Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth From: beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) Newsgroups: net.origins,net.religion,net.philosophy Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Materialism Message-ID: <861@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Date: Mon, 22-Jul-85 21:10:00 EDT Article-I.D.: sphinx.861 Posted: Mon Jul 22 21:10:00 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 25-Jul-85 05:04:45 EDT Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center Lines: 146 Xref: watmath net.origins:1913 net.religion:7266 net.philosophy:2099 [This line intentionally left blank] From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen), Message-ID: <1248@pyuxd.UUCP>: >>>...or to avoid presuming their existence at all in the absence of >>>evidence for them? [Rosen] > >> In the absence of OBJECTIVE evidence, such things MAY lack OBJECTIVE >> existence. We agree. >> But is that the only kind of existence that is meaningful? [Ellis] > >Since other so-called evidence is rife with the flaws of preconception, >presumption, faulty patterning of the mind imposed on events, it ain't >worthwhile evidence. Mr. Rosen, you've just acknowledged the existence of something ("so-called evidence") which you claim isn't worthwhile as scientific evidence. Will you either conceed the point that some things are beyond science, or will you demonstrate how the "so-called evidence" itself (which you agree exists) falls under the scope of science? >I just love the way some >people choose to divide the world arbitrarily into these physical and >non-physical categories based solely on their limits of observation, and >then seek to cage science (that awful thing!) into examining only the >"physical", claiming that their pet "nonphysical" ideas should be free of >the shackles of science, which really means "let's not examine these things >rigorously because such thinking might debunk these notions the way they >got rid of geocentrism hundreds of years ago". You seem to be fighting very hard to prove that everything "real" falls under the domain of science. Very well, here are some challenges for you: Music is real and most of it is quite distinguishable from that which is heard near a construction site. I'm hereby challenging you to make the distinction scientifically. Would you please a describe scientific method of distinguishing between a painting of Rembrandt's and a spare canvas he used to clean his brushes off (better yet, do it for Picasso instead! (-:)? Can you scientifically determine who is President of the United States? The consensus of a large group of people has never constituted valid scientific evidence, yet that is *all* that determines who holds the presidency. Is the presidency then not real, or can you really fit it into a scientific framework? Is the political climate there unreal, or is there a science that describes who rules what parts of the Middle East and when? How can you scientifically distinguish between a married couple and co-habitants? Is marriage real? >> Again and again, you offer the accusation `wishful thinking' when you >> really ought to be demolishing the idea presented, by means of logical >> argument. If you think a statement is false, please demonstrate its >> fallacy -- you might even shut me up! If you cannot, your estimation of >> my motives, witty as it may be, is a cheap substitute for real >> discourse. > >Since the idea presented has no supporting evidence, one can assume that you >must believe in it for a reason. If not factual evidence, and if not just >because it fits notions of the world as you might like to see it (wishful >thinking) then what??? >[...] >Unfortunately, my "wishful thinking" is backed up by evidence. (See above.) What scientific evidence would you present to support the statement "rocks exist"? You'd probably show us a rock. Mr. Ellis stated that things beyond the reach of science exist. He then provided "rocks" to support his claim, namely beauty, meaning, awareness, .... You simply stated that such things merely "REPRESENT reality" and are not real. You certainly gave no "evidence" for such a claim. You didn't even give a *reason* for it. *Why* aren't they real? Is it because you only define as real those things to which science applies? Then of course nothing that you think is real is beyond science - it's contrary to the defintion. >> Of course I cannot offer objective evidence of `purpose' or `meaning', >> since these are SUBJECTIVE phantoms, which, along with others like {love, >> beauty, awareness...} recur in every natural language and in every human >> being that I've ever encountered. > >Just as subjective as one's biased feelings that occur on a daily basis, >like when you might assume that someone (by their words/actions) feels a >certain way (based on your own preconceptions about the person and about >people in general) when they don't. With that sort of track record for >subjectivity, I don't think it worthwhile as a descriptor of the real world >in a realistic physical sense. It works for you as the way you experience >the world, and in that sense it is real, but beyond that it does not >accurately (necessarily) describe the real world. Because you don't think "X is a worthwhile descriptor of the real world in a realistic physical sense" doesn't mean X is unreal. It simply means you don't think it's a worthwhile descriptor of the real world in a realistic physical sense. So what? >>>...The tone of the beginning of the paragraph may be harsh, but I've grown >>>to become literally offended by that sort of "fuzzy thinking". > >> Sorry, most subjective terms like {purpose, meaning, awareness} are very >> difficult to define. Notice that interest in these ideas is not >> restricted to religion, mysticism, metaphysics, philosophy, etc., but >> also encompasses modern disciplines like artificial intelligence, >> cognitive psychology, linguistics, etc. Apparently I'm not alone in >> attributing great importance to such chimaera. > >Attribute all the personal importance to them that you like. That doesn't >mean that such things describe the physical world outside the mind. ---------------- Again, the fact that things don't "describe the physical world" doesn't mean they aren't real. And the underlined part seems to imply that you *do* acknowledge that there are things beyond science. What *are* you saying? >> I suppose someday we'll know more about these fuzzy concepts. For now, >> all we can do is grope about under the foggy subjective light of >> introspection. > >Given how inaccurate the light has been at casting real illumination on >reality, it's best not taken literally. And how accurate has the light cast by science on crime been? Or on marriage? Or on discussions of this type? You just can't see beyond your precious *physical* reality, and anything that doesn't fit into it must not exist (i.e., be real). >> Hopeful causality smashers? Sorry to disturb your slumber, but causality >> is limping badly this century: >> Is it possible to provide causal explanations of QM phenomena? I do >> not know. Van Fraassen argues cogently, on the basis of Bell's >> inequality and relevant experimental results, that "there are well >> attested phenomena which cannot be embedded in any common-cause >> model" (1982). It appears that causal explanations are possible only >> if the concept of causality is fundamentally revised. > >This still sounds a good deal like anthropocentrism to me. Because WE can't >attribute a cause to something, it's "acausal". Have you ever read Hume? The problem is not that "WE can't attribute a cause to something". It's that WE can't figure out HOW and WHEN things are causally linked. Go ahead, try to rigorously define "causal connec- tion". Do it and you'll rock the world of philosophy. And probably that of physics as well. > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr -- --JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) All we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.