Ask a Radical Atheist

[Tricky]

Patrons of the arts never demanded that they be portrayed favorably?

Demanding that a product be presented favorably would make it advertising, wouldn't it? It is not the patron creating the art. And I said advertising could (and usually does) contain art.

You don't want to go down that road, do you?

Not here. That would be a bad derail, but perhaps another thread.

 

[Piscivore]

Demanding that a product be presented favorably would make it advertising, wouldn't it? It is not the patron creating the art. And I said advertising could (and usually does) contain art.


Not here. That would be a bad derail, but perhaps another thread.

Here's one.

ETA: And I'm not sure I think that this is the difference, Tricky:

Art does not try to sell something external to the art.

 

[Tricky]

Art vs. Advertising derail relocated here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Piscivore, I'll have to address the rest of your post later, however regarding evidence vs conclusions which are not evidence,

If you have some version of reality like we are all in the Matrix, then say so now so we can end this discussion as that is not the view I hold and there is no sense going further. However, if that isn't what you are saying, then read on.

This could get a little tricky. The experience is the means by which you detect the evidence. The red thing is still the evidence.

For example, when you observe the checkerboard optical illusion one light square in the shadow is really the same shade of gray as one dark square not in the shadow. In this case your experience is faulty, but the evidence does not change.


(BTW: I did note in my discussion with Beth that if you were examining the sensory system, the experience was evidence in that case so don't get sidetracked on that different issue. Everything can be evidence depending on what you consider it evidence of. So for this discussion we need to stick to what is evidence in the case of the red thing and what is the conclusion in the case of the red thing.)


And it looks like this is a side track so feel free to take it to the thread it started in with Beth. I'll see that it was bumped and reply there.

 

[articulett]

My vision is not post-modernist, nor is relativist. Science is not a body of beliefs, but a set of tools. That said, yes, those mechanisms and theoretical approaches are what distinguish it from other attempts to describe our world. And yes, woo beliefs, religions and etc have nothing like that.

Now, the intriguing part is why oh why some people in the forum react so predictable when dealing with someone who "apparently" does not share their world view? It is a paranoid attitude, sorry if this sounds offensive, but it is true.

I state that I do not need an ontological commitment, that science is a set of tools, that all we have, and can have are descriptions and some people react as if I were talking about mind super powers and souls... Come on! I exhort you to give the benefit of the doubt and ask questions, instead of label at first sight!

I don't think anyone is paranoid... I just think they are trying to make sense of what you are saying... you seem to feel a sense of superiority about something or other compared to those who don't "share your world view". I was just wondering if anyone other than you knows what that world view is... because it sounds like you are bad mouthing the best explanation we have similar to the way creationists bad mouth evolution. And you get defensive when I say as much and give a lot of eye-rolling language... like I'm too stupid to understand. I'm not stupid; I think if you were actually conveying something, I'd know--or someone could translate. You sure haven't given us anything to distinguish you from, say, Tom Cruise, and his recent Scientology nothingness.

I think the problem is in your words, not in anybody else's ability to understand. I think you make it clear that you don't share the scientific world view--just like creationists do... while being very vague about what you do believe, because you know there is no empirical data to support it or means of testing it. As long as you don't say what it is, you can keep pretending in your head that it's better than the "mundane world view" of the rest of the skeptics.

 

[Piscivore]

If you have some version of reality like we are all in the Matrix, then say so now...

I do not.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I think you make it clear that you don't share the scientific world view...

And you claim to understand!! I'm very sorry Articulett, I don't want to be rude, but you don't understand a bit of what I say. Ask people who do understand BEFORE writing your strawmans. Ok? Even Pixy understands that I'm somehow a naturalist and that everything I believe in is compatible with what she, as a hard core materialist, believes in.

If you want to understand go to the thread in which I expose my ideas and read it TO THE END. Now... please cease your continuous (and nonsensical) "attacks" on my views (better put, your interpretations due to your bias against me).

Please?

 

[Tricky]

Even Pixy understands that I'm a naturalist and that everything I believe in is compatible with what she, as a hard core materialist, believes in.

What then is the difference between a naturalist and a hard-core materialist?

BTW, Pixy is male, as far as I know.

 

[Robin]

What then is the difference between a naturalist and a hard-core materialist?

Nothing. If BDZ wants to be consistent he should reject naturalism too.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

double post

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

What then is the difference between a naturalist and a hard-core materialist?

BTW, Pixy is male, as far as I know.

I'm not strictly a naturalist, let see.

Naturalism:

The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.

In my case, I would rephrase it as "a system of thought holding that phenomena is describable in terms of sets of relational rules", to fit my views.

Some hard-core materialists in the forum have very concrete answer to some questions, for example: when asked about whats the world made of? they say "matter" or "everything is material". I believe the question is meaningless. That's another difference between my views and materialists.

Now, the difference between naturalism and materialism is that the former is an assumption about reality being explainable via concrete set of laws, while the last one implies an ontological commitment.

Regarding Pixy, in the end it is irrelevant if is a "she" or a "he" Pixy is intelligent and I have learned a lot discussing with he/she.

Nothing. If BDZ wants to be consistent he should reject naturalism too.

I'm interested to know why do you think this, but yes, the corrections are above. They might be subtle, but the consequences are vast.

 

[Robin]

Naturalism:

The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.

And how does this differ from what d'Holbach, the Churchlands, Daniel Dennett or Richard Dawkins for example would say?

Some hard-core materialists in the forum have very concrete answer to some questions, for example: when asked about whats the world made of? they say "matter" or "everything is material". I believe the question is meaningless. That's another difference between my views and materialists.

But as I have asked you before (and you have never answered), is it reasonable to define a philosophy like Materialism in terms of the statements of some unspecified Materialists on JREF.

And in any case, I bet if you were to go further and ask "what is matter" or "what does 'material' mean" you would probably find that they mean things that can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.

I'm interested to know why do you think this, but yes, the corrections are above. They might be subtle, but the consequences are vast.

I would be interested in knowing what you think the differences are (apart, that is from the comments of some unspecified posters in JREF)?

How does d'Holbach's position differ from the one you put? How do the Churchland's position differ? Now the Churchlands' position differs a lot from d'Holbach's position a couple of centuries earlier, but they both have in common that:

all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.

 

[Tricky]

In my case, I would rephrase it as "a system of thought holding that phenomena is describable in terms of sets of relational rules", to fit my views.

Some hard-core materialists in the forum have very concrete answer to some questions, for example: when asked about whats the world made of? they say "matter" or "everything is material". I believe the question is meaningless. That's another difference between my views and materialists.

I can't see much of a difference. Materialists, as you describe them, give a word for the "relational rules" and that word is "matter". You don't. But you agree that there are objective, observable, definable rules. It sounds to me like it is merely a question of semantics, unless you argue that there is something that exists that is different from matter in its behavior. As far as I can tell, you do not.

Now, the difference between naturalism and materialism is that the former is an assumption about reality being explainable via concrete set of laws, while the last one implies an ontological commitment.

I don't see that these are mutually exclusive. They seem to be talking about different things entirely. Are you saying that materialists deny an ontological commitment? Speaking as a soft-core materialist, I'm not even sure what that would entail.

Regarding Pixy, in the end it is irrelevant if is a "she" or a "he" Pixy is intelligent and I have learned a lot discussing with he/she.

Yes, Pixy is amazing and usually makes no comments about gender, but if you try to flirt, he'll let you know. I know from experience.

 

[Robin]

In my case, I would rephrase it as "a system of thought holding that phenomena is describable in terms of sets of relational rules", to fit my views.

In any case you are making just as much an assumption as the one you accuse Materialist of making.

How do you know that all phenomena are describable in terms of sets of relational rules?

My personal definition for Materialism is:

1. Any event that is not deterministic is arbitrary.
2. Mental events and entities are functional composites of non-mental events and entities.

 

[Robin]

The true skeptical position is Positivism (or more generally Empricism):
"Every meaningful statement is, or is reducible to, a statement about conscious experience."

Until about a year or so ago I called myself a Positivist. But I have moved to the position of Materialism as described above.

 

[Robin]

And I would have to add to the previous definition of Positivism - "Probably".

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Thanks, because we can talk without resorting to ad hominems or strawmans or accusations. Pure intellectual talk, I like it.

I can't see much of a difference. Materialists, as you describe them, give a word for the "relational rules" and that word is "matter". You don't.

Not exactly. "Matter" is ontologically "what exists". In my case I stop before making an ontological commitment with any kind of "stuff". I believe that the question about "whats the world made of" is incoherent. We can describe parcels of phenomena, and phenomena is what we see, smell, touch, deduct (gravity, x rays, gamma rays, quarks). There are no "final constituents", no ontology other than our descriptive models and phenomena. The relational rules are about phenomena, not "objects".

But you agree that there are objective, observable, definable rules.

Yes, absolutely, there is something objective, beyond our beliefs, and our models attempt to describe "THAT". I see no divisions between "subjectivity" and "objectivity" both the "internal" and the "external" are part of the "same stuff" (my philosophy is monist, even when I believe there is nothing concrete or, again, "material" giving it cohesion).

It sounds to me like it is merely a question of semantics, unless you argue that there is something that exists that is different from matter in its behavior. As far as I can tell, you do not.

In a way it is semantics, but it is also more, as I hope it can be seen from above.

I don't see that these are mutually exclusive. They seem to be talking about different things entirely. Are you saying that materialists deny an ontological commitment? Speaking as a soft-core materialist, I'm not even sure what that would entail.

Not at all, on the contrary, I believe some materialists (well its more than a belief, they have expressed it countless times here in the JREF forums) make a strong commitment with an ontology that it is based on material objects. Something like "objects are real while souls are not" meaning objects are material and souls are immaterial. I refuse to take part on such dichotomies as I believe they come from religious thinking "the spiritual and material worlds". As I have said, I believe a way out of dichotomies is to stop right before having to have an ontological commitment. BTW, it could be argued that my ontology are the "sets of relational rules" and "phenomena", but I believe these are immediately available (in contrast quarks and objects are constructs) and, to put them a name, "Primitives," from where everything else comes.

 

[SirPhilip]

What is the difference between art and advertising, then?

Why, the same difference between sharing and selling! Although today an appreciation of these differences typically don't exist.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

How do you know that all phenomena are describable in terms of sets of relational rules?

My personal definition for Materialism is:

1. Any event that is not deterministic is arbitrary.
2. Mental events and entities are functional composites of non-mental events and entities.

Ah Robin! Now we are talking! (I believe I have answered to your questions many times but we haven't arrive to this level of understanding before)

I don't know all phenomena is describable, it is an assumption, a place from where you can start to deal with phenomena in a coherent, orderly fashion (doing science for example).

Regarding your definition, care to explain more about 1? because I like your 2, in fact I like it a lot (you didn't resort to the classic "mental events are material". Now, my question to you would be: Why keeping the name "materialism" when it is carrying so much history on its back? What "material" and "materialism" mean have changed countless times throughout history!

Take for instance "god", or "good" and "evil" I believe we skeptics should propose new terminology instead of using such words, generally speaking of course.

 

[Robin]

Not exactly. "Matter" is ontologically "what exists". In my case I stop before making an ontological commitment with any kind of "stuff".

But you have just made a very firm ontological commitment to the kind of stuff that behaves according to relational rules.