see conscious, yet an LLM outputs what you would call complex specified information, does that mean it’s a conscious mind or designer?

If not, why?

[Scott Ahten @lightandshadow]

@darwintojesus Most of the classic arguments for God, even if successful, get you only to some sort of deity, not specifically Christianity. This makes the claims, and corresponding burden, much greater for a Christian.

IOW, the argument from design, etc., doesn’t get you to Christianity.

[Scott Ahten @lightandshadow]

It's just unfortunate that your theological commitments interfere with a more fundamental explanation for how knowledge grows.

So, no. We're not starting with the unknown. We're starting with a universal principle of epistemology that spans minds, replicators, etc. You're referring to something that conflicts with that universal.

[Scott Ahten @lightandshadow]

@DrFrankTurek Unless they’re deconstructing from the idea that knowledge is justified, true belief. That represents a distinctly different perspective. Consequently, their understanding of belief diverges from yours.

[Scott Ahten @lightandshadow]

@darwintojesus “Every ‘good’ scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.” - Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge

[Scott Ahten @lightandshadow]

@darwintojesus @Dracopyre321 @Tobydeaux91 So whether morality is objective depends on one’s moral view on whether owning something means you get to set the rules?

That itself sounds like a more fundamental moral question.

This is why human reasoning and problem-solving is prior to faith and obedience.

[Scott Ahten @lightandshadow]

The retinas in our eyes detect light, which is sent to our brains, via the optical nerve, as electrical impulses. We do not perceive that for what is it. Namely, electrical crackles.

We have adopted our theory of the senses because it consists of a long chain of hard to vary, independently formed theories.

Observation is theory laden.

[Scott Ahten @lightandshadow]

It is about evidence. Empiricism was an improvement because it emphasized the importance of empirical observations, but it got the role evidence plays backwards.

Evidence is neutral without first being put into some kind of explanatory theory. For example, before we can conclude some observation reflects a repetition, we first need a theory to interpret it.

Just because there is no evidence for anything, in a positive sense, that does not mean evidence is not relevant. There are only theories that explain evidence better than others. What we actually have is criticism.

[Scott Ahten @lightandshadow]

Which also equally implies the opposite: you can believe in something that doesn't affect you. It seems like you haven't thought this out very well?

IOW, this seems to be yet another example that doesn’t support your view nearly as well as you seem to think it does.

As in the case of gravity, there are often competing explanations. For example, we currently think there is no field of gravity, but space-time bends due to mass.

Imagine someone living in 1850 arguing: "We already know what gravity is. End of story." But they would have been wrong in a way that would eventually affect navigation, communications, astronomy, and our understanding of the universe.

Before relativity, very few people would have guessed, after being lost and injured during a hike in the desert, whether you’re rescued could depend on the fact that clocks run at different rates in orbit.

The interesting lesson is not just that Einstein replaced Newton. It’s that a genuinely new explanatory theory revealed consequences that nobody had previously imagined.

[Scott Ahten @lightandshadow]

First, the criticism of not believing one's one theories is only applicable if one holds the philosophical view that knowledge is justified, true belief.

Atheism doesn't necessitate any particular epistemological view. We can take our ideas seriously for the purpose of criticism, then tentatively adopt the one that has best held up, as of this moment.

Second, we use the unseen to explain the seen. In this sense, no one has seen a nervous system or an eye either. The theory of how our senses works reflects a long chain of hard to vary, independently formed theories that, you'd have to admit, has not been observed. That would require using a conclusion as a premise. Right?

Rather, we have adopted our current theory of how our senses work because it is good explanation. Specially, it's hard to vary without a corresponding reduction in its ability to explain what it proposes to explain. It plays a hard to vary role in a number of other theories.

[Scott Ahten @lightandshadow]

Insulting to who? Sounds like you're presupposing a designer. And, pleas to emotions are not arguments?

God is supposedly all knowing and all powerful. He wouldn't even break a sweat. But if this was the result of the growth of non-explanatory knowledge via mutations and natural selection, that would reflect part of a deep universal truth that would have implications across biology, morality and more. We can create genuinely new knowledge. We are not just archeologists, but can have a genuine, significant impact on the world.

What is knowledge, how does it grow, what interferes with its growth, etc.? That's it's possible to know, even if fallibly, is one of the most important truths.

It's seems unfortunate that the field of epistemology happens to overlap theological commitments.