I also jumped into the middle of the thread with the following: The scientific method doesn’t operate in a philosophical vacuum. Philosophy plays a significant role in both establishing methodologies (Popper) and the interpretation of results… generally, if science cannot measure it, it’s not part of science…the demand for physical evidence of metaphysical entities… is not a valid request.

Following your good advice Epi, here is what I take as the OP’s basic claim:

(May 7, 2012 at 12:03 pm)JesusLover Wrote: There are some things we cannot prove…
Using atheist logic I should therefore consider all other humans to not be self aware, sentient, conscious beings as they cannot 'prove' they have these qualities…Would it not be better to accept that I can never know if other people are self aware like me?

Jesus lover addresses what I believe to be the primary weakness of materialism: its inability to account for the emergence of subjective experience out of nonconscious matter. While ‘I don’t know’ is a valid response and approaching the issue warrants a large measure of humility, the idea that science will someday ‘explain’ the phenomena fails to recognize the limits of the scientific method. This problem clearly falls within the philosophy of mind. As such, I maintain, once again, that the demand for physical proof of metaphysical entities is not a valid request, a request that only highlights the ignorance of those who do make that demand. JesusLover has issued a challenge to materialism. Materialism has so far failed to meet that challenge of providing an adequate theory of how subjective experience adheres to physical matter. Any takers?

(May 9, 2012 at 10:13 am)ChadWooters Wrote: I also jumped into the middle of the thread with the following: The scientific method doesn’t operate in a philosophical vacuum. Philosophy plays a significant role in both establishing methodologies (Popper) and the interpretation of results… generally, if science cannot measure it, it’s not part of science…the demand for physical evidence of metaphysical entities… is not a valid request.

Following your good advice Epi, here is what I take as the OP’s basic claim:

(May 7, 2012 at 12:03 pm)JesusLover Wrote: There are some things we cannot prove…
Using atheist logic I should therefore consider all other humans to not be self aware, sentient, conscious beings as they cannot 'prove' they have these qualities…Would it not be better to accept that I can never know if other people are self aware like me?

Jesus lover addresses what I believe to be the primary weakness of materialism: its inability to account for the emergence of subjective experience out of nonconscious matter. While ‘I don’t know’ is a valid response and approaching the issue warrants a large measure of humility, the idea that science will someday ‘explain’ the phenomena fails to recognize the limits of the scientific method. This problem clearly falls within the philosophy of mind. As such, I maintain, once again, that the demand for physical proof of metaphysical entities is not a valid request, a request that only highlights the ignorance of those who do make that demand. JesusLover has issued a challenge to materialism. Materialism has so far failed to meet that challenge of providing an adequate theory of how subjective experience adheres to physical matter. Any takers?

Sure.

First of all, you are giving too much credit to OP. Materialism isn't the only philosophy which relies on proof. In fact, this criticism is being leveled against any philosophy that isn't solipsism.

Secondly, not all metaphysical entities have equal status. Only the entities upon which the concept of proof relies would be exempt from proving themselves. Therefore, demand for proof for all other metaphysical entities is a valid request.

Thirdly, subjective phenomena can be explained as an emergent property of a particular arrangement of matter within the materialistic philosophy, just as the subject himself. You may argue that you do not agree with it, but the problem has been addressed.

I feel a distinction needs to be made here. Proof is not necessary to believe in something. What is required is evidence that can withstand scrutiny. So as far as other people's sentience goes, there is evidence around me every day that indicates that they are indeed sentient.

(May 8, 2012 at 9:46 pm)DeeTee Wrote: ... humble oneself to God recognizing that he rules not unbelief

No, he rules unbelief, too. Or did you need a comma in there? :D

---

---

(May 9, 2012 at 8:48 am)Epimethean Wrote: Coming into this a tad late. Chad, Ryft, aside from trying to point out a flaw in Pad's premises, what is it you would like to point out? Is there an overarching idea at stake, which we might all discuss?

I was not pointing out flaws in Pad's premises, whatever they are. All I was pointing out was how one particular sentence of his was pulling the trigger on itself. Some people value the opportunities that criticism affords them to express their view in the future with more logical integrity.

---

---

(May 9, 2012 at 10:13 am)ChadWooters Wrote: I believe ... the primary weakness of materialism [is] its inability to account for the emergence of subjective experience out of nonconscious matter.

That is a problem, to be sure, but I submit that the primary problem for metaphysical naturalism is its inability to account for itself.

(1) If metaphysical naturalism is true, then all beliefs are fully explainable in terms of non-rational causes.
(2) If all beliefs are fully explainable in terms of non-rational causes, then they are not rationally inferred.
(3) Therefore, if metaphysical naturalism is true, then no belief is rationally inferred.
(4) Metaphysical naturalism is true.
(5) Therefore, no belief is rationally inferred (including metaphysical naturalism).

Ryft Wrote:(1) If metaphysical naturalism is true, then all beliefs are fully explainable in terms of non-rational causes.

Could you elaborate on that?

(May 9, 2012 at 10:13 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Philosophy plays a significant role in both establishing methodologies (Popper) and the interpretation of results… generally, if science cannot measure it, it’s not part of science…the demand for physical evidence of metaphysical entities… is not a valid request.[/i]

Nonsense. You're forgetting Heisenberg's uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics that states our limits to measuring the physical properties of particles.

Quote:Jesus lover addresses what I believe to be the primary weakness of materialism: its inability to account for the emergence of subjective experience out of nonconscious matter.

I don't think anything can sensibly account for what you're proposing because you're not making any sense Chad.

What do you mean by "nonconscious matter" exactly? Something other than conscious or semiconscious matter? What?

Quote:While ‘I don’t know’ is a valid response and approaching the issue warrants a large measure of humility, the idea that science will someday ‘explain’ the phenomena fails to recognize the limits of the scientific method.

What scientific phenomena are you addressing? Or are you just referring to personal experience which is completely irrelevant to the scientific method?

Quote:Materialism has so far failed to meet that challenge of providing an adequate theory of how subjective experience adheres to physical matter. Any takers?

Do you gloat when your toaster fails to wash your clothes? Materialism is only concerned with matter and energy. The theory would have your subjective experiences falling under chemistry which is physical. Materialism has its weaknesses but not what you're criticising it for. I personally switch between materialism to physicalism and use the two interchangeably on the subject of defining matter/energy i.e what demonstrably exists.

Quote:We also have no ancient mss. for the Koran but we do have for the Bible

No, you do not. What you have a merely copies of copies of copies that have been edited and fucked up by incompetent scribes or deliberately altered by church scumbags looking to push their own power.

If you'd get your head out of your....bible ( you thought I was going to say "ass" didn't you ) you would find out what the rest of the word has known for centuries.

Your buy-bull is a load of shit.

Why do theists require stupid questions to make a point?

LOL…somehow, Genkaus, I knew it would come down to you and me.

(May 9, 2012 at 10:30 am)genkaus Wrote: .[1.] Materialism isn't the only philosophy which relies on proof… [2.] not all metaphysical entities have equal status…[3.] Therefore, demand for proof for all other metaphysical entities is a valid request…[4.] subjective phenomena can be explained as an emergent property of a particular arrangement of matter...

(numbers added for clarity)

Points 1 &3: Agreed. What I hoped to address was the dismissal of any ‘proof’ other that physically observed phenomena or empirically supported inferences. That shows an unwillingness investigate the intellectual tools and methods, like the scientific method, we use to investigate the natural world. Materialism doesn’t get a free pass on its metaphysical assumptions.

Point 2: Sure. Angels, symbols, and qualia fall into different categories of being. I don’t see that as directly relevant to the discussion, which I’m trying to focus on subjective experience.

Point 4 (the important one): Materialism does not adequately address the issue of subjective experience because it only speaks to half of the problem: brain functions. Materialist explanations of consciousness focus exclusively on operations, i.e. observed behaviors, neural activity, etc. The missing part is why the brain feels the way it does, i.e. how this specific form of wet grey matter gives interior life to our thoughts and sensations. ‘Emergent properties’ are sufficient for describing how various functional components can join to perform new functions, like gears and levers assembled into spring driven toys. Going beyond that causes a category error because combining simple physical operations to make a single complex operation is much different than making a sensation, or qualia.

First I would like to know, from a materialist perspective, why one set of neurons firing, identical to all others except physical location, gives rise to pain, another to the smell of vinegar and another the memory of your grandmother. Next, is sensation limited to biological matter and why? For example, if a robot behaved like a human does that automatically make it a sentient being?

Fluff questions, designed solely to distract. If you put as much effort into finding a scrap of evidence for the existence of a God as you did into coming up with flowery questions like that, you'd still come up short. But hey, you'd have tried.