Yup I’m angry at stupidity an all it’s forms and guises, problem ? — invicta

Just that you're like the mirror image of the angry atheist, making the same sorts of claims about stupidity.

So whilst they’re happy to dismiss God for lack of proof they’re yet to dismiss the graviton, the messiah to their gravity for lack of proof.

Hypocritical, blind and stupid. — invicta

We get it you're an angry theist. So?

No, religion as an explanation system comes out of the need for a simple comforting answer, comfort comes first. In science, there could be a level of comfort in trying to find answers, but scientists actively scale off comfort as it is the foundation of scientific biases. — Christoffer

I think we see this differently. Explanations are explanations. Besides religious explanations do not always provide comfort. They often provide fear and trembling and terrifying obligations. The point for me is that both world views attempt to make sense of the world - explanations. How they go about it is of course quite different but that has no impact on the fact they are both trying to explain reality.

As it happens, I have known a number of former evangelicals who have deconverted and most of them have stated that science has made the world a whole lot less scary on account of the supernatural not being the explanation of why we are here.

I’d like to be proven wrong. — invicta

Well, you'll need to start by demonstrating evidence of your claim first.

Not sure how you would do this - you'd probaly need to provide a list of all the most significant scientists (that won't be controversial at all!) then you'd need to demonstrate who was a theist and what kind and who was an atheist.

Not something I imagine you can do. But who cares? As I already said above -

A little or a lot of science won't necessarily replace the supernatural in the minds of some.' — Tom Storm

Einstein? He's like a Rorschach inkblot on theism. A believer in a Spinoza's God. Famously in his notorious 1954 letter Einstein wrote:

The word God is for me nothing but the expression of and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends.. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this.

And

For me the unadulterated Jewish religion is, like all other religions, an incarnation of primitive superstition.

I think it's clear that Einstein preferred science to religion.

Religion has a totally other function than science and the idea that science will replace religion is based on the idea that religion has an equal measure of explaining the universe, which it clearly does not when looking at the track record. — Christoffer

Yes, but isn't the point that science and religion are both in the explanation business? Religious explanations are often fixed and doctrinaire. Those of science are ususally evidence based and may change as knowledge increases.

I suspect Pasteur is wrong about this since many people who know a lot of science are still atheists. Possibly most.

Maybe Pasteur should have said - 'A little or a lot of science won't necessarily replace the supernatural in the minds of some.' And we can't argue with that. :wink:

I honestly don't see the point of that, other than control, and control is the basic point of religion. It would essentially be replacing religion. I say let it die and DON'T TRY TO REPLACE IT. — praxis

Religion has effectively died out amongst large groups of people in the west. The kinds of religion that is growing widely around the world - evangelical Christianity (in Asia and Africa) and fundamentalist Islam are often so shallow that they scarcely count as religions the way we used to think of them. Doctrines waver and bend and almost no one knows any scripture or reads the holy books. I was talking to some Chinese former evangelicals and in their view it's just about professing belief and makings things up using a jumble of terminology (a bit like some people on this forum seem to do :wink:) sin, Satan and the love of Christ.

I support those atheist evangelists who help people to deconstruct from fundamentalist religion. I think this is a worthy thing to do and I have donated money. There seems to be a lot of folk wanting to leave and leaving behind the festering hatreds of fundamentalism and evangelical religion and they are looking for support in their emerging skepticism and critical thinking.

or truth — Joshs

Is there a useful thread here on post modernism and truth? I would be keen to read something accessible on the subject.

I've made my point. You failed to define scientism correctly. The rest of this discussion is superfluous.

But I still wonder if you appreciate the difference between science and scientism.

You've got my "no authority" assertion turned around backward. I said "there is no single authority in Science". — Gnomon

No. You got this wrong too. You originally used this as a poor definition of scientism not science.

Here:

For adherents of Scientism though, there is no single source of authority on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. — Gnomon

Note again - you used the word scientism. As I have pointed out several times now scientism is certain about science as a single source of authority on truth and how the world works.

And then (as a separate matter) I asked the follow up question; can you cite any example of a single authority on the Truth? Since you seemed to be suggesting that this was a type of misplaced skepticism, I wonder if there is an alternative you can point too?

But perhaps this discussion has become too complex and you are a bit lost in it? I understand, this sometimes happens to me.

Let's not waste any more time on this. I wish to hear no more about scientism. I am not interested in pursuing this any further. Take care.

This is the question that the article proposes to address:

Why is there any such thing as what philosophers call ‘phenomenal experience’ or qualia – our subjective, personal sense of interacting with stimuli arriving via our sense organs? Not only in the case of vision, but across all sense modalities: the redness of red; the saltiness of salt; the paininess of pain – what does this extra dimension of experience amount to? What’s it for?
— Nicholas Humphries

Isn't it rather a strange question? — Wayfarer

The syntax, I grant you, is inelegant and wordy, but it doesn't seem an especially strange series of questions, given variations of questions just like it come up constantly, here and elsewhere.

So in philosophical mode my question in place of Humphrey's would be something like, "what is it about a scientific view that makes phenomenal experience look so puzzling?" — Jamal

Fair. It certainly benefits from sharpening.

Interestingly, I've noticed that a lot of public atheism in America is conducted by former evangelicals who no longer find the dubious stories in the Bible convincing. But they are now 'preachers' and 'evangelists' for atheism and secular humanism. Same shit different bucket. That said, at least most of them are no longer racist, homophobic, trans-hating, misogynist, superstitious Trumpistas - so scientism is definitely an improvement on theism in these instances. And I'd rather discuss the world with a scientistic fuck-knuckle than a theistic one.

Henry James is the worst writer of all times — Largo

I think The Turn of the Screw is a little masterpiece but he is difficult for modern sensibilities.

I studied philosophy at university briefly in 1988 (I think). We didn't read books, we were given photocopied extracts to learn. I never read them. I read Henry James instead of William James and Jane Austin instead of J.L Austin. I found philosophy (as an academic subject) insufferably boring and pointless. These days I am interested in what people believe and why.

there is no single source of authority on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. — Gnomon

Given what you say here, can you demonstrate the single source of authority on The Truth? I suspect a Noble Price might be waiting if you can do this.

Actually your account of scientism here seems erroneous:

For adherents of Scientism though, there is no single source of authority on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. — Gnomon

I understand scientism as the opposite of this. It is an unassailable certainty that science is right and not tentative. In other words, the single source of authority about how the world works is science - hence scientism.

I was merely pointing-out that there is no authorized compendium of "settled science" to serve as the Bible of Scientism. — Gnomon

I was merely pointing out the difference between scientism and science. An important distinction.

Thanks.

Could such behaviour have been prevented with the right nurture or educational socialisation do you think ? — invicta

I have worked with many prisoners over the years. People who have done unspeakable things - murder, child abuse, kidnapping, maiming, arson, pyromania, violent assault, abuse of women, you name it. I have never met anyone who wasn't made that way or distorted by upbringing or by abuse, trauma, neglect, mental disfunction. And almost all have been male.

I understand that Pol Pot is called pure evil but to me this doesn't help us to make sense of the behaviour. Pol Pot may well have thought he was acting towards the common good, trying to improve the world according to a plan, even if that plan involved an awful but necessary price to pay. Žižek talks about this in relation to Stalinism and other totalitarian expressions. The people who burned witches likely thought they were doing the right thing too. I think pure evil is the term we use when we can't make sense of behaviour. But I understand the attraction to such terms.

I get what you are saying. But I sometimes look at fish and wish more people were just like them. The no talking, swimming away bit is especially attractive.

It may be a question of preferences here. I am not really fond of terms like superior or apex or crowing achievement. I don't see a hierarchy of evolution but I know humans like to put themselves at the top of every list. I acknowledge that some innate capacities (in humans or animals) are better for a certain purpose, but I don't overplay this card. But there's no reason to explore this further, it's a side issue.

My position is that we’re inherently good, but it’s jealousy, hate and thirst for power that leads us astray as well as the desire to subjugate or subdue our fellow man. — invicta

I think love and generosity and nurturing also frequently lead us astray. Hence the archaic expression that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

man as the crowning achievement of such process sits right at the top by fact of us being able to subdue beast and to some extent nature itself that gave rise to us. — invicta

I'm not convinced that this 'crowning achievement' is a useful frame as I said earlier. Humans are often very cocky and smug about our technology and our metacognition, but it's a form of question begging. How can a human perspective be used to justify the 'greatness' of the human perspective? While I am as speciesist as the next person and would save my daughter over my cat (if I had to), what I would be doing here is responding to biological programming and shared cultural values and preferences that are likely hard wired into most of us by socialisation.

evil behavior is the result of unmet needs coupled with ignorance of the self. — Tzeentch

Can you expand on this, especially ignorance of self?

Apologies for the length, I got motivated. :cool: — Manuel

:up:

Oh sure, plenty of silly mysticism surrounding this topic. Which is strange, because, as I think you would agree, consciousness is what we are most acquainted with out of everything there is. — Manuel

Yes, the thing we are most familiar with is also the thing which seems strangest. Reminds me of Montaigne, 'We laugh and cry at the same thing.'

Replace "God" with "nature", and you have the hard problem, stated over 300 years ago. — Manuel

Indeed. If humans are still a thing in 300 years, I wonder where culture will locate this problem. I suspect a breakthrough, even if I am a mysterian by nature.

We have to accept it as fact, as Locke recognized long before Chalmers. — Manuel

Indeed. It's interesting also to me that despite indirectly launching a million easy mystical solutions to the hard problem, Chalmers himself is without spiritual beliefs. He agrees with you.

Now I have to say I'm a complete atheist. I have no religious views myself and no spiritual views, except very watered down humanistic spiritual views. And consciousness is just a fact of life. It's a natural fact of life.

For adherents of Scientism though, there is no single source of authority on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. — Gnomon

Not sure this is right. Scientism says only physics can answer all questions and that the scientific method is a pathway to truth and understanding how the world works.

Science, on the other hand would say we can make reliable models of the world based on the best information we have available at a given time. But these models are tentative and change as we learn more. There is no scientific method as such, just reliable or unreliable methods of rational or evidential enquiry.

So are human beings good or bad (or evil) or is the leaning to either side just a misunderstanding of human nature or are there genuinely good reasons why evil takes place ? — invicta

Neither. I don't really accept the notion of 'evil'. We use this word 'emotionally' to describe detrimental impact, but the person undertaking this 'evil' is likely made this way by situational factors and flawed reasoning.

I think as a species we are inherently deluded – an organic alchemy of cognitive biases, maladaptive habits & akrasia – homo insapiens. 'Moral ramifications', I suppose, are a fallout from both our individual and collective struggles with – for and against – our delusions. — 180 Proof

Strong words but I think correct.

Comparing the animal kingdom in terms of human behaviour is to misunderstand the role of man as the apex of creation, knowledge and reason — invicta

I think humans are clever animals who use language to manage their environment. I see no reason to theologize humans or utilize categories like 'apex of creation...'

Very interesting theory and simply explained.

In this way, sentition evolves to be a virtual form of bodily expression – yet still an activity that can be read to provide a mental representation of the stimulation that elicits it.

But, as luck would have it, the privatisation has a remarkable result. It leads to the creation of feedback loops between motor and sensory regions of the brain. These loops have the potential to sustain recursive activity, going round and round, catching its own tail. And, I suggest, this development is game-changing. Crucially, it means the activity can be drawn out in time, so as to create the ‘thick moment’ of sensation (see Figure 2c above). But, more than that, the activity can be channelled and stabilised, so as to create a mathematically complex attractor state – a dynamic pattern of activity that recreates itself.

- Nicholas Humphrey

Nice.

What you say is largely correct. My point is better described by journalist Glenn Greenwald who in 2013 wrote:

...one of the greatest and most shameful failings of the Obama administration: the lack of even a single arrest or prosecution of any senior Wall Street banker for the systemic fraud that precipitated the 2008 financial crisis: a crisis from which millions of people around the world are still suffering.

What Obama justice officials did instead is exactly what they did in the face of high-level Bush era crimes of torture and warrantless eavesdropping: namely, acted to protect the most powerful factions in the society in the face of overwhelming evidence of serious criminality. Indeed, financial elites were not only vested with immunity for their fraud, but thrived as a result of it, even as ordinary Americans continue to suffer the effects of that crisis.

Worst of all, Obama justice officials both shielded and feted these Wall Street oligarchs (who, just by the way, overwhelmingly supported Obama's 2008 presidential campaign) as they simultaneously prosecuted and imprisoned powerless Americans for far more trivial transgressions. As Harvard law professor Larry Lessig put it two weeks ago when expressing anger over the DOJ's persecution of Aaron Swartz: "we live in a world where the architects of the financial crisis regularly dine at the White House." (Indeed, as "The Untouchables" put it: while no senior Wall Street executives have been prosecuted, "many small mortgage brokers, loan appraisers and even home buyers" have been).

There's a lot of journalism about Obama's ' business as ususal' neo-liberal presidency along these lines.

It seems that science is in need of religions’ values, ethics, and morals. Might science absorb values, ethics, and morals from religions? From purified religions, of course.

Or might science somehow evolve to address the concerns and questions traditionally addressed by religion? That seems to be on science’s trajectory. — Art48

Given the shrinking of religions (despite their popularity still amongst certain societies and subcultures) I suspect religions will disappear (unless they can escape literalism and evolve). Certainly for many millions of people and gods and goddesses are irrelevant. That number is not shrinking.

But we can't underestimate the fear people have of uncertainty, not to mention technology and science and how a retreat into creationism, tradition and superstition - call it what you will - may be highly appealing as a kind refuge from the perceived troubling present.

I don't think science is the replacement as it does different things to religion. But science has done a far better job in explaining most of the things religion used to explain. For some folk this is enough.

Morality will generally take care of itself - even most religious folk don't really follow religious morality and in Christian cultures most of theists can't even name more than 3 or 4 of the ten commandments.

As for Christianity, I think Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong (my favourite, now deceased, religious writer) is probably on the money:

“Unless Biblical literalism is challenged overtly in the Christian church itself, it will, in my opinion, kill the Christian faith.”
― Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy: A Journey into a New Christianity Through the Doorway of Matthew's Gospel

I don’t think there’s much of a difference between US and non-US uses of the term. It has globalized itself successfully. — Jamal

True. And neo-liberalism has been a huge subject of debate here in Australia for decades. We originally called it economic rationalism in the first years of Thatcher and Reagan and here, where our pseudo-Labor government, privatised, deregulated and sold off as much as it dared. Later Britain's New Labour borrowed some of their moves.

Interestingly, I recall conservatives being against selling off assets and privatisation back in the late 1980's and early 1990's. We even had conservative intellectuals writing popular books against the phenomenon of 'rationalism' as it was then known. This is before old conservatism faded and remerged as a market-driven right-wing.

Obama's bailing out of the banks after the 2008 crisis was a conspicuous neo-liberal move. Cornel West described Obama as a 'black mascot of Wall Street.' The point, I guess, is that liberalism seems inescapable.

A later Labor Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, an academic and intellectual, even wrote a high profile essay on the subject of neo-liberalism in 2009.

https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2009/february/1319602475/kevin-rudd/global-financial-crisis#mtr

Don't forget that God plays dice. — Wayfarer

No... he's a card shark.

:up:

But to me, in idealism, consciousness is fundamental, period. Indeed, I guess I wasn't very coherent. — Eugen

You were fine. I'm just positing models. I think some forms of idealism hold to an account that suggests individual consciousness like yours and mine - with qualia and what-it's-like-to-be-youness - are emergent and more recent developments in the journey of consciousness. But I'm not a customer for this particular narrative.

Yes, there is. I want to be as rigorous as I can. I don't want to miss something from the picture. — Eugen

So what difference does it make, however? I have often argued that idealism, such as I have described above, would make no difference to how I live. I still am in a reality where ice cream and employment, war and relationships and eating and finding a parking space cannot be overcome. :wink:

Maybe a reality where nothing is fundamental, or maybe a reality where something is both fundamental and emergent. — Eugen

Don't some forms of idealism work like this? Consciousness or will is fundamental (universal mind) and instantiations of conscious creatures, are dissociated, evolving alters, emerging from this instinctive, striving will? Hence we have the voyage towards metacognition, aeons in the making, as consciousness begins to know itself. At least that's the story I have heard (Bernardo Kastrup argues a version of this).

By reasoning, obtaining empirical evidence, etc. — Eugen

There's a Nobel Prize awaiting for anyone who can crack the puzzle - if it is one. I am not confident we'll get there. I certainly won't.

Is there any particular reason why the question matters to you personally?

How would we go about determining whether it is fundamental or emergent?

Nicely written piece of distilled information.

:fire: I love your notion of synthetic phenomenology.

The sentence "bachelors are unmarried men" doesn't specify which meaning of "bachelor" is being used, hence the need for the antecedent in the first sentence above. — Michael

Fair.

As a description "bachelors are unmarried men" is tautological, where "unmarried men" is a synonym for "bachelors". — RussellA

Yep. Thanks.

The issue is if a statement can be true in virtue of the meaning of the words alone. — Banno

Isn't this generally tautological? All unmarried men are bachelors is saying unmarried men are unmarried men.

I know a number of Catholic mystics and they would certainly agree with Plantigna ('not bad for a Protestant') on this.

You can add the Sufi tradition here too, I think - the notion Wahdat-ul-Wujood (the Unity of Being) all that that exists is held within god and all truth and the universe arises out of god (it's a kind of ground of being idea) but I am not an expert.

In my experience religions are not all that friendly towards metaphysics either.