Causal exclusion problem

[Fervent]

Your religion is irrelevant to the question.

Oh? Seems it is, because the question is where do we start our investigation? You start with something you don't know is true. I start with something that can't possibly be false.

The question is on the nature of "physical" versus "natural".

Yeah, and my question is why do you need the word physical if you're identifying the same thing? What are you supposed to be distinguishing, exactly?

Differentiate between the two in a fashion that gives even a scintilla of value to your "solution" to the "exclusion problem" as stated in the OP.

The value is in the resolution of a discrepancy in observations. The disappearance of the inconsistency which allows the four propositions to stand together without conflict. If they were the same thing nothing would change by shifting terms around. But something changes when we do. So they don't mean the same thing. As atheists love to trot out:do not multiply entities needlessly. If we only mean by physical that it is natural, then there is no need for a different term. Yet you seem to require that the term be preserved and not just take natural in terms of itself. You can't just say nature is nature. You claim they're the same thing, so what difference would it make to let go of the word physical? Why do you needlessly multiply entities?

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Actually, people need to start realizing that "Philosophy" is the application of 4 or 5 distinct, but still interdependent fields. One of those fields is claimed by atheist nearly everywhere to be of absolute value. Being that this is the case, I so often wonder why atheists eschew "philosophy" when, at every waking moment, at least one field of philosophy is what they're always engaged in: i.e. LOGIC.

Yes, LOGIC is part and parcel of the overall discipline of Philosophy, and being that Philosophy is a multifaceted, interdisciplinary discipline, resulting ultimately not in speculation but in the application of analysis, I'd think people would wake up to this fact.

Formally speaking, sure. But I mean philosophy more generally as in "thinking about thinking." Logic, to me, is underpinned by observable reality and extended into the abstract. You can get into some things that seem absurd, but ultimately, in order to be consistent, logic has to follow rules that are based in our real experience. Other areas of philosophy, not so much.

 

[Fervent]

So you're proposing a Trinity?

I get to God by virtue of aseity. I get to the Bible by virtue of Exodus 3:14 and Acts 17:28 which express aseity. I get to Jesus by virtue of the Bible. I get to a Trinity by virtue of Jesus. Do I "know" that God exists? In strict terms, no. But if He doesn't exist than tautologies can be false and there is no possibility of knowledge.

 

[Fervent]

I don't.. I simply know that it's underneath me. I can't even form the concept of 'I think' without a context in which to define what 'I think' means. Therefore my existence presupposes a 'physical' reality. Even if that reality isn't actually physical.

The problem is, science cuts off its own legs by questioning the mind. You begin with "I think" but then you tell me that you're experience of thinking is an illusion. Which means your measurements are illusion. Which means science is illuson. So how do we justify science? I'm not proposing stopping scientific research, I'm just suggesting that we stop pretendiing that science starts at the bottom. Because it doesn't.

Now if you want to argue for something that underpins the physical, then be my guest, but it ain't me, because I can't be the cause of something that I can't exist without.

I agree, it's not me either. It's the Great I Am.

Therefore if you want to propose a God, then be my guest, but you're gonna have to give me a darn good reason.

How could something that is necessarily true possibly be false? God is true by definition because by definition God is the thing that can only be defined in terms of itself God is a tautology. Logical necessity, Nature itself. He is not physical nature, but what lies beneath. We can still create a physical model of the universe

 

[Hans Blaster]

Oh? Seems it is, because the question is where do we start our investigation? You start with something you don't know is true. I start with something that can't possibly be false.

I think that's called an assumption and I see no reason to either be concerned about the nature of that assumption on your OP claim, nor to find it plausible.

Yeah, and my question is why do you need the word physical if you're identifying the same thing? What are you supposed to be distinguishing, exactly?

I'm not trying to distinguish anything. I want to know why **YOU** think they are not the same in the context of the topic of this sub-forum.

The value is in the resolution of a discrepancy in observations. The disappearance of the inconsistency which allows the four propositions to stand together without conflict.

It is the claimed difference that is not clear.

If they were the same thing nothing would change by shifting terms around.

On that at least we can agree.

But something changes when we do. So they don't mean the same thing.

but what is that thing, that difference.

As atheists love to trot out:do not multiply entities needlessly.

This is got nothing to do with atheists, or multiplication of entitites. I only see 1 entity, you 2 entities, why is that?

If we only mean by physical that it is natural, then there is no need for a different term.

English has lots of term multiplication and both of these terms have different meanings outside of this context as well.

Yet you seem to require that the term be preserved and not just take natural in terms of itself. You can't just say nature is nature. You claim they're the same thing, so what difference would it make to let go of the word physical? Why do you needlessly multiply entities?

I'm not. I don't see any distinction between them. To me it is the "physical/natural" world. There is no distinction between them. Would you like to argue for a distinction? If so, make THAT argument.

 

[partinobodycular]

I get to God by virtue of aseity.

Great, let's assume a first cause. No argument from me. Although we may disagree on the nature of that first cause.

I get to the Bible by virtue of Exodus 3:14 and Acts 17:28 which express aseity.

Oddly enough I'm fine with these as well, they're just reiterating premise No. 1, that there's a first cause.

I get to Jesus by virtue of the Bible.

Well that's rather unconvincing as a logical argument. It's simply "Because the bible tells me so". But let's accept it for the sake of argument.


Now let's look at how I get to a Trinity.

First, there's your proposed first cause. Do you agree that that exists?​

​

Second, there's physical realty, which includes the physical manifestation of myself. Do you agree that that exists?​

​

Third, there's the mental aspect of myself. The thing which thinks, and loves, and debates on forums. Do you agree that that exists?​

Lo and behold, I'm a Trinity, with all of the same attributes as your Trinity. I have a first cause. I have a physical embodiment. And I have a spiritual essence.

So show me the difference between your Trinity... and mine.

 

[SelfSim]

... How could something that is necessarily true possibly be false? God is true by definition because by definition God is the thing that can only be defined in terms of itself God is a tautology. Logical necessity, Nature itself. He is not physical nature, but what lies beneath. We can still create a physical model of the universe

.. and yet for some odd reason, you don't recognise that: 'definition', 'God', 'he', 'true', 'false', 'nature itself', and just about everything else you point out there, are models too(?)
Then you imply that we take a leap of faith in accepting that us creating 'a physical model of the universe' is, (for no cited reasons forthcoming from yourself), somehow a different act from the creation of all those other models?

We can justifiably conclude, therefore, that your implied basis of: 'It, (ie: God), is what it is', boils down to nothing more than word-salad.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Formally speaking, sure. But I mean philosophy more generally as in "thinking about thinking." Logic, to me, is underpinned by observable reality and extended into the abstract. You can get into some things that seem absurd, but ultimately, in order to be consistent, logic has to follow rules that are based in our real experience. Other areas of philosophy, not so much.

Hmmmm.....................no. I could be mistaken, but from all I've studied of Epistemology and Ethics, they have some rules of definition that, if those aren't adhered to, then we aren't really "doing" any thinking in Epistemology or Ethics.

Metaphysics, on the other hand, does at times get a little speculative even if not completely relative, so I have some sympathy for what you're saying. But for me, if you just look at my signature quote and the fact that I refer to Copernicus in my avatar, I think you'll intuit that philosophy is something we all ALWAYS do and that we all like to think, at least occasionally, that we're attempting to justify our viewpoints in a more solid, academic, and scholarly fashion. At least, those of us who don't like to ground our viewpoints on utter personal intuition prefer to think this way.

I'm guessing that you're of the more reflective, thoughtful sort in this regard, as am I.

 

[public hermit]

It seems to me if we aren't committed to physicalism, the causal exclusion problem beomes a non-issue if we separate the ontological assumption that nature is physical from the causal closure principle. The causal exclusion problem states that we have good reason to believe four propositions:

Causal closure- For any event that has a cause at time t, there is a sufficient physical cause at t
Mental causation- Our mental faculties are causally effective
Mental/physical distinction- the mental is not the physical, and the physical is not the mental. Neither is illusory.
No overdetermination- If there is a sufficient cause, there can be no independent supplemental cause

Any 3 of these can be taken together, but when we add the 4th an inconsistency occurs. Now, there are various solutions but most attempt to preserve physicaliism because to give it up would be to give up closure which would be bad for science for what should be obvious reasons. But if we remove the metaphysical presupposition that nature is fundamentally physical from closure so that physicalism stands on its own, the problem seems to dissolve until we add physicalism back into the mix. What I mean by this is if instead of defining closure on the phyical, we define it on the natural and then leave the natural without specification there is no inconsistency. In other words:
Causal closure- For any event that has a cause at time t, there is a sufficient natural cause at t
Mental causation- Our mental faculties are causally effective
Mental/physical distinction- the mental is not the physical, and the physical is not the mental. Neither is illusory.
No overdetermination- If there is a sufficient cause, there can be no independent supplemental cause

All four of these can be true with no inconsistency. So do we have enough evidence for non-physical causes yet, or do we still want to insist that the natural iis physical?

I like the distinction between physical and natural. Our mental causes certainly are grounded in the physical (our brains/neurons), but they seem to (often) have a telos that is grounded not just in physicality but in a being with awareness and agency. So what is caused by the mental can add to the whole explanations that don't seem reducible to the physical grounding of those mental acts. Painting for the sake of beauty can be explained by evolutionary drives, perhaps, and yet a particular person painting a specific scene that expresses that person's intentions is on another level. Or, to put it generally, an emergent mind (person with agency and awareness) depends on a brain while also being more than that brain. Personally, I am a fan of some sort of neutral monism/property dualism.

Question: What is the goal/"cash value" of holding to "natural" causal closure. Is the idea that the mental, as distinct from the physical, should become a subject of science? If so, I'm not sure that can happen any better than what we find in psychology/sociology, which often deliver tenuous (or even dubious) claims compared to "hard" sciences.

 

[Fervent]

I like the distinction between physical and natural. Our mental causes certainly are grounded in the physical (our brains/neurons), but they seem to (often) have a telos that is grounded not just in physicality but in a being with awareness and agency. So what is caused by the mental can add to the whole explanations that don't seem reducible to the physical grounding of those mental acts. Painting for the sake of beauty can be explained by evolutionary drives, perhaps, and yet a particular person painting a specific scene that expresses that person's intentions is on another level. Or, to put it generally, an emergent mind (person with agency and awareness) depends on a brain while also being more than that brain. Personally, I am a fan of some sort of neutral monism/property dualism.

I'm not really into speculative metaphysics, I prefer analytics. Though I do provisionally hold to a neutral monist position where both the mental and the physical obtain on a reality that is more fundamental than either.

Question: What is the goal/"cash value" of holding to "natural" causal closure. Is the idea that the mental, as distinct from the physical, should become a subject of science? If so, I'm not sure that can happen any better than what we find in psychology/sociology, which often deliver tenuous (or even dubious) claims compared to "hard" sciences.

In a sense, this exercise is primarily to raise the alarm that the confounder in our explanations of mental phenomena may very well be a philosophical issue and not just one that requires more data to finally figure out. Can we do science without assuming physical closure is an interesting question, but its not one I'm particularly concerned with. I'm a moderate skeptic so I hold to a fictitious sense of reality. I switch between conceptual models depending on what my investigative intersts are.

 

[Fervent]

.. and yet for some odd reason, you don't recognise that: 'definition', 'God', 'he', 'true', 'false', 'nature itself', and just about everything else you point out there, are models too(?)
Then you imply that we take a leap of faith in accepting that us creating 'a physical model of the universe' is, (for no cited reasons forthcoming from yourself), somehow a different act from the creation of all those other models?

We can justifiably conclude, therefore, that your implied basis of: 'It, (ie: God), is what it is', boils down to nothing more than word-salad.

To me faith is nothing more than pleading ignorance and looking for outside help. God is defined as true, and then sought after. If He's not out there, I have no hope for knowledge. I do recognize modeling commitments, and I don't intend this as an attack on science in any way. I intend it as an attack on a metaphysical concept that is embedded in science as we conceive of it. Model the world as physical all you want, just don't try to telll me that science is exploring reality at a fundamental level. It meets the necessity requirement for truth, but it fails at the sufficiency. And the necessity requirement is easily explainable on the assumption that God exists by referring to its methodologies. I'm not fooled by the false miracles of science, even though many seem to be.

 

[Fervent]

Great, let's assume a first cause. No argument from me. Although we may disagree on the nature of that first cause.



Oddly enough I'm fine with these as well, they're just reiterating premise No. 1, that there's a first cause.



Well that's rather unconvincing as a logical argument. It's simply "Because the bible tells me so". But let's accept it for the sake of argument.

I don't stop with this chain of reasoning, nor is it my only corroboration, I also look to the historic and examine epistemics, I have found no reason why I should deny my faith, and when asked for any the only thing I ever seem to get is arguments from ignorance and special pleading. So if atheists are supposed to be so knowledgable, how come that seems to be the best they can muster? Where is the knowledge supposed to be?

Now let's look at how I get to a Trinity.

First, there's your proposed first cause. Do you agree that that exists?​

​

Second, there's physical realty, which includes the physical manifestation of myself. Do you agree that that exists?​

​

Third, there's the mental aspect of myself. The thing which thinks, and loves, and debates on forums. Do you agree that that exists?​

Lo and behold, I'm a Trinity, with all of the same attributes as your Trinity. I have a first cause. I have a physical embodiment. And I have a spiritual essence.

So show me the difference between your Trinity... and mine.

I'm not sure I understand what you're arguing here? And I'm not trying to debate God vs anything, my interest here is simply to sus out embedded metaphysics. If there is an argument to be had here, it's as a counter to the "success of science" argument since this seems to uncouple an assumed physicalism from the methodologies of scientific research in a significant way since it seems to demonstrate that the metaphysics are not what the empirical support reflects.

 

[SelfSim]

... Model the world as physical all you want, just don't try to telll me that science is exploring reality at a fundamental level. It meets the necessity requirement for truth, but it fails at the sufficiency.

Try on that science defines what objective reality is, via its last best tested theories and its test data.
'Objective reality' there, is often what many folk mean by 'physical reality', whereas the term 'objective reality' describes more accurately the way science goes about doing that ... (which tends to be more significant than what it actually is).

And the necessity requirement is easily explainable on the assumption that God exists by referring to its methodologies. I'm not fooled by the false miracles of science, even though many seem to be.

Untestable assumptions about existence, are beliefs .. (or even false miracles).

 

[Fervent]

Try on that science defines what objective reality is, via its last best tested theories and its test data.

Science has no such power. It's recursive theory buildiing based on ostensive definition until a consensus agreement is reached. Unless the sufficiency criteria for truth can be shown to be met by it it can never go beyond its base assumptiions. Its successes are fully explainable on the basis of its methods so long as there is something ordering the real world in a psuedo-mechanical fashion. It's a model of reality based on a physical hypothesis, but it can't be justified to be true except through circular reasoning.

'Objective reality' there, is often what many folk mean by 'physical reality', whereas the term 'objective reality' describes more accurately the way science goes about doing that ... (which tends to be more significant than what it actually is).

THe things that people think they know that just ain't so. I know many are fooled by the latest tower of Babel but it ain't got no feet.

Untestable assumptions about existence, are beliefs .. (or even false miracles).

Yeah, like the belief that reality is fundamentally physical.

 

[SelfSim]

I don't stop with this chain of reasoning, nor is it my only corroboration, I also look to the historic and examine epistemics, I have found no reason why I should deny my faith, and when asked for any the only thing I ever seem to get is arguments from ignorance and special pleading. So if atheists are supposed to be so knowledgable, how come that seems to be the best they can muster? Where is the knowledge supposed to be?

Knowledge is a model of what minds create that can be reliably recreated by other like-thinking minds, based on shared (in common) perceptions.

I'm not sure I understand what you're arguing here? And I'm not trying to debate God vs anything, my interest here is simply to sus out embedded metaphysics. If there is an argument to be had here, it's as a counter to the "success of science" argument since this seems to uncouple an assumed physicalism from the methodologies of scientific research in a significant way since it seems to demonstrate that the metaphysics are not what the empirical support reflects.

Scientific thinking is done by like-thinking human minds.
'Assumed physicalism' would be an assumption. Science doesn't commence assuming anything .. it tests assumptions (or dismisses untestable ones as beliefs).

 

[SelfSim]

.. Unless the sufficiency criteria for truth can be shown to be met by it it can never go beyond its base assumptiions.

Truth in science is never more than its last best tested theory (and its test data).
Science does not commence from base assumptions. People thinking philosophically like to think it assumes a physical reality exists, independently from the mind about to do science, but that is not testable.
Reality is demonstrably mind dependent .. (no matter how much we'd all like to believe/philosophize that it isn't).

Its successes are fully explainable on the basis of its methods so long as there is something ordering the real world in a psuedo-mechanical fashion. It's a model of reality based on a physical hypothesis, but it can't be justified to be true except through circular reasoning.

No .. that's what philsophies/philosophers say .. not what scientific thinkers can demonstrate.
The order in what you call 'the real world' is a mystery to the scientific thinker because mysteries are usually the catalyst for scientific investigation. One doesn't need to pay too much attention to believed-in assumptions, otherwise there'd be no impetus to move forward and test other 'beliefs' (ie: hypotheses) which can be tested.

THe things that people think they know that just ain't so.

So go test 'the things that people think they know'! Simple isn't it?

Yeah, like the belief that reality is fundamentally physical.

We're partially in agreement. What I do know, is that what you mean by 'reality' there, takes a human mind to conceive of, and then describe. The then description is the model and it is either of type: testable, or type untestable. All I have to do is ask you what you mean by 'fundamentally physical' and we will all see that model materialise before our very eyes.

 

[Fervent]

Knowledge is a model of what minds create that can be reliably recreated by other like-thinking minds, based on shared (in common) perceptions.

That's not knowledge, that's false knowledge. It's built on an unjustified premise in some way. It's either dogmatic or circular, with a hypothetical infinite regress as a presumed third possibility. It's one thing to create a model of reality and understand it as a working fiction, but its another to declare that it is "objective" in any sense of the word. It's consensus. As long as everyone agrees, then that's what the truth is. But it's not the truth. It's an agreed upon fiction.

Scientific thinking is done by like-thinking human minds.
'Assumed physicalism' would be an assumption. Science doesn't commence assuming anything .. it tests assumptions (or dismisses untestable ones as beliefs).

There's a difference between scientific thinking and the truth of science. Believing that science is revealing truth is an untestable assumption. You can't justify science with science. So what's the justification?

 

[Fervent]

Truth in science is never more than its last best tested theory (and its test data).
Science does not commence from base assumptions. People thinking philosophically like to think it assumes a physical reality exists, independently from the mind about to do science, but that is not testable.
Reality is demonstrably mind dependent .. (no matter how much we'd all like to believe/philosophize that it isn't).

Uh huh...then how did science determine the world was physical? On what grounds?

No .. that's what philsophies/philosophers say .. not what scientific thinkers can demonstrate.
The order in what you call 'the real world' is a mystery to the scientific thinker because mysteries are usually the catalyst for scientific investigation. One doesn't need to pay too much attention to believed-in assumptions, otherwise there'd be no impetus to move forward and test other 'beliefs' (ie: hypotheses) which can be tested.

Yeah, there's a difference between a scientific theory and the physicalist metaphysics in science. That's what this analysis is meant to uncouple, an assumption that natural causes and physical causes are one and the same thing. It seems that they're not, so where do we go from there?

So go test 'the things that people think they know'! Simple isn't it?

Analysis is a kind of test. Which is what this is. Four empirically derived propositions that create a contradiction. Remove the metaphysical hypothesis and the contradiction goes away. Physicalism is a hypothesis, and this analysis seems to indicate that it's a false hypothesis. And the only change that needs to happen is to stop saying "physical" and just leaving it as "natural". This is a semantic issue, a test of word-concept relationships which seems to demonstrate that there is empirical warrant for denying the physicalist hypothesis.

We're partially in agreement. What I do know, is that what you mean by 'reality' there, takes a human mind to conceive of, and then describe. The then description is the model and it is either of type: testable, or type untestable. All I have to do is ask you what you mean by 'fundamentally physical' and we will all see that model materialise before our very eyes.

What I mean by reality isn't really relevant here, because all I've done is a bit of semantic analysis. There's no speculation on my part, no need for me to define anything. Just 2 causal principles, 2 empirically derived propositions and an analytic process. What I've presented is a test of the physicalist hypothesis by seeing what happens to our observations if we remove it in a non-arbitrary way. It seems the success of science is purely in its methods afterall. What a shock.

 

[SelfSim]

That's not knowledge, that's false knowledge. It's built on an unjustified premise in some way. It's either dogmatic or circular, with a hypothetical infinite regress as a presumed third possibility. It's one thing to create a model of reality and understand it as a working fiction, but its another to declare that it is "objective" in any sense of the word. It's consensus. As long as everyone agrees, then that's what the truth is. But it's not the truth. It's an agreed upon fiction.

Nope.
An operational definition of 'knowing' is:
The odds a person would give on being right (like, "95% certain"), where the odds can be deemed as correct, if over many instances, the person making the odds ends up breaking even. (If they tend to not break even, they need to reassess their sense of what they know).

Note this means we would generally never assess our odds as 100% (not if we wish to break even in the long run), so we do not use the notorious standard that to "know" something, it must always end up being 'true'. (Philosophers arrived at "justified true belief" as their attempt at a definition they can use in philosophy, but to me that's a classic example of what they'd like to mean rather than what they really mean .. it's a definition that would force us to either lie to ourselves, or never use the word at all.

So what's your definition of knowledge?

There's a difference between scientific thinking and the truth of science.

There's no testable concept of 'truth' in science. That why I said 'that the closest science comes' to it .. (is never more than its last best tested theory and its test data).

Believing that science is revealing truth is an untestable assumption.

Well I'd agree, given that there's no operational definition of 'truth' in science, in the first place ..
'Revealing truth' in science is just another belief.

You can't justify science with science. So what's the justification?

Ever heard the part about science's sub-purpose of achieving indepedently repeatable consistency in its test results?
No other field of human thinking comes anywhere close to achieving science's evidenced based track record of consistency.

 

[partinobodycular]

I have found no reason why I should deny my faith,

I see no reason why you should deny your faith either, I mean it probably wasn't based on reason in the first place. So why use reason to try to defend it? Then again the bible does say that you should be ready to give a defense for the hope that's in you.

But I'm curious, what's the reason for the hope that's in you? Maybe you should just lead with that. That the value of faith... is faith, and the value of believing... is believing. But trying to come up with some ingenious argument in order to counter the skeptic.. probably isn't going to turn out too well, they've seen it a million times, and trust me, they're not the least bit convinced.

Instead, you do you, and let them do them, and perhaps you'll both figure out that science isn't there to replace faith, it's there to guide it. That's why God gave us both.

my interest here is simply to sus out embedded metaphysics. If there is an argument to be had here, it's as a counter to the "success of science" argument since this seems to uncouple an assumed physicalism from the methodologies of scientific research

But you do realize that that strategy is rather futile. It's like trying to use geology to refute YEC. It just isn't gonna work. Two completely different paradigms. But if that's what you feel compelled to do then by golly do it, and they'll do likewise. And we'll keep stumbling along until we finally figure this stuff out, because gosh dang it that's life.