Science and Materialism

[Tree of Life]

This is what I'd like to see.

You know that other minds exist. But you have never sensed another mind (nor can you).

Bad as it may be, it's all we've got.

That's not true. We may also assume that there is a divine creator whom the natural world depends upon.

 

[Tree of Life]

And, how bad could any framework be if by it we make accurate enough predictions to get the job done.

I.e., how could naturalism be bad when the assumption provides an accurate enough framework to live and even thrive.

Naturalism in this sense is simply incomplete. Naturalism is fine for making sense of how physics, biology, and the like typically operate. You don't need to acknowledge God's existence in order to make a windmill, for example. But it cannot account for many other important things that we believe and need.

 

[HitchSlap]

And, how bad could any framework be if by it we make accurate enough predictions to get the job done.

I.e., how could naturalism be bad when the assumption provides an accurate enough framework to live and even thrive.

Completely agree with you, for as bad as it is, it works quite well. I was attempting to be gracious.

 

[Tree of Life]

Completely agree with you, for as bad as it is, it works quite well. I was attempting to be gracious.

It may work well to figure out the best way to skin a cat. But naturalism cannot tell us whether or not we should skin the cat.

I think we also want to know what's right and wrong and that we can know what's right and wrong. But ethics cannot be accounted for by naturalism.

 

[HitchSlap]

You know that other minds exist. But you have never sensed another mind (nor can you).

This is proof of supernatural?

That's not true. We may also assume that there is a divine creator whom the natural world depends upon.

It's unnecessary and violates the law of parsimony. If all that we know is best explained by natural means (indeed this is what we find 100% of the time), why ascribe a supernatural cause? You're firmly flying the argument from incredulity flag here.

 

[HitchSlap]

It may work well to figure out the best way to skin a cat. But naturalism cannot tell us whether or not we should skin the cat.

Should we desire to know what's inside a cat, so that other cats might benefit, is justification.

I think we also want to know what's right and wrong and that we can know what's right and wrong. But ethics cannot be accounted for by naturalism.

Sure it can. Don't sell yourself short.

 

[Tree of Life]

This is proof of supernatural?

No. I thought you were asking for evidence that our senses are not our only source of knowledge.

It's unnecessary and violates the law of parsimony. If all that we know is best explained by natural means (indeed this is what we find 100% of the time), why ascribe a supernatural cause? You're firmly flying the argument from incredulity flag here.

We know many things that cannot be explained by naturalism.

 

[Tree of Life]

Should we desire to know what's inside a cat, so that other cats might benefit, is justification.

I agree with this moral principle. I don't see how you got this principle from sense experience alone.

 

[durangodawood]

You know that other minds exist. But you have never sensed another mind (nor can you).

You get evidence of other minds via your senses.

Then you manufacture knowledge in your head that what youre sensing is in fact a mind. You dont actually get knowledge beyond what the senses bring in (except for knowledge of your own state of mind).

 

[Tree of Life]

You get evidence of other minds via your senses.

That's actually not true. The "people" you're talking to could be mindless robots. All you get are their words and actions. You cannot "sense" their mind like you can experience your own mind.

Then you manufacture knowledge in your head that what youre sensing is in fact a mind. You dont actually get knowledge beyond what the senses bring in (except for knowledge of your own state of mind).

You're saying that you make a logical inference.

1. These things behave like they have minds.
2. I have a mind.
3. Therefore they have a mind.

It's actually not a valid conclusion. Conclusion (3) does not follow from premise (1) and (2), however intuitively obvious it may seem to us.

You say we don't actually have knowledge of other minds. Are you saying that you don't know that other minds exist?

 

[durangodawood]

That's actually not true. The "people" you're talking to could be mindless robots. All you get are their words and actions. You cannot "sense" their mind like you can experience your own mind....

I said I get sensory "evidence". Not proof. Something behaving like a mind is one piece of evidence here. It may be overridden by other better evidence.

...You're saying that you make a logical inference.

1. These things behave like they have minds.
2. I have a mind.
3. Therefore they have a mind.

It's actually not a valid conclusion. Conclusion (3) does not follow from premise (1) and (2), however intuitively obvious it may seem to us.

You say we don't actually have knowledge of other minds. Are you saying that you don't know that other minds exist?

I assume that other minds exist, based on experiencing what looks like minds. Then I call that assumption "knowledge", because thats we we all do and I dont want to seem crazy or a pedant. Also it seems the easiest, least cockamamie explanation.

Do you do something different?
If so please share!

 

[jayem]

We know many things that cannot be explained by naturalism.

Maybe not yet. But that doesn't mean they never can or will be.

 

[Chriliman]

Maybe not yet. But that doesn't mean they never can or will be.

I’m curious what a naturalists makes of the delayed choice experiment in the video below.

 

[jayem]

I’m curious what a naturalists makes of the delayed choice experiment in the video below.

You'll have to ask someone who's knowledgeable in quantum mechanics. My training and career was in health care. Do you have a question about medicine?

 

[Tree of Life]

Maybe not yet. But that doesn't mean they never can or will be.

I don’t see how naturalism will ever be able to account for moral reality. Ethical norms are not physical things.

 

[durangodawood]

I don’t see how naturalism will ever be able to account for moral reality. Ethical norms are not physical things.

Thats the easiest one of all.

The human animal (and its social group) thrives when certain behaviors are the norm, and suffers by others. This can be studied objectively, just like we do with any other branch of animal behavior. The wise have noted what the beneficial behaviors are and recorded them in various religious scriptures.

 

[jayem]

I don’t see how naturalism will ever be able to account for moral reality. Ethical norms are not physical things.

To expand on what durangodawood said, ethics are behavioral instincts that are necessary for a social species to thrive. They are fundamentally a product of evolution. We evolved from hominins living in tribes or clans. Those tribes containing individuals who have instinctive inhibitions on killing fellow tribe members, or stealing food are more likely to thrive and reproduce themselves. Similarly, instincts like cooperating to find food, sharing resources, caring for ill or injured tribe members, and protecting the tribe from danger also promote reproductive success. So over time, natural selection favors a population with these pro-social instincts. They are physical things in the sense that a very basic level, they are hard-wired into these hominins' brains. Which Homo sapiens inherited. In our species, with our much bigger brains, we can modify them with learning and culture. And obviously, in some persons, social instincts are not as pronounced as in others. Or unfortunately, may be almost lacking altogether. But the important point is that a moral sense is absolutely an innate part of our pyschology. The Bible even says as much. Didn't Paul say that the Gentiles, who don't know the Law, still have it written in their hearts? So we can both agree that knowledge of right and wrong is instinctual. You can believe it came from God. I believe it came from evolution.

BTW, if you're interested, here's a reference on how a perfectly good system of normative ethics can exist without any dependence on a supernatural higher power. Kai Neilsen is an emeritus philosophy professor at the Univ. of Calgary in Canada. It's easy reading.

Ethics Without God by Kai Nielsen

 

[Tree of Life]

Thats the easiest one of all.

The human animal (and its social group) thrives when certain behaviors are the norm, and suffers by others. This can be studied objectively, just like we do with any other branch of animal behavior. The wise have noted what the beneficial behaviors are and recorded them in various religious scriptures.

Sounds like you’re denying the existence of real norms and saying that what we think are norms are really just best survival practices for our species?

 

[durangodawood]

Sounds like you’re denying the existence of real norms and saying that what we think are norms are really just best survival practices for our species?

Surviving and thriving.

As I noted, the wise have observed the behaviors that naturally encourage human flourishing, this includes spiritual aspirations, btw. These observations are collected and recorded in the worlds various wisdom traditions.

 

[jayem]

Sounds like you’re denying the existence of real norms and saying that what we think are norms are really just best survival practices for our species?

What do you mean by real norms? Behavioral instincts that promote our survival are not real? There are 7.6+ billion of us alive today. Even with all the hostility and conflict in our history, Homo sapiens is the most populous mammal species on earth. That's because we instinctively create not just societies, but civilizations where we can flourish. Which is far more than just survival and reproduction. What could be more real?