My story dates back to 4 years ago during when I was in 6th grade.
We started having our science course in our newly built lab. Our science teacher, who was in her 30s, was a firm believer. Outside the school she was wearing headscarf1. During a lecture, I realized a framed poster on the floor. I went to the teacher’s desk at the end of the class and said “Something has fallen off here ma’am”. With a sharp voice she replied back “Oh that, they found it among the old lab stuff, I didn’t want to confuse you by hanging stuff like that on the wall.” When I took the poster and started to examine it, she warned me to put it in the trash and walked out of the classroom. As you can guess, there was a detailed description of the tree (evolution) of life on the poster. I didn’t know much about the tree of life or evolution until that day but I pretty much figured that my teacher was irritated of the poster because of her religious beliefs. When I came home I immediately set out to make a research about evolution on the internet and examined the basic written and visual sources on evolution and natural selection for hours. And that day, for the first time in my life, I questioned the all mighty creator on whose existence I didn’t have the tiniest doubt before.
The more I read about evolution, which gives much more humane (and universal) answers to the questions like how we exist than intelligent design does and stands on sound evidence, the more I reasoned, questioned and got curious. All the prevarication of my teacher when I asked her questions about these issues together with the pervasive moralist pressure of the conservationist society all around me, stimulated me to inquire a lot more and drove me to explore further. With time, being skeptical also helped me to get rid of my other stupid supernatural fears and thus made me sleep more peacefully and take more confident steps in life. Besides, as it has always bothered me that the god was holding men dearer and commanding only to women to cover themselves, I questioned more. It was not very difficult for me to come up with the conclusion that this whole religion and belief systems were nothing more than sick dreams of a patriarchal society.
As time went by, with all these thoughts on my mind, I got rid of my ignorant superstitions, and I am finished with feeling guilty about being a woman and with being treated like a second-class person. I am much more aware that I’m holding the rights to speak about my life and my body, and I think I am much more peaceful and confident than if I were a religious person. This is why I’ve been an atheist for three years now.
Gülşah Ökmen
Turkey
1Translator’s note: it is not allowed to teach with headscarfs in public schools in Turkey.
Okmen is a tenth grader. Her Atheism is based on two points:
1. Evolution; She feels that it is based on “sound evidence”.
2. She rejected religion due to the treatment of women as second class citizens.
Summary: between the 6th and 10th grades, Okmen rejected Allah (?) based on her discovery of evolution as a substitute for deity, and the treatment of women as second class citizens.
132 comments:
Okmen rejected Allah (?) based on her discovery of evolution as a substitute for deity
As people gain more access to information, reality will substitute for deities in the minds of those who seek knowledge.
As knowledge increases gods get pushed back further and further until eventually tales of the gods are called metaphors and allegories then myths and legends.
The 'hard to understand' is where the gods live now. 'A god must have started the big bang!' The gods get smaller and smaller.
LiWon said,
"As people gain more access to information, reality will substitute for deities in the minds of those who seek knowledge."
Only in the minds of those who confuse material factoids as the legitimate limit of knowledge of reality will physical entities substitute for non-material knowledge such as logic, mathematics, and their axiomatic foundations. Your apparent attachment to the physical as the limit of "reality" contrasts with non-physical existence, such as knowledge itself.
"As knowledge increases gods get pushed back further and further until eventually tales of the gods are called metaphors and allegories then myths and legends.
The 'hard to understand' is where the gods live now. 'A god must have started the big bang!' The gods get smaller and smaller."
Your assertion is itself an allegory, one you wish to be so, yet have no evidence of its validity. There is, in fact, no smaller assertion than one which is not grounded. Your assertion is merely Atheist cant, a dogmatic philosophical feeling without empirical backing - the exact type of backing that reality would provide, if reality were purely physical. Yet there is no such backing in terms of empirical data that can be shown in defense of your artificial limit on "reality". So unless you can provide "real" physical, empirical data in support of your position, it cannot be accepted, under the rules of materialism.
Stan,
I used to think that materialism was ridiculous as it is evident that some "non-material" things, such as ideas, emotions or logical axioms are not made of matter yet existent.
That did not affect my atheism at all since I simply don't believe gods exist. These gods I have heard of are all are described by people. These people have ways to describe their gods; they have concepts in their mind that represent their gods. However, I never see any reason to believe that these gods are anything more than that. I don't see any reason to believe these concepts point to real things independent of human consciousness.
So, my question to you is: why do you think I should believe gods exist? That's what you are trying to refute, no? I did not read all your blog obviously so I am not sure what your position is... You seem to imply that to be an Atheist you have to accept materialism as being true but it is not the case.
Moreover, I did start by saying that I use to think that materialism is silly. I now think that it makes perfect sense. It did not change any of my other beliefs. I simply realized what the proper definition of 'material' is, in the context of a materialistic worldview.
This brings me to my 2nd question. What does 'non material' means for you? Yes, ideas, logical laws, numbers, etc... are not material in a strict sense, because they are not things made of physical matter, but they are still concepts that depend on minds, which are in turn material.
What we discus are ideas. To prove that an idea exists apart from a brain requires more than just ideas. Do you disagree with that?
Hugo,
Regarding material minds, I have another infographic for you.
”So, my question to you is: why do you think I should believe gods exist? That's what you are trying to refute, no? I did not read all your blog obviously so I am not sure what your position is... You seem to imply that to be an Atheist you have to accept materialism as being true but it is not the case.
Despite your claim that Atheism doesn’t entail Materialism in this paragraph, you refute that in your coming paragraph. Atheism is the position that God or gods do not exist. While they have no positive evidence to support their claim of knowledge that there is, for example, no rational first cause for the rational universe, they base their claim on “lack of evidence”. Without exception, this has been projected to mean “lack of scientific evidence” or at least “lack of material evidence”. Whether Atheists admit it or not, Philosophical Materialism is the default worldview for Atheism.
Now for your question: I do not think you should believe anything which you do not choose to believe based on logic and the First Principles as grounding. It is for every person of an inquisitive bent to learn how to think logically and rationally, rather than to just claim logic and rationality based on the statement, “Ain’t no God”. Rejection and skepticism are not pathways to knowledge. There are disciplines which must be learned and adhered to with intellectual integrity and persistence. AND if one finds truth, then one finds that it is independent of whatever one thinks or wishes it to be.
”This brings me to my 2nd question. What does 'non material' means for you? Yes, ideas, logical laws, numbers, etc... are not material in a strict sense, because they are not things made of physical matter, but they are still concepts that depend on minds, which are in turn material.”
The brain is material; the mind is ephemeral at best, and it works on meaning which is in no manner material. The brain may be removed and examined; no facts, no knowledge, no lumps of concepts will be found, and neither will the mind be found, no matter the resolution of the microscope.
Materialism requires (without any cogent reason) that only material things exist. This means that material proof must be had for a thing to be known about existence. But Materialism cannot prove that no other form of existence is possible by using its own criterion: material proof. It is a Category Error to declare that [ Not X ] does not exist, merely by examining [ X ] and nothing else. And the inability to prove its own basic tenet using its own dictated technique renders Materialism internally contradictory. So between the Category Error and the internal contradiction, Materialism is false.
”What we discus are ideas. To prove that an idea exists apart from a brain requires more than just ideas. Do you disagree with that?”
Please define your concept of an “idea”. If idea :: concept, then I know that concepts are commonly transmitted over distance, over centuries, having been captured on a separate scaffold or substrate from the brain. And I have a concept of that possibility and actual occurrence. So I see no reason to agree with your statement (as I understand it).
If you mean that ideas/concepts exist with no mind involved at all, then I remember that higher mathematical concepts are “discovered”, in the sense that the conceptual relationships pre-exist without minds, but are discovered only by inquisitive minds, where they become mental concepts.
Either way, I don’t see a reason to agree with your assertion.
If you mean that human thought does not occur without a brain, then I accept that idea: there has to be an interface between non-material thought and the material world, and the brain is the interface and the substrate which carries the thoughts/ideas/concepts.
Perhaps it would clarify the issue if you would expand your idea (on our non-mental media substrate).
Atheism is the position that God or gods do not exist.
I don’t understand why you are so precise about it. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. I am sure you have been told that hundreds of time already so I won’t even go there… because in my case anyway it is true that I believe that gods (as generally defined) don’t exist so there is no need to dance around with the definition of atheism.
While they have no positive evidence to support their claim of knowledge that there is, for example, no rational first cause for the rational universe, they base their claim on “lack of evidence”.
I don’t know what you mean by “rational first cause for the rational universe”. Physics tell us a lot about what we can know, or not know, about the universe and I don’t pretend to know more than that. Actually, I know for a fact that I don’t know as much as I would like to simply because there is no enough time to learn everything…
… I do not think you should believe anything which you do not choose to believe based on logic…
Of course, there is no doubt that we agree on that…
…and the First Principles as grounding
…but I am not sure what you mean by First Principles. Is it a synonym for what we often call the laws of logic?
… AND if one finds truth, then one finds that it is independent of whatever one thinks or wishes it to be.
Yes that is actually essential to a correct understanding of the world we live in I believe. Facts are true statements that are independent on the opinion of people. They depend on the context and can change over time though…
The brain is material; the mind is ephemeral at best, and it works on meaning which is in no manner material. The brain may be removed and examined; no facts, no knowledge, no lumps of concepts will be found, and neither will the mind be found, no matter the resolution of the microscope.
What about the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of a physical brain? Why do you think this is non-sense?
Materialism requires (without any cogent reason) that only material things exist.
Yes, because by definition to be material is to exist under this ontology. I will get back to that when I have more time……………..
Materialism requires (without any cogent reason) that only material things exist.
A few more minutes to spend here…
So, yes, materialism, the way I understand it, states that things that exist are defined in terms of what they are. What they are is their ‘material’ definition. This yields only 2 larger categories of things: the strictly material, which is defined using physical stuff like any kind of particles, matter, energy, etc… and things that are not material in a strict sense: concepts, which are the product of minds.
All strictly material things are discussed between minds using concepts, but not all concepts point to strictly material things obviously. A flying unicorn is a concept we both understand but we also agree that it does not point to an existing thing. The concept of the unicorn exists only as an idea in our mind.
This means that material proof must be had for a thing to be known about existence.
Yes, because without a proof, a concept remains just that, a concept. To confirm that a concept points to a real thing, it must be shown to exist as a strictly material thing.
But Materialism cannot prove that no other form of existence is possible by using its own criterion: material proof.
Materialism offers an ontology that states that what exists is material and vice versa. So no, by definition, something that exists must be material. Something that is not material literally does not exist since it is defined by what it’s not, not what it is.
It is a Category Error to declare that [ Not X ] does not exist, merely by examining [ X ] and nothing else.
Agreed, because simply saying that something is ‘not material’ is meaningless, just like saying that something is only material is meaningless. We need more meat to determine existence.
And the inability to prove its own basic tenet using its own dictated technique renders Materialism internally contradictory. So between the Category Error and the internal contradiction, Materialism is false.
Well, you simply reject the definition… please provide a better framework to determine what exists and I shall examine it.
...to be continued again!...
@Martin
You still have another infographic to defend/retract... ;-)
Having been in Turkey, and living and working in a part of Vienna with many Turks, I can say to this young woman: bravo for the courage at taking a very unpopular worldview. Despite the more or less official secular government and culture, Turkey is still pretty strongly under the sway of Islam, and the concept of tolerance for other worldviews is not very advanced there, or in the Turkish communities abroad (although that's changing).
Second- Stan, you say:
The brain is material; the mind is ephemeral at best, and it works on meaning which is in no manner material. The brain may be removed and examined; no facts, no knowledge, no lumps of concepts will be found, and neither will the mind be found, no matter the resolution of the microscope.
This is a statement of faith. While it may be that we will never have the ability to "read thoughts" accurately with a microscope (or more realistically, some sort of magnetic scanning plus computer), it seems to be rather a problem of sheer complexity than of a magic barrier between your alleged "material" and "immaterial". Sure, concepts are (at least to some extent) substrate-neutral: they can exist in the form of mental concepts (which could at least theoretically be deciphered from analysis of neural potentials), or symbols on paper, floppies, or rom; but if they don't exist in some sort of substrate, they cannot really be said to exist at all- except insofar as they are models of what happens in the world (say, the law of gravity) that are reproducible. I guess you could say that certain ideas (observations about the way the world is) are immanent in that they are deducible by minds; but to say they thus have some kind of "existence" in an "immaterial" realm is multiplying realms beyond necessity.
cheers from cool Vienna, zilch
Hugo said,
”I don’t understand why you are so precise about it. Atheism is simply a lack of belief.”
I am precise because Atheists will deny any and all responsibility for their own beliefs, based on a false impression which they project for that very purpose. They claim to be logical, rational and evidence based; but they refuse to engage in their own defense with specific evidence for their beliefs. So their claim of evidence-requirement for believing something is false.
”I don’t know what you mean by “rational first cause for the rational universe”. Physics tell us a lot about what we can know, or not know, about the universe and I don’t pretend to know more than that.”
It is a deduction from the observation that the universe is rule-based and rational. From that observation a simple deduction is made: the cause must also contain the ability to create rationality and rational rules and must therefore be rational.
”…but I am not sure what you mean by First Principles. Is it a synonym for what we often call the laws of logic?”
The First Principles are called the “Laws of Thought” in almost every logic book I own. They are self-evident, and are necessary and sufficient in themselves. If their contraries are taken for examination, the universe cannot be as it is. They provide checks on basic logic statements.
If by the laws of logic you mean the rules of logical construction, that is not what they are. There is a discussion of First Principles in the right hand column which I won’t repeat here.
”What about the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of a physical brain? Why do you think this is non-sense?”
Actually many Materialists don’t believe this either, hence their arguments that consciousness is an illusion, a state where the brain informs memory of that which it decided independently of “conscious” input. That hypothesis is necessitated in order to defeat the idea that a conscious entity is in possession of agency, and is therefore an “uncaused causer”, a concept which defeats materialism.
My rejection of “emergent properties” is that there are no properties in electrons, protons, neutrons or sub-atomic particles which is congruent with agency, or with self-awareness, or with intellect, or with abstract thought, etc. No matter how many electrons, protons, neutrons, etc are amassed, or how they are connected, provides any rational anticipation of agency, self-awareness, intellect, etc.
The concept of emergent properties is a story created without any evidence whatsoever. It is a necessity only for the protection of Materialism, not for the investigation of the phenomenon of “consciousness”.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
”Materialism offers an ontology that states that what exists is material and vice versa. So no, by definition, something that exists must be material. Something that is not material literally does not exist since it is defined by what it’s not, not what it is.”
Definition is not a material proof of itself. Tautology is the statement that “it is true because it is true”, which provides no evidence for its validity: it is without evidence in its own behalf. And it is only true if all parties agree to it: "it is true because I say so". I can define the universal existence as being only pistachio ice cream and everything else as rocky road, and that forms an ontology with rules, but it does not make it so, other than inside the fantasy of the definition.
The Materialist ontology makes a definition it cannot defend, using its own rules, which demand material evidence in order to believe a thing. It cannot prove materially whether having a concept of concepts exists or not. It cannot prove empirically, experimentally whether “meaning” exists or not. It cannot prove empirically, experimentally whether Goedel’s theorems exist or not. Or that they are correct or not. Goedel’s theorems exist as symbols on a page or screen, but do they have meaning? A commenter once tried to sell a “jar full of meaning which he had on his desk”.
Further, Materialism itself is a concept. It is not material. To claim that non-material existence doesn’t exist means that the concept of Materialism cannot exist itself. That is self-refuting, internally contradictory, and non-coherent.
And this statement is incomplete:
” Something that is not material literally does not exist since it is defined by what it’s not, not what it is.”
This should say,
” Something that is not material literally does not exist [Materially] since it is defined by what it’s not, not what it is.”
Merely defining something to “not exist”, is a faith statement without any evidence of any type to support it.
Using a tautology created without evidence makes an argument circular, because the conclusion is contained in the premise. Circular arguments are false… unless one defines them as valid and true for his own use, of course, but that would be special pleading.
”Well, you simply reject the definition… please provide a better framework to determine what exists and I shall examine it.”
I don’t “simply reject” it, I reject it based on the fallacies which are its basis.
And the framework is a) deduction using the rules of logic, b) grounded in the first principles, and c) based on empirical observation of the universe. This was demonstrated above (rational cause for a rational universe).
Zilch,
Let’s take the concept of “meaning”. We can understand that meaning exists, because without meaning, communication could not occur. Now how does meaning fit into mass/energy, space/time? It has no mass. It possesses no energy. It occupies no x, y, z space. While it exists and necessarily so, it has no physical, material characteristics which can verify its existence using empirical, experimental, replicable, falsifiable techniques. But it can be deduced, logically.
Can our knowledge base contain only “things” which are verifiable by empirical science? Or can our knowledge base contain deductions which we hold to be probable? (Remember that empirical observations are only probabilistic and contingent too.)
It is possible to name complementary categories as Material and Non-Material, or to name complementary categories as Existent and Non-Existent. It is not logical to name complementary categories as Material and Non-Existent without first proving that “Non-Material” is equivalent to “Non-Existent” in every possible way, using empirical, experimental, replicable, falsifiable techniques.
It is not possible to show the equivalency of contents of the Non-Existent and Non-Material categories using empirical, experimental, replicable, falsifiable techniques. The contents of these categories can only be deduced (not induced).
So materialist techniques cannot prove materialist assertions. That being the case, then Materialism, which demands material evidence in order to believe a thing, cannot believe its own materialist assertions due to lack of material evidence as proof, and lack of ability to obtain material evidence as proof. This internal self-contradiction is fatal to Philosophical Materialism. (Unless self-contradiction is acceptable to the Materialist).
I said,
” The brain is material; the mind is ephemeral at best, and it works on meaning which is in no manner material. The brain may be removed and examined; no facts, no knowledge, no lumps of concepts will be found, and neither will the mind be found, no matter the resolution of the microscope.”
You said,
This is a statement of faith”
Actually it is a deduction, based on dead brains such as that of Einstein. Einstein’s brain still exists. His mind was not found; his knowledge was not found; no facts, no equations, no hopes, no beliefs were found. And there is no expectation that such would ever be found, because the brain is just chains of atoms. There is no reason to believe that knowledge, facts, equations, hopes, beliefs exist as physical lumps, or masses of material in the brain. In fact, that assertion would be a statement of faith rather than a deduction based on any actual observation.
This is also related to the idea known as "Darwin's Horrid Doubt".
Zilch,
I should comment on this observation:
You said,
"Having been in Turkey, and living and working in a part of Vienna with many Turks, I can say to this young woman: bravo for the courage at taking a very unpopular worldview."
I would prefer to say to this young woman, bravo for starting to pursue truth, but make sure that you know the process and follow it with intellectual honesty and rigor. Study logic before making "logical" assertions. Find universals upon which to ground your logic. Don't betray logic with ideology. Don't stop at the first comfortable ideology you encounter; start from the bottom up and develop a worldview that is logical, rational, and understands the both the limits of empirical knowledge, and the rational deduction of probable knowledge. Just don't stop.
Stan, you say:
We can understand that meaning exists, because without meaning, communication could not occur. Now how does meaning fit into mass/energy, space/time? It has no mass. It possesses no energy. It occupies no x, y, z space. While it exists and necessarily so, it has no physical, material characteristics which can verify its existence using empirical, experimental, replicable, falsifiable techniques. But it can be deduced, logically.
Meanings are patterns that can exist, as I said, in many substrates, but I don't see any reason to believe that they "exist" apart from these physical manifestations- or can you show me a meaning that has no physical substrate? Of course, as I also said, you might consider patterns that have not (yet) been perceived, but are out there to be observed someday (say, a tiny black hole in the Sun) are a kind of non-physical "meaning": but the pattern that constitutes even an unthought, unuttered, and unwritten "meaning" still consists of particular relationships between mass and energy, that is, material.
Another point- if you are using the word "meaning", not to mean merely a description of some kind or pattern or order in the world, but in the more narrow, common sense of personal meaning, then I would say that "meaning" didn't exist in the world until life evolved to have meanings. Rocks have no meanings, as far as I can tell, if there is no life.
There is no reason to believe that knowledge, facts, equations, hopes, beliefs exist as physical lumps, or masses of material in the brain. In fact, that assertion would be a statement of faith rather than a deduction based on any actual observation.
So what are brains for- just to cool the blood? All those neurons firing- that's just random or meaningless activity? Why does brain damage change the way people think, if thoughts are not running on the wetware? This is something I've observed, by the way, not a statement of faith.
cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch
Atheists will deny any and all responsibility for their own beliefs…
You cannot know what an Atheist believes if the only thing you are told about that person is that he/she is an Atheist.
Come on, you want rationality, logic and reason to be used… be consistent. Atheism means that one does not believe in gods. You CANNOT know what they believe.
However, don't worry, for our discussion it does not matter if you refuse to admit that you are wrong regarding this, because I am approaching you with the idea that I am not 'just' an atheist, I am a strong atheist who sincerely believes that gods don't exist.
I just think it's ironic that a "champion of logic" as yourself cannot concede that a lack of belief is not indication of any belief.
It is a deduction from the observation that the universe is rule-based and rational.
I am not aware of rules that the universe follow. We, humans, express rules to describe the way the universe works. You seem to be turning it around.
I don't know what you mean by 'rational' when talking about a universe. Rational is an adjective used to describe people/ideas, no?
From that observation a simple deduction is made: the cause must also contain the ability to create rationality and rational rules and must therefore be rational.
Obviously, I cannot agree with that before we solve the confusion regarding what rule-based and rational means in the context of the universe.
...If by the laws of logic you mean the rules of logical construction, that is not what they are. There is a discussion of First Principles in the right hand column which I won’t repeat here.
I went to read the description of the First Principles and I will describe what I get from that. Let me know why you disagree (because I know you will...).
The First Principles are the actual things that the conceptual laws of logic point to, while the laws of logic are the concepts we discussed among ourselves. The concepts are in our minds; they are abstract constructs. They point to the real phenomena that the First Principles are.
The First Principles however are nothing more than phenomena we describe, in the sense that they are not made of anything. They describe the state in which things are, or not, in a particular context. We simply describe these states using words that we label 'laws of logic'.
In other words, the law of identity in logic which states that 'A is A', or that a thing is what it is and it is not what it is not, simply refer to the 'First Principle', which is this phenomenon that 'A is A'. No matter how we describe how 'A is A', it will always be the case that 'A is A'.
The problem we have is that you consider this phenomenon to be an immaterial existing thing and I don't. I don't see it as an immaterial existing thing because it's only a state in which existing things are.
My rejection of “emergent properties” is that there are no properties in electrons, protons, neutrons or sub-atomic particles which is congruent with agency, or with self-awareness, or with intellect, or with abstract thought, etc. No matter how many electrons, protons, neutrons, etc are amassed, or how they are connected, provides any rational anticipation of agency, self-awareness, intellect, etc.
Zilch replied exactly the same way I would so I will go read your answer later… I feel like the discussion is already long enough anyway since we disagree on so many definitions. I should try to write less…
Oh but I wanted to compliment you on this very interesting sentence:
Don't stop at the first comfortable ideology you encounter; start from the bottom up and develop a worldview that is logical, rational, and understands the both the limits of empirical knowledge, and the rational deduction of probable knowledge. Just don't stop.
Could not agree more :)
"...a lack of belief is not indication of any belief."
I'm not sure if I know what you mean here. Could you expand on that?
Hugo,
Even though these discussions do get long, they have value, and I hope you don't bail out. We can pare it down, but first consider these comments please.
I said,
Atheists will deny any and all responsibility for their own beliefs…”
Hugo said,
”You cannot know what an Atheist believes if the only thing you are told about what person is that he/she is an Atheist.”
You are right, I made an uncalled for generalization. It was based on my experience with Atheists, from which induction showed that no Atheist I have had discussions with is willing to accept responsibility for having evidence to support his beliefs, when challenged to do so.
”Come on, you want rationality, logic and reason to be used… be consistent. Atheism means that one does not believe in gods. You CANNOT know what they believe.’
Atheists believe that there are no gods. Here’s the analysis, which I have to present at least once a week it seems like:
If a person has heard the God hypothesis, then
1) He might accept it. (Deism/Theism)
2) He might reject it. (Atheism)
3) He might need more information. (Agnosticism)
4) He might not care (apathetic)
5) He might not remember it. (senile or apatheitic)
There is no chance that a person doesn’t have a God hypothesis of his own, unless he is apathetic or senile.
Atheists actively reject the God hypothesis; they are not without a god theory. It is not logical to claim to be without belief. Atheists have a belief, and it is specifically that there are no gods/God. This is so apparent to everyone who is not an Atheist that those who make this claim appear to be trying to manipulate the premise for their argument in a knowingly intellectually dishonest fashion.
”However, don't worry, for our discussion it does not matter if you refuse to admit that you are wrong regarding this, because I am approaching you with the idea that I am not 'just' an atheist, I am a strong atheist who sincerely believes that gods don't exist.
I just think it's ironic that a "champion of logic" as yourself cannot concede that a lack of belief is not indication of any belief.”
Kindly re-read the basis for the argument, and then refute it logically if you wish. The irony will allocate itself based on your response.
I said,
”It is a deduction from the observation that the universe is rule-based and rational.”
You said,
”I am not aware of rules that the universe follow. We, humans, express rules to describe the way the universe works. You seem to be turning it around.”
This is an amazing statement. We humans have induced the consistent behaviors of the universe, and we describe them as best we can, but we do not enforce the rules, we merely describe them. If the universe is not beholden to rules such as gravity, then what would you say its behavior suggests?
”I don't know what you mean by 'rational' when talking about a universe. Rational is an adjective used to describe people/ideas, no?”
The universe is inherently systematically and coherently structured, which is congruent with the concept of rational processes.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
I said,
”From that observation a simple deduction is made: the cause must also contain the ability to create rationality and rational rules and must therefore be rational."
You said,
"Obviously, I cannot agree with that before we solve the confusion regarding what rule-based and rational means in the context of the universe.”
For someone who doesn’t like precision in the definition of Atheism, you are quite concerned with terminology otherwise. But I agree: we have to agree on term definition in order to communicate.
I said,
”...If by the laws of logic you mean the rules of logical construction, that is not what they are. There is a discussion of First Principles in the right hand column which I won’t repeat here.
You said,
"I went to read the description of the First Principles and I will describe what I get from that. Let me know why you disagree (because I know you will...).
The First Principles are the actual things that the conceptual laws of logic point to, while the laws of logic are the concepts we discussed among ourselves. The concepts are in our minds; they are abstract constructs. They point to the real phenomena that the First Principles are.
The First Principles however are nothing more than phenomena we describe, in the sense that they are not made of anything. They describe the state in which things are, or not, in a particular context. We simply describe these states using words that we label 'laws of logic'.
In other words, the law of identity in logic which states that 'A is A', or that a thing is what it is and it is not what it is not, simply refer to the 'First Principle', which is this phenomenon that 'A is A'. No matter how we describe how 'A is A', it will always be the case that 'A is A'.
The problem we have is that you consider this phenomenon to be an immaterial existing thing and I don't. I don't see it as an immaterial existing thing because it's only a state in which existing things are.
Principles are not states, they are concepts regarding states. Plus, the Principle of Non-Contradiction, for example, is a concept regarding other concepts, as well as a concept regarding existence. A concept regarding concepts does not exhibit physical qualities, unless one considers ionic discharge to be a concept.
The rules of logic don't "point to" the First Principles so much as require conformance to them, it appears to me. Logic rules include proper syllogistic construction, proper argument form (e.g. modus ponens), truth tables, informal fallacies and so on.
Hugo,
Even though these discussions do get long, they have value, and I hope you don't bail out. We can pare it down, but first consider these comments please.
Yes I agree that they have value and I really enjoy such discussion. The problem though is that it takes too much time and I tend to not be able to let go... I end up wasting so much time instead of working harder! One more thing though... I won't bail out for now but I suddenly remembered that I did visit your blog probably 2 years ago (if it did exist at the time, right?), and I remember exactly why I did not want to pursue any discussion. I will not specify why for now and will simply try to avoid the "problem" since I think it should not matter........ Anyway, that's just my personal issues, nothing to do with the ideas at stake here ;)
You are right, I made an uncalled for generalization. It was based on my experience with Atheists, from which induction showed that no Atheist I have had discussions with is willing to accept responsibility for having evidence to support his beliefs, when challenged to do so.
That's kind of strange since, on the one hand you concede that you generalize, but on the other you claim that 'no' Atheist support his beliefs? Moreover, what beliefs are you talking about, Atheism is a lack of belief, or the rejection of a particular claim made my Theists. I think you expressed it quite well with...
Atheists believe that there are no gods. Here’s the analysis, which I have to present at least once a week it seems like:
If a person has heard the God hypothesis, then
1) He might accept it. (Deism/Theism)
2) He might reject it. (Atheism)
3) He might need more information. (Agnosticism)
4) He might not care (apathetic)
5) He might not remember it. (senile or apatheitic)
There is no chance that a person doesn’t have a God hypothesis of his own, unless he is apathetic or senile.
But the 'God hypothesis' is not presented by the Atheist. So I don't agree that Atheists have a God hypothesis of their own. Surely they have heard of one because most of them were raised by Theists parents, but that does not mean that it's their personal hypothesis. I thus disagree with that completely:
Atheists actively reject the God hypothesis; they are not without a god theory. It is not logical to claim to be without belief. Atheists have a belief, and it is specifically that there are no gods/God. This is so apparent to everyone who is not an Atheist that those who make this claim appear to be trying to manipulate the premise for their argument in a knowingly intellectually dishonest fashion.
It's apparent to each Theist that their particular version of God is rejected by Atheists, but it's possible that the Atheists in question don't even know what the God hypothesis believed by the Theist is. Therefore, I don't see a big difference between 2-3-4 since Atheists cannot know all the different hypothesis that exist in the minds of Theists.
We hear that all the time actually. I am sure you've hard that countless times... an Atheist tries to explain why he does not believe in God hypothesis 'X', then the Theist replies, "That's not the God I believe in!", so the Atheist just say, ok then, but I don't care about that hypothesis anyway, I am just trying to tell you why I don't believe in such gods since you asked me, if you have a good reason for me to believe in yours, I will listen...
However, as I stated before, because I am interested in such discussions, I do have a personal belief that gods don't exist because of their lack of material attributes, so I am not trying to convince you that I personally don't have a God hypothesis. I simply don't understand why you lump in all Atheists together...
Actually, let me put it another way using my personal experience. I grew up in a Catholic family. Obviously, I thus believe that the God of Christianity was real. That was the specific God hypothesis that I believed in at one point. Eventually, I realized that this particular concept of God is purely imaginary and does not exist. Since that was the only God hypothesis I had ever encountered, that's when I became an Atheist.
Now, did that make me a strong Atheist, a materialist, a naturalist or whatever word you want to use to describe someone like me 'now' who actively reject gods? No, not at all, because the second I rejected the God of Catholicism, the only thing I did was to reject that one god and that's it. I don't understand why I would need to justify any of my beliefs in order to be an Atheist after rejecting that 1 hypothesis. I am sure you also reject that version of God I used to believe in so what's the problem?
...now to the real meat of our discussion :)
***
I said that
”I am not aware of rules that the universe follow. We, humans, express rules to describe the way the universe works. You seem to be turning it around.”
This is an amazing statement. We humans have induced the consistent behaviors of the universe, and we describe them as best we can, but we do not enforce the rules, we merely describe them. If the universe is not beholden to rules such as gravity, then what would you say its behavior suggests?
I don't see the universe respecting any rule in a strict sense. Yes, we use that expression all the time, 'The Earth follows the rule of gravity and rotates around the Sun', but in reality, if we want to stick to a formal logical argument, the valid reasoning is that we used mathematics to describe the movement of the Earth around the Sun.
In other words, all the "laws of nature" are not laws at all, they are models, concepts, that we humans created to describe what we see. I believe the best example of why it is the case is the idea that Newton's laws were wrong. Yet, they were so close to be right that we were able to send freaking space ships to the Moon using them!
I said:
”I don't know what you mean by 'rational' when talking about a universe. Rational is an adjective used to describe people/ideas, no?”
The universe is inherently systematically and coherently structured, which is congruent with the concept of rational processes.
I think this is exactly the same as what I have just written. Our equations to describe the universe are inherently systematically and coherently structured, but I don't see a reason to conclude that the Universe is that way. What we do is more and more precise approximation but not more than that.
Again, Newton's laws are a great example... they are structured and work well to describe the movement of stellar objects and the effect of gravity on Earth, but they stop working on large distance. Relativity helps us to get further but breaks on tiny quantum scales or if we look too far in the past. Constants such as 'alpha' is used all over in Physics yet there is a chance that its value is not so constant after all. I read something about that in NewScientist a few months ago... or what about the speed of light which used to be an absolute limit but now has potential law breaker in the form of Neutrinos? Or what about the fact that the expansion of the Universe was probably faster than the speed of light at one point? I am no Physicist but I love to read about all of this and the more I learn about it, the more I realize that we know a LOT about the universe, but also DON'T know a lot... and never will!
You said:
For someone who doesn’t like precision in the definition of Atheism, you are quite concerned with terminology otherwise. But I agree: we have to agree on term definition in order to communicate.
Hehe, good point :-), but let me clarify why I seem to be jumping from one position to the other. I don't like the preicion of the definition of Atheism because it states what somebody is NOT; what someone does NOT believe in. On the other hand, when we talk about what the Univers IS (like rational), then the definition becomes extremely important and has to be as precise as possible to make sure we agree on what we are talking about. In any case, you said we agree so no need to continue more on that...
Principles are not states, they are concepts regarding states. Plus, the Principle of Non-Contradiction, for example, is a concept regarding other concepts, as well as a concept regarding existence. A concept regarding concepts does not exhibit physical qualities, unless one considers ionic discharge to be a concept.
I think I agree with that, but that's also where we disagree. Concepts don't exist without minds, so I don't see how you will justify that they exists without minds?
The rules of logic don't "point to" the First Principles so much as require conformance to them, it appears to me. Logic rules include proper syllogistic construction, proper argument form (e.g. modus ponens), truth tables, informal fallacies and so on.
Again, that's where we will disagree I think, because by 'point to' I mean that the concepts describe what we observe. The laws of logic conform to the First Principles because they attempt to describe them as precisely as possible.
Note that, again from the world of Physics, we have examples where the laws of logic appear to not work, as if the First Principles are not the same in that context. To me, this is yet another clue that logic is not absolute and/or transcendent; it is contingent on the world we attempt to describe. We start by assuming the rules of logic in order to create proper arguments or else nothing would make sense for us, but it does not mean that the existing world necessarily behave like that.
I concede that what I just wrote can be extremely confusing and I might have to re-write my thoughts since logical axioms are supposed to be absolute. I think the principle is that even if they are absolute, they are still context-dependant... hum... we'll come back to that...
(END, 4/4)
Yes, this blog has been active for just over four years now.
“But the 'God hypothesis' is not presented by the Atheist. So I don't agree that Atheists have a God hypothesis of their own.”
Of course there is: They believe specifically that there is no God.
Why do you refuse to accept this? When you ask an Atheist about the existence of God, do you seriously expect him to reply, “I have no thought/theory/hypothesis on God”?
When you ask an Atheist about the existence of God, the reply expected is, ”God does not exist” or “There is no God”. If that were not the case then Atheists would not show up here intending to show me the truth of that proposition.
However, when asked to defend that sentiment, that is when the Atheist will very likely change his story to, “I have no God theory; therefore I have nothing to defend”. And then my expectation is that the Atheist will deny his Burden of Proof, and the necessity of having material evidence in order to believe a thing. That is my expectation based on what happens over and over and...
” Therefore, I don't see a big difference between 2-3-4 since Atheists cannot know all the different hypothesis that exist in the minds of Theists.’
Atheists commonly claim to reject all gods, period. The common saying is "we just reject one more god than you do". And then they claim they have not rejected god or gods.
” I simply don't understand why you lump in all Atheists together...”
They have something in common, so I include them in a common category.
” No, not at all, because the second I rejected the God of Catholicism, the only thing I did was to reject that one god and that's it. I don't understand why I would need to justify any of my beliefs in order to be an Atheist after rejecting that 1 hypothesis. I am sure you also reject that version of God I used to believe in so what's the problem?”
So you are saying that as an Atheist you are rejecting only one, specific deity? You might accept other deities, if only you were familiar with their hypotheses? What sort of deity would be acceptable to you? Do you think that if a deity existed, that picking what is convenient to you or compatible with your concept, would provide an accurate description of it/him?
Yes, on to the meat.
” Our equations to describe the universe are inherently systematically and coherently structured, but I don't see a reason to conclude that the Universe is that way. What we do is more and more precise approximation but not more than that.”
The First Principles are based on observation of universals (invariants) since they were articulated by Aristotle. There is no reason to think that the sun will not exist tomorrow morning; continuity is expected. There is no reason to expect that a billiard ball hit by another billiard ball will not move. There is no reason to think that conservation of energy will cease to apply.
If you do not accept that the universe has a systematic and coherent structure, then how would you describe it? Why do equations “approximate” it so closely with reliability? Why is repeatability a requirement of empirical science? If empirical observation cannot be relied on, then what knowledge can be had?
The use of quantum indeterminancy to deny a systematic structure seems like an incredible stretch. However, if we take that to its limit, then it has consequences for the reliability of any human thought, the indeterminancy of meaning, and consequences for cause and effect as well as for agency/free will. Those will come up if the conversation gets that far.
Your argument seems to border on Radical Skepticism; even though we observe and document and describe mathematically the orderly performance of the (macro) universe, we cannot know that the performance of the universe is orderly?
(continued)
(continued from above)
” I don't like the preicion of the definition of Atheism because it states what somebody is NOT; what someone does NOT believe in.”
As a long tern Atheist, I had specific beliefs on the subject of God; it was not the void that you are projecting. I think the void which you wish to maintain as the core of Atheism cannot possibly be the case. Do I think unicorns exist? I think they do not exist, and I can defend my reasons for that belief. I do not maintain a void.
” I think I agree with that, but that's also where we disagree. Concepts don't exist without minds, so I don't see how you will justify that they exists without minds?”
I haven’t asserted (I hope) that concepts don’t exist without minds. What I have asserted is that brains are not the mind; the brain contains no physical lumps that are pure concepts, etc. So concepts as well as minds are not physical, material entities. This does not entail separation, unless we want to go back to quantum observations that particles respond remotely to minds and observation. However, that is not necessary for the point, which is that brains are material; minds and their contents are not.
” The laws of logic conform to the First Principles because they attempt to describe them as precisely as possible.”
This seems reversed to me; you will need to provide an example of a law of logic that describes a First Principle, rather than describing a thought process which is judged by the First Principles.
” …we have examples where the laws of logic appear to not work…
Again, examples please. Pairs of matter/antimatter popping into existence doesn’t work here, if that is what you are thinking of.
” We start by assuming the rules of logic in order to create proper arguments or else nothing would make sense for us, but it does not mean that the existing world necessarily behave like that.”
If it exists, it exists.
If it exists, it cannot also Not exist.
If it exists, it cannot somewhat exist and somewhat not exist.
Which of these do you see violated at any point in the universe? Go ahead and include quantum mechanics.
” I think the principle is that even if they are absolute, they are still context-dependant... hum... we'll come back to that...”
“Context dependency” seems to mean relative or subjective or situational. That is not a property which is claimed in any of my logic texts. That will take some justification.
They believe specifically that there is no God.
Why do you refuse to accept this?
I refuse to accept it because I don't think it's true. However, you almost convince me because I am willing to concede that self-labeled Atheists think like that.
My point is that I don't understand why you put together the Atheists that care enough about Atheism to actually come on your blog, for example, with the Atheists who simply rejected the one God they were told about.
This partially answers your question "So you are saying that as an Atheist you are rejecting only one, specific deity?". My answer, today, as a 27-yo person who loves to discuss religion is 'no', I reject all gods as they are generally defined. However, when I stopped believing in the Catholic God, when I was perhaps 15, the answer would have been 'yes'. I had no idea what others gods were! We were told about other religions, the kind of things they believe in, what they do in religious rituals, etc... but nobody ever explained to me what a god is. I found out by myself because I was curious to know more about the subject.
Therefore, perhaps you'll now understand why I have a hard time with your definition of Atheism. The 15yo me is not, at all, the same Atheist that I am now. Yet the label is, in my opinion, still appropriate for both.
The First Principles are based on observation of universals (invariants) since they were articulated by Aristotle. There is no reason to think that the sun will not exist tomorrow morning; continuity is expected.
This is actually a good example to illustrate what I mean by 'approximations'. Yes, we agree that the Sun will rise tomorrow. However, is it the case that the Sun will be exactly at the same location in the sky? No. This has been known forever since the Sun changes position according to the seasons. Take this a step further then. Is the Sun going to be there forever? The answer is no again. We understand enough about the life of stars to know that the Sun will stop converting H into He at one point.
At the same time however, this does not prevent us from using the Sun as an (almost) absolute clock. A day contains, and will always contain, one sunrise and one sunset. The definition of a day that we use depends on the current position of our planet and our star. They are stable enough for us to build an entire civilization that depends on their "fixed" position, yet we know that it is not that stable after all...
I think this example answers the following questions pretty well:
If you do not accept that the universe has a systematic and coherent structure, then how would you describe it? Why do equations “approximate” it so closely with reliability? Why is repeatability a requirement of empirical science? If empirical observation cannot be relied on, then what knowledge can be had?
The knowledge we get from science always depend on a context and some assumptions, as the Sun example illustrates.
The use of quantum indeterminancy to deny a systematic structure seems like an incredible stretch. However, if we take that to its limit, then it has consequences for the reliability of any human thought, the indeterminancy of meaning, and consequences for cause and effect as well as for agency/free will. Those will come up if the conversation gets that far.
I am afraid I did not understand this paragraph completely so let me know if it's needed to keep moving later on...
Your argument seems to border on Radical Skepticism; even though we observe and document and describe mathematically the orderly performance of the (macro) universe, we cannot know that the performance of the universe is orderly?
I would argue that we know, without a doubt, that we don't know the exact "performance" of the universe. By performance, I mean that we cannot describe the universe more precisely than our tools allow us to; our tools being both physical tools like particle accelerators or telescopes but also mathematics. I don't know if that fits with the word 'performance' that you just used?
I haven’t asserted (I hope) that concepts don’t exist without minds.
No, you did not say that directly, but I got confused by this:
Principles are not states, they are concepts regarding states. Plus, the Principle of Non-Contradiction, for example, is a concept regarding other concepts, as well as a concept regarding existence.
Don't you consider that the (First) Principles are immaterial things that exist independent of minds? If yes, then they are not concepts. They are something else and I would not know what you are talking about actually. I would not believe these things exist. For me, they are concepts.
What I have asserted is that brains are not the mind; the brain contains no physical lumps that are pure concepts, etc. So concepts as well as minds are not physical, material entities. This does not entail separation, unless we want to go back to quantum observations that particles respond remotely to minds and observation. However, that is not necessary for the point, which is that brains are material; minds and their contents are not.
That's where we'll never agree I suppose. As I have mentioned, for me a mind is "simply" an emergent property of a brain. A mind is extremely complex but it is always the product of a physical brain.
However, I do agree that minds and their content, concepts for example, are not material, in a strict sense. The difference between you and me is that because we cannot show that a mind exists apart from a strictly material brain, then I consider that even a mind is material, in a strict sense.
... got to run...
Hugo- I hope you will forgive me if I agree with Stan on one point here: if atheists reject the hypothesis of God, then they must have some conception of what it is that they are rejecting, or the whole thing is ridiculous. What if I ask you if "a g'sunde Watschen" exists or not? You would have to have a concept of what "a g'sunde Watschen" is before you could say whether you think it exists or not.
cheers from g'sundes Wien, zilch
(continuing...)
I said:
” The laws of logic conform to the First Principles because they attempt to describe them as precisely as possible.”
You said
This seems reversed to me; you will need to provide an example of a law of logic that describes a First Principle, rather than describing a thought process which is judged by the First Principles.
I don't understand what you mean by 'judged by the First Principles'. How can a thought process be 'judged'? How can the First Principles 'judge' anything?
I said:
” …we have examples where the laws of logic appear to not work…
Again, examples please. Pairs of matter/antimatter popping into existence doesn’t work here, if that is what you are thinking of.
No, I was not thinking about that example because I don't see anything illogical about it. It is however a good example of something that breaks the principle of cause and effect that we accept for pretty much everything else. Everything we observe is caused by something else.
In that instance, from our perspective, as of now, it seems that the appearance of these particles is not caused by anything. It is truly strange and serves well to illustrate that there are things we will probably never fully understand for the simple reason that there are limits to what we can observe.
The example I had in mind, (and I should have said 1 example, not exampleS, because I cannot think of anything else for now...) is the double slit experiment, in which particles appear to be in two places at the same time. This yields a paradox since both statements 'Particle A is at position X1 at time T' and 'Particle A is at position X2 at time T' are true. If we consider location as a valid description of what Particle A is, then we violate the law of identify. A is equal to 'not-A', where 'not-A' is exactly the same as 'A' except for location. In other words, Particle A appears to exist at two different locations at the same time.
Don't get me wrong though; I don't think this 'really' violates logic in the sense that logic is, and will always be, reliable for our usage. The only point it shows is that even logic, which appears to be absolute, is actually dependant on the system we live in, the reality we live in, and not the other way around.
This is what I meant by 'context dependency' so I think that answers the rest of your comment at the same time.
Hugo- I hope you will forgive me if I agree with Stan on one point here: if atheists reject the hypothesis of God, then they must have some conception of what it is that they are rejecting, or the whole thing is ridiculous. What if I ask you if "a g'sunde Watschen" exists or not? You would have to have a concept of what "a g'sunde Watschen" is before you could say whether you think it exists or not.
cheers from g'sundes Wien, zilch
Hum, just got the email notification with my comment and the only thing that showed up was a quote of Zlich's message... Let me re-post it
(good thing I still had the Word document opened ;))
Zilch, as I mentioned, I also agree with the general idea that Atheists have to have a God hypothesis in order to reject it. What I am trying to argue for is the fact that most Atheists I know (which are not outspoken online bloggers...) simply rejected the one hypothesis they were told as a child, and that's it. Nothing more. In fact, it does not mean anything for them to be an Atheist...
The way Stan presents Atheism, however, pictures them as people who refuse to support their beliefs. But what beliefs is he even talking about? That's the point. So I am not saying that Atheists don't reject anything; I concede that all Atheists reject a specific hypothesis. I just want to insist of the fact that Atheism is a NON belief and that for some Atheists it is nothing more than that (if not most Atheists but I cannot prove that...).
The hypothesis they reject can be anything, it can be something absurd that Stan himself would reject in a second. Yet, because the label 'Atheist' is used, Stan wants us to believe that there is something more to it? I don't see why...
I would like to share a little story with you guys. A few months ago, the subject of religion came up while I was discussing with my cousin. We were both raised by Catholic parents but our society in Québec is very secular and we never really participated in any church stuff, so all that to say that the 'God hypothesis' we used to believe in never was well presented to us. Anyway, so I ended up asking my cousin the question, do you still believe in God? And he simply said 'no'. To us, it's clear that we are simply speaking about this one vague hypothesis we were told as a kid. This hypothesis includes all sorts of magical things and claims or unproven miracles that we can safely reject until proven otherwise. Now, the important point is actually a second question I asked my cousin: Do you end up discussing religion with people often now that you live in the USA? His answer: I don't recall discussing religion with anybody, ever.
So do you see the point of this anecdote? By definition, my cousin is definitely and Atheist. He does not believe in God because for him God is this nebulous idea that was presented to us as a child. Is it illogical for him to claim he is an Atheist in that context? Does he have the burden of proof regarding anything concerning that one non-belief? I'll let you answer...
But again, I insist that I am not one of these Atheists; I am here on this blog because I like discussing what I believe and I personally have a strong belief that gods don't exist. It would thus be illogical of me to pretend that I have nothing to defend.
Cheers!
Hugo said,
”The 15yo me is not, at all, the same Atheist that I am now. Yet the label is, in my opinion, still appropriate for both.”
One of the characteristics of Atheists I have encountered is the tendency to define subjects to satisfy their own needs at the moment, and refusing to accept other common definitions. This is supported by their disattachment to any sort of absolute grounding, particularly for logic. You are supporting such a disattachment for logic and a disdain for the grounding that underlies both logic and science. Because your personal experience defines Atheism in your mind, then no other definition is possible, even for the general population of Atheists.
If all things, including logic, are merely related to you and have no external basis for testing their validity, then whatever you say is true, until you say something else that denies that truth while establishing a new truth for your world.
And that is where this conversation stands. You deny any stable conditions for testing the validity of propositions and the truth of their premises. Given that, either everything you say is true, at least at the moment you say it, or nothing you say has any value at all. Relativism, as you are projecting, is of no value in determining if there is truth, or what truth might consist of. Relativism pre-defines, as an ideology, that there is no truth, no absolutes, nothing useful for judging the value of a proposition. So no proposition is ever true, and therefore everything is not-true. If relativism is true, then it cannot be true, which for logicians and rationalists is a logical fallacy, but for relativists is not a problem because they don’t care about truth, which for them doesn’t exist.
So whatever a relativist says, is, by definition not true.
You refuse any notion of stable behaviors based on the entropy of the universe; but that is an eminently predictable property. You seem to pick premises to support your answer (rationalization), yet those premises are both weak and minute compared to the predictability of universal behaviors, including orbits and orbit degradation, solar position and solar degradation. And in the case of universal entropy, the premise doesn’t even apply.
(continued below)
Speaking of solar position and its change, the Anasazi at Chaco Canyon in N.E. New Mexico plotted the positions of the sun over all its known variations, and the moon over all its variations, which they compiled into a spirograph engraving on a vertical rock. The sun and moon still behave in the same way as it did thousands of years ago. For all intents and purposes, the universal behavior is described by the First Principles.
Back to the First principles. You ask how the First Principles can judge anything. And of course they are not agents and do not do the judging they are the standards; what I should have said is that thoughts (propositional statements) can be judged for validity by applying the First Principles to them.
Logic, if it exists at all, is a specific discipline, with rules for engaging propositions, and tools for testing the validity of propositions. If you are denying the existence of those tools, you are swimming upstream in a waterfall. Logic is taught as a discipline in both philosophy and engineering. The First Principles are the basis for Boolean logic, which is the logical standard for the operation of your computer. Boole proved the First Principles mathematically, in his book called, The Laws of Thought (See right had side panel for details).
I hope you consider these things before continuing your rejection of logic and its basis.
”That's where we'll never agree I suppose. As I have mentioned, for me a mind is "simply" an emergent property of a brain. A mind is extremely complex but it is always the product of a physical brain.”
Then you will be able to explain how a mind emerges from electron exchange. I would appreciate an explanation, because as far as I can tell, the term “emergent property” is a convenient fiction without any empirical basis.
Stan- you said:
If all things, including logic, are merely related to you and have no external basis for testing their validity, then whatever you say is true, until you say something else that denies that truth while establishing a new truth for your world.
And that is where this conversation stands. You deny any stable conditions for testing the validity of propositions and the truth of their premises. Given that, either everything you say is true, at least at the moment you say it, or nothing you say has any value at all. Relativism, as you are projecting, is of no value in determining if there is truth, or what truth might consist of. Relativism pre-defines, as an ideology, that there is no truth, no absolutes, nothing useful for judging the value of a proposition. So no proposition is ever true, and therefore everything is not-true. If relativism is true, then it cannot be true, which for logicians and rationalists is a logical fallacy, but for relativists is not a problem because they don’t care about truth, which for them doesn’t exist.
So whatever a relativist says, is, by definition not true.
While this was addressed to Hugo, I hope both of you will forgive me for jumping in and giving my take on it too. Stan, I tend to agree with you that the conversation stands here. The reason we've reached an impasse is because of our disparate ideas of what "truth" means, or can mean.
I'm sure you all remember that dramatic moment when the Mouth of Sauron said to the allies of Gondor: "Surety you crave! Sauron gives none." I would say the same about the world: we crave surety, but the world gives none. This is not because the world is evil, or because my atheistic worldview is befuddled by illogic, but merely because we are not omniscient, and logic alone, without complete knowledge, cannot give us absolute surety.
As you know, this is popularly called the "Problem of Induction", and is often associated with David Hume, although Hume did not mention Sauron. In fact, Hume didn't seem to think that it was much of a problem either; and neither do I.
But for many theists, and for some atheists too, the fact that we don't have any material way to absolutely logically justify our belief, say, that the Sun will rise tomorrow, puts us on a slippery slope that ends up with us ineluctably sliding into either giving up all ambition to knowledge, or admitting the necessary existence of a Higher Power that (or who) can ground our faith in our knowledge. This seems to be Stan's position here- if we don't have absolute truth, we thus have no truth at all.
My position here is: no, we don't have absolute truth, if that means being able to justify our beliefs logically all the way down to first principles. But I don't see any problem with that. I can still say that, for all intents and purposes, 2+2=4, that the Sun will rise tomorrow, and that I can calculate the trajectory of a spaceship so that it will land on the Moon. That's truth enough for me, and I don't see how it "improves" my hold on these truths, or their accuracy, by claiming that they are really really true because some sort of Higher Power told me so- or that this Higher Power must exist because otherwise I can never be absolutely sure of anything.
I'm quite happy to live with this uncertainty- in fact, I can bet my life on the accuracy of my uncertain truths, and do so frequently. So do you. That's all we get, and it is enough.
cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch
Oh, and ps- Stan, you say:
Then you will be able to explain how a mind emerges from electron exchange.
If Hugo could explain how a mind can emerge from electron exchange, then he would not be here messing around with you or me, but rather working on his Nobel Prize. But as he said, it's not because thoughts are immaterial that they cannot yet be explained or seen in the brain, but rather because the brain is dauntingly complex. Speaking of which, you still haven't answered my earlier question: if thoughts are immaterial, what does the brain do at all besides cool blood? Why are all those neurons firing- is it just for show?
cheers from hoping-it-will-snow-soon Vienna, zilch
Zilch said,
”I would say the same about the world: we crave surety, but the world gives none. This is not because the world is evil, or because my atheistic worldview is befuddled by illogic, but merely because we are not omniscient, and logic alone, without complete knowledge, cannot give us absolute surety.”
This is headed toward Radical Skepticism. Do you know with even a degree of surety that you exist? That you are not a brain in a vat? No. You have no surety. But wait, you have faith that you exist. Why should you believe what you cannot prove, which is that you exist, in a world of sensory, tactile substance, with physical extension, which changes every instant. None of which you can prove with absolute surety.
” As you know, this is popularly called the "Problem of Induction", and is often associated with David Hume, although Hume did not mention Sauron. In fact, Hume didn't seem to think that it was much of a problem either; and neither do I.”
I have no clue what Sauron is. Probably not germane to the issue. Now are you saying that the First Principles are subject to inductive failure? How would tautology fail? How would the universe have to change to accommodate something that both exists and doesn't exist? (preemptive to Hugo’s next comment…).
” But for many theists, and for some atheists too, the fact that we don't have any material way to absolutely logically justify our belief, say, that the Sun will rise tomorrow, puts us on a slippery slope that ends up with us ineluctably sliding into either giving up all ambition to knowledge, or admitting the necessary existence of a Higher Power that (or who) can ground our faith in our knowledge. This seems to be Stan's position here- if we don't have absolute truth, we thus have no truth at all.”
If by “we”, you mean Atheists, not myself, then yes that is the consequence of demanding absolute, physical, experimental, replicable, falsifiable data. And yes, even if you had such, that data would be subject to the Inductive Fallacy and the known contingency of empirical findings. So if truth is incontrovertible and incorrigible, then Materialism cannot ever produce it. So under that presupposition, then, Materialism cannot be known to be true. That is the fallacy of Materialist belief.
”My position here is: no, we don't have absolute truth, if that means being able to justify our beliefs logically all the way down to first principles. But I don't see any problem with that. I can still say that, for all intents and purposes, 2+2=4, that the Sun will rise tomorrow, and that I can calculate the trajectory of a spaceship so that it will land on the Moon. That's truth enough for me, and I don't see how it "improves" my hold on these truths, or their accuracy, by claiming that they are really really true because some sort of Higher Power told me so- or that this Higher Power must exist because otherwise I can never be absolutely sure of anything.”
There is nothing about theism which makes the claim which you are rejecting: that physical truth cannot be known outside of theism. Nor that surety in physical knowledge cannot exist outside of theism.
(continued)
(continued from above)
” I'm quite happy to live with this uncertainty- in fact, I can bet my life on the accuracy of my uncertain truths, and do so frequently. So do you. That's all we get, and it is enough.”
Yes, that is all we get, as Philosphical Materialists.
”But as he said, it's not because thoughts are immaterial that they cannot yet be explained or seen in the brain, but rather because the brain is dauntingly complex.”
This is the argument, Science of the Gaps, which is not justified except by faith, and the Inductive Fallacy. But as a faith statement it is tightly held, and used as a defensive weapon for holding off theism. Theism makes no claims on the composition of the brain or on the materiality of thought; but logic can and does. So the argument here is not about theism, it is about the logic of Materialism.
It leads to the question of cause and effect, and how electron movement is expected to generate thoughts which are original and agency producing. It leads to the question of how acausal agency arises in a purely Materialistic cause and effect universe. And it leads to the question of why we think we are agents if we, in fact are only effects of electron transfer, which has prior causes clear back to the origin of the universe.
As Karl Popper showed, there are question types, many of them, which are not accessible for being addressed by empirical, experimental, replicable, falsifiable material techniques. And as you point out, science produces contingent factoids, not truth. So if one believes solely in science, then his world is contingent and limited to those factoids as the only accessible knowledge.
As agents, including engineers, we depend on the relative stability of those factoids. But they do not address the question of why we are agents in a supposedly Materialist cause and effect universe.
Finally, science has its own dependencies; if there is no cause and effect which is consistent, then induction of “laws” is impossible, as is deduction from those impossible ‘laws”. Replication would be meaningless if effects had no cause. So the axioms of logic and the First Principles are presupposed for science to even produce results.
”Speaking of which, you still haven't answered my earlier question: if thoughts are immaterial, what does the brain do at all besides cool blood? Why are all those neurons firing- is it just for show?”
I gave it an answer above, which I will repeat here, only condensed: The brain is a scaffold for operations and storage, similar to a calculator used by students. The brain is not intelligence, it is used by intelligence just as hardware is used by software produced by agents, and the agent manipulating the inputs.
When hardware malfunctions or is originally defective, then that hampers the activity of the agents which use it. Hardware is not an agent; there is no precedent in nature which predicts that mere mass is an agent or will become one.
First of all, thanks Zilch for your input! I liked your Lord of the Rings example. Too bad Stan does not know about these great movies/books; what a sad life he must have! (Just kidding of course, not 1 bit serious, just to be clear... ;-))
***
Concerning the comment that starts with
One of the characteristics of Atheists I have encountered is the tendency to define subjects to satisfy their own needs at the moment, and refusing to accept other common definitions.
...and ends with...
So whatever a relativist says, is, by definition not true.
I find the 3 paragraphs you wrote and the 1-liner conclusion to be extremely ironic. Not only does it show that you don't know what is true or not for me, but you also you the fact that it's just as common, if not more, for Theists to claim that the only truth we can acquire is the kind of truth they believe in, and that is what comes from a divine God; that's their definition of truth and nothing else matters to them. If you reject God, you cannot even know anything according to such definition. Anyway, that's just a comment, not really valuable...
What matters though is this: How do you know you exist? I ask this question because this is where the definition of truth starts in my opinion. You mentioned something about it in your reply to Zilch later on. You mentioned:
This is headed toward Radical Skepticism. Do you know with even a degree of surety that you exist? That you are not a brain in a vat? No. You have no surety. But wait, you have faith that you exist. Why should you believe what you cannot prove, which is that you exist, in a world of sensory, tactile substance, with physical extension, which changes every instant. None of which you can prove with absolute surety.
You mention 'Radical Skepticism' with some sort of implied disdain but I feel like this is the logical position to have, at least the way you described it here. The point is that before we can know anything, or even use logic to justify the truth of any proposition, we do have to place some faith in the idea that we exist.
(1/3)
So this is where I draw the line between the absolute truth and the relative truth that I called 'absolute' for the rest of my entire philosophy. In other words, no, philosophically speaking, I cannot be 100% absolutely sure that I exist and that other people around me exist. However, because the rejection of this belief leads to a paradox in which nothing can make any sort of sense, I start by assuming that this fact is objective and true: I exist.
But what is the 'I' in 'I exist'? That is the second step that needs to be clarified before talking about anything else, and that is where I will have to stop and ask you what you think. In my worldview, the 'I' I assume exists depends on the existence of the body I am currently using to type these words on a computer. It cannot be otherwise because I said that I exist in an objective reality in which other people exist. If there were no body to support myself, then I would not be justified in my belief that I exist.
The same thing goes for other people. I believe that you guys, Zilch and Stan, exist. Because I believe you exist, I believe that there is a body using a computer on your side of the world, writing down words on a computer as well. Philosophically speaking, can I be 100% absolutely sure of that? No. Because there is an hypothetical scenario that I am just a brain in a jar and that all I am experiencing is an illusion. However, because this scenario would lead, again, to a paradox in which I cannot know anything, I assume that you guys also have real bodies, in a real world that we share.
(2/3)
Therefore, to wrap up, yes I believe that there are absolute truths. They are: I exist and other people exist. I concede that this is a contradiction in a way, since I start by saying that I cannot absolutely know that they are facts, yet now I label them as absolute truths. The thing is that they are the basis for everything that I believe in and everything that I know, so by starting there I can safely move on with some basic principles that I label as 'true' and that I believe are true for all minds that care to investigate them. If someone refuses to believe that they exist or that I exist, then there is nothing to talk about.
One other point that this yields is the existence of what we label the laws of logic. By starting with an absolute truth such as 'I exist', I can start an ontology system in which things either exist or not, but not both at the same time. Either myself exists in this realm of existence that we call reality or does not. A is A, A is not 'Not-A', A cannot be both A and B at the same time...
What's interesting is that it is an absolute system, but because it started with the humble assumption that nothing is absolutely absolute, then the world because much less surprising when things that should be obvious are not, such as an electron being in two places at the same time, things appearing literaly out of nothing, for no apparent reason, time being different depending on the speed you go to, spacetime being deformed by the mass of objects so big we can barely grasp their properties in our mind, and so on...
Again, sorry to address only a part of what you wrote Stan; I did read everything and would have a lot more to talk about but my lunch break is simply not long enough ;) I thus cut to the most critical parts. I would love to know where you go on after you assume that you exist because I feel like everything we write here boils down to that.
More importantly actuall, Vagon at WeAreSMRT mentioned something crucial to your "disciple" Martin. He told Martin that he wishes to will himself into existence without defining what it means to exist, and I believe that your detachment of the mind from the body is aiming into that direction as well; so I hope to get your thoughts on that.
(3/3)
” I find the 3 paragraphs you wrote and the 1-liner conclusion to be extremely ironic. Not only does it show that you don't know what is true or not for me, but you also you the fact that it's just as common, if not more, for Theists to claim that the only truth we can acquire is the kind of truth they believe in, and that is what comes from a divine God; that's their definition of truth and nothing else matters to them. If you reject God, you cannot even know anything according to such definition. Anyway, that's just a comment, not really valuable...”
While I was referring to Atheists I have encountered and not all Atheists; your refusal of the standard dictionary definition of Atheism, in favor of your own personal interpretation is why I said that. And whatever theists do is not germane to the conversation, which is about Atheists, their grounding, logic, ethics and behaviors.
” What matters though is this: How do you know you exist? I ask this question because this is where the definition of truth starts in my opinion. You mentioned something about it in your reply to Zilch later on. You mentioned (snip).
(…)
You mention 'Radical Skepticism' with some sort of implied disdain but I feel like this is the logical position to have, at least the way you described it here. The point is that before we can know anything, or even use logic to justify the truth of any proposition, we do have to place some faith in the idea that we exist.”
Radical Skepticism is the position that nothing can be known, because there is no proof which is satisfactory in the sense of incorrigible truth. It is, like all degrees of skepticism, a destruction of knowledge based on degrees of validation. Skepticism is never a source of knowledge; it is a position taken off the sideline and in the weeds which takes pot shots at those who are seeking and producing knowledge.
” I start by assuming that this fact is objective and true: I exist.
OK. Then you have created an axiom for your worldview. This is a step outside and beyond Radical Skepticism.
(continued)
(continued)
” But what is the 'I' in 'I exist'? That is the second step that needs to be clarified before talking about anything else, and that is where I will have to stop and ask you what you think. In my worldview, the 'I' I assume exists depends on the existence of the body I am currently using to type these words on a computer. It cannot be otherwise because I said that I exist in an objective reality in which other people exist. If there were no body to support myself, then I would not be justified in my belief that I exist.”
Even under Radical Skepticism the proposition that you might be a brain in a vat is presumed possible. That entails a physical brain, and it is a test of reality perception.
In another idea, the concept of a pure cyber transfer of mind into a supercomputer is hard to defeat. The mind is transferred from one platform or substrate through several sequential transforms into a new format (binary, digital, electronic, Boolean). The mind, having been transmitted outside the body into another system of scaffolding, has separated from the body.
And the mental extension from mind to a (potential) subatomic particle under observation is another case of the mind existing out of direct connection to a material entity.
But for your worldview case, I accept that you need a body.
” I believe that you guys, Zilch and Stan, exist. Because I believe you exist, I believe that there is a body using a computer on your side of the world, writing down words on a computer as well. Philosophically speaking, can I be 100% absolutely sure of that? No.”
This represents the acceptance of induction (bodies are needed for everyone, because you need one), and deduction (therefore, we also have bodies) in your worldview. These are logical conclusions, not empirical. You now have three axioms.
” One other point that this yields is the existence of what we label the laws of logic. By starting with an absolute truth such as 'I exist', I can start an ontology system in which things either exist or not, but not both at the same time. Either myself exists in this realm of existence that we call reality or does not. A is A, A is not 'Not-A', A cannot be both A and B at the same time...”
I just gotta say: HOLY SMOKES! (sorry for shouting!). You have concluded that the First Principles exist and must be true, based on deduction via induction and the presumption that you exist, which you accept as reasonable even though not actually provable under Radical Skepticism (!)
This truly is a first for such a short conversation.
” I would love to know where you go on after you assume that you exist because I feel like everything we write here boils down to that.”
Yes it certainly does. The next question is, “how is it possible that I exist with the ability to question and know that I exist, in a universe based on cause and effect? Am I really an agent? Or am I deluded into thinking so? If I am not an agent, then this conversation is pre-ordained via prior causation, clear back to the origin of the universe. On the other hand, if I am an agent, then my agency defies prior causation, and is something entirely different from non-agent existence.
So the question is: “Am I an agent?”
”…wishes to will himself into existence without defining what it means to exist”.
It is possible to think of oneself as “willed into existence” without having to have willed oneself.
Is it possible to think of agency existing without the pre-existence of an agent cause? Under what conditions would we expect for non-agent causation to produce agency? (Again, “emergent” factors are not a solution, they are a convenient fiction without any validation whatever).
This is an extraordinary conversation, I’m glad you both are here.
I loved the Sauron reference.
Atheists citing Tolkien- I dig it. After all, he was a devout Catholic.
This is interesting thread.
Stan and Hugo- I'm glad both of you are here too. It's refreshing to converse with people who sincerely try to present their ideas clearly. That way, even if no one changes their minds, at least they learn something about how others think, and might even learn something about their own ideas. Iron sharpens iron, right?
Hugo- I pretty much agree with all you say. I would just like to add my spin on this:
Therefore, to wrap up, yes I believe that there are absolute truths. They are: I exist and other people exist. I concede that this is a contradiction in a way, since I start by saying that I cannot absolutely know that they are facts, yet now I label them as absolute truths. The thing is that they are the basis for everything that I believe in and everything that I know, so by starting there I can safely move on with some basic principles that I label as 'true' and that I believe are true for all minds that care to investigate them. If someone refuses to believe that they exist or that I exist, then there is nothing to talk about.
One other point that this yields is the existence of what we label the laws of logic. By starting with an absolute truth such as 'I exist', I can start an ontology system in which things either exist or not, but not both at the same time. Either myself exists in this realm of existence that we call reality or does not. A is A, A is not 'Not-A', A cannot be both A and B at the same time...
I would put it a bit differently. Descartes said, cogito, ergo sum. My brother Peter said, something's going on. I prefer my brother's formulation, because it is far more conservative: it doesn't presume thinking or any particular mode of existence, but merely states the experience of sensing something. Thus, I wouldn't say that it's an "absolute truth" that I or others exist as people, but rather that I have perceptions, which lead me to believe that I exist as a person, and that other people also exist. That my perceptions exist is immutable; that people exist is merely my inference. That ties in with what Stan said here:
This is headed toward Radical Skepticism. Do you know with even a degree of surety that you exist? That you are not a brain in a vat? No. You have no surety. But wait, you have faith that you exist. Why should you believe what you cannot prove, which is that you exist, in a world of sensory, tactile substance, with physical extension, which changes every instant. None of which you can prove with absolute surety.
Yep, I agree with all of that. But- so what? I don't see any reason to believe that "proof", in the sense of being able to say that something is absolutely true, exists anywhere outside of circumscribed systems of formal logic such as mathematics. We can prove that 2+2=4 in Euclidean arithmetic: it follows inexorably from the axioms and theorems. We cannot prove that we are not brains in vats. Theists cannot prove that the Bible was not written by Trickster God, and that all religious experiences are not delusions for His Entertainment.
But luckily, that's not necessary. I can know that things are true enough, as I've already said, to bet my life on, or to send a rocket to the Moon. And since my vision of the world, as being a material place with evolved life forms eking out a living, eating ice cream and debating philosophy on the internet, seems to work, and is free of superfluous gaseous invertebrates, then I'll go with Ockhem and say that this is what it is, as far as I can tell, and pending new evidence.
I said:
But for many theists, and for some atheists too, the fact that we don't have any material way to absolutely logically justify our belief, say, that the Sun will rise tomorrow, puts us on a slippery slope that ends up with us ineluctably sliding into either giving up all ambition to knowledge, or admitting the necessary existence of a Higher Power that (or who) can ground our faith in our knowledge. This seems to be Stan's position here- if we don't have absolute truth, we thus have no truth at all.
Stan replied:
If by “we”, you mean Atheists, not myself, then yes that is the consequence of demanding absolute, physical, experimental, replicable, falsifiable data. And yes, even if you had such, that data would be subject to the Inductive Fallacy and the known contingency of empirical findings. So if truth is incontrovertible and incorrigible, then Materialism cannot ever produce it. So under that presupposition, then, Materialism cannot be known to be true. That is the fallacy of Materialist belief.
Again- Materialist belief is only a "fallacy" in that it cannot be "proven" absolutely. But as I said, there's no reason (or evidence) that suggests that this kind of "proof" obtains at all for any ontology- and that goes for any kind of theism also. Luckily, the "fallacious" belief of Materialism suffices to get me through the day: I still somehow manage to eat, reproduce, and have enlightening exchanges with what seem to be other intelligences, without this "proof". And my worldview is simpler by a factor of infinity (supposing that God is infinite) than that of theists, and explains the world just as well or better, so I'll stick with it for the time being.
The brain is a scaffold for operations and storage, similar to a calculator used by students. The brain is not intelligence, it is used by intelligence just as hardware is used by software produced by agents, and the agent manipulating the inputs.
Evidence? As I'm sure you know, software is material too: it runs on hardware in the form of potential differentials (or electrons, if you prefer). Nothing immaterial there.
In fact, there's no real line that can be drawn between hardware and software: it's all just ordered matter. This is analogous to the "distinction" between syntax and semantics, or form and content. In the real world, there is no hard and fast line that can be drawn here: as Douglas Hofstadter says, content is fancy form.
When hardware malfunctions or is originally defective, then that hampers the activity of the agents which use it. Hardware is not an agent; there is no precedent in nature which predicts that mere mass is an agent or will become one.
What do you mean exactly by an "agent"? I would say that the existence of humans, other animals, plants, and computers, is evidence that "hardware", in the form of the right arrangement of matter, is indeed evidence that mass can be an agent, when suitably ordered. Where do you see that anything more than matter is necessary? Sure, we don't yet have AI that can do anything approaching human intelligence; but it's getting better all the time, and if you think there is a line that can be drawn, you have to produce some evidence for the existence of that line.
cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch
Oh, and ps- Stan said:
Speaking of solar position and its change, the Anasazi at Chaco Canyon in N.E. New Mexico plotted the positions of the sun over all its known variations, and the moon over all its variations, which they compiled into a spirograph engraving on a vertical rock. The sun and moon still behave in the same way as it did thousands of years ago. For all intents and purposes, the universal behavior is described by the First Principles.
How do you get First Principles out of this? What I see, and what the Anasazi also saw, is that we live in a world that is full of order, and they were able to apprehend at least some of this order in order to, for instance, plant crops at the right time. But any First Principles to be seen here are actually Second Principles: to the extent that they work, they are accurate models of the world we live in. The world is the source of the Principles, not the other way around.
And by the way- the Anasazi were great thinkers and great architects, but they lacked foresight in at least one way: they denuded the land around them and eventually starved themselves to death. There's a good account of this, and the multiple lines of evidence for it, in Jared Dimond's Collapse, highly recommended reading.
First,
This is an extraordinary conversation, I’m glad you both are here.
Agreed!
Second,
I will drop the discussion on what Atheism actually means. I might be wrong concerning the dictionary definition and we all agree that it does not really matter anyway.
Third, aka "The Meat",
I just gotta say: HOLY SMOKES! (sorry for shouting!). You have concluded that the First Principles exist and must be true, based on deduction via induction and the presumption that you exist, which you accept as reasonable even though not actually provable under Radical Skepticism (!)
This truly is a first for such a short conversation.
Thanks I guess? I am just not sure if you are saying that it makes sense, or if it's the opposite, and you think it's foolish to pretend to have a justification for the First Principles with such starting point?
Ok, then, I ask where you go after you assume that you exist...
The next question is, “how is it possible that I exist with the ability to question and know that I exist, in a universe based on cause and effect? Am I really an agent? Or am I deluded into thinking so? If I am not an agent, then this conversation is pre-ordained via prior causation, clear back to the origin of the universe. On the other hand, if I am an agent, then my agency defies prior causation, and is something entirely different from non-agent existence.
So the question is: “Am I an agent?”
I don't see this as the necessary question to come. Actually, I would argue that it contradicts what I first assumed because we already assume that we exist in a real world in which we can do things and in which other people can do things. These people have bodies and I have a body that help me perceive what their body is doing.
I go back to the body because by asking if I am really an agent, you open the door to the idea that I am not, and we go back to the question of whether I exist or not. If I exist in the real world where other people exist, and if it's not just a figment of my imagination, then yes, I already know that I am an agent because my body is myself, and myself exist because this body exist in the real world. If I reject my own body, then I cannot justify my own existence in the real world that I started by assuming is real.
Using the same line of reasoning, the important thing is that facts are what we can express in terms of this common reality I assume exists. Anything that I think of, in my mind, any idea/concept, needs to be presented to the other minds in the shared reality in order to determine if they are more than just concepts. To communicate with these other minds, I have to use my body, and they have to use theirs. We cannot share concepts without our bodies. Without our bodies, we don't exist.
Zilch said,
”We can prove that 2+2=4 in Euclidean arithmetic: it follows inexorably from the axioms and theorems. We cannot prove that we are not brains in vats. Theists cannot prove that the Bible was not written by Trickster God, and that all religious experiences are not delusions for His Entertainment.”
Nor can Atheists prove that they are delusions. But Atheists are quick to declare that they are either delusions or outright false, based on skepticism alone, not on evidence. Yet Atheists will claim to be evidence based.
”But luckily, that's not necessary. I can know that things are true enough, as I've already said, to bet my life on, or to send a rocket to the Moon. And since my vision of the world, as being a material place with evolved life forms eking out a living, eating ice cream and debating philosophy on the internet, seems to work, and is free of superfluous gaseous invertebrates, then I'll go with Ockhem and say that this is what it is, as far as I can tell, and pending new evidence.”
And the evidence you require would be material, physical evidence of a non-superfluous, non-gaseous non-material being, which would prove its non-physical existence with physical evidence, in order to satisfy your requirements of it. It has been demonstrated here almost daily that Philosophical Materialism is internally non-coherent: Materialism cannot prove its own validity using its own evidentiary requirements, and is therefore internally contradictory, paradoxical, and non-coherent, i.e. irrational.
Further, the requirement of material evidence for a non-material being is a Category Error, which renders the expectation fallacious and therefore irrational.
Oops, I see we already covered that, to no avail. Moving on:
As for Ockham, Einstein defeated that one when he proved the existence of atoms using Brownian motion, just after Mach used Ockham to assert that atoms were not parsimonious. (reference upon request). Einstein: “An hypothesis should be as simple as necessary and no simpler”
” I still somehow manage to eat, reproduce, and have enlightening exchanges with what seem to be other intelligences, without this "proof".
Then you choose to ignore the real questions which “obtain”: Is intelligence the product of electron flow? Is intelligence causal back to the origin of the universe? Are concepts causal back to the origin of the universe? If not, why not, given cause and effect as an axiom of science? If so, do concepts even exist? Do I have agency, or as some Materialists claim, is it a delusion? If I am an agent then how is that spawned by electron motion? If I am not an agent, then my intelligence is a delusion, so why do I think my thoughts have meaning? (also known as “Darwins Horrid Doubt”. And many others.
The fact that you are here suggests that you do actually think beyond your mere existence of eating ice cream and reproducing. Do you not address these questions? Or do you have answers for them?
(continued)
(continued)
” And my worldview is simpler by a factor of infinity (supposing that God is infinite) than that of theists, and explains the world just as well or better, so I'll stick with it for the time being.”
This suggests that you feel that ignorance is bliss, but I doubt that you actually feel that way – you would not be here to assert that, I would imagine. It also suggests that you think that the subject is about only the universe and its material contents.
” Evidence? As I'm sure you know, software is material too: it runs on hardware in the form of potential differentials (or electrons, if you prefer). Nothing immaterial there.”
Software is not material. Software is conceptual, and the concepts are encoded onto media for storage and transmission. A page with print on it merely is the media for concepts; concepts remain non-material, because a concept is not paper, nor ink, nor bits, nor electrons.
When we view a rock we see: a rock. When we see an open book across the room, we see: paper and print organized into pages. When we read a book we see: the concepts, rather than just paper and print. The concepts are transferred without change to the paper and print. The paper and print are just the media, not the actual concept. If they were the actual concept, then we would need to place paper and ink into our brains for processing.
” In fact, there's no real line that can be drawn between hardware and software: it's all just ordered matter. This is analogous to the "distinction" between syntax and semantics, or form and content. In the real world, there is no hard and fast line that can be drawn here: as Douglas Hofstadter says, content is fancy form.”
That is not the case, and I don’t know what draws Hofstadter to that conclusion. Hofstadter is another firmly entrenched Materialist though and I imagine that he cannot conceive of otherwise. How does he prove that media equals concept? Can he do so without some sort of ideological intervention which we must believe without proof?
” What do you mean exactly by an "agent"? I would say that the existence of humans, other animals, plants, and computers, is evidence that "hardware", in the form of the right arrangement of matter, is indeed evidence that mass can be an agent, when suitably ordered.”
This is the Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy:
IF [ Material things are agents ] THEN [ Agency came from Material origins ]
IF [ X = Y ] THEN [ Y is because of X ].
AI is the product of intelligent agents. If it becomes an actual agent, then it is still the product of an agent. There is no reason to believe that it could occur due to “emergence” of intelligence based on electron flow or electron position.
The same goes for living agents: there is no reason to suspect that agency is produced by emergence of electron flow or position. There is no hypothesis for such a thing which is empirically addressable in terms of experiment, replication, falsification, and in fact the idea of emergence is merely a stop-gap science-fiction patch for the hole in materialism, without any meat to analyze.
You may successfully ignore all this and eat ice cream and have a quite happy life. But those are the questions, some of them, which we address here and I suspect that you are actually interested in them too.
P.S. The Chaco Canyon structure areas were not denuded by the Anasazi according to PBS NOVA. The structures were probably ceremonial and never lived in. There are no garbage dumps around any of the structures. There is no heavy smoke build-up in the rooms. There are no burial grounds near them. At least according to PBS.
Hugo said,
”Thanks I guess? I am just not sure if you are saying that it makes sense, or if it's the opposite, and you think it's foolish to pretend to have a justification for the First Principles with such starting point?”
Sorry for the confusion, it was not meant in any manner to be sarcastic or demeaning – it was supposed to be a compliment on achieving that which Logic text books take weeks to achieve, in such a short time. I meant it as a congratulation...
” I don't see this as the necessary question to come. Actually, I would argue that it contradicts what I first assumed because we already assume that we exist in a real world in which we can do things and in which other people can do things. These people have bodies and I have a body that help me perceive what their body is doing.”
Then you are not an agent, because that is contradictory? The point is that you have directed your thoughts to a conclusion. That requires agency. It is hardly escapable. And it is independent of whether it is your body that is an agent or whether it is your mind that is an agent. So that issue is not pertinent to the conclusion that you are an agent. And that conclusion is necessary, if anything you say or do has meaning or not.
” yes, I already know that I am an agent because my body is myself, and myself exist because this body exist in the real world. If I reject my own body, then I cannot justify my own existence in the real world that I started by assuming is real.”
This stops one step short of the cogito, which presumes that “I” am a mind, not necessarily just a body. A body can exist with no mind (e.g. permanent coma), but it cannot declare itself an “I”. It takes a mind to do that.
” Using the same line of reasoning, the important thing is that facts are what we can express in terms of this common reality I assume exists. Anything that I think of, in my mind, any idea/concept, needs to be presented to the other minds in the shared reality in order to determine if they are more than just concepts.”
Are you saying that no concept exists without transmission? I fail to see that transmission is necessary. I also fail to see that transmission is required to determine the logical validity of a concept, or that transmission figures in any manner into the existence of a concept. A lone castaway on an unknown island could certainly have concepts.
The definition of a “fact” is this: when our thought corresponds to an actuality, then our thought is true, and it represents a fact. Note that “actuality” does not self-limit to material.
Zilch:
I failed to answer this:
”How do you get First Principles out of this? What I see, and what the Anasazi also saw, is that we live in a world that is full of order, and they were able to apprehend at least some of this order in order to, for instance, plant crops at the right time.”
The point was not that the first principles derived from the Anaszi findings, or even that they ever articulated them. The point was that there is enough stability to not need to declare everything to be too inaccurate and relative for knowledge to exist, which was the original argument being made. The Anasazi findings were accurate then and they remain accurate now.
I was making precisely the same point: that there is sufficient order in the universe for knowledge to exist, and to exist with reasonable certainty.
” But any First Principles to be seen here are actually Second Principles: to the extent that they work, they are accurate models of the world we live in. The world is the source of the Principles, not the other way around.”
No argument there, because that was the point. The only caveat is that they were induction / deduction findings, the same as is done by rational people today.
(1/7)
...yes, 7... ;-)
First,
Sorry for the confusion, it was not meant in any manner to be sarcastic or demeaning – it was supposed to be a compliment on achieving that which Logic text books take weeks to achieve, in such a short time. I meant it as a congratulation...
Thanks!
Now, let's back up a bit…
In response to Zilch, Stan wrote that:
Nor can Atheists prove that they are delusions. But Atheists are quick to declare that they are either delusions or outright false, based on skepticism alone, not on evidence. Yet Atheists will claim to be evidence based.
This contradicts the starting point of the worldview I presented. Either we exist, or not. If you let the door opened for us not existing, then we are back to square 1.
And the evidence you require would be material, physical evidence of a non-superfluous, non-gaseous non-material being, which would prove its non-physical existence with physical evidence, in order to satisfy your requirements of it.
In the reality we agree exist, things that exist must be proven to be more than just concepts, or else we have no reason to claim they exist, in reality. If that means that we have to have 'material' evidence then that's your conclusion; you proved materialism yourself. On the other hand, if you want to prove that concepts can point to existing things that are not part of this reality, yet still label them as 'real', then I don't know what you are talking about.
Further, the requirement of material evidence for a non-material being is a Category Error, which renders the expectation fallacious and therefore irrational.
Positing that a non-material being can exists is a fallacy if you start by accepting that you exist as a material being. Again, back to square 1... Do you believe you exist as a material being or not?
Is intelligence the product of electron flow?
Looks like it yes, since we exist and are made of stuff that contains electron. What else could it be?
(2/7)
... do concepts even exist?
Concepts exist because minds exist. Without minds you don't have concepts. The important point though is that the reality we agreed exist would still exist if minds were not around. That's why we call it a fact. Again, if you reject this, you reject that you exist as a person in a common reality...
Do I have agency, or as some Materialists claim, is it a delusion?
You exist as a person. We define people as having a mind capable of thinking up concepts. It is certainly NOT a delusion, otherwise it would violate the fact that you exist.
If I am an agent then how is that spawned by electron motion?
As Zilch said, we would win a Nobel prize if we could answer that...
If I am not an agent, then my intelligence is a delusion, so why do I think my thoughts have meaning?
They have meaning to you, first, and then to others if you can convince them that they do.
(3/7)
Software is not material. Software is conceptual, and the concepts are encoded onto media for storage and transmission. A page with print on it merely is the media for concepts; concepts remain non-material
The software that I write everyday surely is material. The concepts that I think of before putting in the form of lines of code is not material in a strict sense, because they are concepts, but they don't exist if I don't exist, so they are material in a strict sense. Concepts are represented using the media of your choice, but they are still not pointing to an existing thing unless you can justify that they exist.
In other words, imagining something does not make it exist in reality right away. The concept exists, but if we declare that this is enough to conclude that what the concept is representing also exists, than anything goes, and thinking about an invisible pink unicorn makes it existing. That is non-sense, we all agree. Concepts exist, yes, but not necessarily the things they represent. Concepts exist in minds. Period. Where's the difference between real and imaginary otherwise?
(4/7)
This is the Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy:
IF [ Material things are agents ] THEN [ Agency came from Material origins ]
IF [ X = Y ] THEN [ Y is because of X ].
I don't know why you label that as a fallacy since, again..., it fits with the initial premise that we exist as people in a common reality. You want to label us as agent? Fine with me. But why would you then say that these agents cannot come from material origin when we just said that we have material bodies?
Without a body I don't exist, and you don't exist for me if you don't have a body. You are the one committing a fallacy by claiming that an agent is something that can exist without being material while starting with the fact that what you label an agent IS material.
After stating that, you will understand why I reply 'yes' to this:
there is no reason to suspect that agency is produced by emergence of electron flow or position....
Yes that's what I suspect and I feel that you prove it yourself actually since you defined 'agency' as being something which is the product of a body.
Or take it the other way around, can you prove to me that an agent can exist without a body? I find that way harder to believe, and that's why I don’t...
Now, I am back to the comment that you wrote to me specifically. I think I will repeat myself a lot but it's interesting to try to pinpoint where we disagree.
(5/7)
Then you are not an agent, because that is contradictory? The point is that you have directed your thoughts to a conclusion. That requires agency.
The point is that my thoughts are concepts that don't exist aside from my own existence. They are MY thoughts, not yours, not Zilch's. The very first thought that I assume is true, without absolute proof is that I exist in a shared reality. From that, you agreed that we can start using logic since me 'not existing' cannot happen at the same time as me existing.
That very first thought, that basic idea that I exist, is a concept, and I assume it to be true. I also assume it to be true independent on my own existence, in the sense that if I were to not think about it myself it would still be true, because others can conclude on their own that I exist, just like I conclude that they exist. In other words, 'I exist' is a fact.
And it is independent of whether it is your body that is an agent or whether it is your mind that is an agent. So that issue is not pertinent to the conclusion that you are an agent. And that conclusion is necessary, if anything you say or do has meaning or not.
Exactly! The fact that I exist is completely independent of the fact that I am 'X' or 'Y'. You want to label me as an agent because I am able to think and come to conclusions? Fine with me! You just proved to me that I exist and that you agree I exist. Another mind confirmed my intuition that minds exist, I am one of them and... we all have bodies. I repeat the 'body' part a lot to make sure that we never forget the starting point...
This stops one step short of the cogito, which presumes that “I” am a mind, not necessarily just a body. A body can exist with no mind (e.g. permanent coma), but it cannot declare itself an “I”. It takes a mind to do that.
Again, that's exactly what I mean. Continuing along that line of thought, if we say that 'Bob is in a coma', we agree that 'Bob' exists. But if Bod an agent? Hum, that's not so clear, right? Bob will become an agent again only when he can prove to the rest of us in the shared reality that he is. So, again, the body comes first, the mind second.
(6/7)
Do you see what's happening here? Descarte was wrong...
(Sorry for the arrogance ;-) )
It's not 'Je pense, donc je suis',
it's 'J'existe donc je pense'.
I am, therefore, I think.
Are you saying that no concept exists without transmission? I fail to see that transmission is necessary. I also fail to see that transmission is required to determine the logical validity of a concept, or that transmission figures in any manner into the existence of a concept. A lone castaway on an unknown island could certainly have concepts.
Concepts exist as part of minds. No minds mean no concept. The transmission is not essential to believe that a concept is an accurate description of reality, but if you want to convince other minds that one of your concept IS accurate, then I don't see how you can do so without any transmission...
The definition of a “fact” is this: when our thought corresponds to an actuality, then our thought is true, and it represents a fact. Note that “actuality” does not self-limit to material.
Personally I believe that yes, actuality, in the context presented here, is self-limiting to the material because the first basic fact I assume, 'I exist', is true only in the material reality I assume is actuality. Remember that this is why I mentioned that, as a starting point, we cannot know anything absolutely, but because I assume that my own existence is true, absolutely then I can find other absolute truths in that reality, such as 'Stan exists', 'Stan has a body', 'Stan has a mind'. Who the real 'Stan' is is irrelevant, I know you have a body and a mind. I don't need proof for that. In a far future perhaps I will but that's another question ;)
(7/7)
To wrap up, you answered to a part of Zlich's comment that you had forgotten, and it will help conclude what I had to say here:
The point was not that the first principles derived from the Anaszi findings, or even that they ever articulated them. The point was that there is enough stability to not need to declare everything to be too inaccurate and relative for knowledge to exist, which was the original argument being made. The Anasazi findings were accurate then and they remain accurate now.
We can make an analogy with this. I declared that my own existence is stable enough to be declared as 'true'. Because it is true and accurate enough that I exist, knowledge can exist. The knowledge I get is entirely in the reality that I share with others. I believe that the concepts (of existence of things) that I can think of are true only, and only if, I know that I could prove them to be true to other people.
In other words, because I assume I exist and because I can think, I can determine whether other things exist or not in this same reality. The concepts that I have in my minds don't have to include only real things, actually they probably include way more imaginary things then real things! But to prove that one of these concepts point to an actual thing that EXISTS in reality, I have to define it in terms of other things that exist in reality. I simply fail to see, in that context, how anyone could prove to me that something immaterial, in a strict sense, exist.
I am thus a materialist.
I said:
We can prove that 2+2=4 in Euclidean arithmetic: it follows inexorably from the axioms and theorems. We cannot prove that we are not brains in vats. Theists cannot prove that the Bible was not written by Trickster God, and that all religious experiences are not delusions for His Entertainment.
Stan replied:
Nor can Atheists prove that they are delusions. But Atheists are quick to declare that they are either delusions or outright false, based on skepticism alone, not on evidence. Yet Atheists will claim to be evidence based.
You're right, I can't prove that brains in vats, etc., are illusions. But as I've said, so what? Why should I need to "prove" that, say, there is no solid copper sphere outside our spacetime cone with the word "GOG" stamped on it? At some point you simply have to go with what seems simplest and simply ignore that for which there is no evidence.
And the evidence you require would be material, physical evidence of a non-superfluous, non-gaseous non-material being, which would prove its non-physical existence with physical evidence, in order to satisfy your requirements of it.
Yes. If there is no physical evidence for something, then I don't see why I should entertain any possibility for its existence. I would of course accept any evidence for the influence of the immaterial (although I don't see how that could work) on the real world. Otherwise, anything goes, including brains in vats, Loki, and leprechauns. Life is short.
It has been demonstrated here almost daily that Philosophical Materialism is internally non-coherent: Materialism cannot prove its own validity using its own evidentiary requirements,...
Yes, I've granted that, and pointed out that theists are in the same boat.
... and is therefore internally contradictory, paradoxical, and non-coherent, i.e. irrational.
How so? We can and must act and live without absolute certainty all the time. How is that "internally contradictory", etc.? It would only be so if I were to claim absolute certainty, which I don't. Life is not inside a syllogism or an equation. If you want to define these terms to apply to any statement that is not held with absolute certainty, that is of course your prerogative; but it renders them rather useless.
Further, the requirement of material evidence for a non-material being is a Category Error, which renders the expectation fallacious and therefore irrational.
I don't expect material evidence for any non-material being; but I do expect material evidence for anything that is said to exist in any sense that affects the world, which is, after all, material. Likewise, I don't expect material evidence for magical beings, or zero-dimensional beings, or heavenly beings- that is, unless I'm expected to believe in them.
I said:
I still somehow manage to eat, reproduce, and have enlightening exchanges with what seem to be other intelligences, without this "proof".
Stan replied:
Then you choose to ignore the real questions which “obtain”: Is intelligence the product of electron flow?
Why do say that I "choose to ignore" these questions? I've simply come to different conclusions than you have. For instance: yes, at least the kinds of intelligence we animals have seems to be the product of electron flow- very highly ordered electron flow, to be sure. Other substrates are of course theoretically possible.
Is intelligence causal back to the origin of the universe?
Seeing that intelligence only seems to exist in life forms, or in their creations (computers, if you grant them intelligence), and since life needs time to evolve in an ordered Universe, I don't see how intelligence can be "causal" back to when it didn't exist, so- no.
Are concepts causal back to the origin of the universe? If not, why not, given cause and effect as an axiom of science?
Same answer as above- how can something be "causal" before it exists? Concepts exist in brains, as far as we know.
If so, do concepts even exist?
Yes, but only in the form of ordered matter. Substrate neutral and all that.
Do I have agency, or as some Materialists claim, is it a delusion?
I've already asked you what an "agent" is, and you've not yet replied. But sure, if by "agency" you mean something like "the ability to perceive, ratiocinate, and make decisions", I'll agree that you have "agency".
If I am an agent then how is that spawned by electron motion?
How? Another Nobel Prize if you or I can answer that with any degree of accuracy and completeness. But what's wrong with electron motions? How can a wave be spawned by atomic motion? I guess you expect "agency" to be some ineffable sort of "spirit motion" or something like that. Even if that were true, you are merely passing the buck for an explanation of how agency works.
If I am not an agent, then my intelligence is a delusion, so why do I think my thoughts have meaning?
Again, why so? Are waves illusions too? After all, they're just atoms. Same goes for meaning- it's the motion, not the meat.
also known as “Darwins Horrid Doubt”. And many others.
Yes, I know about Darwin's doubt that brains descended from monkeys could come up with truth. But it was only a doubt in the sense that Darwin was an exemplary scientist, and bent over backwards to express and examine all the possible problems with his theory. He wouldn't have published if he'd thought this doubt to have any real force.
Of course, others, for instance Alvin Plantinga, have taken this doubt seriously. Do you know his so-called Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism? The EAAN basically states that since beliefs are invisible to natural selection, false beliefs will do just as well as true beliefs to aid survival, as long as they produce the right action. I'll discuss it with you too if you like, but you might already guess what I think of it.
cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch
Oh, and you say:
The Chaco Canyon structure areas were not denuded by the Anasazi according to PBS NOVA. The structures were probably ceremonial and never lived in. There are no garbage dumps around any of the structures. There is no heavy smoke build-up in the rooms. There are no burial grounds near them. At least according to PBS.
I haven't seen the Nova program. Dimond does mention that it's debated what the purpose was of all the structures. But that's not the point- when they were built, the area was wooded, as is shown by pollen preserved in pack rat middens, and the Anasazi did denude it, as is demonstrated by analysis of where the beams came from: as time went on, they had to go further and further afield to get the wood. It's now a desert far and wide around Chaco Canyon, but it wasn't when they first built there. No woods, no rain; no rain; no crops.
Hugo:
There is a summary at the bottom which would allow us to compact this discussion considerably. I have gone ahead and answered each of your individual comments, but I wonder if we could start anew at the summary stage?
Here are my responses to your comments (long):
”This [response to Zilch] contradicts the starting point of the worldview I presented. Either we exist, or not. If you let the door opened for us not existing, then we are back to square 1.”
I don’t see the contradiction, could you expand? As I recall, Zilch was taking the older tack of needing more proof than was available. I think the two of you have diverged… Zilch was doubling up while you were expanding. Or so it seems to me.
”In the reality we agree exist, things that exist must be proven to be more than just concepts, or else we have no reason to claim they exist, in reality. If that means that we have to have 'material' evidence then that's your conclusion; you proved materialism yourself. On the other hand, if you want to prove that concepts can point to existing things that are not part of this reality, yet still label them as 'real', then I don't know what you are talking about.”
Assume that [concept R] regarding something which is material. Then we can have a {concept of [concept R]}, which we can call [concept S]. Then we can have a {concept of [concept S]}, which we can call [concept T]. Then…
This is an infinite series which cannot be applied to physical objects.
There is no reason to declare concepts to be material; there is no independent existence attached to a concept. It cannot be handled without a substrate to hold it, and there are many interchangeable substrates which can hold the same concept. A concept is not “states”. A concept is the meaning contained in the organization of the states. We might define concept as a “particular meaning”.
One of my favorite stories to insert at this juncture in conversations is the commenter who claimed to have a jar full of “meaning” on his desk that he was willing to sell. If meaning and concepts are material “things”, then that should be demonstrable. But the existence of “states” won’t do: states require interpretation because they mean nothing by themselves; they are merely code which bears meaning. And you can’t have a jar full of pure “states”, either.
(continued)
”’ Further, the requirement of material evidence for a non-material being is a Category Error, which renders the expectation fallacious and therefore irrational.’
Positing that a non-material being can exists is a fallacy if you start by accepting that you exist as a material being. Again, back to square 1... Do you believe you exist as a material being or not?”
First, I have posited only that material methods do not and cannot eliminate the possibility of non-material existence: My intent at this point (which I hope I have not violated) is to show that theories of material exclusivity cannot be supported logically nor evidentially.
Second, there is no evidence that my existence is purely material.
”Looks like it yes, since we exist and are made of stuff that contains electron. What else could it be?”
That statement is the classical Argument From Ignorance Fallacy:
http://fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html
If p were true, then I would know that p.
I don't know that p.
Therefore, p is false.
p = non-material existence
i.e.:
Non-Material existence is false because if it existed I would know it is true.
I don’t know it,
So it can’t be true.
It contains an element of
Guilt by Association:
Humans contain electrons; therefore humans are electrons.
…….
”... do concepts even exist?
Concepts exist because minds exist. Without minds you don't have concepts. The important point though is that the reality we agreed exist would still exist if minds were not around. That's why we call it a fact. Again, if you reject this, you reject that you exist as a person in a common reality...”
Umm, I’m not rejecting physical reality; I’m rejecting the notion that it is demonstrable that physical reality is the limit to reality. That is not demonstrable materially. And neither are Materialist concepts which require Materialism to be true first, then the concept will be true, so that Materialism is true. I.e. Circular. Or conversely, ignored under Scientism.
(continued)
”’Do I have agency, or as some Materialists claim, is it a delusion?’
You exist as a person. We define people as having a mind capable of thinking up concepts. It is certainly NOT a delusion, otherwise it would violate the fact that you exist.’
This is a very interesting answer. You say “thinking up concepts”, yet you still seem to maintain that concepts are material. So this would mean that material existence is created merely by thinking.
Now you probably won’t accept that thinking is non-material, so material thinking creates material concepts somehow. And somehow, electrons create material thinking which creates material concepts. This train of thought regresses clear to the origination of the universe, and it means that all concepts have prior causes and therefore are not original, and are effects of causes. That eliminates agency, if it is true.
However, the theory : material concept (caused by) material thought (caused) by electrons has no physical basis for explanation within the normally recognized limits of cause and effect. Electrons, no matter how many or how configured, are not predictors for agency (agency being a violation of cause and effect, of course).
So the acceptance of material explanations is not based on either evidence nor on deduction from a known characteristic of physical mass/energy. The acceptance of material-only explanations is then based on a “need” for that to be the case, not on any facts that show that it is, in fact, the case.
”The concepts that I think of before putting in the form of lines of code is not material in a strict sense, because they are concepts, but they don't exist if I don't exist, so they are material in a strict sense.”
But you have not shown conclusively that you are strictly material, and the argument above shows that. Your conclusion of being strictly material is not empirically, experimentally, replicably, falisfiably demonstrable; it is a supposition.
The form of your syllogism is correct, but the premise is based on an unsupported presupposition, so the argument itself is unsupported with material evidence or logical conclusiveness.
(continued)
”Concepts are represented using the media of your choice, but they are still not pointing to an existing thing unless you can justify that they exist.
In other words, imagining something does not make it exist in reality right away. The concept exists, but if we declare that this is enough to conclude that what the concept is representing also exists, than anything goes, and thinking about an invisible pink unicorn makes it existing. That is non-sense, we all agree. Concepts exist, yes, but not necessarily the things they represent. Concepts exist in minds. Period. Where's the difference between real and imaginary
A couple of things. First, “…justify that they exist’’. I have previously used the claims of “miracles” at Lourdes to demonstrate the inability of science, even forensic science to either justify or not justify the occurrence of the original miracles claimed for Lourdes. (Not my claim, their claim from 150 years ago).
“Justification” is actually a good word, in the sense that a belief can be justified even without the direct material evidence which Materialists and Atheist require. But in the case of Lourdes, there is a concept which exists, a material artifact that still exists, and provenance which supports it. Is it justified to believe it or disbelieve it? Hint: Atheists always choose, without any evidence in their favor, to disbelieve.
Second, a pink unicorn is subject to the same “justification” procedure as any other claim: it is a claim of a physical existence, therefore it demands physical evidence and physical observations. These are not made available. Moreover, the only discussion of pink unicorns is on discussions such as this, so it is a reasonable assumption that the pink unicorn is a straw man made up for the purpose of providing a ridiculous concept by which to make other concepts appear to be similarly ridiculous. In fact, the evidentiary requirements for a pink unicorn and a non-material entity are in no manner similar, and the analogy fails immediately (all analogies fail, some sooner than others).
”You want to label us as agent? Fine with me. But why would you then say that these agents cannot come from material origin when we just said that we have material bodies?”>
First, I’m not defining humans as agents, human agency is a demonstrable factoid, the knowledge of which is empirical, not tautological. Second, I agree that we have bodies, not that we are bodies; I find no reason to think that the mind – an agent – is causally linked to prior causes, as is the body. The mind demonstrates characteristics outside the chain of causation; it is independent. The body is dependent upon the chain of causation; it is dependent. They are not the same thing.
(continued)
”Without a body I don't exist, and you don't exist for me if you don't have a body. You are the one committing a fallacy by claiming that an agent is something that can exist without being material while starting with the fact that what you label an agent IS material”
Well, I never made the claim that an agent can exist without a body, or that a mind exists without a body. Right now we are still at the point of explaining how an agent (non-causal / “uncaused causer”) fits into the all-material universe (completely causal except for certain life forms which don’t fit the material causal specification). What I claim is that the mind is different from the body, while contained within the body in order to access material things. It is the mind which is the agent, not the body. When life and the mind leave the body, the body is useless, even though it remains.
” Yes that's what I suspect and I feel that you prove it yourself actually since you defined 'agency' as being something which is the product of a body.’
And again, I didn’t do that (I hope). Agency is a product of the mind which uses the body. But the body is completely determinate while the mind (agent) is absolutely not determinate.
” Or take it the other way around, can you prove to me that an agent can exist without a body? I find that way harder to believe, and that's why I don’t...”
Do you require Materialistic proof for the non-material existence of an agent?
” Then you are not an agent, because that is contradictory? The point is that you have directed your thoughts to a conclusion. That requires agency.
The point is that my thoughts are concepts that don't exist aside from my own existence.”
No argument there, with the following caveat. If you insist that your existence is purely mass/energy, then I can’t agree, because it is an assumption which goes against logic. And the logic is this: If any part of your “existence” goes against either the principle of Cause and Effect as is still accepted in the macro world, or against Popper’s criterion for separation of non-material, non-falsifiable propositions from scientific propositions, then you need an explanation for your deviation from accepted thought processes, and of course, not merely Special Pleading, but actual reasons for the deviation.
” In other words, 'I exist' is a fact.”
OK.
” You want to label me as an agent because I am able to think and come to conclusions? Fine with me! You just proved to me that I exist and that you agree I exist. Another mind confirmed my intuition that minds exist, I am one of them and... we all have bodies. I repeat the 'body' part a lot to make sure that we never forget the starting point...”
And I must repeat that having a car doesn’t make me a car or make a car, me; having a body doesn’t make us a body, nor does it make the body, me. And you presupposition that “exist” means physical-only existence shuts out any possibility of non-physical existence without reason: by definition. Your mind has settled on Materialism, and existence is material – in your mind. When a mind is closed in on an answer, it cannot consider its own fallacies or other answers.
” So, again, the body comes first, the mind second.”
The car comes first, the driver second; your presumption of sequence equaling cause needs proof. And the presumption of closure on Materialism is not justified.
” I am, therefore, I think.”
But that is conceivable only of certain existences; it is not a general rule for all of nature; plenty of things exist without the ability to think. So declaring existence causes thinking does not follow at all.
In fact, of what existence does the act of existing determine thought? Only those which are agents first. And the questions surrounding agency, posed above, still require adequate answers. It circles back to the same exact issues.
” but if you want to convince other minds that one of your concept IS accurate, then I don't see how you can do so without any transmission...”
I fail to see how or why this applies to the conversation.
” Personally I believe that yes, actuality, in the context presented here, is self-limiting to the material because the first basic fact I assume, 'I exist', is true only in the material reality I assume is actuality. Remember that this is why I mentioned that, as a starting point, we cannot know anything absolutely, but because I assume that my own existence is true, absolutely then I can find other absolute truths in that reality, such as 'Stan exists', 'Stan has a body', 'Stan has a mind'. Who the real 'Stan' is is irrelevant, I know you have a body and a mind. I don't need proof for that. In a far future perhaps I will but that's another question ;)”
Why are you addressing body and mind separately?
If my body is all that there is, then my body is communicating with your body. Bodies are determinate, as was discussed earlier. Then this conversation is determinate, with a causation chain extending clear back to the origin of the universe. This is the paradox of agency. Agency cannot exist if it is a subset of a determinate set.
(Continued)
” We can make an analogy with this. I declared that my own existence is stable enough to be declared as 'true'. Because it is true and accurate enough that I exist, knowledge can exist. The knowledge I get is entirely in the reality that I share with others. I believe that the concepts (of existence of things) that I can think of are true only, and only if, I know that I could prove them to be true to other people.”
You appear to presume that “other” people would require material proof and would reject logical proof or probabilistic proof.
But there is a more basic point to be made. A concept is true if it corresponds to actuality, it does not depend on whether other people accept it or not.
” But to prove that one of these concepts point to an actual thing that EXISTS in reality, I have to define it in terms of other things that exist in reality. I simply fail to see, in that context, how anyone could prove to me that something immaterial, in a strict sense, exist.
I am thus a materialist.
And we have come full circle to the following situation
For you,
reality = Material
Proof = Material
Therefore, Materialism is all that exists.
(Especially in the “strict sense” presumably meaning strict skepticism.)
In syllogistic form your position is as follows:
IF [Reality = Material] AND [Proof = Material], THEN [Materialism is True]
Reality = Material; Proof = Material
THEREFORE: Materialism = true.
This is a case where the conclusion is contained in the premises: Circular Argumentation. And there is no reason other than ideology to accept the statements that Reality = Material, and Proof = Material. Especially noted is the lack of Material Proof for either assertion.
(continued)
Summary:
1. You have proven that Philosophical Materialism is true, by assuming its truth in your premises. Your arguments consist of first assuming Materialism to be true, so [insert assertion], therefore Materialism is true. This is Circular.
2. In order to actually prove that Materialism is True, there are logical problems which need explanations:
(a). Why is part of the body deterministic and why is part of the body non-deterministic.
(b) How is it justifiable to include non-determinism inside a deterministic set?
(c). Why is sentience and agency expected from electron flow.
(d). What actual physical material proof (empirical, experimental, replicable, falsifiable) can be generated to prove that the mind is purely physical? A deductive hypothesis, based on what inductive knowledge?
(e). How do you prove that “meaning” has independent material (mass/energy) constituents?
(f) How are material concepts and meaning created by merely thinking? Does thought create mass/energy? Or is thought mass/energy which is a non-determinate agent with the capability of creating mass/energy in the form of concepts? Or is thought mass/energy which is a determinate false agent under the laws of physics and because it is a subset of a determinate body?
The tendency to claim “Well, we’d have the Nobel Prize if we knew” is not an explanatory hypothesis. It is an acknowledgment that you cannot provide even a logical syllogism to deal with these paradoxical issues. The actual issue here is whether the things we believe are reasonable, logical, and, for the evidence-based Atheist, supported by material evidence.
These issues ARE paradoxes, if you insist on Material-only existence. So your worldview, if you choose Materialism, is constrained by paradoxes: non-coherences which render it non-logical. Not to mention not being material evidence based.
Zilch said,
"At some point you simply have to go with what seems simplest and simply ignore that for which there is no evidence."
I listed some issues for Materialism just above in response to Hugo. If you choose to ignore them, which is your only response, it appears, then you are also choosing to live within a worldview which is limited by its illogic. That decision is up to you, of course, and many are happy with that. But it is interesting that you go out of your way to come here to point that out.
"Yes. If there is no physical evidence for something, then I don't see why I should entertain any possibility for its existence. I would of course accept any evidence for the influence of the immaterial (although I don't see how that could work) on the real world. Otherwise, anything goes, including brains in vats, Loki, and leprechauns. Life is short.
(a) it is not true that anything goes. There are logical tools for determining validity of arguments and there are first principles to determine validity of propositions. And there is judgment for determining the probability of something being the case. (You use judgment in your rejectionism).
So it in not true that anything goes; for Materialism, circular thought and non-coherence are the standards. Why are you not concerned with that? Life is too short? Then why are you taking precious time to be here?
(continued)
"'It has been demonstrated here almost daily that Philosophical Materialism is internally non-coherent: Materialism cannot prove its own validity using its own evidentiary requirements,...'
Yes, I've granted that, and pointed out that theists are in the same boat."
This is an amazing statement for two reasons.
First, it admits to irrationality of the Materialist position.
Second, it is a Tu Quoque, a fallacy - but even based on false assumptions for asserting the fallacy! Theists accept that there is more to knowledge than physical, empirical, experimental, replicable, falsifiable contingent factoids: Theists are not constrained to the false limits placed on them by Atheists. So the Atheist assertion of Theist fallacy is logically incorrect.
But it is good that you recognize the fallacy in AtheoMaterialism.
"... and is therefore internally contradictory, paradoxical, and non-coherent, i.e. irrational.
How so? We can and must act and live without absolute certainty all the time. How is that "internally contradictory", etc.? "
Oops, now you seem to renege. Again,
(1)Atheists demand hard material proof from Theists, despite knowing that theism concerns non-material entities. The demand is a Category Error: False.
(2)Atheists have no hard material proof of their own position. Yet they persist in demanding hard material evidence from Theists: that is both contradictory and hypocritical.
(3)Philosophical Materialism is based on the demand for hard material evidence in order to believed a thing: there is no other source of knowledge.
(4)Philosophical Materialism cannot provide proof (hard material evidence) that there is no other source of knowledge. So it cannot prove its own premise using its own evidentiary standards. Since it makes claims which are contradicted by reality, the Materialist claim is non-coherent.
"We can and must act and live without absolute certainty all the time. How is that "internally contradictory", etc.? "
When you categorically eliminate set A in favor of set b, you have chosen an ideology. You claim uncertainty, yet you choose a certain worldview.
(continued)
If you are uncertain, of what are you uncertain? You say life is too short to consider the certainty of things, yet you value the claim that life does not fit inside a syllogism, a claim of which you seem certain.
This suggests that, for you, an irrational conclusion is just fine, so long as it is comfortable within your short life. Worldviews are based on either true concepts, ideology, fallacy acceptance or randomness due to ignorance and not caring.
This blog deals with the pursuit of true and valid worldviews. Your persistent comments that life is short causes me to wonder why you waste time here, since you are content with your current worldview and haven't the time to question it.
I was there for 40 years. But I'm glad I finally took the time to determine what valid and true worldview looks like.
"I don't expect material evidence for any non-material being; but I do expect material evidence for anything that is said to exist in any sense that affects the world, which is, after all, material."
Then you should be happy to examine the Lourdes claims, and apply forensic science in order to refute them materially.
But I suspect that you will not, based on prior experience with Atheists who were presented with this material evidence. To a person, Atheists presented with this answer to their request complained that it was unfair, used circular reasoning, created Just So stories instead of developing evidence, and finally rejected it based solely on Materialist ideology.
"Likewise, I don't expect material evidence for magical beings, or zero-dimensional beings, or heavenly beings- that is, unless I'm expected to believe in them."
Is this a poisoning of the well? During this conversation have you been asked to accept such? To my knowledge the issue has been Materialism and its falseness, as shown logically repeatedly.
"'Then you choose to ignore the real questions which “obtain”: Is intelligence the product of electron flow?'
Why do say that I "choose to ignore" these questions? I've simply come to different conclusions than you have. For instance: yes, at least the kinds of intelligence we animals have seems to be the product of electron flow- very highly ordered electron flow, to be sure. Other substrates are of course theoretically possible."
Your first response was merely satisfaction with your life as it exists, not a response to the issues. Now you are responding.
Under what physical characteristic of electron discharge can sentience and intellect be predicted? I.e. under cause and effect, how do electrons produce intellect? Concepts?
As I mentioned to Hugo, the "Nobel Prize if I knew" is an abdication, not an answer nor an explanation; if one thinks a thing, then one needs a reason, right? And not just putting Materialism in the premises, which is circular.
(continued)
(skipping some agreement in answers...)
"I've already asked you what an "agent" is, and you've not yet replied. But sure, if by "agency" you mean something like "the ability to perceive, ratiocinate, and make decisions", I'll agree that you have "agency"."
That's a good enough definition for now. A more complete definition includes the ability to set and accomplish goals using means that are contra-materialist, meaning, for example, making rocks go uphill. Bertrand Russell used the following example: a man falling down is under the control of the laws of physics, and is not an agent; a man who rises from his chair, puts on a coat and goes to the station to catch a train in order to go to a preset meeting, is not operating under the laws of physics, and he is an agent.
That's why Russell posited an unknown substance which explained the operation of agency, rationality etc, outside the Materialist existence.
"If I am an agent then how is that spawned by electron motion?
How? Another Nobel Prize if you or I can answer that with any degree of accuracy and completeness. But what's wrong with electron motions? How can a wave be spawned by atomic motion? I guess you expect "agency" to be some ineffable sort of "spirit motion" or something like that. Even if that were true, you are merely passing the buck for an explanation of how agency works."
Nope, I'm asking for the reasons you believe a thing. If it is material, then why do you believe that? And please, no more Nobel Prize dodges. Either you have a reason, or you don't.
"If I am not an agent, then my intelligence is a delusion, so why do I think my thoughts have meaning?
Again, why so? Are waves illusions too? After all, they're just atoms. Same goes for meaning- it's the motion, not the meat."
Assuming that electron motion is just waves, what about waves presages intellect? Moving the issue around to different sources doesn't eliminate the question: what about [physical source] presages intellect, rationality, conceptualization, etc?
Darwin's Horrid Doubt was written in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881: well after publication of "Origin of the Species", 1859, and "Descent of Man", 1871.
Your assertion concerning Darwin is not factual, it has the appearance of wishful thinking.
(continued)
"The EAAN basically states that since beliefs are invisible to natural selection, false beliefs will do just as well as true beliefs to aid survival, as long as they produce the right action. I'll discuss it with you too if you like, but you might already guess what I think of it."
I can't see why that would be pertinent to the questions being asked here concerning Materialism and its justification.
"as time went on, they had to go further and further afield to get the wood. It's now a desert far and wide around Chaco Canyon, but it wasn't when they first built there. No woods, no rain; no rain; no crops."
Considering that the entire four corners area is desert and has been desert for eons due to the inability of cold fronts to produce rain in the dry air coming up from arid Mexico, the same ecology as today. Planting a forest of trees would not produce rain in a desert. Plus the fact that the Anasazi didn't use much wood except in construction of the roofs, I maintain my doubts about that story. It is doubtful that the Chaco Canyon folk denuded all of Nevada, Utah, all of Arizona, excluding the Mogollon Rim and rims of the Grand Canyon, most of Western Colorado, both of the Dakotas, the western half of Texas, and Western New Mexico for firewood and roofing material.
I suspect that you have not been to the great American desert. (I was born in New Mexico and raised in the American Southwest). It is huge, roughly the size of continental Europe, maybe larger, and it is subject to a common weather pattern, which is why it is arid. There are scattered small forests which are very dry and exist only at higher altitude where compressed winds force out a little moisture. But Chaco Canyon is not responsible for the aridity. Wind and sand erosion of the canyon itself attest to the prior desert conditions.
Stan- you said:
I listed some issues for Materialism just above in response to Hugo. If you choose to ignore them, which is your only response, it appears, then you are also choosing to live within a worldview which is limited by its illogic. That decision is up to you, of course, and many are happy with that. But it is interesting that you go out of your way to come here to point that out.
This is the second time you've accused me of ignoring things you've said, which I have not ignored but have discussed above already- as I said, I've just come to different conclusions than you have. And as far as finding it interesting that I go out of my way to point out (that I "choose to live in a worldview limited by its illogic") here, you are putting words in my mouth: I don't consider my worldview limited by illogic.
(a) it is not true that anything goes. There are logical tools for determining validity of arguments and there are first principles to determine validity of propositions. And there is judgment for determining the probability of something being the case. (You use judgment in your rejectionism).
I use judgment based on what I perceive. And I don't perceive anything immaterial, or any other kind of evidence that anything immaterial exists, so my judgment is that it doesn't. Provisional, of course.
So it in not true that anything goes; for Materialism, circular thought and non-coherence are the standards. Why are you not concerned with that? Life is too short? Then why are you taking precious time to be here?
What's circular, or non-coherent, about accepting that I can't know anything (outside of circumscribed systems of formal logic, as I've already pointed out) with absolute certainty, but that I can act upon what seems to me to be the way things are? As to why I'm taking precious time to be here, that's a good question. I guess I'm just curious why people choose to believe in stuff there's no evidence for. Why are you taking precious time to argue with atheists?
You said:
It has been demonstrated here almost daily that Philosophical Materialism is internally non-coherent: Materialism cannot prove its own validity using its own evidentiary requirements,...
I replied:
Yes, I've granted that, and pointed out that theists are in the same boat.
You responded:
This is an amazing statement for two reasons.
First, it admits to irrationality of the Materialist position.
Second, it is a Tu Quoque, a fallacy - but even based on false assumptions for asserting the fallacy! Theists accept that there is more to knowledge than physical, empirical, experimental, replicable, falsifiable contingent factoids: Theists are not constrained to the false limits placed on them by Atheists. So the Atheist assertion of Theist fallacy is logically incorrect.
But it is good that you recognize the fallacy in AtheoMaterialism.
Sigh. I don't think this is going anywhere here. I don't know why you were "amazed" by this statement- after all, I already said quite a few comments ago that there is no ultimate proof that materialism is correct. As for materialism being "irrational", that would only be the case if there were clear evidence for the immaterial in some form or other. I haven't seen any so far, so I don't see how materialism is "irrational", or a "fallacy", except in the sense that it cannot be absolutely proven.
And as far as theists being in the same boat goes- sure, many claim certainty that some sort of immaterial being (or beings) exists; but in the absence of any proof of this, it's just an assertion, and so they are taking the world on "faith" just as much as the materialists are.
Stan says:
If you are uncertain, of what are you uncertain? You say life is too short to consider the certainty of things, yet you value the claim that life does not fit inside a syllogism, a claim of which you seem certain.
I've explained this. I can't absolutely prove things are the way they seem. But as I've said, so what? And again, as I've said, I don't find the "proofs" of theists convincing. And since syllogisms seem to be the product of life forms, rather than the other way around, it seems only logical that life does not fit inside a syllogism.
This suggests that, for you, an irrational conclusion is just fine, so long as it is comfortable within your short life. Worldviews are based on either true concepts, ideology, fallacy acceptance or randomness due to ignorance and not caring.
You left out one thing: evidence. My worldview starts with my view of the world: what I see. And I go from there. And how is it "irrational" to just say "I don't know" when I don't know?
This blog deals with the pursuit of true and valid worldviews. Your persistent comments that life is short causes me to wonder why you waste time here, since you are content with your current worldview and haven't the time to question it.
How do you know whether or not I have the time to question my current worldview? That's an unwarranted assumption.
I was there for 40 years. But I'm glad I finally took the time to determine what valid and true worldview looks like.
Well, I've been a materialist for longer than that. And I still haven't seen any reason to change. I'll still take the World over the Word.
I said:
Likewise, I don't expect material evidence for magical beings, or zero-dimensional beings, or heavenly beings- that is, unless I'm expected to believe in them.
Stan replied:
Is this a poisoning of the well? During this conversation have you been asked to accept such? To my knowledge the issue has been Materialism and its falseness, as shown logically repeatedly.
Unless you can show me some way in which your "immaterial", which you admit is not detectable in any material way (with the possible exception of Lourdes), how can I distinguish between your "immaterial" being (or substance, or whatever you want to call it) and any other imagined class of undetectables? And yes, you have claimed to show how materialism is not logical, but you've also repeatedly claimed the existence of the immaterial.
Under what physical characteristic of electron discharge can sentience and intellect be predicted? I.e. under cause and effect, how do electrons produce intellect? Concepts?
As I mentioned to Hugo, the "Nobel Prize if I knew" is an abdication, not an answer nor an explanation; if one thinks a thing, then one needs a reason, right? And not just putting Materialism in the premises, which is circular.
How do you expect me to explain how electrons produce intellect, if no one else on the planet can do so? As I've said, it's dauntingly complex. If you think there's a simple answer for how intellect works, I'd love to hear it. And again- I believe that intellect is the product of matter, because there doesn't seem to be anything else in there.
A more complete definition [of "agency"] includes the ability to set and accomplish goals using means that are contra-materialist, meaning, for example, making rocks go uphill. Bertrand Russell used the following example: a man falling down is under the control of the laws of physics, and is not an agent; a man who rises from his chair, puts on a coat and goes to the station to catch a train in order to go to a preset meeting, is not operating under the laws of physics, and he is an agent.
That's why Russell posited an unknown substance which explained the operation of agency, rationality etc, outside the Materialist existence.
People have often posited the existence of mysterious forces to explain what they don't understand. That is no proof of their existence. As far as I can see, agency, like life, is just another thing matter and energy do- in the right circumstances, to be sure. How is this man "not operating under the laws of physics" here? Do his muscles move without extracting energy from the environment? Does he think with no structure in his brain?
And is there a line you can draw here? Are chimps agents? Ladybugs? Viruses? Robots?
cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch
Zilch,
…here, you are putting words in my mouth: I don't consider my worldview limited by illogic.
I must have missed the part where you logically justified Philosophical Materialism using its own evidentiary standards. Could you repeat that please?
” I use judgment based on what I perceive. And I don't perceive anything immaterial, or any other kind of evidence that anything immaterial exists, so my judgment is that it doesn't. Provisional, of course.”
But it has been pointed out that your definitions of perception and evidence are based on the presupposition that Materialism is true, and that it is the limit to actuality. Circularity.
” What's circular, or non-coherent, about accepting that I can't know anything (outside of circumscribed systems of formal logic, as I've already pointed out) with absolute certainty, but that I can act upon what seems to me to be the way things are? As to why I'm taking precious time to be here, that's a good question. I guess I'm just curious why people choose to believe in stuff there's no evidence for. Why are you taking precious time to argue with atheists?”
If you choose that path, as I have said, you are free to do so. It is based on presuppositions as I have shown you, that place the predicate into the subject so that your beliefs are assumed, not demonstrated. If you have no care or curiosity for what agency (for example) is, from what it derives, how that affects your belief system and worldview, that is your choice. Whether it is logical is not your choice, though. The logic is what it is.
The reason that I do this blog is that I had no idea how radically wrong my Atheist ideas were, until I took the time to study the discipline of logic, its forms and techniques, and the traps that fallacies place for those who care about the pursuit of validity and truth. I hope to promote the actual study of the disciplines of logic, rational thought and their grounding as the basis for new worldviews after the old worldviews are questioned and found fallacious. Oddly, many people tend to keep the fallacious worldview despite being shown the tools of logic. I suspect that the Atheist worldview and its freedom from discipline (even while claiming a rationality which it doesn’t have) gives comfort to those who wish to maintain their own personal philosophies and ethics, and that value warrants fending off attacks from logical process.
(continued)
” Sigh. I don't think this is going anywhere here. I don't know why you were "amazed" by this statement- after all, I already said quite a few comments ago that there is no ultimate proof that materialism is correct. As for materialism being "irrational", that would only be the case if there were clear evidence for the immaterial in some form or other.”
But don’t you see, Materialism must stand on its own. It makes a specific statement which commands a specific evidentiary standard for belief. It cannot pass its own standard – irrespective of whether there is immaterial existence. Materialism fails its own standard! Completely independent of any other consideration.
This is the type of thing which gets avoided. Could you at least respond to this statement:
Materialism fails its own standard.
You seem to agree and then turn around and disagree. I don’t know where you actually stand.
” I haven't seen any so far, so I don't see how materialism is "irrational", or a "fallacy", except in the sense that it cannot be absolutely proven.”
It is internally contradictory. Let’s try this:
Assertion A: It is known to be true that no knowledge can exist which has no material scientific proof.
Assertion B: ”There is no material scientific proof for Assertion A”
This is a standard, two sentence, Epimenides paradox; the second sentence refutes the truth of the first sentence by blatantly contradicting it: the concept is internally contradictory, violating the Principle of Non-Contradiction. Internal contradiction is also known as non-coherence, and it renders the original concept non-valid, false.
” And as far as theists being in the same boat goes- sure, many claim certainty that some sort of immaterial being (or beings) exists; but in the absence of any proof of this, it's just an assertion, and so they are taking the world on "faith" just as much as the materialists are.”
Yes. The difference is that for theists there is a logical syllogism with a probabilistic outcome that relieves the belief from being “blind”. For Atheo-Materialists, that is not the case.
(continued)
” I've explained this. I can't absolutely prove things are the way they seem. But as I've said, so what? And again, as I've said, I don't find the "proofs" of theists convincing. And since syllogisms seem to be the product of life forms, rather than the other way around, it seems only logical that life does not fit inside a syllogism.”
You are rejecting logic as being independent of the intellect? On what do you base that? Can you point to a part of the discipline of logic which is subjective? You realize that if you “relativize” logic, you also relativize mathematics and science too, yes?
” You left out one thing: evidence. My worldview starts with my view of the world: what I see. And I go from there. And how is it "irrational" to just say "I don't know" when I don't know?”
Actually it’s fine by me… so long as you don’t insist that nobody can know a thing just because you don’t.
” How do you know whether or not I have the time to question my current worldview? That's an unwarranted assumption.”
You yourself have made that statement – it’s not an assumption, it is taking you at your word.
” Well, I've been a materialist for longer than that. And I still haven't seen any reason to change. I'll still take the World over the Word.”
That makes no difference to me; worldviews are strictly up to the individual and his requirement for truth/logic or if he merely declares he doesn’t know and that’s the end of it.
” Unless you can show me some way in which your "immaterial", which you admit is not detectable in any material way (with the possible exception of Lourdes), how can I distinguish between your "immaterial" being (or substance, or whatever you want to call it) and any other imagined class of undetectables? And yes, you have claimed to show how materialism is not logical, but you've also repeatedly claimed the existence of the immaterial.”
My only claim is that Atheists – the subject of this blog – cannot support their own beliefs with either evidence or logic. They cannot prove either way that non-material existence is not actual. I don’t need to claim that it exists, although I can make an hypothesis for you to refute if you can (or wish to) or merely say you don’t know.
But as an avowed Materialist aren’t you at least at little piqued by the knowledge that Materialism is unsupportable by its own standards? I would be.
The interesting thing here is why would you believe such a thing as sentience deriving purely from electron flow without the remotest chance of a inductive hypothesis, much less a deductive, material validation. It doesn’t seem to be because you don’t care. You care enough to be present here to discuss it and to declare your firm devotion to Materialism. It strongly appears that your devotion to Philosophical Materialism is of more value to you than questioning the belief or its underlying grounding.
(continued)
” As I mentioned to Hugo, the "Nobel Prize if I knew" is an abdication, not an answer nor an explanation; if one thinks a thing, then one needs a reason, right? And not just putting Materialism in the premises, which is circular.
How do you expect me to explain how electrons produce intellect, if no one else on the planet can do so? As I've said, it's dauntingly complex. If you think there's a simple answer for how intellect works, I'd love to hear it. And again- I believe that intellect is the product of matter, because there doesn't seem to be anything else in there.”
There is also life in there. When life leaves, the intellect departs with it. The mass, including electrons, remains. And that’s the reason that some Atheists deny that there is anything differentiable about “life”. It cannot be shown to have separable mass/energy of its own. So under materialism, life doesn’t exist. It’s interesting the things that Atheo-Materialists wind up denying in order to keep their Materialism afloat. Other denials besides the denial of life, are: denial of the self, consciousness, agency (of course) , human will, causation itself, ethics (being evolutionarily selected for), and even the objectivity of logic, hence math and science.
One last thought. Let’s review this statement:
” How do you expect me to explain how electrons produce intellect, if no one else on the planet can do so?”
Can we compare this with the Theist who makes this statement:
”How do you expect me to produce material evidence for a non-material entity when that is a logical Category Error?”
Would the Atheist allow this complaint any legitimacy? They repeatedly do not. Why should the logical error be granted any legitimacy for Atheism? It should not, unless logic is declared subjective and without value to one’s worldview.
Zilch,
” People have often posited the existence of mysterious forces to explain what they don't understand. That is no proof of their existence. As far as I can see, agency, like life, is just another thing matter and energy do- in the right circumstances, to be sure. How is this man "not operating under the laws of physics" here? Do his muscles move without extracting energy from the environment? Does he think with no structure in his brain?”
Do rocks create objectives and then set about obtaining them? You seem to be in Radical Skepticism mode again, denying things which are deniable only by ignoring the actual occurrence: intentionality.
If you deny the existence of intentionality, and deny that it differentiates minerals and mere mass from living humans, then there is nothing else to discuss. And I suspect that that juncture is near.
” And is there a line you can draw here? Are chimps agents? Ladybugs? Viruses? Robots?”
Why would it matter if you deny intentionality?
Wow, it took me so long to just read everything here that I don't know if I can comment a lot today... we'll see...
There is a summary at the bottom which would allow us to compact this discussion considerably. I have gone ahead and answered each of your individual comments, but I wonder if we could start anew at the summary stage?
Agreed, there is a lot to comment on because there is a fundamental misunderstanding regarding several words we are using. It's hard for me to skip over all the comments where you showed that you did not get my point, but I will comment at the end only anyway to save us all some precious time...
1. You have proven that Philosophical Materialism is true, by assuming its truth in your premises. Your arguments consist of first assuming Materialism to be true, so [insert assertion], therefore Materialism is true. This is Circular.
Technically, I don't pretend to 'prove' Materialism to be true. I am telling you why Materialism is the only ontology that makes sense to me. Yes I start by assuming it, but not to prove to you that Materialism is correct, but to prove to you why it makes sense.
Moreover, it might sound weird, but I don't even label it as Materialism when I start proving it; you do. What I would say is that I start by assuming that the material exists, while you (probably) start by assuming that consciousness exists.
In other words, the real debate here is primacy of existence versus primacy of consciousness. I start with the fact that I exist in a material world. So yes, that is assuming materialism, but not as a belief system, but simply as a description of what 'to exist in reality' means. To exist is to be material, in a strict sense. The problem is that this is where the usage of 'material in a strict sense' stops, and where the confusion begins, because concepts are immaterial in an everyday common usage, yet I reduce them to the material only because minds are product of matter, as I assume as a starting point.
If we start by assuming that consciousness exists, to me this means that we cannot know anything about the real world, but since this is not my position I would let you defend it and explain to me why it makes more sense to you.
2. In order to actually prove that Materialism is True, there are logical problems which need explanations:
(a). Why is part of the body deterministic and why is part of the body non-deterministic.
If the mind is an emerging property of a body, it makes perfect sense. We control our body using our mind but the mind is contingent to the body and thus influenced by it. We also influence our body, but ultimately, the body is the "boss".
I would also express at this point that my belief is that we are nothing but 'moving machines'. All we do is move stuff. Think about it for a few seconds. Can you not move at all?
The answer is no, because if you were to not move at all, you would be dead. Actually, it's worse than that, if you were to not move at all, it means that even the molecules, the atoms, that make up your body would not move; that would make you disappear! It just does not make any sense. Therefore, I believe that we are machines that perceive moving things, store them in our moving brain, and act upon the things that move to decide what we want to move next.
A simple cell can "decide" to move in one way or the other simply due to the chemical laws that govern its environment. We, as agents, are way more complex than that, yet, we are bound by the real world we live in. We cannot move ourselves in ways that the real world prevent us to. I see thinking in pretty much the same way. Our mind rearrange stuff that we have observed in order to come up with new thoughts, new ideas. It is, however, impossible to even conceive things like the square root of a negative number, or a complete void, or infinity,etc... the only thing we can do is use representation that other minds before us used to discuss these ideas that are purely imaginary.
(b) How is it justifiable to include non-determinism inside a deterministic set?
(c). Why is sentience and agency expected from electron flow.
Because the line is blurred between pure free will and pure determinism as I just explained.
(d). What actual physical material proof (empirical, experimental, replicable, falsifiable) can be generated to prove that the mind is purely physical? A deductive hypothesis, based on what inductive knowledge?
I start by assuming that I have a physical body and that I exist as this body. The fact that this body allows me to think is the proof that my mind exists. The ideas that my mind come up with, and that I can share with you only through the real world we live in, are non-physical. Not that this does not contradict Materialism since the non-physical mind can be said to exist only as long as the body exists.
(e). How do you prove that “meaning” has independent material (mass/energy) constituents?
I fail to see the difference with (d). Meaning is a form of concept; the product of a mind.
(f) How are material concepts and meaning created by merely thinking?
Same as (d)...
Does thought create mass/energy?
Nope, re-arrange it.
Or is thought mass/energy which is a non-determinate agent with the capability of creating mass/energy in the form of concepts?
Nope again, I see our brain as "moving", as I explained above. That's not good enough for a Nobel prize but I believe that it makes sense in the context.
Or is thought mass/energy which is a determinate false agent under the laws of physics and because it is a subset of a determinate body?
Same :)
The tendency to claim “Well, we’d have the Nobel Prize if we knew” is not an explanatory hypothesis. It is an acknowledgment that you cannot provide even a logical syllogism to deal with these paradoxical issues.
I hope the answers above were better suited to your inquiries?
The actual issue here is whether the things we believe are reasonable, logical, and, for the evidence-based Atheist, supported by material evidence.
That's where you change the subject a little and poison the well in my opinion. The actual issue concerns what EXISTS, not what we believe is reasonable/logical. I can believe that the square root of -1 is 'i', and I don't require material proof for that. But if you tell me that you saw a 'square root of -1' passing by, then I will ask you what the heck you mean...
To me, God, when labeled a strictly immaterial entity is exactly the same. God cannot exist if all you do is think about it and assign labels that point to purely conceptual things. Technically, it can exists outside of our reality, but then we are changing the subject yet again. What is outside our reality is, by definition, not existing.
These issues ARE paradoxes, if you insist on Material-only existence. So your worldview, if you choose Materialism, is constrained by paradoxes: non-coherences which render it non-logical. Not to mention not being material evidence based.
I don't see any paradox except the fact that you believe that you exist as a mind that controls a body and that seems to support your belief that there could be a mind that created everything that we know of.
All the evidence that I need to believe that something exist is reality are evidence based and material because, by definition, something that is not material is non-existant, in a strict sense. Yes, concepts exist, yes love exists, yes a bunch of immaterial things exist... in your minds.
To prove that they exist in reality, in this place that I assume is real, in this place you and I live, then you have to define it in terms of other things that exist. If you merely define it as something that could exist because you thought about it, then I will go back to my invisible immaterial pink unicorn example...
Actually, I should have been way shorter than that and make a summary as well...
Premise 1) I exist as a human sharing a common reality with other humans.
Justification: I cannot prove absolutely that I am not just a brain in a vat, but for all practical purposes, I am going to assume that this premise is true. If it were false, I could not get any true knowledge about this common reality I seem to leave in.
Premise 2) I perceive the world through my senses, because of the fundamental properties of my body, and this yield what humans label a conscious experience.
Justification: I cannot prove absolutely that my senses are reliable, but again, if I deny that they are, then I cannot get any knowledge from the common reality. They are thus at least partially right.
Premise 3) Other people, other human beings that share this common reality with me, also have a conscious experience.
Justification: I cannot absolutely prove that they are, but if I deny this, then I cannot trust anything they say since they are empty shells without any knowledge.
Premise 4) After premises 1,2,3, I rejcect what Stan calls Radical Skepticism in order to start a quest for knowledge about the common reality; a quest for facts.
Justification: What exists in this reality does not depend on my own conscious experience. What exists does not depend on my mind. If something exits, in reality, then it is a fact that it exits. My own existence is thus considered to be a fact and the existence of others is considered to be a fact. I can move on without having to constantly wonder if they are facts or not. They are, and that is the first things that I can know, without any doubt. Doubting them brings me back to assessing the truth of the first 3 premises, and that would stop my quest for true facts.
Let me know what you think of these 4 premises I just made up...
If you have no care or curiosity for what agency (for example) is, from what it derives, how that affects your belief system and worldview, that is your choice. Whether it is logical is not your choice, though. The logic is what it is.
Again, you are making assumptions about what I care or am curious about. Are you a mind reader? If not, please drop the insinuations. It seems to me that if I disagree with you, it means that I am "not curious" about something, or am "not willing to examine it". This does nothing to further our discussion here.
For the record, I'm very curious about agency, about how thought works. In fact, I've already asked you the same question, but you have yet to answer: how does agency work? You demand an explanation from me- do you have one?
And as far as "the logic being what it is" goes, as I've said, logic is not enough to explain the world- if you have no data, then no amount of logic will show you anything more than how words chase their own tails. And we have no data for the immaterial, or for élan vital.
Oddly, many people tend to keep the fallacious worldview despite being shown the tools of logic. I suspect that the Atheist worldview and its freedom from discipline (even while claiming a rationality which it doesn’t have) gives comfort to those who wish to maintain their own personal philosophies and ethics, and that value warrants fending off attacks from logical process.
Oddly, many people tend to keep believing in the supernatural, despite the fact that there's no evidence for it. I suspect that the theistic worldview and its divinely enforced discipline (even though this Divine Enforcer never shows) gives comfort to those who don't wish to think for themselves, and hope for pie in the sky when they die, and that value warrants fending off attacks from reality.
Could you at least respond to this statement:
Materialism fails its own standard.
You seem to agree and then turn around and disagree. I don’t know where you actually stand.
I'll try again, although we've been through this several times already. Materialism only "fails" in the sense that it cannot be logically proven to be true, in the way that 2+2=4 can be proven. But it's the best model we have (so far) of the way the world is. It has a fantastic track record of explaining and predicting the world. I don't see how positing an undetectable realm or being helps us explain or predict the world any better (or even as well) as materialism does; so for the moment, I'll stick with the simpler explanation.
When life leaves, the intellect departs with it. The mass, including electrons, remains.
How is that a problem for materialism? If you smash a computer, the functioning departs too. Life, like computers, depend on a very particular structure to operate, and if that structure is destroyed, then operation ceases.
And that’s the reason that some Atheists deny that there is anything differentiable about “life”. It cannot be shown to have separable mass/energy of its own.
Again- life is not just a substance or some sort of mysterious force, but a pattern. Life is what living things do; it's not a "thing". Similarly, the mind is what the brain does, as far as I can see. No need for special classes of existence to explain it.
So under materialism, life doesn’t exist.
By that reasoning, no patterns of any kind exist for materialists. I can't even say that there's a pen on my desk, because I don't believe in the substance "on". I can't pick up the pen either, because there is no substance "move". Now that's radical skepticism.
It’s interesting the things that Atheo-Materialists wind up denying in order to keep their Materialism afloat. Other denials besides the denial of life, are: denial of the self, consciousness, agency (of course) , human will, causation itself, ethics (being evolutionarily selected for), and even the objectivity of logic, hence math and science.
Same thing. You seem to feel that patterns, or at least certain patterns, require essences, which you claim are immaterial. Yes, there's order in the world- we can both observe it. Why is there order at all? I don't know. But I don't see how you get off the hook for explaining order by simply positing some sort of other realm of existence that's responsible for it, because then you must explain the order of this realm of existence. Can you do that?
One last thought. Let’s review this statement:
” How do you expect me to explain how electrons produce intellect, if no one else on the planet can do so?”
Can we compare this with the Theist who makes this statement:
”How do you expect me to produce material evidence for a non-material entity when that is a logical Category Error?”
Would the Atheist allow this complaint any legitimacy? They repeatedly do not. Why should the logical error be granted any legitimacy for Atheism? It should not, unless logic is declared subjective and without value to one’s worldview.
I can't explain how electrons produce intellect, not because it's a category error, or because my worldview is necessarily fallacious, but simply because, as I've said at least three times already, it is dauntingly complex, and we don't have enough data yet. The theist is claiming that there is a whole realm of existence that is undetectable, and for which no data at all exists, other than unsupported assertions. At least I have observations: electron flow in brains can be monitored (crudely, yes), the effects of brain damage on intellect can be seen, etc. The two statements are not comparable.
I said:
People have often posited the existence of mysterious forces to explain what they don't understand. That is no proof of their existence. As far as I can see, agency, like life, is just another thing matter and energy do- in the right circumstances, to be sure. How is this man "not operating under the laws of physics" here? Do his muscles move without extracting energy from the environment? Does he think with no structure in his brain?
Stan replied:
Do rocks create objectives and then set about obtaining them? You seem to be in Radical Skepticism mode again, denying things which are deniable only by ignoring the actual occurrence: intentionality.
Do rocks, with input of energy, ever form crystals? You seem to be in a Radical Essentialism mode again, denying things which are deniable only by ignoring the actual occurrence. I agree, it's a long way from crystals to life, but I don't see any evidence for essences here, nor do I see how they help explain anything: they just pass the buck to the mysterious immaterial, which remains unexplained.
If you deny the existence of intentionality, and deny that it differentiates minerals and mere mass from living humans, then there is nothing else to discuss. And I suspect that that juncture is near.
Agreed. But it's been fun.
Oh, about Chaco Canyon: here are a couple of links for your perusal. Basically, the evidence from packrat middens is that the Canyon was wooded with pinyons and junipers, until around 1000 AD, which is around the time when the Anasazi stopped eating deer and antelope, stopped using pinyon beams, and started eating rabbits and mice and using spruce beams from distant mountains. Coincidence? Not likely. It should be pointed out that climate most likely played a role here as well, but it seems pretty obvious that the human impact had a cumulative effect on a very fragile ecosystem. However, the Anasazi did manage to eke out a living for over six hundred years there, which is pretty impressive.
I think we've reached an impasse here. Thanks for the invigorating discussion, and take care. Please drop me a line if you're ever out this way, or near SF in the summer, and lunch is on me.
cheers from chilly Vienna, zilch
120711 Hugos Hypothesis
Hugo said,
” Technically, I don't pretend to 'prove' Materialism to be true. I am telling you why Materialism is the only ontology that makes sense to me. Yes I start by assuming it, but not to prove to you that Materialism is correct, but to prove to you why it makes sense.”
Your process is very much in danger of circularity, under which “making sense” would entail accepting illogic. Do you turn away from logic at this point in order to “make sense”? Why would you not stick to logic, which ensures accurate thinking?
” In other words, the real debate here is primacy of existence versus primacy of consciousness. I start with the fact that I exist in a material world. So yes, that is assuming materialism, but not as a belief system, but simply as a description of what 'to exist in reality' means. To exist is to be material, in a strict sense.”
Then you have immediately defined, by your personal definition and not either by deduction or by evidence, the conclusion. And then you will use the conclusion to prove the conclusion. For that reason I cannot accept the first step you make which is to use the conclusion to redefine “concepts”.
So everything beyond this point is surely based on redefinitions to place entities into restricted zones of existence (by definition only), and then to show that these entities are within the zone of existence which you pre-defined. I say this without having read it, because it seems bound to happen when redefinitions start up.
Now I will read the rest of your hypothesis.
(time lapse…. Ummdeedum… )
” a). Why is part of the body deterministic and why is part of the body non-deterministic.
If the mind is an emerging property of a body, it makes perfect sense.”
Then you must show that the mind is an emerging property (an actuality), not that emerging properties exist in order to explain the problem of the mind (a story of convenience). Can you do that?
” We control our body using our mind but the mind is contingent to the body and thus influenced by it. We also influence our body, but ultimately, the body is the "boss".’
Surely at this point you have reduced the concept of mind to “conscious” mind? The body fails immediately at the point where the controller is shut off, unless external life support is applied. The mind, conscious and subconscious, is in complete control, it would appear to me. It could be a definition for “life” because when the mind is shut off, the life in the body disappears. The body begins to disassemble into atomic and molecular subunits. The body as a cohesive unit fails to cohere.
” I would also express at this point that my belief is that we are nothing but 'moving machines'. All we do is move stuff. Think about it for a few seconds. Can you not move at all?
The answer is no, because if you were to not move at all, you would be dead. Actually, it's worse than that, if you were to not move at all, it means that even the molecules, the atoms, that make up your body would not move; that would make you disappear! It just does not make any sense. Therefore, I believe that we are machines that perceive moving things, store them in our moving brain, and act upon the things that move to decide what we want to move next.”
I can’t accept the “nothing but…” part. But I’ll grant you this hypothesis contingently, in order to see what it means to you.
” A simple cell can "decide" to move in one way or the other simply due to the chemical laws that govern its environment. We, as agents, are way more complex than that, yet, we are bound by the real world we live in. We cannot move ourselves in ways that the real world prevent us to. I see thinking in pretty much the same way. Our mind rearrange stuff that we have observed in order to come up with new thoughts, new ideas. It is, however, impossible to even conceive things like the square root of a negative number, or a complete void, or infinity,etc... the only thing we can do is use representation that other minds before us used to discuss these ideas that are purely imaginary.”
Another contingent approval with similar caveats: we are not “only” these things. I might be forced to provide counter demonstrations, depending on where this goes…
” b) How is it justifiable to include non-determinism inside a deterministic set?
(c). Why is sentience and agency expected from electron flow.
Because the line is blurred between pure free will and pure determinism as I just explained.
Here I must object. If there is any non-determinism whatsoever, then it cannot be placed into a set called determinism. This is a rational, Boolean mathematical fact.
Also, blurring the lines is only under your personal construct, and here is where the problem of using the conclusion in the premises biases the outcome: Had you not done that, and used only knowable premises, your premises (NOT containing your conclusion and biased by it) would not have steered so truly to your conclusion.
The result of the circularity in the argument is a violation of logical integrity. And whether it continues to “make sense” is no longer an issue, because it fails logic, and thus cannot be an indicator of actuality.
I’ll stop here because of the problem which is revealed above.
120711 Hugo and the Process
”In other words, the real debate here is primacy of existence versus primacy of consciousness. I start with the fact that I exist in a material world. So yes, that is assuming materialism, but not as a belief system, but simply as a description of what 'to exist in reality' means. To exist is to be material, in a strict sense. The problem is that this is where the usage of 'material in a strict sense' stops, and where the confusion begins, because concepts are immaterial in an everyday common usage, yet I reduce them to the material only because minds are product of matter, as I assume as a starting point.”
OK that clarifies our basis for discussion. I do not start with existence at all. I start with what can be known. This is the Cartesian method, and it works its way back through levels of uncertainty to a point which is closest to certainty (without claim total certainty).
I will show brief model of deduction from [what can be known]. Feel free to tear it apart. You should expect that I will critique yours as well.
The progression of levels of “what we can know vs. certainty of knowing that” leads to the most nearly-certain knowledge: “I think”. You have taken that route, too. But there is no way, by starting at “I think”, that I can assert any certainty to material existence (much less material only existence) without making several presumptions outside of the deductive process. And those presuppositions are then bias for the rest of the process. But the rest of that critique will be separate from this.
I know that material existence seems self-evident, and that it should be a given. But in order to defeat radical skeptics, it needs to be attached to a deduced degree of certainty, based on prior premises. First principles aren't knowable until "knowability" is established to the point that they can be known.
In other words, the philosophy we are doing here needs to be built one brick at a time, without putting in the windows and doors until their time comes.
A. The first brick is this: “I can know that I think, with certainty; if I do not think then I cannot know”. So “knowing” is like a first principle.
B. That’s where consciousness comes in: I must be conscious in order to think. So it is fairly certain that I am conscious.
C. Consciousness allows perceptions, including sensory perceptions as well as perceptions of memory and self, and it is the scaffold for reasoning and emotions and agency.
I can know that these attributes of consciousness exist, because they are both tautological and they leave tracks.
D. Reasoning and emotions are both defined as specific sets of characteristics of the thought process. They are subsets of thought processing.
E. Because I perceive and think, I can know the principles of rationality.
F. What is rationality? When perceptions of actuality match actuality.
G. If rational processes exist, are they subjective? Do they only apply as I wish them to apply? Or do they apply with consistency? If actuality is consistent, then rationality is consistent, and the processes are consistent.
H. Consistent with what? Actuality.
I. Do rational processes depend on any specific existence, other than thought? While thinking depends upon being alive, and being alive depends upon a body, the processes, which are procedures, are not alive, and do not depend on any specific existence.
Back to perceptions.
J. I perceive inputs from sensory units which my body possesses. While they might be deceptive, they indicate both a physical existence for myself, and a physical existence beyond myself.
K. Is there any existence which my sensory inputs cannot reveal?
(a) The mental processes of others is known only secondarily; secrets can be kept. Thoughts other than my own are not available to me unless they are volunteered.
(b) Things which are out of range are only known secondarily, if at all.
(c) Anything which cannot trigger the sensory inputs.
(d) My own thoughts, memories, concepts and mental processes are available without the use of sensory devices.
L. Is there reason to deduce that things which do not trigger my sensory inputs do not exist? If so what is that reason?
This is the question being asked of Atheists, who answer: yes. If you answer yes, then what is your deductive process? Contrarily, if you have a belief in an ideology outside of this deductive chain, what is the deductive process for establishing that?
Here I stop, and await your objections to this deductive chain.
Zilch
”Life is what living things do; it's not a "thing"
That is an impossible definition.
Life = life.
It’s a reduction to a trivial statement.
It needs explanatory power, which it does not attempt.
But I agree, life is not a thing. But it is also something (ironically) which some entities possess and others do not. Living things can be differentiated from non-living things. So what do they have that differentiates them? It’s not patterns. It is abilities.
” Similarly, the mind is what the brain does, as far as I can see. No need for special classes of existence to explain it.”
The dead brain is a material mass which doesn’t do anything. It takes life for a brain to function and, for you, life is merely patterns, presumably material patterns which somehow achieve the ability of sentience and rationality.
But just patterns aren’t an explanation, they are a presumption. Even so, let’s examine the idea that life and the mind are merely patterns.
Somehow the patterns got superimposed on material things which were ready to use the patterns. So we must have had material things which originally existed, which somehow acquired patterns. The patterns and the objects were symbiotic to the point that they replicated, producing more objects and more patterns. In fact the patterns became individualized. These patterned objects increased in complexity because they needed to adapt to changing environments. This presumes that the patterned objects would not survive unless the patterns changed to allow survival or at least dominance.
Skipping cheerfully through deep time, we arrive at ourselves, now, where patterned material can examine itself, can change itself, can think about future patterns that would be better than current patterns which were inherited. The patterned objects exhibit sentience, rationality and agency.
So what is it about patterns on objects that allows this hypothesis to be credible? How do patterns generate sentience and agency? What is it that gives credibility to the story I have written above? Patterns >> life? Patterns >> agency? What is the symbiosis that allows patterns on mass to replicate? To create? Where is the explanan?
It appears to me that the denial of differentiability to life except in the declaration of “patterns” is based not on the credulousness in “patterned mass” but on the need to deny life the characteristics which it actually possesses, and further, that that need for denial is based not in either material evidence nor in proper deduction, but in the placement of ideology into the thought process. Materialism is presupposed, so the conclusions must be materialist. Circular. The purpose is clear: to deny that life is exceptional to material, deterministic existence. The denial is done first; the rationalization comes second.
I imagine that you will find this offensive, considering that you have a firm belief which requires that Materialism be all of actuality. However, I also imagine that you have a need for logically valid conclusions. I hope that rather than leave, you continue to come here and to pursue logical conclusions.
As for Chaco Canyon, all the experts that PBS interviewed agreed that it was never occupied except during the building phase. I think neither of us knows what is the actual case. You are claiming the truth according to your writer; I am reporting what other experts said, along with videos of their evidence.
Post script: (I can’t resist commenting on the remainder of your comments):
Neither “on” nor “move” are nouns…(!) No substance is expected. So that’s an odd juxtapositioning…
”
Same thing. You seem to feel that patterns, or at least certain patterns, require essences, which you claim are immaterial. Yes, there's order in the world- we can both observe it. Why is there order at all? I don't know.”
Except that you are inverting it: you are placing essences into the box you call patterns; then you deny that they are essences. It’s a form of reductionism to an incomplete state, a redefining in order to eliminate an unwanted characteristic.
But I don't see how you get off the hook for explaining order by simply positing some sort of other realm of existence that's responsible for it, because then you must explain the order of this realm of existence. Can you do that?”
Completely beside the point in an obvious Tu Quoque. The point here is what Atheists can reasonably believe and what they can require of others to believe. The inability of Atheists to arrive at their own conclusions logically is a fatal flaw, since they insist that no other possibility can be valid but their own. It’s a religious approach to self-created truth.
(continued)
(1/4)
Hi Stan, I think we are extremely close to a 'We have to agree to disagree' or... perhaps you'll change your mind ;-)
I do not start with existence at all. I start with what can be known.
For me, that does not make sense. If we start with the fact that we can think, then I don't see how we can close the door on the 'brain in a vat' scenario. We'll see why by moving on...
The progression of levels of “what we can know vs. certainty of knowing that” leads to the most nearly-certain knowledge: “I think”. You have taken that route, too.
Yes I did. However, I hope you noticed a crucial difference. I start by saying that there is a reality in which my body resides, to avoid the 'brain in jar' scenario, and THEN, I believe that I can think with respect to that existing reality.
But there is no way, by starting at “I think”, that I can assert any certainty to material existence (much less material only existence) without making several presumptions outside of the deductive process.
Exactly, if you start with 'I think', then the material world could not exist at all! The entire material world could be a fiction of your imagination. The problem is that you have yet to produce a framework for what the boundaries of reality are. Let's see how it works...
I know that material existence seems self-evident, and that it should be a given. But in order to defeat radical skeptics, it needs to be attached to a deduced degree of certainty, based on prior premises.
Either the material world is real, or it is not. Either you are in it, or you are not. To me, it's that simple. By assuming that I exist first, I reject Radical Skepticism right off the bat and start with a framework grounded in this reality that I consider objective. If I say that it 'could' be otherwise, then I go back to Radical Skepticism, so that's where knowledge starts; that's where I start finding things that are true.
As you agreed, starting at this point can yield the First Principles of logic so I feel fully justified into using them to observe that real world.
On the other hand, if you accept that you first exist as a mind, you could be out of this material reality! But then you want to claim that you exist in it? I don't understand how you can justify your own existence in this material world if you start with assuming your own existence as being independent of it...
(2/4)
A. The first brick is this: “I can know that I think, with certainty; if I do not think then I cannot know”. So “knowing” is like a first principle.
That's THE problem. You know you think, but you don't know 'where' you are doing the thinking. You could be a brain in a jar... but let's see how you try to escape that problem below.
B. That’s where consciousness comes in: I must be conscious in order to think. So it is fairly certain that I am conscious.
A brain in jar could think that...
C. Consciousness allows perceptions, including sensory perceptions as well as perceptions of memory and self, and it is the scaffold for reasoning and emotions and agency.
I can know that these attributes of consciousness exist, because they are both tautological and they leave tracks.
A brain in jar could think that...
D. Reasoning and emotions are both defined as specific sets of characteristics of the thought process. They are subsets of thought processing.
A brain in jar could think that...
E. Because I perceive and think, I can know the principles of rationality.
A brain in jar could think that...
F. What is rationality? When perceptions of actuality match actuality.
Sure, but what is 'actuality'? You did not reject the brain in a jar scenario properly, since your thinking process could be happening anywhere, in any 'real' reality... Your thought process could yield false perceptions that lead you to think that you perceive something which is real, but is not.
To me, that's one point where the 'primacy of consciousness' breaks down.
But again, we can move on anyway since it makes sense to all of us to talk about a shared 'actuality' (same as reality if I understand correctly...).
(3/4)
G. If rational processes exist, are they subjective? Do they only apply as I wish them to apply? Or do they apply with consistency? If actuality is consistent, then rationality is consistent, and the processes are consistent.
H. Consistent with what? Actuality.
I feel like G-H simply means: 'Do facts exist'? Any rational thought process would use facts rather than subjective opinions to come up with new facts. So yes, of course facts exist, they are objective truth about the common reality we share. They have to be consistent.
I. Do rational processes depend on any specific existence, other than thought? While thinking depends upon being alive, and being alive depends upon a body, the processes, which are procedures, are not alive, and do not depend on any specific existence.
I am a bit confused by the terms used again... facts don't depends on the minds that express them; I think we agree. But the mind (for me) depends on the existence of the body that is part of the reality whose facts we are talking about. In your case, you are not convinced yet, I think, so you move on to perceptions...
J. I perceive inputs from sensory units which my body possesses. While they might be deceptive, they indicate both a physical existence for myself, and a physical existence beyond myself.
My jaw dropped when I read that, because you confirm that they 'might' be deceptive! Obviously, I agree with you that our sense might be deceptive, but there is a fundamental difference between our worldviews. If we go back to the start, I assume that I exist in this reality that my senses perceive. You, on the other hand, by first assuming that you exist as a mind that thinks and then perceive something, could be 100% deceived.
I repeat, at this point, it is still possible for you to exist but not the entire 'real' world around you... philosophically speaking, it seems to me that even at this point, you are the one who have not yet rejected Radical Skepticism.
K. Is there any existence which my sensory inputs cannot reveal?
Of course! I agree with all points, except (d) which I put together with L.
(a) The mental processes of others is known only secondarily; secrets can be kept. Thoughts other than my own are not available to me unless they are volunteered.
Exactly, but in your worldview, they could be other brains in other jars... a Matrix-like scenario is not impossible.
(b) Things which are out of range are only known secondarily, if at all.
(c) Anything which cannot trigger the sensory inputs.
Sure... like X-Ray, quarks, tiny variations in air pressure, or anything else we perceive only through instruments.
(4a/4)
(d) My own thoughts, memories, concepts and mental processes are available without the use of sensory devices.
In your worldview they are available without the use of sensory devices because your own body has not been proven to exist without any doubt. In my worldview, my mental processes have to be generated by my body, which is my "sensory device", or else I don't exist.
That's why I keep saying that I don't need to explain how electrons yield a mind; my body exists first, and my mind second.
L. Is there reason to deduce that things which do not trigger my sensory inputs do not exist? If so what is that reason?
Of course not, because our sensory inputs are limited; I agreed to that in (b) and (c). The question you should be asking is: is there a reason to deduce that things that are not material do not exist?
Using both our worldview, we can eventually come to an answer to that question.
If I use your worldview and start by assuming that I exist as an immaterial mind, then I don't have to have a material body and, yes, I agree that other immaterial things could exist. I don't understand 'where' they exist, or what existence actually means in that context, but since it's not my worldview I am not too worried... you should ;-)
(4b/4)
However, using my worldview, we get:
If my body exists in a real material world, then, by definition, things that exist in the real world are material because all I can perceive is material, all that others can perceive is also material, so we can only discuss things that 'exist in the real world' using material evidence. You consider it circular reasoning, but I consider it to be the logical conclusion of a worldview that starts with the fact that my body exists in this material world.
To go even a step further. Can we discuss things that are immaterial in my worldview? The answer is yes! In a non-strict sense, all the concepts that our minds produce are immaterial. The problem is that this entire discussion started with an analysis of Atheism, the belief that gods don't exist. If gods, or a single God, are defined as immaterial, then they are, by definition, concepts. To prove that the concept points to a real thing requires more than just concepts. In your worldview, it is not the case, since you start by saying that an immaterial thing actually exists, your mind. In my worldview, immaterial things are products of material bodies and I thus feel justified to dismiss claims of existence regarding other immaterial things. The only immaterial things I believe exist are other minds that depend on other material bodies.
Note that, philosophically speaking, it is impossible for me to deny the existence of other immaterial minds that are out of reach because my material body cannot perceive their own 'container' or their own 'mind generator', whatever that would be. The problem is that I have not been presented with good reasons to believe such minds could even possibly exist. Perhaps on other planets but we are far from being able to tell... perhaps outside of the universe? Then we are incapable, by definition, of detecting them. For us, until proven wrong, these other minds, or any other immaterial thing, do not exist.
So, again, I reach the same conclusion as before: I am a materialist because I believe I exist in a real material world. You find it circular because I start by assuming that the real world is material, but I don't see any problem with that since I need a basis for existence, and my body provides that basis. I see much bigger problems with your basis for existence that does not appear to have any grounding in any objective reality. By starting with 'I think', you opened the door to your thinking process happening anywhere in my opinion, and that is the problem.
For Zilch, continued from (way) above...
” I can't explain how electrons produce intellect, not because it's a category error, or because my worldview is necessarily fallacious, but simply because, as I've said at least three times already, it is dauntingly complex, and we don't have enough data yet. The theist is claiming that there is a whole realm of existence that is undetectable, and for which no data at all exists, other than unsupported assertions. At least I have observations: electron flow in brains can be monitored (crudely, yes), the effects of brain damage on intellect can be seen, etc. The two statements are not comparable.”
Your characterization of theism is false. Theism claims that there is a single logical deduction made on the basis of observable universal characteristics, which makes a posit that there is an existence outside the reach of science due to the limitations of material science.
You posit that there is a valid conclusion based on the existence of electrons which says that electrons are the cause for intellect, but the proof for that is outside the reach of science due to complexity.
They are similar up to the point of deduction from known fact. Theism is a rational single step deduction, while deduction of rationality from electrons has exactly no reasoning or facts attached to it, so the steps between what is actually known and conclusion are legion and perhaps not even possible. The deduction is purely an association of convenience, not a scientific hypothesis. In fact, it is necessary only for the preservation of the philosophy of Materialism.
” At least I have observations: electron flow in brains can be monitored (crudely, yes), the effects of brain damage on intellect can be seen, etc. The two statements are not comparable.”
Observing fish in water does not make a sound premise for the conclusion that water creates fish.
"'Do rocks create objectives and then set about obtaining them? You seem to be in Radical Skepticism mode again, denying things which are deniable only by ignoring the actual occurrence: intentionality.'
Do rocks, with input of energy, ever form crystals? You seem to be in a Radical Essentialism mode again, denying things which are deniable only by ignoring the actual occurrence. "
Wow. Crystals form as a product of entropy, with heat being released, not absorbed. The molecules merely condense into states of less energy, which in some cases means aligning with the remaining energy of other molecules. This is a process of cooling and energy degradation from motion to heat. This you compare with intentionality? Are you not grasping here?
Yes I can see that we have reached an impasse. I hate to see you go away, and I wish you would take a liking to logical analysis, but you'll do what is comfortable for you.
You're welcome back whenever you wish...
Adios.
Hugo,
"If my body exists in a real material world, then, by definition, things that exist in the real world are material because all I can perceive is material, all that others can perceive is also material, so we can only discuss things that 'exist in the real world' using material evidence. You consider it circular reasoning, but I consider it to be the logical conclusion of a worldview that starts with the fact that my body exists in this material world."
Then we cannot even discuss things on the same plane, because for my own reasoning, logic prevails. Your reasoning is circular. You start with the "box" and then you prove the "box". If that is your wish for a worldview, then you are entitled to it. But you cannot call it logical.
Then we cannot even discuss things on the same plane, because for my own reasoning, logic prevails. Your reasoning is circular. You start with the "box" and then you prove the "box". If that is your wish for a worldview, then you are entitled to it. But you cannot call it logical.
Actually Stan, this is my point...
I have a box; you don't. So you are correct; there is nothing to talk about, unless you want to look at my 'box' or present yours, which you tried to do but failed.
You even agreed that my 'box' can yield logic. You were impressed by that...
Yet, you claim that you exist inside another box that contains other real things, but you never define your box.
Don't you see the "cheat" that you are doing? You never define the difference between what's real and what is not real; you never define what you use as a basis for determining if something exists or not.
You just assert that you do exist, first, as a 'non-material' mind. To me, this means that you cannot even justify your own existence without basically saying that you refuse to start from my box.. the 'material' box.
You prefer to claim that you exist outside of that box, that you believe this box exists, but that because you are outside of it, other things can exist outside of it. I simply don't believe you. For me, you are in that box, because you exist as a person, as a human. You are not immaterial.
You keep trying to give advice and teaching us logic, but you refuse to even look at the basis of your worldview. Your dismissal of a valid argument from an Atheist tells a lot more about you than the Atheists you try to portrait as illogical...
So, again, what is your box? What are the limits of reality? Can things exist and not exist at the same time? NO! Then tell me what your box for things that exist is. Tell me where your mind, that you claim exist, is!
I think you're the Radical Skeptic after all :P
Hugo said,
I have a box; you don't. So you are correct; there is nothing to talk about, unless you want to look at my 'box' or present yours, which you tried to do but failed.
You even agreed that my 'box' can yield logic. You were impressed by that...
Yet, you claim that you exist inside another box that contains other real things, but you never define your box.”
I have no box, you are mistaken. I have an open linear deductive process which I purposely stopped at the point where I ask Atheists to take a position. Yes, your original start yielded what looked promising. But then you stopped and went back and restarted, asserting the boundaries of your box first and then disallowing anything outside the box.
” Don't you see the "cheat" that you are doing? You never define the difference between what's real and what is not real; you never define what you use as a basis for determining if something exists or not.
I assert what can be known and then deduce from there. That is logical process. I don’t understand why a person would declare another person to be a cheater just for using logic – when the accuser admits to circular reasoning which is a fallacy(!) How do you justify illogic??
It is illogical to predefine your "box" as the only existence just to conclude that the box is the only existence.
”You just assert that you do exist, first, as a 'non-material' mind. To me, this means that you cannot even justify your own existence without basically saying that you refuse to start from my box.. the 'material' box.”
Of course that is not what I asserted. I asserted that I can know that my mind exists. You illegitimately add parenthetially:
”because materialism is True, then the mind is defined as Material, therefore the mind is Material”
Here is a complete dual syllogism:
First proposition:
IF[Materialism is true], THEN [the mind is material].
Materialism is true.
Therefore the mind is Material.
Second Proposition:
IF[the mind is material], THEN [Materialism is true].
The mind is material (see 1st syllogism).
Therefore [Materialism is true].
This is incredibly basic logic 101. The circularity demonstrated is eminently unavoidable. The argument is non-valid.
Can you not see that the conclusion is the premise? It reduces to a trivial statement:
Materialism is true, therefore Materialism is true
If Materialism is true, then the mind can only be material
Just defining something as X doesn’t mean that it is actually X.
I cannot make this any clearer. It is blatant logic failure.
(continued)
” You just assert that you do exist, first, as a 'non-material' mind. To me, this means that you cannot even justify your own existence without basically saying that you refuse to start from my box.. the 'material' box.”
And that is exactly the point. I don’t intend to justify my “material existence” or my "non-material existence". I intend to take logic wherever it will lead, rather than pre-define as truth the conclusion which I must have, and then say that is the conclusion, so that is what I am. That is ideology, not logic. And that is what you have done.
You start with what you want the conclusion to be, jam everything into the conclusion, then you say you have a conclusion. Well, yes, you do. It is the definition you started with, by defining the conclusion to be true.
” You prefer to claim that you exist outside of that box, that you believe this box exists, but that because you are outside of it, other things can exist outside of it. I simply don't believe you. For me, you are in that box, because you exist as a person, as a human. You are not immaterial.”
I prefer to claim that you cannot make a circular, illogical, conclusion = conclusion type of argument, and think that you have a coherent philosophy.
” You keep trying to give advice and teaching us logic, but you refuse to even look at the basis of your worldview. Your dismissal of a valid argument from an Atheist tells a lot more about you than the Atheists you try to portrait as illogical...”.
Your argument is demonstrably logically not valid. So your accusation is without merit. I have pointed out your error in no uncertain terms. Your illogic speaks for itself at this point.
And I will tell you that, as an Atheist, I was far more open to logic advice than you appear to be. Apparently you will live in your logically erroneous conclusion and feel warm at what you think is “valid”. No, what you declare as valid by decreeing it valid in the premise.
But maybe someday you will actually study the discipline of logic, its structures, its fallacies, and come to accept that circular is not logical; that not logical is not rational; that basing your worldview on that basis is an error.
FYI, it is also a genetic fallacy, but that is a little advanced for this type of conversation.
You seem ready to bolt, sorry to see you go if you do.
You’re welcome here at any time.
Okay, I'll try again. What the hey.
Stan, you say:
The dead brain is a material mass which doesn’t do anything. It takes life for a brain to function and, for you, life is merely patterns, presumably material patterns which somehow achieve the ability of sentience and rationality.
Yep, so far so good.
But just patterns aren’t an explanation, they are a presumption. Even so, let’s examine the idea that life and the mind are merely patterns.
"Just" patterns are only a presumption in the sense that we see patterns in life and mind, and we don't see anything else.
Somehow the patterns got superimposed on material things which were ready to use the patterns. So we must have had material things which originally existed, which somehow acquired patterns.
This is stated tendentiously. Matter is not just inert lumps of "stuff", but has very high degrees of order- in fact, you could say that matter is ordered energy, and this order- the usual physical constants- leads matter to interact with energy and other matter to form ordered things, such as stars, planets, tides, crystals, etc. You are assuming already that "order" in the form of patterns is a separate substance from matter, that is somehow "superimposed" (I imagine from your supernatural pattern imposer) on inert matter. As far as I can see, the tendency to form patterns is built into matter, which itself is a kind of pattern. Again, why there is order at all is a good question, and I'd still be curious to hear your answer. You have lots of questions but are chary with explanations, which of course is a good debating technique.
The patterns and the objects were symbiotic to the point that they replicated, producing more objects and more patterns. In fact the patterns became individualized. These patterned objects increased in complexity because they needed to adapt to changing environments. This presumes that the patterned objects would not survive unless the patterns changed to allow survival or at least dominance.
Okay.
Skipping cheerfully through deep time, we arrive at ourselves, now, where patterned material can examine itself, can change itself, can think about future patterns that would be better than current patterns which were inherited. The patterned objects exhibit sentience, rationality and agency.
Okay.
So what is it about patterns on objects that allows this hypothesis to be credible? How do patterns generate sentience and agency? What is it that gives credibility to the story I have written above? Patterns >> life? Patterns >> agency? What is the symbiosis that allows patterns on mass to replicate? To create? Where is the explanan?
I honestly don't see why you keep asking this. You offer no explanation yourself, and expect me to explain how minds work? It's just an Argument from Incredulity, and I don't see how it's any different from saying that since we have no explanation for thunderbolts, then there must be a god behind the clouds tossing them. You yourself can see that patterned matter in the form of computers (which are not alive- are they?) can produce, if not human ratiocination, at least patterns of immense complexity- or play chess much better than you or I.
Sure, computers are reflections of human agency, but they demonstrate that patterned non-living matter can produce highly ordered results. I don't see any reason to believe that what we do is anything different, although it's still many orders of magnitude above what computers can do so far. I'm guessing that you also believe there's a line, or a cherub with a flaming sword, between micro- and macroevolution too.
Or are there immaterial spirits ghosting about in computers? Or in ladybugs? You still haven't told me where you draw the line for intentionality here, either, but merely said that it "shouldn't matter to me". I'm curious, though, because your answer would be revealing.
Hey, I see you've turned off the moderation. I can say anything I want! Tweak! Oddment! Blubber!
Okay, now that that's out of my system (thanks, by the way), we can resume. Stan, you say:
It appears to me that the denial of differentiability to life except in the declaration of “patterns” is based not on the credulousness in “patterned mass” but on the need to deny life the characteristics which it actually possesses, and further, that that need for denial is based not in either material evidence nor in proper deduction, but in the placement of ideology into the thought process. Materialism is presupposed, so the conclusions must be materialist. Circular.
Exactly which characteristics of life am I "denying" here? Life metabolizes and reproduces, and does lots of other observable stuff. And your "proper" deduction is what remains to be demonstrated by yourself. So far, it doesn't seem to be anything more than an argument from incredulity ("I don't see how matter can be alive or think, therefore immaterial essences must be behind it, and I don't need to explain how that works"), combined with something like the Kalam argument, which is basically "everything material is caused, therefore it must be bump-started by some sort of immaterial force or intelligence"). Please excuse me if I've misinterpreted you here, but that's how it seems to me.
The purpose is clear: to deny that life is exceptional to material, deterministic existence. The denial is done first; the rationalization comes second.
No, it's not a denial, but an observation: life, as exceptional a pattern of matter and energy as it is, doesn't seem to have any special "stuff" or "spirit" that makes it different from rocks; it's different in the same way a crystal is from a rock, but merely more so. I don't deny the possibility of essences or spirits or whatever; I just don't see either a) any evidence for their existence, or b) any necessity to invoke them. And as I've already asked, but have heard no response from you so far: how does the addition of the immaterial help explain life and thought? Where's the explanans?
As for Chaco Canyon, all the experts that PBS interviewed agreed that it was never occupied except during the building phase. I think neither of us knows what is the actual case. You are claiming the truth according to your writer; I am reporting what other experts said, along with videos of their evidence.
No, I don't know what the case is either, but every site I've seen agrees that Chaco Canyon was occupied from around 800 to 1300 AD, and there are garbage middens with bones galore there, so I don't know where the PBS experts are getting their data.
Neither “on” nor “move” are nouns…(!) No substance is expected. So that’s an odd juxtapositioning…
Okay, that was a bit opaque. What I was trying to get at is this: I'm saying that life seems to be a pattern, a special juxtaposition of matter, without any other ingredients. You say that life is more than this, and that there must be an immaterial component. So I was just taking what seems to be your standpoint that special juxtapositions of matter require an extra substance to its logical conclusion (as long as you don't draw a line, which you haven't yet, between exactly what kinds of patterns require supernatural help): the radical conclusion, on your worldview, would be that any pattern or juxtaposition requires the immaterial.
Crystals form as a product of entropy, with heat being released, not absorbed. The molecules merely condense into states of less energy, which in some cases means aligning with the remaining energy of other molecules. This is a process of cooling and energy degradation from motion to heat. This you compare with intentionality? Are you not grasping here?
Yes, I know about the latent heat of crystallization. I expressed that sloppily: I was considering the emergence of order from disorder, given matter and energy. The fact that matter can spontaneously become more ordered, in the right circumstances, suggests that even higher forms of order (say, intentionality) can likewise emerge without supernatural help, again given the (very special) circumstances. Yes, I know it's a jump between crystals and mind, but with baby steps, I don't see any reason not to believe that it could happen.
Yes I can see that we have reached an impasse. I hate to see you go away, and I wish you would take a liking to logical analysis, but you'll do what is comfortable for you.
You're welcome back whenever you wish...
Adios.
Logical analysis is fine, as far as it goes, but as I said, the World trumps the Word. And thanks for hosting this engaging debate. I'll probably be back occasionally, but I think we've arrived at a place where there's no budging on either side, so it's a good place for a breather at least.
cherio from chilly Vienna, zilch
(1/6)
First, let's laugh a bit...
I wrote:
I have a box; you don't.
You replied:
I have no box, you are mistaken.
...and you call me illogical?
Moving on... I said:
The box I am talking about is reality. You never define the difference between what's real and what is not real; you never define what you use as a basis for determining if something exists or not.
You said:
I assert what can be known and then deduce from there.
Yes and that is the problem. I want to discuss what 'to exist' mean. You talk about what you strongly believe in and why. I don't care what you believe exists if you don't define what 'to exist' means.
I assert what can be known and then deduce from there. That is logical process. I don’t understand why a person would declare another person to be a cheater just for using logic – when the accuser admits to circular reasoning which is a fallacy(!) How do you justify illogic??
The cheat consists of separating yourself from the reality you are in, in order to prove that there is something out of this reality.
You claim:
1) I exist outside of reality
2) I perceive reality
C) There are things outside of reality
How do you justify that these things, that are outside of reality, actually exists?
(2/6)
Sorry to tell you, but as far as I know, you are right here, right now, in front of a computer or some other device that let you blog... What reasons do you have to believe that there are things that exist outside of this reality?
It is illogical to predefine your "box" as the only existence just to conclude that the box is the only existence.
I agree...
I asserted that I can know that my mind exists.
Yes, you can know that your mind exist as a form of 'concept machines'. You are able to generate thoughts, ideas, feeling, concepts, emotions, decision, surprises, etc...
The problem is that ALLLLLLL of this, in principle, could happen as part of an experiment in which you are hooked up to a machine that feeds your mind. Your mind would then be exactly the same, except it would be made of something else. There would be a reality, outside of this other reality we share, that we cannot detect in no way, but that is actually the real reality.
What you don't understand is that I believe this: if it were the case that we were hooked up to machines, then we would have exactly the same experience we have now. So, for all practical purposes, I also agree that my thinking process exists; that I, the mind, exists. We, minds, are part of the non-material category. Our conscious experience is immaterial.
The problem is that this is a red hearing. You are avoiding the subject of what existence is by starting to talk about your mind!
It's ok, I get it, I know your mind exists. The point is that I am telling you that from my perspective, the only reason I have to think that your mind exists is because there is a freaking body producing it. If your brain would stop functioning in the next five minutes; your mind would not exist anymore. In would not be part of this reality anymore.
(3/6) You said...
First proposition:
IF[Materialism is true], THEN [the mind is material].
Materialism is true.
Therefore the mind is Material
Ya, that's stupid. What about...
- Humans have minds
- I am a human
- Therefore, I have a mind
How many minds without a brain have you proven exist?
Why do you believe there is at least 1?
Second Proposition:
IF[the mind is material], THEN [Materialism is true].
The mind is material (see 1st syllogism).
Therefore [Materialism is true].
This is incredibly basic logic 101. The circularity demonstrated is eminently unavoidable. The argument is non-valid.
Again, very stupid yes… What about…
- Humans are made of physical things
- I am a human
- Therefore I am made of physical things
Now you can combine the 2 if you want, and I will ask you the same questions again:
How many minds without a brain have you proven exist?
Why do you believe there is at least 1?
I simply disbelieve minds exist outside of bodies. I thus considered Materialism, the proposition that all that exists is material, to be an accurate description of reality.
I reject the idea that there could be another reality outside of this one because it would then be possible for me to be outside of it in another form. For me, the reality I am in is what's real, and what's outside is irrelevant, unknowable, unprovable... non-existing.
(4/6) You said...
Can you not see that the conclusion is the premise? It reduces to a trivial statement:
Materialism is true, therefore Materialism is true
If Materialism is true, then the mind can only be material
Just defining something as X doesn’t mean that it is actually X.
I cannot make this any clearer. It is blatant logic failure.
Indeed it was blatant logic failure the way you presented it. I can do the same for your position again...
1) My mind is immaterial
2) My mind exists
3) Therefore, an immaterial reality exists
Yes Stan, this 'immaterial reality' exists; it is called your imagination. We all have one. However, you'll note that this is yet another fallacy... I'll let you name it, you seem to like doing that. I think it's equivocation...
And that is exactly the point. I don’t intend to justify my “material existence” or my "non-material existence".
Yet you do! You start by saying that you exist, but because you consider that the 'you' is a mind, that you label as 'immaterial', you have an implied premise that states that "things that are immaterial can exists".
So you do justify your 'non-material existence'. That's what you start with!
I intend to take logic wherever it will lead, rather than pre-define as truth the conclusion which I must have, and then say that is the conclusion, so that is what I am. That is ideology, not logic. And that is what you have done.
I don't have an issue with you voicing your opinion... but since you clearly don't understand any of the claims I make. I will try again!
(5/6) Just to please you, I will start with 'I exist' as a mind. Wish me luck!!
Axiom of knowledge 1 : I know my mind exists. I exist, as a mind.
Axiom of existence 1 : My body exists in a real material physical natural world.
Axiom of logic 1: In this real world; some things exist while others don't.
Mini-conclusion 1: I thus reject Radical Skepticism and, right after, Solipsism. I can determine whether a statement is true or not 'not true'. I can determine if a statement is 'false' or 'not false'. I have a mind that allows me to do the thinking process, and other people have minds that also allow them to think.
Premise 1) In the real world, some things exists, while others don't
Premise 2) There could be more than 1 real world, in its own distinct reality
Premise 3) Things could exist outside this reality
Mini-conclusion 2: Materialism is not proven true.
Premise 4) My body allows my mind to interact with other minds
Premise 5) My physical body is limited by the real world it is in
Premise 6) The interaction I have with minds is limited to the real world
Mini-conclusion 3: All the concepts that I think of will have to be expressed, using my body, in a way that another mind can comprehend it using his/her body. The exchanges take place in the real world. The interactions are limited to the world of Axiom of existence 1.
Premise 7) I can think about things that exist, and things that don't
Premise 8) The fact that I can think about them does not make them real in any world
Premise 9) Things can exist, in any reality, without me thinking about them
Mini-conclusion 4: Materialism is not proven true.
Premise 10) There could be more than 1 real world. (From 2)
Premise 11) My body exists in 1 real world
Premise 12) My body can observe only 1 real world.
Mini-conclusion 5: Materialism is not proven true.
Premise 13) Knowledge about the real world is acquired using my body
Premise 14) Logical axioms allow me to make logical statements about the real world
Premise 15) I, as a human and a mind, cannot know what exists outside of my reality
Mini-conclusion 6: Materialism is not proven true, but...
Premise 16) All minds I can interact with have a material body
Premise 17) From 15), all minds cannot know what exists outside of reality
Premise 18) We cannot know if non-material things, like our minds, exist
(6/6)
Mini-conclusion 7: Supernaturalism is not proven true. We cannot assert that at least some things exist outside of our reality. It could be the case that nothing exists outside of our reality, or that there is an infinity of things. All these concepts are impossible to prove right or wrong.
Because we cannot prove that things exist outside of our common reality, the logical position is to not believe they exist.
Premise 19) The term existence, from the perspective of humans, is thus limited
Premise 20) Minds can label that something 'exists' in their mind as a concept
Premise 21) Minds can label that something 'exists' not as a concept; it exists in reality
Mini-conclusion 8: Minds cannot label that something 'exists', not as a concept, outside reality.
Premise 23) Existence is thus limited to immaterial minds and their concepts and at least one material world
Premise 24) All minds have material bodies
Premise 25) When the brain of a body ceases to function; the mind that was using that body becomes inaccessible
Premise 26) An inaccessible mind cannot be known to exist to other minds
Premise 27) To know if an immaterial mind exists, a material body needs to exist in reality
Conclusion: All things that exist, from a human perspective, are thus described as an arrangement of material things that exist in the real world of 'Axiom of existence 1', even immaterial minds. Extending the definition of 'existence' is thus absurd; existence loses its meaning if it includes an unreachable realm of existence that could, or could not exist. One true statement that can be made about existence on a philosophical level is thus:
All that exists, all that has been proven to exist, depend on the existence of the material world of Axiom of existence 1. Materialism is true.
***
To be honest, I had always considered Materialism to be a simple rejection that things outside of reality must exist. This is thus the best I can do I think, but I did have to finish quickly. The thing is that it does not prove, without a doubt, that materialism has to be true and that nothing can exist outside of the common reality. The point I keep trying to make is that if we want to talk about things that exist, we need to know what 'to exist' can mean or not. You said you prefer not to have a box, but I don't get what existence means then. Anything can exist? Everything exists?
Stan, you have yet to present your objections to my long syllogism... I hope to see you do so when you have the time!
Hugo,
I have read your serial philosophical statement, and I am preparing my comments on it. It will take a bit longer to get it ready for you though. I'm pretty well tied down at the moment. But I will respond, I promise.
Comments on Hugos Syllogism… just one pass through, though.
Hugo, “syllogism” is a specific format defined for logical procedures, not just a name for sequences of premises. It requires that a proposition be made in the form of IF/THEN; an assertion that the IF is true; and the conclusion is that of the THEN:
Proposition: IF [Z], Then [Q];
Assertion: Z is true (i.e., it is the case that Z);
Conclusion: Therefore Q is true.
This is the structure of logical syllogistic argumentation, and it requires that: (a) the relationship between Q and Z not be fallacious (non-sequitur); (b) the assertion must be acceptable under stated evidentiary standards; (c) the conclusion must be Q, not some other deduction.
For your argument:
1. As a syllogism, it is of the form,
IF [ Premise A & Premise B & Premise C…], THEN [ Mini-conclusion];
ASSERTION: Premise A & Premise B & Premise C… are true;
THEREFORE: Mini-conclusion is true. (But your conclusion is not that of the proposition).
You don’t follow the form of your argument: You make a conclusion which is a deduction somehow, which seems to show that each argument level is false, since each level shows that Materialism is Not proved, rather than proved.
But apparently, the information is used anyway, as a premise for the next stage in the sequence. Being outside of normal logical process, it is not possible to assess the validity of your argument.
Normally it would be assumed non-valid at this point, but I will go through the chain to look at premise/conclusions as best as I can understand them.
As for the chain of premises, the presumption of “truth” requires a standard of evidence be established: how is truth established? What are the rule for determining that evidence is valid or non-valid? If each stage is another presupposition, then the chain of premises becomes a chain of presupposed axioms, rather than facts.
2. The use of the term “real” presents a confusion factor, because it is easily conflated with material, assuming “material” to be the only “reality”. The terms “real” and “reality” should be replaced with a term such as “actuality” or some term which is not predisposed to interpretation as “material”. Axiom of logic 1, and Premises 13, 14 are examples.
3. Premise 15: Presupposes material reality (see premise 14). Premise 15; Premise 17: These are not conclusively known to be true statements. You cannot know whether or not some mind, somewhere, being non-material, has capabilities beyond your own; we do know, in fact, that there is a mind-matter external connection which is seen in Quantum Mechanics, and that emitted particles are not materialized until observed (Einstein was wrong on that one), when the “equation collapses”, and the potentiality becomes actuality.
4. Premise 18; you have initially assumed that minds exist as an axiom. Perhaps I am not understanding this premise; it is the product of a mind, so why does it conclude that minds cannot be known to exist? It would appear that the mind was an axiom, and presumed non-material up front, then denied at this point.
(cont'd)
5. Mini-conclusion 7: This entails the presupposition that “reality” is material, and that proof is also material. Plus this demands that you be able to prove that material existence exists, not some illusion or delusion; you also cannot prove conclusively that material existence is neither an illusion nor delusion, so the material and the non-material are on the same footing with regard to proof.
6. Premises 13, 14, 15, 17, 21/ Mini-conclusion 8: Here is where “reality” is conflated with “material”. Plus, your mind has already labeled axioms, which are non-material: You have presupposed the existence of non-material existence.
You can't refute axioms which you use in your logic.
7. Premise 23 seems to contradict previous claims such as premise 18.
8. Mini-conclusion 8 is based on the earlier conflation of “reality” with “material”. And it ignores that the same can be said of material things as well, due to the inability to discern whether illusion or delusion is in play, plus the Induction Fallacy. The inability to “know” with the “proof” of material assurance demanded philosophically applies equally to material and non-material knowledge.
If we take Mini-conclusion 8 to say,
“Minds cannot label that something 'exists', not as a concept, outside material existence”,
Then we have more accurately stated your probable conclusion, and we can see that it rejects the mind as a non-material existence. That has not been shown to be the case. Moreover, it is not the case, because in higher mathematics, for example, the relationships exist and are awaiting discovery – relationships which are not physical in any manner, relationships which form from prior relationships such as matrix math, domain mapping, etc. These relationships exist prior to the human concepts of them. They have no physical existence, yet the mind can label that they exist with the same probability that knowledge of material things “exists”. Knowledge itself is not material, having no specific mass/energy attached to it.
Premises 23 through 27 seem to be the same as your earlier argument, which you have added the ballast of axioms and 22 premises. This statement should include material existence, which is known only through the filters of sensory input:
”existence loses its meaning if it includes an unreachable realm of existence that could, or could not exist.”
The mind, which is that which “knows”, cannot directly “reach” material existence, except through filters which might actually be illusions or delusions, and therefore “could or could not exist”. There is no difference between “unreachable realms” in terms of philosophical verifiability. The proof you seek needs to differentiate between skeptical knowledge of material existence, and skeptical knowledge of non-material existence. The problem for materialists is that they wish to apply different levels of skepticism to the two realms, in order to favor the ideology of materialism.
Premise 24 cannot be known to be true; while only minds which transact materially are known via material transactions, it is not known that minds do not exist which do not make themselves known via material transactions, nor whether they are attached to material existence in any manner; this is an assumption, and is contradicted in premise 26, which assumes the possibility of an inaccessible mind, and treats it as tautologically inaccessible to all other minds, which is not necessarily the case.
And premise 27 presupposes that all non-material minds exist only with material bodies (via premise 24), which has not been shown, and cannot be proved materially, which is the likely standard of proof used.
Also, remember premises 9 and 18.
Overall, the proper format needs to be used, and the constraints acknowledged so that proper analysis can be acheived.
Stan,
I agree that because the words used change slightly from a premise to another, and because it is so long, it is not what we usually call a syllogism in philosophy. There was no need for a quick course on logic for that reason though...
However, I think you confused the 'mini-conclusions' for actual conclusions. They were not. The goal was simply to put premises that we could, perhaps, agree on in order to come up with a conclusion.
The mini-conclusions were merely discussions to explain what I was talking about, and to show that at no point was I assuming materialism to be already proven true, since you accused me before of circular reasoning.
Let's see what we can get out of your comments.
As for the chain of premises, the presumption of “truth” requires a standard of evidence be established: how is truth established? What are the rule for determining that evidence is valid or non-valid? If each stage is another presupposition, then the chain of premises becomes a chain of presupposed axioms, rather than facts.
When you presented an argument above, you did not answer these questions yourself... I find it odd that you ask them now. I went back to it to see why and I see that it's because you say that you start with a first "brick" which is what can be known. I think it shows that we have a fundamental problem concerning what we are talking about!
The problem is that the entire goal of this 'exercise in Philosophy' that we are doing is to argue for, or against, the EXISTENCE of gods or God or whatever you believe in. So by starting with what can be known, without certainty, I don't understand how you can ever get to a point where you claim that you know something exist, as your own existence is not established. You always leave the door opened for radical skepticism, yet claim otherwise.
Sorry for the side-track, or red hearing if you want ;), but I feel like it's worth considering before I go back to your critics... tomorrow probably.
Stan!!
I still had your argument opened and something got my attention... I think I just found your Achilles' heel ;)
Look at the steps you had presented above...
A. The first brick is this: “I can know that I think, with certainty; if I do not think then I cannot know”. So “knowing” is like a first principle.
[...]
I. Do rational processes depend on any specific existence, other than thought? While thinking depends upon being alive, and being alive depends upon a body, the processes, which are procedures, are not alive, and do not depend on any specific existence.
So... Thinking depends upon a body and your first brick was that you know that you think. Thus, without a body, you cannot know anything. You require a physical body first, before any knowledge can be known.
You actually believe in the primacy of existence.
This thus answer the question found in the same point:
I. Do rational processes depend on any specific existence, other than thought?
Yes they do! They depend on the existence of the body that allow you to think.
The body comes first; the mind second.
What does that mean? It means that you can now go back to this post where I mentioned how we can get the logical absolutes from the mere fact that we either exist or not, as a body, and then start again from there.
Let me know what you think...
Back to this thread...
I read your critic carefully and I think you misinterpreted only 1 thing. I never assume that the material is all that exist. I will quickly copy/paste the argument here and put the emphasis on that.
Axiom of knowledge (AK): I know my mind exists. I exist, as a mind.
(It could be a matrix-like environment; my mind does not have to be in a material world)
Axiom of existence (AE): My body exists in a real material physical natural world.
(The 'real' world here reflects ONLY the common reality we live in. The one in which we use science to find things. It does not imply that it's all that exist. A non-material reality could exist)
Axiom of logic (AL): In this real world; some things exist while others don't.
(In the 'real' world of the previous axiom, we can have a logical system that starts with the principle that things can exist or not in it. They could exist somewhere else, outside of reality, but to not violate the law of non-contradiction that applies in this 'real' world, things either exist, or not, they cannot both exist and not exist, and they have to either exist or not exist, they cannot be neither.)
Premise 1) In the real world, some things exists, while others don't (from AL)
Premise 2) There could be more than 1 real world, in its own distinct reality
(Other worlds could be non-material.)
Premise 3) Things could exist outside this reality
(To exist, in general, is not, A PRIORI, limited to the real world of AE. To exist could apply to non-conceptual things that exist outside of the world of AE)
Premise 4) My body allows my mind to interact with other minds
(My mind is not assumed to be strictly material, but this premise asserts that the body is the only mean to communicate with other minds that we know of. Do you disagree with that?)
Premise 5) My physical body is limited by the real world it is in
(Assertion; do you disagree with that?)
Premise 6) From 4-5 : The interaction I have with minds is limited to the real world.
(The real world being the world the body is in, the world of AE)
Premise 7) I can think about things that exist, and things that don't
(Assertion; do you disagree with that?)
Premise 8) The fact that I can think about them does not make them real in any world
(From AL, we can know that truth about things in the world of AE are objective and do not depend on my mind.)
Premise 9) Things can exist, in any reality, without me thinking about them
(Same as 8, but for non-material worlds.)
Premise 10) There could be more than 1 real world. (From P2)
(Redundant...)
Premise 11) My body exists in 1 real world
(From AE and AL)
Premise 12) My body can observe only 1 real world.
(From AE and AL)
Premise 13) Knowledge about the real world is acquired using my body
('Knowledge ' implies knowledge about what exists or not, in the real world of AE.
From 7 and 8, we can get that things do not exist, in the real world of AE, only because I can think about them. They could exist, or not exist. I need to perceive the world. I realize there was an implicit premise here that was hidden in P4, which is that my mind interacts with other minds AND the world of AE using the body only.)
Premise 14) Logical axioms allow me to make logical statements about the real world
(From 13 and AL)
Premise 15) I, as a human and a mind, cannot know what exists outside of my reality
(The mind is not limited to think about anything, from 7, but the body is limited, from 12. A word was missing here, we should read: cannot know --objectively-- what exists outside of my reality. In other words, since my mind is in its own immaterial world (remember, I never drop the possibility of an immaterial reality here) then I can... make shit up! I thus assert that I need other minds to find out what's objective or not. You call that 'comparing it to actuality'.)
Premise 16) All minds I can interact with have a material body
(Assertion; do you disagree with that? Note that I am not saying it's impossible for a mind to not exist without a body. I am just saying that minds I interact with have a body, until proven wrong I guess...)
Premise 17) From 15), all minds cannot know what exists outside of reality
Premise 18) We cannot know if non-material things, like our minds, exist
(From 13, 16, 17)
Mini-conclusion 7: Supernaturalism is not proven true. We cannot assert that at least some things exist outside of our reality. It could be the case that nothing exists outside of our reality, or that there is an infinity of things. All these concepts are impossible to prove right or wrong.
Because we cannot prove that things exist outside of our common reality, the logical position is to not believe they exist.
Premise 19) The term existence, from the perspective of humans, is thus limited
(From the mini-conclusion. If you disagree with that, I don't understand what 'to exist' means...
Premise 20) Minds can label that something 'exists' in their mind as a concept
(Something existing in a mind is non-material/immaterial)
Premise 21) Minds can label that something 'exists' not as a concept; it exists in reality
(Something existing outside of a mind, in the reality of AE, is material)
Mini-conclusion 8 (Premise 22 I guess...): Minds cannot label that something 'exists', not as a concept, outside reality.
(From 20-21)
Premise 23) Existence is thus limited to immaterial minds and their concepts and at least one material world
(From 20-21; note that even here, an immaterial reality is not denied existence. The point is that it is meaningless for humans to label it as 'existing'.)
Premise 24) All minds have material bodies
(From 17)
Premise 25) When the brain of a body ceases to function; the mind that was using that body becomes inaccessible
(Assertion; I am not aware of means to communicate with the dead... the default position is disbelief...I don't know if you disagree with that on principles or if you actually believe that some people actively communicate with bodyless minds?)
Premise 26) An inaccessible mind cannot be known to exist to other minds
(From 16, 25)
Premise 27) To know if an immaterial mind exists, a material body needs to exist in reality
(From 25, 26)
Conclusion: All things that exist, from a human perspective, are thus described as an arrangement of material things that exist in the real world of 'AE', even immaterial minds.
Extending the definition of 'existence' is thus absurd; existence loses its meaning if it includes an unreachable realm of existence that could, or could not exist. One true statement that can be made about existence on a philosophical level is thus:
All that exists, all that has been proven to exist, depend on the existence of the material world of AE. Materialism is true.
...until proven wrong.
As I said in another thread, and which I should have concede way before, is that Materialism is never proven absolutely true. The conclusion is that it is absurd to not conclude that all we can know about 'existence' is in the material world. Materialism thus provide a reliable ontological framework that came from NOT assuming that the material world is all there is. It is not necessary to start with it to come to anything else. That's the important.
Just to be even more clear on that. Do you want to guess how many years there were between the moment I realized I was an Atheist and the moment I realized I was a Materialist? Do you know why I was rejecting Materialism between the two moments?
Hugo said,
”The problem is that the entire goal of this 'exercise in Philosophy' that we are doing is to argue for, or against, the EXISTENCE of gods or God or whatever you believe in.”
No, I argue for what can be known and what cannot be known. There is no reference to deity or even non-physical existence in my argument, read it again.
”You always leave the door opened for radical skepticism, yet claim otherwise.”
How so?
”’I. Do rational processes depend on any specific existence, other than thought? While thinking depends upon being alive, and being alive depends upon a body, the processes, which are procedures, are not alive, and do not depend on any specific existence.’
So... Thinking depends upon a body and your first brick was that you know that you think. Thus, without a body, you cannot know anything. You require a physical body first, before any knowledge can be known.”
Again, the argument is for what can be known; the mind must exist before it can know that there is a body. I made an error by stepping out of “knowledge” as the subject domain, and into the domain of “existence”, which is outside of the argument domain. So I retract statement “I”, because it is outside the domain, and it is also improper deduction.
Now for your changes to your argument.
” Premise 4) My body allows my mind to interact with other minds
(My mind is not assumed to be strictly material, but this premise asserts that the body is the only mean to communicate with other minds that we know of. Do you disagree with that?)”
I have to disagree with the premise; at this point it should say “interact with other body constrained minds”. Otherwise the premise restricts all minds to body constrained minds, without being explicit in the exclusion.
”Premise 5) My physical body is limited by the real world it is in
(Assertion; do you disagree with that?)”
No.
”Premise 6) From 4-5 : The interaction I have with minds is limited to the real world.
(The real world being the world the body is in, the world of AE)”
Here is where the implicit exclusion created above becomes an error. This statement should be,
Premise 6) From 4-5 : The interaction I have with body constrained minds is limited to the real world.
Jumping down,
”Premise 15) I, as a human and a mind, cannot know what exists outside of my reality
(The mind is not limited to think about anything, from 7, but the body is limited, from 12. A word was missing here, we should read: cannot know --objectively-- what exists outside of my reality. In other words, since my mind is in its own immaterial world (remember, I never drop the possibility of an immaterial reality here) then I can... make shit up! I thus assert that I need other minds to find out what's objective or not. You call that 'comparing it to actuality'.) “
Of course you can “make shit up”. You also can make hypotheses about relationships, you can make inductive “laws” which can be deductively tested, you can discover mathematical relationships which have no physical correlate, etc., etc. Logical testing doesn’t require experimental validation, lack of falsification, replication, because it is not a physical process or thing.
Your parenthetical comment is deriving conclusions not contained in or warranted by the premise.
”Premise 16) All minds I can interact with have a material body
(Assertion; do you disagree with that? Note that I am not saying it's impossible for a mind to not exist without a body. I am just saying that minds I interact with have a body, until proven wrong I guess...)”
I do disagree. This is an Inductive fallacy, which you seem to correct parenthetically by acknowledging that otherwise might be the case. To incorporate your comment into your premise would produce this:
Premise 16: All minds with which I have interacted have material bodies;
Or,
Premise 16: All minds of which I am aware have material bodies.
Premise 17 does not follow from premise 15; the “all” is not justified; and here reality is presumed material.
Moving on to the best part, Mini-conclusion 7:
” Mini-conclusion 7: Supernaturalism is not proven true. We cannot assert that at least some things exist outside of our reality. It could be the case that nothing exists outside of our reality, or that there is an infinity of things. All these concepts are impossible to prove right or wrong.
Because we cannot prove that things exist outside of our common reality, the logical position is to not believe they exist.”
The last sentence does not follow from the arguments being made; that sentence is an argument within itself and is not justified except under the presupposition of both Materialism and Radical Skepticism. It is a common argument, in and of itself, amongst Materialists, but it is without justification, especially given that it is an Argument from Ignorance: if I don’t know about it, it cannot exist. In addition, it ignores the theist argument from deduction as if it didn’t exist. So it is more egregious: “if I choose to ignore it, it doesn’t exist”.
Materialism itself cannot be proved (the well documented internal error), yet Atheists and Materialists take the position that it “is the logical position to believe that it is valid anyway”. The so-called “logic” is asymmetrical; it cannot be valid.
However, the remaining sentiment in Mini-conclusion 7 is exactly the case, with the exception that the first sentence should read:
Supernaturalism is not proven true nor is it proven false.
Supernatural existence can be deduced in the same fashion that material existence can be deduced: probabilistically. Under skeptical argumentation, neither existence can be shown with perfect certainty; both are probable only, and are subject to logical testing. If you wish to assert common sense or “folk wisdom”, those also are subject to logical testing.
Premise 24 does not follow from premise 17; the quantifier “all” is not justified.
And Premise 17 is non sequitur to previous premises as shown above.
Subsequent premises and conclusions must be modified when the above discrepancies are eliminated.
” As I said in another thread, and which I should have concede way before, is that Materialism is never proven absolutely true. The conclusion is that it is absurd to not conclude that all we can know about 'existence' is in the material world. Materialism thus provide a reliable ontological framework that came from NOT assuming that the material world is all there is. It is not necessary to start with it to come to anything else. That's the important.
You have made the assumption here that your argument is correct. But there are problems with it as shown above, so it is not correct yet. And the absurdity to which you refer is still merely an opinion at this point. You admit that Materialism cannot be known to be true; yet you assume, here at the end, that it is absurd not to believe it, even though it can’t be proven true. Here we wind up exactly where we started:
1. Supernaturalism is not proven false.
2. Materialism is not proven true.
3. It is declared that the logical position is to believe Materialism and reject Supernaturalism.
Nothing has been accomplished here. We wind up with only an ideological position.
Stan,
My general feeling concerning what you just wrote is that I agree, but only in the context of your pre-accepted worldview. I don't see problems expect for the fact that you assume that there is an immaterial reality that actually exists outside of our common reality. It's a bit ironic, isn't it? Since you claim that I assume materialism to be true in order to reach my conclusions...
What you fail to understand is that I never assumed, in my entire life, that materialism was true. I never assumed that all that exists can be reduced to the material. Actually, if you had asked me a few months ago I would have said that it is stupid to think that nothing material exists. Thoughts, feelings, numbers, concepts, logical axioms, etc... are all clearly non-material, and exist, so clearly, saying that all that exists is material is ridiculous.
However, this makes a false assumption. It actually assumes that a non-material existence, independent of human minds, exists. It assumes that these things we think of, that exist in our minds, literally exist as independent entities. It is question begging. It is however so intrinsically obvious to us that we never question them, and that's fin 99.99% of the time!
On the other hand, when we get to philosophical discussions about the very nature of what exists, what we can know and what's true, then we do need to question everything, starting even from the very basic principles of logic and the existence of our own minds. As your blog title says: "If You Don't Value Truth, Then What DO You Value?"
This introduction was meant to get to the first thing I wanted to address in your last comment:
I said: You always leave the door opened for radical skepticism, yet claim otherwise
You replied: How so?
My point is that we all have a choice to make. Either we accept that absolute truth exists, or it does not. Either some things are absolutely true, or nothing is absolutely true. I had never heard the term 'Radical Skepticism' before reading your blog so I could be wrong, but to me, this is what 'Radical Skepticism' is all about. Can we label anything as absolutely true?
This leads to addressing a second thing you mentioned in your last comment, which was actually the very first:
I said: ...the entire goal of this 'exercise in Philosophy' that we are doing is to argue for, or against, the EXISTENCE of gods...
You replied: No, I argue for what can be known and what cannot be known. There is no reference to deity or even non-physical existence in my argument, read it again.
Side note before I move one: This looks like a lot like what happened in my discussion with Martin. We discuss atheism versus theism, the belief that gods exist or not; we discuss materialism, the belief that all that exists is strictly material, and then you say that you are not talking about existence... Martin actually went as far as to say that he does not even have a definition of what existence means because it's too complicated and linked to a page on the Standford University page, if I am not mistaken. I just wanted to point out that this is a bit frustrating to read from people who pretend to "debunk" Atheism. It is not going to stop the discussion we are having now however, since I believe this is more about the foundations of our worldviews. In other words, no worries, I am not saying that what you said is stupid or anything like that, but I do think that you guys need to be more careful with the words you use when you attack a certain position.
Going back to your argument, we can indeed see that you start with these points:
A. The first brick is this: “I can know that I think, with certainty; if I do not think then I cannot know”. So “knowing” is like a first principle.
B. That’s where consciousness comes in: I must be conscious in order to think. So it is fairly certain that I am conscious.
You are thus sure of 1 thing: you can think. That's an absolute truth that you start with.
Consciousness however is labeled as 'fairly certain' and you state that:
C. Consciousness allows perceptions, including sensory perceptions as well as perceptions of memory and self, and it is the scaffold for reasoning and emotions and agency.
This makes sense since, by starting with 'I can think', you cannot reject the 'brain in a vat' scenario completely. There is a possibility, even as weird as it may sound, that your consciousness is the product of, for example, a machine like in the movie The Matrix.
Your certainty about what you can know is absolutely true thus stops right away. The only absolute truth you can prove depend on your own thinking. Anything outside of it; anything that depends on your perceptions, cannot be absolutely true. From K. (a), you even confirm that because of that, you cannot know any absolute truth about any other minds. They could all be products of false data fed to your sensory units.
From what I understand (but again I could be wrong since I did not know the term before) this is what Radical Skepticism is: You reject any absolute truth outside of your own thinking. More importantly, even if I misused your definition of Radical Skepticism, to me, that's a form of Solipsism. The only true thing you can be absolutely sure of is your own thinking. Nothing else.
You thus have no ontology. You cannot know anything about existence beside your own existence. The fact that you exist is intuitively obvious for yourself and yourself alone. It is objective only in the sense that you exist no matter what other minds think, but you cannot even know, for sure, that other minds exist.
I will add one more thing. For your logical argument to be valid, you have to leave the door for your mind to be strictly material. In other words, materialism could still be true by starting with your A-B-C-.... Otherwise, you do what you accuse me of doing: starting with an unsupported assertion. In your case it would be an assertion that your mind does not depend on your body. You have not proven that at all since you don't even know for sure if your body exists, where it exists and if you can find absolute truth with it or not.
I could then contrast that with the worldview I am trying to present here. As I said before, I start with the primacy of existence and go from there... unfortunately that will have to wait...
”My general feeling concerning what you just wrote is that I agree, but only in the context of your pre-accepted worldview.”
What would you say that my worldview is? And how is it limiting the validity of the logic.
”I don't see problems expect for the fact that you assume that there is an immaterial reality that actually exists outside of our common reality.”
That is because of the mathematics involved in the overall proposition:
Z = Q & !Q;
Where Z : Complete Boolean space;
And Q: subset of Boolean space which is Material.
You assume that !Q does not exist; I assume that !Q must be proven not to exist before it can be believed. My position is actually the same as the Atheist standard position, except that my evidentiary standards are different, because the Atheist standards defy both logic and Boolean mathematics by demanding that evidence for !Q be found by examining ONLY subset Q.
” However, this makes a false assumption. It actually assumes that a non-material existence, independent of human minds, exists. It assumes that these things we think of, that exist in our minds, literally exist as independent entities. It is question begging. It is however so intrinsically obvious to us that we never question them, and that's fin 99.99% of the time!”
You claim this assumption to be false; yet you have shown it to be not provably false. How do you reconcile these two positions? If you mean by “question begging”, circular reasoning, then how so? For example, the issue of “what existed before the universe” has two possible answers: (1) nothing; (2) something other than material stuff. (The third answer: “I don’t know” is not a philosophical explanation worthy of discussion).
Neither answer (1) nor answer (2) is logically susceptible to the position that the answer must be found in the material Boolean subset: Q. The reason is that prior to material creation, Q = 0. Therefore the Boolean space is this: Z = !Q. It is legitimate to deduce what might exist in !Q. It is not legitimate to declare that !Q does not exist in some manner that is: NOT Q.
”My point is that we all have a choice to make. Either we accept that absolute truth exists, or it does not. Either some things are absolutely true, or nothing is absolutely true. I had never heard the term 'Radical Skepticism' before reading your blog so I could be wrong, but to me, this is what 'Radical Skepticism' is all about. Can we label anything as absolutely true?”
Is the following statement true or false?
It is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth.
This statement cannot be true because it contradicts itself: if there is no absolute truth, then the statement is false; if there is absolute truth, the statement is false. In all cases the statement is false, and I can know that to be true. This is a standard paradox which exhibits internal contradiction. And I can know that it is a paradox with certainty.
It cannot be the case that there is absolutely no absolute truth; so if there is truth, how can we know it? That is the question which is fatal to Materialism, unless it is ignored. Radical Skepticism is the acceptance of the paradox, above, as the Skeptic fights the possibility of absolute truth by denialism, and urges that everyone ignore the possibility. Without any hope of proving his case, the skeptic claims that there is no absolute truth.
” Side note before I move one: This looks like a lot like what happened in my discussion with Martin. We discuss atheism versus theism, the belief that gods exist or not; we discuss materialism, the belief that all that exists is strictly material, and then you say that you are not talking about existence... Martin actually went as far as to say that he does not even have a definition of what existence means because it's too complicated and linked to a page on the Standford University page, if I am not mistaken. I just wanted to point out that this is a bit frustrating to read from people who pretend to "debunk" Atheism.”
I told you up front that the approach I use is the same that Descartes used: What can be known. You presume that you already know certain things exist, which makes your argument for existence fall outside of the boundaries of logic. And you protest when I demonstrate actual logic as if you already know it, but you don’t use it, nor do you show any interest in it. By ignoring logic as a discipline required by rational thought, you are free to make any suppositions you wish, regardless of whether they are logical or not. I suspect that any refusal to accept illogical behavior would indeed be frustrating.
As for existence vs. knowledge, starting with existence which you do not demonstrate that you actually know, cannot produce any output which is not non-sequitur.
I frankly do not understand why Atheists and Materialists refuse to take the time and make the effort to learn the principles of logic, and the methods of rational discernment. It is not the case that every thought which an Atheist has is automatically logical, merely because the Atheist has said, “ain’t no god(s)”. The utterance of those sentiments by no means is a guarantee to rationality. Yet Atheists show up here quite frequently, uttering blatant fallacies and non-valid forms of argumentation with the attitude that anyone with contrary thoughts is ignorant and stupid, and that that is an absolute truth.
That was one of the motivations that led me to spend considerable time studying logic: Atheists are not logical.
” Your certainty about what you can know is absolutely true thus stops right away. The only absolute truth you can prove depend on your own thinking. Anything outside of it; anything that depends on your perceptions, cannot be absolutely true. From K. (a), you even confirm that because of that, you cannot know any absolute truth about any other minds. They could all be products of false data fed to your sensory units.”
I need to repeat something which I have been saying all along: I do not claim certainty. Atheists demand certainty from Theists; Theists do not claim it. And THEN, when certainty is demanded from Atheists, they refuse to accept any responsibility for providing certainty for their position, of which they are quite certain!
There is no certainty except the First Principles and some things which are internally contradictory and therefore can be known with certainty not to be true: these include Philosophical Materialism and Atheism. The rest is probabilistic.
”You thus have no ontology. You cannot know anything about existence beside your own existence. The fact that you exist is intuitively obvious for yourself and yourself alone. It is objective only in the sense that you exist no matter what other minds think, but you cannot even know, for sure, that other minds exist. “
Certainly I have an ontology; it comes last because it is completely probabilistic (Einstein could indeed be wrong… and so can quantum mechanics). If there is a material existence and I know about it, then that knowledge is filtered by my sensory equipment. So there is no possible ontology which is more certain than the knowledge I have of my own ability to think and know. Everything beyond that ability is deduced, not certain.
” I will add one more thing. For your logical argument to be valid, you have to leave the door for your mind to be strictly material. In other words, materialism could still be true by starting with your A-B-C-.... Otherwise, you do what you accuse me of doing: starting with an unsupported assertion. In your case it would be an assertion that your mind does not depend on your body. You have not proven that at all since you don't even know for sure if your body exists, where it exists and if you can find absolute truth with it or not.”
Since knowledge of my own body is secondary, being part of the ontology which requires sensory filtering and uncertainty, then the knowledge that I think and can know is more certain than the idea that I have a body. The knowledge that my mind exists is not contingent on knowing where it exists. That is the condition that you wish to place on it: you must know where it exists before you can know whether it exists – and that is backwards, unless you presuppose Materialism.
Yes, in my system the door is open to both Materialism and non-material existence at that point, which is why it is a fair approach.
”
I could then contrast that with the worldview I am trying to present here. As I said before, I start with the primacy of existence and go from there... unfortunately that will have to wait...
I hope I have demonstrated why that is not an acceptable approach: you assert that something is the case before you explain how or why you know it to be the case. If you assert something you do not know, it is not an acceptable argument. If you assert that you know it, then you must explain how and why you know it, and wiht what certainty.
I’ll be on the road for two or three days, but I’ll be back. I’ll try to check in during the road time…
Stan,
I went through your comments and my reactions were pretty much constant throughout the reading. It went like this: NO, that is NOT what I mean; you really DON'T understand what I mean.
In other words, there is no point expressing what I actually think in such long comments because you are incapable of keeping tract. You don't understand the way I think and you get lost along the way. You are incapable of analyzing my position.
Therefore, I am forced to take the "kiddy" approach. In other words, I have to do as if I was speaking with a creationist who believes strongly that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago and that all "kinds" of animals were names by Adam. It is not exactly the same since you are not that stupid, but from my perspective, the analogy fits pretty well.
I will thus focus on one little thing, that you addressed with these few words:
Is the following statement true or false?
It is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth.
This statement cannot be true because it contradicts itself: if there is no absolute truth, then the statement is false; if there is absolute truth, the statement is false. In all cases the statement is false, and I can know that to be true. This is a standard paradox which exhibits internal contradiction. And I can know that it is a paradox with certainty.
It cannot be the case that there is absolutely no absolute truth; so if there is truth, how can we know it? That is the question which is fatal to Materialism, unless it is ignored. Radical Skepticism is the acceptance of the paradox, above, as the Skeptic fights the possibility of absolute truth by denialism, and urges that everyone ignore the possibility. Without any hope of proving his case, the skeptic claims that there is no absolute truth.
Did you even read my comment?
I told you that I believe THERE IS SOME ABSOLUTE TRUTH. I told you, I EXIST as a body is an absolute truth.
If I deny that my body exists, then I allow the possibility that Radical Skepticism is true.
I DONT!!!!!!!
but... YOU DO!!!!
It is the most ironic I have ever seen in my life. I am not kidding.
So please, focus on these concepts. Do you agree, yes or no, that your body exists? AND, MOST IMPORTANTLY, do you believe that to be absolutely true or not?
Just to be clear, since you keep avoiding the actual question. Are you sure that you are NOT a brain in vat? Are you sure that you are not connected to a Matrix?
Post a Comment