I challenge you: your best argument for materialism

[LarryS]

Nope. Just because you are unable to express it does not necessarily invalidate your claim. At worst, one might misunderstand what you have said. That is easily corrected.

Except that it is. When you drive your car, when you play basketball, or tennis, or whatever is your sport of choice, when you select a mate, when you make any decision at all, you are interacting with the future.
Everything you do in your everyday life is informed by your interaction with the future. If it were not, you would do nothing at all.

Yet it informs everything you do every day. How is that NOT interacting with the future?

Perhaps you will. But interacting with the future informs your every action, right down to your decision as to what to have for breakfast.

You and a few others have suggested we interact with the future - how does that happen? When we get to the future, its no longer the present, its the present. We plan and predict the future from the present, but everything that happens happens in the present.

 

[The Man]

You and a few others have suggested we interact with the future - how does that happen? When we get to the future, its no longer the present, its the present. We plan and predict the future from the present, but everything that happens happens in the present.

The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics essentially says that the present is made up of equal parts of the past and the future.

http://mist.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html

 

[punshhh]

Which one do you think has the best odds of approximating reality ? Science or musings ?

Thats a good question, at first sight one might say science. But on consideration one might consider that while science may in principle be capable of delivering an understanding of reality, eventually. Our current understanding might be hopelessly naive, when it comes to the deeper philosophically defined questions, such as the mechanism resulting in our existence. We may be none the wiser than the fruit fly which is standing on my iPad. Indeed that fruitfly is just as acquainted with reality as any of us, because it dwells in a material body and is living the dream.

That's because ontology is meaningless, and can never be addressed.

Thats not the point, ontology is an intellectually derived issue. Perhaps it cannot be addressed at this time, it is certainly not meaningless.

There's plenty of good theories for that.

Great, the degree of naivety is not known.

I've noticed.

Your welcome to tell me something I don't know. In fact, that's what I'm looking for.

 

[Belz...]

Thats a good question, at first sight one might say science.

NO ! Absolutely not. You are using words with meanings as if they have none.

For THOUSANDS of years we thought instinctively that our musings somehow described reality, and with it came confirmation bias that led to more thousands of years of dogmatic religion. Science is FAR from being obvious "at first sight". It took centuries before it was accepted and even today people tend to follow their guts more than their analysis.

No. Science is the one for which you must look beyond "first sight".

But on consideration one might consider that while science may in principle be capable of delivering an understanding of reality, eventually. Our current understanding might be hopelessly naive, when it comes to the deeper philosophically defined questions, such as the mechanism resulting in our existence.

What "philosophically defined questions" ? What you describe as a mechanism is, first, ill-defined, and second, definitely a scientific question.

You say you are not an idealist but with every post you make you try to give woo more space than science.

We may be none the wiser than the fruit fly which is standing on my iPad. Indeed that fruitfly is just as acquainted with reality as any of us, because it dwells in a material body and is living the dream.

Nonsense. It doesn't have any sort of knowledge whatsoever. This is where you fail: you think that rhetoric somehow makes for a good argument in the absence of evidence.

Thats not the point, ontology is an intellectually derived issue. Perhaps it cannot be addressed at this time, it is certainly not meaningless.

It absolutely is meaningless, for three reasons: first because whatever we know, you can always ask "but what IS it ?" ad infinitum, which puts the question of ontology into the "unknowable" and also "unfalsifiable" and therefore "irrelevant" section. Second, because whether it's one thing or another, the answer to the ontology question has no bearing on the mechanisms that science studies and people use. Again, that makes it entirely irrelevant, because it has no possible impact on our lives. Third, because if you think about it, you can never define what something IS, only what it DOES. That is why science focuses on behaviour and mechanisms. The question is meaningless.

Your welcome to tell me something I don't know. In fact, that's what I'm looking for.

And yet you rely on your ignorance endlessly.

 

[punshhh]

NO ! Absolutely not. You are using words with meanings as if they have none.

I was obtuse, I can be clearer.

For THOUSANDS of years we thought instinctively that our musings somehow described reality, and with it came confirmation bias that led to more thousands of years of dogmatic religion. Science is FAR from being obvious "at first sight". It took centuries before it was accepted and even today people tend to follow their guts more than their analysis.

No. Science is the one for which you must look beyond "first sight".

I don't disagree with this analysis, I am working from the perspective of the western philosophical tradition. Following all the developments in science over the last few hundred years the most important philosophical questions( when discussing alternative cosmogonies) remain and are unanswered or addressed by science or philosophies based around scientific insight.

What "philosophically defined questions" ? What you describe as a mechanism is, first, ill-defined, and second, definitely a scientific question.

Ontology is a philosophically derived question, it may be useless, irrelevant, pointless etc, but it is not meaningless. There are numerous questions around the issue of existence, such as "how come things exist?", "what exists?", how come there is something? Etc etc. Also there are questions around the existence of materials and events, such as what is the basis of dimensional space, extension and time. Are there other dimensional spaces etc, what is its origin etc etc.

You say you are not an idealist but with every post you make you try to give woo more space than science.

I am playing devils advocate to an extent for purposes of discussion. However my point is essentially to shine a light on humanity's lack of understanding of our existence.

Nonsense. It doesn't have any sort of knowledge whatsoever. This is where you fail: you think that rhetoric somehow makes for a good argument in the absence of evidence.

Wrong, a fruit fly does have knowledge, it's not intellectual knowledge, its knowledge of its own life, its presence and some things about its environment. What form this knowledge takes is probably something we can't imagine. Any living cellular life form is experiencing life, this is a simple kind of knowledge.

It absolutely is meaningless, for three reasons: first because whatever we know, you can always ask "but what IS it ?" ad infinitum, which puts the question of ontology into the "unknowable" and also "unfalsifiable" and therefore "irrelevant" section. Second, because whether it's one thing or another, the answer to the ontology question has no bearing on the mechanisms that science studies and people use. Again, that makes it entirely irrelevant, because it has no possible impact on our lives. Third, because if you think about it, you can never define what something IS, only what it DOES. That is why science focuses on behaviour and mechanisms. The question is meaningless.

Yes it can be all those things, except meaningless.

And yet you rely on your ignorance endlessly.

I am pointing out the extent of human ignorance.

Perhaps we should agree to differ on this issue.

 

[tsig]

Thats a good question, at first sight one might say science. But on consideration one might consider that while science may in principle be capable of delivering an understanding of reality, eventually. Our current understanding might be hopelessly naive, when it comes to the deeper philosophically defined questions, such as the mechanism resulting in our existence. We may be none the wiser than the fruit fly which is standing on my iPad. Indeed that fruitfly is just as acquainted with reality as any of us, because it dwells in a material body and is living the dream.
Thats not the point, ontology is an intellectually derived issue. Perhaps it cannot be addressed at this time, it is certainly not meaningless.


Great, the degree of naivety is not known.


Your welcome to tell me something I don't know. In fact, that's what I'm looking for.

I will agree that you and the fruit fly have about the same grip on reality.

 

[tsig]

I was obtuse, I can be clearer.
I don't disagree with this analysis, I am working from the perspective of the western philosophical tradition. Following all the developments in science over the last few hundred years the most important philosophical questions( when discussing alternative cosmogonies) remain and are unanswered or addressed by science or philosophies based around scientific insight.

Ontology is a philosophically derived question, it may be useless, irrelevant, pointless etc, but it is not meaningless. There are numerous questions around the issue of existence, such as "how come things exist?", "what exists?", how come there is something? Etc etc. Also there are questions around the existence of materials and events, such as what is the basis of dimensional space, extension and time. Are there other dimensional spaces etc, what is its origin etc etc.
I am playing devils advocate to an extent for purposes of discussion. However my point is essentially to shine a light on humanity's lack of understanding of our existence.

Wrong, a fruit fly does have knowledge, it's not intellectual knowledge, its knowledge of its own life, its presence and some things about its environment. What form this knowledge takes is probably something we can't imagine. Any living cellular life form is experiencing life, this is a simple kind of knowledge.

Yes it can be all those things, except meaningless.


I am pointing out the extent of human ignorance.

Perhaps we should agree to differ on this issue.

You are pointing out the depths of your ignorance. Fruit flies are OK as subjects of scientific experiments but I wouldn't put much stock in their scientific knowledge.

Communing with fruit flies would explain a lot of your posts.

 

[Belz...]

Following all the developments in science over the last few hundred years the most important philosophical questions( when discussing alternative cosmogonies) remain and are unanswered or addressed by science or philosophies based around scientific insight.

1) Why do you think those questions are important ?
2) Have you considered that there might be no answers to those because they are meaningless ?

Ontology is a philosophically derived question, it may be useless, irrelevant, pointless etc, but it is not meaningless. There are numerous questions around the issue of existence, such as "how come things exist?", "what exists?", how come there is something?

Again, those may just be meaningless, even if you feel they are important. Home come things exist ? Maybe there's just no alternative. Have you considered that ?

Wrong, a fruit fly does have knowledge, it's not intellectual knowledge, its knowledge of its own life, its presence and some things about its environment.

No. Its nervous system is incapable of storing knowledge in a way that you or I could even understand; not like a dog or even a mouse. Fruit flies are dumb machines, barely more than automatons.

What form this knowledge takes is probably something we can't imagine. Any living cellular life form is experiencing life, this is a simple kind of knowledge.

No. Again you are using language in a way that can only introduce confusion.

Yes it can be all those things, except meaningless.

Why ?

I am pointing out the extent of human ignorance.

You have no idea of that extent. How can you point out something you are totally ignorant of, like all of us ?

 

[bruto]

No. Its nervous system is incapable of storing knowledge in a way that you or I could even understand....

Oh, ****, you mean when my fourth grade teacher said I had the attention span of a fruitfly she didn't mean it as a compliment? I'm crushed.

 

[marplots]

Oh, ****, you mean when my fourth grade teacher said I had the attention span of a fruitfly she didn't mean it as a compliment? I'm crushed.

Thereby fulfilling your fruit fly destiny.

 

[tsig]

Thereby fulfilling your fruit fly destiny.

It's the swatter you don't hear that gets you.

 

[punshhh]

Thereby fulfilling your fruit fly destiny.

I was thinking more of the low hanging fruit.

 

[punshhh]

1) Why do you think those questions are important ?

They are only important when discussing the merits of philosophies in application to reality. Remember I have pointed out numerous times that we cannot assume that the material world view we experience as humans is reality, it might be a fabrication, confection, delusion, or hopelessly naive in understanding the underlying nature of reality, i.e. The basis of its existence.

2) Have you considered that there might be no answers to those because they are meaningless ?

Yes they may well be meaningless for some other reason, but rationally from the stand point of a human, they are meaningful.

Again, those may just be meaningless, even if you feel they are important. Home come things exist ? Maybe there's just no alternative. Have you considered that ?

Yes, if there is no alternative then a whole lot of other questions come up as a consequence. Do you realise we are barely scratching the surface of this issue here.

No. Its nervous system is incapable of storing knowledge in a way that you or I could even understand; not like a dog or even a mouse. Fruit flies are dumb machines, barely more than automatons.

A vast amount of knowledge is stored metabolically by the fruit fly as it goes about its business. It is a living creature, exhibiting personal experiential presence in its environment. Metabolically we are closely related to the fruit fly, along with ants. I have told the story before about the ant I watched for over an hour manoeuvring a dead lacewing across the terrain of a patio in the wind. It exhibited remarkable intelligence, presence and knowledge and accomplished its task far more adeptly than most humans would faced with such a difficult task.

No. Again you are using language in a way that can only introduce confusion.

Yes that may be so, but I say it the way I see it.

Why ?

To discus the object or process which is the origin of the entire existence we know of as our physical universe is a rational extension of the way we discuss objects and processes in the world around us. Cause and effect, precursors, consequence, etc are realities involved in the action of the world around us. It is only natural to extend that to the universe as a whole. And if the answer to the discussion is that it always existed, it just appeared, it popped out of a singularity or worm hole, etc etc, then it brings up other questions by extension. For example how can something come from nothing? And if it can, how can we claim to have any understanding of the object or mechanism, because something coming from nothing is irrational, illogical?

You have no idea of that extent. How can you point out something you are totally ignorant of, like all of us ?

I am perhaps better equipped than most to distinguish humanity's ignorance, as I find that an awareness of what we don't know illuminates and brings into focus what we do know, which consequentially illuminates what we don't know again, bringing that into view.

 

[The Man]

I was thinking more of the low hanging fruit.

Apparently, though a fruit fly's acquaintance with reality might be more the roots (neurologically speaking) of response to external stimuli than any fruits of dreaming. Meaning awareness of primarily internal stimuli.

 

[The Man]

I am perhaps better equipped than most to distinguish humanity's ignorance, as I find that an awareness of what we don't know illuminates and brings into focus what we do know, which consequentially illuminates what we don't know again, bringing that into view.

Really? End with an explicit augment from ignorance? Combined with an equivalence fallacy, that what we don't know somehow not only equates to what we do know but the former actually enlightens the latter?

ETA: By your own assertions, how could you know?

ETA2: It is the limits of what we do know that defines what we don't know. Not the other way 'round.

 

[marplots]

They are only important when discussing the merits of philosophies in application to reality. Remember I have pointed out numerous times that we cannot assume that the material world view we experience as humans is reality, it might be a fabrication, confection, delusion, or hopelessly naive in understanding the underlying nature of reality, i.e. The basis of its existence.

The "we cannot assume" bit works academically and logically, but pragmatically, that's exactly what we do. We assume one state of affairs is the case and move about our daily lives. Seeing no obvious contradiction, the assumption as gap-filler remains intact.

Granted, there are those who through study, revelation, or epiphany, are driven to reexamine fundamentals, but I think most of us just rely on materialism doing the job.

The interesting thing is that others, who hold different assumptions (particularly that one about an almighty, immaterial God) do just as well in their own day-to-day as I do.

 

[punshhh]

Apparently, though a fruit fly's acquaintance with reality might be more the roots (neurologically speaking) of response to external stimuli than any fruits of dreaming. Meaning awareness of primarily internal stimuli.

Yes, one would think so, but I allow for the thought that it does have a sentient presence in the external world, although one which we can't expect to understand.

 

[punshhh]

Really? End with an explicit augment from ignorance? Combined with an equivalence fallacy, that what we don't know somehow not only equates to what we do know but the former actually enlightens the latter?

This is not about arguments, but was of ways about thinking about the world.

ETA: By your own assertions, how could you know?

Through experience and application.

ETA2: It is the limits of what we do know that defines what we don't know. Not the other way 'round.

There is a subtle distinction. For example, realising that our experience of existing and the world may be a construct, or illusory, reminds me of the tentative nature of what humanity has gleaned about the world, the degree perhaps of how it may be our own mental construct, that we don't have any understanding of the basis of this existence, etc. Whereas in the absence of such realisations there would be a temptation to just assume that the world is just as we see it, entirely physical and obvious. That the understanding of the basis of it will be just around the corner for the physicists and our understanding is virtually complete.

Now, where is the argument from ignorance?

 

[punshhh]

The "we cannot assume" bit works academically and logically, but pragmatically, that's exactly what we do. We assume one state of affairs is the case and move about our daily lives. Seeing no obvious contradiction, the assumption as gap-filler remains intact.

Granted, there are those who through study, revelation, or epiphany, are driven to reexamine fundamentals, but I think most of us just rely on materialism doing the job.

The interesting thing is that others, who hold different assumptions (particularly that one about an almighty, immaterial God) do just as well in their own day-to-day as I do.

yes, I entirely agree, indeed I will go further. Provided the basics of human life are in place, it really doesn't matter what's going on in our heads provided we are civilised and constructive.

 

[Belz...]

They are only important when discussing the merits of philosophies in application to reality.

No: WHY do you think they are important ? What use would the answers be ?

Yes they may well be meaningless for some other reason, but rationally from the stand point of a human, they are meaningful.

Rationally ? Do you even know what that word means ? And do you realise that you just created a contradiction ?

Yes, if there is no alternative then a whole lot of other questions come up as a consequence.

Such as ?

Do you realise we are barely scratching the surface of this issue here.

No, I do not, because you are making a very poor case of it.

A vast amount of knowledge is stored metabolically by the fruit fly as it goes about its business.

Go on. Expand on that.

I have told the story before about the ant I watched for over an hour manoeuvring a dead lacewing across the terrain of a patio in the wind. It exhibited remarkable intelligence, presence and knowledge and accomplished its task far more adeptly than most humans would faced with such a difficult task.

In your layman's opinion, but I don't give much weight to your interpretations of the ant's behaviour.

To discus the object or process which is the origin of the entire existence we know of as our physical universe is a rational extension of the way we discuss objects and processes in the world around us.

You are not asking about process, but about nature. I am asking you why it cannot be meaningless to discuss and seek something that I have demonstrated can never be answered.

For example how can something come from nothing?

It can't.

I am perhaps better equipped than most to distinguish humanity's ignorance, as I find that an awareness of what we don't know illuminates and brings into focus what we do know, which consequentially illuminates what we don't know again, bringing that into view.

Your conclusion does not follow from the stated premise, nor is it in evidence.