Material, Physical, Natural
Offline I've seen a lot of definitions on the forum for words that seem to mean the same thing, but from the theist side, they're taken as distinct concepts, and I haven't been able to get a reason why (blood from a stone?)
What I'm talking about is natural/supernatural, material/immaterial, physical/non-physical, etc.
My bias here is positivism (or the "Science is doing a great job, thanks" school of thought). I'm having difficulty with the metaphysics because it's looking more and more like snake oil to me, but if there are metaphysical differences between these words, I'd love to know.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline I'll clarify what my actual presumption is. When people are communicating, there's always a little bit of misunderstanding. I mean, check out our discussion as evidence. We've had to go back and forth on definitions a few times, and we're not stupid people. There's always going to be a little bit of signal loss between your expression and my understanding of the way you think of something. So when I say "describe", as in "words describe", I'm talking about trying our best to use a word to represent something.
What I meant with describe was to draw a picture with words.
It is one thing we do with language.
Maybe we want to describe to a friend something we saw.
It is the language used in empirical science which has perfected it to the clearest most logical form.
I'm not sure there is a "correct" way to use language, so there, I must have mislead you. If we hope to form a vocabulary, we need a common understanding. If I say "relationship", it means, "y'know, that thing that happens with people" and not necessarily a chemical breakdown (which you would be right in considering ridiculously reductionist).
Fair enough. If we remember the context of the relationship, you said something about them being studyable scientifically.
I perhaps have a narrow view of science and saw science using a particular kind of language - one that purely describes the physical world.
It is the language used in physics, and terms in chemistry and biology can be reduced/defined in this language.
I don't think that relationship can, so I claimed the science can't deal with relationships.
But that claim was based on my idea of the language of science. Maybe my view of science was just a bit narrow...
You're right that words can describe things but they don't have to.
When does a word not describe something? I mean here in the general sense. I'm having difficulty thinking of a word that isn't in and of itself an intrinsic description. (Just because I'm having difficulty doesn't mean the situation doesn't exist). Do you mean like when someone says "shit!" to vent frustration?
That's a perfect example.
Earlier I used the example of "Hello"
Wittgenstein had some examples too:
23. But how many kinds of sentence are there? Say assertion, question, and command?--- There are countless kinds: countless different kinds of use of what we call "symbols", "words", "sentences". And this multiplicity is not something fixed, given once for all; but new types of language, new language-
games, as we may say, come into existence, and others become obsolete and get forgotten. (We can get a rough picture of this from the changes in mathematics.)Here the term "language-game" is meant to bring into prominence the fact that the speaking of
language is part of an activity, or of a form of life.Review the multiplicity of language-game in the following examples, and in others: * Giving orders, and obeying them---
* Describing the appearance of an object, or
giving its measurements---
* Constructing an object from a description (a
drawing)---
* Reporting an event---
* Speculating about an event---
* Forming and testing a hypothesis---
* Presenting the results of an experiment in
tables and diagrams---
* Making up a story; and reading it---
* Play-acting---
* Singing catches---
* Guessing riddles---
* Making a joke; telling it---
* Solving a problem in practical arithmetic---
* Translating from one language into another---
* Asking, thanking, cursing, greeting, praying.---It is interesting to compare the multiplicity of the tools in language and of the ways they are used, the multiplicity of kinds of word and sentence, with what logicians have said about the structure of language.( Including the author of the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.)
(Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus was his previous work where he had postulated a 'picture theory' of language where words are used to represent pictures. It is a popular background to empiricist thought.)
These are obvious examples.
The point is to recognise the diverse nature of language to counter the temptation to reduce language to description.
As I will show later, such an assumption has been behind some popular arguments.
The thing is, I'm don't think that 'relationship' would make into a purely physical language. Words such as 'relationship' and 'love' have develloped out of a different use of language to describing physical nature. If all we'd cared about as beings was describing physical nature then such words would have never evolved.
But what else are we doing when we use words like "relationship" and "love" when we say them? Aren't we throwing around fuzzy descriptions of concepts? "Relationship" is more of a set of behaviours, so it's not quite as fuzzy, but "love" can be lots of things. The description may be less precise, but (at least as a noun) love is supremely vague, and yet manages to be shorthand for a collection of behaviours and simultaneously the interpretation of those behaviours.Is it the added implied interpretation that you would consider non-descriptive?
My first step here would be to look at where we use this language and what for.
When we describe something to someone, we want to use words to paint a picture in their head.
When we say "Do this." we want a different effect.
So the question is, what purpose does communication serve? From a sociological/anthropological point of view?
We communicate our beliefs and desires to regulate our actions. We bargain, negotiate, suggest etc...
Descriptions might play a part in this, but the language use as a whole couldn't be reduced to description.
E.g. Greetings like 'hello' and 'hi' are completely non-descriptional.
So from here we see that many of the rules of logic that apply to science won't necessarily apply to these concepts as they have different rules of use.
I am a believer in Free Will.
That is, a person might have beliefs and desires but these do not ultimately determine what decision that they make.
There have been arguments against this - the physical world has cause and effect so thus must our decisions too.
My argument is that as 'belief', 'desire', 'decision' and 'will' are concepts of social communication rather than concepts of physical description, they need not follow the same rules (i.e. be bound by a cause and effect structure) as concepts of physical description.
Maybe they do anyway? Maybe.
The only way would be to see how we use these words in real life and see our rules for these concepts based on our mastery of them.
The fact is, when we observe ourselves applying these concepts in real life situations, will is free. We do have a choice. Determinists always have to make their argument from metaphysical determinism - i.e. claim that our social communication language must share the same structure as our language for physical descriptions, but as far as I know they have no ground for this claim.
It usually boils down to them associating the langauge of science/physics as more 'correct' than coliqiual language, so that a more 'accurate' language of our decision making would be using that language.
So my purpose in pointing out that our language isn't necessarily descriptive is to prevent certain presumptions about certain concepts must be, so that we can observe them for how they really are. The presumption that beliefs, desires, numbers etc must be reducible to the language of physics has encouraged people to attempt to re-define them and therefore mis-understand them. This is why some supernaturalists might feel they need to protect their religion from 'reason' or that applying reason misses the point to it. Having said that, they are often willing to make the same fallacy in the other direction, making bad claims about the physical world derived from treating their religion like fact. I think that Stephen Jay Gould was really onto something with his NOMA which basically said to let science be science and religion be religion.
Recognising the difference in language games prevents a person from having to journey down either road.
And right there would be Wittgenstein's contribution to the RRS forums. I'd really like a way to develop meaningful communication between positivists and supernaturalists, instead of having the same brutal barking competitions. But it's a very difficult proposition.
I have to say, I've noticed something I really like about your wording.
You manage to express your inquiries in such a way that manages to bypass many of the psychological blocks that prevent a person from being open/pure/self-honest in their responses.
E.g. when a question is asked in the form of a sneer, or that implies an accusation, or something like that, the questioned person becomes very tight, narrow and defensive and start blurting out answers in order to 'save face' and 'defend their image/ego/self-esteem'... us all being human and the like.
It reminds me of something I read in a psychology book of people who had an arm they couldn't control. When asked direct questions they snapped back claiming that they were perfectly normal and had full control over their arm. However, when asked the question in a way that didn't implicate a flaw on their part; "Is that arm ever naughty?", asked in a whisper, they'd reply in a similar way; "Oh yes! Terribly!!" and in that context could be fully honest about the state of their arm.
I've often claimed in posts how we ought to be more 'tactful' in debate, but when it comes to it myself I've often found myself replying with the same sneers and accusations that I've accused my opponents of. It's nice to meet someone who can practice what I preach!
(That's another thing about your style of enquiry - as it lacks personal attack, rather than feel defensive your opponent feels the need to make up for it by being more self critical. Now you've gotten me all confessional about my debate style you crafty bastard!!
)Wittgenstein often said that philosophy's troubles would dissolve if the questioner would step back and analyze the question.
What an optimist! To solve the philosophy's troubles with semantic civility! That would be great.
Lol!! If only he could've practiced what he preached!!
Although W's philosophy was genius, in reality he was extremely volatile, passionate and erratic.
A great character and personality, but not the ideal when it came to settling debates with civillity.
There's that famous story where he was having an argument with Karl Popper and started waving a fire poker around to punctuate his points...
- Login to post comments
Offline I don't think that relationship can, so I claimed the science can't deal with relationships. But that claim was based on my idea of the language of science. Maybe my view of science was just a bit narrow...
The funny thing here is that we're trying our level best to communicate, and falling all over the place, and our topic is precise communication. Fantastic!
Yes, we were using different ideas of what a "scientific" vocabulary would entail, and I think that was the point of confusion. My stern and unmoving positivism can be a communication barrier. To be honest, I'm also enough of a shit disturber that I find the position entertaining.
The point is to recognise the diverse nature of language to counter the temptation to reduce language to description.
With the help of your examples I follow completely. Certainly language could be regarded as description, but it's fair to say you've demonstrated that it would be an anemic explanation. I was trying my best to assume the devil's advocate position, but I'm not sure I can do it any more with a straight face.
It usually boils down to them associating the langauge of science/physics as more 'correct' than coliqiual language, so that a more 'accurate' language of our decision making would be using that language.
Oh, I see. I was wondering where some of your objections were coming from, and I think it was from arguments you've seen elsewhere. My argument regarding a descriptive and referential language was definitely not a case for a more accurate means of expression, but an attempt at seeing language from different angles.
So my purpose in pointing out that our language isn't necessarily descriptive is to prevent certain presumptions about certain concepts must be, so that we can observe them for how they really are.
I like this goal, but that's predictable, considering my predictable positivism.
The presumption that beliefs, desires, numbers etc must be reducible to the language of physics has encouraged people to attempt to re-define them and therefore mis-understand them.
And in re-defining them, they play the unfair game of moving the goal-posts - I think I see your meaning.
I think that Stephen Jay Gould was really onto something with his NOMA which basically said to let science be science and religion be religion.
Here we may disagree (which is always the fun part). Gould's laissez faire position hits me as either bland cowardice, or boredom with the subject. Why should someone who is curious decide not to explore either discipline in the context of the other? I welcome challenges to the scientific worldview precisely because I consider the attack to be constructive. Falsifiability is the proud chink in the armour of science. On the other hand, religion has its irrational wackiness, and it should be fair game to look at it through whatever perspective, considering it claims supernatural endorsement. Unassailable positions such as these should not be afraid of attack! Nor should they be made safe from attack, in my opinion, because stifling communication only serves to create unnecessary drama.
I have to say, I've noticed something I really like about your wording [...]
You're too kind. Sometimes I get very nasty with people on the forums, but that's generally when they repeat themselves without trying to understand what the conversation's about. Here, at least there's some sort of development of understanding.
I love the story of the arm. Self control is always more difficult to do than to say - especially with people who seem to have the most self-control. Oh life - if only it were black and white.
I've often claimed in posts how we ought to be more 'tactful' in debate, but when it comes to it myself I've often found myself replying with the same sneers and accusations that I've accused my opponents of.
I hope you aren't disparaging the alternative to "tactful", since sometimes it's difficult to know exactly what our motives really are. Sometimes you just want to yell at someone, and sometimes you want to be right. We can't be perfect or expected to conform to an arbitrary ideal. (That's one reason I like opposing religious doctrine.)
Now you've gotten me all confessional about my debate style you crafty bastard!!
We'll hope your opponents aren't paying attention. Or better yet, that they are, and it forces you to strengthen your game. That's the reason I keep up the debates with certain members of the forums: my hope is that eventually I'll become so sharp that I'll be able to convey my point of view in the briefest terms possible.
Although W's philosophy was genius, in reality he was extremely volatile, passionate and erratic.
I should hope so! It would be a terrible let-down if he turned out to be unremarkable.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline Well this is quite rare...
There's no much left to debate on now.
There was one point I wanted to write a little more on though, just a defense of Gould's approach to religion.
I think that Stephen Jay Gould was really onto something with his NOMA which basically said to let science be science and religion be religion.
Here we may disagree (which is always the fun part). Gould's laissez faire position hits me as either bland cowardice, or boredom with the subject. Why should someone who is curious decide not to explore either discipline in the context of the other?
Well, no one is saying that you can't, just that the result wouldn't be very relevent.
You might do an investigation into the scientific accuracy of a joke, and it might be an interesting investigation in itself, but ultimately would have no bearing on the value of the joke as the value of the joke it to be determined by the humour. It's a bit like how some people accuse science of being 'cold fact' with no emotion or feeling. Maybe people can have a fascination with scientific facts and find them beautiful, but that's not where the value of scientific fact lies.
I think that's what Gould is pointing out, that if you look into the scientific accuracy of religion or beauty/moral value of scientific facts then you've found something interesting but it wouldn't determine the value of the said practice. The ugly fact would still be true and the scientifically unsupportable religious belief would still be morally relevent.
To be honest, I've not read into serious detail what Gould has said, kind of saw a summary and it clicked with some of my thoughts so assumed he'd come from the same angle as me. Perhaps in reality he is just being lazy!
- Login to post comments
Offline Natural/Supernatural...
Is there a 'subnatural' ???
Natural defines all that IS... Supernatural (a null concept) defines all that is NOT.
Discussions of Material or Physical vs. Immaterial or non Physical are the same as discussions of the relative merits of the Zebra over the Unicorn or my favorite, is Flash faster than Superman?
University left me with the distinct impression that metaphysics is at best, mental masturbation.
LC >;-}>
Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.
- Login to post comments
Offline Discussions of Material or Physical vs. Immaterial or non Physical are the same as discussions of the relative merits of the Zebra over the Unicorn or my favorite, is Flash faster than Superman?
Superman. Otherwise, he wouldn't be that super, would he?
Actually, I always thought that Superman must be faster. As the stresses of instantaneous acceleration would tear an ordinary man apart, Flash (having no skill other than speed) would have a bounded acceleration. Superman, on the other hand, could acceleration faster, as he is also indestructible. Further, he could fly into space to avoid friction. Flash had no such option. So for both a fast start, and top speed, I'd have to go with Supes.
University left me with the distinct impression that metaphysics is at best, mental masturbation.
Hey! That's my line.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Offline University left me with the distinct impression that metaphysics is at best, mental masturbation.
Funny how education will do that. Give you perspective and all. I'm less and less impressed with metaphysics the more I learn about it.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline Louis_Cypher wrote:University left me with the distinct impression that metaphysics is at best, mental masturbation.
Funny how education will do that. Give you perspective and all. I'm less and less impressed with metaphysics the more I learn about it.
I'm less and less impressed with it the more I learn how people use it to rationalize any-damned-thing whatsoever.
Whatever grows your turnips, I guess.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Offline I'm less and less impressed with it the more I learn how people use it to rationalize any-damned-thing whatsoever.
No kidding. How is starting with a huge assumption and only THEN getting all logical a rational way to argue?
Crazy Dude: Okay, if turnips are magic, and turnips are root vegetables, then it is impossible to prove that other root vegetables are not also magic.
Will: Why would I want to prove that root vegetables aren't magic?
Crazy Dude: See? You can't. QED.
Whatever grows your turnips, I guess.
Sure, except that the turnips apparently have the power of mind control!
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline nigelTheBold wrote:Whatever grows your turnips, I guess.
Sure, except that the turnips apparently have the power of mind control!
I know. It's a good thing they don't want to take over the world or something. The worst they've done is convince people turnips suck, and we'd be better off eating carrots.
[EDIT] And it's too bad carrots' super powers are only ophthalmologic in nature. They can't even defend themselves. They just see it coming.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Offline I know. It's a good thing they don't want to take over the world or something. The worst they've done is convince people turnips suck, and we'd be better off eating carrots.
Have you tried raw turnip? Very tasty. Almost spicy.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline Have you tried raw turnip? Very tasty. Almost spicy.
I do like turnip. I mix cooked turnip in with my mashed potatos (along with caremalized garlic and butter). I even like it raw, especially with a nice mild cheese (gouda is my favorite with raw turnip).
My favorite, though, is mixed grilled vegatables with turnip and potato (both par-boiled), squash, onion, garlic cloves, and whatever else I feel like throwing in. Sprinkle on some chipotle and ancho, a little bit of fish sauce, some olive oil, and grill 'til it's all got a nice crisp edge.
I am so ready for summer. And, I think I'm really hungry.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
You're talking about Paisley, aren't you? Not to name names, or anything.
I think it's in their best interest to leave these terms undefined, so they can draw arbitrary distinctions between the material/natural/physical. That way, physical events can have a supernatural cause (in Paisley's case, with quantum mechanics as the smokescreen for "supernatural" ). Just as a voltage potential requires physical separation of two different charges, they pedantically or mystically separate these terms so God can form between them, somewhere.
At least, that's my understanding of the technique.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
In order to make sense of these concepts, it's best to look back where the distinction came from.
Descartes, for example, notes that certain concepts involve material properties - e.g. weight, position in space and time, etc
There are other concepts that don't contain such material properties, so he made them immaterial - not material.
I think Plato had a similar thing in mind when he spoke about forms.
I think that they were right in that these concepts weren't 'material things', so immaterial, but they started talking about immaterial 'things' that 'exist', which kind of screwed things up as 'things' and 'existence' are material properties. So in talking about 'immaterial things' they were both ascribing and denying material properties.
IMO, the best way to view immateriality is as follows:
We use language in a variety of ways.
Sometimes we are talking about 'things' that 'exist' and we are describing the material world (or a possible material world)
Sometimes we are using language in other ways, so come up with concepts that aren't refering to physical things.
When we talk about numbers, we are not talking about a material 'thing' that is a number.
I think that there are less obvious examples too, like the concepts of mind.
So although we the material world is deterministic, because the concept of 'will' isn't a material concept (i.e. we're not using language to describe material things) 'will' doesn't have to be determined in the same way. So freedom of will doesn't contradict material determinism. (This is similar to Kant's views on will/mind/materialism - he attacked Hume's compatibilism but this alternative is similar in a lot of ways)
Paisley is completely and totally full of shit as far as his professed theology. He dances back and forth across several of his definitions.
edited to remove bull crap about definitions.
Respectfully,
Lenny
"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush
Paisley's the most recent example, but there have been others. I think there's a history there that I'm missing, and I desperately need to know where it's coming from. I've asked Marty, too - I figure he's going to let me know.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Okay, I think I get it now. Yeah, I'm familiar with the classical philosophers, so yeah, I can see where this stuff is coming from.
Yeah. Not to mention the fact that now this stuff gets mentioned in the same sentence as quantum theory, which is so screwy as to cross your eyes.
Except that when we have concepts that aren't referring to physical things, they're usually interactions between physical things, or they're imaginary. "Imaginary" is a more honest way of putting that, since integers and fractions can be demonstrated to have a physical analogue.
Thanks for giving me the heads up on the history.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Yeah. Quantumn theory is a materialistic/physicalistic theory.
To be honest, although there is genuine interest in proper metaphysics there are a lot of people out there who don't understand the issues but just throw in the terms for effect.
"<Insert famous thinker> had to admit that <a certain part of their philosophy> was beyond our natural grasp"
Another popular one is Godel's theorem.
How much has that mathematical work been abused by people who just didn't understand it, just saw the conclusion "Some true things cannot be proved" without having a clue of the context or meaning behind it.
Hmmm... I largely disagree with this.
Imaginary has nothing to do with material/immaterial.
When we imagine something, we imagine a material concept.
(Material in the philosophical sense anyway)
Imagination is the difference between whether this material concept actually exists or not.
When I said that concepts don't refer to 'physical things', that doesn't mean they refer to imaginary things.
I meant the concepts aren't referencial. Not every use of langauge is to refer to things.
The word 'table' clearly refers to the physical concept of a table.
The word 'hello' clearly doesn't refer to anything physical - it's not even a noun!
The difference between our language for greeting someone and our language for describing the physical world has clear differences that we would never mix up.
Numbers and mental concepts are where it gets cloudy as we treat them as nouns but they don't refer to physical things.
In some ways we treat them similarly as physical concepts but on the other hand they are distinct - have different uses.
I think that the close similarities but subtle differences has caused a huge amount of confusion within philosophy of mind.
It appears you disagree - saying that integers and fractions having a physical analogue?
I'd be interested hear more about what you mean by that.
Oh. I don't think I've heard this argument before, so naturally I'm fascinated. When you say "we imagine a material concept" do you mean the process of thinking is material? Or do you mean the actual material thing being imagined ... actually, I don't know what you mean. I can imagine a unicorn, even though such things don't exist. Where are you drawing the line?
Okay, but the word hello represents the sound of someone greeting another in English. I'm not being a smartass about this - I want to understand why the word hello isn't descriptive of a physical reality (a sound).
I don't think we disagree, we just haven't set up our terms yet. When numbers represent quantity, like 1 1/2 apples, or seven birds, or a 10 foot pole, those numbers have referential meaning. To explain fractions to a child, you just cut an apple in quarters. That's the physical analogue of numbers: physical quantities.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
We've both had a couple of "Wow." moments with Paisley, it seems. He's come up with some pretty comic material. I had a good laugh at "is it possible to be any more full of shit?"
I'd say no.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
It's been my observation that a lot of these words get used as part of a rather elaborate argument from ignorance/false analogy construct.
Whenever a theist runs into a philosophical roadblock, he first retreats to a word like 'supernatural' or 'metaphysical' to try to create an analogy that permits god to exist. When the false analogy is exposed, he retreats to uncertainty to try to justify his position. When this fails, he invokes quantum physics, which is, of course, another false analogy, and a fallacy of composition. In other words, a theist keeps a rather impressive stock of fallacies on which to fall back, each one relying on other fallacies. It's a really impressive web, and very hard to get through.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
When we talk about concepts, material/immaterial doesn't talk about whether it exists or whether it is just imaginary.
It's that concept x might or might not exist, and whether it is material/immaterial tells us about the nature of the x that may or may not exist.
Material/immaterial talks about structure.
Material objects exist within a spacetime structure - they have a position in time and space.
They also have mass etc...
So the unicorn is a material concept, because if a unicorn existed it would exist as something material.
If the unicorn was imagined then you'd be imagining something material.
That's cool. I've glad you've got an interest in this.
I usually send someone to sleep by now with my ranting!
When we say 'hello', we're not describing the sound we made. We'd use a different sentence like "Joe said hello to Jim" or something like that.
Perhaps you could say that 'hello' exists as the sound we make when we say it, but there's a problem there:
We would also have to say that 'God' exists as the sound we make when we say it.
My computer would exist as the sound I make when I talk about it, the words I write to describe it, as well as the physical existence of the computer itself.
So if you say "Hello refers to or exists as the sound we make", you have to say that your foot has multiple existences - as the sounds/signs as well as the physical foot itself.
To cut a long story short, it's not a meaningful way to use the word 'exists' and certainly not how we use it normally.
You can use physical examples to help explain mathematics, but the actual definitions of mathematics are completely independent of physical fact.
The best way to see mathematics is as a game with rules, and "mathematical truth" means the rules of maths has been followed.
We are first taught mathematics by learning to count.
We are taught to repeat the sequence from 1 - 9, then after 9 the units go to 0 and you count the tens...
We are basically taught a game to play and that's where the concept of number comes from.
The fact that this game has physical application makes it useful, but it isn't rooted in physical fact.
A good example to look at is Arithmetic
That was my impression, too, so I guess what I was asking was "am I crazy, here?" Because the arguments, when you ask them what they're really trying to say, just fall apart. Having people tell me that quantum theory proves God makes me want to smack them. But I figured I must be interpreting the words incorrectly.
I have no problem with metaphysics as a kind of informal discussion (honestly, it's been covered to death by real philosophers, and we're not hitting on anything really deep) but "proof"? C'mon, guys.
My favourite so far was Paisley's "materialism in the gaps" because "remember, it cuts both ways". Awesome.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Really? This is blowing my mind. Wait, is this where someone says "love" is immaterial?
I think I'm getting it, it's just a strange way of looking at the world (to me).
Oh. So what doesn't have a position in time or space?
That is so weird. I'm appreciating the lesson in historical philosophy, though.
Right. So bizarre.
I don't know about that - I'm not sure we'd develop a method of counting without things to count. That doesn't make very much sense. Once you start to get into negative numbers, then you're talking about conventions, and operating within a game (there's no arguing with that). I wouldn't disagree that it's a game with conventions, but as to the beginnings of numbers, basic counting shows up usually with trade in early civilizations.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Sorry I'm late to the table on this. And, I've had a few beers. But, I want to join in. I WANT TO JOIN IN!
So, to perception-check:
A number without a unit (say, 3) is immaterial. A number with a unit (say, 3 apples, or 3 m/s) is material.
A unicorn, either real or imagined, and of any color, is material.
A formula describing an aspect of physics (say, Vt + (g/2)t^2) is immaterial. The velocity of something during acceleration due to gravity is material. (The *velocity*, not the thing with the velocity.)
The God described by some random idiot using quantum indeterminacy as rationalisation is material.
The study of classical metaphysics is immaterial.
Do I get a gold star? Or a note to my mommy?
Thanks, Strafio. Seriously.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Perhaps one of the most difficult things in philosophy is understanding what the argument is even about in the first place.
Questions that relate directly to everyday experience are very easy to understand.
Those questions lead to deeper questions that are more difficult to grasp unless you are extremely familiar with what questions led to them.
This carries on a chain of more and more questions until you reach the 'ultimate' questions at the end.
This is the domain of philosophy, and the questions are usually so far removed from our normal experience of the world that we find it impossible to understand or care what is being asked.
I'd say that numbers don't, that beliefs and desires don't.
Ofcourse, not everyone agrees with this position - some people think that beliefs, desires and numbers can be 'reduced' to physical things and will often postulate physical definitions. However, these definitions are counter-intuitive, that is, they don't match how we really use these words in the real world.
Their motivation for these definitions is because they feel that they need to reduce these concepts to something physical, but I think that's mistaken too.
I think you're mixing up explanation with justification.
Explanation describes the circumstances to something happening.
Justification gives justification.
e.g. Why do you believe x?
Explanation: I was brainwashed into believing it
Justification: It can be proved in the following way
What you gave above was an explanation on how we develloped the game 'mathematics' and I have no disagreement with it.
It is quite likely that our practice of counting develloped in that way.
When I said that mathematics isn't 'rooted' in physical fact, I was saying that it wasn't justified by it.
I.e. when we talk about what we ought to believe in mathematics, e.g. whether 2 + 2 = 4, physical fact has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Mathematics, as a practice, develloped out of physical circumstances.
But so did all our practices, e.g. describing the physical world.
The more the merrier!
Pretty much. Mathematicians wouldn't call a 'number with a unit' a number, but I get what you're saying here.
Hmmm... I might have to change what I said earlier about material concepts having a position, because gravity and velocity don't have positions but they're still material/physical concepts.
Perhaps I should give a revised definition:
Material concepts are concepts defined in terms of matter and or motion.
E.g. a Unicorn is a material concept that can just consist of matter.
A "running unicorn" involves motion as well as matter i.e. there is a material thing there but it is also going through change
Concepts like velocity and acceleration are purely motional - i.e. they describe change without refering to any particular material object going through the change.
So any description that refers to a physical event will be material - it will contain the material things and the changes they went through.
My claim is that the likes of numbers, mental concepts etc are of a different use of language to describing physical events.
Spot on.
Not sure... I imagine that it dabbles in both.
Considering you forced me to revise some of the things I wrote earlier...
Okay, I think I'm getting it now, but I'm still uncomfortable thinking that way about things. By that I mean it doesn't come naturally to me. But at least I'll have a better idea of what people are talking about when they use these kinds of arguments.
Oh boy. You don't know the half of it until you've gone a couple of rounds with some of the people on this forum. It's amazing.
Yeah, that's where it starts to get fuzzy for me. I remember undergrad physics and math classes where it would take about a day to get through four or five pages of math, only to find at the end that you'd done something wrong. That's heavily formalized stuff. So when it gets down to it, metaphysics for me is like a less certain method to get to a conclusion that just can't be checked, and I wasn't the only one who was getting the math wrong.
Oh! Right, of course. I see what you meant now.
I'll try to stop saying "so bizarre". It's just that I do have a very physical bias. Thoughts can be measured, to a certain extent, and brain injuries result in fairly specific difficulties depending on the place of injury. You understand this philosophy insanity, so when I say I'm a materialist, do you know if I'm saying anything other than my belief is in a purely physical reality?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
That's the same way that I'm a materialist.
Where I argue against other materialists, I'm usually trying to point out that they're bringing in physical reality where it doesn't belong in a conversation.
I think that reductionists and immaterialists make the same mistake:
Consider the following facts:
1) Certain concepts aren't material. If you look at them properly and assign the proper properties you will see that they are not material things.
Descartes, for example, came to this conclusion by introspectively recognising how his mind applied concepts by using thought experiment.
2) Good metaphysics only allows for material existence - immaterial existence is incoherent.
I don't really need to justify this to anyone on this website - it's stating the obvious among this community.
Now consider the third premise:
3) These concepts must be of 'existing things'
Once they add this third one in, they have to ditch on of the other two.
It leads the reductionists to deny 1 and the immaterialists to deny 2, when denying 3 makes a lot more sense than any of the other options.
At least we're on the same page. It takes a while to agree in metaphysics. Jeez.
Yeah, reductionism really doesn't make sense if you look at most interacting systems (even informally). Quantum theory and the mechanics of evolution come to mind as good examples. Your point about immaterialism is definitely understood (and todangst did a pretty comprehensive write-up on it).
The third premise, as I understand it, would completely deny imagination and creative synthesis. If we were unable to imagine anything that didn't already exist, how would we come up with novel solutions to new problems? Am I understanding the third premise correctly?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Lol! You mean we agree on one bit of it.
There's plenty more in metaphysics for us to disagree on!
This tends to be how it is in philosophy.
Half the battle is making your position understood.
Yeah. I think that Todangst' stuff on metaphysics is pretty good.
I've certainly learnt a lot from it.
Not really. It wouldn't deny the importance of imagination.
It would just stop us misunderstanding imagination by trying to re-define it as some physical 'thing' or 'process'.
When reductionists feel the need to explain concepts in physical terms, they usually end up bastardizing a concept and re-defining it as something different.
We would merely have to acknowledge that when we talked of imagination, we would be using langauge in a different way to describing a physical fact/process.
We could actually describe the world without a need for words like 'love', 'imagination', 'desires', 'beliefs' etc and describe the world purely in terms of physical laws.
However, as there is more to life than describing the world, we have other uses for language where these words/concepts do play an important role.
Sorry, your third premise was that thoughts would be *of* existing things, not that the thoughts would *be* existing things. I'm saying if your thoughts must be only of things that exist, then there is no imagination period. If you meant "composed of", and not "about", then I've just misread.
But that's a practical shorthand. I don't think you'd find much sane argument against just saying "love" instead of an expository essay. The biggest problem on this site, though, is assuming a shorthand for "God" that nobody seems to have in common. That makes sense, considering love exists as a set of behaviours, and "God" remains a kind of tricky method of mind control.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I think that's part of the reason lifewhispers is so hot on his definition of God, even though his definition is merely a tautology (though he denies this emphatically). I think he's really after a neutral definition of God. (As if there *could* be a neutral definition.)
I did get to use Quine's synonymy of analyticity, though, so my time with Marty wasn't all wasted. I think I'm actually starting to understand Quine, rather than just mechanically using him in arguments.
I don't believe there can be a shorthand for God. Eloise's God is significantly different from that of LW, or Paisley, or iGod, or any of the others. Here's where we need your metacalculus. There aught to be a set of metrics by which we can calculate to which specific God a person adheres. The X axis could represent the extent to which their God supersedes science, for instance. The Y axis could measure the magnitude of suspension of disbelief required. Or something. (Those two are probably not orthogonal, so it's a bad example.)
Oh, well. I'm just rambling before my first cup of coffee this morning.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
If you translate God as The Unknown, it starts to make a lot more sense when theists make declarations about 'God'. Try it. It also lets you immediately see their fallacies. Anything they say they know (or believe on faith) about The Unknown is by definition a non-sequitur and most probably an argument from ignorance (i.e. *because* we don't know Y, therefore we know X).
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
So far, I think I'm starting to get the metaphysics (with a lot of help) but I still can't even begin to understand the gods. If they're all personal (and they seem to be), the infinite number of them is daunting.
You were destroying Marty. I still don't get his point. He said he was going to email me back, but I haven't heard from him yet. Have you had any luck?
I'm trying to put something together that's as ridiculous as possible. I'll put it up here once I have it, and we can "develop" something truly horrific. I'm checking out the early logical positivist attempts for inspiration, but I don't think they're funny enough. Definitely earnest, but not quite funny.
It would be especially good if they weren't orthogonal. The metacalculus should definitely not make sense, except it the remotest, most insane way.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Thanks for saying so. I was trying really hard to understand his conclusions as well. I don't think he managed to actually get to the point before he bailed.
I got one email Saturday evening in which he said he'd respond to me properly on Sunday, after church. So far, nothing else. I think he's busy.
I'll do what I can to help. I'm afraid the nuances of metaphysics is still a bit beyond me.
Hey, Strafio! Do you have any recommendations for good overviews of metaphysics? Something that includes both classical and modern philosophers? I could use some light reading.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Yeah, of course. Except it still doesn't make sense, because the declarations aren't of mystery, they're full of certainty.
"God is a giant carrot-shaped cheese block from which all wisdom flows!"
"How do you know that?"
"Spiritual intuition"
"Gah!"
Absolutely, and that remains the most frustrating part of debate on these forums. If a theist admits that they're being wacky, at least that's a good first step. But people who assume that they were born in Georgia, therefore God is awesome are just out there.
I'd even accept a polytheistic "party of gods", since that's way more entertaining. This one god thing is so dull. Then it has to be omnipotent and all that. Booooring.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Ah... ok...
When I said that it was of 'existing things', I meant ideas of concepts with that kind of structure, things that could exist or not exist.
So you imagine a unicorn, it doesn't actually exist, but it has the structure of a 'thing' that could exist.
'Love' on the other hand isn't a 'thing' that 'exists' or otherwise.
We'd say there there is love in the world, but we're not giving a purely physical description.
We're using words in a different way.
That's the thing though, I don't think that love can be reduced to a set of behaviours.
I think that any attempt to do so will re-define it in an innacurate way.
I think that even thinking of it in that way misses the point in the word.
I think that God should be treated in a similar way.
When people use the word God, they're not necessarily trying to be coherent.
A person's God concept will often change depending on what's demanded of it - you know, sometimes they want the loving God who will look after them and their friends and sometimes they want the vengeful God who'll smite their enemies, sometimes they'll want a God...
So God's the most loving or most nasty depending on what theology demands - it won't necessarily remain consistent.
I've always like what Natural has said as defining God as 'the unknown' and I think that 'the unknown' is one of many 'uses' that God has.
God will always fit a theology of some sort. Some theologies try and become more coherent, but as they do they gradually become less and less supernatural until you end up with something like Spinoza's pantheism, or some other theology that's practically naturalistic. I think that any person who sees religion as a description of reality to compete with science has missed the point.
Wow. Obviously I'm not getting your argument as much as I thought I was. Okay.
Certainly we're using words in a different way. When I think "love", I think of behaviours. It's a description of the behaviours, because that's what can be observed. The other part of any meaning to "love" is largely speculative, subjective, or inferred from behaviours. When we say "there's love in the world" we're really not saying anything, let's be honest. What we mean is that people love each other, and we can give examples of behaviours that we'd call "love".
How else do we understand the word, whereby it keeps its "point"? (I'm sure you're starting to get a feeling for my discomfort with the aetherial.) The word "love" as a linguistical convention that carries with it the baggage of romantic comedies as much as anything else. To tear it away from behaviour, though, would be very difficult from a positivist perspective like mine.
They're definitely not. It's more likely that they're trying to be incoherent, as that gives power through fear of mystery.
It's never consistent because it's an unknown. You can pick and choose meaning whenever you want, because there's no way to really verify any one version. That's yet another way to get control through fear of the unknown.
Most of the arguments here don't address the "uses" of the God concept. What other uses do you imagine for an all-powerful God? Do you mean like supernatural permission for doing ridiculous things like stoning people to death?
No, they just get closer and closer to dealing with the uncertainty of reality. That's scary. It's much more comforting to think that it's taken care of, a kind of elaborate "ignore it and it'll go away" means of dealing with death and meaning. Faith is just selective blindness. If you don't want to deal with meaning in your life, pass it off to someone who can tell you it's okay. That's why we see so much fervent belief in things that otherwise would be ridiculous.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I definately believe that behaviours are involved, just that you can't 'reduce' it to behaviours...
Again, not tearing it away from behaviour, just not reducing it to behaviour either.
There's a reason why scientific facts are 'cold' in a way that romantic comedies aren't.
When we tell stories we paint them with all sorts of concepts that don't reduce to factual information - they have a different role to play.
If we were to be talking in purely scientific fact, there would be no place for words such as 'love'.
It shouldn't be surprising really.
As humans we will likely have various needs when it comes to communication.
Sometimes we will need an accurate description of the physical world, but not always.
I think that positivists can go too far in trying to reduce language to physical description.
For the second half of that post, I didn't agree with your positive claims about the mindset of believers.
I mean, there certainly are believers like that out there but we're talking about God belief in general.
You seemed to be only thinking about the most extreme whackos out of the bunch.
I agree that religious belief isn't a scientifically accurate picture, but it's not supposed to be.
Sure, the more extreme of the believers try and treat their religion in this way but the majority have their religious beliefs alongside their scientific ones with no conflict.
Science gives them an accurate picture of the world for when they need it.
E.g. If they want to launch a rocket into space then they need to know the facts that would allow them to create a suitable rocket.
Religion serves a different purpose in their life.
That's why many believers consider religion to be about 'meaning' rather than 'fact'.
I think the best explanation of the supernatural was indirectly given to us by South Park. On one episode a character kept having his underwear stolen by the "Underpants Gnomes" When someone tried to get them to explain why they stated simply that it was a plan to make money.
Step one : Steal Underpants
Step two : ?????????
Step Three: Profit!
Well, the "Supernatural" is step two, and makes about as much sense.
To go beyond your limits you must first find them.
Okay. I'm not sure I'm "reducing" it to behaviours, if behaviours are all that there is available to observe. I'm not suggesting that the whole is the sum of its parts, exactly, just stating what the word really does describe. For the part that's subjective, it could mean so many things to so many people, like the mysteries that people replace with gods because it makes them more comfortable. Otherwise, the common understanding of love is a set of symptoms. The subjective experience of it, however, can differ. I think that's the extra aspect you think I'm "reducing".
You may find that the best writers describe what's happening, and you fill in the rest with your imagination. Kind of like what happens with gods.
Not true - love is observable. Scientifically, things that are observable take a place in the understanding of nature. "Love" is a perfectly good name for all sorts of relationship dynamics between people.
When do we not want an accurate description?
Obviously, I'm playing with the ideas a bit to get a feel for the way you understand the concepts. But do the words not describe things? The extra aspect is what I'm after, here. The subjective seems to mean something materially to you. The "warmth" in a romantic comedy that eludes science, or the extra things beside behaviours with love. Are these not simply biases in understanding, or prejudice?
The facts disagree with their beliefs, though. When people no longer care if what they believe is true, it concerns me. That happens with moderates just as much as with fundamentalists.
If the rocket happens to be armed with a nuclear warhead, and religion's purpose tells them that the end time should be hastened, I'd say we have some frightening overlap.
Which is fine right up to the point where they consider that meaning to be a fact. Because that tends to happen.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
The underpants gnomes take their place as my second favourite supernatural creature. My first is, of course, LosingStreak's 3 Berry Blast smoothie.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Baises in understanding? Prejudice? These words accuse the 'warmth' of inaccuracy - i.e. presupposes that it was supposed to be 'accurate' i.e. give a scientific description.
I think you're caught up in a presumption about language here, that scientifically correct language is the only correct way to use language.
You're right that words can describe things but they don't have to.
What will probably make what follows easy is if you're familiar with some of Wittgenstein's later philosophy.
You won't need to read all of it.
To summarise:
He says that rather than start with pre-conceptions of what language must do we should observe how we use it in real life.
He uses some examples that show that there's much more to our language than just giving descriptions.
He uses the term 'language game' to penn a situation in which we might use language a certain way.
Read what you can and see what you think.
I'll try and clarify my position:
1) It starts with a positive claim about language.
The meaning of a word will be shown by how we use it and there are various ways that we do use it.
I.e. it will depend on the langauge game that it develloped in.
2) Now I point out that the strict logical/mathematical language that the sciences prefer to use is one such example.
Like all uses of language, it develloped for a certain purpose - e.g. accurately describing the world.
However, as we have other language games with different rules, some terms just won't fit into this discourse.
3) Supernaturalists see that some concepts don't fit into the scientific language so postulate them having scientific existence.
Some people then feel the need to reply to this absurd claim by reducing these concepts into scientific language.
They usually do this by re-defining the concept in some way to make it fit a more scientific discourse, but in doing so they have re-defined it - i.e. penned a new word rather than find the meaning that they were challenged to.
Recognising the difference in language games prevents a person from having to journey down either road.
Wittgenstein often said that philosophy's troubles would dissolve if the questioner would step back and analyze the question.
Why are they asking it? Where do these words crop in life? In what way are they relevent?
Does this question involve a misconception about them somehow?
The thing is, I'm don't think that 'relationship' would make into a purely physical language.
Words such as 'relationship' and 'love' have develloped out of a different use of language to describing physical nature.
If all we'd cared about as beings was describing physical nature then such words would have never evolved.
I'll clarify what my actual presumption is. When people are communicating, there's always a little bit of misunderstanding. I mean, check out our discussion as evidence. We've had to go back and forth on definitions a few times, and we're not stupid people. There's always going to be a little bit of signal loss between your expression and my understanding of the way you think of something. So when I say "describe", as in "words describe", I'm talking about trying our best to use a word to represent something.
I'm not sure there is a "correct" way to use language, so there, I must have mislead you. If we hope to form a vocabulary, we need a common understanding. If I say "relationship", it means, "y'know, that thing that happens with people" and not necessarily a chemical breakdown (which you would be right in considering ridiculously reductionist).
When does a word not describe something? I mean here in the general sense. I'm having difficulty thinking of a word that isn't in and of itself an intrinsic description. (Just because I'm having difficulty doesn't mean the situation doesn't exist). Do you mean like when someone says "shit!" to vent frustration?
And right there would be Wittgenstein's contribution to the RRS forums. I'd really like a way to develop meaningful communication between positivists and supernaturalists, instead of having the same brutal barking competitions. But it's a very difficult proposition.
What an optimist! To solve the philosophy's troubles with semantic civility! That would be great.
But what else are we doing when we use words like "relationship" and "love" when we say them? Aren't we throwing around fuzzy descriptions of concepts? "Relationship" is more of a set of behaviours, so it's not quite as fuzzy, but "love" can be lots of things. The description may be less precise, but (at least as a noun) love is supremely vague, and yet manages to be shorthand for a collection of behaviours and simultaneously the interpretation of those behaviours.
Is it the added implied interpretation that you would consider non-descriptive?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence