Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.origins,net.religion,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Materialism
Message-ID: <1288@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Jul-85 11:00:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1288
Posted: Tue Jul 23 11:00:47 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Jul-85 08:31:05 EDT
References: <861@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 184
Xref: linus net.origins:1951 net.religion:6864 net.philosophy:1852

> 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? [BETH CHRISTY]

I'm not sure I understand the line of thinking here.  Because scientific
tools do not allow us to see EVERYTHING there is, we thus take our
subjective minds' word for the rest?  Knowing as we do how that mind works
in the absence of evidence to form patterns based on preconceptions?
Knowing how different people's minds come up with different patterns and
models based on different preconceptions?  Are they ALL right?

>>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.

No, YOU seem to be fighting very hard to prove that things that are
unverifiable by scientific means ARE real.  Not "may be real".  ARE real
because *your* mind says so!

> 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.

You obviously haven't heard a lot of modern music.  What distuinguishes the
two is purpose, as deemed by a designer.  Music (with the possible exception
of Cage and his ilk) is structured sound according to the plan of a designer.
If the rhythm of the bulldozers and cranes is pleasing, fine.  So?  The
distinction has only to do with the purpose imbued upon the event by the
creator, OR by the listener.  (My favorite top 40 song is "This is only a
test", which consists of a steady tone for 60 seconds.)  Physically, the
events are what they are.

> 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! (-:)?

Whichever one he says is his painting is his painting.  What's the point?
Who is any of us to judge otherwise?  Perhaps he likes the brushcleaning
canvas just as much and decides to sell it.  What does any of this have to
do with the existence or non-existence of pseudoscientific phenomena?

> 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.

But the rules of the system you are talking about say that the consensus of a
large group of people DOES determine who is President.  Are you contradicting
that?  Note that all these systems you describe, art, music, politics, are
human-defined systems where people make the rules (supposedly).  We are not
so all powerful as to make the rules of the physical world itself.  Though
some might proclaim "I believe in XXXX because I say so."  Much as some of us
might like, we can't do that except in our imagination, and that has no bearing
on what actually happens outside of our brains.

> 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?

In a human defined system, follow the laid down rules, and you'll get your
answer.  Add a little real world science (actually a lot of it) to that,
analyzing conditions, situations, etc. in incredible detail, and you might
even be able to know who WILL be President!  Of course, the amount of knowledge
and analysis necessary probably exceeds our abilities, especially since some
of the variables to the equation are in individual people's minds.

>>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.

Bullshit.  The reason they are not "real" is because they depend upon observers
to label existing things with these qualities.  "Rock" is not a subjective
quality, it is a rigorously defined concept.  "Beauty", etc. are LABELS
and GRADES put upon things by observers, different observers given different
labels and grades, if any at all.  In any case, these are all words used by
people to describe things.  "Rock" is a definition of a specific type of
object, whereas "beauty" et al depends on the observer to grant an object with
that quality.  It has no bearing on the thing's physical existence except in
the way THAT PARTICULAR OBSERVER relates to it.

>>>   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?

I prefer realistic descriptors of the real world to unrealistic descriptors
of the real world.  Don't you?

>>>>...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'm saying that people's imaginations can come up with the most unusual
explanations and descriptions of things that have no bearing on reality.
Like when a child knocks over a lamp and says "A gorilla came in and did
that".  Often those explanations and descriptions are nothing but wishful
thinking.

>>Given how inaccurate the light has been at casting real illumination on
>>reality, it's [SUBJECTIVITY] 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).

And for you, anything that someone says that claims to talk about things
BEYOND our "physical reality" is taken ipso facto as truth.  That's the only
alternative there is to what you describe above.  After all, how could you DARE
to claim that such a person is lying JUST because he/she has no hard proof of
his/her wild notions.  Thus, you MUST accept them all!  Hopefully, endeavors
in human psychology will answer many of our questions about human relationships
and such things in more detail.  Actually, there are a lot of obvious answers
right now about things like marriage that people seem to ignore.  (See
net.singles discussion ongoing)

>>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.

WE (almighty US) can't do it.  So?  I don't understand what the big deal is.
Seems like people are going from both ends to try to force-fit subjective
notions into "reality":  one says "what about non-causality" and the other
says "but we don't know precisely what causality is".  Anything to force-fit
the notions in, or so it seems.
-- 
Providing the mininum daily adult requirement of sacrilege...
				Rich Rosen 	ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr