|
A Debate - Part 2 |
|
The following is a series of exchanges that took place on "The Fray" user discussion forum on Slate On-line magazine at http://www.slate.com. The numbers at the beginning of each "post" indicate the sequential order of the posts in this thread. I (Jeff Richardson) used the moniker "jeremiad" during this discussion.
1205. AlexKhan - December 3, 1996 A query regarding history of philosophy. My education in philosophy stopped with Kant; so I have never heard of the Verifiability Criterion of Meaning. What is the difference between this rather ugly term and what Hume had to say in Section 4, Part 1 of An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding.
* 1210. jeremiad - December 3, 1996 Charniak, Eugene and McDermott, Drew, Introduction to Artificial Intelligence Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts, 1985. Evans, Christopher, The Micro Millennium Washington Square Press, New York, 1979. Letovsky, Stanley, "Ecclesiastes: A Report from the Battlefields of the Mind-Body Problem," AI Magazine (Fall 1987). Rose, Frank, Into the Heart of the Mind Harper & Row, Publishers, New York, 1984. Schallk, Roger C., The Cognitive Computer Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts, 1984. Sowa, J.F., Conceptual Structures: Information Processing in Mind and Machine Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts, 1984. In addition to these publications, I subscribe to the IEEE Journal of Artificial Intelligence and peruse this quarterly.
* 1211. jeremiad - December 3, 1996 Look, how many times are you going to evade this issue? You have presented a position: that the existence of real reason and logic can be explained with nothing more than the biochemical processes in the human brain. I am asking you to defend this position. What that means is you have to show logically why it is consistent (this means that your conclusion follows from your premises) for a person to believe that reason has _real_ meaning. When I use the word "meaning" I mean something that has objective "truth" to it - something that is true everywhere at all times. I don't know how much clearer I can ask this question. I continue to reference you to my previous posts that have given cogent, sound arguments as to why radical materialism (this is the belief that nothing exists except matter - that the universe is ontologically monistic) is internally incoherent.
1212. mnjperry - December 3, 1996 My belief in the right to life comes from my experiences as a human being. I don't consider this ludicrous. Do you believe the Jews Hitler killed *didn't* have a right to life?
* 1213. jeremiad - December 3, 1996 You state, "My belief in the right to life comes from my experiences as a human being. I don't consider this ludicrous." You make my point. You _don't_ consider it ludicrous to believe a human being has a right to life. Where did this belief come from? How do you defend it logically? Are _you_ saying that experience justifies belief? Are you saying that a person's experience - if it is representative of the bulk of human experience - is a basis for belief? If so, why are you an atheist? You're just going to have to defend your position or admit that you can't.
* 1215. AlexKhan - December 3, 1996 If you are going to engage in philosophical discussion, as opposed to a species of political sophistry, then you are going to have to do better than you do here or leave this thread. The experience of life as the source of belief in the right to life is meaningless. It has no objective validity, i.e., it cannot be held to be true universally, supra-historically and ubiquitously. It allows for and invites moral relativism. It cannot justify itself against another's experience, and there can be no adjudication among the variety of personal experiences. How do figure Hitler's personal experience was less valid than yours? Yes, I obviously do feel that those Jews had the right to life. But as a rational and honest agnostic, I don't know why I think the Jews had that right. It's probably arbitrary and sentimental. This admission sharply contrasts with your philosophical pretense.
1216. jeremiad - December 3, 1996 The corresponding "ideas" would be that particular type of color or sound or mood as remembered or anticipated, rather than as directly undergone. What is not such a faint copy of an impression or group of impressions is not an idea properly speaking, and so a word or a phrase purporting to convey it does not have real significance. Whenever we come across a term with a puzzling meaning, we may ask, "From which impression is this idea derived?" and if it turns out that it is derived from no such impression or item of experience (or if it is not a complex "idea" put together from such "impressions"), we may properly dismiss it as meaningless. (See David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, Part I, Section I; Part II, Section V; Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section II.) Now, we have no impression of the relation of cause and effect; for example, we do not directly perceive the impact of one billiard ball on another imparting motion to that other, but only the impact followed by the motion. The often-repeated sequence consisting of impression of type A followed by impression of type B-say, the experience as of a brick striking a window followed by the experience as of a window being shattered-leads us confidently, and as it happens always correctly, to expect the latter after the former; this leads us to say that the former "causes" the latter. This kind of thinking is basic - and I think, along with Kantian philosophy, raises some real issues.
* 1217. jeremiad - December 3, 1996 The VCM, on the other hand, jumps several notches up the epistemological ladder and says nothing of how we come to know reality - it presumes that our senses tell us something about "real things" - quite different from Kant. It also tells us real things about these real things - quite different from Hume. In essence, the VCM presumes the reliability of the senses, the synthetic a priori belief in reason and logic, and the veridity of intellect. Because it builds on so many faulty premises, it falls quickly - unlike Hume's and Kant's philosophies of meaning.
1218. mnjperry - December 3, 1996 I'm not sure what it means to say that reason is or is not "true." Reason is a mental process that produces answers that seem right to us and that allow us to interact with the world in ways we consider successful and desirable. This is the only sense in which I understand it to be "true." I don't see why it is necessary to logically prove that it's true in this sense always and everywhere in order to coherently maintain that it is a product solely of our biological brains. In fact, I don't see the relationship at all. Reason may sometimes fail us, but it would still be a product of our biological brains.
* 1219. jeremiad - December 3, 1996 You still just don't get it, do you? If your brain is all there is - if Reason and Logic don't exist beyond the confines of your skull - then there are no claims to any real knowledge at all. AlexKhan has correctly (in one sense, anyway) described the logical conclusion to which you must end: that any claim to knowledge based on reason or logic is really just the relative reaction of chemicals in your skull. This means that Reason and logic _don't_ exist as real things, but only as cause-and-effect reactions in your brain. Thus, you have no basis on which to make any value judgments for anyone but yourself. Therefore, Hitler, as AlexKhan pointed out, has just as much "reason and logic" on which to base his genocide as you have to base you disdain for such actions. Neither position is, in reality, "reasonable" or "logical" because these are not, in your view, universals anyway. As I stated in my first or second post, you are then reduced to chemical determinism. Any claims you attempt to make about right or wrong, logical or illogical are pointless for anyone but you. I am under no epistemic weight to regard anything you say. Because the reason that is produced by the chemical reactions in my skull are just as valid as those inside of yours. Explain why this is not so.
* 1220. jeremiad - December 3, 1996 Let me also add that you are lumping together two radically different ideas about reason. First, you have the reason we use to investigate our universe. This intellectual capacity allows us to formulate patterns in nature by which we predict future actions. But beyond this, there are the blatantly obvious moral patterns we see in the world. These cannot be proven or disproved. Nonetheless, we know that it is immoral to systematically execute millions of people. Alluding to your earlier references to AI, let me present a scenario to you. If we construct a machine that has consciousness, and then program it to systematically kill innocent human beings, will its consciousness produce the self-evident knowledge that such action is wrong? No. There is no reason to conclude this. However, if we program into the consciousness of the machine a respect for human life, there will arise within the machine an internal conflict in its "desires". But what have we presupposed here? The actions of a programmer to provide the machine with a sense of "right" and "wrong" - rudimentary though it be. If brains are all there are, then we might construct an argument from evolutionary biology as to why one may or may not kill. However, since consciousness now allows human beings to actually "reason" about our instincts, why should we not rise above our "evolutionary programming" are act based on our "moral will" - examples of people who have done this include Hitler, Stalin, J. Dahmer, Jack the Ripper, Charles Manson, etc. These people may have simply overcome their evolutionary programming (if such programming is the basis for an argument against murder) to act as they saw "reason and logic" leading them to act.
1224. atheistatpeace - December 3, 1996 Would discussing the psychological barriers to discovering and invoking a supernatural be worthwhile? AAP
* 1225. jeremiad - December 3, 1996 Having said this, I think your statement about religious people is one-sided. To state that "for many" people religion is a "happy drug" is a gross generalization that simply doesn't bear up under scrutiny. We must be careful about bigotry - it is the enemy of sound reason and productive discourse. This doesn't mean some haven't accepted religion without thinking. I think this occurs along with people rejecting religion without thinking. I believe the proportion of people assuming religion compared to that proportion assuming atheism is telling of human nature, though. We must be careful here to admit we are all products to one degree or another of our conditioning. There is no such thing as "objective" conditioning. We are all biased one way or the other. The test is whether we can overcome our bias with reason. It is all too easy to dismiss those who disagree with us by insulting them or stereotyping them based on pre-judged generalizations. I caution against such error.
1226. mnjperry - December 3, 1996 Well, yes, as I said, reason and logic are mental processes that we find useful in answering questions and in interacting with the world. Yes, they are the product only of "cause-and-effect reactions in our brains," as far as we can tell. If you want to say this means they are not "real" or "meaningful," fine. I consider them real and meaningful because I experience them and because they are useful to me in living my life. And no, I still don't get why you think any of this means that there must be something more to reason, logic, emotion, or any other mental phenomenon than our physical brains. I think the reason I don't get this is because, despite all your bluster, you have not provided any serious argument to support that proposition.
* 1227. mnjperry - December 3, 1996 You got it, in essence. My moral sense is no more inherently valid than yours or anyone else's. So what? Why do you find this view so hard to accept? It is the fundamental basis of democracy. Our government recognizes no moral authority other than that of each individual citizen expressed through his vote. If you think this is "self-contradictory" or "incoherent" please explain why you think this is so.
1228. mnjperry - December 3, 1996 We can construct arguments from evolutionary biology to explain both why people kill and why they refrain from doing so. Again, we are only just beginning to understand the role our genes play in shaping our moral sense and actions. I don't think we yet have any good understanding of why some people behave like Jeffrey Dahmer and others like Mother Teresa, although we have identified certain environmental factors that seem to have a powerful influence over moral behavior.
* 1229. jeremiad - December 3, 1996 I won't state this again: the burden of proof is now on you. Demonstrate logically why your belief meets the criteria of acceptable hypotheses: (1) adequacy - does it explain the evidence (2) internal coherence - do its premises logically connect with its conclusions (3) external coherence - do its conclusions agree with the widely accepted body of knowledge (4) fruitfulness - does it lead to further productive inquiry You keep accusing me of not making my point, yet as I review my posts, I see the structure of the argument restated several times. Are the words I'm using too big for you to understand? Then, after all these false accusations, you have consistently refused to give any support whatsoever for your position. So, one final time, please logically show why your hypothesis is valid. If you will simply concede that you have no epistemic basis on which to found your belief, we can move on to another discussion.
1230. atheistatpeace - December 3, 1996 I have not much in the way of knowledge about some of the reasoning and discourse that you and the others impart, I am still interested nonetheless. Now this next question may sound absurdly ridiculous but never the less I'll ask it. Hopefully I can get an answer to my previous question in a roundabout sort of way that won't be trivial to Theists. What sort of psychological barriers are there for denouncing a Supernatural? Maybe I actually believe and that is why I am here? AAP -a better name to come soon
* 1233. jeremiad - December 3, 1996 I have a few other references on the psychology of religion and of atheism in particular - but none on-line and I don't have all the titles memorized. If you wish, I'll try to dig them up and email them to you.
* 1231. jeremiad - December 3, 1996 But then you later state, "We can construct arguments from evolutionary biology to explain both why people kill and why they refrain from doing so." Which is it? You then admit that you have no evidence or logic to explain human behavior ("But, harumph," he said with a nod, "We are confident we shall discover these things with adequate time and funding."). So how have you proven your point? You haven't. You keep citing your "belief" and your "speculation" and your "feeling". Come on.
1232. mnjperry - December 3, 1996 Well, your experience of life and the insights it gives you into how you ought to treat others may be meaningless for you, but mine aren't for me. My understanding of the meaning of my experiences and their consequences for my actions does not require that they be experienced in the same way by everyone else, or even by any other single individual. I not only invite but enthusiastically embrace moral relativism because I see no reason to believe in the existence of any moral absolutes, and because I think history has taught us that moral absolutism is dangerous. We adjudicate among our variety of personal experiences by respecting one another's right to hold different opinions and beliefs and to act as individuals as we see fit on the basis of those personal beliefs, except in cases where a majority of us believe that some action must be constrained by law. All of this seems entirely reasonable and coherent to me.
* 1234. jeremiad - December 3, 1996 In your post 1232 to AlexKhan, you state, that we can live "by respecting one another's right to hold different opinions and beliefs and to act as individuals as we see fit on the basis of those personal beliefs, except in cases where a majority of us believe that some action must be constrained by law" Just when I thought you might actually have seen the incoherence of such a statement, you turn right around and make one! Where does the concept of "respecting one another's right" come from? Why should I do this? You then contradict this with your comment about law. Why should any person have the right to limit or constrain another person's relative morality? You ultimately conclude your argument with the appeal to force by stating that a person's beliefs or morality should be constrained by majority rule. Without moral absolutes, such a system is fascism, at best. It basically boils down to might makes right. In such a system, genocide is not immoral at all, is it? Nor is child abuse or murder. You have contradicted yourself so many times by now that I don't plan on responding to any more of your posts until you can actually figure out how to formulate an argument in support of your position. I promise I won't be too critical of your technique, just, please, stop evading the issue.
1235. mnjperry - December 3, 1996 Which set of moral beliefs is it upon which you think all human civilizations agree? The morality of various kinds of killing? Sexual morality? Slavery? The proper role of women? Treatment of the sick or the elderly? Human civilizations have been all over the map on moral issues. Democracy is founded on the belief that the only moral authority that deserves to be recognized is the moral sense of each individual, however that sense is arrived at. It assumes nothing about the existence of natural law, moral constants or moral absolutes. It works only because it accommodates the fact that moral beliefs change. Denying the vote to convicted felons is no more a moral constant or absolute than denying the vote to black people or women. It could change at any time. And I fail to see how my view that our moral sense comes entirely from our physical existence conflicts with the fact that large numbers of people often share common moral beliefs. Sentient creatures with similar physical brains and bodies who grow up and live in similar environments would be expected, in the aggregate, to form similar moral opinions, not radically different ones.
* 1236. jeremiad - December 3, 1996
1237. mnjperry - December 3, 1996 The quality of your posts is deteriorating. The ratio of insults to substantive argument, which has been high from the start, is increasing.
1238. AlexKhan - December 3, 1996 "We adjudicate amoung our variety of personal experiences by respecting one another's right to hold different opinions and beliefs and to act as individuals as we see fit on the basis of those personal beliefs, except in cases where a majority of us believe that some action must be constrained by law." You said there are no moral absolutes. Fine. How have you arrived at your rule for adjudication, which is a moral precept? A rule implies objectivity. And how have you decided to place the conditionality ("except in cases...") clause? At the very least appeal to some utilitarian principle!!! Do anything besides mixing philosophical and purely political modes! You are running around in circles, like some yet unneutered puppy chasing its tail.
* 1239. jeremiad - December 3, 1996 I apologize to the forum for basically blowing off mnjperry's last response, but I hope his/her evasiveness and lack of honest rigor is obvious to someone besides me. If an argument has been presented to support radical materialism, I am more than willing to enjoin a discussion about its merits or the lack thereof. Otherwise, I'm afraid I've nothing left to say to mnjperry on this issue.I believe my previous posts stand on their own merit and he/she has yet to surmount their logic. When you are ready to debate, please let me know. The following are the posts I consider most relevant to this discussion: 978, 983, 984, Message #1068, Message #1073, Message #1127, Message #1129, Message #1132, Message #1133, Message #1134, Message #1143, Message #1144, Message #1148, Message #1159, Message #1160, Message #1161, Message #1162, Message #1199, Message #1200 Some of these are mnjperry's posts. I think a review of these posts will reveal the source of my frustration in this debate. Some of the posts are gone, but can be reviewed at my web site at Is God There?.
1240. AlexKhan - December 3, 1996 184. mnjperry - November 5, 1996 Alexkhan: I don't agree that all rights are merely cultural norms. I accept Jefferson's view that we have certain natural rights simply by virtue of being human. It is the recognition and protection of rights that depends on culture, not their existence........... 185. alexkhan - November 5, 1996 MJNPERRY - Re: #184 - 1) I never said that all rights are merely cultural norms. I have said they are constructions, cultural or other. This would be untrue if such a thing as natural law existed, which cannot be defended unless one believes in God. (Jefferson? Natural law was articulated millenia before Jefferson.) The freedom of religion? Where does one get that out of? The Milky Way? I dare you to defend your natural law proposition, or even to offer a coherent paradigm of rights and freedoms.**** 2) "It is the recognition and protection of rights that depends on culture, not their existence." Yes and no. You have been decently eloquent on the undecidability of the existence of God in the other thread. I say the existence of "rights" is an even more prickly affair, achieving a similar epistemological status.
* 1241. AlexKhan - December 3, 1996 Dialogue between MJNPERRY & Alex Khan in the Bill of Rights Thread [alexkhan still replying to mjnperry's #184] **** 3) That one has a right to this or that is a normative statement in disguise. That one is or is not free is a matter of description. Any restriction on individual action is a departure from freedom; some restrictions are warranted, others are not. Once again, this is a description, not a value judgment. I formulate "freedom" in this way because it allows rigorous philosophical definition, not practical value and applicability.......... 186. mnjperry - November 5, 1996 Alexkhan: I stopped responding to "dares" when I was about 10, and I'm not much interested in a tiresome academic argument about natural law, or discussions of rights and freedoms as purely philosphical concepts rather than practical ideas with meaningful consequences in the real world......As for inherent human rights, I don't think it's either possible or necessary to "prove" that they exist. In my view, their existence is (as Jefferson put it in the Declaration of Independence) self-evident.
1244. atheistatpeace - December 3, 1996 While I still have much to go over in my mind, the probability to existence or at least had existed outways complete denial. Nor am I equipped to give 100% at this point. I would like to think I start from this point most of the time. However, given the time people can spare to discuss the issue and keep emotion out of it is saddening. Faith does seem to be ridiculous still and needn't be used to try to win an argument for the side of God. Whether God is or was anything to aspire to or holds in store anything more than death I would assume is a personal search that cannot be found in the emotional recesses of the worlds mind. That he was justified in his creation or is just breeding us in some sort of experiment is another question. Some terrifiying things are happening in Cults and Religion in general that also elevate concerns with me. I am reading some material on that and possibly we could discuss that another time if your interested. Thanks Jeremiad for directions to the web page. I think you might have a significant direction going with the phycological approach I was looking for. And thanks for offering additional info if I need it, I'll email you in the future. Seems I think I'm going to want to.
1251. prodigalson - December 3, 1996 Ditto! There's nothing to suggest that simply because we can think about things beyond our exterior skin, this somehow translates into a higher being. It could very well be that reason and emotion are nothing more than evolved factors for survival, reason required to think ahead, and emotion a complex, but effective bonding method requisite for social groupings. Even simple organisms (viruses) have similar bio-chemical mechanisms for knowing when to show themselves, and when to hide. Do they reason? Perhaps they're shy... I must say that when it comes to proving God's existence, lack thereof, or proving that it's not provable, the philosophical constructs I've seen in this thread leave a lot to be desired. There's another point I'd like to make. If God (or godhood) is attainable through human evolution and reasoning, then perhaps the only ones headed in that direction include the few, the proud, the philosophists. But if God is not something to be attained, but rather, is someone for us to allow into our lives, then it would certainly be a cruel and unjust thing for him to base membership on mental stature. Or did he mean for all the children to never know him? Nay, I gander that simple understanding is quite acceptable in God's mind. However, in the interests of those of us who are less cerebrally blessed than yourselves, I ask you: Would you please engender to retrench your multifarious cognitive avowels into a microencapsulation thereof, thereby affording an opportune cnawan consequent to plebain desiderates, erelong the retinue pare vapidity? (translation: keep it simple, stupid, or you'll loose your audience)
1267. keepasking - December 4, 1996 Like Prodigalson said, use the K.I.S.S. method. I have. About consequenses, meaning and all the rest of religion, the variations are too wide to find my category, so I'll mix into the biggest one of them all. If God, I find out is judgor, and posses a heaven, does not like this approach or thinks me unworthy as human, then I'll take it like a man but not without a fight. Here goes: I concede that it is entirely resonable to believe God exists or did exist. The question: What makes this now benificial? With history or current time. Don't you think we opened up an even bigger can of worms? I mean really, what if God is the child of some other God who is conducting an irresponsible experiment on which he could at any moment in this time cause our small existence to cease? Good, Bad, Indifferent, Where does it stop? Hey in this day and age we still can't filter out the endless flow of possibilities. You know what they say, curiosity killed the cat. Mine was getting the best of me. Gee, I think I've spent too much time at the Is there a God? Fray I think I should just stick to finding a balance in this whatever you want to call it -symantical world as a nobody, but male. I made a decision along time ago not to pro-create a child. By simple benevolence because the world has to many inequalities. I could always adopt, and then everyone throws an opinion. WHY not just have a democracy for humanity to have a pleasant stay! Everything unexplained doesn't have to have sooo much meaning does it? Life is Just Life and nobody gets to beat it! This is a quote from the MS Bookshelf CD, I just wrote it, may not be exact: "If one cannot be a theist he should however believe in humanity" I have always been a person who has believed in humanity even through some quite personally horrifying events.
1268. jeremiad - December 4, 1996 "If all the world were Christian, it might not matter if all the world were uneducated. But, as it is, a cultural life will exist outside the Church whether it exists inside or not. To be ignorant and simple now - not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground - would be to throw down our weapons, and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. "Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered. The cool intellect must work not only against cool intellect on the other side, but against the muddy heathen mysticisms which deny intellect altogether. Most of all, perhaps, we need intimate knowledge of the past. . .the learned life thus is, for some, a duty." -- C. S. Lewis I also suggest that the reason we haven't gotten round to forming any cogent arguments for the existence of God is because I've been side-tracked for a hundred posts trying to explain metaethics to mnjperry. I finally suggest that if you are ready to present such arguments, please do. So far, from what I have seen from you, you fit the description of a "bible-totin', scripture quotin'" religionist. This doesn't help the case for God on the basis of reason.
* 1270. jeremiad - December 4, 1996 First, I state that mnjperry has made the following claims: Premise 1. only that which is material exists (this is basically the cornerstone of radical materialism) Premise 2. reason and logic are only the result of chemical reactions inthe human brain (reference mnjperry's Message #1227) Premise 3. reason and logic _do_ exist (I reference you to mnjperry's Message #1206) Premise 4. I can be either rational or irrational depending upon my use of reason and logic (I reference you to mnjperry's Message #1156) Conclusion: There is no _reason_ to assume that anything beyond the chemical reactions in the brain are _necessary_ in order for _reason and logic_ (or any other so-called ideals) to exist. These, I believe, summarize what mnjperry has been saying. It is my contention that the argument as a whole is self-refuting. It is further my contention that premises 1 & 2 are logically incoherent with premises 3 & 4. I will attempt to show, in detail, why this is logically obligatory. First, though, a few definitions. A statement is "self-refuting" when a statement fails to satisfy it's own subject matter. For example, if I say, "I don't speak a word of English" in English, this statement is self-refuting. Again, if I say, "I do not exist", this is self-refuting because I must exist to utter the statement. On the other hand, a statement like, "there are no moral truths" is not self-refuting because it is not a_moral_ statement. Further, the statement, "there is no knowledge" is not self-refuting because the utterer may simply _believe_ the statement without _knowing_ it. (Continued)
* 1271. jeremiad - December 4, 1996 So why is mnjperry's position self-refuting. Let's look and see. First, he claims in (4) that he may be either rational or irrational. But let's think about this. What is required for a person to be rational? There are at least five factors required if there are to begenuine rational agents who can accurately reflect the world. First, minds must have intentionality - they must be capable of having thoughts about or of the world. Second, reasons, propositions, thoughts, laws of logic and evidence, and truth must exist and be capable of being instanced in people's minds and influencing their thought processess. This fact is hard (read _impossible_) to reconcile with mnjperry's premise (2). Consider the field of ethics. Morality prescribed what we "ought" to do; it does not merely describe what we in fact do. Objective morality makes sense of real moral laws or "oughts" exist and if normative, moral properties like "rightness", "goodness", "worth", and "dignity" exist in acts (the act_ of honoring one's parents) and things (persons and animals _have_ worth). If mnjperry's first two premises are true, however, there are no moral properties or real "oughts". Physical states just _are_; and one physical state causes or fails to cause another physical state. A physical state does not morally prescribe that another physical state "ought" to be. (Continued)
* 1272. jeremiad - December 4, 1996 So in the view of materialism, there can be no real "oughts" only one physical state causing or not causing another. However, in the area of rationality, there _are_ rational "oughts". Let me demonstrate. Given certain forms of evidence, one ought to believe some things. Reasons and evidence imply or support certain conclusions, and if one if to be objectively rational, one "ought" to accept these conclusions. For example, if one accepts the propositions "all men are mortals" and "Socrates is a man," then one "ought" to believe "Socrates is a mortal." Failure to do so makes one irrational. (Continued)
* 1273. jeremiad - December 4, 1996 Third, it is not enough for there to be propositions or reasons which stand in logical and evidential relations with one another. One must be able to"see" or have rational insight into the flow of the argument and be influenced by this act of perception in forming one's beliefs. William Hasker put it this way, "It is clear...that rational thinking must be guided by rational insight in the light of sound reasoning. That is to say, one must "see", rationally, that the conclusion is justified by the evidence - and one is helped to see this by principles of reasoning, such as the laws of inductive and deductive logic and the like." (Hasker, _Metaphysics: Constructing a World View_, Downers Grove, 1983, p. 47) (Continued)
* 1274. jeremiad - December 4, 1996 Fourth, in order for one to rationally think through a claim of reasoning such that one sees the inferential connections in the chain, one would have to be the same self present at the beginning of the thought process as the one present at the end. As Kant argued long ago, the process of thought requires a genuine enduring "I". H.D. Lewis notes, "one thing seems certain, namely that there must be someone or something at the center of such experience to hold the terms and relations of it together in one stream of consciousness." (Lewis, _The Self and Immortality_, p.34) Finally, the activity of rational thought requires an agent view of the self which in turn involves four theses: (1) I must be able to deliberate, to reflect about what I am going to do, (2) I must have free will to choose;; (3)I am an agent - my acts are often self-caused - I am the absolute origin of my acts; (4) free will is incompatible with determinism - they cannot be both true at the same time. (Continued)
* 1275. jeremiad - December 4, 1996 In sum (I'm sure your happy to hear that!), it is self-refuting to _argue_ that one _ought_ to _choose_ materialism _because_ he should _see_ that the _evidence_ is _good_ for materialism. Materialism cannot be offered as a rational theory because it does away with the necessary preconditions for there to be such a thing as rationality. It denies intentionality by reducing it to biological cause-and-effect. It denies the existence of propositions and non-corporeal entities and laws of logic and evidence which can be in minds and influence thinking. It denies the existence of a faculty capable of rational insight into these nonphysical laws and propositions and it denies the existence of the enduring "I" which is present throught the process of reflection. Finally, it denies the existence of a genuine agent who chooses positions because they are rational.
1279. mnjperry - December 4, 1996
"One physical state does not logically imply another or prescribe that the other "ought" to occur. Physical states simply are; they are not things that "ought" to be. But the connection between premises and conclusion is not a physical relation of cause and effect. It is alogical relation of inference." I think you are confusing physical states with mental experiences. What we experience as moral and logical "oughts" are simply different configurations of our physical brains. The physical state of our brains is constantly changing in response to sensory information, chemical changes in our bodies, the effects of previous states, and so on, and we experience these physical changes in our brains as changes in our thoughts and emotion. This also relates to free will and determinism. Our brains may operate in an entirely deterministic way, but we may experience these deterministic changes as free will. Again, the mental experience of a physical state or change is not the same thing as the physical state itself.
1280. mnjperry - December 4, 1996 It is not any physical property of matter that "sees" in the sense of rational insight; it is the mind that possesses that ability - and the mind is a manifestation of the way the matter in the brain is ordered. My calculator can perform arithmetic not because the silicon and plastic it's built from have inherent mathematical skills but because those skills are built into the way the materials are arranged inside it. I would qualify this by mentioning that some scientists, notably Roger Penrose, have argued that there may be additional physical requirements for consciousness and intelligence, perhaps quantum effects. If they're right, the physical properties of the material from which a brain is constructed may be important, but our mental capacities would still be entirely materialist.
* 1283. jeremiad - December 4, 1996 Which statement correctly reflects your position: 1. I believe mental states are merely physical arrangements in the brain. - or - 2. I believe there exists nonmaterial mental events. If you affirm the former, how can I confuse two things that are the same thing? If you affirm the latter, how can you state there is nothing beyond our physical brains? _Please_ explain to me how you substantiate rationality without making theaffirmation in my argument. You have continued to answer my logical arguments with you speculation about potential scientific discovery. This discredits your position further and wastes my time. I also want to reference the following works in the composition of my previous argument: Moreland, J.P. _Scaling the Secular City_, Baker, 1987, pp. 91-95. Moreland. _Universals, Qualities, and Quality Instances: A Defense of Realism_, Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1985, pp.78-83. Robinson, Howard. _Matter and Sense_, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982, pp. 46-50.
* 1286. jeremiad - December 4, 1996 Let me further clarify why you have failed to understand my argument. Take this example. A man sits in a room at a chess table. He has no knowledge of chess whatsoever. However, he is given instructions by another man. He is told which piece to move where. Does the man moving the pieces understand chess? No. He is basically in a cause-and-effect relationship with the other man: instructor gives command that results in player moving chess piece. The player is simply a "meat machine" at the controls of the instructor. If materialism is correct, our brains are "meat machines" where there is no real "understanding" - simply cause and effect. For the calculator example you gave, the calculator doesn't raise the question of the validity and truth of arithmetic - it is simply the reaction of physical materials that comprise the calculator that are cause-and-effect. However, for you to present the _idea_ of _arithmetic_ at all requires the reality of such concepts - but in a material universe, _concepts_ don't exist - only matter does; _ideas_ don't exist, only different brain states. In short, you continue to avoid this question: what is your basis for rationality? I have presented you with my cogent argument as to the basis of rationality. You are apparantly presupposing your own [unstated] basis. Do you agree with my argument about rationality? If not, present your own argument for it. If you don't believe rationality exists, then you cannot ask for evidence for one belief or another, since evidence is only useful if rationality exists that can interpret the evidence and choose based on this. So , again, I ask you, what is your basis for being rational?
1287. slaterdr9 - December 4, 1996
* 1288. jeremiad - December 4, 1996 Further, the concept of scientific method as espoused by Bacon is still in use today just as the Code of the Hammurabi is still in use today. You make no point here. Finally, you question, I gather, Bacon's credibility as a scientist because he held beliefs that were later proved incorrect? You criticize him because he wasa product of his time? Tell, me, sir, which scientist in history has not been in someway corrected by later discovery? Which scientist today do you believe will never have any of his theories or beliefs proved false? And what person, exactly is _not_ a product of his time? Please explain why Bacon's (or anyone's) error or misbelief in one area discredits or disallows them from being correct in another area. Another case of insults and groundless emotionalism being proferred as argument.
1289. prodigalson - December 4, 1996 1. " truth must exist and be capable of being instanced in people's minds and influencing their thought processess" I presume you meant truth must exist outside of man to be instanced in people's minds. "Truth," however, is instanced in one person's mind only from another's. So where's this external truth? 2. "One physical state does not logically imply another or prescribe that the other "ought" to occur." Put a block of ice in a warm room... Oh, you were speaking of the non-sequetor thought processes as determined by chemical processes. Certainly more complicated, but I ask you - who knows? I don't, and I'm quite sure our leading researchers don't either. There is hard evidence that changes in brain chemistry can produce changes in thought patterns, even to the point of erasing or providing the rationality you've previously defined. So you must be saying, "not all the time...?" 3. "free will is incompatible with determinism - they cannot be both true at the same time." Such applies only withen the constraints of this time-space continuum... hint: God's spirit? Our spirit? hint: 1 Cor 15:51-52 4. It denies intentionality by reducing it to biological cause-and-effect. Why shouldn't my intentions be the result of biological cause-and-effect? Give reason, don't just state that "it's widely accepted." So was the "fact" that the earth was flat... 5. "Finally, it denies the existence of a genuine agent who chooses positions because they are rational." Where did you ever get the idea that man was rational? Look around you... If he were rational, and God were real, wouldn't all men know God? So, either God must not be real, or man isn't rational, or God is real, but he somehow "hides" himself. Certainly it denies that agent's exista
1290. prodigalson - December 4, 1996 I thought this was so well put I wanted people to hear it again. Mnjperry obviously has a good hand on the latest of what's known about the way our brains work, and I believe he accurately defines the terms of his arguement. Jeremiad?
* 1291. prodigalson - December 4, 1996 Ah, we arrive at the crux of the matter. Now if the mind is nothing more than the embodiment of the chemistry, whose current state is determined by the sum of the initial conditions acted upon by one's life experiences, then what else could there be in a man? Let's see... Mind - yep, got that one. Heart? (emotions), yep - got that too. Soul? (personality - who one is). Sure. Huh. I'm stumped, Jeremiad. I mean, what else is left that has anything to do with God?
1293. mnjperry - December 4, 1996
* 1294. jeremiad - December 4, 1996 Re: (1): You state: "[t]ruth, however, is instanced in once person's mind only from another's." If "truth" exists as anything other than random physical arrangment, it exists externally. Re:(2): You are sorely mistaken about rationality being "provided". Think about this. If a computer is running a program to calculate the value of Pi, and I somehow disrupt the computer invasively, have I negated the value of Pi? Re: (3): Yourreference to time-space continuum is undefined and as stated is meaningless - construct an argument, don't repeat episode's of Star Trek. Re: (4): You don't understand "intentionality". Intentions are logical or moral "oughts" - that is, I _should_ conclude that Socrates is a mortal if evidence is provided that all men are mortal and that Socrates is a man. I cannot _conclude_ anything intentionally if mental functions are cause and effect. Think about this before you respond.You are displaying a serious lack of understanding even when I use the simplest terms. Re: (5): I did not state that man was rational (although I believe this). I stated that rationality exists and because it exists, we can _know_ things - such as knowing I exist, knowing other minds exist, etc. No, a person may be rational and not believe in God. I believe a person can be _reasonable_ and not believe in God. I just don't think a person can be _consistent_ and not believe in God. On a separate line of thinking, let me ask: do you believe God created us as puppets without independent thought? Do you believe we have no souls? Do you actually consider yourself a Christian espousing such beliefs?
1292. prodigalson - December 4, 1996 11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwelleth in you, he that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall give life also to your mortal bodies through his Spirit that dwelleth in you. " The question thus, is this: Why do some know God, in a knowledge beyond mere belief, whereas others do not? Sorry, jeremiad, I'll have to refer to the word again to illustrate my point: "3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in them that perish: 4 in whom thegod of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them." First, make note of the sequence of events: First, some disbelieved. Second, God blinded their minds to the Gospel. Some ask, "Why?" or say, "How cruel!" Really? Why wouldn't God respect your beliefs? That would not be very loving, would it. Why torment another with the truth his whole being has denied. After all, they'll have all eternity to weep and gnash their teeth. Might as well make their last half century here on Earth comfortable... That's something a loving God might do... Second, a publish admonishment for Jeremiad: Although I gather you believe in God, I do not know the status of your relationship. Nevertheless, I question the effectiveness of your approach of using strict philosophical means as amounting to "craftiness."
1295. prodigalson - December 4, 1996 Your chessman example fails to consider a quite normal phenomena: Learning. Does man learn as a solely materialistic phenomena? Whether by design or evolution, the brain is quite capable of spotting patterns in the materialistc world around him.
* 1298. jeremiad - December 4, 1996 Prodigalson, I ask you to stop quoting Scripture and answer this question.
1300. larrysmith - December 4, 1996
* 1302. jeremiad - December 4, 1996 In response to larrysmith, I can only reference you to my earlier posts where I presented my basis for rationality. This basis for rationality requires the _reality_ of knowledge and evidence and the ability to reach free-will conclusions. I have opened these premises up for discussion, but no one has offered any explanation for rationality to compete with the one I offered. If my premises are correct, then materialism is self-refuting - that is it fails to meet its own criteria for acceptability and reduces to a meaningless proposition.
* 1303. mnjperry - December 4, 1996 No, mental phenomena are not brain states. They emerge from brain states. They are the experiential manifestation of brain states. Just like music is a manifestation of the optical patterns on a CD, but is not the same thing as the patterns. One causes the other, but is not the same thing as it. Rationality is the name we give to one of our mental phenomena (or perhaps a collection of them). Rationality is our experience of certain brain states, but it's not the same thing as the brain states themselves. Perhaps that will make it clearer.
1305. larrysmith - December 4, 1996
* 1306. jeremiad - December 4, 1996
* 1309. jeremiad - December 4, 1996 May I (politely) point out you have still not presented an argument for rationality in a materialist universe. But in response to epiphenomenalism, let me ask you this: if mental phenomena (let's call this what we refer to as the "mind") arise (emerge) from brain states without the direction of superior intelligence, why should you trust the deliverances of the mind as being rational or "true", especially in the mind's more theoretical activities. Beyond this, many of you keep claiming thought is just the result of nonrational evolutionary forces. Theoretical activity does not seemto contribute to survival value. And less theoretical activities (e.g., sensing the world) would not need to give true information about the world to aid an organism; such activities would need only to help the organism interact with the world consistently. But, mental events, in this view, do not _cause_ anything, anyway - they are just "side effects" as it were of brain states. So even if "mind" emerges, it is hard to see how it could come about by aiding an organism in the evolutionary struggle for survival (longer gestation periods, longer nurturing periods, etc. are the results of "mind" yet contrary to survival (See Barrow & Tipler. _The Anthropic Cosmological Principle_, Clarendon Press, 1986, pp.129-133.)
1310. larrysmith - December 4, 1996
* 1312. jeremiad - December 4, 1996
1313. ElliottRW - December 4, 1996 As I explained in 1304 (poorly I guess, since you ignored it), rationality is a _property_ and can not exist independently of that which it describes. My question is, can something of which rationality is a property exist independently of the physical world?
* 1315. jeremiad - December 4, 1996
1314. prodigalson - December 4, 1996 Frankly, I'm a bit perturbed at your insistance that we join your world. I checked with the rules of the Fray, and nowhere does it mention anything about restrictions on "failed metaphors and what-if's." The rest of us agree that the fine art of illustration serves a valuable purpose in conferring understanding. If you understood that art, you might have accomplished more in your "100 postings." Instead, you've bred misunderstandings and confusion. If this is your aim, you've certainly succeeded. This is not my aim, however. Instead of playing king of the philosophical hill, I intend to find out what others believe, and why, and either offer support, or reasons as to why I believe differently. Instead of tearing down other's arguements with a bunch of pedgogical nonsense, I'll use reason that is common to your "rational" man, reason that we both understand. Instead of obfuscated issues with rhetoric, I'll aim for understanding. I've given you sound reason behind my use of scripture. I'll give you another: results. More people have come to know whether or not God exists through the use of scripture (billions), than through philosophical discourse. I'll give you a third: "Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness." (not my quote, but God's). Hey, dude - if you disagree with him, you're on your own.
* 1320. jeremiad - December 4, 1996 I don't disagree with the God of Scripture. I dedicate my life to learning and applying His revealed Word to my life. That is _not_, however, the topic of this discussion. Finally, your invitation for me to leave this debate because you don't like the standards of reason I require of arguments seems to me to be the most bigoted thing I've heard in the Fray to date.
1317. mnjperry - December 4, 1996 I've already addressed this. I trust my mental processes because they yield answers that seem to me to be correct and useful both in my interactions with the real world and in my purely abstract thoughts. "So even if "mind" emerges, it is hard to see how it could come about by aiding an organism in the evolutionary struggle for survival (longer gestation periods, longer nurturing periods, etc. are the results of "mind" yet contrary to survival." - Jeremiad It's not hard for me to see how intelligence can help an organism in the evolutionary struggle for survival. Our intelligence has allowed us to secure food supplies, evade predators, prolong our lives, and so on. These activities require planning, prediction, abstraction and other "theoretical" mental activities that you claim would not contribute to survival value. Our minds have been a huge evolutionary boon for our species, so far at least. But they may be a mixed blessing. Perhaps we will even one day become extinct because of them. Evolution is nature's vast, on-going experiment with life. No one really knows how it will all turn out.
* 1324. jeremiad - December 4, 1996 Reason and logic - and all ideals including love, beauty and justice - are merely mental states brought about by interactions with the physical world. They do not exist in and of themselves nor do they apply to anyone except the person(s) presently experiencing them. Intelligence is to be understood not as the actual acquisition of knowledge, but rather the pattern recognition techniques displayed to lesser degrees by animals - specifically that our brains are "programmed" (either genetically or through experience) to react in certain ways to certain conditions. Morality is simply another outgrowth of this - no real morals exist (so one cannot say it is always wrong to kill or torture children because a particular set of genetics or experiences may make this moral for some people) but perhaps groups of people can band together and agree (whatever than means ina deterministic universe) that certain laws are good - then use force to make members of the group adhere to the laws. This is my understanding of what you have been saying. Is it correct?
1325. mnjperry - December 4, 1996
1327. mnjperry - December 4, 1996
|