(May 7, 2013 at 2:57 am)fr0d0 Wrote: It's not 'feelings' Esq, it's thought. If you can rationalise something that cannot be proven empirically, that's not a feeling. There are reasons for your decisions. What you are dismissing is this whole realm of human endeavour (which covers far more than philosophy). That's wholly illogical.

You can rationalize a lot of things. Your ability to do so doesn't mean that it exists, or even that it's rational at all; all it proves is that your mind is able to contort into a shape where it can accept a given proposition. I mean, there are tons of religions you don't ascribe to, and they've all managed to rationalize their gods into being the same as you have. Obviously at least one of you is wrong, despite thinking you've got more than a feeling.

And I'm not dismissing anything, I'm simply noting that things that exist tend to leave evidence of their existence, and without evidence we're not justified in believing something to exist.

Chadwootersism: quite an intelligent guy with a very heavy burden. You are one of those folks trying to make a science out the god hypothesis. Working tirelessly to put a new spin on it. Because like the rest of us atheist, you lack all the evidence to support this hypothesis but, unlike us, you really want the evidence to present itself. I guess I can't fault you for that. You know what they say; you're life is what you make it. Keep digging. Who knows what you'll find.

(May 7, 2013 at 9:52 am)frz Wrote: Chadwootersism: quite an intelligent guy with a very heavy burden. You are one of those folks trying to make a science out the god hypothesis. Working tirelessly to put a new spin on it. Because like the rest of us atheist, you lack all the evidence to support this hypothesis but, unlike us, you really want the evidence to present itself. I guess I can't fault you for that. You know what they say; you're life is what you make it. Keep digging. Who knows what you'll find.

perfectly put.

(May 6, 2013 at 5:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(May 6, 2013 at 3:13 pm)whateverist Wrote: Afterall, our capacity for reason evolved in the pursuit of dinner, not in pursuit of 'the truth'.

Did it?

If you accept that we, like every other critter on this planet, have evolved to be as we are through natural selection, then yes it did.

Of course "evolved to pursue dinner" is shorthand for evolved to survive making use of what traits were useful. Apparently the capacity for language and discursive thought had utility because we've sure gotten a whopping big share of that by comparison with other animals. Now if you don't accept evolution (i.e., natural selection), then this point will be lost on you since you won't accept the premise. Do you accept the premise? Do you think we and our traits are as they are as a result of natural processes - whether or not we understand all the relevant natural influences and whether or not there is conclusive evidence for thinking so? (I do.)

(May 6, 2013 at 8:29 am)Faith No More Wrote: The supernatural must be ruled out until it can be demonstrated to exist, and a lack of a natural understanding of a process is not evidence for the supernatural. Unless you can demonstrate that a natural explanation is impossible, the supernatural must be dismissed.

Robert Heinlein said, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Natural and supernatural are relative terms and tend to shift around much. Natural, to my mind, does not mean subject to the laws of physics. To me the fact that words can refer to both actual and abstract things seems perfectly natural. But I do not think an understanding of this reduces to physics.

Now if you mean a scientific explanation then you are on the wrong track. By itself, the scientific method is structurally incapable of generating a true Theory of Everything. It intentionally excludes qualitative descriptions from its methodology. If there is to be a solution you have to work both ends against the middle.

(May 6, 2013 at 6:06 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: At the quantum level, matter and energy are probabilistic, at our scale that results in reliable laws of nature…whereas a single pair of virtual particles is wholly unpredictable, that a certain number of them (give or take a few decimal points) will appear in a given time in a given volume is nearly certain...because random things follow the laws of probability.

Your answer is begging the question. The question is about laws known by induction, including the law of probability. I accept the idea of statistical inertia, but only because I think there is a reason for statistical inertia. Even if the probability becomes near infinitesimal at the macro level, there is still a chance, however small, that things could suddenly get very strange indeed.

(May 6, 2013 at 6:06 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Funny, I hadn't heard existential nihilism precluded one from talk of meaning, intentions, value, and rationality. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've heard existential nihilists discuss them. Perhaps this is a subject you don't fully understand.

I can assure you that I fully understand existentialism. To some extent I am one and understand that even if you talk about those things you still recognize a point where one must freely choose without any possibility of rational support.

(May 6, 2013 at 6:06 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Actually it would be the fallacy of composition to assume contents and container must have all the same properties. If a wall is made of unbreakable bricks, that doesn't mean the wall is unbreakable.

Not in any monist theory in which everything has the same underlying nature. The material properties manifest at the macro level are still dependant on the fundamental material properties.

(May 6, 2013 at 6:06 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Good. If it's not impossible to identify, how do we go about identifying it?

That is a very good question. And it is the question that proponents of physicalism want to ignore and pretend does not exist. For me to answer now would be highly speculative, although I have some ideas. But I remain curious and willing to use all the tools at my disposal.

(May 6, 2013 at 6:06 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Atheists who are rationalists provisionally accept the current best scientific explanations for phenomena.

Really? Many here seem to think it is a lack of belief in deity and nothing more. If those participants don’t howl at you then they are hypocrites. But to some extent I agree. Atheism constrains thinking along certain paths: nihilism or rationalism. Is the rationalist position internally consistent? Not if it restricts its understanding to scientific explanations of certain phenomena and pretends the rest do not exist.

(May 6, 2013 at 6:06 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: As rationalists, observing that there is randomness at the quantum scale doesn't cause us to disregard our observations of reliable natural laws at larger scales.

That is fair enough, if your only concern is knowledge obtained by induction which you assert to work as a brute fact and doing precludes you from understand whole segments of reality.

---

(May 7, 2013 at 11:39 am)whateverist Wrote: Apparently the capacity for language and discursive thought had utility because we've sure gotten a whopping big share of that by comparison with other animals.

Yes, reason has utility. However, reason works because the world is reasonable.

(May 7, 2013 at 11:39 am)whateverist Wrote: Now if you don't accept evolution (i.e., natural selection), then this point will be lost on you since you won't accept the premise. Do you accept the premise?

I accept natural selection. I also accept that we have evolved to recognize features of reality not all of which are lunch. And we can do so because reality has an inherent order to which we can be attuned. If the only 'purpose' of reason is to get lunch then there is no reason to assume it works for abstract ideas.

(May 7, 2013 at 11:51 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(May 7, 2013 at 11:39 am)whateverist Wrote: Apparently the capacity for language and discursive thought had utility because we've sure gotten a whopping big share of that by comparison with other animals.

Yes, reason has utility. However, reason works because the world is reasonable.

Hmmm. Seems a bit like saying bats are able to navigate in the dark because the world is sonar-able. True but I'm not sure what the point of saying so might be for either the bat's sonar or our reason.

(May 7, 2013 at 11:51 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(May 7, 2013 at 11:39 am)whateverist Wrote: Now if you don't accept evolution (i.e., natural selection), then this point will be lost on you since you won't accept the premise. Do you accept the premise?

I accept natural selection. I also accept that we have evolved to recognize features of reality not all of which are lunch. And we can do so because reality has an inherent order to which we can be attuned. If the only 'purpose' of reason is to get lunch then there is no reason to assume it works for abstract ideas.

This is precisely my point. Just because we have this faculty in the greatest degree of any creature on planet earth (as far as we can tell), is no reason to assume it fool proof. I am especially wary of reasoning from the logical implications of the categories we impose on the world to how things must in fact stand in the world. That the world is reasonable is always a test of the adequacy of our categories and observations. The world is as indifferent to our attempts to make it reasonable as it is to the bat's attempts to apply echo-location. Any failing of reasonableness will always be our own failing, not the world's.

ChadWooters Wrote:Robert Heinlein said, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Natural and supernatural are relative terms and tend to shift around much. Natural, to my mind, does not mean subject to the laws of physics. To me the fact that words can refer to both actual and abstract things seems perfectly natural. But I do not think an understanding of this reduces to physics.

Now if you mean a scientific explanation then you are on the wrong track. By itself, the scientific method is structurally incapable of generating a true Theory of Everything. It intentionally excludes qualitative descriptions from its methodology. If there is to be a solution you have to work both ends against the middle.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the scientific method has its limitations, such as dealing with abstract concepts. I agree, because I cannot scientifically prove what is moral or what is justice. The problem that I see is you are trying to impose these limitations upon the mind/body problem when it is actually human limitations that fail to answer the question, not the scientific method. The brain is complex, and we are far from being able to explain its inner workings entirely. That doesn't mean, however, that we should suddenly try to understand the problem as an abstract concept. The mechanisms behind the mind must be approached scientifically until it can be conclusively demonstrated that it cannot be reduced to physical phenomena.

(May 7, 2013 at 11:51 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(May 6, 2013 at 6:06 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: At the quantum level, matter and energy are probabilistic, at our scale that results in reliable laws of nature…whereas a single pair of virtual particles is wholly unpredictable, that a certain number of them (give or take a few decimal points) will appear in a given time in a given volume is nearly certain...because random things follow the laws of probability.

Your answer is begging the question. The question is about laws known by induction, including the law of probability. I accept the idea of statistical inertia, but only because I think there is a reason for statistical inertia. Even if the probability becomes near infinitesimal at the macro level, there is still a chance, however small, that things could suddenly get very strange indeed.

Are you saying that you can't accept a small chance things will get strange, no matter how many zeroes follow the decimal point? If so, do you have anything else besides your unwillingness to accept it to support it not being the case?

(May 7, 2013 at 11:51 am)ChadWooters Wrote: I can assure you that I fully understand existentialism. To some extent I am one and understand that even if you talk about those things you still recognize a point where one must freely choose without any possibility of rational support.

Is there ANY philosophy besides solipsism that doesn't have to resort to unprovable axioms at some point? I can't prove reality is real (nor can anyone else), but I accept it as an axiom.

(May 7, 2013 at 11:51 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Not in any monist theory in which everything has the same underlying nature. The material properties manifest at the macro level are still dependant on the fundamental material properties.

Water depends on water molecules for its properties. That doesn't mean the molecules are wet or that water only has two hydrogen atoms. Monism doesn't make the fallacy of composition not a fallacy.

(May 7, 2013 at 11:51 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Really? Many here seem to think it is a lack of belief in deity and nothing more.

It is.

(May 7, 2013 at 11:51 am)ChadWooters Wrote: If those participants don’t howl at you then they are hypocrites.

More likely it would mean they're not wearing the blinders you have on and recognize that by specifying which subset of atheists I'm referring to (the rationalists) I have avoided over-generalizing about atheists.

(May 7, 2013 at 11:51 am)ChadWooters Wrote: But to some extent I agree.

You only think you do because you misunderstood me.

(May 7, 2013 at 11:51 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Atheism constrains thinking along certain paths: nihilism or rationalism.

Nihilism and rationalism constrain thinking along certain paths, not atheism. The only path of thinking atheism constrains you from is thinking there is a God. There are plenty of atheists who are neither nihilists nor rationalists.

(May 7, 2013 at 11:51 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Is the rationalist position internally consistent? Not if it restricts its understanding to scientific explanations of certain phenomena and pretends the rest do not exist.

Then it appears rationalism is internally consistent, because I am not aware of any rationalist who would maintain that alternative explanations do not exist or that some of them may actually be correct.

(May 7, 2013 at 11:51 am)ChadWooters Wrote: That is fair enough, if your only concern is knowledge obtained by induction which you assert to work as a brute fact and doing precludes you from understand whole segments of reality.

What segments of reality am I precluded from understanding?

PS: Please forgive me for not responding to every point, in the interest of brevity I limited myself to what I thought needed comment. And thanks for such an interesting topic of discussion!

(May 7, 2013 at 2:00 pm)Faith No More Wrote: If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the scientific method has its limitations, such as dealing with abstract concepts....you are trying to impose these limitations upon the mind/body problem when it is actually human limitations that fail to answer the question, not the scientific method.

Close. I am saying this. The scientific method has self-imposed limitations that prevent it from closing the gap between quantifiable properties with measurable outcomes and knowledge about the qualitative aspects of reality. The scientific method is a tool and a very good one at that. But its not the end all be all of human understanding.

---

(May 7, 2013 at 2:12 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: There are plenty of atheists who are neither nihilists nor rationalists.

Tell me more. It seems to me that you either believe in a reality that acts according reason or you do not.

Awwwwh, how awful. Science has self imposed limits that would not let it say something is so just because wooters wants it to be so.

Tell me wooters, just what reason do you have to say this is so other than you want it to be so?

Since when is wooters a being empowered to make something so just because wooters wants it to be so?

If you are not thus empowered, what signifance does your wanting it so possibly have such that you might feel justified in claiming our time on behalf of your petulent wants?