Materialists......

[DreadNiK]

SNIP-this forum is full of retarded sheep.-SNIP

SNIP-I don't need to swear,like a drunken teenager,to get my point across. I don't need to be rude either. Hence, I have done neither.-SNIP

Good job.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

That is because I am still waiting for you to explain HOW this problem is a problem. Not what the 'problem is' but what the negative consequences of it remaining unsolved are, as it 'why it is a problem'.

If you cannot do this, then there is no problem. And when I say negative consequences, I mean actual negative consequences. Being unable to express something is not a negative consequence.

OK, it is a problem because it causes monumental misunderstandings and failures to communicate between different groups of human beings. It is also a problem for science because when metaphysical assumptions get mixed up with science then science itself risks being devalued. I can give you an example of this misunderstanding in action. I have explained that mind/matter is an individual case of a binary opposition, and that it is the business of philosophy to explain the nature of binary oppositions and their relevance to other problems. I have also explained that a lot of complicated philosophical ideas in this area can be communicated very simply by the Yin/Yang symbol. This symbol is a classic example of philosophical symbolism - it is a clear expression of the answer to the question about how all binary oppositions work, including the opposition between our concepts of mental/physical and between the metaphysical positions of materialism, idealism and dualism. But the yin/yang symbol I linked to earlier came from the skeptics dictionary, and here you will see the misunderstanding in full bloom:

http://skepdic.com/yinyang.html

According to traditional Chinese philosophy, yin and yang are the two primal cosmic principles of the universe. Yin is the passive, female principle. Yang is the active, masculine principle. According to legend, the Chinese emperor Fu Hsi claimed that the best state for everything in the universe is a state of harmony represented by a balance of yin and yang. Unsurprisingly, legend has it that, according to Fu Hsi, true harmony requires yang to be dominant. It's just the nature of things.

In classical Chinese, yin and yang refer to the shady and sunny sides of a hill or valley.

Now, whilst this is a fairly accurate explanation of some of the historical significance of these concepts, it actually misrepresents the real meaning/relevance of the concepts. Instead, the entry presents Yin/Yang as ancient chinese "woo-woo-ism" (a creation myth), mixed with a mild accusation of abuse of religious imagery by men in order to dominate women. Neither is actually wrong - the yin yang symbol is part of the closest thing Taoism has to a creation myth (even though it is nothing like Genesis), and no doubt it was used by some males to dominate women. But men dominate women in human civilisations everywhere and the real significance of Yin/Yang goes far beyond a Genesis-like creation myth. As I already said - the concept is of enormous philosophical relevance right through to Derrida and deconstructionism. I think the world would be a better place if people on opposite sides of fences were better able to communicate and understand each other. The problem which I am talking about has the negative consequences of inhibiting this communication and polarising many important debates into stalemates and of making it very hard for science/skepticism-oriented people to understand things like religious-philosophical symbolism.

 

[DreadNiK]

It really is true for everyone. "0 = 1 + -1" really is true for everybody. It really is universally applicable. I cannot help it if certain people chose to ignore this because it happens to challenge some of their cherished assumptions.

Argh. Look. What the hell does this even mean. You have claimed there is a 'problem'. I have asked for you to define the problem and you have still not done so. 0 = 1 + -1 is really true for everybody. Ok great. 1+1-1--1=2 is true for everybody. Yes, people often try and argue that 2+2=5, but not definitionally.

 

[DreadNiK]

OK, it is a problem because it causes monumental misunderstandings and failures to communicate between different groups of human beings. It is also a problem for science because when metaphysical assumptions get mixed up with science then science itself risks being devalued. I can give you an example of this misunderstanding in action. I have explained that mind/matter is an individual case of a binary opposition, and that it is the business of philosophy to explain the nature of binary oppositions and their relevance to other problems. I have also explained that a lot of complicated philosophical ideas in this area can be communicated very simply by the Yin/Yang symbol. This symbol is a classic example of philosophical symbolism - it is a clear expression of the answer to the question about how all binary oppositions work, including the opposition between our concepts of mental/physical and between the metaphysical positions of materialism, idealism and dualism. But the yin/yang symbol I linked to earlier came from the skeptics dictionary, and here you will see the misunderstanding in full bloom:

http://skepdic.com/yinyang.html



Now, whilst this is a fairly accurate explanation of some of the historical significance of these concepts, it actually misrepresents the real meaning/relevance of the concepts. Instead, the entry presents Yin/Yang as ancient chinese "woo-woo-ism" (a creation myth), mixed with a mild accusation of abuse of religious imagery by men in order to dominate women. Neither is actually wrong - the yin yang symbol is part of the closest thing Taoism has to a creation myth (even though it is nothing like Genesis), and no doubt it was used by some males to dominate women. But men dominate women in human civilisations everywhere and the real significance of Yin/Yang goes far beyond a Genesis-like creation myth. As I already said - the concept is of enormous philosophical relevance right through to Derrida and deconstructionism. I think the world would be a better place if people on opposite sides of fences were better able to communicate and understand each other. The problem which I am talking about has the negative consequences of inhibiting this communication and polarising many important debates into stalemates and of making it very hard for science/skepticism-oriented people to understand things like religious-philosophical symbolism.

Oh my god people don't understand the Yin/Yang properly! Whatever shall we do? Shouldn't we get everyone speaking a common language before we worry about everyone having the same philosophical conclusion?

Could you provide an example of one these monumental misunderstandings that arises directly from your supposed 'problem'. You haven't really been very clear about these negative consequences. I'm getting bored with your evasion and I'm becoming convinced there really is nothing of value here but you're going to refuse to admit it.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Could you provide an example of one these monumental misunderstandings that arises directly from your supposed 'problem'.

The very existence of a discipline called "cognitive science", based upon the idea that minds can be equated with computer programs. The whole idea was philosophically-backwards from the start, but it has taken 40 years for this problem to become large enough to provoke an identity crisis in cognitive science.

You haven't really been very clear about these negative consequences. I'm getting bored with your evasion and I'm becoming convinced there really is nothing of value here but you're going to refuse to admit it.

Perhaps we have rather different opinions on the importance of a proper dialogue between science, philosophy and religion. I think there are lots of serious problems in this world which are unfortunately unsolvable. The failure of science to communicate/integrate properly with the non-scientific world isn't one of them. This problem is actually solvable. Our difference in opinion may be down to the fact that you believe that religion and philosophy have nothing of relevance to say about anything (others here believe this). If so, then you are just demonstrating why it's a problem, because both religion and philosophy have things of relevance to say - things which science cannot.

There is a historical problem which goes right back to Newton and Galileo. When science took the path of objectivisation, it lost something at the same time. What it lost was the capacity to acknowledge/understand/explore subjectivity. This was quite deliberate, of course. The whole point in Galileo's revolution, from his point of view (and Newton's) was to eliminate the profanity of human subjectivity and get closer to the objective mind of God. Objective science then became a raging success, answering objective question after objective question - and remaining absolutely silent on subjectivity. And here we are in 2006 with a bunch of scientifically-biased people trying to claim there is no reason why objective science cannot explain subjectivity. Those people do not seem to understand where science came from, what it does best, what it does not do, why it can't cope with subjectivity..... And when it comes down to it, what, exactly are we talking about when we say "subjectivity"? Well, we are talking about the subject of conscious experiences - that is you and me. We are asking the question "What am I?, ontologically?" This is no small scientific loose end. This is a question about the identity of the self, the meaning of life and the nature of Being - the ultimate questions that human beings ask.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Argh. Look. What the hell does this even mean.

It means that binary oppositions must be understood as complementary. Is there something difficult about this idea, because lots of people seem to be having trouble with it and to me it looks like one of the most intuitive, obvious and true things in the world? The principle appears everywhere. As a scientist, if I see a pattern repeating itself in many different places, I am allowed to investigate the reasons why this pattern repeats itself. That was the procedure which led to a great many scientific discoveries. Why not apply the same principle here?

 

[DreadNiK]

The very existence of a discipline called "cognitive science", based upon the idea that minds can be equated with computer programs. The whole idea was philosophically-backwards from the start, but it has taken 40 years for this problem to become large enough to provoke an identity crisis in cognitive science.



Perhaps we have rather different opinions on the importance of a proper dialogue between science, philosophy and religion. I think there are lots of serious problems in this world which are unfortunately unsolvable. The failure of science to communicate/integrate properly with the non-scientific world isn't one of them. This problem is actually solvable. Our difference in opinion may be down to the fact that you believe that religion and philosophy have nothing of relevance to say about anything (others here believe this). If so, then you are just demonstrating why it's a problem, because both religion and philosophy have things of relevance to say - things which science cannot.

There is a historical problem which goes right back to Newton and Galileo. When science took the path of objectivisation, it lost something at the same time. What it lost was the capacity to acknowledge/understand/explore subjectivity. This was quite deliberate, of course. The whole point in Galileo's revolution, from his point of view (and Newton's) was to eliminate the profanity of human subjectivity and get closer to the objective mind of God. Objective science then became a raging success, answering objective question after objective question - and remaining absolutely silent on subjectivity. And here we are in 2006 with a bunch of scientifically-biased people trying to claim there is no reason why objective science cannot explain subjectivity. Those people do not seem to understand where science came from, what it does best, what it does not do, why it can't cope with subjectivity..... And when it comes down to it, what, exactly are we talking about when we say "subjectivity"? Well, we are talking about the subject of conscious experiences - that is you and me. We are asking the question "What am I?, ontologically?" This is no small scientific loose end. This is a question about the identity of the self, the meaning of life and the nature of Being - the ultimate questions that human beings ask.

I'm going to ask you one more time before I lose all patience...

What is the problem in terms of its actual negative consequences...or if you like, what will be gained in terms of positive consequences by the solution of this problem?

EDIT: It isn't just me, is it, that sees this repeated evasion of my question?

 

[DreadNiK]

I think there are lots of serious problems in this world which are unfortunately unsolvable.

Then they aren't problems. They are 'how things are'.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm going to ask you one more time before I lose all patience...

I don't understand. I have answered your question over and over and over again. I don't understand why you think I'm not answering it. Are you expecting me to describe an empirical problem, even though I have explained why this isn't an empirical problem?

What is the problem in terms of its actual negative consequences...or if you like, what will be gained in terms of positive consequences by the solution of this problem?

How many times do I have to answer this question? What didn't you understand about the answer?

EDIT: It isn't just me, is it, that sees this repeated evasion of my question?

There has been no evasion at all. I have gone to great lengths to answer your question several times over. I genuinely have no idea what question you think I haven't answered. I have explained both the negative consequences of failing to confront this issue and I have explained the benefits to humanity and to science of confronting it. How is that evading answering your question? What sort of answer are you expecting?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I could explain the problem and the positive/negative consequences in yet another way. You presumably understand why philosophy and religion have no business trying to answer empirical questions and that it is in everybody's best interest to make sure that these two disciplines do not overstep their own boundaries and start trying to operate in territory which rightly belongs to objective science, yes? So why should the same not apply to science? Why should it be OK for science to overstep its boundaries and start trying to answer non-empirical questions it has no business trying to answer? There is a double-standard here which compromises the integrity of science, as well as causing massive communication problems between science and non-science. The misapplication of science to non-empirical questions is no less of a problem than the misapplication of religion and philosophy to empirical ones. In both cases, people end up believing things which are plain false. That on its own is enough to make it a problem worth solving.

 

[DreadNiK]

I have explained both the negative consequences of failing to confront this issue and I have explained the benefits to humanity and to science of confronting it.

As far as I can tell, the only negative consequence you have highlighted is that people misinterpret the yin/yang symbol. Care to give an example that is actually less than trivial?

But I'm really getting bored with this...

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Even more of an answer:

One of the biggest political-social problems, if not THE biggest, is human tribalism. National tribalism, racial tribalism, religious tribalism, political tribalism, the list goes on. In this particular case we have chronic idealogical tribalism, in the form of scientism, exemplarised by Richard Dawkins and "The Brights". I personally have a particular interest in the problems associated with religious and idealogical tribalism and my arguments are designed to break down the barriers of both. That is why I end up defending positions which try to bridge the gaps between different religions and between religion, philosophy and science. I get the feeling that many people on both sides of the gulf between science and religion would prefer for the tribalism to continue and for both sides to go on claiming they are right about everything and dismissing the other sides claims as "poorly motivated" and all wrong.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

As far as I can tell, the only negative consequence you have highlighted is that people misinterpret the yin/yang symbol. Care to give an example that is actually less than trivial?

But I'm really getting bored with this...

Are you actually reading my posts?

You know.........all those words I've been writing that you have made no comment about?

 

[DreadNiK]

Ok, to be fair I should take a bit more account of what you have actually said. I appreciate your position that tribalism is a problem and that it results from different perspectives, and that trying to reconcile those perspectives is a good idea.

But I still don't see how you are proposing to deal with that problem outside of a scientific framework, or how it results from a fundamental problem with materialism (if that is what you are saying). Surely you are trying to say more than "we should try to minimise conflict and maximise understanding", but I'm not sure what it is.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

But I still don't see how you are proposing to deal with that problem outside of a scientific framework....

That is what philosophy is for.

, or how it results from a fundamental problem with materialism (if that is what you are saying).

The fundamental problem with materialism is just one part of a wider set of problems. It is not neccesarily the root problem.

Surely you are trying to say more than "we should try to minimise conflict and maximise understanding".

Why, isn't that enough? Especially when the conflict and misunderstanding involves science and religion?

 

[nescafe]

ABSOLUTELY NOT. There can be no evolutionary explanation of subjectivity unless it is causal. But then you have mental things causing physical things, and you wouldn't what that, would you?

And how is mental things causing physical things a problem for the materialist philosophy? The abstraction we call the self or subjective experience cannot exist without something physical to exist in as a pattern of chemicals/electrons/synaptic connections/whatever to exist in, according to the materialist philosophy as I understand it. Since it does exist in that fashion, it is capable of affecting other physical things. Problem solved.

 

[Tricky]

How does that follow?

By definition. Subjective means "from one viewpoint".

I don't agree. Nothing can be demonstrated to a person who has subjectively decided to defend the wrong answer in advance, but that is slightly different.

LOL. The "wrong" answer being a different one than you have? Okay, lets say I claim you have decided to defend the wrong answer in advance. How can I prove that subjectively?

Metaphysics has given a definitive answer to this question. It's not my fault that many people here either don't know what it is or aren't capable of understanding it.

It IS your fault. You have not defended it well enough to convince people or make them understand your "definitive" answer. So you are either a) wrong or b) a very bad teacher. I vote for a, because I understand what you are saying. I simply don't agree.

Yes, but they are different sorts of questions to these. They are all empirical questions about how the (objective) physical world behaves.

That sentence doesn't have good enough noun-pronoun information for me to know what "they" and "these" refer to.

So to make things clear, could you first give the question that is being asked and then tell us the answer that metaphysics has provided. I still have never seen an example of this.

It really is true for everyone. "0 = 1 + -1" really is true for everybody. It really is universally applicable.

That is because it is defined that way. And this example has nothing whatsoever to do with metaphysics.

I cannot help it if certain people chose to ignore this because it happens to challenge some of their cherished assumptions.

This is simply another way of saying "everybody who doesn't believe my cherished assumptions is stupid." That doesn't carry much water here, Geoff.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

If you're still asking me "What is the problem with materialism?" after all I've written, I'm probably going to give up. The problem is that is the wrong solution to the conceptual problem, and that this wrong solution has taken on the status of a near-religious belief in some sections of the scientific community. The result is scientism and the abject inability of those sections of the scientific community to understand what the world looks like to the rest of us. People like Dawkins have ended up with a serious "bunker mentality." The think the world is full of crazy people (which it is, but they aren't all as crazy as the scientistic people think they are), and are on a crusade to "de-woo-woo-ise" the world - a crusade which is doomed to fail because it is based upon a fundamental conceptual misunderstanding. All sorts of things are treated as "woo-woo", when they aren't. In some cases, this includes philosophy - the whole of philosophy. Husserl, Heidegger, Derrida and Sartre may be very difficult to understand, but what they wrote was not without significance. Their writings are certainly not scientific, because they are attempting to answer questions about the relationship between subjective and object, between "self" and "other", that science can never touch. Science can't even formulate the correct questions, for the reasons I have repeatedly explained. Because it is materialistic and objective, science cannot even meaningfully define things like "mind", "subjectivity" and "self". So instead of being able to tackle the real questions that really need answers it is forced to try to equate those things with material things and then spends its entire time trying to defend this strategy from people claiming it is wrong-headed and making zero progress towards actually answering the questions.

Have I explained the problem yet?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Do really you think all binary oppositions are false dichotomies? Come on...

Not if they are logically binary oppositiions. Subjective vs. objective ain't such a case.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

By definition. Subjective means "from one viewpoint".

Not quite. There is such a things as the objective, 3rd-person viewpoint. Is that also "subjective"?