|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
The Most Fundamental Question of Existence
Posted on: March 14, 2010 - 1:25am
   Offline
The Most Fundamental Question of Existence
Why is there something rather than nothing?
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2021.
|
It would be fine if it was anything new, but it never is. He just elaborately rephrases God of the gaps for every discussion and mixes it with blank eyed theistic poetry-babble.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
All interpretations of QM with the possible exception of the Standard intrepretation (which really isn't an interpretation) are metaphysical interpretations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics
Bob's preference for MWI is based on a subjective-bias for materialism.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I am a nonmaterialist. What does this mean? It means simply that I am "without a belief in the materialist worldview." Does this have some implications? Yes, it implies that I believe in some kind of spiritual reality.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Do you leave it fairly open and base it on the apparent functionality of things we don't understand or do you hold to biblical/theological beliefs of any sort?
Are your beliefs only based on the complexity of the universe/multiverse and its origins? That's what we do seem to talk about on your threads.
Or do you have other arguments/considerations you keep to yourself?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Bob has made the argument (and I am admittedly paraphrasing here) that it is very plausible that something emerged from nothing because we have empirical evidence that something emerges from nothing and that it emerges uncaused all the time (e.g. virtual particles popping in and out of existence). This is the same tactic that atheist philosopher Quentin Smith employs. It's a specious argument.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Yeah, it's speculative. But it is no more speculative than the "many worlds" interpretation which Bob is peddling.
Whether it is "supernatural" or not depends on how you define "natural." If you define a "natural explanation" to be a "physical explanation," then this is a supernatural explanation because free will is determining the initial conditions of the universe.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I thought Bob's pre-universal reality was quantum foam rather than nothing?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
That is nonsense.
The particular version of the MWI that I described is a mental model that attempts to help us understand how the Quantum wave-function math might 'work' in some sense that we might be able to grasp.
The observer effect does not require a conscious being. This has been demonstrated with physical instrumentation placed to record the outcome of a Quantum 'event'.
It is not a 'conscious observer' that is required, it is any macro-scale system that will physically record the result of the wave-function collapse. So quit your bullshit, Paisley.
On ultimate origins, 'quantum foam' is vastly more plausible as the proximate cause of whatever may have been the primary 'event' ie the Big Bang, or alternatively, in the Multiverse scenario, whatever may have preceded its origin, if the nature of Time actually requires this.
The closely related, but separate, issue of whether the 'first cause' entity itself, whether quantum foam, or even God, or maybe the BB itself incorporated its own primary 'event', either was just eternally there or appeared spontaneously out of 'true nothing', whatever that ultimately means, is another thing.
The Quantum approach to time sequence and what we normally think of as causality can also be addressed by probability concepts, which I have already described. But to briefly repeat, if there is one dominant state of the universe which has overwhelming influence on whether some particular event occurs in the immediately following state in the nominal direction of forward time, it will be identified as the 'cause'.
But if no possible state of the universe has any discernible effect on the likelihood of a particular event occurring in the immediate future, as is the case with radioactive decay, we could say that the event is without cause.
But from within this perspective of the flow of time, closely related to the MWI picture I described, 'causality' is no longer a fundamental, it is merely descriptive of a certain category of wave-function probabilities.
Now it could be that some particular state of existence, eg quantum foam, is intrinsically more probable than any others, if anything is going to simply appear, that will be it.
'Quantum Foam' is an attempt to provide a conceptual 'mechanism' for what triggers apparently random events.
Quantum Mechanics is such a counter-intuitive science, we need more than one mental model to help us get our heads around it. They are all almost inevitably crude approximations to whatever the 'ultimate reality' is, which may be some sort of synthesis of these ideas, plus other stuff we have yet to come across....
Hope this helps someone. I don't expect Paisley to get it, of course.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Give me an example.
I said materialism is a metaphysical belief. There's no question about this.
I never said this.
Hoping? That's textbook faith....
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not yet seen." Hebrews 11:1 (KJV)
I would suggest that you focus more on communicating effectively rather than on being cute. You're not very good at being cute.
Please cite a personal quote of mine to support this accusation. It would appear that you just make things up in order to have something to run off your mouth.
I never said that atheism is a faith-based pseudo religion. But I do believe that atheistic materialism qualifies as a form of fundamentalism and that atheists in general are not very open-minded (especially the ones that participate on this forum). The bottom line here is that you're really not the free-thinker you fancy yourself to be because you're really not open to other possibilities.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
This is simply a pathetic ploy in order to salvage materialism.
Virtual particles popping in and out of existence do violate the conservation law. Below is a link to an article in "Scientific American" that supports this claim. So, you fail.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-virtual-particles-rea
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I believe a Quantum ANTIsingularity (i.e. a cosmic egg) is the cause of everything...
...and I don't care for rock mullets
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
From that article:
Note the underlined. Quantum Mechanics is totally part of Physics/Physicalism.
Actual Physicalism is defined by the results of physical investigation.
So modern Scientific Physicalism, or Naturalism, is knowledge gained by the study of the natural world. So what happens is that all new 'laws' and theories consistent with scientifically revealed and confirmed data are automatically within the scope of Naturalism. That's how it works.
The distinction from metaphysical/philosophical approaches to knowledge is that science deduces which framework to apply as that which best fits what our investigations uncover, rather than presupposing anything, whether it be 'materialism' or 'dualism' or whatever. The assumptions of science are open to continuous review, in the light of the results of research.
The essence of science is to use whatever techniques we can to minimize the influence of individual hang-ups and biases etc, and apply as many independent tests and involve as many (hopefully) independent researchers as possible.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
"The first premise of this argument is the thesis of the Causal Closure of the Physical — that is, the thesis that every event which has a cause has a physical cause." - Link
If it doesn't have a cause, it doesn't have a cause. Are you SERIOUSLY trying to say that a lack of cause is a type of cause? I suppose you would because you seem to believe that dreamless sleep, where we lack awareness, is the purest form of awareness. You really don't sound intelligent right now.
They come in pairs. One positive, one negative. They exist briefly, and their overall change to the system is a wopping 0. No violation. Also, the uncertainty principle factors into what happens in the creation of virtual particle pairs.
"We are really using the quantum-mechanical approximation method known as perturbation theory. In perturbation theory, systems can go through intermediate "virtual states" that normally have energies different from that of the initial and final states. This is because of another uncertainty principle, which relates time and energy." - Link
My Website About Roller Coaster Design
Isn't it cute when non-scientists try to understand science? They come up with the funniest conclusions!
"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
I'm a non-scientist...........
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
But it doesn't appear as if you're trying to come to any conclusions. Also, it seems you understand the science behind the physics, or the physics behind the science. Whichever you prefer.
Near as I can tell, you certainly aren't attempting to use science to prop up non-scientific (and nonsensical) questions such as, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" (As opposed to the scientific question, 'How did the universe form?') You don't seem to propose something that does not obviously exist (for instance, "qualia," another of Paisley's favorite non-scientific obfuscations) and claim science is incomplete because science can't account for it.
I was perhaps being a little too general in my snarkiness. I don't regret it, though I meant no offense to you. (Me, I was educated in physics, but my career is in computers. So I too am not a scientist.)
"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
Are you actually arguing that your subjective experiences (i.e. qualia) do not exist?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Oh God, please don't get him started Nigel!!!!!
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
A temporary violation is still a violation. And if you truly believe that it isn't, then the next time a police officer pulls you over and cites you for violating the speed limit...contest it and go to the judge and tell him...."No, your Honor....I wasn't violating the speed limit....I was only TEMPORARILY violating the speed limit." See how far that gets you.
Virtual particles popping in and out of existence violate both the conservation law and the physical-closure principle. Also, QM violates determinism, on which materialism is predicated. That's three strikes against materialism and I haven't even mentioned entanglement and nonlocality.
Yeah, and the "many worlds" interpretation is part of metaphysics. As I recall, you have expressed utter contempt and disdain for metaphysics. However, that doesn't seem to prevent you from engaging in it. Some individuals like myself would call that hypocrisy.
I see. You're simply jockeying for position again by moving the goal posts. Here's the bottom line: "Non-reductive physicalism" is actually a dualistic position because it holds that consciousness does not "reduce" (hence...the non-reductive qualifier) to the physical. So, either you're affirming the reality of the nonphysical or you're denying the existence of consciousness. Pick your poison. Either way, I win and you lose.
By the way, you may want to edit the Wikipedia article on "physicalism" because its definition does not completely accord with yours (see quote below).
What exactly does this mean? It means that you have to provide me with one physical property of consciousness. If you can't do that, then you are conceding the point that materialism is based on faith (i.e. belief without sufficient evidence).
Apparently, my presence here is not for naught because you are now co-opting my argument. I have stated repeatedly on this forum that science does not make metaphysical pronouncements.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Just once, it would be nice to see, "Oh, I'm sorry, I did not read that correctly."
Naturally, we see him bulldoze ahead, shrugging off any potential facts that get in his way.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Well sir, I can ask the same thing. There is no logical explanation as to why God should exist.
"The Chaplain had mastered, in a moment of divine intuition, the handy technique of protective rationalization and he was exhilarated by his discovery. It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. Just no Character."
"He...had gone down in flames...on the seventh day, while God was resting"
"You have no respect for excessive authority or obsolete traditions. You should be taken outside and shot!"
Apparently you believe facts are open to personal interpretation. And the fact materialism sits under the banner of metaphysical beliefs doesn't support your delight in the immaterial. I'm unsure why you think your faith is based on something that actually exists other than conjecture - you are taking a leap with no support and your insistence you are not doing so doesn't change this. The fact is you don't know the truth but you pound your pulpit with complete conviction. Multiple folk on this thread have admitted to not knowing but you never really do. Next you deny you demand we operate on faith while insisting you are the only free thinker here thanks to your ability to be open to "other possibilities". What are these immaterial possibilities you believe in and what is their proof? If we agree with you, what is it we then believe in? That once there was nothing? That something you keep refusing to define made all the rest of the something out of nothing? When accused of asking us to have faith in the unknowable you then claim you never said such a thing and reach for your quiver of sly adhoms. When accused of suggesting atheism is a faith based religion you say you never said such a thing despite the fact you continually allude to it. And you then say atheistic materialism is a form of fundamentalism. What sort of fundamentalism, Pais? Religious? And don't tell me hoping to know more about the facts of the world and religious faith are the same bloody thing.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Oh, I won't. I stopped playing his word-games a long time ago. The fact that "life-force" used to be a major philosophical point, but is now relegated to the quaint ideas sales bin, shows the future (or current, really) destiny of "qualia." Same with the "ether" that was supposed to pervade the universe. Paisley is nothing more than a pseudo-intellectual with enough knowledge to be tedious. He stopped being entertaining or interesting a long, long time ago.
His constant harping on things of which he is obviously ignorant is pathetic. The more I learn about philosophy, the more I realize he is ignorant and pathetic in two languages: science and philosophy.
There is a good thing to come of this. I've learned that philosophy can be interesting and enlightening. You just have to be able to separate the ridiculous from the thoughtful. In a lot of respects, this is no different than science: there are a lot of Timecubes out there. Part of the skill of the layman is figuring out how to identify the Timecubes from the Lenskis.
[Edit addendum]
As an example of his ignorance of the science, I point to exhibit A: his inability to realize that virtual particles do not violate laws of conservation of energy because they exist along a temporary energy gradient, and their energy sum is 0. This shows profound ignorance of the laws of conservation, or ignorance of the nature of virtual particles. Someone with a little more knowledge would've at least introduced Hawking radiation into the discussion.
Further, his insistence on the magic of quantum mechanics, the nature of which we are almost entirely ignorant, shows that his epistemology is based on "whatever matches my preconceptions." If he were intellectually honest, he would admit that there are current propositions of the nature of QM that are strictly causal in nature, and cause both nonlocality and entanglement to become nothing more than mathematical illusions.
As with all people who wish to believe in magic, he jumps at any ignorance and says, "I know the answer to that! It's magic!" rather than taking the intellectually honest approach of saying, "This is currently a mystery."
"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
No, Paisley. I don't argue that subjective experience doesn't exist. I argue that qualia doesn't exist. And stop trying to conflate the two. It indicates that you're either a fucking idiot, or a fucking liar.
"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
"Qualia" are subjective experiences. So, if you are arguing that they do not exist, then you qualify as an eliminative materialist and are therefore irrational. If you are arguing that qualia are not subjective experiences, then you are an idiot because you are clearly misinformed and revealing your ignorance by making a pretense of knowledge.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I have just cited an article in "Scientific American" by Gordon Kane who says that quantum mechanics requires the temporary violations of the conservation law in order for virtual particles to pop in and out of existence. Gordon Kane is the Director of the Michigan Center of Theoretical Physics at the University of Michigan.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-virtual-particles-rea
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Just curious. What is your position on the "many worlds" interpretation of QM?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I know it doesn't have a cause. I have already pointed this out. And I am also pointing out that you don't have a physical explanation for an uncaused physical event. Thanks for your cooperation and participation in helping me bring this fact home.
Virtual particles require the violation of the conversation law in order to pop in and out of existence and I have just cited a reputable source that validates my claim. Your failure to acknowledge this does not change this fact. It simply reveals your intellectual dishonesty.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I said that materialism is a metaphysical belief that is ultimately based on faith (i.e. belief without sufficient evidence). And I will keep harping on this until you and others on this forum acknowledge this. The "many worlds" intepretation of QM is a metaphysical interpretation (not a scientific theory) in order to safeguard materialism. There is no question about this. There are a plethora of other metaphysical interpretations that support a spiritual worldview. There is no question about this either.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Well, actually there may be. And interestingly enough, an atheist on this thread made an argument that might provide the basis for it.
One could argue that the laws of logic (or rationality itself) cannot exist independently of conscious intelligence. And if logic or rationality must necessarily exist in order to provide a logical or rational explanation for existence, then one could argue that conscious intelligence must necessarily exist. Of course, we call this necessary "conscious intelligence" God.
Actually, the Stoics called this necessary "conscious intelligence or rationality" the "logos" which was later co-opted by Christianity and ascribed to Jesus Christ (e.g. John 1:1). So, the Christ or the Logos is rationality itself whose existence is necessary in order to give a rational basis for existence.
"In the beginning was the Word (i.e. the Logos), and the Word was with God, and Word was God." John 1:1 KJV
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Don't you think there's a difference between being open to a possibility and actually believing in something. You seem to suggest the 2 are interchangeable. And do you really think many worlds is not a scientific theory in order to "safeguard materialism"? I thought MWI was a fairly old math theory and that the MWI theory of QT matched quite well with current experiments. And I don't think atheists believe with insufficient evidence. I think there is a point where we stop believing and start saying we don't know, or we say maybe, or we say possibly. You keep insisting that this caution in the face of thinning evidence mirrors religious faith. How can this be? We're not using faith to bypass ignorance in postulating 'external' materialistic possibilities outside this material universe.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
OK, you have just surpassed your previously depths of stupidity. You appear to take the TAG argument seriously, the second most idiotic argument for God, after St.Anslem's ontological argument.
Therefore you are an idiot.
The Universe has attributes which are formally described by the laws of logic, in the consciousness of conscious minds. Those attributes formally described by the laws of logic, etc, exist a priori - they in no way depend for their existence on the existence of such a conscious description of them.
The reverse is true - the existence of any form of conscious entity is totally dependent on reality having those basic attributes.
I genuinely thought even you would not be so stupid.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Here is a more considered, contemporary definition of Physicalism:
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
So am I. But this probably means Pais can say we are eliminative materialists "and therefore irrational".
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I understand lots of things many others do not, and I fail to understand many of the things that are understood naturally by others.........(IE common sense)
heh! I spent my earliest formative years looking at astronomy books... trying my DAMNEDEST to figure out the one, final "unexplained mystery" of quantum mechanics... the gravitational singularity.
I think I ended up bruising my 'brain muscle' during all that hard thinking... but I was better off for it.
edit, as a side note: I can hardly blame you for not being a physicist... too much arthritis-inducing chalkboard scribbling
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
"1) a violation of determinism....not every physical event has a physical cause" - Paisley
Wow you a moron. Physicalism is not necessarily deterministic. Where you got that idea (maybe it's from your archaic use of materialism) is beyond me. Violation of determinism does NOT violate physicalism. Also, you talk all about CAUSES, and now you suddenly change your tune to an 'explanation.' To me, it just sounds like a different way of you trying to say that not having a cause for something means that explanation is wrong. You are presupposing determinism.
Oh? And my link wasn't reputable? You cited an article in an online magazine. I cited a university website. I learned in gradeschool that .edu trumps .com.
My Website About Roller Coaster Design
I'm not playing your stupid word-game, Paisley. If I accept "qualia" as equivalent to "subjective experience," you will then go on to use it in an expanded dualistic fashion. It's what you always do. I guess that makes you a fucking liar.
As Dennett has pointed out, "qualia" is being used by philosophers today in the same way that "life-force" was used by philosophers a hundred years ago. Just as there is no "life-force" to cause life, there is no "qualia" to cause subjective experience. If you weren't so intellectually dishonest, you would just use the words "subjective experience."
This is the last I'll post on this. I don't want to derail this thread from your other batherings on stuff you have no fucking clue about.
"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
My take is that we don't have any idea about the nature of QM. We have a statistical model of the behavior. That's it. Any conjecture based on propositions of the nature of QM are nothing more than mental wanking. The "many worlds" interpretation is vaguely interesting in an SF sort-of-way, but otherwise has no more ontological relevance than god literally playing dice with each quantum event.
Identifying our areas of ignorance is an important task. Knowing what to do with that ignorance is also an important task. What you do, Paisley, is to take our areas of ignorance and insert your own special biases. This is fine: that's really what we all do.
The problem is when you start asserting you have proof that your interpretation is the right one. Hell, the problem is you assuming any kind of ontological meaning in any interpretation. And when your interpretation needs to insert something that has no ontological standing whatsoever (some other dualist realm where the spirit lives, or whatever your favorite delusion is), you have less ontological standing.
Talking to an actual philosopher over the last month, I've gained new respect for philosophy. I used you as a model of why I thought philosophy was a ten-pound bag of pustulent puppies, Paisley. (Hah! Alliteration.) After describing your approach to philosophy, he laughed and said, "Yeah. Actual philosophers hate these guys too. They can read the words, but they can't synthesize meaning. And they don't understand the limits or purpose of philosophy."
I guess it's like a non-scientist reading a scientific paper, latching on to a few words, and thinking they have a profound understanding of the subject matter. It's the exact same thing in your case, Paisley. Only you do it to both science, and to philosophy.
Which is why you are always asking people what their take is on things that have no true ontological standing, like qualia and many-worlds. In the end, it's all just opinion, and has no bearing on this thing we call reality. It's also why you ask questions like, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" as if there were any profound meaning to the question.
As I said, I'm glad that your understanding of philosophy is as weak as your understanding of science.
"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
Me too! In 8th grade, I would check out books on nuclear physics. Not the big ones, mind you, but just the typical layman's-overview books -- typically, books detailing the subatomic menagerie, the history of particle physics, and so on. One of my favorite articles in Discover Magazine was about a bunch of rogue physicists who were pursuing the wild idea that most current physicists scoffed at -- string theory. It was an elegant and simple theory.
I also loved the big illustrated books of the universe. And after Cosmos aired, I really wanted to be an astronomer. Then I wanted to work at CERN.
That decision came after a talk with my adviser, when he asked me what I wanted to do after graduation. He was mostly asking where I wanted to attend grad school, and what I would specialize in. We talked about CERN, and other research areas, and he disillusioned me at the time. He had gotten his PhD at CalTech. He had also wanted to work at CERN. He was instead teaching physics at the University of Alaska (he hastened to explain that he loved what he was doing, and had no regrets).
It was really just the realization that I probably couldn't become a rock star. And while I enjoyed my stint in a lab assisting a professor doing high-temperature superconductivity research, I realized that wasn't what I wanted to do for my life.
Anyway, all that's neither here nor there. I just understand what you mean about being passionate about the science without being a scientist yourself. And bruising your head against new things is the best way to keep in mental shape.
"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
I have cited two sources to support my claim that "qualia" are subjective experiences. One of those sources explicitly states that Daniel Dennett denies the existence of qualia (i.e. subjective experiences). Now, you are finding yourself in a "Catch-22 situation" because you made a blunder by shooting off your mouth when you clearly did not know what the heck you were talking about.
This is a specious argument. First, it is making the assumption that only certain life forms have the experience of awareness. Secondly, there is no consensual agreement on what constitutes life. Thirdly, Dennett himself endowed the first self-replicating molecular systems in the primordial soup with intentionality. IOW, he is either flirtly dangerously close with panpychism or he is denying the existence of subjective experiences. (I will let you pick your poision on that one). Fourthly, our first-person perspective provides us with irrefutable proof that we have subjective experiences. Finally, we know why Dennett is taking this completely irrational position. It's called vested-interest. He is in charge of an artificial intelligence project and he and his team are burden with the responsibility of creating some kind of conscious robot. If he can convince others that consciousness is simply information processing, then he can make the claim that robots already have consciousness. That anyone could fall for such a ridiculous argument probably indicates that they share his pipe dream.
Who are you kidding? You have just fallen prey to your own stupidity and now you are vainly attempting to "save face." We both know that. I suggest that you change your screen name from "Nigel the Bold" to "Nigel the Chicken." That would be more appropriate.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
What are you, a fucking 8-year-old?
Grow up.
"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
Paisley's an intellectual masochist and you're depriving him?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
It would appear that you believe that MWI qualifies as nothing more than a metaphysical belief.
If you believe it is fine and that everyone else does it too (including yourself), then why the personal attack?
Consciousness is axiomatic (i.e. self-evident). Any attempt to deny its existence presupposes it. If that doesn't qualify as proof, then nothing does. Moreover, the burden of proof is upon those who assert that consciousness is physical, not on those who question it. Why? Because consciousness is clearly subjective, not objective. Therefore, if you truly believe that consciousness is physical, then provide me with one physical property. If you can't accomplish that, then I expect you to acknowledge that your belief in materialism is ultimately based on faith (i.e. belief without sufficient evidence). Failure to do so on your part will demonstrate to me that you are intellectually dishonest. And since dishonesty is a character flaw, I will conclude that your character is suspect. IOW, you are not to be trusted.
I see. You were evidently so distraught by my complete dismantling of your materialist worldview that you desperately sought professional help by paying a visit to an academic philosopher.
Philosophy is about making an argument. I am very good at making an argument; you are not. If this is point of contention for you, then I suggest you sharpen your debating skills by learning how to craft a a more cogent argument rather than engaging in the juvenile behavior of flinging ad hominem attacks and throwing hissy fits. Also, I will hasten to add that I have never made a scientific claim or philosophical claim that I did not support by citing a reliable source. I wish I could say the same for you and others on this forum.
Subjective experiences clearly exist. To deny this is inherently self-refuting. I had my reasons for asking your input on the "many worlds" interpretation. But it is not for the reason you think. However, I am not ready to share my reasons for this request with you, at least not just yet. At any rate, it would appear that you believe MWI is comparable to a metaphysical belief such as believing in the existence of God. Thanks for your input.
Martin Heidegger (philosopher who specialized in ontology) considered the question "why is there something rather the nothing" to be the most fundamental question in philosophy. (Martin Heidegger is arguably the most influential philosopher within the last century.)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nothingness/
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
It can be controlled by physical stimuli. It relies on energy to exist. Even if you assume that it is non-physical, it integrates with the brain in a physical way and therefor has a physical component. Do I get a gold star?
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Consciousness in any way shape or form you define it cannot exist without physical interaction of matter. If Paisley wants to believe rainbows and fairy dust comes out of complex processes then let him, he'll obviously never make it in any scientific field or discover anything to advance human understanding of anything. But he'll be happy because he thinks he knows what he's talking about just like every other human.
And why, pray tell, would we call something that allows Logical Laws to work "God"? And why attribute ANY OTHER property to said "God"? I just don't see your logic. If anything, you are just redefining "God" well beyond the intention of Christianity.
On the other hand, I can argue that the "conscious intelligence" is, in fact, my own mind and that everything else does not exist and it'd be as provable as this "God".
"The Chaplain had mastered, in a moment of divine intuition, the handy technique of protective rationalization and he was exhilarated by his discovery. It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. Just no Character."
"He...had gone down in flames...on the seventh day, while God was resting"
"You have no respect for excessive authority or obsolete traditions. You should be taken outside and shot!"
Well duh. I don't know if the materialist worldview is true much like I don't know if you even exist. The simple fact is that all worldviews are unprovable, including yours.
"The Chaplain had mastered, in a moment of divine intuition, the handy technique of protective rationalization and he was exhilarated by his discovery. It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. Just no Character."
"He...had gone down in flames...on the seventh day, while God was resting"
"You have no respect for excessive authority or obsolete traditions. You should be taken outside and shot!"
That's right. The materialist worldview is ultimately based on faith (i.e. belief without sufficient evidence). Also, there is a particularly pernicious brand of materialism (that is fairly prevalent here) known as "eliminative materialism" and those who adhere to it apparently doubt their own existence.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
It always strikes me as amusing that Theists have to "prove" that everyone has faith on something. Yes, you can say that belief in all world views require"faith", but there is enough reasonable evidence for materialism that to say there isn't sufficient evidence is to mock the word hyperbole.
But even if grant that materialism requires some degree of faith, even believing that anyone other than yourself is real requires faith. If that's the case, then materialism requires the exact same faith that it takes to believe that other people are real. In other words, there is about as much logical evidence for materialism as there is for the existence of everyone and everything around you. It isn't a huge logical leap--rather, it is a natural conclusion from anything that can be humanly ascertained.
Not only does the Theist (well, the overwhelming majority of them) make the faith-based claim described above, but they make YET ANOTHER one, even when it's completely unnecessary to do so. This is what the Atheist protests. If even the world around us can't be proven and requires some degree of faith to believe in, why add a dogmatic belief about what we can't even properly conceive?
"The Chaplain had mastered, in a moment of divine intuition, the handy technique of protective rationalization and he was exhilarated by his discovery. It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. Just no Character."
"He...had gone down in flames...on the seventh day, while God was resting"
"You have no respect for excessive authority or obsolete traditions. You should be taken outside and shot!"
The MWI is not speculative? Give me a break. Your "brother in arms" considers all QM interpretatons as nothing more than mental masturbation. That would include the "many worlds" interpretation too.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead