quote:Originally posted by Threads: so I don't know why you felt the need to be a jerk and accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.
I suspect it's somewhat similar to the reason you felt the need to be a jerk and accuse me of having less religious faith than someone who sticks their fingers in their ears and goes "LaLaLa" whenever science says something that doesn't fit into their world-veiw.
I'm honestly sorry and surprised that I came across that way. I didn't mean to belittle or offend anyone and I was trying to use it as a classification along the lines of "big or small" not along the lines of "smart or dumb".
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Back another level, we may all be brains in jars. But we have to assume that we exist as our senses tell us, or else we wouldn't have the incentive to do anything.
I don't have the incentive to do anything.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:How do you then know those starting assumptions reflect reality?
As I've said before, in other conversations, I'm comfortable with relying on the starting assumptions necessary for the scientific method. You try surviving in a world where you don't accept, for example, that effects have causes, and get back to me.
quote:No, they don't. The brain states may have mass, but assuming that the brain states aer equal to the emotion is just another assumption.
Char your brain into a powder and tell me how sad you feel about it. The assumption that emotions persist without a physical carrier is the assumption that defies observable reality; in truth, there is nothing observable which does not have a physical carrier. In other words, your claim is exactly false; the only observable reality is materialist, because the only things we're aware of observing -- and the only things which make us capable of observing them -- are material.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The two best examples of evidence that occur to me at the moment are the background radiation, which is theorized to be a remnant of the big bang, and the fact that everything is drifting away from everything else. Which implies that, if we reverse it, everything started in one spot.
Would there not be radiation were it not for a big bang?
I have only a passing understanding of everything in the universe is drifting further apart. Are we certain EVERYTHING is drifting further apart or are we certain EVERYTHING we can see with our telescopes is drifting further apart.
The background radiation is of a very specific type, and in a distribution, as predicted by the Big Bang. No other more complex hypotheses have been put forth that can account for this radiation AND provide testable/observable predictions that the current model can't handle/predict wrongly.
In astrophysics, you last question is mostly redundant. We can see back almost to the big bang itself, thanks to red-shifting of light, and the fact that light runs at a fixed speed. The red shift is due to the very fabric of space stretching as light travels, and assuming we have very good values for the rate of expansion (which we do, although they aren't perfect) we only have to look at different spectra of light coming at us and see if they look like a closer object, but shifted red. We have a lot of evidence that this is the case, and so we can be pretty confident that it is happening, generally. Now, specifically, there are examples of this not happening (colliding galaxies and the like), due to the rather random structure of the universe.
To put it another way, when scientists talk about seeing "old stars", they often due this by looking at spectra readings that look exactly like star close to us' spectra, but all the values are shifted to the red. Red light has longer wavelengths than other light, which in turn means that space itself is expanding while the light is in transit (since no theory has successfully explained how light might stretch itself). Of course "expanding" naturally means the space between things are getting further apart.
There are additional nuance that I am aware of, but don't understand myself, but they only modify this explanations values, not the process itself.
quote:In physics, particularly in quantum physics,
This specific context does not encompass all of reality. This is important because my point was that, in order to make that statement work, you need to limit the scope of what you are talking about to defined subset of reality.
You picked out the least relevant part of the definition. That definition limits itself only in the sense that it limits itself to stuff that is possible. What on earth is so restricting about it?
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The assumption that emotions persist without a physical carrier is the assumption that defies observable reality
Neccesary does not equal sufficient. This is basic epistemology.
If I smash your piano, you can't play music on it. That doesn't mean that the piano is equal to music.
quote:the only observable reality is materialist, because the only things we're aware of observing -- and the only things which make us capable of observing them -- are material.
Again, these are just assumptions.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In other words, your claim is exactly false; the only observable reality is materialist, because the only things we're aware of observing -- and the only things which make us capable of observing them -- are material.
I haven't found that to be true, pointing back to human language as a phenomenon which defies material description. I mean, maybe someday we will be able to. But there are no models that allow it presently.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: so I don't know why you felt the need to be a jerk and accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.
I suspect it's somewhat similar to the reason you felt the need to be a jerk and accuse me of having less religious faith than someone who sticks their fingers in their ears and goes "LaLaLa" whenever science says something that doesn't fit into their world-veiw.
I'm honestly sorry and surprised that I came across that way. I didn't mean to belittle or offend anyone and I was trying to use it as a classification along the lines of "big or small" not along the lines of "smart or dumb".
"Bigger" isn't really a fix, Threads. A person can have great faith without believing in a very narrow version of religion. People may believe different things; they don't believe the same things "less".
Someone isn't less faithful just because their beliefs are mainstream.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
From there you could argue that we can't know our senses reflect reality, which is why we have independent verification.
Back another level, we may all be brains in jars. But we have to assume that we exist as our senses tell us, or else we wouldn't have the incentive to do anything.
Here are some assumptions needed to perform the scientific method: 1. Assume your senses reflect reality, in every case that you observe something. 2. Assume that the senses of people independently verifying your own senses also reflect reality, in every case that you verify your assumptions. 3. Assume that what you observe happening in the present will continue happening in just the same way in the future. 4. Assume that there aren't variables that you are overlooking that would alter your conclusions. 5. Assume that cause and effect exist. 6. Assume that the model you are using to explain what you observe happening actually is true. (Example: You may observe evidence of continents moving, but you might be incorrect about what is causing them to move - maybe God is causing them to move, after all - or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.)
On top of this, also keep in mind that the scientific method is very limited in what sorts of questions it can directly answer. Most assumptions, such as Occam's Razor or "killing is bad" are completely beyond the scope of science, by the definition of the scientific method. Most applications of science rely not just on the science itself but also on countless more assumptions that cannot be proven by science.
So, I ask again, how do you know those assumptions reflect reality?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Back another level, we may all be brains in jars. But we have to assume that we exist as our senses tell us, or else we wouldn't have the incentive to do anything.
I don't have the incentive to do anything.
And yet you posted. Something must have been the incentive for that action.
quote:You picked out the least relevant part of the definition. That definition limits itself only in the sense that it limits itself to stuff that is possible. What on earth is so restricting about it?
I really don't understand this complaint. The definition is talking about physical systems, which is fine if we are limiting what we are talking about to physical systems, but I don't believe we are. These are not the only things possible.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we're going to talk about this then you really need to give me your definition of "great faith." To me, having greater faith means having more faith in the literal sense. Example: [to me] it requires more faith to believe the earth was created 6000 years ago then it does to believe that it was created 4 billion years ago.
Honestly, we're going to keep talking past each other unless we have a standard definition of faith. You claimed that someone can have "great faith without believing in a very narrow version of religion." I'm willing to accept that but I need to know how we can judge whether one person has more faith than another.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The definition is talking about physical systems, which is fine if we are limiting what we are talking about to physical systems, but I don't believe we are. These are not the only things possible.
But don't non-physical systems ultimately have to influence physical systems for them to be observable by any reasonable definition of observable?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I've said before, in other conversations, I'm comfortable with relying on the starting assumptions necessary for the scientific method. You try surviving in a world where you don't accept, for example, that effects have causes, and get back to me.
I couldn't survive in a world without believing in cause/effect, but I definitely could survive in a world without accepting Occam's Razor. I might even survive better...
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
We haven't been able to train computers to do it. :shrug: There are some indications of localization of function, but it's still pretty mysterious.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Back another level, we may all be brains in jars. But we have to assume that we exist as our senses tell us, or else we wouldn't have the incentive to do anything.
I don't have the incentive to do anything.
And yet you posted. Something must have been the incentive for that action.
Yeah, I think posting in this thread at this point is an inaction for me. Action that would require incentive would be for me not to post and do my work.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But don't non-physical systems ultimately have to influence physical systems for them to be observable by any reasonable definition of observable?
No. That's only if you assume that observation can only be done by physical systems, which, again, is an unprovable assumption.
Threads, An example of what? I'm not trying to avoid anything. I'm pointing out that your positions always rely on non-rational, unprovable assumptions.
edit: But, if you tell me what you are looking for from me, I can try to accomodate you.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another example of language being non-material is how easy it is to misinterpret what people say. That sort of think happens much more rarely with other senses, unless you're at the Exploratorium or something.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here are some assumptions needed to perform the scientific method: 1. Assume your senses reflect reality, in every case that you observe something.
Wrong. Assume your senses are somewhat reliable. When your senses conflict with other peoples' senses, you must investigate.
quote: 2. Assume that the senses of people independently verifying your own senses also reflect reality, in every case that you verify your assumptions.
Wrong. Don't assume. Investigate to see if other people verify your senses. If they do, you're closer to determining reality.
quote: 3. Assume that what you observe happening in the present will continue happening in just the same way in the future.
Demonstrably wrong. The whole point of science is to keep looking and try to prove your assumptions wrong. You may extrapolate that it will continue if there is no evidence to the contrary, but you continue looking for evidence to disprove your theory.
quote:4. Assume that there aren't variables that you are overlooking that would alter your conclusions.
Wrong. You keep looking. See above.
quote:5. Assume that cause and effect exist.
Wrong. You come to whether or not cause and effect exist through the scientific method.
quote:6. Assume that the model you are using to explain what you observe happening actually is true. (Example: You may observe evidence of continents moving, but you might be incorrect about what is causing them to move - maybe God is causing them to move, after all - or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.)
Wrong. You come up with the best answer given the current evidence. That is 'truth' of a kind, but not the absolute truth you are implying.
quote:On top of this, also keep in mind that the scientific method is very limited in what sorts of questions it can directly answer.
Really? Why?
quote:Most assumptions, such as Occam's Razor or "killing is bad" are completely beyond the scope of science, by the definition of the scientific method.
We can't determine 'good or bad', but we can determine 'harmful or beneficial', which I think is close enough to what you're implying.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: We haven't been able to train computers to do it. :shrug: There are some indications of localization of function, but it's still pretty mysterious.
We also haven't been able to get computers to accurately model weather. The problem in both cases appears to be one of complexity and our simulations of each are improving as computing power, as well as our understanding of the variables involved, have increased.
We have not yet run into anything that suggests non-material influences.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:1. Assume your senses reflect reality, in every case that you observe something. 2. Assume that the senses of people independently verifying your own senses also reflect reality, in every case that you verify your assumptions. 3. Assume that what you observe happening in the present will continue happening in just the same way in the future. 4. Assume that there aren't variables that you are overlooking that would alter your conclusions. 5. Assume that cause and effect exist. 6. Assume that the model you are using to explain what you observe happening actually is true.
#1 and #2 actually cancel each other out. It is not necessary to assume that your senses always reflect reality, or that everyone else's senses reflect reality. It is merely necessary to assume that senses are capable of reflecting reality.
#3 and #5 can be more easily consolidated to: assume that exact reproduction of a cause will produce an identical effect.
#4 and #6 aren't actually necessary for the method, either. The assumption of fallibility and the increased reliability of repetition are built into the model.
So you've got: 1) Identical causes produce identical effects. 2) Observation can accurately depict some level of reality.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka, your arguments for language being non-material are: it's complex; and we haven't been able to teach computers to do it.
I would argue that that's really the same argument, which amounts to "it's complex." Are all complex things immaterial?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Threads, An example of what? I'm not trying to dance around anything. I'm pointing out that your positions always rely on non-rational, unprovable assumptions.
Name something that exists but cannot be observed under my definition. If you can't do that then I don't see how my definition is "restrictive".
Your last sentence has me a little worried because I wonder if we are talking about different things. I am talking about theories that model our current understanding of reality. All of our theories make assumptions and many of them may turn out incorrect in the end, but the assumptions themselves are not irrational. We can only use the knowledge we have.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: We haven't been able to train computers to do it. :shrug: There are some indications of localization of function, but it's still pretty mysterious.
We also haven't been able to get computers to accurately model weather. The problem in both cases appears to be one of complexity and our simulations of each are improving as computing power, as well as our understanding of the variables involved, have increased.
We have not yet run into anything that suggests non-material influences.
That's a very interesting comparison. I'll have to think about it some more. But I think "non-material influences" isn't what I was going for, if you are talking about supernatural events controlling the weather. I don't think language is controlled in a supernatural way, apart from the occasional speaking in tongues that people claim.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. That's only if you assume that observation can only be done by physical systems, which, again, is an unprovable assumption.
Wait a second. Are you just arguing that it's possible that something exists outside of the material world which only interacts with other things outside the material world and which, therefore, has no effect on the material world.
I grant that you are correct that such is possible, but how does it matter if such a thing "exists" if it is so entirely irrelevant to us?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: If we're going to talk about this then you really need to give me your definition of "great faith." To me, having greater faith means having more faith in the literal sense. Example: [to me] it requires more faith to believe the earth was created 6000 years ago then it does to believe that it was created 4 billion years ago.
No it doesn't.
Why should it? Just because it is (in my opinion anyway) weird? Because it is contrary to what science teachers say(if they are allowed to) but in line with what Sunday School teachers say?
quote:
Honestly, we're going to keep talking past each other unless we have a standard definition of faith. You claimed that someone can have "great faith without believing in a very narrow version of religion." I'm willing to accept that but I need to know how we can judge whether one person has more faith than another.
I don't know that we can except, perhaps, by observing how they live their lives.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will say that when it comes to weather, I believe the fact that the earth is so often habitable is another miracle. I mean, sure there are parts of it that just aren't, but humans are pretty fragile creatures and this atomosphere that we live in is pretty remarkable.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most assumptions, such as Occam's Razor or "killing is bad" are completely beyond the scope of science, by the definition of the scientific method.
We can't determine 'good or bad', but we can determine 'harmful or beneficial', which I think is close enough to what you're implying.
Really? How can you determine that killing a particular human being in a particular situation is harmful or beneficial using only the scientific method.
Let's assume that the state of our scientific understanding of people is such that we can predict what they will do within a useful margin of error. Moreover, assume that we can determine what the effects of killing that human being will be (X people live who would have otherwise died, Y people die who would have otherwise lived, etc.) using the scientific method, again to a useful margin of error.
Even with that, the scientific method can't tell you if it is "harmful" or "beneficial" to kill that person without introducing some premise not subject to the scientific method.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is why we need to agree on a definition of faith. I use faith to mean belief in something that is not based on data. That is why "it requires more faith to believe the earth was created 6000 years ago then it does to believe that it was created 4 billion years ago."
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Threads, I think we may be talking about very different things. I'll readily agree that if we're talking about scientific theories, materialism is a good starting assumption. My beef is people claiming that reality must necessarily be materialistic.
---
MattP,
quote:Wait a second. Are you just arguing that it's possible that something exists outside of the material world which only interacts with other things outside the material world and which, therefore, has no effect on the material world.
No. I didn't say anything like this.
---
Let me stake out some territory, as it may make what I'm saying clearer. I choose to believe that I have free will. Thus, there is some, non-material aspect of myself that raises my decision-making above only material causes.
If this thing exists, it has an obvious effect on the physical world - although that effect is really more of a meta-effect.
At our current level of understanding, there is no valid rational way to say that it does or does not exist. Those beliefs come down to what you choose.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Really? How can you determine that killing a particular human being in a particular situation is harmful or beneficial using only the scientific method.
In science, "harmful" depends on context. It's not a moral measurement, it just means that, for instance, a given mutation makes an individual less likely to reproduce and pass on its genes.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would think that any measurment of faith would be more related to how important said faith was to the person and how central to how they live their life, rather than how improbable their beliefs.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. That's only if you assume that observation can only be done by physical systems, which, again, is an unprovable assumption.
Wait a second. Are you just arguing that it's possible that something exists outside of the material world which only interacts with other things outside the material world and which, therefore, has no effect on the material world.
I grant that you are correct that such is possible, but how does it matter if such a thing "exists" if it is so entirely irrelevant to us?
The idea that a non-material thing is irrelevant is interesting.
So if you have two vases, and one is ugly and the other is pretty, does it matter? If they took the same material, effort, and energy to make, they are in themselves equal, but the aesthetic impact is different. So that is creating matter, which goes against one of the laws of thermodynamics -- If one wishes to argue that aesthetic impact is material - I realize you have not necessarily done so.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I will say that when it comes to weather, I believe the fact that the earth is so often habitable is another miracle. I mean, sure there are parts of it that just aren't, but humans are pretty fragile creatures and this atomosphere that we live in is pretty remarkable.
How do you define "so often habitable"?
We live on a planet that is 3/4 water. Of the land, great portions of it are uninhabitable because they are too cold or too hot.
I think it's an amazing thing that we've been able to adapt ourselves to live in such conditions. But I'm not sure it should be called 'miraculous'.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The idea that a non-material thing is irrelevant is interesting.
I said a non-material thing which did not effect the material world was irrelevant. Your vase, your perception of its aesthetic, and your response to that perception are all very material. Even if you want to assume that some element of your appreciation of that vase was non-material, it's part of a cause/effect pattern that includes the material world at several points.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:No. That's only if you assume that observation can only be done by physical systems, which, again, is an unprovable assumption.
Wait a second. Are you just arguing that it's possible that something exists outside of the material world which only interacts with other things outside the material world and which, therefore, has no effect on the material world.
I grant that you are correct that such is possible, but how does it matter if such a thing "exists" if it is so entirely irrelevant to us?
The idea that a non-material thing is irrelevant is interesting.
So if you have a vase, and one is ugly and the other is pretty, does it matter? If they took the same material, effort, and energy to make, they are in themselves equal, but the aesthetic impact is different. So that is creating matter, which goes against one of the laws of thermodynamics -- If one wishes to argue that aesthetic impact is material - I realize you have not necessarily done so.
MattP is not talking specifically about physical objects. Beauty is part of the material world because it is a feeling created in our brain.
EDIT: Matt beat me to it anyways and gave a better explanation.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I choose to believe that I have free will. Thus, there is some, non-material aspect of myself that raises my decision-making above only material causes.
I don't think your second sentence is a necessary consequence of your first. I'd agree that it's a likely consequence, but I think the possibility of free will still exists in a materialistic worldview.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka: the question is less how likely it is there is is someplace we can survive (which we are only just now starting to be able to estimate), but, given we are here and observing, how likely it is the weather arose from natural causes. And the first question (even though we're getting closer to answering it) isn't really relevant. The weather was here first. The right question (of that category is), given the weather here, what is the likelihood something like us would be able to evolve? That seems quite high, given this planet is in the life belt.
If you haven't yet, read my post on the previous page about the number wheel with a spinner to get an idea for how the difference matters. It is possible to make anything look improbable when you construct it in a way that's really talking about a situation that isn't important.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, it was just something that occured to me when my car was nearly blown off the road one day, that there's no reason that sort of thing shouldn't happen more often.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Really? How can you determine that killing a particular human being in a particular situation is harmful or beneficial using only the scientific method.
In science, "harmful" depends on context. It's not a moral measurement, it just means that, for instance, a given mutation makes an individual less likely to reproduce and pass on its genes.
That was kind of my point - science can't handle questions that rely on moral premises, although science is often necessary for acting morally.
Changing the question from "good or bad" to "harmful or beneficial" is not "close enough" to what Tresopax was implying. It's a change to an entirely different kind of question, one necessitated by the limitations of science.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Really? How can you determine that killing a particular human being in a particular situation is harmful or beneficial using only the scientific method.
In science, "harmful" depends on context. It's not a moral measurement, it just means that, for instance, a given mutation makes an individual less likely to reproduce and pass on its genes.
That was kind of my point - science can't handle questions that rely on moral premises, although science is often necessary for acting morally.
Changing the question from "good or bad" to "harmful or beneficial" is not "close enough" to what Tresopax was implying. It's a change to an entirely different kind of question, one necessitated by the limitations of science.
My point was that you have to understand harm and benefit before you can jump to good and bad.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read the number wheel post. I'm pretty sure I understood it, but it doesn't really prove things one way or the other.
But you'll notice my observations are consistently praising the conditions that make human life amenable. So why does the bible begin not with the creation of man and then all other objects to suit him, but end with the creation of man? I don't expect it to be persuasive, but I do find it very interesting.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:That was kind of my point - science can't handle questions that rely on moral premises, although science is often necessary for acting morally.
Well yeah. Science is descriptive, not prescriptive. That's why it's crazy to "blame" science for eugenics or atomic war or any other application of knowledge or technology.
The scientific method can be used to examine morality - it can tell us why we consider certain things to be "good" or "bad" and can suggest ways to increase "good" and decrease "bad" if we have enough knowledge of the variables involved.
But we still have to define "good" and "bad" first.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:So why does the bible begin not with the creation of man and then all other objects to suit him, but end with the creation of man?
Because it's in chronological order and that's how we're accustomed to creating and consuming narratives? The "good" part of most movies and books is near the end, no?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What definitions of "material" and "materialism are being used here? Maybe I've missed it after reading through this thread, but it appears that two definitions may be in play here, the one being a more philisophical construct, while the other one being a more moral construct.
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think your second sentence is a necessary consequence of your first. I'd agree that it's a likely consequence, but I think the possibility of free will still exists in a materialistic worldview.
If you grant the existence of some class of entities that are for some reason not completely affected by causality, I guess, but that's seems like those conditions would put them more or less outside the material world anyway.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
