Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,230 Year: 5,487/9,624 Month: 512/323 Week: 9/143 Day: 9/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How certain is materialism/physicalism as a description of ultimate reality?
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2497
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 16 of 145 (917740)
04-14-2024 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Percy
04-14-2024 3:49 PM


Re: Some Definitions Would Be Helpful
I will use the historical Jesus issue to offer a dichotomy.
I mentioned that I read a book, awhile (kinda far) back, on the historical Jesus, which I liked a bit more than the rest.
It was a book by Dale Allison.
It is titled Jesus of Nazareth Millenarian Prophet
(I struggle to remember many details)
I liked his views on the views of what type of Jew Jesus was, though surely not in all details. Allison feels the Sermon on The Mount was written after 70 CE, and people here would say, "They made it up".
Richard Carrier likes Allison. I just found that out days ago. Liberal Christian theology and historical scholarship tends to find the Sermon on the Mount to be historical (it is always complicated, though).
Secular historians write articles (and any "historical" book is actually divided into ARTICLES, the presentation is not as unified & sweeping as traders might assume), in historical studies, granting the historicity of the Sermon On The Mount.
I read the Allison history book, without knowing or caring about his religion or any details.
It turns out he is (per my Google search, days ago) a Christian who wrote a book defending the resurrection.
EvC is packed with posters who are - veritable - uncritically minded, the unscientific mindset is the reason for being totally clueless about history and the nature of scientific studies.
I also make mistakes, but they are perhaps due to an over compartmentalization, I dunno?
NOW A SUPER DIRECT ANSWER
Miracles and creation and the supernatural are part of the metaphysical sphere of debate.
They just are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 04-14-2024 3:49 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 04-14-2024 4:22 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22697
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 17 of 145 (917741)
04-14-2024 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by LamarkNewAge
04-14-2024 4:10 PM


Re: Some Definitions Would Be Helpful
I'm afraid I can't tell what you're on about. This is the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on Metaphysics:
quote:
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental structure of reality. It is traditionally seen as the study of mind-independent features of reality but some modern theorists understand it as an inquiry into the conceptual schemes that underlie human thought and experience.
Is that consistent with what you'd like to discuss?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-14-2024 4:10 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-14-2024 4:27 PM Percy has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2497
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 18 of 145 (917742)
04-14-2024 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Percy
04-14-2024 4:22 PM


Re: Some Definitions Would Be Helpful
That would be related to "soul" & "spirit"-intellect issues.
Continuity of consciousness after biological death, type issues.
Sometimes, I have seen a scientific issue describing a " 'hard problem' of consciousness"
I did not say I was discussing anything, however.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 04-14-2024 4:22 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 04-14-2024 4:28 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22697
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 19 of 145 (917743)
04-14-2024 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by LamarkNewAge
04-14-2024 4:27 PM


Re: Some Definitions Would Be Helpful
Uh, okay. Have fun.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-14-2024 4:27 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-14-2024 4:33 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 2497
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 20 of 145 (917744)
04-14-2024 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Percy
04-14-2024 4:28 PM


Re: Some Definitions Would Be Helpful
Why does it need to be me?
I will just answer that I don't know.
I will link to a study. From 2022
I have two books by Riger Penrose from around 35 years ago.
The Emperor's New Clothes and a followup.
There was just a big study, and it tested the metaphysical with the physical

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Percy, posted 04-14-2024 4:28 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Phat, posted 04-15-2024 8:29 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18456
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 21 of 145 (917750)
04-15-2024 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by LamarkNewAge
04-14-2024 4:33 PM


Re: Some Definitions Would Be Helpful
What study are you linking to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-14-2024 4:33 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 22 of 145 (917752)
04-15-2024 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by LamarkNewAge
04-13-2024 9:11 PM


LamarkNewAge writes:
Neuroscience is a pretty materialistic profession. It commonly will show that our memories are made up of biological matter. Roger Penrose and Stuart Hammer off have attempted to find a non materialistic interpretation of our brain and consciousness, but an underground (literally subterranean) experiment, in Italy, did not back up the physical description of the theory.
Really? It looks entirely materialistic to me.
quote:
Orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR) is a theory which postulates that consciousness originates at the quantum level inside neurons, rather than the view that it is a product of connections between neurons. The mechanism is held to be a quantum process called objective reduction that is orchestrated by cellular structures called microtubules. It is proposed that the theory may answer the hard problem of consciousness and provide a mechanism for free will.[1] The hypothesis was first put forward in the early 1990s by Nobel laureate for physics, Roger Penrose, and anaesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff. The hypothesis combines approaches from molecular biology, neuroscience, pharmacology, philosophy, quantum information theory, and quantum gravity.[2][3]
Orchestrated objective reduction - Wikipedia
Perhaps you meant deterministic instead of materialistic?
Also, Orch OR has a big hill to climb. Humans have constructed quantum computers, but in order to get them to work they have to chill the actual qubits down to near absolute zero, and even then they are only stable for the tiniest fractions of a second. The quantum effects proposed by Orch OR need to occur at moist and hot body temperatures, and survive wave function collapse for big fractions of a second. Just from a physics point of view (again, to the eyes of a non-physicist who happens to be a scientist), it doesn't look very doable.
LSD experiments are ongoing, and some physicists are always claiming to have made an LSD breakthrough, that challenges materialism.
LSD altering brain chemistry doesn't seem to help your idea.
Generally, just about nothing has truly challenged materialism, successfully.
Materialism is tough to beat from a pragmatic point of view. I view metaphysics, religion, and philosophy as being the realms of the more subjective or spiritual side of humans. If humans were 100% objective we wouldn't be human, IMHO.
UFOs - to the extent there has been "observations" by us, of them - seem to offer potential evidence that our physical laws need a better understanding, and some interpretations of UFOs involved interdimensional interpretations.
Many have been explained by common, everyday physics. You also need to be explain why these other dimensions would not be materialistic.
Materialism is the most relevant philosophy to a spiritual species, which humans seem to be.
I agree. Humans are a pretty amazing mix of objectivity and subjectivity. For the pragmatic and objective, materialism seems the way to go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-13-2024 9:11 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 23 of 145 (917753)
04-15-2024 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by LamarkNewAge
04-14-2024 12:17 PM


Re: Why don't you reword the topic? Then respond to your ahem perfect rording.
LamarckNewAge writes:
Metaphysical is a hypothetical physical concept, as we all know.
I wouldn't call it hypothetical, at least in the scientific meaning of the word. A hypothesis in science is a testable and falsifiable explanation for observations. Metaphysics is a set of untestable and unfalsifiable axioms. Those two concepts don't appear to play well together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-14-2024 12:17 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9366
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 24 of 145 (917759)
04-15-2024 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tanypteryx
04-14-2024 9:48 AM


Correcto
You were correct. None of my questions were addressed.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up, why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-14-2024 9:48 AM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-15-2024 11:39 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 25 of 145 (917770)
04-15-2024 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Theodoric
04-15-2024 3:30 PM


Re: Correcto
You were correct. None of my questions were addressed.
And even if they had been addressed, no one could understand anything he said anyway.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that it has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --Percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
Why should anyone debate someone who doesn't know the subject? -- AZPaul3
If you are going to argue that evolution is false because it resembles your own beliefs then perhaps you should rethink your argument. - - Taq

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Theodoric, posted 04-15-2024 3:30 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(4)
Message 26 of 145 (917790)
04-16-2024 11:46 AM


This thread led me to bastardize a joke about engineers.
Q: What's the difference between an introverted and extroverted philosopher?
A: The extroverted philosopher stares at your navel.
[for the joke about software engineers, replace "philosopher" with "software engineer" and "navel" with "shoes"]

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by dwise1, posted 04-16-2024 8:21 PM Taq has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18456
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 27 of 145 (917796)
04-16-2024 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by LamarkNewAge
04-13-2024 9:11 PM


Helping LNA with this topic
Phat in Message 11 writes:
So is this a philosophical discussion or a scientific one?
LamarkNewAge in Message 12 writes:
This would be a good place to discuss metaphysical-related events, like miracles and the supernatural.
Percy in Message 13 writes:
Why do you think miracles and the supernatural are part of metaphysics?
LamarkNewAge in Message 16 writes:
Miracles and creation and the supernatural are part of the metaphysical sphere of debate.
I noted that this topic was moved from the Coffee House to the "Is It Science" thread...perhaps to distinguish faith and belief from philosophy in general.
Now I am going to reintroduce Theos questions.
Theodoric in Message 4 writes:
Define metaphysical world.
How are LSD experiments relevant?
Define UFOs. Source for Brennan, Clapper assertions? If true, why would that be relevant?
Define reality.
So here we go.
As a side note, I can see why you wanted a more relaxed Coffee House atmosphere, but lets go with the Admins framework of Is It Science?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-13-2024 9:11 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Taq, posted 04-17-2024 11:14 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 30 by Theodoric, posted 04-17-2024 12:44 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 28 of 145 (917798)
04-16-2024 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Taq
04-16-2024 11:46 AM


... joke about software engineers ...
Line from the 1933 film, Female (it makes the rounds on Turner Classics), where the female boss is trying to seduce an engineer working for her but he's not playing along:
quote:
"I always thought engineer was a profession, not an affliction!"
 
Then there's that cruel remark you always get when telling the origin story of the PHOENIX ROM BIOS which enabled the production of IBM PC clones.
Short form of the story:
The IBM PC had a ROM BIOS (Basic Input/Output System) that controlled its start-up and loading of the operating system (PC-DOS or CP/M) from disk -- that process is known as boot-strapping or simply "booting up".
IBM distributed the ROM BIOS code listing with their PCs, but if you were to try to use any of that code to create your own ROM BIOS then your company would get sued out of existence for copyright infringement. You needed a ROM BIOS that did everything the true-blue IBM ROM BIOS did but without being based in any way on IBM's code.
The solution was to have engineers use the IBM code listing to write a specification for what the ROM BIOS had to do. Those engineers, having seen that code, are now tainted and can no longer be used. Instead, you needed to hire programmers who had never had any exposure to the original IBM code who would then write new code based on that specification.
Those new programmers were referred to as "virgin programmers" since they were "pure" (ie, untainted by exposure to the device being recreated).
The cutting remark when you mention "virgin programmer" is to the effect: "Is there any other kind?"
That story is reenacted in the first season of the TV show, Halt and Catch Fire.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Taq, posted 04-16-2024 11:46 AM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 29 of 145 (917813)
04-17-2024 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Phat
04-16-2024 6:23 PM


Re: Helping LNA with this topic
Phat writes:
I noted that this topic was moved from the Coffee House to the "Is It Science" thread...perhaps to distinguish faith and belief from philosophy in general.
I agree with those sentiments. If we are talking about metaphysics then we aren't talking about science or the scientific method. The scientific method is Methodological Naturalism, not Ontological Naturalism which would be an actual metaphysical system. Therefore, the scientific method isn't materialism, so if we want to talk about materialism we have left science behind.
I also subscribe to the school of thought that philosophy in general is mostly irrelevant to science. The renowned physicists Steven Weinberg states it perfectly:
quote:
Physicists get so much help from subjective and often vague aesthetic judgments that it might be expected that we would be helped also by philosophy, out of which after all our science evolved. Can philosophy give us any guidance toward a final theory? The value today of philosophy to physics seems to me to be something like the value of early nation-states to their peoples. It is only a small exaggeration to say that, until the introduction of the post office, the chief service of nation- states was to protect their peoples from other nation-states. The insights of philosophers have occasionally benefited physicists, but generally in a negative fashion—by protecting them from the preconceptions of other philosophers. I do not want to draw the lesson here that physics is best done without preconceptions. At any one moment there are so many things that might be done, so many accepted principles that might be challenged, that without some guidance from our preconceptions one could do nothing at all. It is just that philosophical principles have not generally provided us with the right preconceptions. In our hunt for the final theory, physicists are more like hounds than hawks; we have become good at sniffing around on the ground for traces of the beauty we expect in the laws of nature, but we do not seem to be able to see the path to the truth from the heights of philosophy. Physicists do of course carry around with them a working philosophy. For most of us, it is a rough-and-ready realism, a belief in the objective reality of the ingredients of our scientific theories. But this has been learned through the experience of scientific research and rarely from the teachings of philosophers. This is not to deny all value to philosophy, much of which has nothing to do with science. I do not even mean to deny all value to the philosophy of science, which at its best seems to me a pleasing gloss on the history and discoveries of science. But we should not expect it to provide today’s scientists with any useful guidance about how to go about their work or about what they are likely to find. I should acknowledge that this is understood by many of the philosophers themselves. After surveying three decades of professional writings in the philosophy of science, the philosopher George Gale concludes that “these almost arcane discussions, verging on the scholastic, could have interested only the smallest number of practicing scientists.” Wittgenstein remarked that “nothing seems to me less likely than that a scientist or mathematician who reads me should be seriously influenced in the way he works.
--Steven Weinberg, "Dreams of a Final Theory"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Phat, posted 04-16-2024 6:23 PM Phat has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9366
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 30 of 145 (917820)
04-17-2024 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Phat
04-16-2024 6:23 PM


Re: Helping LNA with this topic
I assume his manic episode has run its course and we will not hear from him again until mania hits again.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up, why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Phat, posted 04-16-2024 6:23 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-18-2024 10:26 AM Theodoric has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024