My theoretical framework

[Piggy]

You're welcome...

Regarding the monkey thing, how is it not possible? Please enlighten me, since I am prone to using this analogy and I don't want it exploding in my face in the future...

It assumes that monkeys on typewriters produce random strings. But they don't.

They produce some random strings mixed in with a lot of repetitive sequences.

You can try this yourself. Just "randomly" bang away at a keyboard. You'll see that there are clusters of characters that tend to repeat.

The presence of these repetitive strings prevents the production of Shakespeare, no matter how long the monkeys type, or how many of them there are.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

It would be a problem if it were anything other than an assumption. As originally formulated (see OP) this notion was presented as fact and that is problematic since a fact can only exist inside a coherent theoretical framework, the assumptions/axioms that define this framework might count as facts for the evaluation of inferences (they are assumed to be true) but they are not proper facts in the sense that they are something about which one can be in error. So, no, in response to your first sentence the assumption (since it is not self-contradictory) is not problematic because of it's internal logic. It is in other words a completely and utterly valid position since it is an assumption/axiom.

Ok, I see what you mean, thank you.

 

[Phaedrus74]

It assumes that monkeys on typewriters produce random strings. But they don't.

They produce some random strings mixed in with a lot of repetitive sequences.

You can try this yourself. Just "randomly" bang away at a keyboard. You'll see that there are clusters of characters that tend to repeat.

The presence of these repetitive strings prevents the production of Shakespeare, no matter how long the monkeys type, or how many of them there are.

I see, thanks!
I guess I'll stick to tornadoes rampaging through junkyards

 

[Phaedrus74]

Ok, I see what you mean, thank you.

No problem, trying to clarify this keeps my brain going between bouts of data-entry...

 

[Robin]

Naturalism is, IMO, the best, followed by Physicalism. But I believe it is important to choose any of them instead of Materialism. Why?

Materialism is an old term, it represents a very naive point of view, that things are things whether we see them or not. In this sense, and from this perspective, is mere woo, and so better terms should be the tool of choice for us skeptics.

In another thread, for example, I have argued that it is preferable to say that somebody is a psychopath, instead of "evil" for the same reasons.

A definition of Naturalism comes handy:

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

I would rephrase it as "a system of thought holding that phenomena is describable in terms of sets of relational rules".

Here is the problem, those that ignore philosophy are doomed to repeat it.

Physicalism died in the 50's with Rudolf Carnap - the problem was that there never was a good definition for 'physical', no verification principle that anybody could agree on.

Your first definition of Naturalism is circular and your second is problematic - to paraphrase Bohm "BDZ, don't tell Nature what to do".

Science does not operate with the assumption of an underlying regularity - on the contrary this is part if the initial observation. It is also part of the hypothesis and is regularly tested.

I am interested that you dismiss Materalism, but fail to define what you mean by it.

 

[Piggy]

Here is the problem, those that ignore philosophy are doomed to repeat it.

Stop busting my bubbles, Robin!

And no fair playing the Santayana card!

Damn, y'all are really making it hard to be a contrarian, here.

Just when you think the philos are all lost souls, some of them go and start making sense on you.

<slumps in chair and pouts>

 

[Robin]

Stop busting my bubbles, Robin!

And no fair playing the Santayana card!

Damn, y'all are really making it hard to be a contrarian, here.

Just when you think the philos are all lost souls, some of them go and start making sense on you.

<slumps in chair and pouts>

Well, I am sort of agreeing with you. The value of most of the philosophy that has already been done is to demonstrate the futility of most philosophy.

It also helps to answer the constant and boring claim that science is merely a faith because it is based on the assumption of Materialism.

 

[Piggy]

Well, I am sort of agreeing with you. The value of most of the philosophy that has already been done is to demonstrate the futility of most philosophy.

It also helps to answer the constant and boring claim that science is merely a faith because it is based on the assumption of Materialism.

Yeah, but in the process -- as before -- you get me agreeing with you, too.

I'd been seeing all this philo stuff in terms of "the history of thought", as I put it, and resting all comfortable in our being able to dispense with it now.

But looking at it from Santayana's perspective, suddenly it does not seem so dispensible, if you know what I mean.

Someone made that point earlier, but it hadn't really sunk in til you cited George.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Well, I am sort of agreeing with you. The value of most of the philosophy that has already been done is to demonstrate the futility of most philosophy.

It also helps to answer the constant and boring claim that science is merely a faith because it is based on the assumption of Materialism.

Disagree. I have pointed out to Piggy the two very relevant areas of philosophy regarding science, both has ZERO woo in them and both are necessary to do science.

Besides, anyone who things that science is a faith have yet to understand that materialism is a faith, and science a set of tools that has no need of it. One only need naturalistic assumptions to do science. Oh, BTW, naturalism is a philosophy, as it is materialism.

 

[Piggy]

Disagree. I have pointed out to Piggy the two very relevant areas of philosophy regarding science, both has ZERO woo in them and both are necessary to do science.

Besides, anyone who things that science is a faith have yet to understand that materialism is a faith, and science a set of tools that has no need of it. One only need naturalistic assumptions to do science. Oh, BTW, naturalism is a philosophy, as it is materialism.

This kind of talk, on the other hand -- the war of the isms -- I still think is unproductive.

And this business of materialism as a faith is utter bunk.

Every time a material explanation has been tested against any other explanation, where an answer has emerged, materialism has won.

At this point, there's no other perspective with a leg to stand on.

Maybe that's why BDZ feels the need to prop up the more charlatanistic branch of philo?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Every time a material explanation has been tested against any other explanation, where an answer has emerged, materialism has won.

Wrong.

At this point, there's no other perspective with a leg to stand on.

Read mine.

Maybe that's why BDZ feels the need to prop up the more charlatanistic branch of philo?

Maybe you need to understand what is written.

 

[Piggy]

When you can put the chalk down and turn your back to the board and explain what you mean in plain English, BDZ, I'll listen to you.

And no, I'm not wrong.

The material perpective has won every single match.

Every one.

You can't name one that it's lost.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

As several people have understood what I meant, I don't see why should I change a letter. Why should I make an exception for you? Tell you what, you need to think a bit, understand the words, the implications of the statements and reach your own conclusion.

You could even argue against it, I would be delighted to read an intelligent, logical reply (again, others have posted them). Now, if you can't is ok, but then stop the ad hominems.

Otherwise, you would need to assume that every one who has said something intelligent (either arguing against or agreeing) has been lying to you, acting like if they could understand something that is, well, whatever you think it is.

 

[Piggy]

You should make an exception for me for the same reason the people on the math threads "make exceptions" by explaining their concepts to laypersons.

Yes, I've seen some intelligent replies to your posts, and they seem to all come to the consensus that you're stating the obvious in a bunch of high-falutin' language where you're any making sense at all.

But on the one point where you've actually answered me plainly you're demonstrably wrong.

There have been no victories for the non-material theories. None.

 

[Piggy]

And BDZ, maybe you should be asking yourself why it is that other folks posting on this thread -- such as Phaedrus74 and Robin, among others -- have been able to explain their points of views to me in ways that have brought me over to their ideas, while you have not been able to do so.

I think that's an indication that you don't really know what you're talking about. You just have the language.

Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 

[JoeEllison]

When you can put the chalk down and turn your back to the board and explain what you mean in plain English, BDZ, I'll listen to you.

And no, I'm not wrong.

The material perpective has won every single match.

Every one.

You can't name one that it's lost.

*grins*

It works, and nothing else does, and until something else even comes close, the non-materialists are stuck with rhetorical slight of hand and little else. Why else do you think that every single one of the woos refuses to use plain English? Making sure their position is vague and impossible to pin down is part of the game.

 

[Robin]

Besides, anyone who things that science is a faith have yet to understand that materialism is a faith, and science a set of tools that has no need of it. One only need naturalistic assumptions to do science. Oh, BTW, naturalism is a philosophy, as it is materialism.

Why would science need Naturalistic assumptions?

Why is Materialism a faith (and how are you defining Materialism)?

 

[trvlr2]

As several people have understood what I meant, I don't see why should I change a letter. Why should I make an exception for you? Tell you what, you need to think a bit, understand the words, the implications of the statements and reach your own conclusion.

You could even argue against it, I would be delighted to read an intelligent, logical reply (again, others have posted them). Now, if you can't is ok, but then stop the ad hominems.

Otherwise, you would need to assume that every one who has said something intelligent (either arguing against or agreeing) has been lying to you, acting like if they could understand something that is, well, whatever you think it is.

Would you most kindly answer Piggy's question?
Thanks.

 

[trvlr2]

BDZ- that would be Piggy's post 292. Please answer.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Besides, anyone who things that science is a faith have yet to understand that materialism is a faith, and science a set of tools that has no need of it.

Materialism is not a "faith" its a frame of reference -- meaning that one looks at the universe from the perspective of matter and builds one's knowledge base from their. Being that matter is the easiest of entities to observe and quantify its only natural that science should have begun there.