Life, The Universe and Everything Else

[Panthera tigris FC]

no

Physicalism/materialism is false.

I haven't read a great deal in this area, but I would be interested to know the basis of this assertion. Would this not make the scientific endeavour pointless? Hasn't the progress made using the scientific method suggested that there is an underlying objective reality that may, or may not, be discernible with our limited senses and perception?

 

[evo]

I haven't read a great deal in this area, but I would be interested to know the basis of this assertion.

Well it's impossible to explain my whole reasoning that lead to this position in a couple of paragraphs,it's one of the biggest arguments in philosophy.If you wanted to get the gist of, at least the starting position, I'd reccomend Kant's "critique of pure reason"

But just for something to think about consider this:

Lets say you and I are sitting in your back yard both looking at a 'thing', say a tree for the purpose of this example.I point you to the tree and ask,where does the tree end,what is it's boundrary that defines it from it's surrounds,ie everything else.

-You'd probably say something like ,well the tree ends at the edges of it's trunk leaves etc.Thats the normal way to define a 'tree'
-If we dug the ground around it we'd find the roots, bacteria on it's roots etc.Are they part of the 'tree'?
-If we had an infrared device handy we could point it at the tree and see heat extend out.Is that part of the 'tree'?
-If we had a meter to detect oxygen emmitted from tree we could see that the tree extends in that regard too.How far-out to the troposphere?

I could go on but I'm sure you're starting to get the gist.Where does this thing we call a tree start and finish?It depends on mans perception to define it.

I defy you to tell me EXACTLY where a 'trees' boundarys are objectively;ex-antropomorphically.Not some sort of consensus we could agree amongst ourselves, but the Reality of the 'tree'.

All 'things' are like the tree.No inherent existence.

Would this not make the scientific endeavour pointless?

Well from whose perspective?Certainly not the scientist. ;D

Hasn't the progress made using the scientific method suggested that there is an underlying objective reality that may, or may not, be discernible with our limited senses and perception?

No,science has provided an empirical reality, a type of consensus reality.It's not objective Reality.

It doesn't make it 'objective' it just means it's a reality scientist can agree upon(sometimes).As with evolution.For mans purposes evolution is true. It's not inherently true.It's not describing inherently existent objects.There aren't any!

If you want to argue that empirical reality and actual reality are the same your entitled to.But I'm warning you I could put up a mighty good fight.


The great sage Donovan ;D even put it to song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG4Hj7FsYqo

Bet you guys didn't expect the answer to "Life,the Universe and Everything" to be in a chorus line of a Donovan song . And it wasn't even '42'

Now you just got to work out what he meant.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

No,science has provided an empirical reality, a type of consensus reality.It's not objective Reality.

It doesn't make it 'objective' it just means it's a reality scientist can agree upon(sometimes).As with evolution.For mans purposes evolution is true. It's not inherently true.It's not describing inherently existent objects.There aren't any!

If you want to argue that empirical reality and actual reality are the same your entitled to.But I'm warning you I could put up a mighty good fight.

I am not ignoring the first points you make in your post, I understand what you are saying, but I wanted to explore the quoted area in a bit more detail.

In my previous post I suggested that the scientific process supported the idea of an objective reality...I didn't state that it revealed that reality. The fact that the empirical evidence and the consensus of the scientists involved converge, suggest that there are objective laws that make up the universe that we inhabit. I agree with you that empirical reality is not the same as an objective reality...but a statistical approximation with a mathematically defined likelihood of being correct. The question I ask is that the fact that the empirical evidence does agree, suggests that an objective reality does exist and that we are only limited by our senses and biases of perception in discerning that reality. I would argue that the ability of science to determine confidence values in its theories and the proven track record in the predictive powers of these theories suggests that there are underlying laws that we can approximate, often with very high accuracy.

I have some other thoughts on the topic, but I might leave it there for now and think about your response. Like I said, I haven't read much in this area so I am just whipping this off the top of my head and won't be surprised at all if you point out the deep flaws in my logic (such as the idea that reality is in essence subjective, and thus if we can't 'know' objective reality it can't really exist - if that makes any sense).

 

[evo]

In my previous post I suggested that the scientific process supported the idea of an objective reality...I didn't state that it revealed that reality.

Fair enough,but it is implicit in statements made by scientists who are also physicalists.(which is pretty much all of them)

Do you believe the following statment is correct? "Given enough time,ingenuity and investigation;man using science will be able to discern Reality"


If so then I would hasten to point out to you that:

Science can't prove science is true.It's an essential concept,lost on most scientists,ironicallyand also laymen in the grip of scientism.

Statements you make about 'objectivity', are metaphysical,epistemological or ontological statements.They aren't sciencentific statements,they are philosopshical ones.

The Matrix is actually quite a useful movie to think about Reality.It was badly made but it used quite alot of important philosophical concepts including Plato's cave alegory.

Science is always operating "within the Matrix" thats all it ever can do.Philosphy gets you out,it can talk ABOUT the matrix,possibly some mathematics can too(it's hard to 'know')

The fact that the empirical evidence and the consensus of the scientists involved converge, suggest that there are objective laws that make up the universe that we inhabit.

Sometimes they converge obviously.Not always though.Prove string theory to me empirically.Can it even be proven empirically? As far as I can tell it can't.

Mathematics is a system built around logic,which obviously I support.But it is also an abstract practice.A practise performed by humans.

Another question.Do you believe,say,the number "3" really exists?- ex human.Does "3" mean anything 'out there'?

I agree with you that empirical reality is not the same as an objective reality...but a statistical approximation with a mathematically defined likelihood of being correct.

So, a bet each way

Science is objective,but not REALLY objective.

The question I ask is that the fact that the empirical evidence does agree, suggests that an objective reality does exist and that we are only limited by our senses and biases of perception in discerning that reality.

My answer to that is again, no."Empirical evidence" is talking about 'things' that don't inherently exist.

I would argue that the ability of science to determine confidence values in its theories and the proven track record in the predictive powers of these theories suggests that there are underlying laws that we can approximate, often with very high accuracy.

Approximate.Again you are hedging.Seems to me you aren't so certain of this objectivity.You are right to be uncertain.

BTW i just gave you the solution to "Life the Universe and Everything"(I was being serious if you were wondering) and you didn't even enquire about it.Typical scientist.

 

[1eyedtiger]

Re: Christianity

It's a problem though, isn't it.

"1's and 0's " aren't physical things-they are symbols,bits of information,abstract.By your definition of only the physical existing then 1,0 can't be said to exist.

If we take it back to the person,then 1 and 0's are like 'ideas'

Are 'ideas' a physical thing in your opinion?

If the floppy disk was say burnt and it shrivelled up would you still consider those 1,0's would still go on existing after the life of the floppy disk?

I'm not sure how newer flash memory works but the older floppy disks contained information using magnetic fields. The magnetic field that indicates whether a particular bit is a 1 or a 0 physically exists. This is a little off the track though. The point I was trying to make was that information can be stored within a medium without adding any significant mass to the medium.

You asked why neurologists can't see or measure the soul and if ideas in your head are a physical thing. Very little is known about how the human brain works therefore most theories are just that, theories. I believe that information is stored in the brain as neuron states (connections and disconnections, etc) and therefore add very little (if any) mass to the brain. Any added mass is probably incredibly small and can't be measured with today's equipment. To see or measure the soul, you first have to find it. Since not much is known about the brain, a neurologist would have no idea of what he/she is actually measuring. How would you measure it's mass unless you could isolate it and separate it from the rest of the brain anyway?

If the floppy disk is burnt or shriveled, the information is highly likely to be destroyed. This highlights the problem of my theory that the information requires a medium to reside in. Maybe the soul can adapt and reside in many different mediums. If you believe in reincarnation, can you remember anything of your past lives?

 

[evo]

Re: Christianity

I'm not sure how newer flash memory works but the older floppy disks contained information using magnetic fields. The magnetic field that indicates whether a particular bit is a 1 or a 0 physically exists. This is a little off the track though. The point I was trying to make was that information can be stored within a medium without adding any significant mass to the medium.

Yes fair enough.The computer is actually a very useful analogy to talk about this type of stuff.

You asked why neurologists can't see or measure the soul and if ideas in your head are a physical thing. Very little is known about how the human brain works therefore most theories are just that, theories. I believe that information is stored in the brain as neuron states (connections and disconnections, etc) and therefore add very little (if any) mass to the brain.

To my way of thinking 'ideas' or 'thoughts' add no mass.They are not a physical thing.They are OF the brain, rather than a thing IN the brain.They are mental,rather than physical.And the same would apply to a 'soul'(assuming it existed)

But this raises an interesting problem.As curtis bear said, Descartes was the first to really consider this.How does an 'idea' (a non-physical thing) cause a physical thing(say you arm) to move?

Ussualy only physical things can cause a movement in other things.Like a billiard ball hitting another.

"Houston,we have a problem"

Any added mass is probably incredibly small and can't be measured with today's equipment. To see or measure the soul, you first have to find it. Since not much is known about the brain, a neurologist would have no idea of what he/she is actually measuring. How would you measure it's mass unless you could isolate it and separate it from the rest of the brain anyway?

Not only can't a neurologist see a 'soul' he can't see a 'thought' either-a neurologist can only see a physical manifistation of a thought,a neuron firing.So we can say,neither a soul or a thought are physical things.

If the floppy disk is burnt or shriveled, the information is highly likely to be destroyed. This highlights the problem of my theory that the information requires a medium to reside in. Maybe the soul can adapt and reside in many different mediums. If you believe in reincarnation, can you remember anything of your past lives?

I don't believe in literal re-incarnation like say a Tibetan Buddhist does,but I think it's still a useful way to look other stuff.

For example,just say heaven forbid, you were to drop dead in the next few minutes,your post and your thoughts would still 'exist',they would be be on PRE, still able to be read.In a weird way 'you' have continued to live past your mortal life.

 

[1eyedtiger]

I'm not sure whether I believe in reincarnation or not but I do believe that souls exist and that we live past physical death. At this point in time, I hope that my soul's not coming back to this s**thole of a planet and instead moves on to another dimension or whatever. As I've said on the atheism thread, what I believe is of no real consequence. When I die, if there is nothing then I won't know but at least I'll feel better in the meantime while I sit around here and wait for the inevitable.

 

[Dyer'ere]

What's the difference between a wave and a tree, evo? Or a knot and a tree? Or the number three and a knot.

Can I smell a fart? This is a philosophical question BTW. It's pretty clear in here right now. For a change.

 

[evo]

What's the difference between a wave and a tree, evo?

The difference is in the 'eye of the beholder'.Without consciousness, there is no difference.

. Or a knot and a tree?

As above.

Or the number three and a knot.

Depends which way you use the number three.

Can I smell a fart?

Youi tell me,can you?I can.

If a fart was left in an elevator but theres no-one there to smell it -did it stink? ;D

 

[1eyedtiger]

If a fart was left in an elevator but theres no-one there to smell it -did it stink? ;D

If it was one of my farts, it probably did stink. :hihi

 

[Dyer'ere]

The difference is in the 'eye of the beholder'.Without consciousness, there is no difference.As above.

What about another person, that is - another consciousness? Do they exist if I am not conscious of them?

 

[1eyedtiger]

What about another person, that is - another consciousness? Do they exist if I am not conscious of them?

Everything that exists, exists. Whether or not you are conscious of the existence of everything makes no difference.
I'm sure there are plenty of conscious beings that are not aware of your or my existence, but we still exist nevertheless.

 

[evo]

What about another person, that is - another consciousness? Do they exist if I am not conscious of them?

If you're not conscious of this hypothetical person how can they have existence,to you?

It's like me asking you: Does the hypothetical unicorn I'm not aware of exist?

People exist,I just saw one 5 minutes ago in the next room.They just don't inherently exist.

 

[evo]

Everything that exists, exists. Whether or not you are conscious of the existence of everything makes no difference.

Are you sure?

I'm sure there are plenty of conscious beings that are not aware of your or my existence, but we still exist nevertheless.

You know you exist,I don't.I've never met you.Someone is writing the '1 eyedtigers' posts I'll assume that is a person fro pratical puposes.I don't 'know' though.

Dyer'ere seems to exist, I saw him in a pub once.Well i hope he exists,he owes me a beer!

 

[Dyer'ere]

Everything that exists, exists. Whether or not you are conscious of the existence of everything makes no difference.
I'm sure there are plenty of conscious beings that are not aware of your or my existence, but we still exist nevertheless.

Fair enough 1 eyed. I understand (roughly) your view on the nature of existence. Your post above is not controversial.

If you're not conscious of this hypothetical person how can they have existence,to you?

It's like me asking you: Does the hypothetical unicorn I'm not aware of exist?

People exist,I just saw one 5 minutes ago in the next room.They just don't inherently exist.

First let me clarify that I don't owe you any beer until clean knees plays eleven more AFL games.

Hypothetical unicorns? Maybe.

Here's what I'm trying to winkle:

A human is inherently trapped in his/her own consciousness. And obviously all the knowledge, sensation etc of that individual is predicated on that consciousness.

I think I understand your position on this and I don't find it controversial.

What I'm suggesting is that we have an intuition that (for example Mum) has a different ontological status to a knot.

I believe that no knot exists if there is no consciousness around to perceive/interpret it. But I believe that Mum exists if I am not around to perceive her. Because I have taken the step of belief that other consciousnesses exist outside my own. It's my religion.

Does your theory allow for any substantive difference between knots and mothers?

 

[evo]

A human is inherently trapped in his/her own consciousness. And obviously all the knowledge, sensation etc of that individual is predicated on that consciousness.

Yes,we are in complete agreement there.

What I'm suggesting is that we have an intuition that (for example Mum) has a different ontological status to a knot.

I don't see why your mother would.You've agreed that it's your consciousness that discerns the difference between 'knot' and the rest of the tree.Why not 'mum' and 'rest of the world'

If a knot doesn't exist when you're not around to discern it,then neither does a mum.

It can be put in just about the simplest logical formual there is,the law of indentity.

A=not(-A)....Mum=not(all the things you've discerned that are not her)ie. the chairs she's sitting on,the cup she's holding,the air around her.


The wave is a good example.Q:When you look at a wave,where does the wave start and the sea end?A:Where you decide.

How does assuming, or knowing if you like, that your mum is conscious (like you) change her ontological status, to you?

I believe that no knot exists if there is no consciousness around to perceive/interpret it. But I believe that Mum exists if I am not around to perceive her. Because I have taken the step of belief that other consciousnesses exist outside my own. It's my religion.

Yes,and my position is it's a step too far.

My position put simply is thus :We all live in a seperate world,and the only world you can ever know,is your own.
From an ontological standpoint,how you view your mum is not contingent on how,or whether she can view you.

Why does conscious 'things' get special status in your Weltanschauung.What do you do when considering a monkey,a dog, or a mollusc? Where do you draw the line?

Does your theory allow for any substantive difference between knots and mothers?

At bottom,nein.They are all 'things'

 

[Dyer'ere]

I'll chillax on that for now, evo.

How does assuming, or knowing if you like, that your mum is conscious (like you) change her ontological status, to you?

That's the bit I'm liking ATM. "...or knowing..."

 

[Dyer'ere]

Yes,we are in complete agreement there.
I don't see why your mother would.You've agreed that it's your consciousness that discerns the difference between 'knot' and the rest of the tree.Why not 'mum' and 'rest of the world'

It can be put in just about the simplest logical formual there is,the law of indentity. A=not(-A)

How does assuming, or knowing if you like, that your mum is conscious (like you) change her ontological status, to you?
Yes,and my position is it's a step too far.

My position put simply is thus :We all live in a seperate world,and the only world you can ever know,is your own.
From an ontological standpoint,how you view your mum is not contingent on how,or whether she can view you.

Why does conscious 'things' get special status in your Weltanschauung.What do you do when considering a monkey,a dog, or a mollusc? Where do you draw the line?At bottom,nein.They are all 'things'

Chillaxed enough now.

As it is I don't disagree with the logic of your case as I understand it (and there's nothing in our corre so far to suggest that I don't understand it).

I reckon that the argument as I put it is part of a proof that science is essentially a religion. Sure it is a logical system but it's based on at least one step of faith. (CBF the proof.)

On the difference in ontological status between a knot and a conscious being, it's the existence of other beings that allows for the possibility of wrongness (among other things).

One of the central tenets of the Dividing Church of Skepticism (I'm loyal) is that I can be wrong.

If there is no absolute how can I ever be wrong? Other consciousnesses can show me that I'm wrong.

But how can I be sure that other consciousnesses exist? I take the step of faith every second (without knowing it or at least without considering it).

So If you can show me that I'm wrong do you disprove your own argument thus showing me that I'm right? ;D I guess knot.

 

[evo]

Chillaxed enough now.

As it is I don't disagree with the logic of your case as I understand it (and there's nothing in our corre so far to suggest that I don't understand it).

I reckon that the argument as I put it is part of a proof that science is essentially a religion. Sure it is a logical system but it's based on at least one step of faith. (CBF the proof.)

Yes,science is a type of religion,I completely agree.There are articles of faith inherent in its pursuit.

On the difference in ontological status between a knot and a conscious being, it's the existence of other beings that allows for the possibility of wrongness (among other things).

On the subject of 'things', you can never be wrong.Where you decide "wave" IS,then that's where it is.

I realise it sounds ludicrous on face value,it took me a while to come to terms with it myself.

One of the central tenets of the Dividing Church of Skepticism (I'm loyal) is that I can be wrong.

Skepticism is the best start point to think about all this.

Descartes,Kant et al where on the right track.Start from the postion "I know nothing", then work your way up from there....."What can I know?"

If there is no absolute how can I ever be wrong? Other consciousnesses can show me that I'm wrong

.

Well i maintain there are absolutes."I think, therefore I am" is an absolute.

Other consciousnesses can only tell you are wrong about empirical facts."Richo kicked more goals last season than Steamer"--if you say otherwise, you are empirically incorrect.

But how can I be sure that other consciousnesses exist? I take the step of faith every second (without knowing it or at least without considering it).

That's right.And you do the same thing when you assume a 'mum' exists,when you are not there to view her.You just assume it,because it is pratical to do so.

However,it is not absolutely true.

So If you can show me that I'm wrong do you disprove your own argument thus showing me that I'm right? ;D I guess knot.

No,there are absolutes.A=A is another one.It's the starting point of all philosophy.

Ironically, the relativist disproves his own position:"There is no absolute truth" (apart from the statement I just made.)

 

[dukeos]

What does it matter if you exist, a tree exists blah blah blah. If we ever prove existance or not, will anything change.

Philosophy has its place, and has contributed to Science, Politics ect. This however, should be under the game for a laugh section.