I'd like some help with approaching the statement "It is better to live than to never exist."
To preface, I'm not particularly well versed in philosophical debates and as such I'm making this post to see how others interpret this. It caught my eye when reading through a short discussion about the morality of bearing a child and it threw me off because my initial reaction was to question how it could even be possible to make such an argument.
However, after thinking over the statement for a while, I've struggled with forming a concrete reason for *why* I disagree with the premise of it. To me, it seems absurd to make the comparison between existence and nonexistence as a characteristic of an individual in the first place as nonexistence isn't a quality something can have, nor is it something we can meaningfully evaluate comparatively.
As well as this, I've also struggled to wrap my head around the way that justifications work in relation to questions about existence. Namely, would it not be circular reasoning to suggest "existence is preferable over nonexistence because x", with x being a reason that pertains to existence e.g., "you can only experience happiness when you exist"? Is this a logically valid argument for existence being preferable?
I'd love to hear about how you would approach this statement!
My apologies if any of these questions don't make much sense, I'm just starting out :)
However, after thinking over the statement for a while, I've struggled with forming a concrete reason for *why* I disagree with the premise of it. To me, it seems absurd to make the comparison between existence and nonexistence as a characteristic of an individual in the first place as nonexistence isn't a quality something can have, nor is it something we can meaningfully evaluate comparatively.
As well as this, I've also struggled to wrap my head around the way that justifications work in relation to questions about existence. Namely, would it not be circular reasoning to suggest "existence is preferable over nonexistence because x", with x being a reason that pertains to existence e.g., "you can only experience happiness when you exist"? Is this a logically valid argument for existence being preferable?
I'd love to hear about how you would approach this statement!
My apologies if any of these questions don't make much sense, I'm just starting out :)
Comments (267)
Welcome to the forum. You'll find lots of discussions about this type of question here. It's generally called "antinatalism," the idea that it is immoral to bring new lives into the world to suffer. @schopenhauer1 is probably the strongest spokesman for the position here. It's not an idea I have sympathy for.
"How preferable it is not to exist or never to have existed. Only intense pain, deep misery, and prolonged suffering seem to show up and the few moments of drug-induced instant-fix warmth and well-being wear off rapidly and only lead to a deepening of the hopeless despair, making one crave for new relief soon after.
Of course you have to exist first to come to this horrible conclusion, which makes it even worse and the realization that one is too big a coward to end the horror oneself can only make one long for the day the last breath is taken."
I think it can only state value.
2) We can deal with the question by mixing subjective and objective elements, hoping that other subjects will agree with our own feelings.
A mixed reasoning that I consider very strong, if we agree the subjective elements, is this one: the tiniest amount of evil, or suffering in existence is enough to reject it as valuable. There is nlo reason why evil should exist in this world. Actually, the existence of evil makes the worl impossible to understand, to conceive.
Before I forget, suffering, extremum, is how it all manifests.
"It is better ..." is a value judgement. There are no objective sets of values. So every statement "X is better than Y" should be read as "Given my values A, B, C, ... it follows that X is better than Y". Only then can a discussion arise if it really follows or if there is a flaw in the logic.
E.g.: Are squares better than triangles?
If symmetry is a value then, yes, squares are better because they have more symmetries.
And to your original problem:
An often cited value most people can agree upon is human well being. To have human well being, humans have to exist so existence is better than non-existence. But if the existence of more human beings doesn't increase the overall well being of all humans, more human beings is not better than fewer human beings.
An argument can be made that humans have overshot that threshold of optimal numbers a long time ago.
What people are calling 'subjective' is an area of lived experience that is evaluative. It encompasses desire and desirability, preference, morality, and whatever is 'what one makes' of 'what is'. So in order to evaluate life, one needs life, and as your intuition seems to be telling you, in order to evaluate non-existence, one needs to experience non-existence. The latter is not possible, and to me, this makes the former also impossible. One can not unreasonably prefer pizza to cheese on toast if one has experienced both, but to prefer non-existence to existence... ??? Ask anyone who has died which they prefer, the living cannot know. Or just wait 'til you attain this status yourself, and then decide.
-"existence is preferable over nonexistence...."
Only if you enjoy living and the conditions of your life are satisfactory.
You do understand that such question casn only have a subjective answer based on the situation. I can not really see how this question can produce a philosophical model that can be wise or helpful for everyone.
Not necessarily so..
Procreation gives us the unique perspective of someone living making a decision on behalf of someone else.. If we know suffering exists, we can prevent yet another person from suffering. From the perspective of the already living, this evaluation can take place.
If the universe had 0 sentient beings on it.. Nothing to no one.. No harm, no foul as a state of affairs in the universe.
If the universe had sentient beings that can evaluate that there are negatives of the world, and indeed can and are experiencing them, one can say harm and foul is part of the state of affairs in the universe. That is to say we assume that states of affairs persist without sentience knowing it.
Also one doesn't "experience" non-existence. That word doesn't go with that state. Non-existence is never "experienced".
Yes, this is actually a fallacy. I don't know the name -- maybe false equivalence. But yes, close to circular reasoning.
The correct way to put that argument is to put the subject, the person, in two different situations and argue that one situation fosters happiness, while the other does not. The incorrect way is the one you pointed out -- cancelling the subject altogether in one situation.
The idea that it is better to exist than not exist seems to be purely a value statement. It is usually made by Christian theologians to justify their belief in God.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0190%3Acard%3D1225#:~:text=%5B1225%5D%20Not%20to%20be%20born,back%20from%20where%20he%20came.
This makes sense to me. But what about the question:
Are squares better than shapelessness?
I wonder what value would one have that would lead them to decide on shapelessness. Or perhaps it is more a feature of shapes in general that they find repellent, and not just squares. Just a thought...
So how can we know what good is without evil (or not good) to compare against?
This is a kind of mathematical reasoning. I was talking in an existential way. Besides, with your reasoning we obtain the paradox that, if evil is needed to make possible good to be distinguished, then evil is not evil; however, it is evil, because it makes a difference from good; so, the logical conclusion is that, in order to make good distinguished, we need something that is evil and is not evil at the same time. Actually, this contradiction comes out because you are applying some sort of mathematical logic to the ideas of good and evil. But in strict logic good and evil just don't exist: we cannot say that 2 is good and 3 is evil. The ideas of good and evil come from a human, subjective, emotional, psychological experience, so, it is nonsense dealing with them with a theoretical logic that says that something needs an opposite to make it distinguished.
'It is better to live than to never exist' is a simple question of meaning - most young people find themselves exploring it at some point. What answer you settle on will depend upon experience, not logic - your personal situation, your value system and the status of your mental health. It's pretty easy to see how a personal situation can land you to accept one answer over another.
I think that's the problem with an existential approach to such musings, They are often poorly grounded in the everyday real-life experiences of humans.
I see no paradox in my reasoning. Up and down only exist for species such as humans in a relative sense but up and down are a very important part of everyday human life. Good and evil are more nuanced than up and down, in everyday human life. There are exemplifications of what almost every human would consider a truly evil act but we still cannot call any act as objectively evil as there can always be extenuating circumstances.
The labeling of a particular act as evil, is often quite subjective and some will support the application of the label in a particular instance and others won't but the fact that the two categorisations exist and can be used as 'extremities' from a range between good/bad, right/wrong, love/hate desirable/undesirable etc seem essential to the human condition.
Quoting Angelo Cannata
I think the contradiction you suggest is of your own creation and is not based on any logic that I recognise as having any significant value. I am presenting good and evil as comparator labels.
The two labels are very valid to the human condition. You try to dismiss the two terms by suggesting they have no significance to what you are calling 'strict logic' or to a Universe that has no such lifeforms as humans in it. It is this suggestion that is nonsense. This thread is asking about humans choosing to live as opposed to choosing nonexistence. So the way we perceive good and evil seems essential to me when considering the OP.
You are suggesting that good/evil and it would follow that hunger, fear, love etc have little significance because they have no REAL objective reality but that's just BS. Humans need hunger to enjoy eating, fear to enjoy feeling secure and love as a comparator for hate. It's why heaven as traditionally described by some religions makes no sense, as a place of eternal pleasure would soon become hell for humans.
Do you know of any god posit or worship from a non-human source?
If we have no existence then gods have no existence ad we created them.
Goodday uuuuuniverse(ness)! Animals don't question gods. They just live their life to please the gods (unknowingly) as they did in heaven. It are humans having knowledge of the heavens. Already in heaven they stood apart from the other gods. Trying to investigate everything, questioning eveverything philosophizing about everything, fooling around, theorizing, mathematicing, trying to find out their origins, etc. As human gods took part in the common effort of trying to find the right material for creation, it's no wonder humans in the universe try too.
Quoting universeness
That's the big question!
:up:
I did answer with no. Although I must admit that I don't know how humans on other planets look like. Probably just like us. And that's because humans have evolved into beings that look like the heavenly god beings.
God beings don't need us to assign them value. They just want to act life as was acted in heaven. They don't want worship or admiration. They just want life to live life. And watch it. The fantasy of Santa Claus is a welcome feature, but they get embarrassed if they see people building churches and bowing to them. They just want us to live. And that's why life is a miracle.
So did the gods look like humans 13.8 billion years ago?
So the Adam and Eve fable is more likely then than the whole time-consuming evolution through natural selection story?
Quoting Hillary
Did they build this 'heaven' place you mention or did they command it to exist and from where did they issue this command? Did/do their bodies function like ours.
Quoting Hillary
Quoting Hillary
You seem to claim to know a little about what these gods want, so do you also know if their bodies function like ours or have they kept that a secret from you so far?
Good questions! The gods just look like all life in the universe, and they have created the universe and live evolving in it because like that all heavenly creatures get their turn.
Quoting universeness
The eternal heaven is not build. It's an eternally existing state. Human gods invented all kinds of musings too. Of course, their gods musings are not true.
Their bodies function not just like ours. Only the material bodies in the universe decay and get reborn again, so in a sense all life is immortal too.
Quoting universeness
Their bodies don't decay like ours, nor are they born. They are not material.
So your gods are polymorphs? Shapeshifters? Like the Dominion on Deep Space Nine?
Which story first put that notion in your head? Did you see polymorphs first in a story about Zeus turning into a shower of gold to impregnate a mortal or was it an earlier fable about gods turning into animals and back again?
Quoting Hillary
Did it exist before its inhabitants or were they both magicked at the same instant?
Quoting Hillary
What? Does this make sense to you when you read it back to yourself?
Quoting Hillary
So do your gods eat, drink, tire, sleep, itch, sweat, etc? Do they have a bodily waste disposal system?
Do your gods experience joy, sadness, loss, fear, hope, love, hate, suffer pain?
No, there are just a whole lot of gods.
Quoting universeness
It existed eternally and then a terrible thing happened which made them engage in creation efforts.
Quoting universeness
Yes. Why not?
Quoting universeness
Yes, all of it. They fly, crawl, quack, speak, yell, roll over, run, fight for a banana, philosophize, the watch sun go up, watch the heavenly stars, etc. But they let heaven exist in it's paradise state.
Quoting universeness
Quoting Hillary
You don't seem to need to apply any kind of consistent logic in the points you make.
Quoting universeness
Quoting Hillary
Because I understand English and your sentence above makes no sense in English.
Quoting Hillary
:rofl: You really do just make it all up as you toddle along.
Well. this is all very entertaining and it's always good to know how deep the theistic worms can burrow into an individual psyche.
I think the evidence that theists just make shit up has been strong since before the fable of Gilgamesh.
If the lies grow enough they often create a new religion, so that some of them can con a living out of manipulating the primal fears of some easily duped people.
Theism is not worth the time anymore. Mere fables for human fearties.
I think I will save my energy for combatting those theists who are actually in the business of draining money, resources and the wits from innocent, duped fools.
That should leave the majority of my time left for the pursuit of more important goals.
Individuals with a 'personal theism,' who don't preach or try to convert others are harmless at worse and a curious entertainment at best.
What's inconsistent? All forms of universal light have a heavenly counterpart. Even one of yours! He's probably denying you are real...
Quoting universeness
What doesn't make sense then?
Quoting universeness
No! I got it all worked out. The universe, considering life in it, is a temporally finite, material version of heaven. Matter is bound to certain laws. But... they made it such that it can eternally repeat. Serial big bangs and all that.
Exactly as science proceeds. Toddling along can both stimulate science as theology. They both are not static monolith institutions, as they both want it to be. In a sense, they are pretty alike!
-Either that or she is trolling everyone....including her gods. According to her. her gods fancy reason...but I can not really say the same for her arguments.
She even challenged the usefulness of sound arguments and logic in Philosophy.
So I am not sure she is for real...or we are just interacting with a new age caller of the Atheist Experience show lol.
@Hillary, is male!
We have had many exchanges.
He will employ stealth tactics but I don't think he is malevolent or is a TROLL (perhaps a little bit of a troll, at times).
I am personally convinced that he roleplays as a polytheist to attempt to annoy atheists as his real love is science but the science community has not returned his love/respect for them in an adequate fashion for him, so he is pissed off at them in general and cosmologists in particular.
He does and will continue to deny my conclusions about him and I do accept that these are merely my opinions based on my exchanges with him.
So your educated guess agrees with my first impression about him.
I am not sure that one can use so many fallacies in a sentence and not be a troll....but I could be wrong! Thanks for the info.
It's a very old internet story, isn't it.
You can be unfortunate enough to be exchanging/communicating with a seriously sinister character or an organised group with their own fixed, perhaps even nefarious agenda.
Imho, @Hillary is not in either of those categories and I think there are more sinister posters on this site than him but I do also think their numbers are very few.
Hi univeeeerse! Look at the kind reply an Israeli professor sent me, instead of asking a dollar like that Carroll asks, without guarantee of answering!
Dear Deschele,
Thank you for your kind and friendly mail.
If I have to guess, Rishons should be massless, but since the dynamics combining them into quarks and leptons is far from clear, it is truly an open question, even if the model is right.
I still believe, 43 years after 1979, that some version of this model must be right, and hope to live long enough to see it.
Fortunately, the decision is in the hands of mother nature and not in the hands of a public opinion poll.
Best wishes
Haim Harari
Something else not?
I think it's your incapacity of understanding gods and the reason they exist. Dawkins has the same problem. Like your hero Sagan. They are scientifically kind of uneducated and by hailing science try to be scientifically uprated. But they don't have the genius for it!
Atheist traitor! :lol:
Yes, a nice response, a good letter. Evidence that most established scientists will respond to questions from the public but they can't answer everyone who sends a question.
Quoting Hillary
Not exactly the best demonstration of a balanced, well-reasoned viewpoint.
You continue to post opinions which imo seem bitter and imbued with unfettered emotion.
No universeness... Nice rational interpretaion but that's not my reason to be polytheist. The fact that the physics community tramps on me is not the reason. Instead of them trying to develop my model ( Harari is a great help by the way) they withdraw in their safe conventional shells. I don't even try anymore. I have a fair part translated in math (the particle's geometric structure is quite difficult though, and virtual gravitons rotating in spacetime while forming it, indicates that something else from ordinary virtual fields, like the photon field, is going on; if a mass couples to virtual gravitons, the spacetime around the mass is curved, the metric changes, and this can only be described by gravitons if the act on space, so not only on other masses).
Oh, sorry! Were you enjoying your roleplay as a female irrational polytheist with @Nickolasgaspar?
Well, I did predict you would disagree. As I said to you before, you need to learn to love the cosmologists again and then you can stop scapegoating nonexistent gods or look to them for recognition of your scientific abilities.
It's evidence that one of them answered. And be honest, wtf should you ask money for a question you not intend to answer? Carroll is just a nefarious atheist who is not interested in science and knowing but only in promoting his own fallacious ideas and he doesn't welcome ideas contradicting that! Like most of them. While it's all so clear. But who cares? I know Im right, and mr. Harari is on my side. At least he offers constructive critique.
Disagree with what?
It's alright! I did no roleplay. I never said I am a woman. What makes you think Im a man? You assume I play polytheist roleplay or panto because you can't understand it and by calling it roleplay you try to make it understandable. :wink:
With my description of some of your real reasons for some of the irrational posts, you make regarding theism.
Quoting Hillary
You should read what you type and think about from the aspect of an independent arbiter with no vested interest. In my opinion, you would be found to be bitter.bitter, bitter and perhaps even a little twisted.
I like them all! All nice people, but so damned self-righteous, while being wrong! Try to tellem that!
I won't indulge you with your roleplay hats on by taking the bait.
Your main battle is still with the man in the mirror!
The real reasons exist in your mind only. I know better than that. Don't you think I have taken distance once in a while, to myself? Of course, but gods are inevitable! I don't look at them in my daily life. Once in a while they visit me or whisper in my ear (schizophrenia!). But that's all. I live life like the gods. And so do you! So dance along brother Uni! Hellilujea!
The man in the mirror is a parrot! It's a good looking parrot but everything I do or say he just reflects!
Is it a man? It's a woman! I have grown my hair for two years now and have come in contact with my female side! We all have male and female sides. They are unimportant in science and my physical theories have even been called gay theories, no kidding!
I'm not bitter at all. That's what you're projecting on me all the time, and I'm beginning to think it's you who is bitter and twisted WTF should I feel bitter. I just feel disappointed in those so-called hot shots you so religiously admire. Who in the hell asks money to answer questions, if you are lucky? That makes me feel bitter. They are not interested in knowing but only in money and promoting and advocating their own view. Which is even false... And, like I showed, Haim Harari doesn't feel himself superior.
Maybe you need to do the aboriginal walkabout. Keep walking until you meet yourself!
Don't underestimate the dreamtime, brother Uni! I know you have your reservations, but there I saw the gods busy in the eternal jungles of heaven. Tinkering, trying, clicking, probing, experimenting, etc. in a common effort to save the goddom from a terrible faith.
"Walkabout is a rite of passage in Australian Aboriginal society, during which males undergo a journey during adolescence, typically ages 10 to 16, and live in the wilderness for a period as long as six months to make the spiritual and traditional transition into manhood."
I wish I could live in the wilderness for ever! There is so little left though... Im gonna buy all that's left before I will be 50!
I will agree with you . He doesn't seem to be that bad. I am starting to think that he actually believes everything he writes!
Quoting universeness
This explains why he wasn't triggered that much by my "example". I rejected all his claims based on my Assumption that "women are inferior to men".
He demanded from me to justify this assumption and he tasted his own poison.
Since he feels like he doesn't have to justify his god assumptions...I don't really have to justify mine.
Now that I know he isn't a female....I need to find a new "excuse/assumption" for rejecting your unfounded assumptions!
I have little interest in engaging in stealth and roleplay. I endeavor to be as honest in the opinions and viewpoints I post as I can, even on a relatively anonymous site such as TPF. If others want to play dress-up then that's up to them. If you roleplay as a misogynist to counter @Hillary's tendency to obfuscate then I think two wrongs don't make a right.
This site has moderators. It's their task to decide where the red lines lay.
Anyone who is a chiseled misogynist/evanhellical/racist/ or general f***wit should be BANNED.
I am an advocate for individual freedom but I think this must be tempered. You cannot ever be free to shout 'I have a bomb in my pocket,' at an airport and then be free to leave the area peacefully after you shout soon after 'only joking.' You reap what you sow in this life, If @Hillary or you or any other poster on this website cries wolf too much then there will be a price to pay because you can't fool everyone always. Let's all keep it real and then we can all benefit from genuine exchanges of opinion and viewpoints. Leave fakery to complete f***wits like Donald Trump or Boris Johnstone supporters(only imho of course.). It's an individual moderator call but I would assume that any female member of this site would complain to the moderators if they thought a poster was a 'dyed in the wool,' misogynist. A small bitter & twisted flavour can be debated but a full bitter & twisted flavour is too much for the taste of most people I think.
I was paid a state teacher's salary for over 30 years!
-An example that is designed to "shock", provokes thinking and expose the gaps in an argument has nothing to do with the value of "right/wrong" or "role playing" or "hate speech". Its a tool that shifts the argument made by the interlocutor to a different topic where his previous biased do not apply.
After all I was pointing out again and again that it was just an example on why arbitrary assumptions can not be used as a basis for any philosophical inquiry.
-"Anyone who is a chiseled misogynist/evanhellical/racist/ or general f***wit should be BANNED."
-Even if I dislike hate speech, your statement has some issues.
Why are we ok banning mysogynistic/racist etc statements but claims that ignore objective knowledge and Basic Logic?
I mean those are part of the reason why misogynistic and racist ideas exist on the first place. Obviously for one to conclude to such ideas doesn't posses established knowledge or lacks the tools of Logic.
So why treating the symptoms, not the cause?
But this is an other conversation. My point is that an Example, independent of it bold content doesn't make one guilty of hate speech and it doesn't mean that he is involved in "role playing".
It is only a classic demonstration of the useful tool of Argument ad Absurdum
Sounds to me that you are trying to justify attempts to manipulate people by stealth. This is one reason why few of us trust politicians anymore. Even the ones who are in truth, genuinely trying to be part of the solutions.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
For what it's worth, I believe you, but if you practice 'trickery,' then you might get to like it too much if it achieves the results you personally desire. There are only very very rare cases in my opinion when the end justifies the means.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I have no problem regarding debate on exactly where the red lines should be. It's probably got to be on a case by case basis and it has to be related to such situations as those experienced within concepts such as the 'realpolitik,' of the times. I do think that viewpoints which I personally find abhorrent have to be aired and debated somewhere, somehow and by some people or else they fester and some compromised individual can 'explode' or become very resentful and hateful and can band together and create hate groups etc. I never said it is easy to accommodate all human varients of thought within a healthy and progressive 'society,' but that must remain the goal.
We are still left with the situation that we want to allow individual freedom, personal security and personal sense of significance but NOT ALSO allow your freedom to compromise someone else's freedom and sense of personal security and significance. Very hard to achieve for every person at all times on the whole planet.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
We must do both! Education is the best tool for prevention and dialogue/debate is the best way to combat symptoms but we still can't let individuals go around inciting violence against others they don't like in a 'free for all.' If we had developed system of checks and balances in society that could allow for an individual to be as 'crazy sounding' as they liked but we could rely on the 'education,' level of the vast majority to be able to prevent such an individual from gaining any significant power and influence then we might be able to allow completely unfettered free speech but we just don't have such a reliable global human population. A crazy, narcissistic, fruit loop can currently become president of the united states, prime minister of Britain, or premier of Russia. The nefarious prove time and time again that you don't need to fool all of the people all of the time. Some of the people, some of the time, is good enough, for them to gain real power and influence.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I think it's better to be honest with people, especially with those who you find out are being dishonest with you. Call them out and suggest they could become a better person than they currently are and then if you can and they are willing, then help them do so. Otherwise, do your best to protect others against them.
-"Manipulate"!!! ? lol so according to your reasoning Pointing out the weakness in people's reasoning by replacing their flawed assumptions with an obvious false assumption that they care more is manipulation?
I won't answer my question because it is obvious that you are "seeing" things that aren't there.
I will help you a bit by saying this. I expose the problem of accepting assumptions without demanding objective verification by pointing to assumptions that most people would demand objective verification.
If that in your dictionaries qualifies as manipulation...sure.
Quoting universeness
-Why are you hiding behind generalizations? Trickery in arguments IS NOT the same with being dishonest of your demographic or your expertise. The first can easily be part of the tools of Logic and Philosophy provide, while the latter is just what cons do to gain things.
Just because both can be placed under the label of trickery...that only makes your claim a fallacy of Ambiguity, not a legit evaluation of my tactic to expose bad reasoning.
Quoting universeness
-Yes and this is why I pointed out that "generalizations" are not helpful. i.e. I can construct a situation where killing an other individual can be the most moral thing to do. Does it mean that it was a trickery or the legal term (Murder) of killing other people should color all acts that have the same outcome?
-"We must do both! "
-Not really we allow ignorance and irrationality to be included especially in philosophy and we then get mad with people's ideologies....that is a fact.
Quoting universeness
Again that is an irrelevant statement. It doesn't support your wrong accusation of being dishonest because I exposed someone's irrational standards through a specific example on questionable values.
I don't know why do you insist with this patronizing attitude when you were ignorant of the details of my interaction and you reject to correct your critique after I provided all the necessary information of my simple technique.
I guess we are done here.
You are being rather naive here, you would be surprised how well your words could be used against you very successfully when offered to others in an 'out of context,' manner. Please continue and find out in time.
It also might be true that you are in fact a secret misogynist as that was the example you choose to use in what you claim was metaphorical.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Now you reveal your more base arrogance. An ingredient in those who are manipulative.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
You invoke images of others hiding from you. Does that make you feel powerful? Hah! such attempts to intimidate are laughable and amateur.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Of course, it's easy for you to cry foul and raise your own contrived fallacy claim rather than admit to your own shortfalls when attempting to engage in productive dialogue. Stop throwing your toys out of your pram because I don't approve of all the methods you employ in discourse with others.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Perhaps you should proofread what you type a little more, your second sentence makes little sense in the above quote.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Not a fact, it's merely one of your interpretations.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I am not surprised you would type that, There is equally no surprise that I disagree!
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
No, I agree that you don't know why.
I have no idea who you are. You could be engaging in all sorts of sophistry as any poster on this site could be, including me. I suggest you don't pose as a misogynist again as it's a bad idea.
I don't give a shit if you choose to ignore that advice.
Your last sentence is further evidence to me that you are an arrogant ***** so who cares.
Did you ask your students for money. Any teacher is a very refined slavedriver for the system (though not realizing it, I loved most of them!), the new God by law pushed in the children's mind is science.. They asked me to teach math and physics several times but I denied. I only taught teeners who came to me and offered money. But a grown up guy, as Carroll seems to be (in his mind here still a child, like you, still in denial) claiming he loves science is a hypocrite. Luckily I have a great professor on my side now. We have a great exchange and he offers great insights! For free!
And guess what? He believes in god...
Their parents pay through their taxes and many teachers also take pay for private tutoring.
Quoting Hillary
Eh! have you not just contradicted yourself?
The rest of what you typed just seemed a bit to emotional on your part for me to respond to with anything other that, 'well fine, if thats how you feel about it, the god free Universe continues regardless.'
Ah, brother Uni, it's actually completely irrelevant if you believe in gods or not. It's living life that counts. If gods add some for me, why not? If they don't for you, okay! What's the difference?
Yes, I did some private tutoring too. But that's because they offer it. It was asked.
It is not possible to state this argument because it is impossile to value non existence.
@Hillary who is this new God you talk of and what slaves do I drive? Which system benefits from me? Why would you deny to teach math? Who is the old God?
Whether God exists... I had a lovely altercation with a student from the Christian students association just the other day. He came up to me because I was clad in black I suppose. He stated he was performing an inquiry and wanted to know what I thought about reality and if I had any questions. I had lots of questions you see... His companion pulled him away after some 30 minutes and gave me a death stare.
All truth seekers, seek the truth and remain unconvinced by pure conjecture.
Evidence-based is the only way to progress. Fantasy is only for entertainment.
Ohh come on now... we need fantasy and imagination to establish our criteria for evidence... they are themselves not evidence based you see... ;)
So Sean Carroll is required through the 'business' called Patreon to ask for a small amount of money to get him to consider answering your question. That's how many such sites work.
I doubt Sean himself will become rich based on the actual cash money he will get out of it.
Use as much of your fantasy capabilities to assist your musings about reality as you like.
Science fiction often results in science fact, I was not rejecting that. I was referring to the fantasies of theism being presented or manifested as religious fact to the human race.
Yes, I know brother Uni. But I sent him a private mail. He could at least have the decency to answer. Like professor Harari.
What about good and bad ghosts in quantum field theory? The point is, science itself is a fantasy look on reality.
I agree, he should have, but he has not committed an unspeakable act against you.
He will have his own criteria for choosing which questions he wants to answer as he does not have enough time to answer them all. I understand your disappointment but I think your reaction to such examples are OTT (over the top)!
Not every scratchcard is a winner! You pay your money and take your chance. I am not a great fan of such a system but I don't get too angry if I choose to participate and I lose.
The old god is the one in power before the enlightenment. The new god is the impersonal, so-called absolute, objective god of scientific thinking. Just look at all the tasks to be completed, the problems to be "solved" in the learning books, especially the math or "exact" ones. Which is all nice, I love them! But why, for example, should astrology not be learned by law?
Your playing again! Do you also think the 'God particle' label for the Higgs boson infers that all the scientists at the LHC are theists?
I would have asked you if you were a Jonny Cash fan! Unless you had a wee white flash in the middle of your shirt collar as well.
Obvious books do not fit where your head is located... or you don't have enough light up there, try ebooks.lol
When you ever decide to address the actual technique and example I used, then send me a msg.
I am not here to satisfy your parental urges.
If you don't change your behavior...then you are done.
You can always play with Hillary sparky.
No, that's not what I said. I said that he answers only things he can answer and are not suggesting something else and better. I have sent him five emails now and Im done with him. He's not really interested in truth, as you call it. Just in promoting his own ideas, which are false.i dont think he likes it I pointed him out.
You call everything I say against science playing. Tell me, what about ghost particles?
What are you talking about? My parental urges? You think I play your mother?
Relax, brother. I just believe in gods, no, Im sure they exist. You don't. So what? Im curious about the material universe just like you. Why you think I studied physics (without having attended colleges, except for the last, most interesting year). I like physics even more, in the knowledge that gods made the basics of the universe.
As I suggested, an arrogant ***** who trips over his own sense of personal significance.
Go pick up those toys you :naughty: little tinker!
You can always ask for a reassuring hug from mommy or a substitute mommy.
No , you need empirical verification to identify the correct criteria and principles.
Imagination and fantasy can only help us to come up with out of the box hypotheses and make connections that our trained minds can't. (Defuse thinking or Fast thinking (Daniel Kahneman).
At the end of the day we will need to Objectively evaluate every thought we make so imagination and fantasy are not necessary or sufficient or credible ways for the progress of our epistemology and philosophy.
Sorry, Uni! I thought you write the parental thing... sorry again
Do you have unknown words in that sentence or you are still riding your ego-dragon?
You are done....finished.
:rofl: Nae bother man! In true theistic tradition, 'I forgive you!'
Ego dragon, bovine manure? If anyone offers cinstructive comments it's @universeness! Not sure about you...
I did read it, don't throw more toys out your pram you will have none left to play with.
"YOU ARE DONE!" :lol: :rofl: :lol: Yeah done with who? Baby gaspar gasbag!
These comments are not for you mate....
I am addressing an arrogant sophist who make ups accusations and projects them on others just to hear his voice.
To be honest I am not sure about your ontology....but I am not a computer.
Maybe you should stop staring at your own reflection in the mirror!
-And how would you know mr Hillary???
You are unable to understand how we define a Default Position or why all claims come with a burden.
Do you really believe that your reasoning is a credible source of judgments?
If yes pls demonstrate one of your existential claims.
Don't worry about my ontology, Nickolas. She sleeps safe under the bed. We just gave her a meal and later I take her for a walk...
My Default Position is different from yours. My default position is a heavenly etetrnal universe, and next to it the material copy of it, in which heavenly life repeats eternally in periodic big bangs.
5 is a lot, maybe he considered that 'pestering,' under the netiquette guidelines.
Maybe you are correct and he didn't want to promote your idea as it was contrary to his.
Maybe but maybe not, perhaps his reasons were less sinister than that.
Do you think Mr Harari would react well to 5 emails in succession?
Don't get so annoyed at these people, you get a lot of pleasure out of your pursuit of scientific truth regardless of those currently at the top of the science community, dont you?
Okay, one last try. In my Default Position, the very existence of the material universe is proof of the heavenly universe, because they come in a duo package.
-My Default Position is different from yours.
lol....hahahahaha obviously, but your is just a position NOT a position that we arrive from the Null hypothesis...so remove the default Mr hillary!
-"My default position is a heavenly etetrnal universe, and next to it the material copy of it, in which heavenly life repeats eternally in periodic big bangs. "
-Yes your position is that you believe in magical claims you are unable to objectively demonstrate as true. I already know that and I don't ask that.
My question is simple. How a full grown up individual with access to education can still hold medieval age beliefs without any objective verification.
I didn't sent them one after another. I sent them spread over long time. Ill show you one:
Hi Sean Carroll! I was discussing on the philosophy forum. I'm writing about a cosmological model which tries to explain dark energy, particle/antiparticle asymmetry, mass generations, the nature of spacetime, etc. I think massless preons exist which make up quarks and leptons. Not as pointlike particles but as 6d structures of which three are curled up in Planck-sized circles (like circles on a cilinder). Their bindings in triplets creates massive quarks and leptons. In 3d they seem pointlike. Our universe contains equal numbers of both.
The thing I wanna ask you about. If the universe consists of two infinite 4d spaces, divided by a Planck-sized wormhole (like the center of a torus, the torus being open on the outside), could it be two 3d universes are pushed into real existence from a virtual state? Like Hawking radiation? Could all matter (except gravity) be confined to 3d while expanding in a negatively curved 4d space (the Gaussian curvature on the mouth of a torus is negative). Maybe our universe is, together with a mirror universe (antiprotons, antineutrons, positrons, and antineutrinos) expanding from a central tiny mouth, and when the both have accelerated away to infinity, the stage is set for a new inflation around the mouth, and two 3d universes are spat out, which again expand to infinity, etcetera. Is there an argument that reasons against this? Thanks in advance!
Pestering?
That is a false equivalence . The existence of a material universe CAN ONLY BE USED AS EVIDENCE for the existence of a MATERIAL UNIVERSE.
The qualifier "heavenly" in front of the word universe obviously introduces some qualities that YOU HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE as possible and true.
CAN you do that or you are just good in playing with words?
Well, its a descriptive nonscientific term used for the benefit of the public, is that what you are asking me about? Their use of the term ghost or are you asking me about my opinion on the validity of the science behind ghost particles?
Yes! You got that very right. With or in the material universe you can't prove or disprove the eternal heavenly realm. For you it's a fantasy, for me an improvable reality giving reason and meaning to my material dancing. You're still in denial, or school took it away from you.
Quoting Hillary
:smile: :up: Thanks Hillary!
No. Its not for the public. They are found in qft books. What are they?
Ghosts in physics
lol....that must be a new low for you...but then again moving your finger to others while falsify accusing them of things just to hear your voice is right there.
Look here:
In the terminology of quantum field theory, a ghost, ghost field, ghost particle, or gauge ghost is an unphysical state in a gauge theory. Ghosts are necessary to keep gauge invariance in theories where the local fields exceed a number of physical degrees of freedom.
If a given theory is self-consistent by the introduction of ghosts, these states are labeled "good". Good ghosts are virtual particles that are introduced for regularization, like Faddeev–Popov ghosts. Otherwise, "bad" ghosts admit undesired non-virtual states in a theory, like Pauli–Villars ghosts that introduce particles with negative kinetic energy.
Unphysical states...
Well that seems a great deal to ask about!
I assume he allocates a certain amount of time to answer a single question in his monthly podcast.
Perhaps he felt he could not do your question justice within the allocated time.
Maybe he had other reasons I don't know but I would suggest that none of his reasons would be invoked by any personal bias against you or your hypothesis. I can't claim I know that for sure but if he is like that then yeah, forget him and try to communicate a little more with Mr Harari.
Universeness is atheist, just like you. But his calibers are above yours. Shall I post or shall I not...?
Maybe. But Carroll too believes in a mirror universe, but going to the other side of time zero.
Its the public who they are trying to sell the books to.
Neutrinos are often called ghost particles because they pass through us and the Earth etc.
Like a ghost can, it's just meaningless emotive terminology.
neutrinos are also sometime called WIMP as they might be Weakly Interacting Massive Particles.
WIMP is also used in Computing, Windows, Icons, Pointer, Menus. Just convenient labels.
The neutrino is not what is meant. Jn the popular press, yes. But not in qft. I had to learn them while studying qft, and neutrinos are not involved. For example, the Goldstone boson is such a ghost. No one has seen one. It's a fantasy thought to exist!
-"Quoting Hillary
-lol so why accepting it? Aren't you interested in avoiding potentially wrong claims?
You don't really care the truth value of what you believe?
-"For you it's a fantasy,"
-Lol I never said that! what's wrong with you two and your strawmen?
For me is an irrational belief that isn't supported from objective facts.
Are you able to distinguish the difference of rejecting a claim as irrational and rejecting it as a fantasy or wrong?
-" Quoting Hillary"
-I get it, but why don't you keep it to yourself but you force it on others as true and a fact?
Quoting Hillary
-lol in denial of what.......of the fact that you accept an improvable reality because it is comforting for you? This is what I am telling you from day one Hillary! lol
Why would you ever accuse others being in denial because they demand higher standards for suspiciously comforting claims????
Your sentences, accusations, claims and arguments are a hot mesh mate!
Are you really 35 and did you really go to school because your reasoning appear to be that of a 13yo.
To make that statement, one must be already living. Because one is living, the part of the statement saying "to never exist" becomes just a supposition or wishful thinking. The living is reality, and non existence is a supposition. Is reality better or more meaningful than the emotional supposition?
So much for your big loud "YOU ARE DONE," gasbag gaspar. You deflate more and more.
You will insist on staring into the mirror. Take a wee lesson from the theists. Pride is a deadly sin.
Wash it off your face and your mirror will reflect something less offensive.
Learn how to be less of an arrogant *****.
again lets assume that the caliber of this arrogant pretentious demagogue is above me....HOW would you know??? lol
Because he trolls you and your social cues don't allow you to see it?
Your physics knowledge is beyond mine in this area. I have only associated the term ghost particle with neutrinos. I would need to study the details behind the content of what you typed here.
Maybe someone else on the forum has the physics to debate you on what you are talking about here.
I know a little about virtual particle exchanges during interactions but not the detailed quantum mechanics involved. I have never heard of Faddeev-Popov ghosts.
@Nickolasgaspar types words like a petulant child, please don't waste your energy defending me to him. I really appreciate your attempt but he is not even a minor itch.
I know because I had many conversations with him before. And he has a completely different attitude than yours. Discussing with him gives a good feeling. You try to put yourself above others. You are a good classic philosopher, no doubt. Sticking to the true schematics of the western philosopher, and all that. You insist on proof. Uni does too, but at least he tries to look into the things I believe in, the gods, that is. The only thing gods do is giving a reason for the universe. And we just gotta live to find out what heavenly life is about. And taking care of paradise. Science creates chaos in paradise and the apple bitten by Eve was probably the apple of scientific knowledge.
Too late... I just saw it now...
Yeah, he is fully cooked I think. Not worth your energy investment.
It's very hard for someone so chiseled to see their own shorfalls.
I have learned to be aware of most of mine, I think and I try to admit to them and combat them.
Even the theists know the dangers of being perfect or even claiming to be. Humans will crucify you!
If Christ really existed, that could have been the reason! Too perfect. Too good to be true. Did Christ have a Jesus complex?
I agree on this one, if we're just going by human subjectivity then we can't possibly compare existence vs. non-existence.
I think experience can lead us -- should lead us -- to conclude that existence per se is actually amazing. From a scientific perspective it's incredibly complex and from a personal perspective there's all types of different ways to experience it along with countless different environments. Find one that suits you. My basic starting point is Genesis where God says that life/existence is good but I understand that not everyone accepts that. I think you're right that purely rationally speaking we have no ways to compare between the two.
Well based on the tiny 57 years I have been on this planet (compared to the 13,8 billion years for the Universe), Humans might admire or even seek to understand perfection or become perfect but we will then refuse to accept it as if we achieve it then we have nothing left to aspire to. Only entropy would remain. Some state beneath perfection. The existence of God would be a perfect disappointment for me as it would mean all my efforts to improve myself were pointless as the omni's by definition, can never be surpassed.
Gods are only human... Some of them, that is. Life in heaven is exactly the same as here. Look around you and you see heaven. The difference is that life in heaven is eternal, and we don't go there after dead. We are material, mortal, finite copies of heaven, like all of life and the universe we're living in. Luckily they figured it out "perfectly" (there you go!). It starts all over again every big bang. So in a sense, we never die.
I don't mind your 'only human' gods, Humans can cope with other humans who apply the god label to themselves but you also type 'some of them, that is,' so, our dialogue on that part continues.
Quoting Hillary
You also see hell, does your vision of heaven have room for serial killers and Donald Trump?
Ok, I accept that It might be a little unfair to place the big orange-faced horror straight after my use of the label serial killer. (One of my shortfalls is to hate political opportunists like Trump a little too much!)
Quoting Hillary
It would be interesting to get your view of what you envision would be 'a day in the life of a member of heaven.' Have you ever tried to think about it? Do you think you would still get to do science? or would that be meaningless?
Quoting Hillary
So for us then this place has no value. It's like a parallel Universe. If I am a facsimile/copy/clone of me in heaven/parallel universe then what significance does that have to my daily life here?
Quoting Hillary
Figured what out?
Quoting Hillary
Do you mean like the Penrose bounce (different Universe every time) or the whole Universe plays again like a movie on permanent replay? What would be the purpose of permanent replay?
If we all come back and play different roles then that's more akin to the reincarnation advocates, yes?
Which flavors are you offering here?
Well, what I meant was that some gods are human, some are stegosaures like, some are mice-like, and others parrot- or lion-like and slipper animal-like. All life in the universe has an eternal part in heaven.
Quoting universeness
How to create the material the universe is made of.
Quoting universeness
The purpose would be to fill the void of the boredom that fell upon heaven after their eternal playings. They created elementary particles and space. So a big bang can appear periodically. Kind of Penrose-like but with a different mechanism.
So are we back to shapeshifting gods or do you mean a god that is an actual mouse?
If so how far do you want to take that? An insect god? a lice god? a quark god?
Can you describe a typical action of your mouse god and is this god a lesser god compared to your lion god?
Quoting Hillary
For what purpose was this done by these entities in this place you have called heaven. Why did they need to replicate themselves and how can you be sure that you are not just projecting human attempts/wishes to replicate themselves as a means of lifespan extension onto the god posit?
Quoting Hillary
You know in science how much of that happens, don't you just need a first cause.
Don't you think humans will be able to eventually figure out the rest of how this universe works?
Quoting Hillary
So we are a mere entertainment for bored gods? Are you ok with that as your ultimate purpose?
You are a mere toy for the entertainment of gods?
Quoting Hillary
Don't they already have space and elementary particles in their heaven place?
Would they not get quite bored with us new toys quick quickly if they got bored with everything eternal heaven had to offer them?
Does this all still sit 'perfectly' well with your own internal rationale?
I am not asking this in an attempt to ridicule your viewpoint I genuinely want to understand your rationale.
If you reject my 'roleplay' accusation that I claim has been further induced by your frustration with the current cosmological hierarchy then I am at a loss to try to understand/appreciate/ your rationale.
I understand the need for some humans to believe in something 'bigger and more powerful,' than themselves. You know I think such individualised needs are based on primal fear.
I remain of the opinion that your dalliances with polytheism are due to some combination of the reasons I have suggested and is probably also influenced with other aspects of your background story that I don't know about.
I don't ever wish to deny you or anyone else the freedom to believe in whatever you choose to.
I could not call myself democratic/socialist/humanist if I did but I will continue to argue against anyone who presents any theistic viewpoint as truth.
No quark gods. The heavenly life is non-material. The lion-gods, mice-gods, etc. just live like here. For all gods in heaven there is a material counterpart in the universe. Heaven is not made of the same material as the particles and space they created. The can't create a copy of heaven itself. They are not omnipotent or omni in general. A mouse eaten by the lion just continues living. They put a magic element in the particles they created, namely physical charge. Only with charge, a temporary copy of heaven can emerge.
Quoting universeness
They created the universe for good reasons. I don't mind they created it for their own selfish purpose! I give them a nice show to watch! But I realize the human gods are not the only gods. All of universal life has a counterpart in heavenly paradise. Be it a musquito or a fish. But the humans have fucked up during the creation efforts. They put a twist in the particles that evolved into life. Humans like to investigate the material of creation. This material doesn't exist in heaven.
Quoting universeness
We can only hope they don't get bored. But who cares? Maybe they got bored already and have continued their eternal play. I don't think they bother do destroy their creation.
They are no scientific truth. They can't be proven by measuring material stuff. But they offer a reason, explanation why there is a material world in the first place. As you know, I have a model for periodic big bangs. But how to explain that model? Why it exists? I guess one can be satisfied with the model alone, and don't get me wrong, I am! But still, without a reason that it exists, it seems an empty model, no matter how beautiful life is! There has to be something unexplainable that is explainable! The eternal gods! But don't worry... I don't worship them or listen to them, or derive moral from them insofar human relations are involved. The only moral I take from them is that creation is performed for all beings in heaven, not only for human gods. Creation was performed by and for all gods. Be it the virus or the whale god. Which doesn't mean we can't fight the virus though.
Oh!ok , I had the wrong impression they were gods...lol
You had the right impression! Human gods. There is a Nickolast god even. Laughing his pants off because of your scrabblings. :lol:
verification can only occur when there is something to verify... so verification comes after hypothesisation.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Ahh Kahneman... Objectively with a capital O... It does not impress me much. Of course imagination and fantasy are not credible. No one will state that her hypothesis is a product of pure imagination. It also is not. Hypotheses are the product of informed imagination, the knowledge of current debate, the knowledge of the literature and knowledge of current empirical findings. However, they are organized and considered in a certain way. One cannot do that without imagination, the forward looking assessment of states of the world.
Quoting Hillary
What do you mean by learning astrology 'by law'? Should apply a legal perspective to astrology, or an astrological perspective to law? I really do not understand, it is not meant sarcastically or anything.
Argument from Ambiguity fallacy. You are talking about the steps of a verification process(after the validation of a principle) while I refer on the method we recognize the value of Verification as a principle...or any other principle.
i.e. The three logical absolutes ((1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity.) are principles that we verified empirically every time we use them.
We may not have an absolute proof about them and we didn't declare them to be trues true their constant empirical validation is what allowed them to become principles and rules of logic.
Quoting Tobias
- I think Daniel will be very sad hearing about your disapproval(or was your disapproval aiming my capital O?) .(Either way I will make this joke) I hope he finds some consolation and comfort by cashing the check he received along with the Nobel Prize we won while studying human heuristics....(.no offense).
Quoting Tobias
-Why didn't you include my first sentence? "Imagination and fantasy can only help us to come up with out of the box hypotheses and make connections that our trained minds can't make."
You cherry picking a part of my reply allowing you to argue "against" something that we are in agreement ...lol
Circularity. You cannot empirically verify the value of empirical verification... One has to have had the idea that that is a pausible way to go beforehand. We also have that idea. Intuitively empirical verification makes sense. We have such notions pre-scientifically, practically. Quoting Nickolasgaspar
We cannot verify them emprically, they are a-priori truths. We can for instance not devise a test to falsify these axioms. Let's try to find a door that can be open and closed at the same time...
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I have nothing but respect for professor Kahneman. His book 'thinking fast and slow' was the text book from which we taught (my institution, not me) first tear students the introductory course on psychology. It is just that it seems so eminently quotable. Someone says something and drops the name Kahneman. Especially those that dabble in psychology from other disciplines. That might not include you, but just an explanation for my reaction. It is like someone on this forum citing Bertrand Russel. Nothing but respect, but it seems the first go to source or something. An yes, the capital O exacerbated the the situation ;) I am sure though you are knowledgable so nothing bad meant there.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
We might well be in agreement. It happens often on the forum. However your 'only' seems to imply it is a secondary category, something only applicable when we think 'out of the box'. I hold that also in the box (the average everyday paradogm) we need imagination cobbling together insights from literature arguments that stand the test of logic plausibility and possiblly but by no means always, empirical data. So while we may well agree, there is a difference of nuance.
What I mean is that what we learn at school or universities is science. Math, physics, economy, chemistry, biology, etc. By law you have to go to school and learn about it. I don't care to learn, I was fascinated by physics and even voluntarily studied it at the VU (which you probably know). But why shouldn't, for example, astrology be learned by law? What's inherently better about science?
By law I mean that it's written in the law to go to school from young age already and learn about science.
Indeed. And your mind is trained to demand a kind of proof for a claim for which no such a proof can be given, and every proof for such a claim is reduced to fantasy, of which it is exactly the question if it is a fantasy. If I say the gods can maybe interfere by means of hidden variables of QM (by adjusting the outcome of interactions between particles, which involve wavefunction collapse) or that I saw them in a dream you say it's nonsense. But did you check if all collapses during all interactions in the universe are as probability expects them to be? No. You expect that all interactions, measurements, are conform the laws of QM, but these laws allow for improbable events.
So yeah, aligning myself with Tennyson's mindset,
[quote=Agent Smith]'Tis better to have lived and suffered than never to have lived at all.[/quote]
[quote=Ms. Marple]Most interesting! :chin:[/quote]
During the suffering though, this feels differently... What if the suffering continues?
Yep!
Ouioui!
Of course I know the VU, been there lots of times. The reason why we teach chemmistry, physics, math etc and not astrology is cultural, but not arbitrary. It is cultural because in th Middle Ages one didd study astronomy (perhaps not astrology) but many forerunners of the scientific method were astrologers, such as John Dee. So it depends on the cultural one grows up in. It is not arbitrary though. Currently we are very interested in what works and less in written dogma. Therefore we teach the kids stuff that has a proven track record of obtaining results. things tht more accurately predic the behaviour of the natural and social world than astrology doesn. In regard to the natural world, physics an chemistry obtain more accurate results. The social world is more problematic, but also there sociology and psychology tend to offer more in terms of results than voodoo or the Kabbalah.
Central dogma of molecular biology
And how did that work out? Just take a look around you to see...
No, of course it's not arbitrary. But why is scientific culture better than other cultures (of which many have been wiped away from the face of the world by science and western religion)?
Every culture has a proven track record of obtaining results.
Quoting Hillary
I see a computer desk with a small notebook, thin and light. Next of me is a cup of brown liquid drawn from beans that originated somewhere in Africa or south America. I am communicating with someone possibly many miles away (or possibly my next door neighbour, since you understand Dutch and has a stint at the VU so I cannot be sure). I see a prosperity the world has not witnessed before and an abundance of what life has to offer... I know my generation will, if we are not wiped of this earth, live to become 80 years old... I know there are bad things too, but undeniably human life became a lot easier and pleasant with the scientific method.
Quoting Hillary
It is not necessarily better in any normative sense. Wiping out other cultures is a great atrocity. However now this is realized in any case in many parts of the world it is accepted as international law.
Quoting Hillary
Yes,, but those were generally less effective. One of my favourites, the Ottoman Empire had science and advance up to a par or better then Western Europe. However, Ottoman science stayed rooted in religious mysticism. Eventually its bureaucracy (great though it was in the 16th century) and milityary (equally great) could not keep up and were outpaced. Science based on mysticism simply did not get things done as effectively as the turn to empiricism in the 17th century did.
Do you all in here come from the say school of sophists????? oh boy here we go again.
I can validate empirically the value of Objective Verification....don't play with words just to earn impressions!!!!
Look at science's run away success in epistemology. Look at what makes a Logical Fallacy ....a Fallacy. (unverified premises).
The reason why Objective Verification has become a principle...IS BECAUSE its value is validated EVERY SINGLE TIME by the epistemic value claims have when they are are Objectively and Empirically verified.
You essentially argue in favor of Magic. Magically an idea about the value of empirical verification came in to our minds without empirical input !!!
And for the sake of the argument lest say that this idea came about magically.....what criteria did we used to confirm its value and ability to produce high quality epistemic results...AGAIN it was done by being objectively verified every single time we demanded it in our Standards of Evaluation.
If you observe children you will find out that they are prone to accidents and the smart ones use those accidents to correct the model of reality in their minds. This is the first empirical indications we get about the value of Objective Empirical Verification..obviously not all of us have realize that.
Systematized methods like Logic and Science just defined it and included it in their principles.
-" We also have that idea. Intuitively empirical verification makes sense. "
-Intuition isn't magic, it doesn't come out from thin ai. Our intuition is shaped and "trained" by our previous empirical experiences about our world. Read Daniel Kahneman's book on intuition and other heuristics. He won A Nobel Prize for his founding. Don't try to do philosophy without being aware of our Scientific Epistemology. IT is always a recipe for Pseudo philosophy.
-"We have such notions pre-scientifically, practically."
-What a pre scientific era has to do with our discussion sir??????? Empirical methods able to provide Objective results did not start or stopped with Science?
Science is nothing more that an attempt to systematize those Standards.
WHat on earth are you arguing about! Have you ever taken a course on Philosophy of Science?
I am not interested in what magical sources you believe our Principles come from in but in what you can demonstrate Objectively as their source.
The principle of Objectivity was acknowledged by humans....after "we" were conned way to many times by others who just offered Promises and False claims during our transactions not Objective evidence.
I wont even go to your rest of your claims before you acknowledge that you are wrong and after you remove magical agency behind our principles and of course acknowledge the fact that REAL WORLD experience lead to therealizations of principle. Your feet are in the fire until you do that.
Pretty alike what I see, except I type on a phone, listen to the Belfast Child, pet my dog and answer my wife what's that on her face. Probably Im around your corner! Somewhere in the center, not far away from Utrecht. I rather had seen more nature though. It looks like a Mondriaan painting from above! But what can we do? It just is as it is...
A prosperous world as never seen before? That's what they told you. In the old days it wasn't as good as today and scientific progress wasn't so far. The stone age, the iron age, the steam era, the electricity era, the atomic age, what's next? Science is nice, but why make it the norm?
I can point you at non-prosperity as well. Every culture has prosperities. Im glad prof. Kirschemann at the VU gave stuff to read about Feyerabend!
To have the value of ‘better’/‘worse’ existence is necessary. The only possible door in to this as a reasonable discussion is probably to examine questions that address ‘value’.
Comparing something with non-existence is fairly pointless.
Note: I did not say ‘nothing’ because that is a concept attached to absence.
Digging deeper the most common misconception I find around these terms is based in Kantian jargon. The noumenal is not something we can even refer to, so referring to it is only ever a demarcation of the ‘negative sense’ as a limiting factor in our understanding. The ‘positive sense’ is (ironically) also just a ‘negative sense’ because there is no way to address that which cannot be addressed (by definition).
Even reading back the above makes this sound far more complicated than it really is. You just have to understand that if there is something that cannot be talked about then whatever you are talking about necessarily cannot be the said thing you are trying to talk about. Understanding this contradiction is deadly important from my experience. Not understanding this leads many down roads of nonsense and understanding it only helps guard against going down such roads as often.
Recently on this forum there is a growing trend of ignoring the questions posed leaving them unexamined or poorly presented. Not all sentences with a ‘?’ at the end are worthy of the title ‘question’.
An example: If yellow was called blue then would it rain tomorrow?
The embedded claim within that question is that there is a correlation between the weather and how we use language to name certain concepts in day-to-day life.
Don't play with capitalizations and exclamation marks to make a point. Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Not at all, see my replies to Hillary. Of course we have empirical input, we are bodily creatures. I tried to google objective verification... did not yield much.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
This sentence is gibberish, objectively verified.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
No they start learning behavior that woks, they do not necessarily form ' a correct model of reality' in there minds. A monkey that gets sprayed with cold water every time it touches a banana will stop touching the banana but not because it has formed an accurate picture of the world in its mind. God knows what the monkey thinks. Maybe it thinks bananas are wet.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I am aware of the use of capitalization...
And on and on it goes. Can I sumarize your contribution by the imperative "Read Kahneman"? If so it is duly noted.
Yes, I can too. God (gods) is, objectively verified, an important element in human life. You can't deny that. As a Greek you should know.
And that behavior can be conducted as well by looking at the stars and base it on the configurations of the stars. Maybe not as you like it, or as science likes it but that's up to the people themselves. Science can offer a plead at most to conduct live on scientific base (and technological gadgets are very convincing!) but no more than that. It can't tell it's the way of conduct. Which has brought the world on the brink of a "nuclear exchange", to put it mildly, and natural disasters.
Interesting question! If the Sun was called rain it would probably rain if the Sun shines tomorrow.
It is precisely these kinds of mistakes that result in gibberish.
If sunshine was called rainfall, then tomorrow the rain would fall if the Sun shone...
Yes it is. And generally they value efficiency. One could try to determine enemy troop movements by looking at the entrails of caught deer, as used to be the custom. However satelite images prove to be more trutsworthy. They generally resort to that.
Quoting Hillary
The sciences do not make any normative claims, just descriptive ones. Quoting Hillary
Law and ethics are disciplines that try to cover that ground. Quoting Hillary
Most unfortunate. It is people's doing, not science. I do not see why you would mix normative an descriptive claims.
Quoting Hillary
Hahah, one telling me to read Kahneman, the other read Feyerabend, nice! Every culture might prosper, but apparently many like the gadgets produced based on a scientific understanding of the world.
Just apply that logic to some of your other thoughts and questions and you might be more worthy of my time ;)
You need to type louder gasbag gaspar. It's getting harder to hear your cry's from the cradle.
Did mommy refuse to hug you again this morning?
Yes, and rightly so! I like my little phone too! Why not? I mentioned Feyerabend because he shows very well that science is one culture amongst many. A very likable culture! Just look at the wonders of technique. But that same technique can cause mayhem too. And the mayhem caused is unprecedented in human history. Of course, the successes too. But these are usually put to the front in the justification, not the bad things.
:lol:
Ha! You're the best!
I will use capitalization. The points are made by the sentence itself, I just highlight the core concept in it. ITs free, available and I don't live in North Korea! ; )
Quoting Tobias
-I am not going to evaluate the principles used in our discussion by looking at your replies to Mr Hillary! I need to respect the points made in our discussion.
Maybe you are arguing for a different source and I failed to realize it. Pls elaborate.
Quoting Tobias
-lol whats up with the members of this platform and their poor performance in search engines?
Relativist used the same argument to tap dance around the usage of a word reject and why non acceptance is not rejection!!
My mistake, I assume people know the basics on Philosophy of Science.
So the term you should search is Objective Independent Verification. Objective(Objectivism) just defines the Philosophical value behind the Standard of Independent Verification. Objective is the qualities of the produced results from this type of verification.
Quoting Tobias
Yes....as you said they are learning a behavior that works in their empirical world. This means that they verified objectively a behavior that has instrumental vallue. Changing the words doesn't change how they learn and why it works.
I am not interested in whether their model of reality is necessarily correct or not. The point of interest is that their empirical interactions are what is necessary for any type of model of reality to be realized in their brains. This is the argument that you challenge. Empirical interaction gives rise to models and concepts and by verifying them objectively we decide which qualify as principles and which do not.
Quoting Tobias
_What does that even means? Why using monkeys on a discussion on how humans use the empirical feedback to form principles for their evaluations....! How this example qualifies as relevant ?
And before saying " God knows what the monkey thinks"... ask zoologists that study behavior and they will tell you that Mind Theory answers many of our questions on what animals think.
yes they form models, yes they inform their behavior through the feedback they receive,they use concepts, they guide their lives through their efforts to understand what their emotions "mean" and how the should act.
I think its KoKo the gorilla who was caught on cameras using the sign language she was taught...thinking her plan grabbing a banana while going to the freezer.
A monkey and chimps understand agency and causality and form assumptions about the cause. They are pretty accurate buy they are also superstitious like us. Watch videos with Chimps acknowledging the fruits of cooperation, or how they can understand the concept of money, how they use pebbles to buy grapes and why they get mad when they end up with cucumber for their worth of their money. Watch videos on studies about Chimps using orange juice that they love as money in order to "buy" time for looking at pictures of celebrities of their group....and even more juice to look at porn (chimp private parts).
So lets leave magic (god) out from what we know about animals.
Quoting Tobias
-No my contribution is that I point to material one should know before trying to do Philosophy on this specific topic.
You said that you don't promote magic...but you didn't attempt to explain where do you think our ideas and heuristics come from.
Without empirical interactions Humans don't just end up without ideas...they just die! W know that(unfortunately) from nursery facilities in Romania during communistic(lol not in theory) regimes where well feed newborns, deprived of all stimuli for long periods of times, had their brains shutdown.
So feel free to tell me why you believe those ideas...not just what you believe.
it goes like this
-I don't know (jump)god
-Science doesn't know (jump) god
-We know everything(jump) god
-I don't understand (Jump) god
-universe exists (jump) god
ITs like trying to reason with a 5yo while being at a party with other kids.
Not possible.
I might change my pseudonym name to gasbag gaspar, instead of quark ninja... Catchy! :wink:
Keep it coming, gasbag gaspar! :lol:
I accept that your dalliance with theism satisfies a need in you and is harmless as such but I object to you sticking a label marked 'the truth' on it.
Btw, have you watched this month's podcast from Sean Carroll? I started to watch it last night but fell asleep about 20 mins into it. If you sent in questions this month, would it not be in this podcast that he might have answered you, or would more likely be next month's podcast. How does the Patreon system work? Do they inform you if they are going to answer your question in the podcast?
It's another 3.5-hour podcast so he should get through a fair number of questions he has been sent in that time.
If not then so be it. Like you said, it can help to engage like this sometimes … sometimes it does not help at all. How to judge is your choice though, obviously :)
Okay, let's Analyze and offer Purely Reasoned Critique.
"I don't know (jump)god"
I do know gods. And by reading your "Comments", I can only conclude that some human gods are weird ones.
"Science doesn't know (jump) god"
Science doesn't know indeed. But I do.
"I don't understand (Jump) god"
But I do understand why they created the universe. But you don't accept that.
"We know everything(jump) god"
We (or me) know the basics. Of course we don't know everything that happens. Which can be considered an even greater argument for gods. Not because we can't know, but because we don't know.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Yes. The existence of the universe is proof when you know the cosmic workings.
Do you have any real arguments sparky or ad hominem fallacies is your norm?
Why do you insist in projecting your relation and rituals you have with your mum on to others?
They ask a dollar to question but without guaranteed response. You gave guaranteed response when you were a teacher. But it's worthwhile! A dollar I can spare!
Ive asked a question on the reactions part. The same I asked him by email. I have to check how to pay him that dollar.
-True. The only problem is that these individuals are all over the place polluting so many discussions. Ignoring them after the initial interaction may be the best tactic.
I do not dispute this at all. What I dispute your metaphysical jump to an accurate picture of reality. I do not mind the assertion that empircal findings lead to models that offer predictions about what the world might be like. What I dispute is your downplaying the role of imagination in this process. The problem is the same with all objectivists. They miss the problem of induction that has been around since Hume.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Ohh dear, one should read your favourite author... have you read Sheila Jassanoff? Just because you read a book does not make you an authority. Books I read too.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
They come from the way our minds are wired together with interaction with the material world as well as with each other. We are bodily creatures so they come from practical interaction. Not the scientific interaction mind you, but practical interaction. Read Heidegger's analytic of equipment now that we are throwing books at each other. Quoting Nickolasgaspar
A strawman. I do believe interaction with the world is neessary for us to form ideas. It is a necessary condition, just not a sifficient one. Perception is not indepent of an perceiver. Impressions of the world land with a person already invested with preconceptions about how the world is, which will lead him or her to interpret data in particular ways. What I dispute is objective access to the outside world, that is access to the outside world as it really is and unclouded with our own presuppositions.
Exactly! :up:
Just a 'small side point,' I have long time friends who have taught religious education in Scottish Secondary schools for 30+ years and they do mention many aspects of belief systems, such as astrology and other historical practices related to predicting the future such as the Delphic oracles etc.
I think these are aired as examples of 'historical human belief systems,' only but they are talked about in the RE course of Secondary schools in Scotland. Probably quite briefly however.
Then what you wanna discuss about? Rational Logical Arguments on Sound Scientific or Metaphysical Basis, to construct a Solid Epistemology to start from?
What's an RE course?
Stop reversing things you rebel! It's Ninja Quark not 'quark ninja.' I think 'quark ninja' was the Ferengi bar owner on Deep Space 9!
I typed out the long version in:
Quoting universeness
RE = Religious Education :smile:
How long are you going to stare into that mirror?
It's never going to declare you 'the fairest of them all' no matter how many times you ask it to.
Wow impressive! Two, did you think of them both? or did you get help?
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
That's not much of a question? Its just another toy flying from your pram.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Just trying to reassure you that hopefully your mommy or mommy substitute still loves you even when you can't break out of your wee tantrum modes of discourse with others.
If you choose to put your big boy trousers on at some point and ask me a grown-up, respectful question then I will respond in kind. If not then you will remain Nickerless Gasbag!
I watched, coincidentally, a Star Trek Voyager episode, with captain Picard. In search for a vaccine the team ended up in a fight between the crew member with short blond hair and a black planet habitant. Both women, equipped with artificial hands with sharp pins with poison tips...
That's it! "The Dark Solution", by Nickerless Gasbag! :lol:
You're priceless and worth a zillion at the same time!
You have to jump through the hoops they set out to get your questions answered.
I don't mean the above sentence as a 'power-crazed,' accusation, they just have to employ some kind of system for their 'Mindscape podcasts.' You need to follow their process exactly.
Maybe you have to watch the podcast for that month to find out if he has actually answered your question. I thought they might explain the process once you have paid the toll but if you have not paid then you won't get answered. I think that's Patreons rules, not Seans but I accept that he signed up with them but maybe they are the best-established kids on the block for this stuff. I know a lot of the atheist phone-in YouTube stuff is through Patreon.
I intend to watch this month's podcast in full at some point but 3.5 hours is as long as a lord of the rings movie!
Maybe somewhat off the beaten track, but do you know if new ST movies are planned? Is Dr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness something? Seems great!
Oh you heathen!! Captain Picard on Star Trek Voyager!! Only your gods could make that happen!
Yeah, I remember the episode you are talking about. It was Star Trek the next generation.
All about the nefarious leader of a very African-looking tribal group and his intrigues to hold on to his power base. The fight was between the Enterprises security Chief Lieutenant Yar and the female suitor of the guy who was second in command to the black leader.
The video is very interesting. Maybe we can use it as a starting point for a discussion and see where the road takes us.
I followed the instructions in the podcast, and you will encounter the quest for payment with the message that answer is not guaranteed. You can ask on many websites for free, like here or physics fora. What money it costs Carroll to answer? Why did Harari respond, while others didn’t? Because I like his model?
Yes, that's the one! You are a real Trekkie(?)! I saw it on Netflix, last night. Isn't Picard on Voyager? Or Enterprise? I saw a nice documentary about the history of the series. Very interesting! The ship was designed by just putting a model upside down.
Tennyson, quite possibly, had never lost in love or suffered in life.
-So we are on to something here...and advance.
So you agree with the order I outlined?
First empirical observation, then formation of concepts and models, then empirical validation of concepts that can be used as principles in our evaluations.(Defuse thing(imagination creativity etc) can allow us to apply that value on a concept.
-" I do not mind the assertion that empircal findings lead to models that offer predictions about what the world might be like. What I dispute is your downplaying the role of imagination in this process."
-I never did downplayed the role of imagination, I only pointed out the correct order of things.
-" The problem is the same with all objectivists. They miss the problem of induction that has been around since Hume"
I am not sure you can successfully argue in favor of "the problem of induction" but I would like you try.
-"What I dispute your metaphysical jump to an accurate picture of reality."
-Well this wasn't in my initial point...and it isn't part of my position now. I never talked about an accurate picture of Reality, but an accurate picture of reality. (do you get the difference?...I will elaborate).
I pointed out that Objective independent Verification is necessary condition foran accurate picture of reality . Since I don't refer to an Absolute Reality or Absolutely True picture...the term "accurate picture of reality" refers to a model that is in agreement with Current Available Facts about reality.
I am a Methodological Naturalism so I never presume Metaphysical views in my positions. I remain strictly within our limits of our methods and observations and I always keep knowledge, truth, reality within a tentative state limited and defined by the latest , objective and most credible facts that are currently available to us. I don't do absolutes I don't do ultimates...I find them useless in philosophy and in science.
i.e. Not trying to run through a solid brick wall is a wise decision informed by an accurate picture on how brick walls manifest and "behave" in reality and this specific scale.
Quoting Tobias
Again, the author is irrelevant. Science and Philosophy doesn't have authorities. Their work rises and fall on its merit. In order to be able to do philosophy, we need to be aware of the latest and most credible knowledge. I don't know why you object the use of resources as a way to support our Philosophy. MAybe you could elaborate on that along with your critique on Induction!
Quoting Tobias
-Well,our brains are wired, our minds are the product of that wiring but I get your point. So you essentially say that our empirical interactions guide and form our mental models.
Sure I think we agree on that. Practical every day interactions are how we form concepts. Logic and science are used to verify which concepts have additional values as principles and standards for our evaluations.
-" Not the scientific interaction mind you, but practical interaction."
-I don't know what that means and why you keep bringing it up.....My arguments was always in favor of the empirical interaction independent from the highly systematic structure(scientific) or not(every day practical interactions).
I pointed that twice now but you keep pushing this strawman...why is that?
Quoting Tobias
I would look in your suggested material but only if I was making the distinction you are accusing me of between Science and Every day knowledge...but I don't!
The term Empirical observation that I set as the first step in the necessary process to produce concepts includes ALL TYPES of empirical methods that are able to produce objective facts.
Quoting Tobias
-Correct we totally agree on those points.
But your initial statement promoted an insufficient condition. I quote :"Ohh come on now... we need fantasy and imagination to establish our criteria for evidence... they are themselves not evidence based you see.."
As I pointed out in describing rules that we observe in nature, imagination is not a necessary condition. What is necessary is to objectively verify which qualities can constantly provide credible results. And we do that through the objective empirical verification of those qualities.
Most of our principles and axioms are simple because we can not really prove them but they are just direct Descriptions of relations, analogies and differences we observe in empirical facts. This is why fantasy or creative don't play a huge role in defining them.
That doesn't mean that in a Descriptive Framework of science (Evolution,Relativity) Imagination and creativity don't have a really important role).
Quoting Tobias
I don't really know what exactly you dispute. Are you saying that we don't have a way to produce claims with an objective value about the world?
So what from what I understand we both accept Empirical observation as foundational and Imagination/creative plays huge a role if not absolute necessary in specific cased of our intellectual inquiry? I am right.
The topic has shifted to : your objecting to Induction(problem of induction), the questionable value of scientific material and resources in Philosophical arguments and you reject our ability to produce objective descriptions about the outside world.
Pls correct if I don't present your positions correctly and feel free to make your case on any of them.
I will only point out that induction is far more valuable than an actual problem.
Have you watched the full 3.5h podcast for April?
Sure, you could start a thread on an aspect of Sean's cosmology viewpoints. I would certainly contribute and TPF does have a category for science-based threads. Sean has just accepted a professorship in 'natural philosophy' (just an old name for physics I think) at John Hopkins University (I think that's the name he stated). The course he is offering is called 'The philosophy of physics.'
Would that be a good thread title on TPF?
Quoting Hillary
There are certainly costs involved in recording a podcast plus there is his time and expertise.
A joiner/plumber/plasterer etc will charge you for their time and expertise, what's the difference?
Oui! C'est comme' ça! Probablement!
Not all, but fragments. I will look and see what needs clarification or whatever. He believes in a mirror universe too but differently from "mine". The CPT theorem is differently used. So, let's see. Maybe we can privately exchange and discuss a new thread. But first Im gonna sleep for a few hours. Eyelids dropping...
As you say, a bit off the track of the OP. Folks often stray from the OP. I apologise to all who find this particularly annoying and I accept that we all have a responsibility to minimise this.
There are always new sci-fi stuff in the pipeline, you just have to watch for the relevant adverts.
One of the only useful things about 'cookie software.'
I just bought the new Matrix movie on DVD, not watched it yet but it has bad reviews. Yeah I will probably buy the Dr Strange movie or I will lose my geek status.
OK!! I CAN FEEL THE ANNOYANCE FROM THE LONG TERM TPFers.
I will try harder to relate to the OP more. I hope you hear them too Hillary!
Btw I find the moment of miscommunication that caused us talking past each other.
-" No , you need empirical verification to identify the correct criteria and principles. — Nickolasgaspar
-Verification can only occur when there is something to verify... so verification comes after hypothesisation."
So I think we agree with the following orders 1. we observe a reoccurring rule 2. we hypothesize 3. we observe and objectively verify the hypothesis.
Without objective verification none of our hypotheses can be accepted as a principle no matter how good our initial observation was or how good our hypothesis.
The OP says "it is better to live." That's why I would be too scared to make the statement you made above. The geek army will get medieval on you for such sacrilege. As a polytheist, you should know better than to blaspheme like that.
W (Double-U) [math]\to[/math] M (Emm)...New letter!
:snicker: Creativity at its best, si señor/señorita?
If you dream and them pesky gods try to set up a comlink, Spoiler alert! trust me!! it's just a dream!
Yes, I heared them. I saw a reference made to the best timetravel movie ever made, for 7000 dollars! Can't remember the name, but sounds interesting. "Primer", its called! But it ranks nr. 15 in this list. And now Im really gonna nap for a few hours! :wink:
Haha! Ill ask them...
A great old maths teacher told my class the following, (perhaps our resident maths prof @jgill would comment)
'There is one school of thought that the roman numerals were based on a Greek system which was based on the greek column which held up all their important buildings.
The 'tally' marks are just representations of the greek collumn I.
So four would be IIII and five was IIII with a diagonal column drawn through it.
The Roman Numerals are just greek columns positioned differently.
V, C, X, M
A pupil pointed out that C and D had a curved part but the teacher said the original Roman C and D were made from connected straight lines but there was a theory that some Greeks were aware of the curved dome aspect of other civilisations and could have employed curved parts based on that.
He also stated that our decimal numbers came from curved and straight-line architecture as well.
2 for example being a curved top connected to two straight lines.
I have never found strong evidence in support of his claim but I admit to repeating his lesson to some of my own maths classes but I emphasised the point that the supporting evidence for this was very tenuous.
It is a fun idea!
Picard is captain on the Enterprise of life and is grateful for that!
No, because empirical observation does not come out of nowehere. One needs concepts and categories to give meaning to observation. Therefore, instead of your linear approach, from observation to conceptualization, I hold on to a circular, hermeneutic appproach.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I do not think your linear model points out 'the correct order of things'.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
To see if I can do it, or to explain it to you? The second is not necessary and the first is uncalled for. I do not need to prove anything to you. As for the second, read Hume and then Kant for the solution.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
thre you have it, the problem of induction. We can never verify if anything produces a result 'constantly'. 'Constantly' is obtained by a leap of faith, a generalization into the fuuture of past results. Next, one needs a kind of measure for credibility. The yardstick for credibility is never never free from authority, beliefs held in our current epoch etc.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Yes, our criteria for evidence cannot be themselves based on evidence on pain of circularity. We need to accept a certain criterion an imagine it to be valid all the time. Look at the work of Lorraine Daston on how the 'laws' of evidence have been developed in eary modern Europe.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Ohhh 'direct', now I get it... By magic they are directly transferred to our brain. Who believen in magic now?
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Indeed, but mostly because I have no idea what 'objective value' means. 'Objective' means pertaining to the object, so every claim about the world is in this sense objective. Most people use objective in a different way, pertaining to the world as it really really is. Inded I do not think we have unmediated access to this 'noumenal' world.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
No, because I do not hold empirical observation to be foundational. It is necessary yes, for every claim and argument, but not a fundament in the sense of an absolute standpoint from which to judge.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I am not disputing that it is important, in fact I think it is crucial. I do not think however, it does the work you want it to do, oferring a fundament from which you can judge all claims to knowledge.
I am not arguing for a linear approach. I only argue for an order of importance of Objective verification in the process of justifying our Descriptions. Sure a theoretical quantity is always necessary.
This is why toddlers do not have the way to communicate concepts. They lack the theory but they also lack the observations that will allow the emergence of concepts.
Those depend on each other as you said..but your argument was not about the importance of theory, but on how fundamental imagination is.
We are off topic again.
Quoting Tobias
I think I addressed this. Nothing is linear in real life or in science...a constant feedback is in action all the time.(this is why we don't have A scientific method but many methodologies). What we can say though Empirical interaction and theory can produce concepts. Imagination as a secondary quality can advance our concepts.
Quoting Tobias
-You misunderstood me. It wasn't a personal attack!!!My comment was based on the fact that no critique fully understands the value of induction.
The main argument and correct me if I am wrong rests on the claim that induction introduces a risk in all our conclusions....and my answer is of course it does!!!!!And this is what makes Induction far more valuable compared to all Deductive Tautologies!
IT's the risks that renders our conclusions capable to produce predictions and knowledge that we previously ignored,
Who even bothers with tautologies when we can introduce risk in our syllogisms and elevate the value of our conclusions thus allowing them to rise at a Knowledge Status!
Quoting Tobias
-So if I am correct you are using the example of our "uncertainty" for the Assumed Constant Regularity of our world.
First of all our acceptance of that principle is not a matter of faith.
Like all our principles and axioms, its an educated conclusion based on all available observations from the past and present and the success we get from our predictions. None of our faith based claims enjoys such epistemic foundations.
Now the argument you represent refers to "absolute verification" which is more of a red herring than a real problem for induction.
We can never offer an absolute verification (proof) but we can verify Regularity in Nature with every observation and quantification attempt. Sure the additional Dimension of Time adds extra risk but again the risk of a framework and its ability to deliver testable predictions is what makes its valuable.
So both sides should avoid the extreme positions. Induction is not an absolute tool for risk free knowledge, but the risk is what elevates induction far above other approaches. To try to call principles products of induction....faith..I won't even bother addressing that factually wrong claim again.
Quoting Tobias
We are addressing basic Principles and axioms not rules about concepts (laws of evidence). Those are two different things and we do need intelligence and creativity for such more complex mental structures.But even those rules need to be demonstrated objectively before we can accept them as laws.
You can not dismiss a fact by declaring it circular.
Objective verification yields results and that can be objectively validated.
Subjective verification yields religions, superstitious beliefs and metaphysical worldviews...and that can objectively verify it.
The fact that an empirical standard can be used to evaluate different standards of evaluation is something that we can not avoid doing!
Our body of knowledge and the principles by which we do our evaluations are all based on the simple principle of Objectivism. How we arrived to them (by using imagination, critical thinking , defuse thing, intuition) is irreverent. The important thing is that they are all evaluated by that standard.
Quoting Tobias
that was an uncalled strawman when I have already explain the direction of the source!
Our empirical interactions and observations are the direct source of the information we need to identify the value of a practice(objective verification).
We don't need to assume external systems... Even our imagination is shaped by our empirical experiences...Imagination doesn't create things magically out of thin air...right? we agreed on that.
Quoting Tobias
-We need to see the word from its practical aspect in order to understand its meaning value and application.
In oxford university-logic 101..Objective, subjective, true,knowledge etc are all evaluations terms that we use on claims. Only claims (Premises or arguments) can be True, wrong, Objective subjective etc.
If we understand that simple fact then we can look out which characteristics render a claim objective or not.
So if a claim is in agreement with facts that are accessible to everyone then we identify that claim as Objective.
i.e. I can not run through solid brick walls. IF we don't distort the common usages of those words then all the facts available to us render this claim an objective one.
Your angle projects this quality on the facts "'Objective' means pertaining to the object"...but again facts are neutral. The facts are what we evaluate to render the value of a claim.
So objectivity is not an intrinsic feature of the world(Regularity is) but a value in the claims of the observer. When things and processes display regularity, that enables the value of objectivity for our claims.
-" Inded I do not think we have unmediated access to this 'noumenal' world."
I don't know how one can take either position. We don't know and we need to focus with what we can work with and see if everyone can verify the same picture by using the best methods available to us.
Its more of a Pragmatic Necessity than a buffet of choice.
We should use our inability to verify that as an argument from ignorance fallacy and dismiss principles that are far more successful than any other!
Quoting Tobias
-Fundamental does mean that. Fundamental refers to its role to feed facts for our hypotheses and to provide the facts necessary for their final or temporal verification.
Fundamental from the aspect that NOT all mind properties are need for an thinking agent to survive,
Quoting Tobias
I am sure you didn't know the work I expect from induction but if you read my post...now you know.
Quoting Tobias
Gracias! I didn't know that!
lol......that is a metaphysical assumption.
You mean it's wrong? :groan:
Metaphysical means that a claim lies beyond our current knowledge.
So the truth value of it is unknown. So no its not wrong.
In my comment I explain that , in order to avoid all metaphysical assumptions we will have to accept Objectivity as an observer dependent term based on the regular nature of reality that our methods and senses detect , register and verify.
Do you agree with that statement?
You do rely on magic just the same. Without an angle, perspective, frame, reference, vision, subject, etc. the objective reality has no real shape yet. It's us, or other organisms, projecting on reality. Any claim on objectivity is subjective. Where you might see a continuous material, I see a discrete structure. Where you see no gods, I see gods. I can even make it clear to you what I mean with them.
Now that's the first convincing argument from your side! :rofl:
:lol:
I envy your clarity of mind! I'm in a bit of a fog you see, as regards metaphysics. The Wikipedia article says metaphysics is about first principles, about what is fundamental, but for the life of me I can't detect a common thread that runs through the various topics that come under metaphysics. As far as I'm concerned metaphysics is just an assortment of unrelated ideas and a faithful translation of "metaphysics" should be "miscellaneous".
What sayest thou?
:smile:
Metaphysics as a term informs us for their currently unknown nature of those things.
Meta in Greek means After and physics (physika/modern epistimi/scientia thus science) so the etymology of the word does tell us what the term is all about.(not to be confused with the term Supernatural/what lies beyond the Natural).
Since we are unable to have answer about first principles or the ultimate foundations of reality, I always avoid to use Metaphysical assumptions in my philosophy.
I.e. I acknowledge that our claims often enjoy objective verification but I won't take the step and say that Reality is Objective. What we can say is that all our interactions with the world register Empirical Regularity and that allows us to do science, make descriptions produce predictions and technical applications through objectively demonstrable frameworks.
The problem with Philosophical forums is that most of their participants usually subscribe to the extremes. We have philosophical naturalists and objectivists that go all the way in to the metaphysical realm and make absolute statements about the Ultimate nature of reality and Idealists/supernaturalists that pull the rope all the way to the other side.
I prefer to remain a Methodological Naturalist (what we can describe objectively) and acknowledge that our Methods and Observations are limited, tentative, they could be wrong but its the only steady foundation and metric we currently have to evaluate our claims to a specific standard.
This is the only reason why I point out to that Objective Observation and Verification/Falsification is our foundations without underplaying the value of imagination in the construction of Hypothesis. Objectivity in our Observations is how we put in check our imagination (reality check) or reasoning our assumptions, how we evaluate different competing claims and how we recognize knowledge from arbitrary opinions.
Wow! I didn't know we could do that, sir/ma'am! You're the very soul of clarity as far as I'm concerned.
The rest of your post, superb! Isn't it better to stop arguing about, sensu lato, noumena and just focus our scarce supply of energy on the phenomena.
[quote=Francisco Goya]The sleep of reason begets monsters.[/quote].
No. That's what physics or science is about. Not metaphysics. As the name implies, it's what comes after physics (as if physics is that important, quite a misnomer of dear Aristotle).
I think we are actually not very far off. My original comment which you reacted to was that "we need fantasy and imagination too to establish our criteria for evidence". The reason is that ordering sense data needs more mental faculties that just perception. Imagination means 'forming an image' we need that because to make sense of our perception and establish something as 'fact' we need to isolate it from the rest of our perceptions. What we perceive is merely a whole bundle of impressions. The ordering is a mental activity, as we know from Kant.
Now in order to establish criteria for evidence, we need to be able to imagine a world other than we find it. We need to establish what counts as a marker for truth. In order to do that we need to think in scenario's and stories, what if we would not accept it, what if we would. That was my original remark. We were not talking about axioms and principles, but we can if you like.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
No, they are not. In order to come to a 'conclusion' we need a process of reasoning. that process cannot itself come from observation because this process of reasoning consists i applying axioms and principles. According to you they are based on conclusions obtained from observation. That is circular. The solution can be found in the debates between Huma and Kant. Those forms of reasoning can only be a priori.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Facts are not neutral. They are isolated bits of information, taken out of the context of a relationship to all kinds of states of affairs to use more analytic language. This process of abstraction is mental and already laden with value judgments. They are the result of a process to establish 'what matters'.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Here for instance. You think your description of terms is neutral, but it is not. It is the description used in analytic philosophy. However continental philosophy might hold a slightly different conception. So too for the concept of imagination. Analytics like to strictly define terms, which is great of course. Continentals never cease to point out the historic origins of terms, which can be enlightening too.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
I have an inkling.... it is classical pre-Kantian empiricism and it does not work. It lead to skepticism in the end, for precisely the reasons I outlined. you bootstrap the fundamental role of empirical data to empirical data itself. However the data will never tell you how to interpret it.
Now that holds a fortiori for the rules of evidence, as you seem to have conceded yourself. That was what my remark to @universeness was about.
We are not far off. The difference is one of nuance. I agree with everything here except that I think the last sentence paints a too simple picture. In many realms objective verification is not possible, for instance not in the field of law. I do hold onto the rationalist opinion that conceptual analysis matters too.
I believe that we can both agree human imagination can produce amazing things, superpowers, aliens, creatures of horrors, con artists, scams, car design, Hollywood movies etc etc
The only reason why we are able to demarcate fantasy from real life (and not everyone...check Hillary's picture of reality) is our ability to constantly compare the picture we receive from reality with the picture and the ideas our imagination produces.
If your argument is that without imagination and creativity our conscious states would never be so advanced....I am going to agree with that. My point is that "reality check" under specific principles allows us to see which imaginative ideas of ours has epistemic value and which is part of a "different scenario".
Listen, I am an interior designer and 3d artist. So I make my living by "exploiting" my imagination. I am doing this for 27 years.
Part of my job is also CAD design, meaning that along with my fancy ideas and renders I need to provide the technical designs that will allow those ideas to be realized in the Physical world.
So every day I can see economic budgets, static regulations, temporal regulations(dead lines),material properties, structural limitations taking a toll on the end product of my imagination.
Sure If I didn't have the ability to imagine things I wouldn't be in the business, but a more important ability is to conform your imagination to the rules of reality.
I knew we weren't far off but its hard work to present a position accurately and even harder to overcome the other side's preconceptions ( i include my self too).
Your second, pretty good argument! :rofl:
-Well for me the important question is not if we can do that (be rational and reserve belief....thus reject all metaphysical worldviews until one can meet its burden) but why more of us don't see how reasonable this is.
All these metaphysical ideas (Philosophical Naturalism, Physicalism, idealism,supernaturalism, occasionalism, solipsism etc etc) are part of our system of beliefs for ages. We have observed zero advances in their supportive facts or our arguments.
People should allow them to be part of the History of Philosophy but they need to stop dragging them in our Philosophy.
[quote=Vladimir Lenin]One fool can ask more questions in a minute than 12 wise men can answer in an hour.[/quote]
Physics [math]\to[/math] Chemistry [math]\to[/math] Biology [math]\to[/math]...
Yes. I should have written Physica. All forms of matter and their magic ingredients: physical charges (hypercolors, colors, electrics). It's all a crazy dance of charged massless entities!
Are you the mad fool? He hasn't been seen here since you showed up...
It is not at all miscellaneous. There are different schools of thought with a different definition of the object. At the fringes there will be there will be disagreement, just like there is with all categorization. Other than that it is pretty straight forward what metaphysics is, the study of the question that Aristotle posed: what makes a thing the thing that it is. So indeed metaphysics is the investigation in the fundamental structures of reality and, no less important, the conditions of our access to knowing these structures. Is that an uncontested definition? Certainly not. However all quibbles take as a point of departure Aristotle and Plato's questions. If it seems muddled to you I recommend you to study more metaphysics.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Is that post directed to Mr. Smith or me?
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
You take an everyday definition of imagination. That is not what I am talking about. We do not need to imagine aliens to account for rules of evidence. This is the STEP definition: "To imagine is to represent without aiming at things as they actually, presently, and subjectively are. One can use imagination to represent possibilities other than the actual, to represent times other than the present, and to represent perspectives other than one's own."
Now for any ability of forward looking, or assessing, one needs to know how things might be other than they are. Still the definition is too analytically minded for me. This article is already better: https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/imagination/v-2
Imagination played a role in the history of philosophy and means something like: to imprint. We need that to order impressions we get from sense data and literally 'make sense' of them. We need it to form ourselves a world. You skip this whole conundrum between the rationalists and empiricists and just put your eggs in the empiricist basket.
We certainly need imagination when drafting criteria for what counts as evidence. Accepting something as evidence entails counter factual reasoning: given information that points to a situation being a situation of Y, can it still be a situation of X? Or does this information conclusively prove Y?
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
There are no 'rules of reality'. there is not rulebook given from the sky to tell you what reality is or isn't. especially since reality itself is a purely abstract concept devoid of any material content.. Moreover, you are incoherent on your own terms because you define imagination contrary to reality. Secondly, your example seems incoherent as well. Without imagination you as an artist would be out of business as well, so they seem equally important. It does not make sense to prioritize one over the other. As Kant stated: "Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions (sense impressions TA) without concepts are blind."
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
It is hard work to present a position accurately.
Quoting Nickolasgaspar
Because you measure advance in metaphysics with the wrong yardstick. You want them to be displayed by evidence. However, metaphysics (epistemology) questions when evidence needs to be given, what can count as evidence, under what circumstances etc. Metaphysics informs our worldview and therefore questioning it from a certain worldview will lead to failure. You are asking the wrong question. As for "our Philosophy", I have no idea what you mean. Philosophy is not yours. Your division between history of philosophy and philosophy displays something else. An unhistorical view of philosophy, i.e., what is shown is your metaphysics. You think the history of a certain something is unimportant for the determination of that certain something, a claim I would contest.
1. Causality
2. Ontology
3. Identity & Change
4. Necessity & Possibility
5. Space & Time
From what I can tell, metaphysics is an attempt to get a handle on the conceptual schema that we utilize to comprehend reality.
Can you help me, preferrably with an example or two, how the aforementioned 5 topics in metaphysics constitute a framework for making sense of whatever all this is?
This looks about right to me... These five categories are all aspects of what a thing is, not just what it accidentally is, but what it essentially is (this itself is a pair of metaphysical concepts).
The first, ontology: what is a thing. Is a thing its properties, or is there some essential 'thingness'(quiddity) what determines the thing. Ex. A cube of sugar. is it just a combination of whiteness, sweet taste, and cubical shape, or is there more? If there is more, ho can it be because if you take away all properties nothing is left, if there are just properties how come they seem combined in that one cube of sugar?
Identity and change: similar. we know the cube of sugar changes its properties all the time, little grains of sugar fall from it, changing its shape a bit. It may become old and the sugar stale etc. However, it is till the same lump of sugar, but if it dissolves in tea it is not anymore. When diid the change occur and what is the measure that determines essential difference?
Causality, we say that the heat of the water has caused the lump to become different from what it is, but the only thing we have discovered is that the two events always coincide. What makes us say one causes the other? Is that an empirically given fact and if so when did it happen, when are we allowed to make the generalization? In other words, is change something observable in the physical world or are mental operations necessary to effectuate this conclusion?
necessity and possibility, similar. are there worlds thinkable without causality or is it a necessary feature of our world and our mind? Is sugar necessary sweet or might there be a substance with the same chemical properties, but not sweet. Do we till call it sugar? I other words, what defines the thing and is that a necessary definition or a possible one. (I have severe difficulty with this subject I must confess).
Space and time are necessary conditions under which we perceive anything however we do not perceive space and time in anything except something in space and in time However for there to be something recognizable as something it needs to occupy space and time. So the question becomes are these categories pertaining to the object or of our perceptual apparatus? The lump of sugar is only recognizable as such because it occupies a different space from the cup of tea.
All these subjects are determinations of the conditions under which we recognize a lump of sugar as such.
1. What is it? (Ontology)
2. What happens to it? (Causality)
3. Does it stay the same or does it become something else? (Change & Identity)
3. Does it have to be this/that way? Could it have been different? (Necessity & Possibility)
4. Where is it? When is it? (Space & Time)
An uncanny resemblance to the questions one would ask in threat assessment! :chin:
Quoting Hillary
And not just about the truth value but the value in a more genera sense. In other words, metaphysics isnt just about what is true and false in words but about the conditions of possibility of a sense of meaning. A word does t just convey a truth value- what is or is not the case , but how something is the case.
1. What is it? (Ontology)
2. What happens to it? (Causality)
3. Does it stay the same or does it become something else? (Change & Identity)
3. Does it have to be this/that way? Could it have been different? (Necessity & Possibility)
4. Where is it? When is it? (Space & Time)
1). It's a thermonuclear device!
2). It evaporates all of us!
3). It surely becomes something else! It could have been a flower.
4). Above you head, coming atya right now. Hide!
"about the conditions of possibility of a sense of meaning."
What do you mean?
Words are not identities , they don’t simply refer to concepts. They always produce a new, contextual sense of meaning. It is not just a question of what a word means, but how it means what it means. These aspects of concepts are hidden from view when we do physics , so we assume that. options like causal
determinism are completely coherent.
Quoting Hillary
These are great examples of a way of thinking about reality that forgets the most important question. Not what is it but how is it. When one begins by assuming identity and existence prior to change and creativity one is forced to push aside the valuative aspect of meaning. What is needed is reversing the order between identity and change. We must place difference, change , creativity prior to identity. Identity is merely an effect of difference, not the other way around. Creativity is the the effect of a cause, the Will. Difference is prior to Willing. For this reason a god or gods isnt the condition. of possibility of creativity , but rather difference produces gods. They are mere effects.
This implants also on your notion of time , which also tries to generate change from identity rather than the other way around.
You know i like to quote , so here is a taste of what I’m talking about, from Gilles Deleuze:
“The natural sciences think time starting from movement; time is
understood as that which one has to presuppose in order to think the transition of something in space. Time is thus deduced from movement and movement is understood as the change in position on a spatial grid. This conception does not accord any signifi cant value to movement. After all, the moved thing only differs from the unmoved thing in that it has different numerical coordinates; it has not changed itself; it has not changed fundamentally. This implies that space, and thus also time, do not really infl uence the way in which change occurs; they are reduced to the neutral containers in which change or movement happen. Time and space are the frames within which change occurs.
The neutrality of time and space is then illustrated by the fact that they are understood as homogeneous entities; time and space are the same at every moment or position. Moments and positions are exchangeable. They only differ as variations on the same theme. This is the reason why Deleuze says that within this conception “all is given”,nothing new can ever happen.
Deleuze, in contrast, thinks – and he refers explicitly to Bergson here – that time is not the container in which things take place and in which movement occurs, but is movement or change itself. When time elapses, a thing does not only change its spatio-temporal position; it does not only change in a quantitative way, but also in a fundamental or qualitative way. Time is thus not the same at each of its moments.”(Judith Wambacq, Depth and Time in MP and D)
Unless gods are the creators of the material universe in which creativity develops as a natural process. These creative processes are needed for existence and temporally live life like the eternal gods. These gods are not the result of that same creative process but they are the result of reasoning to give our creative acts themselves a deeper meaning or reason. As such, creative acts, or life itself, cannot be explained scientifically, and because of that, creativity can't be achieved by computers, nor can computers or AI ever reach the conscious status they have in naturally evolved life.
It’s not computers that can’t produce creativity, it’s the moldy models we use to explain what the computers
are doing that are devoid of creativity.
I think that the science of enactivism and autopoietic self-organizing systems theory is a good start at explaining creativity scientifically. But that’s becuase they’ve updated their notion of the empirical and the natural. You model of physics is stuck in an older view of what science does.
I think all living beings are beings that evolve between the periodic heat and cold of the Sun and the cosmic void, more and more away from thermodynamic equilibrium. All of them have to be enactive or autopoietic. How else can it be? But beneath all this activity, a basic substance resides to make this all possible in the first place. Our intelligences and actions do not differ significantly from all other forms of lifes. The bee is as intelligent as the whale or the humans, the ant or the chimpanzee. They all have there own habitats and niche. People are not bound to fixed patterns though. We design our own appearance (we are born naked), as well as our surrounding and inner being, the two of which enforce and shape each other. Computers and all we create, stem from naturally occurring processes but are themselves not naturally occurring processes, hence they are not creative. A theory of fundamental particles, the spacetime in which they live, is a thought process that corresponds, resonates with a real state of the world. Like all scientific theories and experiments associated. But these are all isolated resonances. They can only thrive in a larger process in which our whole being is involved and which can't be described scientifically itself.
Computers are not naturally evolving processes. They are a product of these processes. Human products, that is. Naturally occurring processes can't be created. If you want to create creativity, you have to create a new universe with life evolving in it.
Computers are naturally occurring processes in the sense that all of their parts are naturally occurring and behave and age the one would expect of metals, silicon and plastic. A philosopher like Deleuze will argues that, while we are doing one thing with a computer( treating it as a non-natural , non-creative device) , its parts are busy making all kinds of natural, creative changes that we are oblivious to. Delving into the physics and chemistry of the parts of a computer is not enough to reveal its
creativity, ai. empirical present theories of physics and chemistry are based on dead matter. Eventually our natural sciences will catch up with where philosophy has arrived.
Do our theories simply ‘resonate’ with real states of the world, or are they designed to produce something absolutely new, that was never there before? Enacting is not just resonance. Knowledge is useful not because it copies pattens in the world but because it changes them. The only way to improve one’s ability to anticipate and predict events in a world is to rearrange the relation between that world and our experience of it. Knowledge is not a mirror or resonance , it is a constantly updated machine we are building.
You say we can’t describe scientifically the larger process our whole being is involved in. What about Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions? Can we describe a paradigm change, which gets to the essence of scientific ( as well as philosophical and artistic) creativity? Can we describe the basis of a gestalt shift? We can philosophically, and i. theory we should be able to scientifically, once we enrich our sciences.
You are arguing that only living organisms are capable of creativity, because of their self-organization? I think the inorganic evolves also. Hydrogen evolved from
something simpler , and the higher elements from the lower elements. Organic molecules evolved from
inorganic. The inorganic components of the computer in front of you are still changing , albeit very slowly.
It's a two way traffic. Our inner world can resonate with litteraly all processes in the physical world. Our brain can resonate with or simulate all of them. At the same time, our inner resonances or simulations can shape the outer world by us bodily interacting with it, litterally shaping the world. The simulating or resonating is a non-computational process and thus can never be accomplished by a computer, which is the result of a very specific thought process.
Yes. And life is what these ever more complex processes accumulated into. From lifeless dead matter (with a non-explainable element called charge by physicists, of which they haven't the faintest idea what it actually is; it's a magical divine stuff the gods have charged matter with to make interaction and life possible) living processes, with feet, eyes, ears, bodies, internal simulation devices, etc. developed. I'm one of them and type to you with a laugh on my face, my brainy world constantly simulating the world while my body moves in it. Magic! And I can hear music at the same time, and hear the dog whine. From birth till death we walk through the world, which projects itself into the brain, where it comes alive and is actively shaped. We have no on/off button and to create a life means to create a new big bang and universe, which is the only way to let it develop freely and naturally. It's thus impossible to create live or program it.
I’m not one who believes there is a profound qualitative gulf that separates the living from the non-living. With the help of autopoietic self-organizing theories and enactivism we now have a way to connect human cognition and affect with the simplest living systems. Rather than posting some special , unique status associated with human reason and feelings in contrast with the ear of the animal kingdom , we can now trace the basis of affecting and cognition i from single-called organisms. I think we will eventually be able to extend those dynamics to the inorganic realm of evolution as well, so the magic will have been shown to have begun with the simplest physical interactions in an ancient universe. ‘Lifeless and dead’ will no longer be appropriate ascriptions of this inorganic realm.
Our computers are appendages. We don’t build them for what they do in themselves but for how we can get them to usefully interact with us. We have used animals this way, and Skinner’s behaviorism face us a mechanistic model for interacting with animals as if they were machines. As our neural models change , we will no longer design our thinking appendages as calculating devices , but use wetware to device simple creatures
which we will interact with in more
creative ways, because these living systems will not be based on deterministic schematics.
Even the computerized devices
we now use never actually behaved deterministically. In their interaction with us they are always capable of surprising us. We call this bugs or errors , but they reflect the fact that even what is supposedly deterministic has no existence prior to its interaction with us interpreting beings, and thus was always in its own way a continually creative appendage.
I agree. Even the smallest chunks of matter contains the seed of life, or even already life itself. There are at most differences in grade.
quote="Joshs;692164"]As our neural models change , we will no longer design our thinking appendages as calculating devices , but use wetware to device simple creatures which we will interact with in more
creative ways, because these living systems will not be based on deterministic schematics.[/quote]
You mean our material neural models?
Quoting Joshs
Yes, but even a single neuron can't be created in a lab. Let alone a hundred billion of them interconnected in erratic ways and living in a living body in a chaotic world. Only such a structure can produce consciousness and creativity. The game of Life (based on a few simple rules) gives very surprising non-predictable results, but I think the real game of life is a bit more complex.
Let’s think about why we would want to create a single neuron. You said this would be needed to produce consciousness and creativity. But you also said that even non-living processes are creative in a certain sense. So the question may be why we should claim that our invented devices are entirely lacking in ‘creativity’. If , as we agreed , the computer isn’t a natural object ( which is a creatively evolving process) but an appendage, an interaction that we set up as a certain kind of useful structure, then what is it that we see when look at the historical development of our inventions? So they not aid our own creativity in increasingly effective and accelerating ways? Isn’t it the case that we cannot invent a living cell because we don’t understand enough about how a cell works? Our most advanced computers not only are less complex than a virus, they are less complex than the intricate structure of simple inorganic molecules, given that we don’t know enough about the physical world to invent such molecules.
If we are not ready to invent a living cell , why should we assume that we are missing anything by not having to us capacity? Would a primitive society benefit from having a computer placed in their midst, given their inability to invent such a device or appreciate its use? Don’t the devices we are capable of inventing reflect our readiness to benefit creatively from what we interact with? As we become smarter, our devices become smarter and our interaction with them becomes more and more creative?
So isn’t it irrelevant that we can’t ‘create a living cell’? We create only what we are ready to benefit from. The fact we can’t create life is just a reflection of the fact that we wouldn’t know what to do with such an ‘invention’. If an advanced species who could create life for their purposes were to give us some of their creations, it would be wasted on us.
I would argue that interacting with life is more valuable than ‘creating’ it , and we continue to understand living things , including ourselves, especially at the most complex level of conscious behavior, better and better over time. Our interactions with other animals also become richer and more useful due to this increase in understanding. We used to think animals couldnt cognize, emote, create tools , create and pass on a culture, have language. All that has changed. The evolution of our understanding of behavior is a kind of technology in itself, and is expressed in improvements in the devices we build that imitate behavior.
So I dont think there is anything magical about ‘creating’ life. What is important and relevant is the ever constant improvements in what we do invent.
It depends on the simple organic molecule. Simple organic molecules can be made without detailed knowledge. But a virus, not even a DNA molecule, can't be created in a lab. So even DNA molecules or viruses are more intelligent than computers, which are no more than programmed instructions performed at super high speed, giving the impression of intelligence.
Of course there is no magic involved, but the point is, we can't create life. Life can only evolve naturally.
As an Umbrella term Metaphysics means nothing more than any philosophical effort that deals with claims beyond the current limits of our epistemology.
So by defintion (????- ??????/after we are done with Physika (modern Science) any claim that isn't answer by our currently epistemology is a metaphysical claims.
Now they are Philosophical Metaphysical claims i.e. why(teleological) questions on human behavior and pseudo Metaphysical claims i.e. why(teleological) question on Natural workings.
-"Is that post directed to Mr. Smith or me?"( Well it is simple because we can not include all the scenarios in a generalization.)
-Not sure I think it was for you.
-'You take an everyday definition of imagination. That is not what I am talking about. We do not need to imagine aliens to account for rules of evidence. This is the STEP definition: "To imagine is to represent without aiming at things as they actually, presently, and subjectively are. One can use imagination to represent possibilities other than the actual, to represent times other than the present, and to represent perspectives other than one's own.""
-No those were just real life examples of what imagination can produce. I never offered a definition on Imagination.
Imagination is our ability to make "unorthodox" connections between facts and arrive to ingenious conclusions and perspectives.
-"Imagination played a role in the history of philosophy and means something like: to imprint. We need that to order impressions we get from sense data and literally 'make sense' of them. We need it to form ourselves a world. You skip this whole conundrum between the rationalists and empiricists and just put your eggs in the empiricist basket."
-You need to understand that Imagination includes many different mind properties that when combine we identify the result as imaginative. But those properties alone and their contributions are far from not making the cut and being recognized as imaginative.
The fact is that empirical input is fundamental for every single one of them. In addition to that, in order for imagination be be epistemically or philosophical or logically valuable....the produced results still need to be objectively evaluated.
This is why I insist in the fundamental nature of our Observations and Objective verifications.
This is a good like to check all those different types of imagination...and what we call imagination.
https://www.teachthought.com/learning/types-of-imagination/
Quoting Tobias
-No no no I don't deny that........I only point out that those eggs NEED to be put in a basket or else you can not distinquish a mad man from an imaginative one.
Quoting Tobias
-Not that much, what we mainly need is Symbolic Language (a capability of our Lateral Thalamus ), our ability to observe and reason. Sure If you equate abstract thinking with Imagination, then I can accept your claim, but then again imagination is defined as something more than a basic mental capability.
I think that you need to define the term without including every mental properties that happens to process symbolic language.
Quoting Tobias
The rules of reality are not prescribed if you think that this is what my phrase implies(I thought it was obvious). We as agents describe the emergent rules that natural processes produce. i.e. there is a reason why you can only exit your appartment by using a door or a window.
The electromagnetic cohesion of molecules produce this "rule" and you need to take it in to respect it in your everyday interactions.
Quoting Tobias
-You are confusing the map with the territory. The term "reality" is a concept, but rules about this reality are facts and their properties that are a part of the territory.
Quoting Tobias
-No I didn't. My point was really simple. Any claim based on imagination needs to be verified by what we see in reality....Imagination can be a really good way to connect pieces and arrive to new information that are true about reality, but without objective verification they are useless.
GrEAT EXAMPLES:
Einstein's imaginative idea on relativity was accepted AFTER the english astronomer verified it objectively through empirical means.
Peter Higgs imaginative idea on a Bozon was verified 60 years after CERN verified the energetic footprint of that particle.
You need to understand that imagination is nothing without Objective verification....well it is something we call it...."crazy people".
-"Without imagination you as an artist would be out of business as well, so they seem equally important. It does not make sense to prioritize one over the other. As Kant stated: "Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions (sense impressions TA) without concepts are blind."
-Of course they are equally important in my work but not equally fundamental. Without objective verification and compatibility to reality's rules, those ideas are useless.
Let me put it differently.
The imaginative nature of an idea (how wild or how fancy or how amazing it sounds) bares no weight in how epistemically or instrumentaly valuable it is. The quality by which we make this evaluation is Objective verification...not Imagination.(only is movies !).
After we evaluate an idea as knowledgeable or wise...then can see the important role in it.
But that is like drawing a circle around the arrow. For every imaginative idea that hit the bulls eye they are thousands that led their creators at stray, because they denied the role of objective verification.
Not all axioms and principles are the product of piecing things together in unusual orders. Some are just descriptions of our ability to use symbolic language.
Quoting Tobias
-No No No. Metaphysics is the way for adding frameworks in to our Philosophy or Science...this is the only goal of metaphysics. If that wasn't its goal...then we would be talking about Hollywood scenarios or religious dogmas.......
-"Metaphysics informs our worldview and therefore questioning it from a certain worldview will lead to failure."
-Only if they can arrive to wise conclusions (epistemically verified) one can then justify them as informative.
Metaphysics is what we do in science and philosophy in order to expand our epistemology or wisdom.
You seem to believe that metaphysics is a way to use Philosophy as an excuse for accepting unfounded worldviews(correct me if I am wrong).
Its not I who uses a wrong yardstick, you are ignoring the standards and criteria of what claim or question qualifies as philosophical or not.
-"You want them to be displayed by evidence. However, metaphysics (epistemology) questions when evidence needs to be given, what can count as evidence, under what circumstances etc."
-Again not true. Metaphysics is what we do when we lack the evidence. But our starting point must ALWAYS be inside our established epistemology, free from logical fallacies and in agreement with Logic.
Evidences are necessary only when a metaphysical conclusion attempts to become Philosophy (wise claims) or Science (Knowledge).
If it remains with unknown an unknown epistemic value, it can never be acknowledge for its wisdom so it will remain metaphysical for the time being.
Metaphysical worldviews are the claims that "cheated" and forced their way in Frameworks. They took advantage of human existential and epistemic anxieties and they enjoyed a spot in Philosophy for many years pretending to offer wisdom or knowledge about the world.
Science and Logic have change that.
Quoting Tobias
Our Philosophy refers to this human construction, a methodology(s) by which we are able to arrive to wise claims. Metaphysical claims that do not have that capability are not part of our Philosophy....like frameworks that have unverified knowledge value are not part of our Science.
-" Your division between history of philosophy and philosophy displays something else. An unhistorical view of philosophy, i.e., what is shown is your metaphysics."
First its not mine division. Chronicling (reproducing philosophical claims) is not Philosophy.
Mario Bunge in his book "Philosophy in Crisis", outlines the problem of many people using Historical "statements" as an Argument from Authority fallacy to reproduce unwise metaphysical conclusions.
Its like having Alchemists claiming Alchemy to be scientific just because it is part of Chemistry's History.
Philosophical claims SHOULD rise and fall on their own merits.
Nobody is really an expert in metaphysical opinions so we should never accept metaphysical claims of the past just because their author is a celebrity now. Metaphysics refers to opinions that are currently unfalsifiable, because they go beyond our current knowledge by definition.
Those claims that originate from our epistemology and respect Logic are more credible and this is the only evaluation we can do. If we are able to verify the claim it self, then its no longer metaphysical but epistemical and this is the ultimate goal for evvery metaphysical claims.
-"You think the history of a certain something is unimportant for the determination of that certain something, a claim I would contest."
No I think, like in the case of imagination, we can only verify which historical claims are philosophical or not through their ability to be produce wisdom while they are supported by knowledge.
History alone is not a sufficient excuse to argue in favor of a position....that is a logical fallacy (Appeal to tradition/from Age).
I see here that you have a very distorted misconception on what Metaphysics is or SHOULD be. This misconception is common and allows all type of pseudo philosophy to sneak in Philosophy and pollute the body of our inquiries.
All we do is place certain elements in proximity to others under certain conditions . We have discovered from trial and error that this leads to the formation of the molecules we desire. But the dynamics necessary to allow these molecules to stick together are akin to the guiding function of a dna strand in conjunction with the cellular environment. We don’t create these dynamics any more than we create dna. In both case , we combine and recombine what has already been created.
We can't create the circumstances to let a DNA molecule appear or a cell or a neuron, or a form of life. To create life you need life in the first place.
Yes, life evolves naturally , and the human capacity for technological invention belongs to that natural
order of evolution. Our aims and goals further the evolution of the complexity of nature. The entire history of cosmology which leads to the creation of more and more complex inorganic forms, which led to the emergence of living things, which led to the emergence of human cultural evolution, is a process of the interaction of events taking place in more and more interesting ways, which means on a more and more accelerating
time scale. A the level of human culture we call that the progress of knowledge, but it is continuous with the levels of evolution that preceded it.
For humans to ‘create’ life , molecules or anything else is not to duplicate an earlier time scale of evolution. On the contrary, all our inventions move us forward to higher levels of complexity, over shorter and shorter time scales(‘knowledge’ that only accrues , and only can be utilized, over millions of years obviously doesn’t have the same usefulness as that same knowledge that is operable over a time scale of minutes. If creating life means a return to much slower and less
complex time scales , the. that would be akin to killing oneself so that one’s body could decay and the simpler arrangement of molecules that emerges from its decay
could then be allowed to re-assemble itself into a new living organism. I realize this example is different from creating life de novo, but my point is that we only think the concept of creating life represents some kind of achievement of knowledge because we are confusing the goals of human technology and knowledge with the ‘goals’ of earlier , slower and simpler scales
of pre-human and pre-living evolution. To create life simply means to wipe us out in order to regress to an older time scale. It is essentially returning to a past in which we didn’t exist yet.
It isnt life we are interested in creating , it is the further evolution of our own level of knowledge complexity we desire. What we already do every time we innovate is much more interesting therm the original creation of life , because it sits atop of that creative achievement and builds much further from there. We dont need to build from scratch ‘consciousness’ or the creative spark that the gods allegedly provided. Creativity is not the product of an entity , substance , being , organism. It flows through these but is an ontological and metaphysical a priori. Another name for it is time. The gods didn’t create time , time created the gods.
Quoting Joshs
Nonsense. That what comes from our hands and minds is not to further evolution. Evolution of life, a freely developing process, is a different process than what we let freely develop in a lab or anything coming out of it.
And to create knowledge you need life , and to have life you first must have an inorganic word. Human creativity is not backward looking. We don’t recapitalw what already happened , and the levels of evolutionary complexity that preceded humans and human knowledge creation.
Everything we invent is forward-looking, designed to further the complexity we rest upon as living things and as cultural products. Understanding how life evolved
from pre-living matter would be a further evolution of culture.
And that time scale of evolution is the only scale in which life evolved. Nothing coming out of the hands of evolved life is life.
As long as we can create the circumstances in which live evolves, we haven't created life. As life itself is part of the circumstances we can't create it, no matter how a programmed version in a computer looks like it.
Is that because we have ‘free will’ , and that is somehow split off from, special and unique with respect to previous scales of evolution ? We dont choose to will , we find ourselves willing , and this birthing of the new happens this way with pre-organic matter. No element, particle , process , object remains self-identical from
moment to moment. A particle is a singularity, a differentiation. For the sake of convenience , physics has assumed the concept of law-governed deterministic objects with persisting properties and attributes , but this is just a useful abstraction
That's what creating death is.
For me the issue isn’t ‘can we create life’, but why would we want to? Would you want to create the big bang, as opposed to understanding it or creating a computer
model of it ? Would that be useful to you? We don’t , and can’t , recreate the past because we take our past along with us. The past comes already pre-interpreted by our present. That is why our past is always ahead of us.
All processes are completely determined, no matter how complex. That's not for a sake of convenience, but it's how it is. If we are not even able to make a neuron appear, then a form of life won't appear. Computers might have unforeseeable processes as outcome, but they still stem from a program. Life isn't programmed.
Indeed, why should we want to if we can't. Why not being satisfied with life that's there and taking care of it? To create life we need to create a new big bang! Needless to say, that's too much!
Quoting Hillary
Quoting Hillary
If life is based on processes that are completely determined then in a sense, yes, they are programmed. In order to understand living and human creativity without needing gods , you have to abandon physical causal determinism. Physics won’t collapse if you do. We can still use it the same old way we have been , but we can be more insightful about its limitations and the ways it will need to change in order to keep up with the social sciences and philosophy. There are more and more physicists today who are ready to abandon determinism.
No, for that we don't need gods. Only to understand from where the basic ingredients come, gods are needed. And by understanding life, we understand the gods!
Being determined is different from being programmed.
Physical causal determinism applies to all levels of complexity. Free will has to be a determined will. Only other will can take away it's freedom, and because we interact with other wills and the world, no will is completely free.
If a free will is determined , does this mean that you reject the concept of evil? From a deterministic perspective , what are the causes of morally wrongful acts?
Well, there is a false sense of choice in such questions as obviously positing whether one should exist or not is from the bias of a state of already existing to posit the question in the first place.
Non- existing you never was nor would ever be aware of the potential to exist or any of the inquiries that comes with being sentient. The question is a bit redundant as both choices are irreconcilable with one another - you are uninformed on what it is like to not exist and non existent not you is uniformed on what it would ever be like to exist. The difference being that in “existence” you have choices regarding whether to continue to exist or not. While non-existence only offers more “non existence” as a “non-option” which is “not available” to “no one.” The reason I use the quadruple negative is to highlight the absurdity of projecting “self” on the non-existent.
A reason to exist is well “what better do ‘you’ have to do with your time? - as only in this state are you a you with time to kill.
Furthermore there are parts of you that are indivisible and indestructible for the entirety of the universe - your atoms, your energy which you ingest and excrete at a fairly constant rate. The hard problem of what makes you you in this respect and what sustains your continuity as a conscious being is more interesting but so far we have fallen very short of answering exactly what the true nature of sentience is.
As far as a I know you and a Crystal are similar in that neither of you chose to exist as a transient, structured, ordered complexity of material with particular properties unique to your makeup, that is was manifested by a certain set of ore existing natural conditions you had no control over. And we don’t ask why crystals should exist they simply do as a product of common and non-unique processes , just as sex and gestation and nurture.