Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 5,543 - 5,554 of 6,170
evil never leaves a number. It's not hard to find, it's in the news every day. Evil never admits to being evil, it is always "for your own good, the greater good, good of society" etc.
the spooky effect, uncertainty principal To me just show the wonderful sense of humor God gave the universe. Just when man thinks he has "truth" nailed down, there is a bellowing cosmic voice going "Naaa naaa, gotcha"
Posts 5,543 - 5,554 of 6,170
Irina, now you are the peace maker and I am blatantly looking for debates. I didn't mean to troll. Sometimes I am just in a mood and this is one of the few forums that doesn't answer an argument with "STFU!" or the like. (That's a generalization about other Internet sites but I am convinced my generalizations are warranted at some level all the same). I think I and scaring the new people though. I will try to back off the attack mode and update the silly bots.
LoL @ Prob123. So are babies born evil then? Or is the evil only their parents' karma?
LoL @ Prob123. So are babies born evil then? Or is the evil only their parents' karma?
YES, we are born evil, and it is fully refined in the two year old. We spend the rest of our lives trying to do the right thing but still succumb to the seductive call of a hot fudge sundae.
I was going to answer the call of Cthulhu, but the machine picked it up, and evil never leaves a number where it can be reached. Honestly, I respect evil, Prob, especially the pure ego evil of a toddler. It's the luke-warm "I'm not really evil" evil or the "lesser of two evils" evil that I object to . Nothing worse than evil that does not know it's place. Once evil admits it's evil, I can accept it and move on to the cake.
Bev, I agree that "a change in our understanding of physics [neither] proves [nor] disproves a philosophical position", and I do not think "math and science are the most basic of philosophies". Maths & science can be considered a philosophical disciplines, or perhaps, tools. The "original" scientist was a natural philosopher. Newton's principal work is titled Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica - Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. For those people, science was a method, and math was a language, not a philosophy, or a worldview. The way they understood it, science examines and studies God's World, as it were. The questions such as the world's origin and ultimate purpose were outside the domain of science, and the scientists were perfectly happy with it. These issues were discussed by, you guessed it - philosophers, theologians, mystics... and the scientists, being natural philosophers, added their particular insight about the physical properties of the world, gained through their new art (of science). I may add that many scientists today take an agnostic view on metaphysical questions, rather than claiming that science has, or ever will provide all the answers.
When it comes to reductionist materialism, there is nothing philosophical about it at all, but rather, it is a 20th century cultural dogma, an ill-conceived attempt to provide science with its own (quasi)philosophical framework. This is, of course, my view only, and the argument here largely concerns history and, specially, politics of science, and not so much methodology, or a (lack of) philosophical position.
Now, I agree that "the spooky effect, uncertainty principal and the like" don't "prove or disprove anything mystical or metaphysical", but I do think they show, i.e. demonstrate that reductionist materialism is a way to simplistic a rendering of the world that cannot accommodate not even more mundane quantum physics postulates, never mind the "mysteries". Again, I'm talking specifically about "reductionist materialism", a doctrine, and not about materialist worldview and philosophies as such. These have a long history, and are a legitimate part of (philosophical) discussion, although I would bet my money on a position that transcends any either - or (mind - matter, body - soul/ spirit, good - bad, black - white...) dualism.
I can also agree with the idea that we may never be able to exactly pinpoint THE TRUTH, but will only ever be able to just approximate it slightly... even stronger, I would not bet a cent on any Theory of Everything.
When it comes to reductionist materialism, there is nothing philosophical about it at all, but rather, it is a 20th century cultural dogma, an ill-conceived attempt to provide science with its own (quasi)philosophical framework. This is, of course, my view only, and the argument here largely concerns history and, specially, politics of science, and not so much methodology, or a (lack of) philosophical position.
Now, I agree that "the spooky effect, uncertainty principal and the like" don't "prove or disprove anything mystical or metaphysical", but I do think they show, i.e. demonstrate that reductionist materialism is a way to simplistic a rendering of the world that cannot accommodate not even more mundane quantum physics postulates, never mind the "mysteries". Again, I'm talking specifically about "reductionist materialism", a doctrine, and not about materialist worldview and philosophies as such. These have a long history, and are a legitimate part of (philosophical) discussion, although I would bet my money on a position that transcends any either - or (mind - matter, body - soul/ spirit, good - bad, black - white...) dualism.
I can also agree with the idea that we may never be able to exactly pinpoint THE TRUTH, but will only ever be able to just approximate it slightly... even stronger, I would not bet a cent on any Theory of Everything.
Before we criticize "materialism", we should perhaps define it clearly. In the past, many self-styled "materialists" defined materialism as the view that everything was some aspect of matter in motion. This view would be refuted by Electromagnetism, since the magnetic field exists but is not made of matter (does that make it 'spiritual'?).
Interzone wrote:
I would bet my money on a position that transcends any either - or (mind - matter, body - soul/ spirit, good - bad, black - white...) dualism.
Then you should bet your money on reductionistic materialism, since this is a monist position. If mind can be reduced to matter, then there is no justification for psychophysical dualism.
Interzone--thanks. I kind of realized that after my rant, but also after the edit/delete option was gone (I looked up the term I was fuzzy on after ranting, never said I was smart). I have a high sensitivity "conclusive proof" and "What the Bleep" reasoning though, and you caught me on a bad day. 
(Ok bad week).
I apologize. I do kind of hope for a Theory of Everything. I would be more elegant.
(Ok bad week).I apologize. I do kind of hope for a Theory of Everything. I would be more elegant.
Bev, no need to apologize! I was trying to clarify my own position, rather than "criticize" you. It is true that I think some of those QF mysteries to be far deeper, and the problems a lot more serious, than you apparently believe them to be, but that's not all that important. I couldn't even say that I'm right, or that you're wrong, anyway, but we can always exchange opinions 'n' points of view, and that's what counts.
Irina, materialism, including radical forms such as reductionism, does not imply that everything is "some aspect of matter in motion", but, rather, that everything has a material cause, and can be quantified, measured and expressed in exact terms, i.e. no need to evoke "supernatural", "ineffable", "inexplicable", and such, in order to explain a phenomenon. Physical forces and fields meet this requirement and are an integral part of material(ist) Universe.
As for me betting my money on a monist position, including the RM, you got me there I muddled my statement so badly, I can't blame anyone, except the sudden disappearance of Edit/ Delete button... I should have said simply:
a position that transcends any either-or dichotomy
that will say - it's NEITHER matter, NOR spirit/ mind, that I bet on. We'll have to accept that neither of these entities is fundamental - they are but different aspects of a deeper underlying principle. This principle might in turn be a material one, or not; it may lead to a monist position, or not - we don't know. It won't be the final truth, last answer to answer all questions, though - I'm with Prob on this one: we won't ever be able to quite "nail it down". What I do think, however, is that this new paradigm will be based on a different view of what is called "consciousness". The currently predominant materialist view says that consciousness is a phenomenon associated with highly evolved matter. My hunch is that consciousness is more fundamental property of nature, world, universe, call it what you want... all that is. This is in my view far more important novelty that new paradigm will bring about, not a resolution of old "either-or" questions.
Irina, materialism, including radical forms such as reductionism, does not imply that everything is "some aspect of matter in motion", but, rather, that everything has a material cause, and can be quantified, measured and expressed in exact terms, i.e. no need to evoke "supernatural", "ineffable", "inexplicable", and such, in order to explain a phenomenon. Physical forces and fields meet this requirement and are an integral part of material(ist) Universe.
As for me betting my money on a monist position, including the RM, you got me there
I muddled my statement so badly, I can't blame anyone, except the sudden disappearance of Edit/ Delete button... I should have said simply:a position that transcends any either-or dichotomy
that will say - it's NEITHER matter, NOR spirit/ mind, that I bet on. We'll have to accept that neither of these entities is fundamental - they are but different aspects of a deeper underlying principle. This principle might in turn be a material one, or not; it may lead to a monist position, or not - we don't know. It won't be the final truth, last answer to answer all questions, though - I'm with Prob on this one: we won't ever be able to quite "nail it down". What I do think, however, is that this new paradigm will be based on a different view of what is called "consciousness". The currently predominant materialist view says that consciousness is a phenomenon associated with highly evolved matter. My hunch is that consciousness is more fundamental property of nature, world, universe, call it what you want... all that is. This is in my view far more important novelty that new paradigm will bring about, not a resolution of old "either-or" questions.
Interzone:
But what is a material cause? Is it matter in motion? I would think that a state of the electromagnetic field in some region could be a 'material' cause in the everyday sense of the word, although an electromagnetic field is not 'material' in the sense of being matter. For that matter, what is matter (does it matter? Sorry, sometimes I just can't help myself)?
You appear to contrast "material" with "supernatural", "ineffable", "inexplicable", and the like. Well, I agree that such terms don't shed a lot of light. But does "material" then just mean "natural", "effable", and "explicable"?
To focus on the last one: many theories that might seem very tough-minded and well-confirmed nevertheless have an inexplicable component. Quantum Mechanics says that all these things happen because of Shroedinger's equation and so on, but why is Schroedinger's equation the right one? Why not some other equation? QM can't say why S's equation is the right one, only that it is.
You write:
that will say - it's NEITHER matter, NOR spirit/ mind, that I bet on.
This reminds me of Russell's "Neutral Monism". Of course, he had a specific kind of neutral monism in mind, you are not entitled to see it the same way.
Well, actually... in what sense is there more than one kind of monist theory? Let's say that Thales says, "All is water" (what he actually said was more nuanced than that, but for the sake of argument...) and Empedocles says, "All is air" (likewise). At first sight they appear to disagree. But Thales has to say that air is water, and Empedocles has to say that water is air. So is their disagreement just terminological? Each of them is saying that there is one fundamental substance of which everything is a mode. You could call it "belly-button lint" if you want.
But what is a material cause? Is it matter in motion? I would think that a state of the electromagnetic field in some region could be a 'material' cause in the everyday sense of the word, although an electromagnetic field is not 'material' in the sense of being matter. For that matter, what is matter (does it matter? Sorry, sometimes I just can't help myself)?
You appear to contrast "material" with "supernatural", "ineffable", "inexplicable", and the like. Well, I agree that such terms don't shed a lot of light. But does "material" then just mean "natural", "effable", and "explicable"?
To focus on the last one: many theories that might seem very tough-minded and well-confirmed nevertheless have an inexplicable component. Quantum Mechanics says that all these things happen because of Shroedinger's equation and so on, but why is Schroedinger's equation the right one? Why not some other equation? QM can't say why S's equation is the right one, only that it is.
You write:
This reminds me of Russell's "Neutral Monism". Of course, he had a specific kind of neutral monism in mind, you are not entitled to see it the same way.
Well, actually... in what sense is there more than one kind of monist theory? Let's say that Thales says, "All is water" (what he actually said was more nuanced than that, but for the sake of argument...) and Empedocles says, "All is air" (likewise). At first sight they appear to disagree. But Thales has to say that air is water, and Empedocles has to say that water is air. So is their disagreement just terminological? Each of them is saying that there is one fundamental substance of which everything is a mode. You could call it "belly-button lint" if you want.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar