I enjoyed reading this post, it laid out some of my thinking in a clear way. I agree about the limitations of human thought. For me meaning, or guaranteed by something absolute etc are not important. Likewise my, or our ability to understand these different questions about our lives. Rather, I am concerned with way, of life, way of living and philosophy and mysticism enables this to be refined. Also that there is an opportunity that the mind can be opened to the complexities in nature and our historical heritage of philosophy and mysticism. Which can be brought into the present of life. So as to develop a wisdom in the present. Also an openness to any divine or teleological possibility, action, or grounding.I don’t have the answers to any of this, but I remain a kind of doubting Thomas. I find it difficult to see why meaning must be grounded in necessity or guaranteed by something absolute. Could it be that humans are unrealistically impressed by reason, treating it as the highest or even only valid form of understanding? But reason is just one tool among many, and has limited use. It struggles with emotions, ambiguity, and subjective experiences. It's clear that no logical argument can fully capture grief, happiness, aesthetic appreciation, or empathy. I wonder if we overestimate its power, forgetting that perhaps it evolved for survival, not for solving metaphysical puzzles or guaranteeing truth.
:fire:So - magical? Well, I think not, but something even greater in some respects
— Wayfarer
This is what I see as an enormous problem in your position. It depends on uncritically accepting the existence of magic (or "something even greater"). I've seen no justification for this other than arguments from authority (the ancients had this view) and arguments from ignorance (physicalism's explanatory gap). — Relativist
reason might be derived from experience through a particularly structured cognitive apparatus which has limitations. Isn’t that a point Kant makes? I’m no Kantian, but doesn’t Kant discuss transcendental illusions (systematic errors built into our reasoning) and emphasise that humans face clear limits in how reason can be used? — Tom Storm
I wasn't trying show that evolution necessarily accounts for rationality, I was identifying the glaring flaw in Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). , — Relativist
In order to survive, every organism needs a functionally accurate perception of its environment to successfully interact with it. Primitive rationality is exhibited when animals adapt there hunting behavior when necessary, doing things that work instead of those that don't. The evolution of abstract reasoning would have been an evolutionary dead end leading to extinction, if it worsened our ability to interact with the environment. — Relativist
This is what I see as an enormous problem in your position. It depends on uncritically accepting the existence of magic (or "something even greater") — Relativist
That is not Plantinga's EAAN. Plantinga argues that evolution selects for behavior, not reliable belief. The Wikipedia article I linked to summarizes it, or you could read this paper by Plantinga.What Plantinga argues is not that evolution couldn’t produce minds, but that if all mental life—including reason—is understood solely in terms of material and efficient causes, then we’ve undermined the very basis on which we make rational inferences. — Wayfarer
Why are you so reluctant to state what you actually believe? The only thing that's clear is that you believe materialism is false. Please describe what you DO believe. Reference philosophers to explain your position, if necesary - but please describe your position- even if it's open ended (e.g everything except materialisn is a life possibility)I will always reference what previous philosophers have said — Wayfarer
The ultimate source of our cognitive faculties is natural selection, and natural selection is interested (so to speak) only in adaptive behavior, not in true belief. A given belief, therefore, will have a certain causal role to play in the production of adaptive behavior; but whether it is true or false is irrelevant from this perspective. So the naturalist who accepts evolutionary theory has a defeater for the proposition that our cognitive faculties are reliable.
Why are you so reluctant to state what you actually believe? — Relativist
Quite, a world of philosophical zombies could have played the role acted out by humanity. And yet a cockroach and a crocodile have more self awareness, or sentience, than a philosophical zombie.I've spelled it out in depth and detail. To recap: physics is based on a useful abstraction, which has yielded enormous physical powers, but at the expense of excluding fundamental aspects of human existence.
Even if this 'claim' is true – of course there's no evidence for it – so what? Physics explains many fundamental aspects of the physical world and not (yet) others; "human existence" is tangentally something else entirely outside modern physics' remit. Why do you persist on blaming physics for not doing something that physicists don't use it for? Re: materialism – You're (still) shadowboxing with a burning strawman, Wayf.[P]hysics is based on a useful abstraction, which has yielded enormous physical powers, but at the expense of excluding fundamental aspects of human existence. — Wayfarer
. Why do you persist on blaming physics for not doing something that physicists don't use it for? Re: materialism – You're (still) shadowboxing with a burning strawman — 180 Proof
When God is described as the Ground of Being, this typically means that God is the fundamental reality or underlying source from which all things emerge. — Tom Storm
Your "god" sounds a lot like Aristotle's First Cause/Prime Mover, which was a logical necessity, not an emotional source of succor & sanction. In other words, it's the "god of the philosophers", not the God of theologians. Although you mentioned physical evidence, your "entity" is also not a Nature God aiming lightening bolts at evil-doers.Let me tell y'all about my god (who's still around, by the way).
I go with the theory that once upon a time, nothing existed. Then all of a sudden, something came into existence. Whatever entity caused the creation of existence is my god. Since nothing existed, my god had to use itself for materials/energies to create with, so I am literally a part of my god. If you go with the Big Bang theory, a few hundred million years after the universe started, at the end of the hot plasma phase, the first OG atom, hydrogen, was created. Those hydrogen atoms are still in existence since they don't die. Those billions of years old hydrogen atoms are within our bodies today. We are physically linked to our universe's origin. — alleybear
Then all of a sudden, something came into existence. — alleybear
Nonsense. "Nothing" necessarily cannot "exist".I go with the theory that once upon a time, nothing existed. Then all of a sudden, something came into existence. — alleybear
... except, sir, you don't seem to grasp that "logical necessity", as you say, does not scientifically have anything to do with dynamics in or the development of the physical world.[A]ll I know about this logical necessity ... — Gnomon
The BBT is a model of physical processes; (the) "mathematical" is merely abstract and, therefore, cannot "evolve".... how we, and our world, evolved from mathematical Big Bang Singularity
No, it isn't. You said this is what Plantinga was saying: "if all mental life—including reason—is understood solely in terms of material and efficient causes, then we’ve undermined the very basis on which we make rational inferences."which is as I said. — Wayfarer
Then explain what you meant by this:I've spelled it out in depth and detail. To recap: physics is based on a useful abstraction, which has yielded enormous physical powers, but at the expense of excluding fundamental aspects of human existence. — Wayfarer
life and consciousness are not anomalies to be explained away—they’re clues to what physicalist ontology has left out. — Wayfarer
Life seems anomolous to me, because it's a very rare, and miniscule part of the universe. What facts am I overlooking? — Relativist
The ultimate source of our cognitive faculties is natural selection, and natural selection is interested (so to speak) only in adaptive behavior, not in true belief. A given belief, therefore, will have a certain causal role to play in the production of adaptive behavior; but whether it is true or false is irrelevant from this perspective. So the naturalist who accepts evolutionary theory has a defeater for the proposition that our cognitive faculties are reliable. — Alvin Plantinga
if all mental life—including reason—is understood solely in terms of material and efficient causes, then we’ve undermined the very basis on which we make rational inferences." — Wayfarer
He is arguing that evolutionary biology may account for how animals adapt and survive, but that this in itself does not provide grounds for us to believe that an argument is true, when, according to those criteria, it might simply be adaptive. — Wayfarer
Physicalism is indeed embedded in my worldview. What truths does this blind me to? The only obvious implication is that there may be some non-physical aspects of reality. It provides no clue as to what they may be - what truths it leads me to ignore.physicalism relies on an abstraction. It then becomes so embedded in that worldview that it can’t see anything outside it, which is precisely the blind spot of physicalism. — Wayfarer
I agree. Idealism, antirealism, immaterialism ... quantum woo-woo, etc are much poorer alternatives. :up:I embrace physicalism because (AFAIK) it's the best general answer to the nature of reality. I don't have some undying faith in it, and I know it has its limitations. But I treat it as the premise when analyzing everything in the world. This seems the most pragmatic approach — Relativist
As others have so helpfully pointed out, "nothing" cannot or does not exist. That's why the concept of Zero took so long to catch-on with mathematicians*1. The relevant point here is that No-Thing means no physical existence, hence no usefulness for Science or Mechanics. But the meta-physical concept of Nothingness*2 is useful for philosophical purposes.I go with the theory that once upon a time, nothing existed. — alleybear
:up: Same here. In my book this "excuse" amounts to appeal to ignorance (i.e. woo-of-the-gaps).I'm suspicious of using this explanatory gap as an excuse to believe in some sort of spiritualism. — Relativist
Well, not only doesn't that follow (category error), but all three concepts are mere abstractions; what makes any of them "woo woo nonsense" is attributing causal – physical – properties to any of them like "creator" "mover" ... "programmer". :eyes:If such a God is woo-woo nonsense, then so is Zero & Infinity. — Gnomon
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.