Are there any scientific grounds for god?
Can the notion of god or some form of all encompassing entity be reconciled with the fundamental basis for religions and then natural sciences? Need spirituality and science be at odds with one another or could they indeed both be describing the same thing from different perspectives?
Comments (193)
It could be me though, seeing god everywhere.
They can be reconciled by accepting them in an asymmetric relationship fundamentally or disjoint where they may be particularly
Cosmological knowledge is the basis even for the existence of gods. If the fundamental physical laws are known, if the gaps are closed, what else can we but logically conclude that gods are the ultimate cause of the existence of the universe?
And lemmetellya, they were not mathematicians. Well, a small part of the homonid gods were actually. If only greater attention was paid to them in the run to creation. Godkind, in its enthusiasm, forgot to do. It became clear in heaven recently. Now they try to reach us. It's hard though. They hadn't anticipated this. It appears they found a way though. But it's too early to tell.
Haha well in my defence i havent posited a thread about god in a while. But yeah I feel when you come across a topic it tends to come to the forefront of you awareness and you usually see it a lot more in the coming weeks after that. Like when you learn a new word you never came across before and then suddenly you see everywhere.
It can if a God can be shown within the natural sciences. And by natural sciences, I mean testable reality.
Let me give you a couple of examples:
Some people say God talks to them and directs them to a higher purpose. Keep a log of when people feel God talks to them. Ask them what God says. See what happens when a person follows God. See what happens when they don't. Compare it with a control group that does not hear God.
Some people say God can grant miracles. Have people pray for those who are beyond medical help. Have a control group that does not pray for those that are beyond medical help. Compare the two and see if there is any significant difference.
The problem with God as presented by most people, is that it is a personal feeling and experience. There is no actual impact on the world outside of this personal feeling and experience, and thus it is not considered anything which can be tested in reality.
The ancient polytheistic notion of gods as super-humans, living on clouds or mountains, would certainly be verifiable/falsifiable by modern scientific methods. Ironically, in Daniel 14, the prophet performed a sort of scientific test, to falsify the belief that the idol called "Bel" was actually consuming the food offered to him. But that real-world god-concept long ago succumbed to the ideal-realm god-concept of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic monotheism. Yet there are no scientific methods to verify the existence of a deity that is defined as a non-physical Spirit, and exists eternally outside the limits of space-time. So no, there is no way to reconcile the religious belief in a holy spiritual God with the scientific belief in a wholly material world.
That's why some philosophers & scientists have attempted to make peace between the Spiritual & Material worldviews, by creating a no-fly-zone between them. Natural Science was presumed to be authoritative about all physical questions, while Supernatural Religion (Theology) ruled over all metaphysical inquiries. But voluntary segregation doesn't work if both sides are motivated to have it all: to have the last word on all questions of Truth.
However, there may be a different way to conciliate the Science vs Religion conflict. That middle way is the purview of secular Philosophy, which has no official creed, and is only interested in plausible Truth, not scientific Facts or religious Faith. Unfortunately, the polarized adversaries both tend to belittle the power of unaided Reason to discover universal truths, without divine Revelation or empirical Verification. However, those of us who are not taking sides in this "holey" war, can create our own personal NOMA, in which to hide from the crossfire.
FWIW, my personal worldview is that "they" are indeed describing the same fundamental principle from different superficial perspectives. Hence, my holistic philosophy is labeled "BothAnd". It's based on merging the 21st century sciences of Information & Quantum, not on ancient beliefs in Materialism or Spiritualism. Instead, the "atom" of reality is mundane Enformation : the power to create novel forms of both Matter & Mind, both Physics & Psyche. If that sounds absurd, NOMA also sounded ridiculous to those on opposite poles of the Knowledge continuum. :smile:
Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view, advocated by Stephen Jay Gould, that science and religion each represent different areas of inquiry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria
Holey : full of holes or gaps; not whole or complete
Both/And Principle :
[i]* My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
* The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to ofset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).[/i]
BothAnd Blog Glossary
Im gonna do a research. Count god threads over all 10 days of the forum. How should I proceed? I cant start from the first 10, ten 11-20, 21-30, etc. How can one find the "densest" 10 days?
I have a feeling its no coincidence...
For example, I looked at a random sequence of threads of 2 months ago. One thread only! Compare with last week!
:lol:
Wholey cow!
How could spirituality and science be describing the same thing? What is spirituality?
This can be done in some forms of Hinduism, but not in the Abrahamic religions.
The salient difference is that generally, in the Abrahamic religions, there is said to exist a type of separation between God and his creation that can be pervasive and eternal, but no such separation exists in some forms of Hinduism.
As a matter of fact, this can be done with the Abrahamic God par excellence. The two realities are perfectly compatible, as the derive from a common root in Greek philosopy of Greek philodohers in (Platonic) love: Plato and Xenophanes.
I see what you’re saying and it does follow a sound reason from an objective sense. I do feel that to qualify everything that exists in an objective way omits a large part of the human condition, of being. I don’t believe the scientific method can prove things that are highly rare, illusion, unique or individual due to the fact that such things are not repeatable or testable. I think it would be unwise to assume that all things can be tested under the rigorous eye of science. For example a mans love for his wife cannot be objectively proven, not in any repeatable standardised way. You can merely interpret his behaviour as coherent with the state of being in love. Again you cannot test objectively my experience of the colour green or your personal memory of your grandmother, or what beauty is, or if someone feels the same exact emotions that you do.
In this sense objectivism reaches a limit. And I often wonder could an entity such as god be vaguely described in scientific terms, but on a personal level be impossible to prove in its various idiosyncrasies/ specifics? I feel that when people talk of “god” it’s often in this personal sense as you cited and thus I can’t imagine how one begins to test those with scientific method. That isn’t to say of course that it doesn’t exist because we fail to have a took adequate to quantify it qualify it as we do with so much of nature.
Agree. The problem with the way you've framed the question is that it tends to equate 'God' with the other objects of science, as some object, being or thing that is out there somewhere, or not, or can be considered a factor, or not.
The argument of natural theology is not that 'God' is some testable theory, but the reason that anything exists at all in the first place. Of course that is not a 'testable theory' in that you can't then replicate the entire universe under controlled conditions of there being God or no God. At best it is an argument that can be supported from what has been called an abductive inference, which means, reasoning from effect to likely cause - given that the Universe exists and has just those attributes and qualities required for the appearance of intelligent life, when it might much more easily not have, then ... . But at best this argument is only suggestive, it can never be conclusive.
There was an OP published years ago in popular media, God does not Exist, Pierre Whalon. Reading the headline, one could easily assume that it was a piece of standard atheist polemic. But it doesn't turn out to be. Pierre Whalon is a Bishop of the European Episcopal Church, and what he's talking about is the limited nature of the notion of 'existence':
[quote=Pierre Whalon]God does not exist.
People exist. Things in the universe exist. The planets in their courses exist. While there are clear limits to our knowledge, everyone knows what it means to exist.
God does not exist.
If God does exist, then that is not God. All existing things are relative to one another in various degrees. It is actually impossible to imagine a universe in which there is, say, only one hydrogen atom. That unique thing has to have someone else imagining it. Existence requires existing among other existents, a fundamental dependency of relation. If God also exists, then God would be just another fact of the universe, relative to other existents and included in that fundamental dependency of relation.
In other words, God could not be God. He would be at best some sort of super-alien, flitting about the creation flashing super powers, seemingly irrationally. That is what the Flying Spaghetti Monster is. Its "worshippers," the "Pastafarians," are the latest in a long line of skeptics, though with perhaps a finer sense of humor. And even if said Monster existed, it could not be God. [/quote]
This OP is harking back to an ancient doctrine, apophatic theology - that what transcends existence is not simply another kind of existent, a 'super-existent' of some kind, which is what many atheist critiques seem to imagine - God as a super-director pulling strings behind the scenes, so to speak. But if you let go of that, there's simply no need to posit a conflict between natural philosophy (science) and religious faith, even though such conflicts often occur.
Claims of some supreme being existing can only only be verified if said being is understood to a reasonable degree. Given that a ‘god’ is usually outlined as something mostly outside our natural understanding and experience of the world it is often a dead end.
If we’re just talking about a superior race of beings, more or less living as we do, then that seems viable. The question would then be about where they are, why they are hiding from us and why we should care about them (other than as a potential threat to our existence given the assumption their technological capabilities far out stretch our own).
I think that this is the right way of looking at things. In this sense, all empirical evidence supports God, and we can know that God is the truth, stronger than we can know any other fact. The argument is basically that each and every aspect of existence, as observed, is an organized, or ordered, arrangement of parts. And, organized or ordered arrangements require something which orders them. The thing which ordered the parts is called God, So God is a necessary conclusion.
Now, having said that, there is some issues with the appearance of disorganization, or disorderly activity in fundamental parts (particles). I see two distinct ways to approach these issues. We can say that this appearance of disorder in the universe is evidence of not-God, or we can say that this appearance of disorder is evidence of a failing in our capacity to understand, what is really organized and orderly. Of course the latter is the rational approach, because it inspires us to subject our scientific theories to strict skepticism, in an attempt to determine their deficiencies, and why these theories render basic parts of an organized and ordered universe as unintelligible to us. The alternative approach, that fundamental parts of the universe are disorganized and disorderly, and an organized and orderly structured universe magically sprang into existence on top of a disorganized foundation, hence not-God, is clearly irrational.
This is similar to Taoism in which there is something that cannot be defined. Any definition is drastically short of precise or accurate in any useful way. To define something is to give it some parameter... to enclose it or separate it from something else by contrast. For example “light” is defined darkness and sound is defined by silence. If no contrast existed no definition, no distinction, could ever be made.
Applying this to god - if god were supposedly everything, including all things that were but are no longer and all things that could possibly be in the future, there indeed is no means to define god at all other than this extreme totalitarian vaguery.
:up: The point of the theism is to push God out of our line of sight so that we can't see Him at all:
1. God's nonphysical
2. God is beyond space and time
3. God is beyond our mental capabilities
With just these 3 simple statements, God is nudged out of our field of view, never to be seen, not even in principle mind you. It reminds me of the so-called cosmological horizon (beyond which we can't see for space is expanding faster than the light from the regions beyond can reach us).
However the knife cuts both ways: Theists can't claim they themselves know anything about God. Could they? How do they avoid the special pleading fallacy? Beats me!
Quoting Gnomon
Nice! Well done! When you put it that way, it become crystal clear: Religion is metaphysics and science is physics and its allied subjects. The difference must matter, oui? As @Wayfarer makes it a point to mention, science invariably ignores/treats very superficially the final cause of things, their telos. Where there's purpose, there's a God?!
Quoting Gnomon
Neither empiricism nor revelation. What exactly are we talking about here? Reason, ok, but as skipper Kirk says in Star Trek "I don't wanna know what it isn't, I wanna know what it is!" I hope it's not too much to ask.
Oh! It's your Both/And Principle. That makes a whole lotta sense; when we form a search party [this is the search to end all searches, the search for truth which Taoist legend says is subtle (yi), faint (shi), and wei (elusive)], the more the merrier. Did you know that herbivores team up against predators? Some hear better than they see and others have good eyesight and a poor sense of hearing, and together they make up for each others' weaknesses (alloying).
Yes, akin to Leibniz's best-of-all-possible-worlds argument.
I think this is the wrong way to look at things. If we could approach the universe from the outside, and found it to be well-ordered, then we might correctly be surprised. But we are products of this universe - we evolved to survive, and even thrive, in this universe. Therefore, it seems ordered to us. It would be much more shocking to find that it lacked order.
Personally, I'm with Voltaire.
Quoting Benj96
Spinoza's natura naturans (i.e. substance ... which he calls "deus, sive natura"). Epicurus' void. Buddhism's sunyata. Hinduism's brahman. Laozi's dao. Schopenhauer's will. Etcetera.
Science explains, spirituality mystifies; they're not "different perspectives on the same thing" but rather different, incommensurable domains of inquiry like e.g. astronomy and astrology or mathematics and numerology.
Do you think that the universe is inherently able to create order or is it merely our conscious inclination to organise, categorise, define and group phenomenon that we observe.
Two things I would consider here is 1). One could reason the inverse does generate order despite our views - the cycles of orbits, the tides, the geometry of crystals, consistent steady patterns, laws and constants however 2). Order as perceived by humans depends on the capacity to remember. It is our memory that permits us to notice that yes the stairs have been at this angle before, yes winter has come before at the same predicted time. Without any memory, the present moment is a forever unpredictable, changing and confusing thing.
So what makes order in nature. Us? The cosmos? Both?
It kind of depends on what you define as "God". If you are talking about the "God" that is more or less defined in Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam and there various sects), the answer is most definitely "No".
First there is the problem of whether God's power comes from him having access the incredibly advance technology or if it through some kind of "magic", and if it is through "magic" then how does this magic even work? Second whether or not God's power comes from either of these things (or even something else), does the fact that a being is either omnipotent or something very close to omnipotent necessarily mean that such a being is actually "God". In ancient times, people often accepted the idea of just bowing down to whomever had the most power. But in modern times if such a person was either corrupted or insane this could big problem. I could be wrong but bowing down to a being just because they are the most powerful if they are morally no better than Satan would not be a good thing. And ironically there are some forms of religions that claim that the "God/god" that created this world is actually evil and the true God only resides in the spiritual world such as Gnosticism.
I could go on but in a nutshell we really can't even define God because it is all but a given that we can't comprehend an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-whatever else would be like and so we can only imagine and/or guess as to what God is. And when it comes to when we try to guess at such things, it is always best to remind ourselves that such things are in the realm of fiction and to reality and mixing up the too doesn't work when doing real science.
Since I've already been in enough debates regarding whether "God Exists" I stop here and just add a few YouTube links where other people add there two cents to this issue. Hopefully after watching them they will clear up and other issues I didn't have the time to get around to and address them.
It's partial magic partial hard science. It took them a pretty long time to create and develop spacetime and the two elementary particles fit to let them evolve into the universe we know with all of life in it.
The particle creation involved magic, the subsequent research, development, and tinkering involved science.
Sure, it's not at all surprising to find order in the universe, we ourselves are organized beings, so it would be very surprising, actually false, if we found a universe without order. But whether or not we are surprised is not the point. I don't see how this element of surprise refutes the premise that order is caused. Do you have an explanation of how we might conceive of uncaused order? Or do you appeal to magic to account for how order suddenly appears from disorder? If the latter, doesn't magic require a magician?
The questionable assumption made here is the gods being omnipotent and omniscient beings. Which makes the conclusions you draw invalid.
First, we must define order. Does order mean subscribing to a pattern we find pleasing? Give an example, and let's parse it.
Second, consider the fine-tuning "problem" - the idea that certain constants need to fall within very narrow ranges for life to exist. This ignores the fact that the real numbers are uncountably infinite between, say, 1.99 and 2.01, and may be put in a one-to-one correspondence with values between -1,000,000 and +1,000,000. Thus, the fine-tuning "problem" is actually due to our choice of units not the required accuracy of some Creator.
Third, requiring order (if you can find it) to have a cause, is a case of trying to find a question to match an answer. Why does order require a cause? Are you asking, "Why does the number line have small numbers on the left and large numbers on the right?" (This goes back to my first question.)
Did you watch the first video provided by dclements? Try with an open mind. It's quite good.
Not sure I understand. We can set most equal to one, but at least one other has to be different from one then. Only divine creation can explain this.
Order means have things in their right place. So any sort of pattern is an order. If each part of the pattern were not in the place required to make that pattern, the group of parts would not be ordered in the way required for the pattern, and there would not be that pattern. If there was a different pattern instead, the parts would be ordered in the way required for that pattern. Only if there was no pattern would there be no "right place", consequently no order.
Quoting Real Gone Cat
I don't see how this is in any way relevant. I was talking about empirically verified order, in the observable universe. That the order in mathematics is somehow related, is an idea that hasn't been justified.
Quoting Real Gone Cat
I am not asking a question, "why does order require a cause?", I am stating a brute fact, a self-evident truth, that order requires a cause. "The right place" for the parts to be implies something other than random positioning. And, other than random positioning, implies that they must be caused to be there, because if they weren't caused to be in the position they are, their positioning would be random. Therefore the difference between random positioning and ordered positioning implies that the ordered positioning must have been caused. And the fact that random positioning might be caused does not negate the fact that ordered positioning is necessarily caused.
Disorder also requires a cause. Everything that exists requires a cause. Scientifically, can we determine that God is the cause for everything's existence?
Actually, many do claim to know God (or Jesus) personally. But not in an objective sense. They "know" (experience) their spiritual Lord subjectively as a "feeling". And subjective knowledge cannot be proven or dis-proven empirically. That's why you have to take it on faith in the truthfulness of the person making the claim (special pleading??).
Surprisingly, some theists -- including my own religious background -- deny that their Faith is "just a feeling". Yet, in that case, their faith is transferred to objective scriptures, presumably based on eyewitness testimony : the Bible. Ironically, those church-authorized scriptures don't hold-up to dispassionate objective scrutiny. So, what can you do then, if the logical necessity of a First or Final Cause of contingent existence is impervious to empirical or scriptural assaults? For me, that rational conclusion falls into the category of principle-seeking Philosophy, instead of emotional or traditional Religion. Of course, as an abstract philosophical tenet, you lose all the good stuff : worldly blessings & heavenly hereafter. So, it doesn't inspire much in the way of feelings. :halo:
Is Faith Just a Feeling? :
[i]Faith—properly understood—is not a feeling. Rather, faith is active trust based on evidence. Of course, faith can affect how we feel. For example, my trust in my wife may produce feelings of happiness and gratitude, while mistrust can produce feelings of sadness and betrayal.
So faith and feelings are related, but different. Unfortunately, some people base their faith on their feelings. Consequently, the good feelings they get from praying, worshiping, or attending church lead them to conclude their faith is true. In this case, faith is held hostage by feelings.
This is extremely dangerous because feelings are fickle—they can change from day to day.[/i]
https://www.str.org/w/is-faith-just-a-feeling-
Quoting Agent Smith
You guessed it! :blush:
A Proposed Alternative Theory of Reality :
. . . Both Material and Spiritual
The BothAnd principle is a corollary of the Enformationism thesis. It views the world as a process motivated & guided by antagonistic-yet-complementary powers. For example, Energy is the motive force for all physical actions, but its positive effects are offset by the, less well known, antithetical force of Disorganization in the great dialectical process of evolution. The overall effect of Change in the universe is destructive, as encapsulated in the concept of "Entropy" (negative transformation). Yet, by balancing destructive Entropy with constructive "Enformy" (self-organization), evolution has proven to be a creative process. However, since the existence of "Enformy" has not yet been accepted by mainstream science --- except in the crude concept of “negentropy” --- any worldview based on such a flimsy foundation is likely to be dismissed by either/or empiricists as a bunch of Woo. Yet, all scientific & philosophical speculation inevitably begins with a leap of imagination. And this hybrid world-view is one such leap into the unknown.
BothAnd Blog, post 4
Note -- The space-time world is inherently dualistic, divided into opposing forces (positive vs negative), and obverse forms (matter & energy), and antagonistic worldviews (Materialism vs Spiritualism). But, there remains a monistic origin for all the dualities of reality : the scientific "Singularity" or the philosophical "First Cause". Moreover, in the space-&-time-bound universe, there remains Substance Monism, as proposed by Spinoza : the "Single Substance" of the natural world, which he called "Nature or God". In my thesis I call it EnFormAction : the creative power to cause change. the term is a portmanteau, combining Energy & Information into a single creative force.
EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy.
Bothand Blog, glossary
That is the subject of ‘revelation’. See also [url https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_(Eastern_Christian_theology)]theosis[/url].
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Maybe God does play dice.
Humans are programmed to find order whether it exists or not. We believe we see order even in random arrangements Consider how many see the face of Jesus in a piece of toast..
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
But why must the cause be divine? THAT is not self-evident.
Local entropy can decrease provided it increases somewhere else (i.e., one system can expend energy to increase order in a second system). But nowhere does the Second Law of Thermodynamics require the intervention of God. There are perfectly fine explanations for order stemming from the Big Bang. You can Google them. (I'd say more but I gotta run.)
And what's the "cause" of this requirement?
To claim one unknown is caused by another (further removed) unknown is an emply claim because the question is merely begged and not answered.
I answer this here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1
But this was more of a Socratic method approach directed towards Metaphysician undercover. I have my own answers, I wanted to know his.
Quoting 180 Proof
Again, this was to the person I replied to specifically. I wanted to hear what they thought.
Yeah, and I and others in series or replies cogently rejected the antiquated incoherence of your "answer". :confused:
Lets not derail this thread right? If you want to discuss the topic in seriousness, go there.
For theists to maintain the Islamic position on God (there's nothing in us or in the world that could be used to get a handle on God hence Islam's hard-line iconoclasm) and also to claim knowledge of God, something quite clever needs to be done, oui? Apophasis (via negativa) + Cataphasis (BothAnd @Gnomon)
Theist: God is unknowable. I know God. (self-refuting statement)
Atheist: WTF? :chin:
Theist: :grin:
All is not lost though. Leibniz called our minds little gods and the Greeks believed that our rationality was our most divine attribute. Yet theists are violating the most important rule in classical logic viz. the law of noncontradiction (vide supra).
Enter mysticism: Mysticism is an approach to the divine/god after having applied rationality and failing to make any headway. It acknowledges the power of reason, but not in heavenly matters if you catch my drift. We need something else and that something else is what we've come to love & hate as religious experience. Controversial subject! Naysayers have gone so far as to say that religious experiences could be hallucinations, psychotic episodes, whathnot. However mystics, as it turns out, are normal, healthy people, well-integrated into society, have families, hold jobs, and so on. Temporal lobe epilepsy pops up in discussions on mysticism; intriguing, ja?
I think it is quite reasonable to understand that people have different experiences and, furthermore, that some people have had some quite powerful experiences that many others have not. These more unique experiences are ‘feel more real than real,’ even though that turn if phrase sounds strange in and of itself. I cannot explain what it is other than to refer to it as a vivid sensation that feels like a transition from a 2D cinematic experience to a fully fleshed out 3D theatre experience. One is far more ‘present’ than the other, more ‘connected’.
If you have had an episode of psychosis you probably understand this a little. When, for instance, people talk about ‘hearing voices’ but the ‘sane’ person would say ‘of course I would understand it was in my head’ but you likely wouldn’t as the voice you hear sounds like it is ‘outside’ and acts as if completely independent from your own conscious thoughts.
This is why I generally think of the whole god/religion concept as something entangled within the human psyche. The ‘space’ between unconscious processes and conscious thought. The interesting thing is there is a common pattern to how such things present themselves as ‘independent beings’. Studies with DMT have shown some fairly strong reported instances from both religiously inclined and non-religiously inclined people. For myself personally I believe what happens is the human brain can naturally produce DMT and the effect of this on conscious is the reason ‘religious experiences’ exist.
If the above is correct then a further problem is understanding what kind of stress the human body has to go through to natural produce enough DMT to induce such profound experiences. DMT has been found in a rats brain, but last I looked there was still no direct evidence that DMT is naturally produced in the human brain let alone in large enough quantities to be of significance.
There was a woman who had a stroke (forgot her name). She was also a cognitive neuroscientist. She describes a ‘connectedness’ and sense of bliss I can relate to. The potential for such experiences is both scary and inspiring in terms of human development. If myself, or the woman here, had been brought up in a religious manner then I can completely understand having a solid and unshakable ‘belief’ in god there after. My upbringing was about as secular as can be so I didn’t end up preaching on the streets. There is little doubt in my mind though that many religious figures experienced something akin to what we both did and tried damn hard to square it and express because they fully understand how powerful the experience was and potential of humanity.
:up: The "yellow" smell of shit! :grin: Will it work for someone with anosmia? Don't know what shit smells like? Here, it smells yellow!
Quoting I like sushi
Not really, I thought I had psychotic episodes multiple times, like a woman's orgasms. On later anaysis, they turned out to be me getting scared out of my wits; nothing psychotic, just terror, very natural, don't you think? Old people gravitate towards theism. No, not because they have a solid argument, but for fear of oblivion. We're not attracted to Yahweh, we're repelled by Thanatos and Algos; the effect is the same. God probably is in the know and hence his indifference to our plight is not suprising. "No, no, you don't actually love me; you're just scared of the Grim Reaper and his accomplice, Duriel, the lord of pain (Diablo II)" said God to all his worshippers.
Thanks for reminding of the lady who had a stroke and experienced "nirvana". She was on TED Talks. The brain shut down: mushin no shin (mind without mind), empty your cup, wipe your slate clean (tabula rasa); empiricism/rationalism?
Yeah... All theist are psychotic lunatics!
I know exactly how my brain functions. That's exactly the reason I know depression or psychosis are not caused by some chemical imbalance of neurotransmitters. You can try to restore the balance by drugs, taking away the dark feeling, but that doesn't take away the cause.
You call them lunatics. In the sophisticated guise of "psychosis".
I too think it is something along these lines. We can put together a little bit about the brain and come up with a more natural proposal.
1. The brain is composed of many parts and cells.
2. You decide what you're going to say unconsciously a little time before you say it.
3. Consciousness is a post processing regulator.
As such we could say that "God" is a part of the brain that processes apart from your direct consciousness. This can be very useful at times where the consciousness part of the brain has failed, gets stuck in a loop, or needs to be overpowered by strong emotions.
I believe when scientists studied "religious experience" they found its usually a feeling of oneness in which the parietal lobes reduce their activity, blurring the line between the consciousness and other objects. Other times when people speak in tongues (This is not limited to Christianity) they find that the frontal lobes reduce activity while the Thalmus, the part of the brain which regulates the flow of sensory data to other parts of the brain. Meditation can activate the frontal lobes and is like mental practice to reinforce certain types of behavior.
One thing I think all doubters need to get over, is that having a religious experience is very real for people. Its incredibly important that we don't look down on or consider religious people "stupid", as is often the case from those who are uncomfortable with people of faith. If you're truly an intelligent and curious mind, then I think religion can be a gateway into understanding the human mind.
Don't get too defensive EugeneW. I can assure you that "I like Sushi" was not trying to offend, he was just thinking of a brain state that most people don't have as a comparison. Maybe a better example would have been people who can hear colors. He's just trying to reason through people's experience with God. Philosophy is about poking at our generally accepted assumptions, and trying to explore new trains of thought. He might have an unconscious comparison, but I don't think he's trying to insult you. Give people the benefit of the doubt, especially in online communication.
Quoting EugeneW
While I agree that drugs do not take away the cause, they can take away the effect. Any good medical professional will tell you that drugs alone are not the solution to depression. You have to take care of yourself as well. But sometimes, the cause is also not something we can fix. Some brains are broken to the point they will not mend. Life long drug abuse, life long trauma, or just a brain that never quite worked correctly. Sometimes too, depression medication can be used as a jump start, and then later weaned off. Just because they don't fix the cause, doesn't mean they are aren't incredibly useful and needed at times.
Agree 100%. But some people are just plain stupid too. Some are religious and some are not. (See above)
Yes, they can take away the effect. The effect being the feeling of depression. Most antidepressants, like the "wonder drug" prozac, get a grip (directly or indirectly) on neurotransmitters. Like noradrenalin or serotonin. I took quite a few different ones (I'm bipolar officially... Hooray!). To no avail. They made me feel worse. The advice was to continue swallowing them. The positive effect would take a few weeks. I didn’t do that. Benzo's and other stuff work better, but they won't prescribe it. Your memory is supposedly impaired. Which is true, but only if you stop abruptly. Which I did. The supplier died. Then hell has arrived. I couldn't even remember how to buy a train ticket at the automat or how to order them with the computer (payments with bitcoins are asked and I wasn't able to understand or even buy them in the first place! I really didn't and that's hard to realize now) Didn’t sleep for 4 months. Literally. Epileptic kinds of bodily shocks. Hallucinations, on the verge of psychosis, but still realizing they are fantasies. Almost every night these thoughts appeared, shining a scary light on reality. Luckily I have very high compensation to the depressions.
Look who's talking! You've looked in the mirror too much! "Now that guy/woman is a moron". Conflating yourself with everyone else. Saying that you're interested in theism from a human perspective while secretly thinking they're crazy. Bye bye!
Calling people ‘crazy’ or a ‘lunatic’ simply because they have experienced psychosis is rather insulting. My point was that I understand perfectly well how what I experienced would’ve been seen in a different manner had I not had a particularly secular upbringing.
We map experiences onto stories/ideas/perspectives that make ready sense to us. The Jungian Axis Mundi.
Any reason why you didn't try to follow the medical advice and try it for a few weeks? Now I'm all for noting they don't make you feel good after that point, and if a doctor insists, get a new doctor. But I would try following medical advice to its end first.
Medicine is not intuitive like we want to believe it is. My mother was a nurse for many years and gave me several examples. She had a patient in her ward one time who was told after surgery, "Do not get up under any circumstances." Well, the guy thought he could because he felt well, didn't want to atrophy, and thought it would be better if he moved around. The nurses caught him walking around to their horror. After they examined him again they found his walking had blocked blood flow to his leg, and they had to amputate it.
Anti-depressents are not intended to make you feel happy and good. They are intended to make you feel normal. Suicide rates can go up when people are first prescribed anti-depressants as people are actually able to act, which is really what the medication is supposed to fix. It does not make your bad feelings go away. It lets you get out of your paralysis. You still have to work on yourself.
Quoting EugeneW
And now you know why after you got off of it. If you're looking for a high or happy pill, that's not what anti-depressants are for. Perhaps try again with this knowledge? Really talk and listen to your doctor. Go see a psychologist or psychotherapist if you need help getting through it. But don't go to a street dealer looking for highs.
I tried a few days, despite it made me feel worse after the first take. I couldn't imagine that it made me feel better after taking it longer. If I had known for sure I might have done it. Like smoking gets good after one packet only.
Right, I think they didn't inform you of what it was supposed to do. Depression medication isn't supposed to make you high or happy. Depression is usually about not being able to function or do anything about your emotional state. You can be sad or bored, but not depressed. Depression is where doing anything outside of minimal effort is incredibly difficult. If for example you feel you need an emotional high to do anything, that's an overcompensation for depression. You're essentially imbalancing your emotions in another way to be able to function.
Once you're on depression medication, then you can do something about your feelings. Instead of lying in bed or avoiding people, you're able to go out and do something. You'll get to the point where you can work on managing your emotions instead of reaching for a quick buzz. Of course, if you like that quick buzz, then you're also fighting addiction at the same time. Not being depressed can assist with that fight, but it won't do the work for you.
I don't know if you've ever been severely depressed, but being depressed doesn't disable your functioning. The picture of laying in bed all day avoiding people is a stereotype only. I just kept on working pretending to feel alright. Which depresses even more. I'm sure there are depressed people lying in bed all day avoiding contact. I had such a period too. It's not about not being able to manage your emotions or feelings. It's about a detachment from a world you didn't ask for. Getting a buzz is temporary. You can say the same of antidepressants, that the bad buzz is only there at the start, but after that bad buzz what happens? Feeling better? Then that antidepressants function as an inducer of the bad feeling with the goal to set that as the level against which your subsequent feelings are measured. Just like after a dose of X you feel high and afterwards you feel down, after you take Y and feeling down(er), and afterwards feeling good because you dont feel down anymore. Luckily I always have manic periods to look forward to. These periods ("episodes") are rare and maybe on the verge of mania or psychosis but very intense. If you would always be depressed or know for sure it would never go away, it would be quite depressing! Managing depression is not the problem, it's the depression!
I'm no medical professional, but maybe you should see a psychologist? I'm not sure your experiences necessarily describe medical depression. Sounds like you're unhappy with your lot in life, which no amount of medicine will fix. And don't take this the wrong way, I'm not some superior "I have my life totally together" person either. Sometimes a good therapist can assist you getting back on track and getting out of the doldrums.
Im already assessed. Bipolar/depression. But it all has passed. Feeling good nowadays.
For the record, I don't think of the BothAnd Principle as a rhetorical device. Instead, it's a harmonious Holistic worldview. In some aspects, a BothAnd perspective is like the modern scientific concepts of "Relativity" & "Superposition". It allows you to see both sides of coin, or both sides of an argument, in order to reach a better understanding of a complex situation as a whole system of interacting parts. So, it's also the philosophical basis of scientific Systems Theory. :smile:
Cataphasis : noun. Rhetoric. the use of affirmative statements to discuss a subject; affirmation through positive statements.
Both/And Principle :
[i]My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
* The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to ofset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism.
* Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ? what’s true for you ? depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference;
* This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system.[/i]
A "restatement" of (Hegel's) dialectics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic or more generally dualistic monism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_monism ... But why reinvent the wheel, Gnomon? How does your variation on this theme improve on Laozi, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Socrates/Plato ... Fichte, Hegel, Marx/Engels, Bookchin ...? Or the likes of Advaita Vendata? :chin:
Btw, your references to "Relativity" and "Superposition" are pseudo-scientistic non sequiturs which do not help make your case.
What you describe is not seeing order where there is none, it is a misinterpretation of the order which is there, and that is very common. A piece of toast is an instance of order, saying that it is Jesus' face is a misinterpretation.
Quoting Real Gone Cat
It is because this is what defines "divine", so it is true by definition. It makes no sense to ask why is the creator of the universe "divine", because "divine" is simply the word we use to refer to the creator. You could use some other random word, but then you'd miss the convention. It's like asking why the river consists of "water". It's the word we use. You could use some other random word but you'd miss the convention.
When I first started posting on this forum I noticed that you seemed to know a lot more about the history of philosophy than I do. So, I thought I might learn something from you. But I eventually learned that most of your replies to my posts can be summed-up in two words : "boo" & "hiss". Apparently, there is something about my idiosyncratic personal worldview, or my way of expressing it, that offends you viscerally.
I've never been able to understand exactly what the sore point is, except that perhaps I don't pay homage to some authoritative scientists & philosophers, as listed in your post. I'll admit that I can't help being ignorant of a lot of the history of philosophy. In college, I took basic courses in all the major disciplines of Science. Yet the only philosophy course I took was "Logic", and that was a Math requirement. Consequently, I have a better-than-average understanding of science-in-general. But the only philosophers that I'm somewhat familiar with, are Plato & Aristotle --- who basically wrote "the book" on philosophy for the next 2500 years. As some wit observed, about "variations on a theme", it's all "footnotes to Plato".
Anyway, I only dove into philosophy seriously after I retired -- just a few years ago --and began to construct a broad-but-coherent worldview, for my own personal use. The prompt for that on-going project was the conjunction of two paradigm-shifting innovations in 20th century science : Quantum & Information theories. So, I'm trying to weave those disparate scientific concepts into a holistic & consistent philosophical worldview, for my own personal application. Yet, there are plenty of practicing scientists, who are also exploring the philosophical implications of an Information-based universe. And, as you so astutely noted, my personal BothAnd philosophy is merely an update of ancient Golden Mean & Moderation principles for a philosophical life, updated for the current polarized context of adamant Either/Or positions..
Anyway, my general posting policy is to ignore your replies to my posts, because they seldom have anything positive to contribute. They seem to be mostly polarized shout-downs & heckles. However, I must thank you for the links to Dialectic articles. They do seem to be relevant to my thesis, but I assume you were actually trying to pigeonhole me into some easily ridiculed historical positions. Since, as a novice, I'm not well-read in the doctrines you listed above, I have been forced to "reinvent the wheel" to suit a 21st century worldview and context. My "variation" on a long-running philosophical theme was incidental to the thrust of a novel perspective that the venerable philosophers you listed were completely ignorant of. I'm just a layman working alone, while scientific & philosophical pioneers are forging new trails into the unknown territory of information-based Mind & Matter. :cool:
PS__Your dismissal of my references to "Relativity" & "Superposition", indicates that you have no idea what aspects of those concepts I'm talking about. FWIW, I make my case in more detail in the thesis and blog.
Philosophical Attitude :
Karl Jasper submits that “he who believes that he understands everything is no longer engaged in philosophical thought, he who takes scientific insight for knowledge of being itself and as a whole has succumbed to scientific superstition. He who has ceased to be astonished has ceased to question. He who acknowledges no mystery is no longer a seeker, because he humbly acknowledges the limit of possible knowledge. Karl jasper concluded that developing the philosophical attitude opens our mind to the unknowable that is revealed at those limits.”
https://medium.com/@TosinOlufeyimi/why-we-need-to-develop-the-philosophical-attitude-ea06f34bab94
The renowned British philosopher A.N Whitehead once commented on Plato's thought: “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.
https://www.college.columbia.edu/core/content/whitehead-plato
A Universe Built of Information :
"In the long journey of the human mind attempting to decode the workings of reality, one trusted companion has to be abandoned: the materialistic and reductionistic scientific worldview."
___ James B. Glattfelder, physicist
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-03633-1_13
Don't flatter yourself. :sweat:
Quoting 180 Proof
As in old posts where I've charitably elaborated on your specific case, sir:
Quoting 180 Proof
Your obstinate pesistence when faced with sound criticisms of your pet "theories" by myself and several other members suggests an unreflective, dogmatic mindset at odds with your own stated preference for 'open-minded speculation', and so
Quoting 180 Proof
where members tend much more to be, like you, less scientifically, philosophically & religiously literate, pedantic or rigorous than we (often) are here on TPF? :nerd:
Quoting 180 Proof
I guess this question scares you too. :roll:
There are no methods full stop. It is not a case of science’s short falls. It is more or less the case of asking someone to show evidence of ‘a round sound washing a cup of yellow yesterday weekend’. Evidence of any kind can only be presented when what is being asked of is clear.
Given that the concept of ‘deity’ commonly thrown around is at best extremely nebulous or, at worst, completely nonsensical, how can anyone provide something called ‘evidence’ for such a highly ambiguous or half-hearted fogy concept?
Point being, talking about something literally ‘outside’ of space and time is to talk about something outside of human experience. Which means it is literally nothing to us because we cannot know what we cannot know.
I hope we can agree that what we cannot know is not even a ‘what’. That we can merely pose a question about some vague idea does not make it anything other than an expression of humans doing human things.
Actually, it's not that simple. For the reductive methods of empirical science, there is no way to analyze a Holistic concept into its constituent parts. Because, by definition, a Whole is more than the sum of its parts. That's not really a "shortfall" for physical Science, though. But it's an opportunity for theoretical Philosophy to pick-up the slack. Actually, there is a new approach that some call "Holistic Science" (HS), but is better known as "Systems Science" (SS). Unfortunately, like Philosophical conjectures, the conclusions of HS & SS are unlikely to be conclusively proven by empirical evidence*1. Human beliefs will always remain beyond the scope of standard scientific methods.
Regrettably, non-reductive methods are often indiscriminately ridiculed as "pseudoscience". Nevertheless, SS remains a useful approach for the "soft" sciences, such as Psychology & Sociology, which seldom produce final "proven" Facts. What they do offer is rational insights into confusing complex systems. Ironically, the holistic systematic procedures used are almost indistinguishable from the traditional methods of philosophical "thought experiments". Therefore, they could conceivably be applied to such perennial stumper questions, such as "what existed before the Big Bang", or" why do people believe in an invisible deity". :smile:
Holism in science :
[i]Holism in science, and holistic science, is an approach to research that emphasizes the study of complex systems. Systems are approached as coherent wholes whose component parts are best understood in context and in relation to one another and to the whole.
This practice is in contrast to a purely analytic tradition (sometimes called reductionism) . .[/i] .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_in_science
Systems science :
[i]To systems scientists, the world can be understood as a system of systems. The field aims to develop interdisciplinary foundations that are applicable in a variety of areas, such as psychology, biology, medicine, communication, business management, technology, computer science, engineering, and social sciences. . . .
The best known research institute in the field is the Santa Fe Institute (SFI) located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, United States, dedicated to the study of complex systems.[/i]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_science
A Theory of Almost Everything :
Santa Fe Institute, the self-anointed headquarters of complexity. ... is our best means of distinguishing science from pseudo-science.
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/01/books/a-theory-of-almost-everything.html
*1. String Theory & Loop Quantum Gravity are usually considered legitimate Science, even though their conjectures are unlikely to yield any empirical confirmation in our lifetime. Perhaps the Santa Fe Institute, as it gains legitimacy, will be emboldened to take-on the ultimate Systems questions about the conditional existence of the universe. Until then, that job will fall to non-institutional philosophers.
Theoretical Physics and such are not exactly pseudoscience. There are some highly speculative ideas and some more tangible ones. You are asking what can be said about ‘god’ and I am saying nothing of worth at all if said ‘god’ is defined as existing in some beyond, in a realm wholly removed and outside of human conceptualisation.
If we are talking about something ‘outside’ of space and time all we have are some mathematical equations that do not really tell us about any ‘reality’ because reality to us is space and time.
Are you not interested in a well-established philosophical concept, that was taken for granted by some of the smartest people on the planet for thousands of years? That list would include the "great skeptic" Voltaire.
Speaking of "smart people", is it not interesting that Albert Einstein often used the word "god" in reference to the unsolved mysteries of the world? Obviously, he is not referring to the various popular definitions of gods & God. Wouldn't you like to know what all the fuss is about, before you begin to dissect the general concept of deity into specific "details". Is the OP question a legitimate topic for discussion on a philosophy forum?
Once we have established that there is some reasonable basis for the plethora of religious ( celestial superheroes) & philosophical (First Cause) cosmologies, we can take those reasons seriously. What is common to all of them? Only then, can we treat the OP topic with respect. After all, it's asking about "scientific grounds", not "scriptural" or "emotional" grounds for the widespread god-concept among humanity. What is it about the real world that causes people to look beyond their physical senses for a universal Cause? :smile:
"I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker."
___Voltaire
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him."
___Voltaire
"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."
___Albert Einstein
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
___Albert Einstein
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
___Albert Einstein
That's why it's ahead of the pack (the quarrel aye vs. nay is a never-ending story).
You did mention in a previous post, adversarial collaboration but I'm not sure how much of that is just talk or hand waving. Instead of trying to make opposing sides join hands, isn't it better to let them go their separate ways and just wait & watch; whichever side gets it (the truth that is) is to be awarded a Nobel Prize. If both reach the finish line simulataneously, twice the fun, oui?
Audi alteram partem: Let's hear the other side (as well).
Thanks, but I've already given my reply to the OP. Other, than that, I'm letting Voltaire and Einstein speak for me. Their personal opinions on the topic are not scientific facts, but philosophical inferences. :smile:
This forum is supposed to be a meeting place for philosophical dialogue. and the Site Guidelines say : "Don't start a new discussion unless you are: a) Genuinely interested in the topic you've begun and are willing to engage those who engage you." No-one is trying to force "opposing sides to join hands". Instead, each side is allowed to present an argument, pro or con, regarding the topical question or comment. For an engagement to work though, it takes two to tango.
Unfortunately, some posters get stuck on the "adversarial" step, and never make it to the "collaboration" station. So, they try to shut the door to further discussion, by demanding concession to a specified authority. But that tactic seldom works when there are strong motives on both sides. Some of the forum's longest-running threads are also the most contentious. So, the failure to communicate, or to "reach the finish line simultaneously" may be an indication of serious philosophical or political polarization. And "adversarial collaboration" requires identifying "diagnostic points of divergence", and a willingness to reach an agreement. The divergent topics are pretty clear, but the agreement stage may be a long time coming.
So, I'm not holding my breath, waiting for a break-through. After all, we are still debating some of the same topics that Plato & Aristotle raised 2500 years ago : "God", "Consciousness", "Free Will", etc. There's a common aphorism : "It's the journey, not the destination that matters.". Which acknowledges that you may never reach your desired destination. That's why I'm not trying to convert anyone to my personal worldview. Instead, by submitting my perspective to opposing views, I can learn it's deficiencies & weaknesses. As Nietszche said, "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger". :joke:
Philosophical dialogue is a mutual inquiry based on the principle that the more points of view there are, the better we understand what there is to understand. There are no winners and no losers - it is open, based on collaboration.
https://lepole.education/en/philosophy/32-practice-of-philosophy.html?start=4
[i]adversarial collaboration rests on identifying the most diagnostic points of divergence
between competing theories, reaching agreement on precisely what they predict, and then designing
experiments that directly test those diverging predictions.[/i]
science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6545/911
I do not think that religion and science should necessarily agree with each other though. We need religion for our morality and we need science for our rationality. In the greater modern times one will be equally needed to the other.
God, I hope not.
Quoting Gnomon
What is this concept of ‘god’? That is my starting question if the OP is asking about possible proof.
To say I am not interested in this couldn’t be much further from the truth. Religion and religious traditions have fascinated for a long time.
Quoting Gnomon
This is evidence of a sort. Someone believing something does not make it true (obviously). I have stated that I have experienced something that I regard as being what people refer to as ‘experiencing god,’ but the issue is that I am fairly aware how one experience can be viewed differently from different perspectives. All I can say is that there is something acutely important and powerful in the experience.
Such experiences happen to many people from all walks of life. The underlying theme is how difficult it is to express this to someone who has not experienced anything similar whilst simultaneously having the deep desire to do so because no one in their right mind would want to keep it to themselves.
I think the best way to talk about it would be something like how art can appeal to someone in such a powerful manner. Dawkins, as someone else mentioned, is moved to tears when listening to music. The experience I am talking of is something like that but it is universal.
I do not call it ‘god’ but I can easily see how someone else would. My first thought at having the most vivid and intense experience of my life was ‘why me? Surely someone else has had this, but if they have then why the hell are they not shouting about it?’. It was then I realised something along what I experienced had clearly been experienced by many others and that was why religions existed - some had the ability to express the experience more fully than others and people could not help but listen (as happened to myself briefly where everyone I met I seemed so easily able to connect with).
Yes. That's the theory. But, in practice, the core disagreement may be so wide & rigid that mutuality is impossible. When that happens, I call it a "political" dispute, instead of a "philosophical" dialogue. On this forum, the core issue seems to be focused on the authority of Science, envisioned as having monolithic dominion over certain kinds of questions, including "norms" & "values", but especially concerning Metaphysics.
For over a thousand years, the Catholic Church used Aristotle's & Ptolemy's physics & metaphysics as the final authority to settle dissension within its ranks. Today, Ari is out of favor, and Ptolemy is discredited. So capital "s" Science has taken their place as ultimate arbiter, at least for believers in doctrinaire Scientism. In general, that absolute trust in empirical Science, as opposed to theoretical Philosophy, was mandated by proponents of Logical Positivism (aka Logical Empiricism). Ironically, that movement has boldly crossed-over into the "Magisterium" of Religion. Hence, it seems to serve as a sort of religion-substitute for its adherents.
Although they may not realize that they have been indoctrinated with an anti-philosophy attitude, a few posters on this forum feel that their mission is to root-out heretics, who insist on defying the sovereignty of Science, by delving into Metaphysics, and by insisting that there is more to Reality (e.g. Mind) than just Matter & Physics. Therefore, it's that "sticking point" which blocks some attempts to reach "mutually acceptable agreements". Undaunted, some of us soldier on, buoyed by faith in FreeWill & Reason, to explore the meta-physical mysteries of our world, and especially the human Mind. :smile:
PS__Disclaimer : These are just my personal opinions, not those of The Philosophy Forum.
[i]Scientism is the view that science and the scientific method are the best or only objective means by which people should determine normative and epistemological values. . . .
In the philosophy of science, the term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism[/i]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
Logical positivists denied the soundness of metaphysics and traditional philosophy; they asserted that many philosophical problems are indeed meaningless.
http://people.loyno.edu/~folse/logpos.htm
I was just turning this matter over in my head and this: Richard Dawkins, British evolutionary biologist & atheist is adamant that the theory of evolution (ToE) is a fact i.e. it's true.
I just remembered science doesn't work that way. Scientific theories aren't true; they're, at best, provisionally/tentatively true and it feels wrong to even label them as such. Scientific theories are the best explanatory models for observed phenomena but they aren't true. If you google science fallacy of affirming the consequent you'll know what I'm talking about.
As for observations and finding patterns in them (laws of nature), this isn't the exclusive domain of science; George Lemaître (co-discoverer of the Big Bang), a catholic priest, is proof of that.
What is it then that makes science science? Hypotheses and theories of course, but for better or worse truth is N/A to them.
To cut the long story short, scientism, if it means science is about truths, is completely baseless. Science isn't about reality, it's about constructing best explanations of reality and that's a different story altogether.
True in mathematics is a matter of abstract truths. Such absolute truths exist only in abstraction NOT in nature (or if they do it seems impossible to me that they could be shown as absolute truths).
At the base level the grounding for all experimentation is not utterly solid. Descartes tried to reach for such and Husserl did too. Husserl basically came to admit to himself that there is not reaching any ultimate grounding but reaching for it is nevertheless a worthwhile task - he was not fond of ‘conclusions’.
:up:
Quoting I like sushi
Predictions are based on laws of nature - sensing patterns in the way matter & energy behaves - and is distinctly neutral territory in the science vs. whatever debate.
Science is largely an activity in hypothesizing/theorizing. Newton famously confessed "hypothesis non fingo". In other words, Newton had no hypothesis for gravitation and so Newton being true/false is moot.
Come to think of it, Newton's work is incomplete or only half-finished for he had no explanation for his equations. Einstein changed all that with his theory of relativity (matter bending space). At this point only can we discuss whether a scientific theory is true/false and as we all know it's a logical fallacy to claim them to be true from experimental evidence (converse fallacy).
The ‘Laws of Nature’ are based on the assumption that they exist. This assumption just happens to have produced fruitful results, but at the end of the line it might just be that the said ‘Laws’ are in a constant state of flux and that our finite and minuscule perspective merely makes our predictive models seem more reliable than they are.
That said, we seem to have done pretty well as a species in terms of understanding in part the ‘machinations’ of nature :)
I cannot comprehend anyone in the distant future ever looking back at Newton and saying ‘What an idiot!’ (in terms of gravity) yet for those that believed in a flat Earth on the back of a giant turtle I can.
I believe we're talking about the same thing but with different words.
Predictions, we all know, is based on a pattern (extending it to be precise) aka the laws of nature. Anyone with an advanced degree in math and the right equipment can detect a mathematical pattern in nature.
Explaining the pattern (the laws of nature) is the next step. Hypotheses are formulated and appropriate predictions are made. When predictions match a hypothesis we say that hypothesis is, after being evaluated, based on other criteria, against other competing hypotheses, best, not true.
Laws of nature are descriptive. They are either true or not (correspondence theory of truth)
Hypotheses/Theories are predictive/retrodictive. We use them to foretell the future and also explain the past . They are not true although they can be falsified when predictions fail to actualize.
Darwin's theory of evolution is one that hasn't been contradicted by observation (it isn't false); nevertheless, it isn't true. It's, as some say, just a theory. Even so, it's the best one we have (at the moment).
I'm but a novice. Learning, when does it end, eh?
Apparently, he was not questioning any particular god-concept, but merely the almost universal notion of some transcendent power over the world. Most of the world's religions hold that their supernatural authority (Lord) must be worshiped in order to receive blessings, or to avoid punishments. I suspect it's that intervening (blessing & cursing) Western (Abrahamic) god-model that the OP assumes may require some empirical evidence in a skeptical age. Almost all popular religions teach that their god, if properly motivated, can override Nature, and sometimes even human actions, on their behalf. That's the one I replied to in the negative. Empirical science has no evidence, one way or the other, about such extra-mundane beliefs.
Before the advent of modern science, most people were mystified by the vagaries of Nature, which seemed as unpredictable, mercurial, & capricious as the behavior of their human leaders. But, there are other, more philosophical, and mostly Eastern (TAO), notions of transcendent power, that make no claims of placatable deities. In those cases, the deity or deities were presumed responsible for both the good and the bad events in the world (Good & Evil). Hence, a Stoic attitude was the best way to think about the inexplicable positive or negative effects of Nature on human welfare. Ironically, such apathy is almost indistinguishable from our modern concept of Nature as an automatic mechanism. Consequently, our scientists feel no qualms about tinkering with dangerous natural processes, in order to make them more agreeable to human wishes.
Unfortunately, Stoicism & Scientism, are not very attractive to the average human, who is more inclined to pray for instant & personal help, rather than to wait for human ingenuity to learn to control tornadoes, earthquakes, cancer, plagues, insurrections, civil wars, and so forth, with technology instead of magic. Those more philosophically inclined though, may still find the general notion of First Cause, or Cosmic Force, or Tao helpful to make sense of a bewildering world. From that cosmic perspective we are all parts of a universal Whole.
Since the Cosmos as-a-whole is "more than the sum of its parts: it is both Immanent & Transcendent. So, you can call it "GOD", or "TAO", or "LOGOS", or simply "Nature", as you please. However, there will still be no empirical evidence for that Holistic concept. The affirmation is merely philosophical, rational, & theoretical. So, the answer to the OP is still negative. :cool:
Conceptions of God in monotheist, pantheist, and panentheist religions – or of the supreme deity in henotheistic religions – can extend to various levels of abstraction: as a powerful, human-like,
___Wikipedia
Stoic physics :
The Stoics often identified the universe and God with Zeus, as the ruler and upholder, and at the same time the law, of the universe. The Stoic God is not a transcendent omniscient being standing outside nature, but rather it is immanent—the divine element is immersed in nature itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoic_physics
I agree. Science is about provisional facts. But some of us still feel the need for some ultimate arbiter of Truth. That feeling may be the same imperative need that motivated the ancient prophets, who tried to go over the head of irascible autocratic kings, by appealing to a King of Kings. In this case though, the Truth-giver is imagined as a sort of a collective hive-mind, composed of officially-frocked scientist priests. Anyway, for the prophets of Absolute Truth, there is no room for independent-minded, woo-mongering, uncertain, flakey philosophers. :joke:
Why Science Is Not Final Arbiter of Truth :
[i]For far too long, science has been shrouded in a cloak of unquestionable authority as the final arbiter of all knowledge (except, of course, when the research has been funded by business, which for some makes it necessarily suspect).
* What drives us onward in the work of science is precisely the sense that there are truths out there to be discovered, truths that once discovered will form a permanent part of human knowledge.--Steve Weinberg, 2001 (1)
* ...all scientific knowledge, however acquired, is inherently provisional.--Ian Tattersall, 2008 (2)
* It is a fact that we are cousins of gorillas, kangaroos, starfish, and bacteria. Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun. It is not a theory, and for pity's sake, let's stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact.--Richard Dawkins, 2005 (3)
* Science is not about final truth or "facts"; it is only about continually testing and trying to falsify our hypotheses, until they are extremely well-supported.--Donald P. Prothero, 2007 (4)[/i]
https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=2681
:up:
Quoting Gnomon
This is exactly the kind of misleading rhetoric that we should be worried about in my humble opinion. It encourages scientism (science as an absolute infallible authority). It is, in a sense, a betrayal of those who kicked off the scientific revolution which was a painful and sometimes deadly struggle against religious dogmatism.
[quote=Daniel Bonevac]Meet the new boss (science), same as the old boss (religion).[/quote]
I suppose scientists can be forgiven for their unwavering faith in science - it's got "so many things right", unlike religion. Nevertheless, we should be as skeptical about science as science is skeptical about other methods of gaining knowledge. Fairness demands it! :smile:
:sad: So much to do, so little time.
To give a prominent scientist his due, I suspect that Dawkin's bold assertion was expressed in frustration with the antagonistic Creationism movement, which often belittled Darwin's insight into the mechanism of speciation as "just a theory". After a century & a half of research, his theory is supported by lots of data-points of Fact. And there's little evidence to contradict Darwin's general description of the process of emergence, in which new "forms" originate (branch off) from old forms.
However, the presumption that Darwin's theory explains the origin of Life on Earth is still open to dispute. And that is the point the Creationists hammer on. Some modern theologians have given-up the outdated notion of special creation of each "kind", as described in Genesis. But, they still discern the necessity for an "intelligence", of some kind, to "design" the program of creative evolutionary progression. I'm no longer a theist, but I too, infer a logical role for a Programmer to map-out a scheme, whereby an almost infinite universe could be produced from the DNA-like information in a tiny, Planck scale, bit of potential energy & instructions for causing Matter & Mind to evolve over time, from almost nothing, in-the-beginning. The odds of that happening by Chance, seem more than infinite-to-one.
I understand that defenders of Scientism may feel justified, by Darwin's "Fact", in their dogged struggle against dogmatic Religious Creationism. But, my position is somewhere in the middle, between Cosmic Accident and Special Creation. The only way to know for sure how & why the world began & developed as it did, would require direct revelation from the Originator. I assume that's why various prophets, over the centuries, have claimed to be conduits for divine inspiration. But, I find their diverse & contradictory stories to be unbelievable, as the word of God. So, I have been forced to develop my own patchwork theory of creation & evolution, cobbled-together from bits & pieces of plausible information. It's a philosophical hypothesis, not a scientific fact or theory. Yet, it serves my personal need for a comprehensive worldview. And it all comes down to one simple fact of nature : Information (the power to enform) is fundamental & ubiquitous in the real world. :nerd:
Evolution as fact and theory :
Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not known with absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory
Special Creation :
In creationism, special creation is a belief that the universe and all life in it originated in its present form by fiat or divine decree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_creation
Evolutionary Programming :
Special computer algorithms inspired by biological Natural Selection. It is similar to Genetic Programming in that it relies on internal competition between random alternative solutions to weed-out inferior results, and to pass-on superior answers to the next generation of algorithms. By means of such optimizing feedback loops, evolution is able to make progress toward the best possible solution – limited only by local restraints – to the original programmer’s goal or purpose. In Enformationism theory the Prime Programmer is portrayed as a creative principle (e.g. Logos), who uses bottom-up mechanisms, rather than top-down miracles, to produce a world with both freedom & determinism, order & meaning.
BothAnd Glossary
Is Information Fundamental? :
Could information be the most basic building block of reality?
https://www.closertotruth.com/series/information-fundamental
Darwin's theory (to my knowledge) has never attempted to explain life on earth. People using evolution as a creation story are wrong. Evolution explains diversity, not the question of what created life - abiogenesis - which remains a mystery. We know what the active ingredients of life are, but we are yet to determine how chemistry became biology. The first self-replicating molecule marks the beginning of evolution.
Actually, he did speculate on how life began in terms of his evolutionary theory : the warm puddle hypothesis. And other biologists have attempted to find hard evidence to support that notion. Even physicists have tried to expand the Darwinian theory back to the origin of everything. But, it was astronomers who found circumstantial evidence, in the expanding universe theory.
Yet even that evolutionary cosmology ran into mathematical infinities in the minuscule Planck Time, near the creation event we now call the Big Bang. Even so, theorists like Allan Guth & Andrei Linde subdivided the BB era into even tinier fractions of a second. Yet, they still haven't reached the Holy Grail of explaining "something from nothing". All theories to-date stop short of the beginning-of-the-beginning : asymptotic to infinity.
So, the field remains open, even for philosophical conjectures. Such as where did the initial energy & laws originate? FWIW, my amateur summary of the phases of evolution is pasted below. And Life emerged in the middle, at step seven. Presumably, because the potential for Life was already programmed in the First Cause. But, by whom? :nerd:
Charles Darwin's hunch about early life :
Darwin was proposing that life began, not in the open ocean, but in a smaller body of water on land, which was rich in chemicals. This is in essence the primordial soup idea, but with one advantage: in a pool, any dissolved chemicals would become concentrated when water evaporated in the heat of the day.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201110-charles-darwin-early-life-theory
Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore :
The problem with inflation isn't the idea per se, but the overproduction of useless inflationary models. ___Sabine Hossenfelder, theoretical physicist
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/28/is-the-inflationary-universe-a-scientific-theory-not-anymore/?sh=7df51ea1b45e
Phases of Evolution :
0. Omega Point :
Who knows?
9. Reiterate
Ongoing Emergences
8. Artificial Forms :
Machines, Computers
8. Metaphysical Forms
Reasoning & Designing
7. Organic Forms :
Life, Minds, Societies (consciousness)
6. Physical Forms :
Stars, Galaxies, Planets
5. Matter :
Primitive Particles
4. Energy :
Unformed Plasma
3. Quantum Field :
Statistical Possibilities
2. Big Bang :
Start the computation
Start the clock of Time
Set initial conditions
1. Singularity :
Design, Codes, Laws (the evolutionary Program)
0. Infinity :
Omni-potence, Omni-science,?
Note --- Hume : "like causes like"
nothing in the effect that was not potentially in the cause
e.g Life from Life & Mind from Mind
But this warm puddle (or whatever theory one chooses) is not evolution. Abiogenesis is a separate matter. Abiogenesis may lead to evolution but evolution does not lead to abiogenesis.
Good point! That's why I have concluded that the potential for Life & Mind, must have been "programmed" into the evolutionary scheme that we now call the Singularity. Physicists define it as a mathematical point, with no extension in space or time. So, there was no room for actual Energy or Matter. Only the Logical "design concept" for those inherent properties of physical evolution would fit into a spaceless container. Logic & Math consist of abstract mental relationships, not actual material objects. For example : how big is the number "four"?
This notion of Causal Abstraction should be compatible with some hypothetical Mathematical Universe and Anthropic Principle conjectures. So, I assume the proponents must imagine that "abiogenesis" was originally an abstract mathematical-logical definition or algorithm of some kind. Of course, MUH is a controversial concept, and the only supporting evidence, so far, is logical consistency. So, I don't take it literally.
But something along those lines would answer some of the fundamental Origin-of-Everything questions. One of which is : how could any material object (not to mention any living thing) survive the holocaust of a Cosmic scale eruption of space-time-energy-laws?? Perhaps the big bomb was merely a mathematical abstraction itself. And we only imagine it in familiar terms of physical explosions, such as those in Ukraine. :smile:
Mathematical universe hypothesis :
[i]Tegmark's MUH is: Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure. . . .
In any mathematical structure complex enough to contain such substructures, they "will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world". . . .
The MUH is based on the radical Platonist view that math is an external reality.[/i]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis
Note -- the virtual reality of the Matrix was a mathematical structure (simulation), that its inhabitants accepted as real.
The beginnings of life on earth are mostly irrelevant to my experience and I have a dislike of systems and theories. :smile: I am more concerned with what I am going to do tomorrow.
That said, I've always wondered, when it comes to anything, anything at all, what defines genius, the ability to create complexity directly (e.g. creating humans fully formed) or indirectly, via small, simple, cumulative increments à la evolution? If I were to present to you two (computer) codes, one is simple but can evolve complexity over time and the other complex from the start, which is cleverer?
As for information being the building blocks of reality, I can detect no inconsistency; in fact we have proof of concept in the form of simulated universes e.g. as alluded to in The Matrix movies (re video games).
You might like this :point: Uncovering the codes of reality (Professor S. James Gates) [error-correcting codes]
:up:
Yes, but. The hypothetical Singularity (non-dimensional point in non-space) is about as simple as it gets. It's essentially a mathematical concept, with no moving parts. Consequently, the philosophical question arises : how does real complexity arise from unreal (ideal) simplicity. I turn to Aristotle for the answer. He distinguished between Potential & Actual. But the problem is that a Potential thing is like a Platonic Form : it doesn't exist in the real physical world. So, in what sense does "Potential" exist?
Based on the sub-quantum sciences and information theories, I have concluded that Potential exists in the same sense that mental Information (ideas ; thoughts ; meaning) exists : as Ideal Forms. And AFAIK, Meaning exists only in Minds. Although, probably to avoid confusion with humanoid Greek gods, Plato tended to avoid personal terms, such as "Mind", his "Ideal Forms" were clearly non-physical abstractions equivalent to ideas or definitions in a human mind. But he didn't specify whose mind, except to imply that his hypothetical impersonal Logos was the ultimate source of all mental attributes. Some, less scrupulous, later philosophers have interpreted his Ideal realm as the "Mind of God".
For the same reason, I refer to the Mind, in which the mathematical Singularity was conceived, by various descriptive but non-personal names -- beginning with Logos, which is indeed an imaginary "higher power". Materialists refer to the same hypothetical Ultimate Source of our orderly world with "invented" abstract models : Multiverse, Many Worlds. Yet, they are portrayed as mindless impersonal accidental systems of energy, matter, & laws. In which case, they have no explanation for the emergence of the non-physical non-things that are of highest importance to mortal humans : Life, Mind, Ideas, Meanings, Feelings, Reasons, Love, etc.
Our world does indeed seem to be self-organizing (bottom-up evolution), requiring no divine intervention to correct its course. Once the evolutionary process gets started, "it proceeds naturally". But, unlike pragmatic scientists, philosophers are also interested in Ontology (being). So, they ask impractical questions, such as "why is there something instead of nothing"? And Multiverse theories just take existence for granted, even though non-being is just as likely. So, the beginning of Being is an open question. Since my thesis is based on Information, I like to use computers as a metaphor for the real world. A computer program is self-organizing, and works from the bottom-up, from original algorithm to final output. And it requires an external Mind to build the computer, to input the algorithm, to define the problem to be solved, and to push the Start button.
So, like Plato, I try to avoid attributing personal attributes to an abstract concept, beyond my ken. I merely imagine a job description for the "Programmer" (the Intelligence, the Enformer), who input the Energy & Laws (the algorithm) to initiate the smooth-running & creative & progressive process that we call Evolution. :nerd:
Potentiality and actuality :
Aristotle describes potentiality and actuality, or potency and action, as one of several distinctions between things that exist or do not exist. In a sense, a thing that exists potentially does not exist, but the potential does exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potentiality_and_actuality
Note -- Potential exists as a mental concept, not a material object
What is the relation of Plato's Forms to things? :
For Plato, Forms or Ideals (eidos ; ideas) are essences or originals of qualities or things.
Because Plato managed to do something THAT NO BODY ELSE HAVE MANAGED TO ACCOMPLISH ON THIS PLANET at least in his scale. . . . . Namely He spoke about the invisible abstract world without the use of advanced technology or through Deamons(Magic). . . .He described something that only advanced technology today can some times prove that exists. He spoke about the blue prints of this universe. He described the world of IDEAS a world that is stable in contradiction to our world where everything are subjected to degradation and death.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relation-of-Platos-form-to-things
Note -- empirical scientists don't do essences; that is left up to impractical philosophers.
BEING :
[i]In my own theorizing there is one universal principle that subsumes all others, including Consciousness : essential Existence. Among those philosophical musings, I refer to the "unit of existence" with the absolute singular term "BEING" as contrasted with the plurality of contingent "beings" and things and properties. By BEING I mean the ultimate “ground of being”, which is simply the power to exist, and the power to create beings.
Note : Real & Ideal are modes of being. BEING, the power to exist, is the source & cause of Reality and Ideality. BEING is eternal, undivided and static, but once divided into Real/Ideal, it becomes our dynamic Reality.[/i]
BothAnd Blog Glossary
Programmer vs Creator vs Recycler :
Admittedly, the hypothetical Cosmic Creator or Prime Programmer of this thesis is nothing more than a job description, and we can imagine a variety of office-holders to fill the prescribed roles. For those who prefer a transcendent ultimate entity, an unimaginable deity like Allah or Brahman would fill the bill. For others, more modernistically & humanistically inclined, a clean-cut white-haired Architect, as in the Matrix movie, might suffice to symbolize the Designer. Or for those who prefer a more abstract and impersonal concept, a Multiverse of eternally cycling energy, creating a variety of material forms out of nothing more substantial than the power-to-enform, might sound more scientific. But it still must somehow explain the emergence of conscious minds. Moreover, any intervention from above by any of these role-models would have to work from the bottom up, in order to agree with the observed mechanisms of reality. Which of these role-models would best suit this new worldview for the 21st century, wherein Reality is founded upon immaterial yet potent information?
BothAnd Blog, post 4
Self?organization is a core concept of Systems Science. It refers to the ability of a class of systems (self?organizing systems (SOS)) to change their internal structure and/or their function in response to external circumstances.
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-0-387-30440-3_475
Note -- SOS are able to evolve to suit changing environments. But they must be designed to do so. Self-organization doesn't happen accidentally. Presumably, what Darwin called "Natural Selection" is a programming function, like a "subroutine".
Science's philosophical backbone is that of Methodological Naturalism.(MN).
MN is not a worldview but an epistemic acknowledgement of our methodological and observational limitations. Science produces Descriptive Frameworks within the limits of our methods even if its metaphysics might include hypotheses on the ontology of a phenomenon. The "end product"/knowledge is always a description not a metaphysical assumption.
As long as god(s) or any other superstitious claim remain unobservable then science will not be able to provide a description of the alleged cause.
We as thinking agents created this tool called science in our effort to keep "magical explanations" away from our epistemology. We achieve that by producing sound arguments (verified premises) for every claim we accept as knowledge.
Trying to reconcile those two things(god and Science) is like valuing fallacious arguments.
So there aren't any scientific grounds for claims that are unfalsifiable, untestable and unobservable.
I like what you did there. Declare a variable (x) and delineate its functions (job description). The audience is free to assign any value to x. God, Chance, Alice from Wonderland, Dracula, whathaveyou. When you explain it, it seems so obvious, but then it isn't exactly as plain as the nose on your face. :up:
Have you ever considered that you could be, by limiting yourself to a binary system (for vs. against), alloying the two belligerent sides on any issue, you could very well be committing the false dichotomy fallacy or the argumentum ad temperantiam fallacy.
For instance, in the debate between atheism and theism, is it possible that, instead of trying to unify the two into a whole, you could reject both and contemplate on a third alternative which is neither theism nor atheism, and not some amalgamation of the two (the middle), but something else entirely. Have you come across Nagarjuna's terralemma?
Though we don’t typically consider it “magic” I think the universe offers several phenomena or qualities which I would argue are as close the the term “magic” as one can get.
The Newtonian laws of thermodynamics for example: energy cannot be created or destroyed but can change from one form to another. The idea of “immortality” or “invincibility” underpins physics and we seem to just take this as a fact without really delving into just how bizarre that is.
Why can’t we destroy energy? Why can’t we create it? If it truly is invincible how did it come to be? How is it both matter and that which acts on matter? How can energy be conscious of itself through living systems? Energy must be omnipotent as it is all degrees of the ability to do work, it’s omnipresent because it cannot be in isolation from itself - information is always connected, there is no place in the universe where energy doesn’t occur, it’s omniscient in the sense that it is the means by which all information occurs - the change, the motion, the A the B and the transitionary state between A and B. It is fundamental to the existence of everything and at the same time “is” everything.
Even space and time cannot be removed from the concept of energy as without energy time could not pass and without space, energy has no location, no dimension in which to change between its various forms - as matter, or photons or anything in between. It creates order and chaos. Sounds pretty “godly” to me.
I agree that a personification of god - especially as a old wise man - is not at all necessary nor particularly useful but it doesn’t change the fact that humans are energy. Energy describing and interpreting itself.
Science is an incredible tool when poised toward our natural world in search for some common laws or principles as to how it works, However I feel it really falls short in describing the “self”, consciousness, ethics and moral or the innate feeling of good and bad we have collectively developed over the millennia - the need for compassion or empathy at all. After all objective scientific method cannot “objectify” a “subject” entirely without gross perversion of their individual rights - autonomy, safety, privacy etc
So what aspect of the the natural sciences allows for the existence of an ethics and moral so powerful it dictates scientific endeavour at every corner and penalises those which choose to ignore it?
It makes much more sense that a mechanistic, motion and chemistry based, dead, inanimate and purposeless universe governed by numbers and calculations and proportions should never give rise to anything that is irrational, emotive or “feeling” at all. And yet it does.
The best thing we have to describe morality and ethics is spiritual and philosophical writings not scientific papers. At least not yet.
Apparently, you have misunderstood the point of the BothAnd philosophy. In practice, the BothAnd principle considers all possibilities between 0 & 1. But tries to find the point of balance & harmony. It is intended to be an alternative to the typical unbalanced binary all-or-nothing Either/Or posture. But it doesn't prescribe a position in the exact middle of the range of views. Each observer will have personal reasons for emphasizing certain aspects over others. However, it is generally aligned with Aristotle's Golden Mean, and Buddha's Middle Path, and Taoism's Yin/Yang. As a rule-of-thumb, it simply means "nothing to excess". :smile:
Both/And Principle :
[i]* My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
* The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to ofset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system.[/i]
BothAnd Blog Glossary
Quoting Agent Smith
Yes, The BothAnd principle does seek a third option, which is the balance point between excess & deficit. I'm not familiar with "terralemma", but having to juggle four alternatives, instead of two or three, may violate Ockham's Razor. The term "BothAnd" merely acknowledges that most philosophical debates tend to force participants to defend one extreme or the other. By contrast, "moderation in all things" advises us to compromise, so as to avoid mutual annihilation, or a Mexican stand-off. :joke:
PS__This very thread illustrates the Either/Or policy. If someone proposes a moderate position, others will immediately attack it as-if it was a totalitarian rejection of their position. My stance on the god question is in the middle : Theism - Deism - Atheism. But a Theist would consider me to be an Atheist, and vice-versa.
Why Compromise? :
Like the philosophy of Pragmatism, the BothAnd principle, requiring accommodation to seemingly extraneous factors, could be dismissed as a weak policy of compromising eternal principles for temporary goals. But that sneer misses the point of taking the broader view, seeking harmony & balance instead of victory & triumph. So, the idea is to make practical concessions to the fact that each person, social group, nation, planet, and galaxy is but a small part of a greater whole.
BothAnd Blog, post 2
Deism :
An Enlightenment era response to the Roman Catholic version of Theism, in which the supernatural deity interacts and intervenes with humans via visions & miracles, and rules his people through a human dictator. Deists rejected most of the supernatural stuff, but retained an essential role for a First Cause creator, who must be respected as the quintessence of our world, but not worshiped like a tyrant. The point of Deism is not to seek salvation, but merely understanding.
BothAnd Blog Glossary
Theism: God
Atheist: No God
Deist: Yes God but not in the theistic sense & No God but not in the atheistic sense.
You want to, in a sense, incorporate the best of both (opposing) worlds, that's what we recognize as the aurea mediocritas (the golden mean), in your quest to gain a complete understanding of reality. You need both halves (the yin & the yang).
---
However, as I've always been concerned about, doesn't your Both/And Principle violate 2 laws of logic viz. the law of the excluded middle and the law of noncontradiction (given a proposition p, either p is true or ~p is true but not the case that both p and ~p are true/false at the same time). As an illustration, either theism is true or atheism is true, but both can't be true and both can't be false. There can be no middle ground betwixt theism and atheism.
Sticking to the example of theism vs. atheism, once we get our hands on solid proof, either theism will be true or atheism will be true, neither can both be true and nor can both be false.
In other words, the Both/And Principle seems useful/applicable only in cases where we lack definitive, sound arguments to settle disagreements which includes most/all of metaphysics. That is to say your principle isn't actually about truth, but more about harmony.
---
Coming to what I suggested you examine, Nagarjuna's tetralemma, it also deals with, in my humble opinion, metaphysics. On the issue of God (say), it negates all possible claims within a bivalent logic (vide infra)
Where G = God exists, B = Buddha exists after death
1. God exists. . No!
2. God doesn't exist. No!
3. God exists and God doesn't exist. No!
4. Neither God exists, nor God doesn't exist. No!
The point is we can't discuss metaphysics for it's impossible to justify any claims we make therein (pure speculation is all
that we can manage). Nagarjuna's tetralemma (4-fold negation) then is designed to terminate all metaphysical discourse. By the way, Nagarjuna's tetralemma is known as the middle way because it rejects/negates extremes.
Yes. However, the concept of BothAnd didn't come from ancient philosophy, but from my research on ubiquitous Information. Like some pioneering scientists, I concluded that the fundamental substance of Reality is not Dualistic (energy + matter, or mind + matter), but Monistic (it's all Information in various forms : mind + energy + matter + everything else). So, the essence of BothAnd is Monism. The "BothAnd" label is simply an indicator that truth is not polarized, but a continuum. :smile:
Quoting Agent Smith
The "excluded middle" and "non-contradiction" rules are presuming that you have access to absolute all-encompassing Truth. But the BothAnd rule assumes that we humans are all limited to small bits & pieces of perfect Platonic Truth. That's why I compare it to Einstein's Relativity : the truth you see depends on your "frame of reference", your limited perspective. So, for us earth-bound truth-seekers, it's all "middle ground". :cool:
Quoting Agent Smith
Since I consider Meta-Physics to be the sole purview of Philosophy, I wouldn't agree that we shouldn't discuss non-physical (e.g. mental) topics. What else are we going to talk about, the weather? Even so, we cannot make any absolute claims about non-verifiable or non-falsifiable bits of truth. Philosophy can only allow us to get "Closer to Truth". As the link below notes, despite our best efforts to "know the mind of god", philosophers, by "exploring the deepest questions" can only hope to improve their own personal understanding. Beware of prophets who claim to reveal the absolute Truth. However, the Enformationism thesis is intended to suggest a way to approximate a Theory of Everything.
The rejection of extremes is definitely akin to the BothAnd view. However, it's statistically possible that the balance point of Harmony could be at one extreme. For, example, a rule against torturing babies may be as far as possible away from Sadism. But such clear (radical) oppositions are rare. :nerd:
Closer to Truth :
the greatest thinkers exploring the deepest questions
https://www.closertotruth.com/
What's the Point of Philosophy? :
“It is suggested that the intrinsic point of doing philosophy is to establish a rational consensus about what the answers to its main questions are. But it seems that this cannot be accomplished because philosophical arguments are bound to be inconclusive,”
https://qz.com/1313616/whats-the-point-of-philosophy-a-new-philosophy-paper-says-there-isnt-one/
The Mind of God is a 1992 non-fiction book by physicist Paul Davies. Subtitled The Scientific Basis for a Rational World, it is a whirlwind tour and explanation of theories, both physical and metaphysical, regarding ultimate causes. Its title comes from a quotation from Stephen Hawking: "If we do discover a theory of everything...it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would truly know the mind of God."
The Enformationism thesis is a sort of Theory of Everything (TOE), in the sense that "X" is supposed to be the cosmic All, of which our world is a small part. But it is not a scientific model of reality, and it does not claim to be the absolute Truth. Instead, it is merely a framework for my personal under-standing of the enigmatic world I found myself wandering in, like a stranger in a strange land, as an unfledged babe. It's also a response to the babble of rival theories-of-ultimate-reality -- religious & scientific -- that only added to the mystery.
BothAnd Blog, post 11
Note -- "X" can be imagined as G*D, Logos, Programmer, Creator, The All, The One, etc. Sadly, as the part cannot know the whole, we may never know the mind of "X" for sure. But we can guess.
INFLUENCES ON PERSONAL FRAME OF REFERENCE
So,
1. Information is fundamental to your philosophy.
2. Your aim is to develop a framework or system that allows you to make sense of the world and not to find truth per se. Of course a theory of everything (ToE), your aim, would explain anything and everything and that's as good as knowing the truth if not the truth itself.
3. You don't deny that not all polarities vis-à-vis truth can be resolved by finding the middle ground (you gave an example of torture; some torture, the midpoint, isn't exactly what someone like yourself would be ok with). This, I suspect, is the argumentum ad temperantiam fallacy I referred to in my previous post.
The long and short of it: You have a ToE and although perfectionist would easily find flaws in it, at the very least, it has a general applicability that you find satisfactory (for the moment).
Notice, I believe I've already mentioned this in my previous post, that the aureas mediocritas (the golden mean/the middle path) only applies in matters we're still in the dark about e.g. god and not in those we're certain of the truth. To illustrate, if I say diamonds are hard and you say they're soft, we can verify the truth by actually taking a diamond and checking if it's hard/soft. There's no middle ground between hard and soft for a diamond. Contrast that to a debate on God. Missing evidence to settle the matter provides the perfect environment for your Both/And Principle. In other words, your system is designed to make sense of and navigate our ignorance and what is it that we know the least about? Metaphysics, i.e. your Both/And Principle is tailor-made to do metaphysics and is, in my humble opinion, one of the best tools in a metaphysician's toolkit.
I'll leave you with a question: Can metaphysical claims be verified/falsified?
No. Metaphysics is specifically exempted from scientific analysis. So, scientific verification is out of the question. Yet, that's where Philosophy comes in. It picks up where Science leaves off. Science provides pragmatic knowledge about Nature, while Philosophy provides reasonable opinions about Culture (the human aspect of nature). By "reasonable", I don't mean absolutely true facts, but merely ideas, whose logic has been tested in the fires of well-informed disagreement, to remove the dross.
Being "well-informed" though, includes knowledge of how the physical world works, so you can tell the difference between a natural event, and a miracle. That's why Philosophers as far back as Plato & Aristotle doubted the actual existence of the metaphorically useful Greek gods. For example, Ari knew enough about the weather to understand that scary lightning occurred randomly, and not due to vengeful cloud-hopping storm-gods. But they still had to assume the "metaphysical existence" (being qua being) of natural-but-invisible causal principles. Yet, those postulated essences were not susceptible to direct observation, so they were placed in a sub-category, under Physics, of Meta-physics.
We no longer turn to his volume on Physics for information on physical questions. But 2500 years later, we still debate some of the non-physical topics -- such as substance, quality, quantity, and relation -- that he chewed-over in the second volume. He also classified four explanatory conditions — an object's form, matter, efficient cause, and teleology --- that are still applicable today. Nevertheless, philosophy is still not in the business of verifying natural facts. It can only use those ancient methods to separate reasonable beliefs from heart-felt opinions.
So, it's due to my own amateurish philosophical analysis, that I have let go of my childhood belief in the Abrahamic Yahweh-Jesus, and the human-edited & redacted scriptures that are presented as the inspired word of God. Yet, I have never been able to rationalize the existence of a contingent world without a First Cause of some kind. That primary, efficient, and final Cause is inherently Preter-natural, hence invulnerable to natural science, which must be satisfied with useful normal or natural facts. But meta-physical philosophy is not bound to physical facts, because it only seeks for logically necessary concepts. Those essential "truths" are Logically Verifiable, but not Physically Falsifiable.
So, no. Metaphysical claims cannot be "verified/falsified" by physical methods. But, they can be proven for logical soundness by rational methods. And prior assumptions, or degrees of belief, can be tested for probability via Bayesian statistics. But, yes. I do include a Creative Cause in my worldview, to at least theoretically explain the "something from nothing" (space-time from infinity-eternity?) issue raised by the scientifically plausible, but not physically provable, Big Bang theory. :nerd:
A contingent truth is one that is true, but could have been false. A necessary truth is one that must be true; a contingent truth is one that is true as it happens, or as things are, but that did not have to be true. In Leibniz's phrase, a necessary truth is true in all possible worlds.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100226735
Preternatural : beyond what is normal or natural ; metaphysical
Note -- even Multiverse & Many Worlds theories are beyond the scope of physical verification.
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Logical Verification :
[i]A formal proof is a logical argument expressed in a logical formalism. . . .
In contrast, an informal proof is what a mathematician would normally call a proof. These are often carried out on a blackboard, and are also called “pen-and-paper proofs.”[/i]
https://cs.brown.edu/courses/cs1951x/static_files/main.pdf
Factually wrong statement by Gnomon.
There is this thing called scientific hypotheses. Those who are verified are promoted to scientific theories, those who are falsified are discarded.
Obviously Gnomon ignores what "metaphysics" means and why all our hypotheses in science are Metaphysics. Science is Philosophy!
Here is a great talk by Richard Carrier on what is Metaphysics, what is Philosophy and what is pseudo philosophy.(supernaturalism).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLvWz9GQ3PQ
Nick, I can save you a lot of time & effort to defend Atheism against Theism, or Physics vs Metaphysics, Science vs Philosophy -- however you frame your besieged belief system.
Just copy & paste all the replies to me from . I've heard it all before. But his, and I assume your, Binary worldview has no place for my personal non-polarized worldview. So, what I'm saying does not compute And my terminology has no place in your vocabulary. Therefore, your castigations bounce off me and return to you. Have a nice day. :smile:
1. Description: How matter & energy behave, detailed in the laws of nature, some of which are mathematical and some of which, like in the biological sciences, are not. Newton discovered the law of gravitation but didn't have a hypothesis to explain why objects with mass "attracted" each other: hypothesis non fingo!
2. Explanation: Constructing hypotheses (educated guesses) as to why the laws of nature are the way they are. For example Einstein's theory of relativity explains gravity as just the warping of space around objects that have mass.
---
3. Metaphysics: Here we try to ask and answer questions about things science takes for granted: What is causality? What are space & time? What is existence? Etc.
The idea is not to make an empirical claim, which can be verified/falsified, but to analyze the conceptual schemata that science uses.
Am I on the right track or no?
-None of the above is the subject of this discussion and of the questions I raised.
My point of objection is the inability of people to distinguish valid philosophical questions and topics from pseudo philosophy.
The bad practice of people to assume what they should be able to conclude and the total ignorance of the role of epistemology and science in every philosophical inquiry.
I don't know what you think you have heard but there is a crisis in Philosophy for so many years because humans use the field as a comforting pillow to rest their anxieties and seek validity by just stating "its philosophy". Things are not that simple.
Quoting Agent Smith
If you are interested about the components of Science or its nature in general the following lecture is the best you can find.
Systematicity: The Nature of Science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYK7uhQ_QCk
And you tell us this on a philosophy forum...using the field as a comforting pillow and a way to seek validity ? Perhaps you've described thinking in general ? Don't know about you, but I'm a mammal. I like soft pillows and social status. A big part of philosophy is maybe us figuring out how to live together while not starving in the cold with rotting teeth and an intestinal parasite dangling on our thigh.
///////////////////////////////
They are all advocates who do not wish to be regarded as such, generally astute defenders, also, of their prejudices, which they dub "truths,"—and VERY far from having the conscience which bravely admits this to itself, very far from having the good taste of the courage which goes so far as to let this be understood, perhaps to warn friend or foe, or in cheerful confidence and self-ridicule.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4363/4363-h/4363-h.htm#link2HCH0001
Quoting jas0n
-correct and I point out that not all "thinking in general" qualifies as a philosophical inquire.
Quoting jas0n
-that was a long shot but you are guessed right! I am a mammal too !
-" I like soft pillows and social status. "
-Me too but I don't call them different names...
Quoting jas0n
-Correct! Wise claims and ideas on what we learn can save us from suffering and death!
-"Quoting jas0n
-I am not interested in the reasons they are forced to advocate things....I am just pointing out the obvious.Philosophy is an exercise of frustration....if they seek comfort they should turn to Theology, but calling "theology" philosophy ...that is a dishonest practice.
:ok: Merci beaucoup.
It's a fact that lots of classic battles are still raging under the tent of philosophy. To take one side is to think the other is wrong or at least less rational/convincing. Assuming that there is one right answer to questions like 'what is science?' or 'what is meaning?' (which may itself be superstition), you're going to have people on the wrong side of an issue who are nevertheless making a case for their position while incorporating criticism.
As far as I can tell, you are trying to apply scientific standards to philosophy, without realizing that such an application needs to be justified. For instance, Popper's demarcation is not something that can be falsified. Is it therefore superstition? Hardly. It's an attempt to articulate what it means to try to not be superstitious. It's a suggested convention. 'Hey guys...maybe this is a way to be less stupid and wrong.' It's a part of philosophy. Alternative conceptions of science are also a part of philosophy.
You seem to want to use 'Philosophy' for 'my current opinions' or 'the philosophy I like.' That's an aggressive and confusing approach that will interfere with productive conversation.
Also, I'd like your opinion of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumentalism
Is truth only good as a means to get power? Or good in itself? Is it pretty ? Why do we care?
You will need to be more specific or else I will be forced to conclude that you are talking about a different topic.
I am talking about ideas that aren't founded on epistemology and have zero reality check in their entire intellectual process (i.e. Supernaturalism, theism etc).
We don't need to think them as wrong. They are just non philosophical.
Quoting jas0n
-those are irrelevant topics to the points I make.
Quoting jas0n
No I am pointing out that the standards of basic logic should apply in all intellectual endeavors, plus the goal of Philosophy (wisdom) and the method defined by Aristotle demand those high standards.
Its irrational to state that "you" are a lover of wisdom while your syllogism are isolated from established epistemology and logical standards.
Its not a matter of opinion or my burden to justify those standards. Those who assume that can produce wise claims without being founded on logic and knowledge should try to justify their acts.
Quoting jas0n
Principles and axioms may be unfalsifiable but their value is validated every time we use them. Popper's rule of thumb has demonstrated its value since we are aware of our empirical limitations in providing proofs . Trying to find evidence that can falsify a claim is the best tool we have and real Pragmatic Necessity.
Quoting jas0n
lets nott pretend that Logic and axioms are in the same ball park with superstitious claims. If only you could produce the results we have by using the empirical rules of logic. Yes logic is empirically shaped and guided.
Quoting jas0n
-Those are not even close. Not being able to prove i.e. logical absolutes is not the same with assumed agents or made up concepts. The logical absolutes are verified every time we use them and even if we can not prove them in a mathematical degree of certainty they are instrumentally and epistemically valuable.
Quoting jas0n
-What you seem to belief is irrelevant. What is philosophy is or isn't is something demarcated by the actual goal of the intellectual process.
The goal set is Wisdom. You can not have wisdom without knowledge and logic.
Quoting jas0n
Is it good to accept a model that is in agreement with facts about reality.i.e Those who ignored the truth claim about gravity and tried to "fly" are a good answer to your question.
Those who embraced the true claim of germs and chose antibiotics instead of prayers....can answer you.
Now on instrumentalism....Instrumental value is just one more way to verify (not prove beyond any doubt) our knowledge claims.
Science doesn't deal with absolute truth or absolute knowledge. Methodological Naturalism makes that clear. The falsifiable nature of frameworks also deny absolute concepts. Those may have their role as our ultimate goals but we need NOT to strawman science.
The same should be true for Philosophy outside science.(or better any philosophical endeavor that skips the steps of Epistemology and science).
I have a great lecture on that.
Is Philosophy Stupid? - Richard Carrier - Skepticon 6
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=is+philosophy+stupid
let me quote the bullet points presented in the talk.
1.Pseudo philosophy relies on fallacious arguments to a conclusion
2. it relies on factually false, outdated or undemonstrated premises ( epistemic disconnectedness either on purpose or on ignorance)
3. Isn't corrected when noted(sophistry and total disregard of the rules of Logic).
I forgot to address your point.
You stated that " I don't mind people using philosophy as a psychological crutch, to validate their own thoughts and feelings."
-The issue is that when claims are designed to validate thoughts and feelings they are no longer philosophical , by definition (etymology and goal of the method).
Philosophy's goal is wisdom. Wisdom can only be achieved through logic and Knowledge.
Logic and knowledge do not have a good track with feelings and comforting thoughts....
I don't deny we all do it.....I only point out that philosophy has nothing to do with that.
You can call it superstitious excuses or religious ideologies but Philosophy is an exercise in frustration. The comforting feeling of understanding things is only a side effect not the main goal of Philosophy...or better it shouldn't be.. (well we can argue its the main motivation behind our efforts).
In other words, pseudo-philosophy is part and parcel of true/genuine philosophy. The transition from false to true philosophy is, of course, a short one if one is genuine in one's desire to do philosophy. However, for me, philosophy has a steep learning curve.
Some say that philosophy and psychology are joined at the hip.
-I don't want to be absolute but at least most if not all of the OP and the comments I have checked do not meat the philosophical standards.(zero epistemic evaluation or support of the assumptions used in the hypothesis).
Quoting Agent Smith
-yes. Many of the old philosophical ideas enjoy a free ride because of the name of their authors.
In addition to that most of those who reproduce those ideas aren't aware that they are just chronicling (cherry picking a specific idea in time) not doing real philosophy.
Quoting Agent Smith
- My point is that Science constantly feeds our epistemology and discards those frameworks that do not meet our logical criteria while Philosophy is dead on its tracks in many topics mainly by allowing old "relics" to co exist with real philosophy.
A great source to understand the problem in Philosophy is Mario Bunge critique (https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Crisis-Reconstruction-Prometheus-Lectures/dp/1573928437) on the 10 problems found in Academia and it function.
here is the list.
• Tenure-Chasing Supplants Substantive Contributions
• Confusion between Philosophizing & Chronicling
• Insular Obscurity / Inaccessibility (to outsiders)
• Obsession with Language too much over Solving Real-World Problems
• Idealism vs. Realism and Reductionism
• Too Many Miniproblems & Fashionable Academic Games
• Poor Enforcement of Validity / Methodology
• Unsystematic (vs. System Building & Ensuring Findings are Worldview Coherent)
• Detachment from Intellectual Engines of Modern Civilization (science, technology, and real-world ideologies that affect mass human thought and action)
• Ivory Tower Syndrome (not talking to experts in other departments and getting knowledge and questions to explore from them or helping them)
And maybe one never quite achieves full comprehension ? Then what would we do? Sounds like death.
Quoting Agent Smith
:up:
I think I'm seeing your role in the drama. You are a debunker and a reformer, yes? Are you 100% sure you are qualified? Do you consider Ayn Rand a great philosopher?
Maybe a sampling bias. You seem very much interested in metaphysics which is, from what I can tell, yet to mature philosophically like, for instance, epistemology or ethics. We're still in explore mode, haven't yet found a place to set up base if you know what I mean.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
:up: However, these are textbook cases of missing the forest for the trees or being so absorbed in a task that one, at some point along the way, forgets what one was doing. This doesn't come as a surprise to me at all. We need to use post-its. It's a jungle out there. Too easy to get lost. Nonetheless, your post is on point. Time to do something about it!
Well science and philosophy are joined by default. When we have data we call it science , when we don't have data we call it philosophy.
Psychology has a robust body of knowledge but since it is a field under growth many of our interpretations and conclusions are still hypotheses(under evaluation or in need of additional data).
We need not to confuse our psychological needs and Philosophy's purpose.
Again the joy we feel when finally understand something or arriving to factually wise conclusions maybe our core drive to philosophize but it has nothing to do with our urge to seek comfort and pleasure. There is a huge difference between happiness (enabled by knowledge and wisdom) and pleasure (the brief satisfaction of our anxieties).
I wish there was a named effect/problem I could use here. Here's the deal: I want to know if there's ghost in a house. I can't know unless I go inside that house. Whether there's ultimate comprehension or not, one is forced to attempt it.
Marketing of above:
Beware postmodernist circles ! Don't read the books yourself. That'd be difficult. Buy an easier book that assures you that you aren't missing anything, that it's all a conspiracy. Whole industry of this stuff. Less interesting than the authors they attack, all saying the same thing, hoping common sense and yesterday's thinking is plenty. For practical life, it probably is. But they want to perform the intellectual too, and this kind of book offers a short cut. The starter kit is a bag of six words. Maybe all beginnings are at least as humble.
:up:
My role is irrelevant.
There are facts that you all need to consider before declaring an idea "philosophical".
Its the goal of this method identified as sophia (wisdom). In order for a claim to be wise it needs to retain its ties to Logic and Knowledge.
We can not have it both ways.
Pointing obvious flaws and ?mmisions is not the role of a "debunker or a reformer". There are objective reasons why astrology and alchemy are not sciences and there is also obvious objective reasons why supernaturalism and magicalism are not Philosophy.
I don't need a special qualification (not to say I don't have it ) to point out obvious facts and criteria on how to demarcate Philosophy from Pseudo Philosophy.
Like everything in life...there is a good version of it and a bad one. Noise from a drum set (lacking rythm, or patterns) isn't "music"..
I understand why people resist these facts but I don't understand why they don't even attempt to justify their choice by not attacking the messenger who points out the obvious issue.
Ayn Rand.To be honest I don't know much of her work. I am not in to chronicling.To be more precise I have a bad memory. I have watched a series of lectures about her but I can't recall many things. What I did like though was her attitude against or in favor of concrete Definitions.
It seems to me that you are mostly repeating platitudes. It's unfortunate that you didn't participate in the Popper thread. Basic observation statements are not so basic after all. From my perspective, you haven't shown much interest in doing philosophy. You've just evangelized for your own narrow concept of it, and that's why I called it your role.
the problem is that we allow the polluting of our metaphysics because they happen to expand outside science. Unfortunately Philosophy doesn't monitor its fields that well (under the pretense of free inquiry) so we end up having pseudo and real philosophy side by side in credible journals.
Quoting Agent Smith
I commend you for your ability to realize that there is a real issue in our philosophy! ?ts something that most people have problems comprehending the rules or straight up deny them.
I don't address conspiracy theories.
The book describes observable problems found in our philosophical practices. Philosophy not only fails to experience the success of science, but it reprocesses old dead end ideas again and again.
-"It seems to me that you are mostly repeating platitudes."
-Again the selection of words show that you either are unable to understand the issue or you are not willing to disturb the foundations of your beliefs.
Quoting jas0n
Why is that...do you have a "got you" point that you use in there?
Quoting jas0n
I don't know what that means and how it is relevant to the problems I point out.
The weird thing is that you avoid addressing the actual arguments.
i.e. the role of wisdom, reason and knowledge in philosophical inquiries and why people accept claims to be philosophical without ticking all three boxes.
What you call platitudes are essential questions that people tap dance around them.
-" From my perspective, you haven't shown much interest in doing philosophy. "
-From my perspective you don't have the foundations to distinquish philosophy from pseudo philosophy....and that is not a subjective opinion. I can point to missing standards (logic, knowledge wisdom) in your ideologies and objectively demonstrate their non philosophical nature (if they are missing of course).
Quoting jas0n
-" From my perspective, you haven't shown much interest in doing philosophy.
You've just evangelized for your own narrow concept of it, and that's why I called it your role. "
-You are feeling sour because of the facts I put on the table.
You don't really have any arguments to kick back so you decide to attack the messenger....talking about logical fallacies and "doing" philosophy"....
Do you have any real arguments that could justify epistemically unfounded principles in Philosophy....like Supernaturalistic ones?
how can you tie conclusions based on supernatural assumption to wisdom, knowledge and logic.????
-the problem is that you don't know what a ghost is, you don't have the address of the house, you don't have the keys to get in...and you assume it is hunted.
in parallel, we don't know the ontology of the supernatural, we don't have a way to verify it or investigate it and people insist in using this concept as an auxiliary assumption in their "philosophical speculations".
This is not philosophy.
This is the kind of grand-vague-trite criticism that I'm trying to point out. It's a conspiracy theory. Those postmodernist circles are engaged in an endless circle jerk with the same old useless ideas. As if anyone gives a fuck. As if philosophers run the world. As if there's a shortage of engineers whose idea of culture is video games.
-I don't know when you stop beating your wife? can you see the problem in your initial statement?
And how entering that home will allow you to know???
What methods will you use to FALSIFY that universal negative statement?
well there you have it, by dismissing valid critique you allow pseudo philosophy in the philosophical realm.
btw better update your definition of A conspiracy theory.
and of course you need to demonstrate a conspiracy...not just assume it just because it meshes with your beliefs.
You have hardly provided any facts, just recycled deepities about the sorry state of philosophy.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
That seems to be all you have, this obsession with the supernatural. Philosophy is dominated by atheists. I'm an atheist. This forum also seems to lean atheist/agnostic. For many people the whole supernatural issue is so settled that it's not even interesting.
Your biggest gripe about philosophers? That they didn't become scientists or engineers instead....
A 2014 survey by David Chalmers and David Bourget on nearly 1,000 professional philosophers from 99 leading departments of philosophy shows that 72.8% considered themselves as atheists, 14.6% considered themselves as theist, and 12.6% as something else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#:~:text=A%202014%20survey%20by%20David,and%2012.6%25%20as%20something%20else.
But you keep dodging the core issue here.
How can a philosophical conclusion be wise without epistemic foundations.
Would you find wise the suggestion of using the window to exit your apartment if your goal is to save time....without knowing the floor your apartment is located?
You and no other pseudo philosopher has or can answer that....you all just choose to ignore that simple fact. You can not have wise claims without epistemic support.
Your 'valid' critique was a few pejorative adjectives, a few platitudes, and a few links to books/videos that maybe were supposed to supply the actual critique....
Trivialities, Nick.
Read some more philosophy. You'll see folks articulating and discussing what it means to be rational, wise, scientific, and so on.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
This is an awkward tautology. The hard part (the actual work) is figuring out what all that otherwise vague babble means.
- you need to focus...I am asking a question...how can a statement be accepted as wise when it has not epistemic foundations.
Quoting jas0n
-So you can't offer an answer. You are not the only one. Your obsession with magical thinking is what pollutes our philosophy....not mine.
Quoting jas0n
-ad hominem. We are talking on how we can produce wise claims...not knowledge.
Again last chance....how can a claim be wise while being epistemically uninformed.?
Sorry for holding your feet in the fire, but its a huge demarcation point between philosophy and what you think you do....
I am not interested in your excuses.
I am pointing the issue in claims that are epistemically disconnected....they are not philosophical.
How can a statement be accepted as false if it is true? Riddle me that !
ok now we know that you are also unable to distinguish wisdom from knowledge......
Do you really thing that equating different concepts is your "out of jail card"?
Again.pls explain why we should accept a claim as wise when it doesn't have epistemic support....what is your criterion and method of evaluation. Your feelings?
I am trying to draw your attention to the fact that you are basically repeating a mantra. You are making a trivial deduction from your pet definitions.
dude take care of that back...all this dodging might cause some issues...
Ok we know that you will defend your magical ideology to the end even if it means you have to embarrass yourself.
So you can not explain why this simple condition(epistemic support) is missing for your ideologies......
you are done I guess.
'Hello. I'm Nick. I define a wise (philosophical) claim to be one with epistemic support. Now, given this uselessly vague definition, I challenge you to accept and challenge this definition simultaneously.'
See the problem?
what makes a claim wise...in your opinion?
Be careful. We might find ourselves doing philosophy if you keep this up.
-I think you are an excellent example for my arguments! I hope Agent Smith can observe this interaction and see how huge of a problem epistemic disconnectedness is for Pseudo Philosophy and sophists.
By their windmills ye shall know them.
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quixote
Perhaps the best abbreviation for someone's heroic ego-ideal is the choice of their windmill.
Perhaps the heroic role tends to be of equal complexity and interest as the shadow it casts.
I am not sure you are capable of that...after all you are whining on what you think my motivations are....you don't address the issues in hand.
You were correct (genuinely philosophical) to start discussing (not simply pontificating about) what makes a claim wise (or rational or trustworthy.) But we've derailed this thread long enough. So maybe we'll actually do philosophy elsewhere at some other time.
The supernatural is pseudo philosophy BY DEFAULT.
Exactly! Modern Science studies the physical aspects of Nature, by means of their innate "scope" of Consciousness (what we know with). But they take that inwardly focused "lens" for granted, because it is not a material object to be dissected into structural elements. Instead, Consciousness arises from complex systems as a holistic function. It seems to be "aware" of internal neural states, converting their physical patterns into metaphysical meanings.
In the interview (below), linked by , a physicist suddenly realized that something important was being overlooked in the sciences he was studying : the mind doing the examining. Unfortunately, such subjective subjects were tossed out, along with the faith-stained bathwater, as Science emerged from under the yoke of autocratic Religion. :smile:
Consciousness as the Ground of Being :
I was studying neuroscience and biology, and I asked myself: ‘How come that all these books never mention consciousness?’ ___Physicist Federico Faggin ; inventor of the Intel 4004 chip
https://besharamagazine.org/science-technology/consciousness-as-the-ground-of-being/
MENTAL SUBJECT . . . . . . VIEWS . . . . . . . PHYSICAL OBJECT
Note -- the metaphysical Mind is a holistic function of physical neuronal systems in the brain
Thanks. Since I have no formal training in philosophical argumentation, I'm using this forum as a "school of hard knocks". As a child, my opinion was seldom solicited, and it was expected to align with the rather conventional views of my father (with a sixth grade education & fundamentalist indoctrination). So, I reached adulthood with a scarcity of clear ideas of my own, and little confidence in those few I had mulled-over inwardly.
Over the years my philosophical dialogues were primarily within myself. Even in college, anyone who I dared to suggest a non-standard idea to, would usually exhibit expressions of incomprehension. Consequently, at retirement age, when began to write my thesis, I didn't even know what I thought until I saw what I wrote. However, I still see my harmless-but-unconventional ideas reflected back at me, often with the same eye-glaze of incomprehension, or a grimace of acute disgust.
In my own mind, the general information-based thesis is clear & comprehensive. But then I'm viewing it from my own eccentric perspective, founded primarily on little-known "facts" of Quantum & Information theory. Which have turned the common-sense classical worldview upside down. So, I've had to learn the hard way, how to summarize a complex-but-inter-related system in words that convey novel ideas, without seeming to be deranged or dismissive of "settled science". Since the core concepts of Holism & Consciousness are similar those of Eastern religions, I'm forced to deny, A>implications that I've had the wool pulled over my eyes by pop-religion gurus, or B> accusations that I'm in science-denial.
BTW, your link to the Faggin interview, was right on time. It noted the overlooked aspect of reality in conventional Science : the mind of the observer. And, IMHO, that is where Philosophy still has a role to play in modern science. For example, I consider Psychology, Sociology, and the other "soft" sciences to be essentially inwardly-focused philosophical inquiries, with a statistical veneer of hard science. :smile:
Pardon me, but I only see an opportunity for Philosophy to crawl out from under the domination of Empirical Science, as Quantum Physics & Information Theory have elevated the importance of the mind-of-the-observer in both analytical (reductive) and synthetic (holistic) scrutiny of reality. I've heard that the Chinese word for "crisis" means "danger + opportunity".
Can you point to a post in this thread where someone justifies his premise with an appeal to authority of "its philosophy". I assume that's how it appears to you, since you seem to hold a dim view of traditional Philosophy as senseless wrangling about nonsense. That is the self-defeating view of the philosophical belief system known as Scientism, which was a response to a perceived "crisis" in philosophy. Since that minor branch of philosophy probably began with the Vienna School of the 20th century, it's hardly a current crisis. By contrast, on this forum, those defending a position aligned with Scientism often refer to the concept of capital "s" Science as-if it's the centralized & universal authority on all pertinent questions, including philosophical conundra. I have previously pointed-out some examples.
For the record, I will gladly acknowledge that you and are more knowledgeable than me on 20th century science & philosophy. And perhaps smarter than me in general, as you seem to assume. Admittedly, I have read few of the works of 20th century philosophers. Of the 174 listed in the link below, only Daniel Dennett & Thomas Nagel books are in my personal library. I have either never heard of the others, or only from Wikipedia articles. I took basic college courses in the major divisions of Science, and have subscribed to Scientific American & Discovery & Skeptic & Skeptical Inquiry magazines for over 40 years. I suppose that pitiful summary pales beside your own curriculum vitae.
However, I came late to philosophy, only a few years ago. And my personal interests are primarily in leading-edge 21st century science, including philosophical investigations into Information & Consciousness & Metaphysical questions, that are still on the margins of establishment scientific concern. I admit that, due to impertinence, most of your criticisms of my ignorance or idiocy fall on deaf ears. Fortunately, there are a few on this forum with similar interests, that I can dialogue with. So, I remain open to discourse, but not to argue "true science" with you. And, I'm not motivated to seek your approval. :cool:
List of 20th century philosophers :
https://www.thefamouspeople.com/20th-century-philosophers.php
Vienna Circle :
Thus the struggle between metaphysics and scientific world-conception is not only a struggle between different kinds of philosophies, but it is also—and perhaps primarily—a struggle between different political, social, and economical attitudes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Circle
The rise and fall of scientific authority — and how to bring it back :
Preaching, denouncing or shouting ‘Science works!’ won’t help. Neither will throwing around statistics, graphs and charts.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00872-w
Pardon me, but I only see an opportunity for Philosophy to crawl out from under the domination of Empirical Science, as Quantum Physics and Information Theory have elevated the importance of the mind-of-the-observer in both analytical (reductive) and synthetic (holistic) scrutiny of reality. I've heard that the Chinese word for "crisis" means "danger + opportunity".
Can you point to a post in this thread where someone justifies his premise with the appeal to authority of "its philosophy". I assume that's how it appears to you, since you seem to hold a dim view of traditional Philosophy as senseless wrangling about nonsense. That is the self-defeating view of the philosophical position known as Scientism, which was a response to a perceived "crisis" in philosophy. Since that minor branch of philosophy probably began with the Vienna School of the 20th century, it's hardly a current crisis. By contrast, on this forum, those defending a position aligned with Scientism often refer to the concept of capital "s" Science as the centralized & universal authority on all pertinent questions, including philosophical conundra.
For the record, I will gladly acknowledge that you and are more knowledgeable than me on 20th century science and philosophy. And perhaps smarter than me in general, as you seem to assume. But I have read few of the works of 20th century philosophers. of the 174 list in the link below, only Daniel Dennett and Thomas Nagel books are in my library. The others, I have either never heard of the others, or only from Wikipedia articles. I took basic college courses in the major divisions of Science, and have subscribed to Scientific American & Discovery & Skeptic & Skeptical Inquiry magazines for over 40 years. I suppose that pitiful summary pales beside your own curriculum vitae.
However, I came late to philosophy, only a few years ago. And my personal interests are primarily in leading-edge 21st century science, and philosophical investigations into Information & Consciousness & Metaphysical questions, that are still on the margins of scientific concern. So, I admit that most of your criticisms of my ignorance or idiocy fall on deaf ears. Fortunately, there are a few on this forum with similar interests, that I can dialogue with. Hence, I'm not motivated to seek your approval.
List of 20th century philosophers :
https://www.thefamouspeople.com/20th-century-philosophers.php
Thus the struggle between metaphysics and scientific world-conception is not only a struggle between different kinds of philosophies, but it is also—and perhaps primarily—a struggle between different political, social, and economical attitudes.
The rise and fall of scientific authority — and how to bring it back :
Preaching, denouncing or shouting ‘Science works!’ won’t help. Neither will throwing around statistics, graphs and charts.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00872-w
What's wrong with what I said? There's this house. I want to know if it's haunted. Don't I have to go inside the house to check if it is or no?
Likewise, if I wanted to know if there's an ultimate truth, a ToE, wouldn't I have to look for it "everywhere" to come to the conclusion that there is one (I discover it) or that there isn't one (Your search - ToE - did not match any documents).
Remember the Null Hypothesis and the "statistical significance"?
"there is a house" is a pretty common statement. I can accept that since I know as an objective fact that houses exist.
In there case we usually want to see how well kept and clean, or what color the walls are or how spacious, how tall the ceilings are etc etc. There is nothing significant about these properties.
Now you say "I want to know if it's haunted", a property that has NEVER been objectively verified to be a possibility, so we can not even calculate a probability..not to mention a significant one!
The problem is that you accept a claim that has never been verified as possible.
You are poisoning the well (fallacy) by assuming a possible value to an unfounded claim.
You are also assuming that by going in you WILL be able to check whether it is hunted...as if the claim is similar to mold or spider webs.
You have NOT defined the concept, its ontology,how it manifest or the methods you will use so that you can objectively prove that the house is haunted.
You see , your example is great because you are addressing an irrational belief that is powerful enough to inform your actions!(waste time looking for whatever you think you should).
This is why rational evaluation is important before accept a claim which isn't objectively verified.
I am not saying that "haunted houses" is an impossibility, but the Null Hypothesis informs us that a claim must be accepted only after its objective demonstration.
Again, its like me meeting you for the first time and telling you "I must come at your place and check if you have indeed stopped beating your wife".
I assume that you once beat your wife and I assume that if I came at your place I will be able to observe facts that will verify or falsify your claim!
And in the case of wife beating...we do know that its is not only possible but we have numbers to arrive to a statistical possibility.
Haunted houses have never been proven to be a possible state, so probability is off the discussion and no one can suggest objective ways to detect and verify such a phenomenon.
btw Ultimate truth has nothing to do with my objection or your example. The goal of the example is to point out how rational or irrational a belief is and what default position should inform our actions.
- First of all "Empirical Science" isn't a philosophical caprice but a Pragmatic Necessity and no "crawling out" is talking place.
Science is based on the philosophical principles of Methodological Naturalism and Objectivism.
Empiricism is only a side effect since, currently, is the only method we have that can provide objective results(observations and methodologies available for everyone to check and reproduce).
So by saying that Philosophy has an opportunity to crawl out from an methodology that can provide objective evidence and independently verifiable conclusions...that doesn't sound like an opportunity, but like time travel back to the dark ages where subjective human superstitions and biases were guiding our intellectual inquiries.
To be honest supernaturalists and idealist still exist and we are aware of the epistemic failure of those philosophical principles (because there are zero verified epistemology based on those assumptions).
Now you stated that "Quantum Physics and Information Theory have elevated the importance of the mind-of-the-observer".
Again no elevation has occurred.The scientific theory Quantum Physics (quantum fields theory) and information theory say nothing about "the mind of the observer". That is the input by bad philosophy . Those are pseudo philosophical interpretations that are not justified by our current observations.
Its an interpretation based on pseudo philosophical supernatural principles (assuming mind properties as agents). Its an unjustifiable one, they must first be demonstrated and then assumed as auxiliary principles.
Your claim is a text book example of Bad Philosophy taking advantage of our current limited understanding and observations on a phenomenon.
Every time humans have reached their epistemic and observational limitations they never hesitated to make up a magical answer.(Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, fathers of early QM etc etc).
I know its only the first paragraph of your post but it is important to see that you need to be alerted and not allow unfounded Presumptions to seek in our auxiliary principles and let them affect our interpretation. More importantly you shouldn't be satisfied and accept interpretations, but you should strive for Descriptions.
There is a good reason why in QM we have more than 10 Quantum interpretations but none of them is identified as a Descriptive theory. That is because we, currently, are unable to observe and verify any of those interpretations.
-You just did by pointing out that we should accept as a legit philosophical statement that QM and Information theory point to "the mind-of-the-observer", when none of our facts support such a claim.
This is a supernatural claim(pseudo philosophical) and you suggest that we should accept it because some in Academic Philosophy reproduce this speculation.
Almost all the threads in this philosophical forum present concepts like ,gods, transcended egos and minds, souls etc etc as if they are supported by adequate, credible and objective epistemology so a philosophical discussion is justified.
How about Nessy and Big foot and smurfs...while we are there?
The epistemic surface is as thin as the one supporting the evil eye, goblins and the tooth fairy,
The difference between supernatural claims is the volume of anecdotal stories and the number of believers. There is no real material for a discussion to take place, expand our understand and produce a wise claim on the ontology of those entities.
Quoting Gnomon
-By using the term " traditional" you in essence "demand"(in a good way) respect as if it is an authority.
That in fact is a logical fallacy (argument from tradition).
Tradition is not a demarcation mark for what qualifies as philosophy or not.
Quoting Gnomon
-That is not true because Philosophy is accepted as the main tool in science and I it isn't assumed that science is the only tool of epistemology and without limits in what it can achieve.
The problem with "traditional'' philosophy is that it doesn't demarcate pseudo philosophy from philosophy. "Why" questions are mixed with how/what questions, meaning that teleology pollutes explanations about nature(intention and purpose projected in to nature).
In short things that need to be demonstrated are presumed. Unfalsifiable realms are used an answers, subjective interpretations are accepted on face value due to chronicling and rules of logic (null hypothesis,demarcation, burden, parsimony, fallacies) are ignored..
Scientism has nothing to do with those really bad practices and really low standards of evaluation!
Quoting Gnomon
-The crisis expands through ages....this is why Natural Philosophy was forced to split from the academy. Some Philosophers saw that things were going nowhere, anyone could presume anything he wanted, they constantly ignored the guidlines provided by established epistemology and objectivity didn't play a role in their evaluations. This is what we still can observe by Idealists and super-naturalists.
Quoting Gnomon
-Again Science and scientism have nothing to do with the issue in hand. We are talking about Objective and Verifiable auxiliary principles in our philosophical interpretations VS Subjective and Unverifiable principles. We are talking about high standards of evidence and evaluation VS no standards at all and we are referring to epistemic foundations vs faith based foundations in Metaphysics.
(wow this is only the second paragraph....that will end up long. sorry for that).
-I cannot really accept that because I know all the "holes" in my knowledge, especially in philosophical chronicling. To be honest my field of interest is Logic and logic without knowing our current knowledge is impossible to be applied...well it is possible but the result is questionable.
So my main point is that all philosophers need to respect Logic , its rules, criteria and principles.
With that as their foundation they can look up establish epistemology and guide their philosophy by using new data (science) and checking for logical fallacies, unfounded assumptions and invalid arguments.
Quoting Gnomon
-Well we all know how stupid we are...don't worry. Our differences, probably are not in our mental abilities but in the methods and in our auxiliary principles we use which force our syllogisms to drift apart.
I guess you are willing to use principles based on Metaphysical worldviews. I don't , my principles do not pressupose any ontology but they accept the ontology we can describe. They are based on the acknowledgement of the limitations we find in our Observations and our methods of investigations. The rules of logic force me not remain within the real I can examine (naturaristic) and reject all explanations from hypothetical realms, not because they are wrong, but because we don't have a way to evaluate them.(yet).
That is the whole difference in our approach.
-Not really, you are good.
My approach on the topic of Science,Philosophy, bad science bad philosophy and Magic/religion is mainly through Moocs. I must say I have taken more than 120 Moocs back from the day when "Universtity Tunes" was a thing on the Apple OS and Universities had some courses only on their main sites. Before that I was lucky enough to have access to books (mum,grandma) so I got in to science really early. My first ever book was on the theory of evolution lol.
The other advantage I had was, we moved in Greece when I was really young. In Greek schools, philosophy has a special position in the curriculum. So I was exposed to basic ideas really small and learned about Aristotle and Plato and the battle of their views.
Then I learned that Aristotle was the "cause" behind the European renaissance and I though how that can be the case...have you read his Physika lol??? IT turns out that his work in systematizing and organizing Logic and Philosophy was what fueled the Revolution of human thought.
I was sold. Logic became my priority (having an pretty irrational father also played a huge role lol).
You can imagine my surprise when I started interacting with other people in my circle and online forums and finding out that almost everyone ignores Aristotle works on Logic, the systematization of the Philosophical Method, how easily they ignore or avoid to use our epistemology as our starting point and how irrelevant most of them view the Basic Rules of logic in their thinking!
This guy gave us pretty lousy Philosophy but he provided a master key that allow us to unlock our ability to do really good Philosophy and lock up our subjective biases and everything that can derail our syllogisms.
Quoting Gnomon
So here is a question. You are interested in Information in Consciousness, but you say that you are sill on the margins of establishment scientific concern.
How do you think you are going to be familiar with our current epistemology on Consciousness without a scientific concern? I mean have you took any Neuroscience or cognitive science courses on the topic? if not...Where are your philosophical positions based on? Where do you get your material that guide your philosophical thought?
Are you sure that the philosophers you read have full access on the latest epistemology and they are in agreement with the Philosophy within Cognitive Science?
This would make a really interesting discussion since we all form a belief based on what we choose to study.
Here's the deal:
Hypothesis: House E is haunted.
Testing the hypothesis: Visiting E to find out if it's haunted or not.
That's as simple as it gets in my universe.
The Null Hypothesis is, as I told you, on the whole about causality and requires an experimental or other kind of study. To establish a causal link between cancer and smoking would require us to use H[sub]0[/sub] (Smoking doesn't cause cancer). The Alternative Hypothesis (H[sub]1[/sub]). We then look at the incidence/prevalence of cancer among smokers. If the rate therein determined is not that different from the baseline, H[sub]0[/sub] is true, there's no causal link between coffin nails and malignancies. If not, H[sub]0[/sub] is rejected i.e. H[sub]1[/sub] it is.
Let's revisit H[sub]0[/sub] in re God's existence. This isn't a causal query and so H[sub]0[/0] is N/A. I'm sure you'll understand why.
Good day. Thanks a million.
Science doesn't take anything from granted. Indeed those are philosophical question on the ontology of a phenomenon, but not all of them are metaphysical.
For example causality is a phenomenon that is observed and verified and described by science. Philosophy takes this information and try to understand what it means for our world, what are the implications, the importance and how can we use it to produce further knowledge. Our philosophical conclusions are passed back to science and that allows us to make predictions based on the observed qualities of causality.
There is nothing beyond our knowledge in the phenomenon of causality except of a "why" it exists question....which is not a serious philosophical question since it introduces teleology and purpose in a natural phenomenon.
In the case of time and space, since the phenomena being described by those concepts are far more vast and complex, Philosophy is needed to piece together all our observations,data and frameworks.
On there own they are not really "metaphysical" questions, since both describe observable natural phenomena.
Time : the quantifiable phenomenon of processes not happening all at once and with with different pace
Space: the phenomenon where physical structures with different sizes that do not occupying the same point at once allow the emergence of an area with spatial quantifiable properties.
Metaphysics can go on and try to ask questions about the ontology of the medium (matter) that is responsible for both phenomena.
BUt we need to understand that the same questions are shared by Science and Philosophy, the difference between them is that when we don't have the data and answers,we are just doing science. When we do have data and answers....that is Science.
Quoting Agent Smith
Why are you returning to this attempt to limit the applicability of a universal logical rule?
Did I send you a video that explains the Logical principle outside statistical applications?
Did you watch it?
The Null hypothesis isn't limited to causality!!!! Causality happens to be the quality we mainly investigate in medical statistics, because this is what interests us, but the principles has applications everywhere there is a need for establishing a default position.
You need to understand that Null Hypothesis job is to needs to keep our explanations in line with our current established data/facts. This is what we identify as the Default Position.
If our additional studies and foundings link our data to a new explanation only then we are justified to adopt the new one as our default position!
The same is true in statistics. The default position is the average number based on the available data which means the rejection from the start any statistical significance linking the tested cause and the effect.
If our additional studies provide a statistical significance then we link the cause to the effect.
This isn't difficult. Logic isn't affected by our applications.
So the claim is "this house is haunted".
If we were to test this statement scientifcially we would identify the Null(0)default position, which is "this house isn't haunted" and we would go from there.
First of all we wouldn't accept an impossible task to prove a universal negative.
Then we need to investigate and build a case through objective evidence and data in our effort to establish a link between the state of being haunted and the specific House.
Its the same principle we found in the burden of proof , in our judiciary system etc.
We presume everyone to be "not guilty" and we try to build a case that would link the defendant to the punishable act. In every case the standard is "beyond reasonable doubt", not an absolute proof.
Now imagine the process backwards. All the houses would have to be proven not haunted (to avoid special pleading) and all defendants should be considered guilty and they would have the burden to provide the evidence!
Gods,haunted houses,being guilty etc are significant statements and they demand significant indications , meaning that we can not accept them as our default position without any evidence giving a significant edge for their case.
So, there's no escape from the supremacy of Emperor Science?
Wow! Ten reply posts in a row. That must set some kind of record. And I salute your passion. To what do you attribute your emotional drive to drive a stake into the heart of God? And how do you characterize that heart-felt motivation? To purge pristine Science of all conjecture & speculation?
Again, I bow before the power of your relentless Logic. But, I hope you won't report me to the Emperor, for expressing my forbidden opinions in public. I thought I could get away with my watered-down god-concept. But now I see that I was wrong to think I could evade the moral census of Science. I hereby repent of my sins against Lord Logic, and promise to avoid any further transgressions of Official Doctrine --- on this thread. :joke:
Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Philosophical conspiracy to subvert Science?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
Further, if you put (f)MRI "hat" on the person viewing this imagery of God, then you'll discover that the person communicates with God via brain-signals (the fMRI). Cool or what?
Further, God has the same radio-signature as (some) ghosts as viewed somewhat similarly by "ghost-radars" or "ghost-viewing devices".
On the other hand, metaphysical matters (God, etc.) are mere possibilities, unproven/unverified; quite frankly, they maybe unprovable/unverifiable.
Now look at how the two stack up against each other: Imagination (metaphysics) vs. Facts (empirical science). Is this even a choice? Fantasy vs. Reality? Maybe it is, but daydreaming is frowned upon, oui?
You are comparing empirical Science with theoretical Philosophy. But they are different approaches to a> practical knowledge or b> meaningful wisdom. Materialistic Science limits its reductive analysis to questions that are inherently amenable to empirical evidence. But Philosophy was left holding the bag of metaphysical questions that have no true/false answers, only more-or-less plausible.
If you think we are doing Science on a Philosophy forum, you should take-up your scalpel and dissect the God question into its fundamental Atoms. For most of us, God is not a physical object, but a mental concept, defining the whole of which we humans are merely questioning particles. From that perspective, maybe you are an Atom of God. So, yes, you have a choice : to dissect material objects or to understand mental Models. This forum offers the latter. :smile:
Taking into account the fact that only the empirical is useful to us in any way at all, would you agree that metaphysics is useless. I'm taking a pragmatic approach I believe, but it is a question worth asking.
Your theory of Enformationism, what's its selling point? As far as I can tell, it seems to have utility in a yin-yang sorta way; in other words is Taoism metaphysics or not? Taoism is practical advice, oui?
Yes. Metaphysics is useless for putting bread on the table. But it can be used for building clarified concepts in your mind. Likewise, Philosophy won't put a man on the moon, but it might allow mankind to work together, despite differences, to reach such goals. Philosophy & Metaphysics are not focused on the material world out there, but on the mental world in here. Science allows us to control the natural world, but Philosophy helps us to control the cultural world. For example, Putin is not a platonic philosopher-king, but a typical thug warlord. Would it be pragmatic to teach a young Putin about the hubris of Hitler, and the harmony of Confucius & Pythagoras? Maybe, maybe not; but it's worth a try.
As a 21st century worldview, Enformationism could conceivably update the mind-set of humanity, from the ancient spooky belief system of Spiritualism (e.g. Animism), and the dispiriting effects of Materialism & Capitalism. Marx's critique of industrial age Capitalism, revealed its internal contradictions, but his proposed Communism had its own destructive paradoxes. So, all general worldviews begin to fall-apart as human cultures split into factions, each justified by an incomplete (hence biased) understanding of how & why the world works as it does.
Don't get me wrong. Enformationism is not a political manifesto, but simply a personal analysis & synthesis of how the world works, from quantum to cosmic scales, and why it doesn't work perfectly. Historically, each dominant cultural worldview, has provided philosophical insights to the remaining mysteries of reality. But all have a limited shelf-life, before the gaps in understanding become pit-falls for failure. So, humanity has to learn from its social breakdowns, and to patch the gaps with new insights. The key perception, and conception, of Enformationism is basically, what philosophers & sages of all eras have preached : unity & harmony are threatened by Entropy. So we must constantly repair the cracks in the foundation of society.
To find appropriate spackle to smooth over the rough spots in modern cultures, we can learn from the positives & negatives of ancient cultures. For example, Taoism was a general worldview that allowed the high culture of China to survive for centuries, despite the usual tribulations of complex human societies. The Yin/Yang principle gave people the BothAnd idea of harmony of opposites, to offset the destructive dualistic belief in Either/Or, us-versus-them, and my-way-or-the-highway. And the Tao-concept served as a unifying principle of balance upon which to build a harmonious society. Today, universal & ubiquitous Tao-like Information could serve as the fulcrum upon which to balance our divisive modern world. If only enough people were aware of its role in every facet of life. Enformationism is also practical advice for avoiding the Matter vs Mind estrangement of vulgar Materialism. :nerd:
PS__But what is "information"? En-Form-Action. Stay tuned.
WHAT’S THE PROBLEM? :
[i]Historically, the dominant worldview of civilizations and cultures has swung between the two poles of practical Materialism and theoretical Idealism. Idealist societies, such as medieval Europe, tend to focus their intellectual energy and attention on otherworldly matters, hence material progress stagnates. In their more worldly materialistic phases, cultures such as modern Europe prefer to emphasize the here and now, accelerating technical (reductive) progress to the detriment of spiritual (holistic) development. Eastern cultures, that have been traditionally more Idealistic, are now attempting to catch-up with pragmatic Western nations in technical prowess and materialistic goods. Consequently, the internal struggles between Body and Soul, Part and Whole create tension and friction for those on both sides of the moral/material balance point.
Materialists often object to the intrusion of idealistic, meta-physical religious and philosophical concepts into the pragmatic, scientific search for understanding of the world around us. But it is my contention that it was materialistic Science itself, following the evidence where it led, that accidentally stumbled into the forbidden realm of Idealism. If they could turn back the clock to the golden age of science–-before the unexpected and unwanted intrusions of Einstein and the Quantum Theorists into regions of the universe beyond the limited scope of man’s physical senses–-Materialism would still reign supreme. Since Einstein showed the practical impossibility of going backward in time, I guess we will just have to move forward, and deal with the perplexing paradoxes of pre-cosmic and sub-atomic reality in the scientific spirit of open-minded skepticism. And let the facts fall where they may.
I’m not so idealistic that I could believe we are on the verge of a final resolution of this long-standing philosophical debate. But I do see a glimmer of light ahead of us in the tunnel of life. If humanity can come to see that the duality of this world is natural, necessary, and inherent in material Reality, but not in metaphysical Ideality, then perhaps a detente can be negotiated so we can work together toward common goals in both realms. Conflict is an unavoidable effect of Duality, but those opposing forces can be resolved in Ideality.
The Enformationism paradigm envisions a convergence of scientific knowledge and philosophical wisdom; matter & mind; real & ideal; body & soul. But like any paradigm shift, it may take a long time to take hold. This thesis is just a beginning.[/i]
Enformationism website
Thanks for the brief but informative history lesson.
I suspect that, like me, your philosophical attitude is mostly Pragmatic. But I have been forced by the Enformationism worldview to be tolerant of people with more Romantic interpretations of reality. I live in the Bible Belt, so my family & friends remain loyal to the biblical ideology of a world characterized by an ongoing war between Good & Evil forces : gods, demons, angels, etc. with magical powers. Even New Agers, who typically view the forces of nature in less personal terms, often prefer a bit of fantasy with their facts. So, they could interpret my EnFormAction (causal energy) as a Star Wars "Force". And that's OK with me. I'm in no position to be doctrinaire.
Unlike some on this forum, who are engaged in open combat against Religion & Romanticism & Spiritualism. Their "realistic" dogma is what has been labeled by observers as the belief system of "Scientism". It's not just anti-theist, but also anti-romantic. Which may be why they ridicule philosophical "what -if" conjectures & speculations as unscientific. Well, duh! Philosophers don't do empirical research. And they don't dissect objective Reality, but merely analyze subjective Ideality (human views about reality). So, to the soldiers of Scientism, all philosophy looks like Idealism & Religionism.
Spiritualism was Idealistic & Romantic, in that it imagined invisible intentional agents pushing things & people around. Then Science reinterpreted those mysterious causes in terms of non-sentient forces & energies. But, a rose by any other name is still the same. And an invisible Cause is still "spooky action at a distance". So, I call it EnFormAction, but you can call it "Energy", or "Spirit", or "Logos", or "Elan Vital", depending on your attitude : "just the facts ma'am" pragmatism, or "tell me a magical story" imagination. Whatever works for you, can have "practical significance" in your life. :smile:
Philosophy that works :
Later in the book, Wolf gets even more down-to-Earth, describing the concept of Informative Power in terms of Physics, and by coining the word "enformation" as a dynamic verb form of the noun "information", which is merely static data. He defines his neologism as "patterns that energy forms of itself". Which is equivalent to my own coinage of EnFormAction, the creative power of evolution, and the act of en-forming. He says that "energy is our way of defining 'enformation'". The meaning of information is in its structure, its pattern. Yet, in physics, energy can be both constructive & destructive, and the result of disorganization is called "entropy". So, I had to come up with another new term for the mysterious positive "force" that opposes Entropy.
Review of book by David M. Wolf
"Philosophy grounds itself in factual "truth." By revising how we understand this, we make a change that has profound impact upon most world-wide systems for gaining knowledge."
So, according to you, it's all information. How do you reconcile the fact that information can be true/right or false/wrong with your BothAnd Principle, which seems to ignore or set aside true/false and right/wrong dichotomies, preferring a synthesis of opposing views rather than resolutions where one side wins the debate?
Yes & No. The BothAnd Principle merely acknowledges that the world-system has the Potential for both good and bad effects on human aspirations, including the preference for Life versus Death. However, we are not guaranteed to get what we desire. So, we try to make the best of an imperfect world, by balancing the bad with some good. Individually, we can aim high for what's best for me. But as components of a collective society there are trade-offs. What's good for me (e.g. becoming a billionaire, may deprive millions of others of a living wage) might be bad for someone else, which could ultimately become bad for me. What goes around, comes around.
The essence of the BothAnd principle, is the Golden Rule plus the Golden Mean : avoid extremes, and be content with moderation. Nothing new about that ancient wisdom, except that it is necessitated by the understanding that Information is a continuum from 1 to 0, or 100% to nothing. If you get 100%, someone else might get nothing. And. depending on circumstances beyond your control, you could be that someone-else. That's why Kant's Imperative was basically : "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
In a more technical sense, Information (EnFormAction) is like Energy : in excess, it becomes an inferno ; or in deficit, it becomes a deep-freeze. So the Goldilocks or Habitable zone is merely warm-enough to be "just right". That's why philosophers of all eras have agreed that balance & proportion & moderation are better, for all concerned, than imbalance, overabundance, & exorbitance. Depending on the circumstances, though, the balance point is not necessarily at the mid-point. Which is why the BothAnd Principle must be applied with wisdom. :smile:
The Goldilocks Enigma :
Why is the Universe Just Right for Life?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Jackpot