quote:There are some people who find it absolutely horrifying to think that there's no way for them to know whether they're living in the Matrix or not. To these people, I say, "tough cookies."
I'm one of those people :shrug:
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why worry? Realistically, unless you found out, what could it possibly matter? Like the existence of an afterlife, it's one of those possibilities that simply can't be effectively factored into a rational life due to the absence of measurable impact. You could be a brain in a box; you could be a dreaming butterfly; you could be an entire lifetime of memories created and destroyed in an instant by a flickering universe. In all these models, the only agency which exists is the agency you choose to believe in.
People give themselves purpose.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, I believe I have found out about the existence of an afterlife, and that its affect is measurable, albeit not in any scientific manner.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure how you measure something unscientifically. You can say "that's a big enough clump of flour," I suppose, but that's still a scientific measurement; it's just an imprecise one. What method, scientific or not, would you use to measure the effect of the afterlife?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the the measurable qualities of the clump of flour changed according to the belief of the observer, I don't think it could be measured scientifically, since one of the cornerstones of the scientific method is that anybody can replicate the experiment, regardless of their personal beliefs.
And whether or not I'm correct about this hypothetical situation, it doesn't really matter, as long as you now understand what I mean by "scientific manner".
I don't know if we're using the word "measurable" to mean two different things. I can "measure" the affect that my love for Mary Cate has had in my life because I can perceive its effect, but for most usages of the word, I'd say that love is not measurable.
quote:What method, scientific or not, would you use to measure the effect of the afterlife?
Prayer, and answers to prayer. Of course, I wouldn't separate out "does the afterlife really exist" from other questions like "does God exist" and "was Jesus the Savior".
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh my God, I think we're getting somewhere!!! This is unprecedented!!!
quote:Originally posted by Tom Davidson:Why worry? Realistically, unless you found out, what could it possibly matter? Like the existence of an afterlife, it's one of those possibilities that simply can't be effectively factored into a rational life due to the absence of measurable impact. You could be a brain in a box; you could be a dreaming butterfly; you could be an entire lifetime of memories created and destroyed in an instant by a flickering universe. In all these models, the only agency which exists is the agency you choose to believe in.
People give themselves purpose.
Simply a more elegant version of my argument all along.
By the way, I'm impressed you guys have been able to understand what I've been trying to say, about the paradigms and such, because *I* barely understand what I'm trying to say. I know because the questions I'm being asked are, for the most part, directly related to my posts. To be perfectly honest, I haven't felt that was the case in most of the previous threads I've participated in. Maybe my point was being obscured by my caustic manner.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: But then there's no reason to trust the rules of logic - a line of reasoning is simply a modification of states to the molecular structure of the brain in which the final state is interpreted as "true". It's too arbitrary to expect it relate in any way to truth.
I consider this completely nonsensical. What is your definition of "truth?"
I really don't want to get into this sort of debate, but for starters, I would classify statements as "I think I exist" as truth. Naturalism, at least as I (may have incorrectly) defined it above precludes accepting even such statements as true, simply because "truth" is an arbitrary, meaningless term in the context of naturalism.
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: Mathman,
Except that interactions with the natural world will verify the "true" status as valid or invalid.
But I'm trying to argue that under naturalism, a statement such as "I perform action A, and then action B happens. Thus there may be some relationship between A and B" is not reasonable. In part, you can't even trust that A actually happened, since your memory of A is simply another rearrangement of molecules. Suppose something else caused the same rearrangement?
Further, supposing you repeat A lots of times and B always occurs, all you've really shown is that after you repeat A, your brain is in the same configuration as every other time.
Under naturalism, every experience you've ever had is simply a rearrangement of molecules - you can't even honestly construct your past. You can't say "X happened 5 minutes ago", you can only say "my current brain state makes me think X happened 5 minutes ago". I guess fundamentally I'm saying that accepting naturalism means you lose all objectiveness. You have no more feelings or thoughts about things, you simply have random mental states. In short, you lose the ability to trust your own thinking.
Thus, your example isn't any sort of rebuttal since I'm arguing against the very premises of your example. In other words, your example posited some assumptions that I've already attempted to argue against. Of course, if you have different assumptions you will reach different conclusions ;-)
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171:
A mathemetician and an engineer were put into a room, and a great reward was placed at the other side. They were each told that at each step of the challenge, they could halve their distance to the reward.
The mathematician turned and left the room; "I'll never get there!" he (or she) said.
The engineer started walking towards the great reward; "I'll get close enough!"
I'll get close enough to the truth.
Any decent mathematician would have noticed that the sum from 1 to infinity of (1/2)^n is 1, so that he/she could get there ;-) (Zeno's paradox isn't a mathematical paradox at all)
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Well, it all comes back to the "brain in the box" thing, I suppose. There are some people who find it absolutely horrifying to think that there's no way for them to know whether they're living in the Matrix or not. To these people, I say, "tough cookies."
In some sense you're right. I'm am trying to say that accepting naturalism logically leads you right back to the brain in the box.
If we take the usual way out and say "well, hey, just so we can get somewhere in our philosophizing, let's assume that we CAN know a few things like X, and Y", then X and Y become "unnatural" in the sense that we've already decided X and Y aren't fully, objectively, knowable (that is, laws of physics/nature without some extra assumptions can't fully explain X and Y), and yet we're now taking them as fully knowable.
(sorry for typos/errors/etc...it's late, and I'm going to bed)
Posts: 168 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Under naturalism, every experience you've ever had is simply a rearrangement of molecules - you can't even honestly construct your past. You can't say "X happened 5 minutes ago", you can only say "my current brain state makes me think X happened 5 minutes ago". I guess fundamentally I'm saying that accepting naturalism means you lose all objectiveness. You have no more feelings or thoughts about things, you simply have random mental states. In short, you lose the ability to trust your own thinking.
While this may possibly be true, it's just as true for any system involving a soul, which I would suppose is the chief alternative. After all, we don't actually know how such a thing works; there's nothing to say its memories are not false. What if Memory Gremlins are interfering with its operations and giving you false memories? This is just as likely as the random rearrangements of brain states you are suggesting - if not more so, in fact. If we assume pure naturalism, then clearly evolution is working on those purely physical brains; and presumably the more accurate ones (both for memory and reasoning) have more offspring.
In other words, the criticism you are making of naturalism cuts just as sharply on what I suppose we may call spiritualism. I suggest, therefore, that it must be discarded as not permitting any useful distinction to be drawn.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your "better" is subjective. I can follow a certain set of rules with certain premises and create an environment where all doubt can be eliminated.
Are you sure? Are you really, really sure?
(still waiting so see what Resh's belief system is, rather than what it isn't)
My belief system (my paradigm) has nothing at all to do with hyperintelligent fish applying various voltages and frequencies of electrical currents into electrodes implanted in my brain and anus (obviously done to save on the cost of wiring)
--Steve
BTW, Math--my reference to Zeno's paradox was meant to illustrate that there is theory (never reaching the reward, never remembering a thing) vs. practical applications.
What would memory be, then, if not for a collection of chemical states?
And we're back to the statement, "I have absolutely no idea know how my system works (spirits, genies, faeries, Christ, God, etc.) , but it's better than your system (you Godless, naturalist heathen)."
About right?
(Actually, Math, I'm not sure what your theological position is, but I'm more referring to others here making veiled statements like that)
posted
I really dont like arguements that go into the worthiness of naturallism example "then we are no better then x" and somehow magically our lives lose all meaning if we accept a naturalistic course. Pfft.
IP: Logged |
quote:I'm more referring to others here making veiled statements like that
Of course, it's easier to refute a statement that you created and then attributed to your opponent than it is to refute your opponent's actual statement. Not only is it dishonest, but it reveals a lack of understanding in the opponent's position.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I really dont like arguements that go into the worthiness of naturalism example "then we are no better then x" and somehow magically our lives lose all meaning if we accept a naturalistic course. Pfft.
While I hate that argument too, in fairness to Mathematician, I don't think that's what he's saying. He's not making a moral argument against naturalism, he's making a Godelian one: If you assume naturalism, then you cannot assume the logic that led you to make the assumption in the first place. But it cuts just as hard against non-naturalist explanations, because you don't actually know anything about whatever it is you want to call the soul.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Naturalism, at least as I (may have incorrectly) defined it above precludes accepting even such statements as true, simply because "truth" is an arbitrary, meaningless term in the context of naturalism.
This is not true. Naturalists do not deny that there is a reality; many of them simply deny that it can be perfectly perceived. The important thing here, then, is that "truth" is evaluated within different contexts. It is "true" that I love my wife. It is "true" that I exist. And yet on a different level, it may be equally true that I do NOT exist; my existence is something that has reality only within a given contextual framework, and so statements which rely on my existence must take the current framework into account.
It's true that we have to take as an operating premise the idea that things are knowable. But there's nothing out there which requires this to be true; we only have to behave as if it is.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that's what Papa Janitor was reffering to. He's doing pretty good right now with Mathematician. If in the future he want's to engage me similarly, I don't think there will be a problem.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Naturalism, at least as I (may have incorrectly) defined it above precludes accepting even such statements as true, simply because "truth" is an arbitrary, meaningless term in the context of naturalism.
This is not true. Naturalists do not deny that there is a reality; many of them simply deny that it can be perfectly perceived. The important thing here, then, is that "truth" is evaluated within different contexts. It is "true" that I love my wife. It is "true" that I exist. And yet on a different level, it may be equally true that I do NOT exist; my existence is something that has reality only within a given contextual framework, and so statements which rely on my existence must take the current framework into account.
It's true that we have to take as an operating premise the idea that things are knowable. But there's nothing out there which requires this to be true; we only have to behave as if it is.
And thus my problem with Naturalism. While taking in that quite unavoidable premise that some things must be knowable, it seems as though you are taking it to the extreme by rejecting anything that is patently, and by definition, unknowable. The attempts to sciencify (a word? It is now) the supernatural shows this unwillingness. I've seen scenarios put forth here where some supernatural event gets observed repeatedly and then reliable information is gained. That's not acceptance of the possibility of the supernatural; its accepting only the supernatural which isn't so supernatural after all. Weather phenomena falls under that category, and I have no doubt that there is a perfectly natural explanation for all of those phenomena.
What the hell is my point?
Edit, to include: Clerks 2 sucked. Man, what a godawful, boring movie.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: King of Men, would it be OK for me to call you an "evilutionist?"
You are certainly at liberty to call me whatever you like; my contempt for your opinions can hardly get any stronger.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Under naturalism, every experience you've ever had is simply a rearrangement of molecules - you can't even honestly construct your past. You can't say "X happened 5 minutes ago", you can only say "my current brain state makes me think X happened 5 minutes ago". I guess fundamentally I'm saying that accepting naturalism means you lose all objectiveness. You have no more feelings or thoughts about things, you simply have random mental states. In short, you lose the ability to trust your own thinking.
While this may possibly be true, it's just as true for any system involving a soul, which I would suppose is the chief alternative. After all, we don't actually know how such a thing works; there's nothing to say its memories are not false. What if Memory Gremlins are interfering with its operations and giving you false memories? This is just as likely as the random rearrangements of brain states you are suggesting - if not more so, in fact. If we assume pure naturalism, then clearly evolution is working on those purely physical brains; and presumably the more accurate ones (both for memory and reasoning) have more offspring.
In other words, the criticism you are making of naturalism cuts just as sharply on what I suppose we may call spiritualism. I suggest, therefore, that it must be discarded as not permitting any useful distinction to be drawn.
I didn't intend to argue that other philosphies are better in some sense. I simply intended to show that a sane, rational person can disagree with the tenants of naturalism.
I do, however, think there's one important distinction. To make any progress with naturalism, one must begin by making assumptions. But by their very nature, these assumptions go against naturalism. To make any progress within a naturalistic framework, one must essentially start with "Naturalism is true, but it's not TOTALLY true"
The other class of philosophies (a narrow band of which is spiritualism), which I'll cleverly denote "not naturalism" has the advantage that when these base assumptions are made, no immediate contradiction arises. One may eventually arise, but now we can get into "my philosophy has less contradictions than your philosophy" debates! WooHoo
I guess dropping naturalism for "not naturalism" is essentially trading one's trust in assumptions - the trust goes from "can't be true" with "I have no idea whether or not it's true" - a small (insignificant?) gain, but a gain none the less.
But to reiterate, my purpose was simply to demonstrate that a sane, rational person can be a confirmed "not naturalist". I hope that I have accomplished this. Either way, I now bow out.
P.S. (to KoM only) - When you say I am making a "Godelian argument", I hope you only mean that I am borrowing the spirit of Godel's original argument (as opposed to quoting one of Godel's 2 incompleteness theorems and expecting it to apply to reality). I terribly hate the 2nd form of the argument ;)
Posts: 168 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:P.S. (to KoM only) - When you say I am making a "Godelian argument", I hope you only mean that I am borrowing the spirit of Godel's original argument (as opposed to quoting one of Godel's 2 incompleteness theorems and expecting it to apply to reality). I terribly hate the 2nd form of the argument
Quite so, I hate the second form too; I meant to say you were using the first.
quote:I do, however, think there's one important distinction. To make any progress with naturalism, one must begin by making assumptions. But by their very nature, these assumptions go against naturalism. To make any progress within a naturalistic framework, one must essentially start with "Naturalism is true, but it's not TOTALLY true"
I think you have not shown that this is a distinction; you've shown it is true for naturalism, but you've failed to show it is false for not-naturalism. Until you refute my arguments showing that your criticism is equally bad for not-naturalism (ack, can we start referring to this as ~N?) there's no distinction to be drawn.
[ February 27, 2007, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Actually, except for the "Godless, naturalist heathen" reference, it's exactly what those from the anti-naturalist (or was it anti-evolutionist? I'm losing track) bent are saying.
Except they're not saying it as clearly.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:To make any progress with naturalism, one must begin by making assumptions. But by their very nature, these assumptions go against naturalism.
I disagree. What assumption is required that "goes against" naturalism? By its very nature, naturalism does not attempt to speak for anything beyond observed and/or deduced reality.
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: I find that people often have no idea WHAT evolution even is. They get caught with that lame old archaic response about humans evolving from apes. I personally don't understand all of the anger and offense about evolution, especially from so-called religious people. I have no problem believing in both God and the theory of evolution. In fact, they both fit nicely together as far as I'm concerned.
Not only that, but all of what biology and medicine is based on relates directly back to evolution. Without evolution, there is no genetics. Without genetics, there is no understanding of most of modern medicine. Without evolution, there are no cancer treatments, immune system understanding, etc, etc. I often find it interesting that people who violently disagree with evolution have no problem using modern medicine when they're ill or sick.
Evolution is a principle of biology just like gravity is a principle of physics. Yet people don't rail against gravity or discount the fact that God created the world with the principle of gravity.
I think it's all about the human ego. People are just too proud to think that humans share a common ancestor with primates. No matter how close it has been shown humans are to apes in genetic makeup.
Well said. Posts: 3 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the subject of whether matter can reliably do logic; let's consider a ~N scenario, so we believe humans can do logic. Now, we know that computers can do logic, and there's certainly no mystical life force invovled there; we've built them from the ground up, and it's all physics, thanks kindly. Yet they are much more reliable than humans are. From which it follows that you can indeed rely on some kinds of matter to correctly do logic.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boothby, I don't know if Clerks 2 sucked. And honestly I don't even remember if it sucked, because I blocked it out of my memory. That's the last time I go out of my way to watch a Kevin Smith movie.
To "create an environment where all doubt can be eliminated..." That was poorly worded, and I didn't realize until now how that sounds. I meant something more like: "...to create an environment where all possibilities are available." That is much closer to what I meant.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I meant something more like: "...to create an environment where all possibilities are available." That is much closer to what I meant.
Ok, I have a question for you: do you attribute the same weight to all those possibilities?
quote:Actually, except for the "Godless, naturalist heathen" reference, it's exactly what those from the anti-naturalist (or was it anti-evolutionist? I'm losing track) bent are saying.
That is incorrect, unless you somehow know what people believe without them actually saying it, or if you're referring to people that have not posted in this thread.
A
quote:Ok, I have a question for you: do you attribute the same weight to all those possibilities?
All possibilities obviously do not carry the same weight, just like all scientific theories carry different levels of credibility. The difference, or problem as some may see it, is that these ~N (to borrow KoM's term) possibilities rely entirely on personal experiences or trust in an authority figure's personal experiences, which is obviously not something you can test in a scientific experiment. To complicate the problem, personal experiences can be misinterpreted or incorrectly remembered. However, that's not to say that certain ~N possibilities don't exist or didn't actually happen, just that they can be hard to convince others of, or may not have any physical distinguishable impact on one's life than Naturalist explanations.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ok, I have a question for you: do you attribute the same weight to all those possibilities?
All possibilities obviously do not carry the same weight, just like all scientific theories carry different levels of credibility. The difference, or problem as some may see it, is that these ~N (to borrow KoM's term) possibilities rely entirely on personal experiences or trust in an authority figure's personal experiences, which is obviously not something you can test in a scientific experiment. To complicate the problem, personal experiences can be misinterpreted or incorrectly remembered. However, that's not to say that certain ~N possibilities don't exist or didn't actually happen, just that they can be hard to convince others of, or may not have any physical distinguishable impact on one's life than Naturalist explanations. [emphasis added]
While I’m waiting to see what Reshpeckobiggle can tell me about his paradigm, I’ll reply to camus:
That is why I ask, to see if there can be set any sort of hierarchy among “all the possibilities”. If there cannot, or the criteria are not transmissible to others, then we should remember that we are discussing about it, if not for other reason, at least because there are more than one people in this Universe. So if we are about to collaborate in any endeavour (rational or otherwise), we need to be able to communicate in a minimally reliable fashion about minimally reliable facts.
Let me bring a metaphor into discussion (as if this is the last thing that this thread needs ): One person wants to build a bridge. As long as that person works alone, using a “scientifically” based method or “I can’t be sure of anything” kind of philosophy, the construction can advance more or less rapidly and ultimately be accomplished. And when the construction is finished, the fact that the person trusts or not their own construction is only relevant for one person. But, if two or more people want to participate in the building process, or use the bridge after it is finished, we should think about the possibility (as opposed to impossibility) of collaboration and the reliability of the construction, shouldn’t we?
If someone tells you that they think (but have no way to be sure) they can build a bridge in about a month, and that it could cost an unlimited amount of resources, plus after its completion they are not sure it will support any weight, will you be interested in it?
And if other person tells you that using precise (within a given margin of error) calculations the bridge would be finished in 30 days at most, it will cost this much resources and that it will support at least 100 tons of weight and at most 500 tons, would you consider crossing it?
Again, if you’re all alone in the Universe, this is a moot point. But if I can ask the question and someone else can answer it, then I’d say it is an important “detail”.
quote:But, if two or more people want to participate in the building process, or use the bridge after it is finished, we should think about the possibility (as opposed to impossibility) of collaboration and the reliability of the construction, shouldn’t we?
That is why I feel that spirituality is a very personal thing, and also one of the failings that I see in institutionalized religions. [Added] But that's not to say that multiple people can't share the same spiritual experience and share that with other people that understand that experience.
To introduce yet another metaphor...It's like experiencing art. Everyone's experience is a little different. Everyone's meaning and interpretation may be a little different, in fact, perhaps being very different from what the artist originally intended for the viewer. Sure, you can have a satisfying and meaningful life without ever having viewed that particular piece of art, and that piece of art may never help you to build a bridge or create some piece of technology, but that doesn't mean that people who experienced that art weren't actually affected by it or that the art is meaningless.
posted
Oh. I thought I was making it clear: You answered the question for me. I don't think I would have answered any different, except that maybe my answer would have been harder to understand.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: "...to create an environment where all possibilities are available."
Would that include the possibility that not all possibilities are available?
Of course. In fact, that is almost definitely the possibility that is true, and so that possibility is certainly not going to be ruled out.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Never read anything specifically by Godel, but I have read a book called Godel, Escher, and Bach; The Eternal Golden Braid. Either way, the possibility that all possibilities are available to us is a sort og meta-possibility, in which the possibility that not all possibilities are available is one of two possibilities subordinate to the all-possibilities possibility.
So maybe I don't get it. Or maybe you don't. Anything is possible, right?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sigh... if all possibilities are available, then by definition the possibility that not all possibilities are available, is not. This is really elementary logic.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I stand by my statement. Maybe you were taught these elementary rules, but that is no excuse not to question them. Same goes for evolution.
There are either one of two possibilities: All possibilities or not all possibilities. "One of two possibilities" is the meta-possibility in which both of the two possibilities exist. I don't know if Godel covered that, but in case he didn't, I just did.
P.S. This game of logic is just for fun. The actual question causes me to revise my statement to "...create an evironment where more possibilities are available." Happy?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
): 
