A beautiful argument for naturalism from Michael Shermer

[Mojo]

This fact should be taught to every budding scientist before they study any science. But it's not and it never has been... which is why scientists continue to propose theories about the universe upon assuming the actual reality of that universe - when there is zero evidence for it.

How would their being taught this make any difference? Science would continue to study the universe via observations (or if you prefer, "experience") of it, and base theories on the observations.

Are you proposing that scientists should just make stuff up?

 

[nescafe]

Wow lifegazer. I need to read more of your posts to determine if this comment intentionally condescending.

It is.

And clearly, by any rational definition, science is not a religion.

In LG land, science is nothing more than a religion that (insanely) idolizes objective reality, instead of the obviously correct worship of an experiencER that experiences us.

 

[elaine]

I commented on another post, that I must spend all my time on the humor threads. This is my first experience with lifegazer. Hopefully my last.

 

[Z]

Ah, just ignore the child. His philosophy is an intellectual dead-end, a completely useless and irrelevant philosophy that proposes a deity who lacks self-awareness, or ability, or creativity; an illusionary reality; and a metaphysic set of laws grounded in contradictions and paradox.

Pure grade-school philosophy.

 

[lifegazer]

I agree that the sensations of objects are not in themselves real. I also agree that there is no direct evidence that the world external to sensation actually exists, and I think most others here would agree with those two statements.

*Takes a piccie of the evidence*.

Your breakdown in logic comes at this point, because you fail to take into account the flip side of this coin, namely that there is no direct evidence that the world external to sensation does not exist.

Ahem.
This thread isn't about me proving that. It's about a scientist duping the masses into believing a theory that has no logical basis, to such an extent that some of those masses are describing that scientist as their "hero".
Frank said that it was one of the most convincing arguments for naturalism that he's ever read!!

For heaven's sake, when a leading scientist has this much power to affect the minds and [consequently] the hearts of society, then such a man has to be taken to task.
The worrying thing is that people like Frank and Elaine would rather stick their head in the sand and ignore what you've already agreed to, above; which should be enough to shake them from their stupor. But nay, they've been completely duped, apparently, and are far too impressed with their hero to let a little thing like 'logic' make any difference.

People like M Shermer are an obstacle to the truth, since they've already assumed that truth. They inadvertently ridicule the desire of science to be completely 'objective'. And they do affect history since they do affect the attitudes of man.

Let me rephrase that in lifegazer language, there is zero evidence that sensed objects are not real beyond the sensation of them.

Yes there is. But you won't listen. Regardless, this concern does not validate anything Shermer has said.

This is the problem that philosophers have been struggling with for millenia. There's no way to determine which of these two mutually exclusive states is the actual truth.

Well, the experienced world is what is happening. It is a truth. What you probably want to say is that there is no way to determine whether there are two truths: an experienced world and a real world beyond that experience.
However, you would be incorrect in saying that too. And I'm not going to start arguing why in this thread, since what I might say will be lost amidst the hero worship for MS.

Meanwhile we are faced with a sensed world that acts as if it exists beyond the sensation of it. It is highly ordered and hurts us if we don't respect it.

What? C'mon Wolly, don't be daft.

Scientists make observations of this order and use these observations to formulate rules about how it behaves, and predict how as yet unobserved things might behave.

The experienced world is ordered, which means that the sensations which yield the appearance/experience of the world are ordered.
There's nothing in your statement here which links science to a real world.

If it weren't for people like this then your perceived world would be a cave, and you'd be spouting your philosophy to a handful of your fellow tribesmen over the remnants of a raw antelope.

I've never denied that order exists within experience, nor that this order is discernible. Nor that the experienced body (of humanity) can manipulate other experienced bodies.
Again, there's nothing in your statement here which links science to a real world.

I don't want to kill science. I want it to grow up.

 

[lifegazer]

How would their being taught this make any difference? Science would continue to study the universe via observations (or if you prefer, "experience") of it, and base theories on the observations.

Are you proposing that scientists should just make stuff up?

Mojo, this thread exhibits why assuming the reality of the universe makes a difference. For once you do, the theories you come up with mirror that assumption and are different to theories that would come up if that assumption was denied life.

There a few scientific theories that are all founded upon assuming the reality of the universe. Here's one:

~The brain creates the human experience.~
... Here, one must assume the actual reality of a brain in order to present that theory. However, 'the brain' is an entity observed entirely amidst experience... and nobody with an ounce of intelligence would dare suggest that an experienced body is the cause of experience!!

This example clearly emphasises how assuming the reality of the universe directly affects scientific theories.
When one considers the amount of time and dollars being spent upon how the brain manages to do such a thing, we also see the extent to which that aforementioned assumption depletes those resources. A very important factor indeed.

The consequences for making that assumption are profound, Mojo. Really.
That assumption has lead science down a specific path that has shaped theories and research and cultural attitudes.
... And yet, that assumption is completely baseless.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yet again, we are presented with a scientific idea/theory the validity of which is only relevant (and then arguably so) IF one assumes the actual reality of the universe beyond the experience of it.

Say gazer, what is your definition of "actual reality" here? And why are observations about the universe irrelevant even if it isn't "actually real"?

There a few scientific theories that are all founded upon assuming the reality of the universe. Here's one:

~The brain creates the human experience.~
... Here, one must assume the actual reality of a brain in order to present that theory. However, 'the brain' is an entity observed entirely amidst experience... and nobody with an ounce of intelligence would dare suggest that an experienced body is the cause of experience!!

Ditto.

~~ Paul

 

[lifegazer]

What makes you think that Frank's ~experience~ of the universe is less valid than yours?

It has been pointed-out that a real world is distinct from the experience of one. You cannot have an experience of a real world, by logical default.

 

[lifegazer]

Say gazer, what is your definition of "actual reality" here? And why are observations about the universe irrelevant even if it isn't "actually real"?


Ditto.

~~ Paul

The experience of entity 'X' does not equate to self-existence for 'X'.

The actual reality of an entity equates to self-existence regardless of whether it is experienced.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

The actual reality of an entity equates to self-existence regardless of whether it is experienced.

And clearly the objects of our experience do exist without our experiencing them. Otherwise when we looked away from the clock and then looked back later, the time would not have advanced consistently. The only way to explain the inter-personal consistency of the universe is to say that objects exist without our direct experience.

Now, you may argue that they don't "really exist," but are somehow maintained by our nonconscious minds. I have no problem with that. But then they are just as independently real as if they exist in some ill-specified materialistic fashion.

Your philosophy is based on a specifically limited definition of real.

~~ Paul

 

[BrianSI]

I will pick up the book at this month's CalTech lecture. Looking forward to enhancing my illusion of reality. Or at least having better canned responses to support my illusion. I don't have any pithy responses for lifegazer yet.


Except that bullst really does smell awful, IMHO.

 

[hammegk]

....to explain the inter-personal consistency of the universe is to say that objects exist without our direct experience.
~~ Paul

Congratulations for conflating, again, some need on your part for human consciousness as a requirement for objective reality.

You would make the energiser bunny proud.

 

[nescafe]

Your breakdown in logic comes at this point, because you fail to take into account the flip side of this coin, namely that there is no direct evidence that the world external to sensation does not exist.

Ahem.
This thread isn't about me proving that. It's about a scientist duping the masses into believing a theory that has no logical basis, to such an extent that some of those masses are describing that scientist as their "hero".
Frank said that it was one of the most convincing arguments for naturalism that he's ever read!!

It is certianly more convincing than any argument you have ever made, LG.

For heaven's sake, when a leading scientist has this much power to affect the minds and [consequently] the hearts of society, then such a man has to be taken to task.

What, so now Shermer is a power-mad sociopath hell-bent on forcing his peculiar dogma onto an unwilling populace? Or is he more of a silver-tounged liar out to lead the world down the primrose path of skepticism and rationality?

The worrying thing is that people like Frank and Elaine would rather stick their head in the sand and ignore what you've already agreed to, above; which should be enough to shake them from their stupor. But nay, they've been completely duped, apparently, and are far too impressed with their hero to let a little thing like 'logic' make any difference.

And your zeal on their behalf is quite touching, since they are obviously unable to come to their own conclusions with respect to the existence of a real world.

Why, precisely, is an uncreated non-self-aware experiencER who has us and our so-called "objective reality" as its experiences a more rational viewpoint than just assuming that there is an "objective reality"?

Let me rephrase that in lifegazer language, there is zero evidence that sensed objects are not real beyond the sensation of them.

Yes there is.

Give us some examples.

Regardless, this concern does not validate anything Shermer has said.

Then why did you bring it up?

Well, the experienced world is what is happening. It is a truth.

Well, you are half right.

What you probably want to say is that there is no way to determine whether there are two truths: an experienced world and a real world beyond that experience.

Seems like a better explanation for all this consistency I see everywhere than saying it is consistent because it is the experiencER's experience, and not mine.

However, you would be incorrect in saying that too.

Easy to say, hard to prove.

And I'm not going to start arguing why in this thread, since what I might say will be lost amidst the hero worship for MS.

Or because you have argued it before ad nauseam and gotten nowhere -- which is the only place your philosophy can go.

The experienced world is ordered, which means that the sensations which yield the appearance/experience of the world are ordered.
There's nothing in your statement here which links science to a real world.

As has been explained before, science does not care about how real the world is, it only cares about how regular it is. Even if it were proven that the reality we experience was, in fact, the dream of Brahman, that would not affect science as long as the dream stayed as consistent as it has been thus far.

 

[nescafe]

It has been pointed-out that a real world is distinct from the experience of one. You cannot have an experience of a real world, by logical default.

Um, no.

If there is no real world, then what causes our experiences? An endless chain of prior experiences?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Congratulations for conflating, again, some need on your part for human consciousness as a requirement for objective reality.

So when Lifegazer says:

Yet again, we are presented with a scientific idea/theory the validity of which is only relevant (and then arguably so) IF one assumes the actual reality of the universe beyond the experience of it.

he isn't referring to the human mind in "beyond the experience of it"?

Or when he says:

The objects experienced via ordered sensations are not in themselves real.

he isn't referring to the human mind in "experienced via ordered sensations"?

If he isn't referring to the human mind, or at least something like the human mind, then how can he possibly maintain his position that the universe is not "real" outside of experience? How could he know? His entire argument is based on the idea that human-like perception is the real reality.

In any event, my argument is that the world maintained by the mind/ consciousness/ Being/ whatever, independent of us, is just as good a candidate for the real world as is some materialistic real world.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Mojo, this thread exhibits why assuming the reality of the universe makes a difference. For once you do, the theories you come up with mirror that assumption and are different to theories that would come up if that assumption was denied life.

You didn't answer his question:

How would their being taught this make any difference? Science would continue to study the universe via observations (or if you prefer, "experience") of it, and base theories on the observations.

~~ Paul

 

[wollery]

*Takes a piccie of the evidence*.

Wow, you really are getting desperate aren't you! You must be, or you wouldn't be so excited about me making that statement, because it's been acceded/stipulated by several posters (including me) on numerous occasions in many different thread of yours, and you never even batted an eye at it before.

Ahem.
This thread isn't about me proving that. It's about a scientist duping the masses into believing a theory that has no logical basis, to such an extent that some of those masses are describing that scientist as their "hero".
Frank said that it was one of the most convincing arguments for naturalism that he's ever read!!

For heaven's sake, when a leading scientist has this much power to affect the minds and [consequently] the hearts of society, then such a man has to be taken to task.
The worrying thing is that people like Frank and Elaine would rather stick their head in the sand and ignore what you've already agreed to, above; which should be enough to shake them from their stupor. But nay, they've been completely duped, apparently, and are far too impressed with their hero to let a little thing like 'logic' make any difference.

Hmmm, too impressed with . . . . to let a little thing like 'logic' make any difference . . . .

People like M Shermer are an obstacle to the truth, since they've already assumed that truth. They inadvertently ridicule the desire of science to be completely 'objective'. And they do affect history since they do affect the attitudes of man.

I'd rather have someone like Shermer who, if pressed, would admit that he's making an assumption, and, more importantly and pertinently, would alter his stance if shown evidence that contradicted it, than someone who doesn't even admit that he's making assumptions and can't admit to making errors or being wrong.

Yes there is. But you won't listen. Regardless, this concern does not validate anything Shermer has said.

No, there isn't, whatever you may think. You may believe that relativity supports your hypothesis, but it really doesn't.

Well, the experienced world is what is happening. It is a truth. What you probably want to say is that there is no way to determine whether there are two truths: an experienced world and a real world beyond that experience.

Thank you, but I know exactly what I want to say. An experienced world exists, that's a given, this actually leaves us with three options - either our sensations accurately reflect a real world external to our sensation of it, or a real world of some sort external to us exists but our sensation of it is inaccurate, or there is nothing external to our sensations. The second and third options mean that our sensations are worthless. Whichever is the case there is only one truth^tm, or have you suddenly become a dualist?

However, you would be incorrect in saying that too. And I'm not going to start arguing why in this thread, since what I might say will be lost amidst the hero worship for MS.

What? C'mon Wolly, don't be daft.

Do you, or do you not have to eat, drink, go to the toilet, post on internet forums . . . . . . . . ?

And please stop calling me Wolly. It's the sort of informality that a friend might use, unless of course you're trying to be condescending. The name's Wollery. It's fairly simple really.

The experienced world is ordered, which means that the sensations which yield the appearance/experience of the world are ordered.
There's nothing in your statement here which links science to a real world.

I've never denied that order exists within experience, nor that this order is discernible. Nor that the experienced body (of humanity) can manipulate other experienced bodies.
Again, there's nothing in your statement here which links science to a real world.

And nothing that you've ever presented which denies the existence of one.

I don't want to kill science. I want it to grow up.

Science is maturing quite nicely on its own thank you very much, and nothing that you propose would alter anything about how it works anyway.

 

[hammegk]

So when Lifegazer says:

he isn't referring to the human mind in "beyond the experience of it"?

Or when he says:

he isn't referring to the human mind in "experienced via ordered sensations"?

If he isn't referring to the human mind, or at least something like the human mind, then how can he possibly maintain his position that the universe is not "real" outside of experience? How could he know? His entire argument is based on the idea that human-like perception is the real reality.

If you say so; derned if I know what lg means.

In any event, my argument is that the world maintained by the mind/ consciousness/ Being/ whatever, independent of us, is just as good a candidate for the real world as is some materialistic real world.

~~ Paul

My thought as well.

When did we reach this position of 100% agreement?

 

[wollery]

When did we reach this position of 100% agreement?

Lifegazer has that effect on people!

 

[Z]

If you say so; derned if I know what lg means.


My thought as well.

When did we reach this position of 100% agreement?

Just for S&G, I have to admit I agree with that, too. Monism really is the only way to go. Which form, it seems, matters only on issues of preference and vague implication, really...