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!mhuxn!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth From: beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) Newsgroups: net.origins,net.religion,net.philosophy Subject: Re: Fundamentalist Materialism Message-ID: <891@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Date: Thu, 25-Jul-85 13:08:17 EDT Article-I.D.: sphinx.891 Posted: Thu Jul 25 13:08:17 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 27-Jul-85 01:48:33 EDT References: <861@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>, <1288@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center Lines: 79 Xref: watmath net.origins:1930 net.religion:7277 net.philosophy:2109 From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen), Message-ID: <1288@pyuxd.UUCP>: >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? >[...] >Note that all these systems you describe, art, music, politics, are >human-defined systems where people make the rules (supposedly). Exactly! See, you *do* understand the line of thinking. There exist *real things* where people, and people alone (no science, no "laws of nature"), make the rules. And because scientific rules *can't* allow us to see them, we *must* take our subjective minds' word for it. What alternative is there? Write them off as "unreal"? Breaking a law which has no physical existence and which is completely unscientific will nevertheless have very real consequences. I don't think treating them as "unreal" would be particularly wise. >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. I assume (since you sign yourself as Rich) that you're male, and I assume (since I'm guessing that pyuxd is in Piscataway) that you live in the US. Try wearing a dress, hose, high-heels and makeup to work tomorrow. You'll find some very real hostility and other very real emotions that have a very real effect on what happens "outside of our brains". There's no "law of nature" that prevents you from wearing that outfit, but there are rules that people have made up that are real enough to prevent it. In that sense, at least, they do indeed have bearing on something's physical existence. Similarly, breaking the unscientific law can have some pretty noticable physical consequences. But (I think) the real issue is: can it be real even if it doesn't have a bearing on something's *physical* existence? >>>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! Well now you're just being silly. Saying "some things exist beyond the scientific, physical world" is just eons away from saying "everything that anyone thinks is real is, in fact, real". Politics, art, music, all those "human-defined systems where people make the rules" are real. There's no *hard, scientific* proof that Reagan is president, nor is there *hard, scientific* proof that an original Rembrandt is worth millions of dollars. But there's plenty more evidence that those two facts are true than there is evidence that the ghosts of all our ancestors live in the coffee cups sold by a little store in Maine. >> 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. I *still* think you're saying "it's only real if science deals with it". It's science that requires that things be independent of the observer, that things be reproducible by anybody with similar technique. The real-world, everyday humans I deal with don't (except that we require at least a general agreement on the meaning of words so we can communicate). And even science is slipping on independence - ask Schroedinger or Heisenberg. -- --JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) All we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.