Materialists......

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Is the concept of a paradox self-contradictory?

Not the concept, but often the paradoxes themselves. To state that X exists and X does not exist is a contradiction.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

How does the materialist remain in that monism and find other than determined, or random?

I'm not sure, but if you could define this third beast, neither determinism nor randomness, I'd be truly happy to give it a try. Heck, I'll settle for a reasonable hand-wave that just gives the feeling of what this third beast might be like.

Someone in Alice In Wonderland agreed with you. When you assign ~physical attributes -- like intent -- to the physical, you've jumped the shark imo.

That depends entirely upon whether the definition of will includes the assumption that will cannot be a physical process.

Materialistics can once they choose new meanings for old words.

Ah, but here is the very heart of the problem. The old words tend to be loaded with ontological assumptions. If I'm forced to play with the old words still loaded, then I cannot say what I want to say without people making unintended inferences.

If you hear "nonphysical mind" whenever I say "mind," then I cannot say what I mean. Isn't that obvious?

~~ Paul

 

[Robin]

How does the materialist remain in that monism and find other than determined, or random?

Either it is logically possible for something to be non-deterministic+non-arbitrary, or else it is not.

If it is not logically possible then it is not logically possible under any monism, including Idealism.

If it is logically possible - as you seem to contend - then it is also logically possible under every monism, including Materialism.

Someone in Alice In Wonderland agreed with you.

I guess you are in a position to know.

When you assign ~physical attributes -- like intent -- to the physical, you've jumped the shark imo.

Geoff seems to be quite happy with the idea that an intention can be a property of a physical system - in fact he insists it is. In fact I am unable to think of anybody else in the world apart from you who sees a logical contradiction in an intention being a property of a physical system.

Can you be more precise and state what that contradiction is, or maybe point me to some philosophy paper that has demonstrated this contradiction. Perhaps, finally, someone will give me a definition of what "physical" means.

Materialistics can once they choose new meanings for old words.

Please be more specific. What words - what meanings?

 

[articulett]

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/esp.html

Click on this link to show exactly how easy it is for geoff (and apparently many others) to believe that "synchronicity' is real. People are so easy to fool--it's sad...really.

 

[Robin]

If you hear "nonphysical mind" whenever I say "mind," then I cannot say what I mean. Isn't that obvious?

~~ Paul

It is to most of us. It is strange that people who utterly reject interactive dualism nevertheless insist that we must tie every philosophical discussion to the assumptions of Cartesian Dualism.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Perhaps, finally, someone will give me a definition of what "physical" means.

Yikes. Let me give one possible definition, originally from Stimpson J. Cat. It's a sort of scientific naturalism approach.

Definition 1: The term "real" is defined to refer to everything which has any kind of effect on something else which is real. This self-referential definition is completed with the definition that I am real.

Definition 2: The term "physical" is defined to refer to anything which is, in principle, observable.

Now we need an axiom that says that real things are logical and consistent:

Axiom 1: Everything real can be described according to some set of consistent logical rules.

Now we need a useful epistemology that allows us to determine natural laws:

Axiom 2: The natural laws describing real events can be determined through observation of the effects those events have.

If axioms 1 and 2 are correct, then anything that can meaningfully be said to exist (a real thing) is physical.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Click on this link to show exactly how easy it is for geoff (and apparently many others) to believe that "synchronicity' is real. People are so easy to fool--it's sad...really.

Huh?

~~ Paul

 

[Robin]

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/esp.html

Click on this link to show exactly how easy it is for geoff (and apparently many others) to believe that "synchronicity' is real. People are so easy to fool--it's sad...really.

I must admit it took me a good five minutes to work it out. So I know that I can be fooled, at least part of the time.

 

[Robin]

Yikes. Let me give one possible definition, originally from Stimpson J. Cat. It's a sort of scientific naturalism approach.

Definition 1: The term "real" is defined to refer to everything which has any kind of effect on something else which is real. This self-referential definition is completed with the definition that I am real.

Definition 2: The term "physical" is defined to refer to anything which is, in principle, observable.

Now we need an axiom that says that real things are logical and consistent:

Axiom 1: Everything real can be described according to some set of consistent logical rules.

Now we need a useful epistemology that allows us to determine natural laws:

Axiom 2: The natural laws describing real events can be determined through observation of the effects those events have.

If axioms 1 and 2 are correct, then anything that can meaningfully be said to exist (a real thing) is physical.

~~ Paul

But what if something exists that cannot be described according to some set of consistent logical rules - ie exhibits purely arbitrary behaviour?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I must admit it took me a good five minutes to work it out. So I know that I can be fooled, at least part of the time.

But why did Articulett assume Geoff would be fooled?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But what if something exists that cannot be described according to some set of consistent logical rules - ie exhibits purely arbitrary behaviour?

If it was illogical or truly arbitrary (not even statistically predictable), then we could not derive natural laws for it. In that case I'd be willing to entertain the idea that it was real but not physical, in the sense that it is not observable in a meaningful way.

~~ Paul

 

[Robin]

But why did Articulett assume Geoff would be fooled?

~~ Paul

I see your point.

 

[articulett]

I must admit it took me a good five minutes to work it out. So I know that I can be fooled, at least part of the time.

But did you see the well "reasoned" responses that were so wrong wrong wrong on the explanation page? You at least know that you can be fooled. Justgeoff does not know...and thus cannot fix his ignorance. His responses remind me of some of the responses of other seemingly smart people. That is the part I find most interesting. Conviction of rightness seems to have little bearing on actual rightness.

 

[articulett]

But why did Articulett assume Geoff would be fooled?

~~ Paul

Some of his responses sound like some of the other responses from smart people who are just wrong. But I was actually thinking of his computer-synchronicity theory--and how people see an answer they want and overlook the obvious. I find that really interesting. When I was younger, I thought that when someone had conviction regarding a belief they must have some evidence that I wasn't aware of or didn't understand. Now I just go and look at the evidence for myself. I'm sorry if it seemed to be a non-sequitar. My son figured it out instantly, but the explanation page had us both shaking our heads...especially this: "From Ellie: I tried your ESP thing about 10 times and it got it wrong about 5 times, so HA HA HA!!!!! and you thought you were good!!!!!!! so its not 98% right, is it? NO!!!
ellie"

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/espnewcomments.html

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/esp4.html

 

[articulett]

I am just reminded that actual scientific explanations are pretty simple and can "fit on a sweatshirt" or reduced to an equation--in fact, the answer to the above link can be explained in two words. But look at all the words people use to spin a different truth. I just find humans endlessly entertaining--and I actually like knowing how I fool myself. I like that Randi is eager to teach people how they fool themselves and I like that justgeoff is particularly good at illustrating the efforts people will go through to have an explanation rather than to leave the answer as "unknown for now". Once you have an answer, you are unlikely to go looking for another one...and your "answer" becomes more firmly entrenched as the truth in your head.

 

[articulett]

I see your point.

I didn't think justgeoff would be fooled; he has me on ignore. I just wanted to illustrate to fellow skeptics how ready people are to believe in mysticism...even smart people--some of the answers seem "intelligent" don't they? But it has nothing to do with the truth. It made me laugh--tell me it's not a complete digression (please). If it is, I'll concede--

Materialism is simple. It's correct. But people have a hard time with it just like the people responding to this little test.

 

[Apathia]

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/esp.html

Click on this link to show exactly how easy it is for geoff (and apparently many others) to believe that "synchronicity' is real. People are so easy to fool--it's sad...really.

I know that one. The first time I saw that trick on another site, I saw right away how it was done. Ironically because of my experience with playing with cards, especially Tarot ones. I remembered which cards had been originnaly drawn.
As usual, the Devil is in the details.

 

[hammegk]

I see your point.

Now if someone could just explain it to Articulett ...

 

[Apathia]

I pulled my roomate in to see the card trick. When she saw the row of eyeballs, she digressed on how last night she had a dream that contained rows of eyeballs in cubes on a wall.
So, could it be there was some significance to what I had to show her?
She was fooled by the trick, but only for about five minutes. The fouth time she noticed what was afoot.
The lesson. Pay attention to all the details. Earlier today she was bemoaning that she had signed some kind of retirement plan but had gone through it to quickly and missed that it wasn't quite what she had thought. I pointed out how the document was structured to misdirect her from certain sections.
So, the card trick experience reinforced her need to give full attention to the deatils of her finances.
Synchronicity?
She could interpret it that way, but remember. I called her in to see the trick, because I already saw it as a way to remind her to be careful about misdirections in sales and business.

 

[Robin]

Now if someone could just explain it to Articulett ...

I think he sees it. I see his point too - I don't think Geoff is stupid, but in the past he has taken members of the forum to task for not being open minded about subjects that they consider to be woo.

This site is an extreme case - but it illustrates that sometimes it is simply a waste of time being open minded - it was obvious in this case that we should start looking for the trick straight away.

But what if it looked more impressive - more academic? Suppose the experimenter had some verifiable qualifications and it appeared on the website of a major university. Suppose that it was set not alway to get the right answer - to get only say 30% correct. A small but statistically significant improvement on random?

In that case, unless you had seen the trick before, even an intelligent person might at least consider that there was some real effect to be seen.

Cases in point are the PEAR project, Global Consciousness Project, Autoganzfeld and staring tests. They tend to look somewhat like real science.

In these cases an "open-minded" skeptic will spend precious time that they will never get back finding out that the "closed-minded" skeptic who assumed it was nonsense in the first place was right all along.

Sometimes assuming materialism is true just saves time.