My point is that the set of properties that emerge are objectively present — Relativist
there's nothing about the application of logic that is inconsistent with physical mechanism — Relativist
We interact with the world to survive. Successful interaction is dependent on our pattern-recognition capacity which enables us to distinguish types of objects and activities. — Relativist
Empiricism in science leads to theories, established by abductive reasoning. By extension, we can abductively conclude there are laws of nature, on the basis that this best explains the success of science. — Relativist
Spontaneous generation" connotes coming into existence after a time at which it did not exist. Rather, an initial state just entails existing uncaused, with no point of time at which it does not exist.
My point is that the set of properties that emerge are objectively present — Relativist
And mine was that they're not objective until they're measured. And even then, there are experiments which indicate that those measurements will vary for different observers, which again throws their objective status into question. — Wayfarer
Of course there's more about reality than we truly understand at this time, and I believe it likely that there are aspects of reality that we will never understand. But just because we don't understand everything about the way the natural world works does not imply there is something unnatural at play in the world. To argue that would be an argument from ignorance. Arguments from ignorance can be corrected by recasting as an abductive case, arguing that the chosen hypothesis is a better explanation than alternatives. But it seems to me that any non-physical account will be at a clear disadvantage, because it will depend on ad hoc assumptions that raise more questions than answered.As we ourselves understand logic, we are able to create systems that perform logical operations. But that doesn't mean that the mechanistic analogies for organism or natural thought, such as those often entertained by materialism, provide an account of the nature of logic. Materialists never tire of telling us that the Universe is devoid of logic and that everything we see is a consequence of the undirected physical 'laws of nature'. So how an organism (if that is indeed what we are) which is purportedly a product of those same undirected forces can come to some degree of understanding the Universe is rather a mystery, isn't it? — Wayfarer
It's not true that homo sapiens are the only organisms that think logically. At its core, logical reasoning entails remembering cause-effect relationships. Many animals exhibit behavior that entails multiple steps to achieve an objective. This is basic logical thinking. Humans differ from most by the fact that they have language and a more fully developed ability to think abstractly, but it's aligned with such behavior.Right. And practically every other species apart from h.sapiens has survived, often for hundreds of millions of years (such as crocodiles) with no capacity for logic whatever. And trying to account for reason in terms of evolutionary theory reduces reason to an adaptation serving the purposes of survival. But if that is what it is, why do we place trust in reason? — Wayfarer
The existence of laws of nature can't be deductively proven, but their existence seems the best explanation for what we observe. We could test that if you'd care to offer an alternative.I've pointed out a number of times that it's not clear that the 'laws of nature' are themselves physical. We never observe the laws, but only predictable outcomes which indicate that they exist. Physics can be carried out without reference to such laws, which is instrumentalism or pragmatism. Some have used abductive reasoning as evidence for a higher intelligence. So the point is, the existence of laws is not evidence for physicalism. — Wayfarer
It's not "hanging on" for the sake of hanging on. It wouldn't make sense to deny the existence of laws of nature just because past natural philosophers identified them as laws ordained by God. Alchemists also got some things right. Human endeavors, including science and philosophy, advance by building on - and correcting- past achievements, not by starting afresh.I say that Armstrong's type of philosophy is hanging on to the remnants of the Christian belief in divinely-ordered nature, sans God, which was replaced with the scientist. — Wayfarer
This doesn't undercut anything I said.↪Relativist
Spontaneous generation" connotes coming into existence after a time at which it did not exist. Rather, an initial state just entails existing uncaused, with no point of time at which it does not exist.
No it doesn't, per your own explanation. There is a state before which there are no prior states. Call it S1. Now you claim that some thing or things had an S1 for no reason at all. They existed in S1 having not existed in any prior states. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The state of affairs didn't "start to exist", because it exists at all points of time. Rather, time begins as the state evolves.Now, why can't anything else have an S1, starting to exist when it has existed in no prior state, for "no reason at all?"
No, I'm not. Time begins; the foundation of reality does not begin.You are trying to read some prior time before S1 back in, which is a strawman. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I've answered that now. F did not begin to exist, and F does not exist contingently.Anyhow, you have entirely ignored the question of why any certain thing should begin to exist in S1 rather than any other. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Then you haven't followed.This seems to me like a God of the Gaps solve it all to be honest.
My contention is that our perceptions provide a reflection of objective reality, not identical to it, but we can have success at uncovering additional objective truths about reality. — Relativist
Of course there's more about reality than we truly understand at this time, and I believe it likely that there are aspects of reality that we will never understand. But just because we don't understand everything about the way the natural world works does not imply there is something unnatural at play in the world. To argue that would be an argument from ignorance. — Relativist
It's not true that homo sapiens are the only organisms that think logically. At its core, logical reasoning entails remembering cause-effect relationships. Many animals exhibit behavior that entails multiple steps to achieve an objective. This is basic logical thinking. — Relativist
I say that Armstrong's type of philosophy is hanging on to the remnants of the Christian belief in divinely-ordered nature, sans God, which was replaced with the scientist.
— Wayfarer
It's not "hanging on" for the sake of hanging on. It wouldn't make sense to deny the existence of laws of nature just because past natural philosophers identified them as laws ordained by God. — Relativist
Regarding a case for God, I'd be interested in hearing more — Relativist
The neural capacities that this provide are exponentially more powerful than anything possessed by other animals including our simian forbears. My claim is that due to this, h.sapiens crossed an evolutionary threshhold that cannot be explained purely in terms of biological theory, as we have realised 'horizons of being' that are simply not available to other animals. These include abstract reasoning, language, art, scientific invention, moral reflection, symbolic thought, and awareness of mortality, that are all uniquely human. They indicate a qualitative leap, a difference in kind, rather than a mere quantitative increase in cognitive ability. — Wayfarer
We have anxieties foisted upon ourselves, mental disorders even, and then we have ANGST. It's reflected in literature going back to Egypt and Babylonia, ancient China, India, and anywhere where man could write more than a few thoughts down beyond the transactional. — schopenhauer1
It's existential angst, isn't it? That's the subject of John Vervaeke's 52-episode lecture series on Awakening from the Meaning Crisis, which I'm part way through. — Wayfarer
The properties of particles are not defined until they are measured. That is the central philosophical problem of modern physics. — Wayfarer
And practically every other species apart from h.sapiens has survived, often for hundreds of millions of years (such as crocodiles) with no capacity for logic whatever. And trying to account for reason in terms of evolutionary theory reduces reason to an adaptation serving the purposes of survival. But if that is what it is, why do we place trust in reason? — Wayfarer
Personally, I don't evangalise faith in God, but as I am critical of the philosophy of secular humanism it sort of puts me in the camp of those who do. — Wayfarer
Here's the thing, the angst-driven "What do I focus my attention on?" precedes everything. Even someone who represents naive physicalism, someone like say a "Dawkins type", someone who supposedly "only cares about facts", has to "care about" something, that precedes the "facts" that are deemed most important. — schopenhauer1
It does not follow that the properties of particles do not exist until measured. — Janus
You can reject the metaphysical axioms I've stated: I haven't claimed they are logically necessary. But I do think they are a better explanation than the alternatives, and I think I've shown that. We can discuss that further, once you accept the coherence of the framework I've stated.
What do you mean by"refute"? Do you simply mean the objectivist claim hasn't been proven logically impossible? That would be an unreasonable standard. A better question is: how does an objectivist justify believing what they do?Sure, but that doesn't refute the objectivist claim that at a fundamental level, the objects of scientific analysis are 'just so', independently of any knowledge of them. They are not, in that sense, truly mind-independent. — Wayfarer
It's perfectly reasonable to believe there are aspects of reality we will never figure out, and it's also true that a metaphysical theory can never be verified, but it could be falsified if there's some known aspect of the world that is incompatible with the metaphysical theory.Notice the common thread in all these titles. It says something serious about the limitations of objective science and the conundrums that modern physics throw up. And I don't think Armstrong's style of objectivist materialism has the resources to deal with that. — Wayfarer
Are you suggesting remaining agnostic to the existence of the unnatural? What is a reasonable attitude toward something that is merely logically possible?...just because we don't understand everything about the way the natural world works does not imply there is something unnatural at play in the world. To argue that would be an argument from ignorance.
— Relativist
No, it's an argument from epistemic humility. — Wayfarer
It is an established fact that the forebrain of h.sapiens evolved explosively ...My claim is that due to this, h.sapiens crossed an evolutionary threshhold that cannot be explained purely in terms of biological theory... — Wayfarer
Thanks. The review suggests that she doesn't actually make a case for God's existence. Instead, she criticizes religious fundamentalist and polemical atheists. Good for her. I agree with both sets of criticisms.The book I referred to was by Karen Armstrong, published around 2009. To give you an idea, here's a review by philosopher Alain de Botton, and also an OP by Armstrong, Should We Believe in Belief? — Wayfarer
Consciousness, like memories, is not a thing. It is a status that happens when our neurons get stimulated repeatedly. Our individual, unique memories, which we fondly call subjective are made possible by synapses. — L'éléphant
On that view, wouldn't flight also not be a thing, since it is just "cells in wings responding to chemical signals." The same for "running," or "life" itself (and so also for each instance of living things?) Yet, since we have already successfully mastered heavier than air flight, we know that the principles of flight were not to be found in studying the organelles of cells in the wings of all flying animals, nor in their DNA, etc. (at least not most easily). Indeed, one can build a flying machine while being largely ignorant of the biology of flying animals so long as one understands the principles of lift, etc. that all those animals physiology takes advantage of. The same seems true of running and swimming, or even language production, and perhaps it is even so for conciousness. — Count Timothy von Icarus
If by dissolving all things and having only a single universal process you mean 'reductionism', there is no risk associated with using the view of physicalism, in my opinion. I understand that there are some members on this forum that detest the word reductionism. I myself do not care about this idea. I don't support it. Physicalism is not a reductive theory. It is a foundational theory that purports to show that the world cannot exist without matter or the physical components.But then we are at risk of dissolving all things and having only a single universal process. IMO, the solution here is to realize that things (substances) have relative degrees of unity. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Vide supra.In my reading, it seems that objections to physicalist theories of mind tend to largely center on the appeal to the physical being used to drag along other suppositions, e.g. a sort of reductionism — Count Timothy von Icarus
So what's the basis for claiming the world is actually mind-dependent? Then we can analyze whether that is a rational belief. — Relativist
I see no basis to claim the evolutionary sequence was too fast or "explosive" to be due to natural processes. — Relativist
The review suggests that she doesn't actually make a case for God's existence. — Relativist
I said it opened up horizons of being and cognitive skills that are different in kind to other species, including abstract reasoning, language, art, scientific invention, moral reflection, symbolic thought, and awareness of mortality. — Wayfarer
That is where quantum physics undermines the intuitive sense of the objectivity of the external world. I'm not denying that there are objective facts - that would be out-and-out relativism - but that objectivity can ever be complete. — Wayfarer
I'm not arguing for physicalism — Janus
I suggest that the interference pattern is not caused by a physical wave — because, as we shall see, no conventional physical wave can account for the actual observations. So what the “wave” is, is one of the greatest conundrums posed by quantum physics, and the philosophical implications are profound. Let’s explore them.
Physicalism is not a reductive theory. It is a foundational theory that purports to show that the world cannot exist without matter or the physical components. — L'éléphant
Thanks. I'll read it, and respond in that thread.It's a philosophical claim in support of idealism. It is developed in more detail in The Mind-Created World OP and its linked essay. — Wayfarer
The review suggests that she doesn't actually make a case for God's existence.
— Relativist
Curious, then, that the title of the book is The Case for God. — Wayfarer
suppose there was a breakthrough in cosmology that showed strong evidence that the universe was cyclical, that the Big Bang would be followed by an infinite series of other Big Bangs. Would you still want to push the brute fact line? — Count Timothy von Icarus
↪Apustimelogist Check out The Timeless Wave.
"I suggest that the interference pattern is not caused by a physical wave — because, as we shall see, no conventional physical wave can account for the actual observations. So what the “wave” is, is one of the greatest conundrums posed by quantum physics, and the philosophical implications are profound. Let’s explore them." — Wayfarer
If by dissolving all things and having only a single universal process you mean 'reductionism', there is no risk associated with using the view of physicalism, in my opinion.
So I surmise that she is making a case for religious practice, or having God in one's life, not an intellectual basis for establishing the alleged fact of God's existence. — Relativist
Not sure what you are trying to convey here. — Apustimelogist
That Ψ is not inside space-time. — Wayfarer
Well this is interpretation dependent — Apustimelogist
It doesn’t make any sense, and there is a simple reason. You see, the mathematics of quantum mechanics has two parts to it. One is the evolution of a quantum system, which is described extremely precisely and accurately by the Schrödinger equation. That equation tells you this: If you know what the state of the system is now, you can calculate what it will be doing 10 minutes from now. However, there is the second part of quantum mechanics — the thing that happens when you want to make a measurement. Instead of getting a single answer, you use the equation to work out the probabilities of certain outcomes. The results don’t say, “This is what the world is doing.” Instead, they just describe the probability of its doing any one thing. The equation should describe the world in a completely deterministic way, but it doesn’t.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.