Religion and Natural Science(s)
Greetings.
A question concerning Science and Religion reared its head recently in another thread relating to Metaphysics. As such, I thought it would intriguing to explore some arguments. The premise: With respect to the natural/physical sciences, like science and religion, ideally or theoretically, should philosophy and [physical] science work together to help better understand consciousness?
Natural Science is divided into two branches: Life Science & Physical Science. Life Science studies plants, animals and human beings (among other things). And, of course Human Beings: Curiosity and the human desire to understand and influence the environment and to explain and manipulate phenomena have motivated humanity's development of science, philosophy, mythology, religion, and other fields of knowledge.
Questions to explore:
1. Can the nature of the curious mind be explained throughout history relative to sociology (norms, beliefs, rituals, practices)?
2. Does curiosity in itself confer any biological advantages?
3. Can Religion offer any pathway to understanding the nature of reality and the phenomena of the experiences associated with self-awareness/consciousness?
4. Can cognitive science study the Religious experience in order to gain insight on the phenomenon of the conscious mind (what is self-awareness)?
In paraphrasing Einstein, he was quoted as saying that without human sentience, Religion itself would not exist. Is there any truth to this?
For those who wish to debate the definitions of Science and Religion, you may start here:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/
A question concerning Science and Religion reared its head recently in another thread relating to Metaphysics. As such, I thought it would intriguing to explore some arguments. The premise: With respect to the natural/physical sciences, like science and religion, ideally or theoretically, should philosophy and [physical] science work together to help better understand consciousness?
Natural Science is divided into two branches: Life Science & Physical Science. Life Science studies plants, animals and human beings (among other things). And, of course Human Beings: Curiosity and the human desire to understand and influence the environment and to explain and manipulate phenomena have motivated humanity's development of science, philosophy, mythology, religion, and other fields of knowledge.
Questions to explore:
1. Can the nature of the curious mind be explained throughout history relative to sociology (norms, beliefs, rituals, practices)?
2. Does curiosity in itself confer any biological advantages?
3. Can Religion offer any pathway to understanding the nature of reality and the phenomena of the experiences associated with self-awareness/consciousness?
4. Can cognitive science study the Religious experience in order to gain insight on the phenomenon of the conscious mind (what is self-awareness)?
In paraphrasing Einstein, he was quoted as saying that without human sentience, Religion itself would not exist. Is there any truth to this?
For those who wish to debate the definitions of Science and Religion, you may start here:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/
Comments (93)
2. You're here and you're asking so in some small way it has.
3. No. If it could, it would have millennia ago (like e.g. astronomy, architecture).
4. Yes, it has been studied for decades.
I'll bet on Einstein's penny.
"Debate" with whom? Not you! :scream: :rofl:
Hey 180!
Thank you my friend. Let's pick that one to debate if you care to. First, what exactly do you mean there? I can interpret that in numerous ways, but just want to be sure; in what way do you mean "in some small way", and "you're here and you're asking"... ?
For instance, are you suggesting that because we are here, that there is some sort of logical necessity associated with here-ness or otherwise existence? And, what 'percentage' does curiosity have vis-a-vis Darwinian evolution?
??? Does Scripture talk about the nature of curiosity? I didn't think it did...
Not following you on that one my friend. Are you saying Scripture is somehow correct (whatever that means)?
As presented in the Abrahamic traditions probably not.
On the other hand if we take religion as belonging to ethnoscience - sometimes called "folk science" a term which I don't like much - then we could gain some illustrations of how we look at the world in an intuitive manner.
Knowing little about religion honestly, I'd dare to stick my neck out and guess that polytheism, when we postulate many gods for different phenomena, might be a better framework for our manifest thinking: Apollo carrying the sun, Zeus throwing thunder when he's angry, Cupid using arrows for love, etc.
But, I'm handwaving.
Manuel, nice!
I did a little digging, and found ethnoscience/structuralism: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure.
Simon Blackburn (Atheist) made that aforementioned definition/comment. I will have more to say later, but for now, it seems to me that your choice of concepts (intuition) was working 'behind the scenes' (his cognition) in his foregoing statement. Meaning, in the other thread, (I think it was PoP) who used the phrase self-organization viz consciousness, that if the result of 'self-organization' is self-awareness/consciousness itself, and intuition is part of that (and has little to no survival advantages when instinct is all that's needed to survive), then we are back to the metaphysics of curiosity itself. In other words, if he (Blackburn) was not curious about things like causation, he would not even be able to posit or postulate same.
Perhaps the consistent theme or takeaway there is;, "abstract structures" from the mind, hence:
1. intuition
2. the color red
3. wonder
4. curiosity
5. the will
6. causation
7. somethingness v. nothingness
8. mathematics
9. music theory
10. love
I don't know how deep ethnoscience goes, it probably varies somewhat from culture to culture, that is, some cultures may have more postulated entities that make the word intelligible than others.
We seem to have an innate structure that looks at the world based on contact mechanics, an object directly touches another one and that's why it moves.
The example I always use is, image being in a park and you see some kid kicking a rubber ball. Based on how strong the kick is and what type of ball it is, we don't seem to be puzzled that rubber balls are moved by us kicking them, it's intuitive in the sense.
Of course, this does not mean the world actually works this way at all (no direct contact, the issue of gravity, friction and all these other things that physics takes into account but that we don't intuitively use in ordinary life) but that's how it appears to us as working.
As for your list, I have doubts. We like to reduce the number of causes and structures to as little rules as possible.
I know. However, perhaps the irony is that those same "abstract structures" have more rules than we can imagine. :cool:
Imagine that.
They've been doing that singly and collectively since their inception.
You are forcing the obvious and passe into a discussion.
:100: There are many of those (on this forum) who seemingly disagree...I won't mention any names LOL.
(Mini-lesson: don't overlook the obvious.)
I think this is true as a matter of fact.
Whether you call them "abstract structures" or "laws of mind" in addition to (or considered alongside) the laws of nature, doesn't alter that fact, I think.
As Chomsky would say we are human beings, not angels.
Thank you Manual. Can you contextualize that quote/paraphrase for me? I haven't studied him much... .
Simply put we are part of the natural world, not supernatural entities like angels or God. Being part of the natural world implies that our nature (including our cognitive faculties) has scope and structure, much like any other creature must have them too, if they're natural creatures. What's natural for a bat (echolocation) is alien to a dog, etc.
If we had no given structure, we couldn't be able to create theories at all, everything would come in and go out, like a cloud.
If we had no scope, we could not investigate certain parts of nature at all, we'd be like an amoeba or a jellyfish-like creature, which simply reflect what the environment puts in, with no filter. Then we'd actually be Locke's "white paper".
So to be able to say anything at all, we need to have a fixed, rather rigid, innate cognitive faculty in order to have any faculties (of some depth) at all.
My responses in italics:
1. Can the nature of the curious mind be explained throughout history relative to sociology (norms, beliefs, rituals, practices)? I don't have anything to offer here.
2. Does curiosity in itself confer any biological advantages? Curiosity is does not seem to be just a human motivator. I heard somewhere that cats are curious too. It has always seemed to me to be a very good strategy for living in a world where things can change quickly. Knowing what's going on around you is important when you might have to make a decision immediately. That's my intuition. I don't have any specific knowledge. Generally, I am reluctant to jump to conclusions about what behaviors are built in and which are learned.
3. Can Religion offer any pathway to understanding the nature of reality and the phenomena of the experiences associated with self-awareness/consciousness? What we call "reality" is a function of the outside world, but also of human biology, nervous system, psychology, etc. What that means to me is that reality is human in a fundamental way. Religion recognizes that while "rational" approaches don't.
4. Can cognitive science study the Religious experience in order to gain insight on the phenomenon of the conscious mind (what is self-awareness)? I don't think religious experience is any different from other everyday experience.
Quoting god must be atheist
3017amen - Don't listen to gmba - Your questions were reasonable.
T Clark!
Thank you so much for taking the time to contribute your thoughts. If I could use an urban term, you're one of the well-respected old-schooler's around here who might be more objective in their thinking...that said, and not to digress too terribly into metaphysics (because I want to come back to what science-theoretical physics- has to offer cosmology/causation, & religious phenomena and experience/cognitive science), but over in the [my] other thread, POP asked the following:
"As a monist ( where everything is made of the same stuff ) and a believer in phenomenology I wonder If emotions play a role at the fundamental level in the same way they do in consciousness, causing integrity. The best way that I can currently put it is that things are biased to integrate, and a bias is an emotion! It sounds crazy in our time, but I can not absolutely exclude it, and I am attracted to the idea of a world where everything is conscious and emotional. I think it would be an improvement on the world we currently have. Any thoughts?"
That question was posed to 180 and I'm not sure he ever responded to it or cared enough to grapple with it in order to perhaps connect some dots. What's your take on that question?
My own interpretation was basic intentionality ala Schop's the World as W&R/metaphysical will. Or, in my studies, something like what theoretical physicist Paul Davies has mentioned-Panentheism... .
As an aside, I think these natural impulses of wonderment in itself (coming from our stream of consciousness), are consistent with other intrinsic or innate abstract apperceptions about how the world works (abstract mathematical structures) which we find useful.
Some of this still makes me think about what Einstein said about the so-called causal connection between human sentience and religion/to posit God in the first place... .
Maybe the metaphysical questions are what does it mean to perceive something as abstract? Is the concept of God abstract? Is consciousness/sentience itself abstract?
Non-living matter is not conscious or emotional in the senses we normally use for those words. For that reason, I don't know what it means to attribute consciousness or emotion to something that is not alive. Consciousness and emotion are behavioral characteristics. I don't think rocks are self-aware. What behavioral evidence shows they are.
Quoting 3017amen
I'll go back to what I wrote in my earlier post. I think the universe is human in a fundamental way. That's not pantheism. What is it?
Quoting 3017amen
Not sure what you're saying. If you are saying that equations can be beautiful in the same way apple blossoms are....I'm not sure what that means.
That pretty much does it for me. But then I'm not a scientist (although mathematics is called the "Queen of the Sciences", it's not one itself.)
Quoting 3017amen
Your categorisation is incorrect. There's physical sciences - physics and chemistry - life sciences - biology, environmental science, evolution - geological sciences, and social sciences - sociology, economics.
Religion is not among them, because it deals with matters beyond the purview of the sciences. As has pointed out, categorising science and religion together is bothersome.
Quoting 3017amen
It can if you've been to yoga school, and you think that's religion. Fundamentalists Christians routinely fight to have yoga banned from schools on the basis that it's a foreign religion, but Indians say it's a form of therapeutic discipline and not a religion at all. Good luck sorting that out.
There is something in the notion of 'sacred science' (scientia sacra) but
Quoting jgill
The 'queen of sciences' used to be theology.
Actually it’s wrong of me to make fun of that, it’s a serious question. The thing is, to answer in accordance with what ‘religion’ usually means, is to say an emphatic ‘no’. As I alluded to in my rather sarcastic answer above, however, it can be ‘yes’. But that ‘yes’ is associated with the religious practice of disciplined introspection - which is emphatically NOT something that Protestant religion encourages.
Where you do find that kind of practice is in relation to Buddhist mindfulness practice. Never mind that it has been diluted and commoditised into ‘macmindfulness’, the idea that one should sit silently and observe the goings on of mind and body, is nevertheless a profound idea. I had a spiritual teacher once, salutations to him, who used to say ‘knowing what you are doing is the highest skill’. Basically the idea is, people act out their compulsions, complexes, all manner of stuff that floats around just below the threshold of conscious attention, and that this gives rise to all manner of mischief and misery. (Hey, Freud knew that too.) People are acting out, not acting. So, yes, if religion was the understanding of ‘self-awareness/consciousness’, then that would be a good thing. But, is that religion? I would say, ask any Christian congregation, and the answer would be a resounding ‘no’.
Wayfarer!
Thank you for your contribution. Of course we'll have to agree to disagree. And that is because life science studies evolution and human beings. And human beings engage in all sorts of behaviors including religious social norms. Accordingly, cognitive science studies the religious experiences of human beings.
One metaphysical question that could be asked here is, if life science is apart of natural science, what is natural about human beings asking/wondering/hypothesizing whether all events must have a cause?
And did our evolution cause us to ask that question?
One aspect of the questions which I see as an area linking religion and the empirical questions underlying the sciences is anthropology. It is an area which I have only read a certain amount about, because there is just so much to wonder and read about, but I do think that it can shed so much light on understanding the the emergence of religion. Writers such as Mary Douglas, on ideas about purity and danger, and the concept of savage mind of Levi Strauss are important. One book which is interesting is James Frazer's 'The Golden Bough' ,in the way which it traces the developments mankind went from magic to religion, to science, as a developmental process in thinking perspectives.
Generally, I think that if you limit your focus to the natural sciences, as suggested by your title, you may restrict your scope. The actual content of your questions goes beyond natural sciences. I would imagine that you chose the words natural science, with a view to thinking about the empirical methods of investigating. Of course, this is important as opposed to just introspection, but even if empirical methods are used, there is so many beyond that, in the whole interpretation of the findings. My own view is that the exploration of religion is one which may be best approached in a multidisciplinary way.
And that's most of the difference as history & experience show ...
Religion : natural science :: astrology : astronomy (or alchemy : chemistry) :: just making shit up (mystifications) : fucking around and finding out (good explanations) :: neurosis : diagnosis :: therapy : surgery :: fact-free narrative practices (rituals, fetishizing) : fact-based narrative practices (experiments, error-correcting) :: philosophy's chthonic root (magic, re: here-after) : philosophy's "forbidden" fruit (logic, re: here-now]) ... "acting out" : "acting".
Jack!
Thank you for joining the discussion. a lot of things to think about here. First, of course cognitive science investigates religious experiences from an empirical template. And yes, what (one of the things that) goes beyond the experience itself is the metaphysics of why we ask why. We discussed the foregoing features of consciousness where things like Kantian intuition play a major role in that... .
I agree that basically to NOT dichotomize one's world view, only seeks to enhance its investigative means/methods. (Speaking of cognitive science, the Maslonian mantra of conscious life being both A AND B; not either/or, is alive and well here... .)
Indeed. You probably know I'm not a big Fundy fan. Yet I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater either. Hence, for one, the religious experience.
I would say, ask any Christian congregation, and the answer would be a resounding ‘no’.
Most Fundy's tend to be somewhat unsophisticated in their world view. Much like fanatical atheism.
(Not exactly sure 'Jesus' endorsed western organized religious- Catholic, Lutheran, etc.- dogma/teachings either.)
I understand. That was POP's view, and wanted to get your thoughts on it. However if one embraces the notion of ethnoscience/structuralism: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure. then, things that are alive also include abstract structures. And abstract structures include human sentience.
With respect to John Wheeler's notion of PAP/double slit's (Wheeler's Cloud), I had another thought or simple question.
Let's say the world is a cosmic computer. And in that computer are all the choices (human volition) one can make in the world in order to arrive at an answer to a given question. In the context of cosmology, if one proceeds to hypothesize through the use of logic (synthetic a priori propositions/judgements), does that not imply that depending upon what actual questions we ask, our answers will only be commensurate or proportional to that which we ask?
That, also could be analogous to free will insofar as a balance between chance and choice, or randomness in the world of QM (not chaos)….
I don't understand what you're trying to say. Maybe if you give me an example of the kind of abstract structure you're talking about.
I really don't understand.
Thank you for asking. Here are a couple examples of the way I interpret 'abstract structures' in nature:
We know in structural engineering we have a mathematical formula that is used to design a given structure (beam, truss, concrete compressive tensile/strength's, etc.. etc.). Then we have obvious geometric formulas that can also describe the structure's aesthetic shape or its architectural design. And we also have in nature the existence of protons and electrons that are also 'described' (or even 'explained' to some extent) through the use of abstract mathematics. That means/method of using, mathematics itself is an "abstract structure"/language. Of course those laws are what's unseen behind the physical/natural world, or things-in-themselves. Hence, we have nothing but an abstract language to describe (and to some degree explain) things.
The humanistic examples include human phenomena associated with human consciousness. We have been discussing briefly the idea that human (sentience/religion and) intellect not only includes the aforementioned ability to run calcs., but also the foregoing abilities to ask questions concerning self-awareness. For example, we said we have this innate need to ask questions about causes and effects. (The metaphysical question of why do we ask why.) Or questions about whether there is a cosmological God or designer. Then of course all the other cognitive/behavioral science things having to do with human phenomena and sentience (love, wonderment, the Will, intention, Kantian intuition, ad nauseum). In my view, those things are, by nature, abstract things-in-themselves.
To reiterate some of my earlier questions: "Some of this still makes me think about what Einstein said about the so-called causal connection between human sentience and religion/to posit God in the first place... .
Maybe the metaphysical questions are what does it mean to perceive something as abstract? Is the concept of God abstract? Is consciousness/sentience itself abstract?"
Goggle Wheeler's Cloud first, you may use that as your [the] reference point... .
I had another thought/question. Back the poster POP (from my metaphysics thread), and his world view concerning emotions. We know that in sports, emotions cause action, and sometimes extra ordinary action. In that same way, if the world is indeed will and representation, is that not an emotional/intellectual intention of some sort(?) Are we faced with yet another abstract analysis about the natural world?
I think that using computers to analyze the mind/brain and the universe can be misleading in the sense that the brain does what it does and is different from a computer in many crucial respects, not least of which is biology.
But putting that aside, and getting to the post: it depends on the question asked and what domain of knowledge you want to elucidate. The deepest questions we can ask about the universe, which we can get some theoretically rich answers come from physics. So if properly posed, we may get some type of answer to these questions, not anything beyond that. Wheeler wrote about this topic in his "it from bit doctrine", except that he thought we could only get "yes"-or-"no"-type answers to these questions.
As we move up in levels of complexity, the questions we ask about the world may not have an answer. We may not know enough to ask nature the proper questions. So the proportional part of the question only arises if the questions we ask correctly capture some aspect of the mind-independent world.
Manuel!
Well let's NOT put that aside for the moment. In our finitude, we have a hardware operating system that has limited knowledge, if you will. Limited choices from which to choose. Yet those choices are there for us to uncover/discover. That is one distinction I was making. The other related to free will. In that context, we are only free to choose those questions that are innate/fixed to our hardware/software interrelations. ( ethnoscience/structuralism: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure.)
Quoting Manuel
Hence my analogy to the finitude of human nature viz the cosmic computer. In other words, there are fixed limits to understanding also in the sense there may exist other possible worlds that have a completely different metaphysical language or logic outside the usual categories of human thought. A different level of understanding. We only know what manifests through the design of our own computer, not the computer itself. But that's an intriguing supposition of yours that requires more thought, thank you.
In the interest of time I will defer to generality here, but I think one of the implications I'm hearing is that there are still questions or propositions (synthetic a priori) that could be asked which in turn could "capture come aspect of the mind-independent world". And to that end, arguably, mathematics has its own sense of independent truth.
I like your post about Wheeler, more on that to come...
Using human thought as the only thing we have in this context, there are other 'abstract thoughts' that include things like multiverse theories, a di-polar God, etc...
I am not familiar with John Wheeler's ideas so I don't feel that I can talk about that really, but going back to your reply to my comment, I am curious about cognitive science investing religious experience. I really don't know where that might lead, but I would hope that it would not be too reductive. I feel that neuroscience is being given so much attention in philosophy, and I don't wish to dismiss it, but I am not convinced that it leads to all the answers.
I do find Kant's ideas on intuition as useful. Generally, I think that intuition is rather overlooked in philosophy and it does seem that reason is seen as the supreme principle.
Computer language is fine so long as one does not suppose the brain to literally be a computer, only in a different from. For clarifying purposes it's ok, but I'd be careful.
But yes, the topic of possible questions we can ask is intimately related to our nature. Technically speaking, the number of questions is infinite, but if we want answers with some depth to them, then meaningful answers will be constrained by our nature.
In that respect I agree entirely with:
Quoting 3017amen
And this point isn't stressed enough, I think. It's very important point.
Let's start with the fundamental definitions:
Logical possibility: refers to a logical proposition that cannot be disproved, using the axioms and rules of a given system of logic. The logical possibility of a proposition will depend upon the system of logic being considered, rather than on the violation of any single rule. Some systems of logic restrict inferences from inconsistent propositions or even allow for true contradictions. Other logical systems have more than two truth-values instead of a binary of such values.
At this point, to stress the context of abstract laws in nature, one must look at Time. What is Time? Let's start there...
:up: That's where my brain locked up.
I'm not following that. "no context in nature?" What's here, among other things, is Time.
Just so you don't loose sight of the subject matter:
No end of abstract thoughts. The question is, is any other kind possible or conceivable? Lots have practical application, but that word "practical" is no easy word.
— tim wood
Let's start with the fundamental definitions:
Logical possibility: refers to a logical proposition that cannot be disproved, using the axioms and rules of a given system of logic. The logical possibility of a proposition will depend upon the system of logic being considered, rather than on the violation of any single rule. Some systems of logic restrict inferences from inconsistent propositions or even allow for true contradictions. Other logical systems have more than two truth-values instead of a binary of such values.
At this point, to stress the context of abstract laws in nature, one must look at Time. What is Time? Let's start there...
It's exactly the opposite situation in philosophy (East & West), and always has been, which accounts for the prevalence of e.g. (neo)platonic / esoteric-hermetic / idealist / anti-realist philosophies for millennia. So-called e.g. materialist / realist / pragmatist philosophies are the often unaknowledged metaphysics of e.g. scientists, engineers, physicians & political-economists. It's reason (i.e. Heraclitus' logos, etc), the skunk at the philoLARPing party, Jack, that gets "overlooked" by being mis/ab-used so routinely.
Gosh, I really don't know what to do with that Mr. Wood, sorry. I mean I wish to continue the discussion, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say or argue (time not being part of the natural world/existence).
Maybe you could try articulating your point in another way, perhaps? Or maybe start with the definition of time itself?
No end of abstract thoughts. The question is, is any other kind possible or conceivable? Lots have practical application, but that word "practical" is no easy word.
— tim wood
Let's start with the fundamental definitions:
Logical possibility: refers to a logical proposition that cannot be disproved, using the axioms and rules of a given system of logic. The logical possibility of a proposition will depend upon the system of logic being considered, rather than on the violation of any single rule. Some systems of logic restrict inferences from inconsistent propositions or even allow for true contradictions. Other logical systems have more than two truth-values instead of a binary of such values.
At this point, to stress the context of abstract laws in nature, one must look at Time. What is Time? Let's start there...
It is just such an interesting area, about those who emphasise the nonmaterial and those who emphasise naturalism. It interweaves philosophy in the mainstream and the esoteric. Part of comes down to questions of pure metaphysics, and some of it is probably connected to the social and political construction of knowledge.
[i]Time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in an apparently irreversible succession from the past, through the present, into the future.[1][2][3] It is a component quantity of various measurements used to sequence events, to compare the duration of events or the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change of quantities in material reality or in the conscious experience.[4][5][6][7] Time is often referred to as a fourth dimension, along with three spatial dimensions.[8]
Time has long been an important subject of study in religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a manner applicable to all fields without circularity has consistently eluded scholars.[7][9] Nevertheless, diverse fields such as business, industry, sports, the sciences, and the performing arts all incorporate some notion of time into their respective measuring systems.[10][11][12]
Time in physics is operationally defined as "what a clock reads".[6][13][14]
The physical nature of time is addressed by general relativity with respect to events in space-time. Examples of events are the collision of two particles, the explosion of a supernova, or the arrival of a rocket ship. Every event can be assigned four numbers representing its time and position (the event's coordinates). However, the numerical values are different for different observers. In general relativity, the question of what time it is now only has meaning relative to a particular observer. Distance and time are intimately related and the time required for light to travel a specific distance is the same for all observers, as first publicly demonstrated by Michelson and Morley. General relativity does not address the nature of time for extremely small intervals where quantum mechanics holds. At this time, there is no generally accepted theory of quantum general relativity. [15]
Time is one of the seven fundamental physical quantities in both the International System of Units (SI) and International System of Quantities. The SI base unit of time is the second. Time is used to define other quantities – such as velocity – so defining time in terms of such quantities would result in circularity of definition.[16] An operational definition of time, wherein one says that observing a certain number of repetitions of one or another standard cyclical event (such as the passage of a free-swinging pendulum) constitutes one standard unit such as the second, is highly useful in the conduct of both advanced experiments and everyday affairs of life. To describe observations of an event, a location (position in space) and time are typically noted.
The operational definition of time does not address what the fundamental nature of it is. It does not address why events can happen forward and backward in space, whereas events only happen in the forward progress of time. Investigations into the relationship between space and time led physicists to define the spacetime continuum. General relativity is the primary framework for understanding how spacetime works.[17] Through advances in both theoretical and experimental investigations of space-time, it has been shown that time can be distorted and dilated, particularly at the edges of black holes.
Temporal measurement has occupied scientists and technologists, and was a prime motivation in navigation and astronomy. Periodic events and periodic motion have long served as standards for units of time. Examples include the apparent motion of the sun across the sky, the phases of the moon, the swing of a pendulum, and the beat of a heart. Currently, the international unit of time, the second, is defined by measuring the electronic transition frequency of caesium atoms (see below). Time is also of significant social importance, having economic value ("time is money") as well as personal value, due to an awareness of the limited time in each day and in human life spans.
There are many systems for determining what time it is, including the Global Positioning System, other satellite systems, Coordinated Universal Time and mean solar time. In general, the numbers obtained from different time systems differ from one another.[/i]
Good point! Why do we wonder? What is its purpose? Evolutionary survival advantages?
There are some who disagree, but for me, mathematics and natural laws are stories we tell ourselves. They have no independent reality outside of humanity.
Quoting 3017amen
I don't see why you would classify the phenomena you listed as "structures." Also, I think "abstract things-in-themselves" is a contradiction in terms.
Quoting 3017amen
As I said previously, for me, religious thought is just thought, so of course there is a connection between religion and human sentience.
Quoting 3017amen
In a sense, anything described in human language is abstract. The only things not are things-in-themselves, or what I would call the Tao. As Lao Tzu wrote.
[i]The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.[/i]
It's a song.
Will and representation - is that Kant? I don't know what it means.
Disagree with this.
Quoting tim wood
Agree with this.
T Clark!
I see. No exception taken, except for the fact that if mathematics and natural laws are stories, are we living in a mystical, fictitious or abstract world of stories? I mean that both literally and figuratively.
Quoting T Clark
I use the term from here: ethnoscience/structuralism: The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure-Simon Blackburn.
Quoting T Clark
Should one wonder about causation then?
Quoting T Clark
I like that. Existence, for you then (as you described), could be simply abstract, not really real. Is that, in a sense, metaphysics? Or, is it some sort of Platonic existence where mathematical structures exist? Those questions seem rhetorical, but they're not. I'm just trying to piece together the rationale there... .
Thanks!
Schopenhauer
Ha! It's a abstract song (or story in your case) about worm holes. You know, seeing that music itself being abstract and all, seems to be as perplexing as cosmology :joke:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Archibald_Wheeler
Yes.
Quoting 3017amen
Sorry. I still don't know what this means.
Quoting 3017amen
One should always wonder about causation, but I don't know how that connects with what I wrote.
Quoting 3017amen
What was there before humanity - a big bucket full of goo without the bucket. All one undifferentiated thing - the Tao. We came along and started making distinctions, abstractions - trees, quarks, love. That's the world we know. Is that real? Sure, but the goo comes first. Lao Tzu wrote about the Tao:
[i]It is hidden but always present.
I don't know who gave birth to it.
It is older than God.[/i]
Ok, now I got the right one. On the surface, PAP reads a lot like Taoism. Lao Tzu might agree with just about every statement Wheeler makes related to it. Difference (I think) - The Tao Te Ching is metaphysics, a way of thinking about the world. I think Wheeler proposes that PAP is physics - an actual description of reality. If it is, it aught to be testable. Has it been tested? Has anyone tried?
Can you please provide an example of that? I'm not sure I understand completely. While I can appreciate being sussinct, philosophy lives in words. Or, as you say, stories :joke:
Quoting T Clark
Simon Blackburn is an atheist who seems to think the natural world, much like yourself (me included) is/has somewhat of an abstract existence. This is the dude here:
Quoting T Clark
Why should one always wonder about causation?
Quoting T Clark
Being hidden but always present, could be interpreted as Greek Platonism, no?
Thanks T Clark!
What was there before there was abstract thought, language? Before there were living things. Were there trees before there was anyone or anything to see them, care about them, eat their leaves, climb in them, name them? Galaxies? Quarks? It makes sense to say "no," all there was was a big bucket of goo without the bucket.
Again - this is metaphysics. It's not true or false. It's a useful way of looking at things. Not the only way.
TClark!
Thank you so much for your contribution thus far. Tomorrow I am going to take the liberty to summarize some minor concepts we uncovered, through wondering/questioning.
To that end some of the questions were either glossed over, not answered, or perhaps dismissed. The main theme though, is relative to what it means to apperceive abstract structures in life, and what the implications are to the human condition.
One ironic thing is, although Mr Blackburn is an atheist, he nonetheless postulated his/this notion of abstract existence which by definition, suggests a metaphysical realm in nature or in the natural world of some sort... .
I am going to take the time to study more of his philosophy. It may be that I misinterpreted his intent. He comes across as a highly articulated speaker. And so like many things in life, as I've alluded to earlier, I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'll pick and choose from his philosophy that which applies to our discussion here.
I was unaware of that, thanks. It was Gauss who coined the phrase I quoted and he is a mathematical deity! :cool:
He also claimed number theory to be the Queen of Mathematics. :roll:
I've enjoyed the discussion.
T Clark!
Another wonderful day in the neighborgood! Ok, I shall summarize (our discussion), of what might be considered as the most salient of points made, by way of one post at a time. It has become quite clear that when discussing religion, humanities and natural sciences, we keep coming back to the nature of our reality (existence).
I think we know the question(s) of why there are patterns in nature and why there are simple mathematical schemes in same, lies outside of physics. And so it seems, we are forced to put our metaphysicians hat on. Why that in itself, keeps rearing its head is not always the question as I've pointed out. But instead, the questions concerning reality include more questions about causation (which we know can easily lead to regressive reasoning and an infinite tower of turtles-which is fine if one choses that path). And so it seems rather important to summarize or categorize one so-called analogous method at a time.
What I mean is, philosophically, that lead me to the idea of Structuralism, which in turn lead me to atheist Simon Blackburn's take on same, thanks to : The belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure.
You analogized that interpretation of Structuralism through Taoism/complimentary opposing forces in nature. That seems consistent with the tenets of Structuralism. I take no exception to that. But instead, I wanted to parse this idea of 'abstract structure', and what that means relative to the human condition (oddly enough, structuralism was heir to existentialism). Hence my questions about how we ourselves, might be more akin to the metaphysical, than the physical.
If mathematics in science/physics, are used to describe/explain much of the natural world, and considering the fact that it (math) is an abstract metaphysical language, what other things in life are considered abstract and metaphysical? Concerning our own ontology, the answer is consciousness (aka Idealism). And that leads to other abstract metaphysical features of or from consciousness:
1. intuition
2. the color red
3. wonder
4. curiosity
5. the will
6. causation
7. somethingness v. nothingness (intention)
8. mathematics
9. music theory
10. love
Then, (no pun intended) it seems the why's of those existing things rear their heads:
1. Do any of these features or properties of consciousness confer any biological survival advantages?
2. Is the knowledge of the laws of gravity required to survive in the jungle?
3. Does the universal language of music/the study of music theory confer any biological advantages?
4. What advantages are there to ask questions about causation (are there survival advantages associated with curiosity)?
5.What does it mean to perceive something as abstract?
6. Is the concept of God abstract?
7. Is consciousness/sentience itself abstract?"
8. Is Time itself abstract (it is certainly paradoxical)?
What other things in life are considered "abstract structures"?
They are different ways of looking at the same world. Science is wonderful, but it has shortcomings. There are ways of knowing the world that are not scientific. Religion is one of them.
Quoting tim wood
I was agreeing with you.
Mr. Wood,
I'm sorry, you did not read it correctly. Hint: "Why" is in the sentence. That's the important distinction. Physics doesn't care about the why's of existence. They are concerned about how.
Thanks anyway though!
Quoting tim wood
Awesome! Great question!
Let's start with the laws of gravity. Is that knowledge needed to dodge falling objects in the jungle?
Do you really doubt that religion is a way of knowing the world or just that it is a legitimate way of knowing the world?
Humans know the world through our human bodies using human sensory organs, human nervous systems, human endocrine systems, and lots of other human stuff . We have expanded the reach of our senses and minds using human technology. We don't know reality, we know human reality. Reality as we know it is inseparable from our humanity. Science as it's usually practiced doesn't recognize that. Other ways of knowing, including religion, do. I am not a theist and religion is not a way I use to understand the world, but I don't dismiss it either.
You've talked a lot about structures and structuralism. Every time you have I've responded that I don't know what that means. I've read the writeup on structuralism in Wikipedia. Here's what Blackburn says (from Wikipedia)
[T]he belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure.
The first sentence seems trivial, almost tautological. I either don't know what "constant laws of abstract structure" means or I don't think they exist. Humans impose structures on reality. It has none of it's own.
Quoting 3017amen
Are you tired of me saying "I don't know what this means"?
Quoting 3017amen
I don't know what you're trying to get at and I don't see what any of this has to do with structuralism. Ditto for the rest of your post. I don't see how all the questions you ask are related to each other or structuralism.
Sure. But we're not non-human.
Quoting tim wood
As I've said earlier, the practice of engineering et.al.
Abstract structures are metaphysical.
Quoting T Clark
Unfortunately, that's incorrect, since for one, consciousness has yet to be explained. Using your words it would be more accurate to say that we don't know reality and we don't know human reality, hence metaphysics (among other thought processes).
Think of it this way, as Einstein alluded, if we were all Dr. Spock's or 'Spock-like', we wouldn't contemplate those kinds of things...there would be no need. Does a fish wonder about philosophy?
Nuh-unh.
Quoting 3017amen
Commander Data thought about those things all the time.
By the way, "nuh-unh" is included in the Oxford English Dictionary.
So did Charlie the whale . But he was just a big fish in a little pond, kind of like this forum....LOL
Much like you, I don't know what that means. Correction, you're probably getting tired of me saying that... LOL
According to the OED, and any 6 year old you talk to, nuh-unh means "No; used especially to rebuff or contradict."
Quoting 3017amen
Looked it up. The only reference was a song. Couldn't find any lyrics.
Look harder, you' ll find that music is metaphysical in that it has abstract structure (s). Quite enjoyable too! You know, it's kind of a universal language
I already did! You should have turned left at the cul-de-sac :joke:
I've enjoyed this thread, although it's been a bit frustrating. If you don't like his stuff, why participate?
I would say that the curious mind isn't restricted as such to social animals. Many animals, solitary and social exhibit similar behavior. It boils down to, in the simplest of terms, a questioning attitude, something which all prey and predators - hunter & hunted being a universal theme of life - must possess either to capture prey/evade predators.
That said, a social existence, can give a boost to curiosity as a trait for the simple reason that it is, all things considered, an environment unto itself, something solitary animals miss out on. The exact impetus to the evolution of the curious mind as you put seems difficult to pinpoint but if I were to hazard a guess, confining myself to homo sapiens, we have language, we imitate, we reason fairly well and these abilities, if they are abilities, make curiosity communicable and transmissible, also providing it with context. Curiosity would flourish, do very well, in social animals like us who've evolved certain abilities mentioned above that facilitate such.
Quoting 3017amen
I already answered that question but let's talk about the downsides of curiosity. It's said that curiosity killed the cat and surely such a well-phrased adage cum warning must contain, at best a sound advice, at worst a grain of truth in it.
As I mentioned earlier and it must be getting tedious for you, curiosity is, in a sense, the difference between a full belly and an empty one. However, if an animal acts on its curiosity, attempts to answer the question, say, "can this be eaten?" it must also contend with the converse query, "can this eat me?" Many lives have probably been lost because of the inherent ambiguity (hunter/game) that lies at the heart of curiosity viz. an encounter with the unknown. It's essentially a trade-off between finding lunch and ending up as one and that's why strong social groups - human socities for example - that reduce/minimize the risk of injury/death that comes with the curious mind tend to be more/most curious.
Quoting 3017amen
There seems to be an intriguing paradox lurking beneath the trio of social existence, religion, and science as the poster-child of curiosity. As I said earlier, human social existence is the current-best setting for the curious mind to reach stratospheric heights. Compare that to religion - essentially moral in nature, consolidating the bond between individuals and thus the cohesive force that maintains society's integrity - and how it, in its own way, stifles curiosity. Religion, as the late Christopher Hitchens said, is forced down our throats as some kind of final solution, the answer to answer all questions, it is the ultimate truth. Go down that road and you'll come to a grave, buried in it the curious mind.
The paradox is that though society is the best available soil as it were for the flower of curiosity to grow, one existing force that keeps people together in harmonious union (religion) is dead against curiosity.
To answer your question, religion isn't really a search for truth; au contraire, its a position that truth has not only been found but also that the search for it must be put to an end. It's not a "...pathway..." to some unknown destination, it's a place we're told we've already arrived at. In this, it differs from science which works under the assumption that there are many things we're still clueless about. It appears then that religion and science as a partnership in the search for truth falls at the first hurdle - one believes it knows what reality is, the other insists it doesn't have the faintest idea what reality is.
Quoting 3017amen
This seems a promising line of inquiry. I second the motion.
TMF!
Thank you kindly for your contribution. Indeed, we have learned that some primates seem to exhibit varying degrees of curiosity, or even in a bit more obvious fashion, facial manifestations/expressions which seem to indicate some level of joy or anger. Of course, we assume, as a common theme here, that the primitive limbic system where much of this sentient cognition resides, is alive and well.
And so in keeping with the abstract structure definition of sentient life forms or Being, we are still left with metaphysical features of brain life associated with our ontology. Nonetheless, if one were to proceed to the next level of evolutionary logic, the intellect, which employs both abstract structures of feeling and logic (curiosity, wonderment, etc. etc.) we know that when those same primates gather, they seemingly aren't concerned with wondering about philosophical concepts and the like.
To that end, how do we connect the dots from lower level primate intellect, to higher-level feelings of self awareness and left-right brain features of cognition/consciousness?
Quoting TheMadFool
That would be a function of animal instinct, no? For example, it remains a mystery why sharks mistakenly attack humans for their prey. The common inference is that their sense data is not sophisticated enough to discern the difference between seals and humans. Indeed, in that situation, it would be 'tedious' for sure :joke:
Quoting TheMadFool
Indeed, I think your foregoing concerns relates to the age old cultural paradigms that in this instance, give the concept of God a bad name, as it were. For example, many times you and I have discussed the dangers of religious dogma relative to fundamentalism and radical extremist type behaviors. So in short, no exceptions taken there.
However, where I thought you might take the discussion-question is more in the way of phenomenology, empirical data and logical inference. What I mean by that is we know in cognitive science that the religious experience exists, by the likes of William James and many other's.
To that end, you said:
Quoting TheMadFool
I third the motion!
Thanks TMF, I always enjoy the discussion.