What specific law of Logic am I breaching?

modus ponens

Ps. Btw, I'm under the impression that 'Santa' in Western countries is saint Nicholas, who is a real person.

Yes. But usually when you say his name you mean a guy who brings you present. It doesn't matter whether his based off a real person. There might also have been a person named Jesus. Still that does not mean he did things the Bible claims he did.

But let me turn that question a bit on its head: If someone believed in fairies, would you engage in a 5-day conversation with him, trying to convince him otherwise?

Probably not. But a belief in fairies is not a religion.

Still you haven't answered:[color="#1C2837"] how do you differ between something that exists, but cannot be measured, etc. and something that does not exist?

I'd also like to know mikeman's answer to this question, so I'm also asking for a thoughtful response on this.


This question reminds me of the transcendental dice fallacy model from the Atheist Experience. Clip is below if you'd like to check it out (skip to 0:40 to bypass the intro).

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Kvftq2ystmY


If you're not inclined to watch, here's a summary. There are three jars of the same size and shape. One jar contains normal dice. One jar contains no dice. And one jar contains supernatural transcendent dice. How would you determine which jar contains the transcendent dice?

[quote name='mikeman' timestamp='1311526725' post='4839652']
What specific law of Logic am I breaching?

modus ponens
[/quote]

I don't think so.

Empirical data:

For the boat to move when previously still, I have to push it, or the waves must push it, etc etc
For sound to be produced when previously there was silence, I must speak, or play the guitar, or pound a hammer, etc etc
For the tree to burn when previously it was intact, it has to be put on fire, etc etc
etc etc

Conclusion:

World is made of events.
Every event E has a potential set of causes C.
E cannot be member of C, because that would mean the event is its own cause.


Now:

1)The physical universe(space,time,energy) was created
2)That is an event E
3)That has potential set of causes C
4)C cannot refer to the physical universe itself. The event can't be its own cause.

Where is the flaw in that?

This question reminds me of the transcendental dice fallacy model from the Atheist Experience.

Yeah, I just rephrased it :-)
Tracie always brings good examples.

[quote name='rozz666' timestamp='1311529545' post='4839666']
[quote name='mikeman' timestamp='1311526725' post='4839652']
What specific law of Logic am I breaching?

modus ponens
[/quote]

I don't think so.
[/quote]
I was referring to your inference of god existence from free will.

1)For some physical event to take place, there needs a cause.

Nope. Virtual particles, for example.

2)The universe(time+space) coming into being is a physical event
3)The universe coming into being has a cause

Where is the flaw in that? I'm not mentioning God specifically here.

No. Modus ponens is used correctly. You just have wrong premises.

[quote name='rozz666' timestamp='1311529545' post='4839666']
[quote name='mikeman' timestamp='1311526725' post='4839652']
What specific law of Logic am I breaching?

modus ponens
[/quote]

I don't think so.

Empirical data:

For the boat to move when previously still, I have to push it, or the waves must push it, etc etc
For sound to be produced when previously there was silence, I must speak, or play the guitar, or pound a hammer, etc etc
For the tree to burn when previously it was intact, it has to be put on fire, etc etc
etc etc

Conclusion:

World is made of events.
Every event E has a potential set of causes C.
E cannot be member of C, because that would mean the event is its own cause.


Now:

1)The physical universe(space,time,energy) was created
2)That is an event E
3)That has potential set of causes C
4)C cannot refer to the physical universe itself. The event can't be its own cause.

Where is the flaw in that?
[/quote]

I replied before you've edited your post. So without getting into details of this example, what does having an universe with a cause bring to the discussion (which was about existence of god with regard to free will)?

PS. 1) is wrong as you've already assumed that universe was created

On sentient AI. I would be really curious to know if a sentient AI would find things to think about for fun rather than just expanding it's knowledge-base. I feel like that would be a major departure between sentient AI and humans. Where humans might delight in being entertained or relaxing rather than constantly being productive I feel like a sentient AI would focus on being productive and rather than entertaining itself or relaxing it would just shut itself off till it could be productive again.

On sentient AI. I would be really curious to know if a sentient AI would find things to think about for fun rather than just expanding it's knowledge-base. I feel like that would be a major departure between sentient AI and humans. Where humans might delight in being entertained or relaxing rather than constantly being productive I feel like a sentient AI would focus on being productive and rather than entertaining itself or relaxing it would just shut itself off till it could be productive again.

I think a sentient AI would entertain itself by trying to understand human concepts. Much like the Tachikomas. Now I have to go YouTube *shakes fists*

On sentient AI. I would be really curious to know if a sentient AI would find things to think about for fun rather than just expanding it's knowledge-base. I feel like that would be a major departure between sentient AI and humans. Where humans might delight in being entertained or relaxing rather than constantly being productive I feel like a sentient AI would focus on being productive and rather than entertaining itself or relaxing it would just shut itself off till it could be productive again.

We enjoy thinking about things because it was advantageous, from an evolutionary standpoint, for us to be curious and inquisitive. An AI wouldn't have this quality unless we programmed it in, or unless it came about by mistake through some kind of stochastic learning/adaptation algorithm.

A sentient AI would focus on being productive? It would do as it was programmed. If we programmed it to be able to choose not to be productive it would possibly do so, depending on the state of the input variables to the function defining productivity level.

The idea of a machine "entertaining itself" is really pretty vague. We typically enjoy things which we are programmed (through evolution) to enjoy -- things such as eating, sex, thinking, human interaction, etc. "Enjoy" is a very human word -- perhaps more apt here would be "seek". What would an AI seek? Whatever we programmed it to seek. My vacuum cleaner seeks its home when it's running out of power. That is at its essence a very real example of a machine exhibiting "hunger" and even "desire". Its flashing red sensor turns to a satisfied, pulsating amber once it finds its charging station. That is at its essence a very real example of a machine exhibiting "enjoyment".

So would AI be productive? Probably, because why would we program an AI that wasn't?

So would AI be productive? Probably, because why would we program an AI that wasn't?

You are on the internet. The single greatest technical achievement of human kind and it's primary purpose seems to be the efficient transmission and dissemination of kitteh pictars!! and you still think our AI would be productive?