|
A Debate - Part 5 |
|
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.
2074. fmcgrath - December 17, 1996 Looking backwards, it always appears that the sequence of events which got us to where we are is unlikely. And so it is. Now, consider the structure of the universe we inhabit. The only way you could take this to indicate the existence of God is if this universe was so obviously unlikely that there are no possible explanations. Sort of like if each time you rolled the dice you always got snake-eyes. I do not believe this to be true. Much of what I see about the universe appears to be only one possibility out of many equally likely possibilities. Another note: it is true that we could only evolve the way we have in a universe which is like the one we are in. Thisuniverse is apparently suitable for the evolution of (more or less) sentient beings. I am not sure what this proves. Imagine that the universe expands in the big bang, and then contracts again in a never-ending cycle. Imagine that the laws of the universe or the construction of the universe may be different in each cycle. Perhaps some of those cycles hypothetical cycles are not appropriate for the evolution of sentience. Clearly, we could not have evolved during one of those cycles. Clearly, we could only evolve during a cycle which is appropriate for the evolution of self-aware beings. We really don't know the nature of the universe that well, so to draw such conclusions from it seems more an act of faith than of science.
2075. larrysmith - December 17, 1996 I tried to make this point in an earlier posting, but failed to communicate it properly. I simply wondered why the odds could apply to a random universe, but not to the existence of a God. Unless we assume beforehand that God exists, a random universe seems the more likely possibility.
2077. jeremiad - December 18, 1996 "Imagine that the universe expands in the big bang, and then contracts again in a never-ending cycle...seems more an act of faith than of science." I agree.
2078. jeremiad - December 18, 1996 "Unless we assume beforehand that God exists, a random universe seems the more likely possibility." Why is the opposite not the case: "Unless we assume beforehand that God _does not_ exist, a created universe seems the more likely possibility."
* 2080. larrysmith - December 18, 1996
2086. mnjperry - December 18, 1996 Because we have no generally-accepted evidence that the universe was created rather than produced by natural processes.
2089. larrysmith - December 18, 1996
2096. jeremiad - December 18, 1996 "we have no generally-accepted evidence that the universe was created rather than produced by natural processes" This is merely a statement of prejudice and unsupported presuppositions. We have no "evidence" that the universe was "produced" by "natural" processes. You may _assume_ there can be nothing other than natural processes and then _attempt_ to construct explanations or you may _assume_ that there _could be_ something other than natural forces and construct explanations. Either direction _begins_ with a step of faith (without evidence). However, as I have shown earlier, the materialist position leads inexorably to refute itself and to the demise of rationality. The extranatural position gracefully converges with the evidence - while your position results in self-contradictory nonsense.
093. robbiewayne - December 18, 1996 Paul Davies, professor of mathematical physics at the University of Adelaide in Australia says,"The universe had a beginning, but why is there a universe? Is our presence an accident, or is there a supermind behind the superforce who intended for us to be here? The laws which enable the universe to come into being spontaneously seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design. If physics is the product of design, the universe must have a purpose, and the evidence of modern physics suggests strongly to me that the purpose includes us." Robert Jastrow, founder of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA says it best: "The scientist's pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation. This is an exceedingly strange development, unexpected by all but the theologians. They have always accepted the words of the Bible: In the beginning God created the heaven and earth...For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by the band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
2092. the667id - December 18, 1996
2099. jeremiad - December 18, 1996 "Why do we not actually do better since we, on the whole, know better?" How do you define better? What absolute standard of good, worse and better are you using? Why should we care about your standardof better - unless there is some objective reality - some objective truth - that defines what "better" is? In reality, if there is no God - and therefore no absolute morality - why should I care about anyone else in the human race? Especially future generations whom I don't even know? Perhaps you are caught up in the evolutionary instinct of protecting your gene pool, but many of us have "risen above" such primeval depths.
2100. mnjperry - December 18, 1996 We know that natural forces exist. We know that the universe exists. We don't know that anything else does. The step of faith is the one you're taking in assuming that there is something beyond these two things.
2101. jeremiad - December 18, 1996 "I see this tactic used most often by creationists, who seem to sift through scientific journals and papers looking for quotes that can be construed as supporting their ideas." Isn't that true! Thankfully, no atheists _ever_ do this! (Unless you count practically every atheist in The Fray - especially mnjperry, slaterdr9 and IAmNewman)
2102. jeremiad - December 18, 1996 "I think your "proof" is invalid for the reasons I've already stated." You have NEVER stated why ANY PART of my argument was invalid - except to say that you didn't like it and didn't agree with it - which, last time I checked, doesn't constitute refutation. I hate to do this, but since you still decline to admit your failure to substantiate you dogma, I have to ask you again: Please refute the premises/conclusion of the argument I presented in posts 1270-1274 for the basis of rationality and provide a justfication for rationality within materialist doctrine. Your continued denial of your failure is only further evidence of your inability to substantiate your viewpoint. I really don't want to rehash this, but your intellectual dishonesty is simply inexcusable at this point.
2103. jeremiad - December 18, 1996 "We know that natural forces exist. We know that the universe exists. We don't know that anything else does. The step of faith is the one you're taking in assuming that there is something beyond these two things." How do you _know_ that it isn't your mind that exists and that everything else is just the product of the mind? Answer: you don't. By faith, you trust your senses. By faith, you believe the scientific method produces reliable knowledge about nature. By faith, you reject the possibility of extranatural existence. You are a religious believer. You are no more objective than the fire-walker or the shaman. In fact, you are less so, because at least these respect the objectivity of knowledge and the existence of the extranatural. You shut your eyes to these possiblities because they don't submit to Petri dishes and test tubes. How naive. Your dogma is the Method and your liturgy the Table of Elements. Your Eucharist, the Sample and the Spectragraph. But what a sad and pathetic little religion, indeed. Yet you still lack the intellectual rigor and honesty to admit your faith. Truly, you should not be ashamed. Sagan, Gould, Nietzsche, Marquis de Sade and Asimov are your brethren and your church is old indeed. Come then, brace yourself like a man and take your place amongst your congregation.
2104. IamNewman - December 18, 1996 IamNewman. In my posts 1270-1274, I describe a basis for rationality - the necessary premises for rationality to exist. (By rationality, I refer to the ability to review logic and evidence and reach conclusions because one "ought" to reach these conclusions because the conclusions are true.) In several different posts, I discuss why materialism, if true, disallows the existence of several of the necessary premises of rationality - and thus becomes a self-refuting belief system (because onewould have to have rationality in order to arrive at a conclusion that materialism is a valid belief system). Anyway, for the full discussion, see my webpage on this debate at Is God There?. Posts 1270-1274 will be in Is GodThere? - Part 2.
2107. jeremiad - December 18, 1996 As to why extranaturalism converges with the evidence, let me say this: I agree with mnjperry on a few points. Namely, that we can _know_ things. That we can ascertain intelligible things about our universe. That the scientific method _does_ reveal _real_ conditions about our cosmos. I believe that we can _really_ think freely and reach conclusions based on evidence - not because we are chemically determined to reach certain brain states. If materialism is true (i.e., if only that which is material exists), then all these claims are purely illusionary. Additionally, things like justice, love, mercy, truth, morality and beauty are all illusions, too - mere random constructs of the chemical reactions in our brains - nothing more. Thus,because I _know_ that such things do exist - and because I _know_ that other minds exist besides my own, I must conclude that materialism does not fit the evidence I find. If I allow that there much be something besides the mere matter of my brain acting - and that things like justice and love have objective reality - then rationality is substantiated and what we know intrinsically to be true is justified. The explanation meets the evidence. (See also the criteria of a justifiable hypothesis in my post 1229.)
2110. jeremiad - December 18, 1996 Since you seem more interested in "interpreting" my posts instead of reading them, let me make the following simple statements and allow you to review them (these are the same points I made in posts 1270-1274 - but since mnjperry is misquoting me, I feel I should duplicate as least part of these posts here to state what I _really_ said): For rationality to exist, the following things must be in place: 1. Minds must have intentionality - they must be capable of having thoughts about or of the world. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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". 5. 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. I never mention anything about "kinds of knowledge" as you stated. You have failed (again) to do anything other that state you don't agree. You haven't established why. Please evaluate these premises and feel free to show how rationality exists without one or all of them.
2118. mnjperry - December 18, 1996 Really? This is from your post #1712: "As I have described earlier - and have given you the opportunity to admit - what you are calling "knowledge" is nothing of the sort - but is _belief_. You _believe_ science is reliable, but you don't _know_ it because your materialist belief precludes any objective ("real") _knowledge_. You believe this or that because it is useful, but you don't _know_ it." You're saying that what I'm calling knowledge is actually merely "belief" and that what you're calling knowledge is "real" or "objective" knowledge, right? This is the distinction I dispute. On what basis do you assert that this "real knowledge" you're talking about actually exists and isn't just what you refer to as "belief," caused, ultimately, by atoms smashing around inside your brain? The answer is that there is no basis for this assertion other than your own subjective experience. Since your argument against materialism hinges on your claim that it cannot produce this "real knowledge," the argument ultimately boils down to what you feel to be true subjectively -- which is hardly a persuasive reason, let alone a proof, that materialism is "self-refuting" or in any other sense wrong.
2119. jeremiad - December 18, 1996 Now please respond to the questions put to you in Message #2110 if you can.
* 2120. jeremiad - December 18, 1996 "Since your argument against materialism ... boils down to what you feel to be true subjectively" Where do you get this stuff? Read the post slowly - take your time. Look at each proposition (there are five - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - get it?) Find one that you don't like and then show why rationality exists without it. This won't exonerate materialism (since materialism completely contradicts at least 4 of the 5), but at least you'll have actually made a substantive contribution to the discussion. Something long overdue from you.
2121. jeremiad - December 18, 1996 "Because it is all we truly have and because we know the difference." Again, why? I see no reason apart from an Absolute to care if I am destructive or not. In fact, your use of the word "truly" is improper. There is no true in a material world - only phenomena. And one phenomena - say the genocide of Jews - is no more or less "valid" or "right" or "wrong" than the phenomena of watching television. Terms like "validity", "truth", "wrong" and "right" are merely your subjective physiological brain states. They have no bearing on what I or anyone else does. "Besides, it is in the best interests of our collective specie to encourage cooperative behavior and to thwart destructive mutations such as nihilism if we are to continue to evolve." Why should I care about anything other than myself - much less some artificial abstraction like "our collective species"?
2122. mnjperry - December 18, 1996 To save time, I'll predict your answer will be something along the lines of saying that materialism can't produce "insight" or "intentionality" or "free will" or "the enduring 'I'" or "the ability to deliberate" or any of those other things you mention. Now explain why materialism cannot produce those things.
2123. jeremiad - December 18, 1996 I honestly thought this would be obvious One brain state can't have an "ought" that leads to another brain state. This means no rational insight. A calculator or computer (no matter how advanced) has no "insight"; it simply operates according to the physical conditions of semiconductors and electronics - without regard for the evidentiary or logical connections between conditions. If materialism is true, then we are completely the product of physical processes - we have no choice to do or think anything. We are "meat machines" programmed by our environment. Hence, we have no free will. Further, there is no "I" at all. There is no "self" in materialism. This is a chemical product of random brain activity. The creature I am now is a different physiological entity than the creature who began typing this message. There is no continuity except the chemical cause-and-effect. Hence, no enduring "I". Finally, I would ask you, as the proponent of materialism to explain why such things _do_ exist within materialism. I am asking you to create a positive argument in support of rationality within materialism. To help clear up any confusion, let me statefor the record that knowledge is knowledge. I realize this debate has often gotten "ugly" and for that I apologize sincerely. But I still believe that what I have presented is a simple logical construct. If you are willing to say that your version of materialism supports intentionality, agency, an enduring self, free will, self-caused acts, rational insight and the existence of reason and truth, I will gladly say that we are in agreement and cease this discussion. I would point out that you would be first materialist I've ever heard of to support these views, however.
2126. mnjperry - December 18, 1996 I thought I just had said that. I thought I said it about 1000 posts ago. The problem is that you define these things as requiring something beyond the physical brain, in order for them to be what you call "real" or "objective," and then fault the idea that there is nothing beyond the physical brain for failing to explain that non-physical aspect. We've been over all this before. Let's take free will. Free will is the name we give to a mental experience we have that is associated with the feeling of making a conscious choice. I say this mental experience is the product of brain states. You say that there must be something more to it than that, something beyond the physical brain. But why must there be? What is the basis of this claim? Do you have any answer other than that you feel there must be something more?
2128. mnjperry - December 18, 1996 But "ought" is itself a feeling we experience that is produced by brain states. What we experience as rational insight is an effect of brain states. It may *feel* like we are "stepping outside the system" and "seeing" some truth or result by virtue of some metaphysical inspiration, but that feeling itself comes from brain states. Master chess players have remarked that during games with very powerful computer chess programs, it sometimes seems as if the program "steps out of itself" and makes a move based on some deep insight into the state of play. I am not suggesting that these programs possess true "insight" in the sense that we understand it in ourselves, but it does hint at the possibility that what we think of us insight may be algorithmic in nature.
2150. jeremiad - December 19, 1996 Either you believe we can make choices or not. If you believe we can cause ourselves to reach conclusions based on logic and evidence, then you believe there is something other than chemical cause-and-effect. "Freewill" requires _freedom and will_. You shoulder the burden of proof to show why neither of these is required. If you believe we cannot cause ourselves to reach conclusions, then you do not believe in free will. For example: suppose a rock is sentient. I drop the rock from a height of six feet. Does the rock have any choice as to its reaction? No. Suppose then I set up a computer and program it to produce the result of "5" when performing the operation of "2+2". Does the computer have any "choice" in reaching this conclusion? Is there any rational insight that would allow it to reach a different conclusion based on the logical or evidentiary claims? No. Materialism is the same way. We don't have rationality under materialism - we are irrational, unreasonable "machines" that simply react to our environment. If you don't believe in free will, rational insight, intentionality, self-causation or agency, you can't support your belief in rationality logically. Attempting to change the definitions is merely evasion. Again, I ask you to present your position in support of rationality that agrees with materialism. If you are correct about brain states, then rationality is just an illusion. Neither you or I have any choice in reaching the positions we hold - we are bound to hold them by chemical determinism - there is NO CHOICE FOR EITHER OF US UNDER YOUR SYSTEM. Finally, in Message #2128 you bring up examples of computers again. I am NOT ASKING FOR YOUR PROPHECY ABOUT THE FUTURE - I am asking for a simple logical development of rationality that fits the limitations of materialism. You are presenting a positive supposition. You have the burden of proof to show why you are correct. PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR ANSWER.
2151. jeremiad - December 19, 1996 You have concluded that all thoughts and feelings are merely brain states. Thus, we are chemically determined - that is, our thoughts and feelings do not occur to us for any other reason than the reaction of our brains with certain stimuli. How, then, can a person review evidence or use logic to reach conclusions? Aren't we all simply bound to reach the thoughts and feelings that we have? If free will does not exist as it is commonly defined and is merely a phrase that we have attached to a certain "feeling", then we don't really have freedom, do we? Nor do we have will? We are just input/output machines - no choices to be made, only chemical reactions taking place, right? And rationality itself - the idea that we can review evidence and logic and reach conclusions based on these things is just another "word" that we have assigned (because we are chemically bound to do so) to a particular "feeling". We can't really reach independent conclusions. We may feel we can - just like you feel you are following evidence to reach your position on materialism. You can't really expect anyone else to "feel" the way you do, because they are not necessarily chemically determined to do so. In fact, all your claims to knowledge are really just "words" you've assigned to the "feeling" of knowing something. It really doesn't mean you know anything - it just means you "feel" like you do, right? How does this position support the existence of rationality? Or do you hold that rationality is just a "feeling" and that we aren't really rational in the textbook definition of the term?
2162. IamNewman - December 19, 1996 Your argument is against "radical materialism" which was originally proposed long before special relativity equated matter with energy. However I assume you include the two together. You state that thoughts must exist in people's minds, but you never say how thoughts exist, nor how the mind exists. You then jump to ethics and assume that morality is objective. Based on materialism, morality is not objective. From ethics, you bring in theterm "ought" and then try to reapply it to materialism. However, your "ought" is a subjective term and doesn't apply to the objective realm of materialism. You then misconstrue the materialist view of rationality by applying your subjective "ought" yet again. You state that to think rationally, "one would have to be the same self present at the beginning of the thought process as the one present at the end". This contradicts even rationalism, because your saying that the thought process has no effect on the one thinking. Your reference to Kant's and Lewis's description of the "I" doesn't support your claim that the "I" can't change during thinking.
2171. IamNewman - December 19, 1996 You also imply that Materialism is untrue. Rather, one should say that Materialism is limited. By analogy, Newtons system of mechanics and dynamics is not untrue, rather it is limited to the macroscopic because of its initial assumptions.
2174. jeremiad - December 19, 1996 I would agree that materialism would not be self-refuting if it could be demonstrated that free will, intentionality, agency, propositional truth, the enduring "I", and self-causation exist under such a belief system. And I realize that some forms of materialism have been argued to avoid determinism. However, this form has not been presented in this forum. If you can establish why the above propositions are true under your form of materialism, I welcome you to do so. Also, read my Message #2110 for my argument presented without the analogy of ethics. (This was previously offered as an example of the principle - not a support of it.) Finally, are you suggesting that the brain - as an independent entity - manipulates its own chemistry at the atomic or quantum level to produce non-deterministic action? Please expound.
2178. jeremiad - December 19, 1996 "Your reference to Kant's and Lewis's description of the "I" doesn't support your claim that the "I" can't change during thinking." Actually, this is _exactly_ how Kant intended it. Kant held that there was a "self" at the center - a "thing of itself" that perceived and was impressed upon by the world of phenomena. I DID NOT say the "I" didn't change - but that the "I" is constantly present and is "constant". Under radical materialism, there is no "I" - just the present configuration of brain states. Each set of brain states is a different physical configuration. No constant self. No enduring "I". I suggest you re-read Kant.
2180. jeremiad - December 19, 1996 The term "ought" has nothing to do ontologically with ethics - though the reverse is not true - ethics does depend on "oughts". However, the rational ought is applicable to any field of knowledge. In math, 2+2 "ought" to equal 4 - not because it is ethical, but because it is _true_. If we are to be rational, we must be able to have independent thoughts based on evidence and logic and then apply reason (which must be true if our conclusion is to be valid) to reach conclusions. It is only if we are free to review logic and evidence that we can reach conclusions at all. There is no "ought" that the brain state that is the proposition "2+2" should result in the brain state "4". I'm not saying the two brain states couldn't be chemically "cause-and-effect" so that state 1 leads to state 2 because of certain chemical reactions - but I am saying that it would then be just as valid and true under materialism for the state of"2+2" to lead to the state of "5" or "7" or "pi". There is no objectivity to the propositions - no reason or logic to "lead us" - in fact, no "us" to be led and no "leading" except the chemical reactions over which we have no control.
2168. jeremiad - December 19, 1996 "If you assert that there is some objective reality to these things beyond our experience of them, then you assume the burden of demonstrating that to be the case. If you cannot do this, then it is simply speculation on your part. We might call it "faith."" By your view, any belief is "speculation" since, in your own words, we can't even "know that 2+2=4". Thus, again, any belief system that claims to have obtain a real explanation of our universe refutes itself. It's the old "there are no absolutes" argument that contradicts itself - if there aren't absolutes, how can you absolutely know this? If there is no rationality, how can you claim to have rationally arrived at the conclusion thatmaterialism is correct? You can't. Your only claim is that you believe in it by faith - not by reason. This is what I have been saying all along. You still have not defended rationality within materialism.
2170. jeremiad - December 19, 1996 Your basic statement is: "all supposed knowledge is merely subjective belief - so you must prove to me that your supposed knowledge is valid". Do you not see that this is self-contradictory? You are making claims about "knowing" something objectively - not subjectively - when you discuss the concept of "all knowledge". Further, if all knowledge is subjective - and we are chemically determined, no one can "prove" anything to himself or anyone else - because proving something requires rationality - which is contradicted by materialism.
2177. jeremiad - December 19, 1996 Recent developments inevolutionary psychology hold that religious belief may be genetically preferred because of the sociological benefits of such belief. Let me ask you this: if religious belief were to be more useful, would you then believe it?
2180. jeremiad - December 19, 1996 The term "ought" has nothing to do ontologically with ethics - though the reverse is not true - ethics does depend on "oughts". However, the rational ought is applicable to any field of knowledge. In math, 2+2 "ought" to equal 4 - not because it is ethical, but because it is _true_. If we are to be rational, we must be able to have independent thoughts based on evidence and logic and then apply reason (which must be true if our conclusion is to be valid) to reach conclusions. It is only if we are free to review logic and evidence that we can reach conclusions at all. There is no "ought" that the brain state that is the proposition "2+2" should result in the brain state "4". I'm not saying the two brain states couldn't be chemically "cause-and-effect" so that state 1 leads to state 2 because of certain chemical reactions - but I am saying that it would then be just as valid and true under materialism for the state of"2+2" to lead to the state of "5" or "7" or "pi". There is no objectivity to the propositions - no reason or logic to "lead us" - in fact, no "us" to be lead and no "leading" except the chemical reactions over which we have no control.
2184. mnjperry - December 19, 1996 Do you not see that this is self-contradictory?" --Jeremiad (#2168) That's not my basic statement. My basic statement is that, although all knowledge is ultimately subjective experience and may be wrong, we can still make useful distinctions between valid and invalid knowledge within that framework. We can say that measuring and observing the world seems to produce a more accurate and useful explanation of how it works than speculating about it, and that measuring and observing is therefore more valid,in this sense, than speculating. Your position on rationality, free will, etc. is based on speculation. Mine is based on measurement and observation. That is why I say that mine is more valid, because it is consistent with the methods of acquiring knowledge about the world that seem to us most reliable and successful, whereas yours is not. I do not say there is no rationality. I say there is no rationality in the sense that you are using that word to mean something that can produce metaphysically certain knowledge. It can only yield knowledge that seems more reliable and correct to us based on the criteria we have developed for evaluating it.
2185. mnjperry - December 19, 1996 Why would this be just as valid and true? We measure validity and truth by what seems to be right to us. It's a mental experience. The brain states themselves are neither valid nor invalid; they just are. It's the experience of feeling, "Yes, that's right" that certain brain states produce in us that we call validity. We say that 2+2=4 is valid because we *experience* it as valid, not because we can show that there is some kind of inherent "validity" in the brain states that produce that feeling.
2187. mnjperry - December 19, 1996 No, of course not. The sense in which we judge knowledge to be correct or true by being "useful" doesn't simply mean "useful to our evolutionary success." It means something like, "consistent with our experiences and basic understanding of ourselves and the world." We may hold any number of beliefs that are evolutionarily beneficial without being consistent with other aspects of reality.
2193. jeremiad - December 19, 1996 "It's the experience of feeling, "Yes, that's right" that certain brain states produce in us that we call validity." So a person who experiences this "Yes, that's right" feeling in response to the notion of, say, the existence of God would be within his or her epistemic rights to call this notion valid, correct? Why then are the supposed results of evidence any more or less valid? If two notions both cause the feeling of "yes, that's right" why can _you_ judge one to be more valid than the other?
2194. jeremiad - December 19, 1996 "The sense in which we judge knowledge to be correct or true by being "useful" doesn't simply mean "useful to our evolutionary success." It means something like, "consistent with our experiences and basic understanding of ourselves and the world."" But what is "basic understanding" in your system except that set of conditions that produces in me the "feeling of "yes, that's right""? Basic understanding seems to imply some set of axioms or logic that may be depended upon - like mathematical statements. Yet no such things exist according to your view.
2196. jeremiad - December 19, 1996
Further, the materialism being proclaimed is not limiting itself to the "physical universe" intentionally for discussion - but is claiming to describe ALL THAT THERE IS. Thus, it has claimed to describe all existence and is therefore under pressure to explain all existence. It is here that it fails.
I have never argued that some - perhaps most - phenomena can be explained in strictly physical terms. But I have shown that materialism as an all-encompassing paradigm does refute itself and does deny rationality.
Materialistic dogma claims to explain everything - it claims to be a coherent, logical, reasonable explanation of all existence. Yet one of the premises of materialism (as described by mnjperry & slaterdr9) is that there is no "objective truth" -that any supposed knowledge we have is really just subjective belief or "feeling" as mnjperry puts it. Further, materialists here claim we have no enduring "I", no propositions or laws of logic and reason, no intentionality, no rational insight, and no agency (which requires free will, self-causation, the ability to deliberate and reflect).
I don't see how materialism supports rationality with these claims. And if materialism denies rationality, it is internally incoherent because it claims to be a philosophy based on evidence and reason - which are useless or non-existent given the previous claims.
2244. IamNewman - December 20, 1996
In this case, Materialism assumes that matter/energy is the source of all phenomena in the universe, including the mind. Rationalism assumes that reason alone is the source of knowledge, independent of experience. JeremiaD stated five criteria in Message #2110 that any system must meet in order to effectively describe rationality. I don't know where he got these criteria, nor that they're valid and sufficient. However, I will meet these criteria using Materialism.
In the materialist view, sensory experience is an interaction between the body and its surroundings. The information gathered by the senses serves as input to the brain. In an child, this sensory input stimulates the dendrite growth within the brain. Experience information is stored as memories in the form of chemical configurations within various cells in different parts of the brain. However, the brain should not be viewed as a blank slate, but rather as a highly complex pattern matching machine. Not all experience is stored. A large amount of information is simply ignored as redundant or unimportant, and some never makes it past short term memory. As experience is gathered, it becomes a source for the comparison of new experiences. At some point, the ability of the brain to process complex information is limited by the inherent capabilities of the brain and the availability of experiences within the external environment.
(continued)
2247. IamNewman - December 20, 1996 In this fashion the individual is a product of both nature and nurture. As a child grows, an awareness of its environment increases to the point where it can distinguish itself from its environment. As self-awareness gradually develops, the I emerges. The necessity for previous experiences upon which to perform comparisons explains why a child is not born self-aware. In addition, two identical individuals will adapt to their environment based on the experiences provided by that environment.
To the neuro-psychologist, thoughts are formed by the relation of simple concepts which are stored independently. For instance, the concepts of red and ball are stored separately. The thought of a red ball is generated by drawing the information out of memory to create the image. A simple web diagram is often used to describe the interrelation of distinct concepts to form simple images. The thinking process can be described loosely as the activity of manipulating the information accessed from the senses and from memory. More advanced web diagrams view the interlinks as relational concepts which are also stored and accessed to create complex thoughts that are well beyond simple images. Thoughts themselves are therefore considered experiences which feed the thinking process. (So, reasons, propositions, etc exist as instances within the mind and influence their thought processes; Criteria 2. One may also see the flow of argument, influence it and be influenced by it to form one's beliefs; Criteria 3. Mind is described in the next paragraph.) In addition, thinking does not occur in one area of the brain. Instead it is distributed among specialized regions (eg: Broca's Area) which process and share information extensively.
(continued)
2249. IamNewman - December 20, 1996 Since self-awareness is based on the history of experience, the I is also viewed as a thought generated by the relational and concrete objects stored in memory. (This history of experience provides the genuine, enduring I; Criteria 4.) The ability to view the self as a conceptual object creates reflective thinking (Criteria 5, part 1). This reflective thinking process is identified as the mind which has both an awareness of self and intentionality (ie: it is capable of having thoughts of the world; Criteria 1). Creatures of lesser mental capability may not have the facilities required to form the concept of self (eg: a dog, maybe). Other creatures may have a rudimentary concept of self (eg: Koko,the gorilla). So it is more a spectrum of awareness then a sudden change. The reflective thinking capability makes one an agent whose acts are self-caused (Criteria 5, part 3).
Free will (Criteria 5, part 2) is established by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. The memories and thinking process are chemical reactions which are subject to quantum influences. They are therefore not influenced only by macroscopic cause and effect. One's thought processes do not directly manipulate the chemicals, however by control of one's thoughts, one may drive the chemical activities in a specific direction. For instance, when one thinks about music, different sections of the brain are active as compared to when one thinks about cartoons.A good analogy is the distinction between high level and low level languages in a computer. That is, high level languages do not directly flip the bits.
I submit that I have successfully met the five criteria proposed in Message #2110 and JeremiaD may now gracefully concede that Materialism sufficiently describes rationality.
2314. jeremiad - December 22, 1996 First, I would like to sincerely thank IamNewman for being the first person in the Fray to make an honest attempt to substantiate how materialistic doctrine can meet the basic criteria for rationality.
In the following, I will show why his attempt - though certainly laudable as a sincere effort - is critically flawed and fails at even the most fundamental level to answer the requisite questions. And while I appreciate his generous offer for my "graceful concession", I am afraid he is horribly premature.
Criteria 1 - "Minds must have intentionality - they must be capable of having thoughts about or of the world."
IamNewman, in his response,does not specifically address this criteria. However, he does say, "[t]he thinking process can be described loosely as the activity of manipulating the information accessed from the senses and from memory." It is apparent from the course of IamNewman's arguments that he is assuming someone merely having a "thought" about something in the world is the same thing as that thing actually existing. Criteria 1 is calling for the existence of the objectivity of knowledge and for the ability of the human mind to see and reflect on the real things we encounter in our experience. IamNewman does nothing to establish how this can be under materialistic dogma. Indeed, under materialism, we are given no basis for assuming anything we see or experience is real at all.
Continued.
2315. jeremiad - December 22, 1996 In response to this criteria, IamNewman says, "[t]houghts themselves are therefore considered experiences which feed the thinking process." This is, I believe, a correct statement of materialist doctrine. It is, however, woefully inadequate to meet Criteria 2. Criteria 2 is basically calling for the existence of some objective standard of reasoning or truth - such as mathematical axioms or Aristotelian logic - that the mind uses in processing information to reach conclusions. This is not the same thing as "thinking" about laws of logic. I may conceive of a law of logic that is purely fictitious and leads to erroneous conclusions. In IamNewman's view, however, this would be rationality. However, as we all know, there are laws of logic that are real and lead, when properly applied,to trustworthy and true conclusions.
IamNewman's position is basically that of mnjperry's - which may be called subjectivism. This is the position that holds that we cannot really "know" anything, but that we can only subjectively experience things. And, as mnjperry described it, we may believe something to be valid by experiencing a feeling of "yes, that's right". Thus, there is no establishment of any exterior laws of reason or logic that can guide our thinking to lead us to reliable conclusions. Our thinking, in IamNewman's own words, is the result of "chemical reactions which are subject to quantum influences" (more about this later). Since our entire thinking process is merely the result of chemical and quantum reactions in the brain stimulated by our sensory experiences, IamNewman has failed to establish how propositions, laws of reason or logic, etc. exist as anything other than random, meaningless brain states. Thus, IamNewman fails to meet Criteria 2.
Continued.
2316. jeremiad - December 22, 1996 IamNewman, in response to this criteria, says, "[o]ne may see the flow of an argument, influence it and be influenced by it to form one's beliefs." IamNewman apparently believes he can meet the criteria merely by stating that he has met it. We are somehow to believe that even though our "self" is really only an illusion created by the myriad electro-chemical reactions (oh, and let's not forget the quantum!) in our brains - but somehow this fictional entity "sees" the logical relationship between prior physical states in the brain. One wonders if IamNewman also believes that potassium recognizes its logical relationship with water when suddenly dropped into it and only then begins its reaction. Further, having now assumed, though not established - and indeed decried the existence of - a "self" that "sees" logical relationships between physical states, IamNewman falsely believes he has described the necessary conditions to reach conclusions based on logic and evidence - instead of on the cause-and-effect relationships of brain chemistry (and quanta...).
Continued.
2317. jeremiad - December 22, 1996 This is the requirement that there is a conscious self present that is aware of the chain of arguments and the logical and evidentiary connections between propositions and premises, etc. IamNewman basically assumes he has met this criteria with the mysterious invocation of some non-ethereal - yea, material - overarching "self" that can "see" logical relationships in the same way a "self" would - except that this isn't a "self" at all - only the complex physical brain states. This borders on silliness. IamNewman spends so much time trying to explain in two paragraphs what no self-respecting neurophysiologist would attempt to do in less than 200 pages, that he has convinced himself he has said something new. IamNewman commits the same basic error mnjperry and others have committed in assuming the ability of material to produce effects that are immaterial while attempting to deny the existence of such entities. The "history of experience" is supposed to represent the "enduring I" - yet, again, one wonders why physical states have "awareness" of prior physical states. A computer accurately stores prior states and is programmed to react in specified ways to stimuli. Is there an enduring "I" on my Pentium? IamNewman presumes to state as fact what many AI researchers are more and more coming to believe is an intractable problem. His statement is unfounded, rash, and naively presumptious. If there is a "self" that can "see" logical relationships between prior brain states - it must exist beyond the brain itself, otherwise it is merely a current brain state that has no "awareness" of anything - it is just chemicals and electricity (and those elusive quanta...)
Continued.
2318. jeremiad - December 22, 1996 IamNewman, for the ability to deliberate,continues to build on the tragically flawed basis of a sophomoric understanding of AI. He says, "[t]he ability to view the self [the nonexistent, yet somehow material self?] as a conceptual object creates [how is this established?] reflective thinking". This is a statement, not an argument. IamNewman does not substantiate or defend how strictly material interactions create a self (except to define the "self" as these interactions - which is a linguistic evasion), which leads to "self-awareness", which leads to "reflective thinking". Then IamNewman invokes what he apparently believes is a divine fiat in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to "create" free will. Somehow IamNewman believes by moving from the purely chemical reactions (that he realizes cannot produce the self, rationality or free will) that are well-known and understood, to the now-mysterious level of quantum reactions that in that place, safe from present scientific understanding, some precious "magic" takes place that creates "free will". Yet one wonders, free will for whom? There is no "self" - only complex reactions - chemical or quantum makes no difference. Further, one wonders how, since, as IamNewman states that "one's thought processes do not directly manipulate [indirectly, perhaps?] the chemicals [what about those quanta?], however by control of one's thoughts [how does one control one's thoughts that are purely chemical reactions if one cannot directly manipulate the chemical reactions that define the thoughts?] one may drive [since this is obviously not _direct_ manipulation?] the chemical activities in a specific direction.
Continued.
2319. jeremiad - December 22, 1996 Again, I appreciate the effort, but little has been done to promote the position of rationality under materialistic dogma.
2505. mnjperry - December 30, 1996
2507. jeremiad - December 30, 1996
While I agree that the issues you raise are worthy of discussion, I think you must first answer the more fundamental questions. While there are real issues to be researched and studied in mind/brain interactions, the most basic questions have to do with the profound logical problems of a strictly materialist viewpoint. As I have argued elsewhere, if materialism is true then logic and rationality themselves are futile illusions that do not yield knowledge - only subjective impressions. So questions about mind/brain interactions to the point of materialism seem to be petitio principii.
Further, if extranaturalism is adopted, I don't see why the brain, as a processing organ, shouldn't have some impact on mind and vice versa. I don't understand why this would be problematic to a dualist philosophy. Why is this strong evidence of materialism? If I systematically destroy components of a radio and witness the subsequent distortion, is this evidence that the broadcasts originated with the componentry of the radio itself? (I offer this for illustrative purposes only and am not presenting the radio as a model for mind/brain function.)
2511. jeremiad - December 30, 1996
You say:
By this, you apparently mean that theism requires the belief in something outside the realm of science. If this is your definition of "magic", I certainly agree, then.
Let me ask you this: how is your belief that science provides you with truth and knowledge (valid, objective fact) substantiated by science?
I argue that, ultimately, all claims to knowledge begin with unsubstantiated assumptions and faith. Thus, your science is just as "magical" (by your definition) as theism. They both begin with certain presuppositions about the nature of knowledge and how we come to know it - and _from there_ they may follow rational or irrational means to reach further conclusions. I further posit that both science and religion have from time to time followed irrational means and reached irrational or illogical conclusions.
I ask you to defend why all scientific belief is evidentiary - including the foundations of scientific understanding (things like the uniformity of nature, the scientific method, the non-existence of non-material substance, et al). Please show me the logical proof or evidentiary claims as to why, for example, the scientific method can be trusted to yield objecive truth.
I think an honest appraisal will yield the following result: scientism, like atheism and theism, begins with certain foundational beliefs about knowledge. These foundational beliefs are "presupposed" - that is, they are the beginning place - with no a priori "evidence". After launching down one's chosen an epistemological route, one may "look back" to see if the results of such a belief system are consistent and logical. If they are not, one may then question whether the a priori beliefs are sound.
I have argued that the materialist doctrine fails this test.
I ask you to show why it does not and, if you wish, how theism does.
2512. AlexKhan - December 30, 1996
You seem to think that experimental science is epistemologically more sound and certain than anything else. When in fact everything we call knowledge, including natural science, is based ultimately on faith. SLATERDR9 has come around to acknowledging this. But even he feels there is some method of deciding which is a "logical" kind of "faith."
|