The missing link/intelligent design

[twinc]

It said none of these things. First we thought matter was a continuum, then we discovered atoms and molecules, then we discovered atoms were made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and then we discovered that protons and neutrons are made of quarks and gluons. At no point did anyone say "There, that's it, it goes not further". We've always been quite open to the idea that there could be something more fundamental yet - perhaps sub-quark particles.


It's hardly "now confessing" if it's stated it openly from the start.


Nevertheless, whatever atoms are ultimately made up of, they still exist. Discovering that lightening is created by static electricity and not the hammer of Thor doesn't make clouds cease to exist - they're quite obviously still there. Likewise, that we're learning more about atoms doesn't mean atoms themselves don't exist.


Like God.


You act as if this was some dirty secrets that scientists only admitted with much hand-wringing and feet-shuffling. This is simply false. Scientists have always been eager to point to the mysteries that still baffle us, because that's what fascinates us to probe deeper. It was never a secret that, after the discovery of the atom, the nature of the sub-atomic was a complete mystery. This was openly and excitedly discussed.


I can only assume you're talking about the paradigm shift from classical to quantum mechanics.


Mhm. So? Again, you act as if this is some great conspiracy, yet scientists are shouting it from the rooftops. There are countless documentaries constantly being made on the discoveries made by science, and the new mysteries these unlock.

all you have really done is fudged it and tried to prove that science is right even when it is wrong.Even more importantly you did not answer whether in your opinion science still believes in an ultimate matter which exists in space,changes in time and affords a foundation for the universe or that the earth is merely a shifting mass of rigid lumps of cold dead matter of indivisible particles.Do the scientists who have discontinued belief in matter still believe in energy.What are atoms,are they waves of matter or energy - twinc

 

[Received]

Not at all.

I am asking for you to describe a standard - *your* standard - that allows for your particular deity(s), but allows for the rejection of other, in some cases unfalsifiable, claims.

I'm sorry, I guess I don't see the relevance of asking for this. Let me recap how I'm seeing it:

You can't ask for a standard of truth that goes beyond evidentialism if this standard allows for God and you can't distinguish a "particular" deity (which by being asked already assumes polytheism) from others.​

I'd say that the most logical progression is:

You can't ask for a standard of truth that goes beyond evidentialism if somehow it can't be proven that evidentialism negates itself. No need to mention deities at all; IOW, this is a secular philosophical problem, not a religious one.​

IOW, you're adding the baggage of God, not me or anyone else.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

all you have really done is fudged it and tried to prove that science is right even when it is wrong.

No, I've openly stated that a) mysteries exist, and we've always eagerly acknowledged this, and b) scientists prove established wisdom wrong all the time, and human knowledge is improved because of it.

By disproving classical mechanics, we were able to formulate general relativity, and this theory allows for the creation of things like GPS.

Even more importantly you did not answer whether in your opinion science still believes in an ultimate matter which exists in space,changes in time and affords a foundation for the universe or that the earth is merely a shifting mass of rigid lumps of cold dead matter of indivisible particles.

Because the question doesn't make sense; it's either a false dichotomy (the two options aren't the only options, nor are they mutually exclusive, nor are they actually different), or its based on ambiguous terminology - what exactly do you mean by phrases like "ultimate matter" and "affords a foundation for the universe"?

Do the scientists who have discontinued belief in matter still believe in energy.

I'm not aware of any scientist who doesn't believe matter exists.

What are atoms,are they waves of matter or energy - twinc

Atoms are aggregates of particles of matter, and such particles' behaviour is described by their associated wavefunctions changing according to the Schrödinger equation.

 

[Davian]

Dr. Beauregard lists a number that have been taken seriously in academic literature on the subject: Spinoza's daul-aspect theory, Malebranche's occasionalism, Leibnizian pre-established harmony, identity theory, central state theory, neutral monism, anomalous monism, and about a dozen others. Clearly the matter is far from settled.

Barring those that are a subset of 'materialistic theory', do you have any that are taken seriously in the scientific community? Theories in the scientific sense, not unfalsifiable claims with religious presuppositions and the like.

Post #33 makes exactly that claim. You quoted the paragraph I wrote, which ended with this:

if I want to know exactly what physical event an interior mental monologue or dialogue is and the materialist answers "the movement of neurotransmitters across the synapses in your brain", that response is unsatisfactory. At a minimum, a materialistic explanation would have to explain what physical parts of the brain are doing what and how we know it.
​

Immediately after quoting that, you wrote this:

The article I referenced, and links within that article, did just that. Specifically, it referred to how the brain works to create the illusion that something "more" is happening, and how introspection is not reliable.
​

So you did indeed claim that the article by Jan Westerhoff would explain what parts of the brain are doing interior monologue and dialogue. Perhaps that's not what you meant to do, but in that case we're right back at the original question.

What I meant specifically followed the word 'specifically' in that post.

If all mental events are one and the same with physical events, then what specific physical events are interior monologues? No answer seems to forthcoming.

I do not know what you mean by "mental events are one and the same with physical events". I understood mental events to be emergent properties of brain states.

Can you provide and alternate proposition?

(And incidentally I did read the article in New Scientist. Some fascinating stuff there, and I thank you for drawing my attention to it, but nothing that addresses interior monologue. One part by Graham Lawton says this: "What is it about a mere arrangement of matter and energy that gives rise to a subjective sense of the self? It must be a collective property of the neurons in your brain, which have mostly stayed with you throughout life, and which will cease to exist after you die. But why a given bundle of neurons can give rise to a sense of selfhood, and whether that subjective sense can ever reside in a different bundle of neurons, may forever remain a mystery." So while the folks writing this stuff assume the materialism must be the answer, they acknowledge not having and probably never having an explanation for the 'why?' of it all.

Science doesn't do 'why'.

Assume the materialism must be the answer? that is a nonsensical statement, unless you can specifically substantiate it. Scientists observe, hypothesis, falsify, and repeat. Show me where, in scientific methodology, 'materialism' is assumed. Don't conflate it with 'discarding the unfalsifiable'.

 

[Davian]

I'm sorry, I guess I don't see the relevance of asking for this.

Have you not been down the "what's the evidence for evidence" rabbit hole? You brought it up.

For argument's sake, we take your lead, and put evidence (you say 'evidentialism', I say falsifiable hypothesis) to the side.

Let me recap how I'm seeing it:

You can't ask for a standard of truth that goes beyond evidentialism if this standard allows for God and you can't distinguish a "particular" deity (which by being asked already assumes polytheism) from others.​

I'd say that the most logical progression is:

You can't ask for a standard of truth that goes beyond evidentialism if somehow it can't be proven that evidentialism negates itself. No need to mention deities at all; IOW, this is a secular philosophical problem, not a religious one.​

IOW, you're adding the baggage of God, not me or anyone else.

You must be projecting. That is not where I was going. From an ignostic postion, I can't tell you if God has pants, nevermind baggage.

I am following your lead. In the land of unfalsifiable claims, how do you choose which way to go?

 

[Received]

I am following your lead. In the land of unfalsifiable claims, how do you choose which way to go?

So let's recap:

You say everything should be subjected to evidence. (I.e., you start the process.)

I say (by following your lead) this is a self-negating statement, given that evidence can't be evidenced.

Then you say (keeping the lead going) you're following my lead in a land of unfalsifiable claims, implicitly with the point that unfalsifiable claims put us in a magical nobodyknowswhatsgoingon land where believing in fairy tales, God, the dragons from Skyrim, and any reasonable proof or conclusion are all in the same pile of credibility.

I'm serious when I say this: let me know where I'm going wrong. I don't understand how being logical by pointing out the self-negating nature of evidentialism takes us into terrible unfalsifiability land. The claim that evidence, and all of science itself, is the standard of all truth is itself an unfalsifiable statement. So really, I'm following your lead.

 

[Loudmouth]

I say (by following your lead) this is a self-negating statement, given that evidence can't be evidenced.

You may be charged with war crimes for torturing logic in such a fashion.

 

[Received]

Lol, in what way is this torturing logic?

Only things that can be evidenced (i.e., through the natural sciences) can be considered true (evidentialism).

Evidentialism has no evidence.

Therefore, evidentialism can't be true.​

I'm not torturing anything. Evidentialism is self-torturing, er, uh, something like that. Unless you're saying that all standards really don't have to justify themselves. And if that's the case, who determines whether evidentialism is *the* standard to use? It's an authoritarian decision, not a logical or rational one. I might as well say, "nope, evidentialism is dumb, what really counts is 'whatever can produce the most oatmeal chocolate cookies is most true'." And, without hypocritically and illogically waving it away as nonsense, you can't say anything about this standard if you don't appeal to its self-negation (i.e., that statement doesn't produce cookies, so it negates itself).

All I'm saying is that you can't arbitrarily determine standards of truth, particularly if these standards of truth can't even contain themselves. Precisely because they can't, we know that there is a standard of truth beyond or before these arbitrarily determined standards of truth. IOW, there's something "before" evidentialism which determines veracity, not just evidentialism itself (because this would negate itself).

Now this most definitely doesn't mean that evidence can't, or even shouldn't, be one of the ways of ascertaining truth. It is. But it's not the only one, a hermetically sealed standard, which conveniently pushes out deities but so inconveniently pushes out itself.

 

[Davian]

So let's recap:

You say everything should be subjected to evidence. (I.e., you start the process.)

I'd say it its a good place to start.

I say (by following your lead) this is a self-negating statement, given that evidence can't be evidenced.

I always find it ironic when someone types a sentence to this effect into a internet-enabled computer.

Then you say (keeping the lead going) you're following my lead in a land of unfalsifiable claims, implicitly with the point that unfalsifiable claims put us in a magical nobodyknowswhatsgoingon land where believing in fairy tales, God, the dragons from Skyrim, and any reasonable proof or conclusion are all in the same pile of credibility.

You lost me there; how did "any reasonable proof or conclusion" get on that list?

I'm serious when I say this: let me know where I'm going wrong.

I am not saying that you are wrong.

I don't understand how being logical by pointing out the self-negating nature of evidentialism takes us into terrible unfalsifiability land. The claim that evidence, and all of science itself, is the standard of all truth is itself an unfalsifiable statement.

So really, I'm following your lead.

I am not arguing that you don't have a 'rabbit hole' on your hands.

I am asking (again), do you think this leaves a hole (or "gap") in reality big enough for you to get "gods", "immaterial minds" and the like through, without leaving the Earth covered in giant invisible immaterial marshmallows?

 

[Loudmouth]

Lol, in what way is this torturing logic?

Only things that can be evidenced (i.e., through the natural sciences) can be considered true (evidentialism).

Evidentialism has no evidence.

Therefore, evidentialism can't be true.
​

The entire thing is tortured.

First, untestable hypotheses are just considered untestable. Hypotheses that are testable and have passed testing are not considered true. They are considered to be supported. Two very different things.

Second, evidentialism has evidence. That evidence is the fact that it works. It leads to accurate predictions about the world around us that work in very pragmatic ways.

So yes, the entire things is tortured in the extreme.

Evidentialism is self-torturing, er, uh, something like that.

Empiricism works.

And if that's the case, who determines whether evidentialism is *the* standard to use?

No one does. We use empiricism and the scientific method BECAUSE THEY WORK.

It's an authoritarian decision, not a logical or rational one.

It is a pragmatic decision.

All I'm saying is that you can't arbitrarily determine standards of truth, particularly if these standards of truth can't even contain themselves.

It isn't arbitrary. We use empiricism and the scientific method because of their track record.

 

[Received]

The entire thing is tortured.

First, untestable hypotheses are just considered untestable. Hypotheses that are testable and have passed testing are not considered true. They are considered to be supported. Two very different things.

Second, evidentialism has evidence. That evidence is the fact that it works. It leads to accurate predictions about the world around us that work in very pragmatic ways.

So yes, the entire things is tortured in the extreme.

K, but here you're going from veracity to pragmatism, and without a distinction that you're doing so, which means you're conflating the two. I'm fine with "empiricism works," but not "empricism is the limitation of determining truth." Two entirely different things.

Agree?

Empiricism works.

See above.

No one does. We use empiricism and the scientific method BECAUSE THEY WORK.

ibid

It is a pragmatic decision.

ibid

It isn't arbitrary. We use empiricism and the scientific method because of their track record.

ibidzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Received]

BTW, the zzzzzz isn't sleeping. I'm keeping it crunk is all.

 

[Davian]

Lol, in what way is this torturing logic?

Only things that can be evidenced (i.e., through the natural sciences) can be considered true (evidentialism).

Evidentialism has no evidence.

Therefore, evidentialism can't be true.​

I'm not torturing anything. Evidentialism is self-torturing, er, uh, something like that. Unless you're saying that all standards really don't have to justify themselves. And if that's the case, who determines whether evidentialism is *the* standard to use? It's an authoritarian decision, not a logical or rational one. I might as well say, "nope, evidentialism is dumb, what really counts is 'whatever can produce the most oatmeal chocolate cookies is most true'." And, without hypocritically and illogically waving it away as nonsense, you can't say anything about this standard if you don't appeal to its self-negation (i.e., that statement doesn't produce cookies, so it negates itself).

All I'm saying is that you can't arbitrarily determine standards of truth, particularly if these standards of truth can't even contain themselves. Precisely because they can't, we know that there is a standard of truth beyond or before these arbitrarily determined standards of truth. IOW, there's something "before" evidentialism which determines veracity, not just evidentialism itself (because this would negate itself).

Now this most definitely doesn't mean that evidence can't, or even shouldn't, be one of the ways of ascertaining truth. It is. But it's not the only one, a hermetically sealed standard, which conveniently pushes out deities but so inconveniently pushes out itself.

What are these others ways of ascertaining truth?

 

[Received]

Reason. For one. Axiomatic truths ascertained via intuition (e.g., the existence of the external world, uniformity in nature, etc.), for another.

 

[Davian]

Reason. For one. Axiomatic truths ascertained via intuition (e.g., the existence of the external world, uniformity in nature, etc.), for another.

My question still stands.

 

[Received]

My question still stands.

Why does it stand?

 

[Gadarene]

This "you can't evidence evidentialism" line is rapidly getting filed with the "but what if we live in the matrix, ever thought of that, skeptics?" for me.

Of course we have, and everyone on all sides of this argument has to make the same assumptions to get round it - so ironically, it makes little difference to the debate.

 

[Received]

This "you can't evidence evidentialism" line is rapidly getting filed with the "but what if we live in the matrix, ever thought of that, skeptics?" for me.

Of course we have, and everyone on all sides of this argument has to make the same assumptions to get round it - so ironically, it makes little difference to the debate.

Totally. But the problem of "do we live in the matrix?" doesn't logically exclude the conclusion that evidentialism negates itself. IOW, the world is a screwy place, and we may not know much, but imagining it away by authoritatively stating "evidence is the limitation of knowledge" while denying the self-negating nature of this statement is no rational or logical way of going about things. IOW (again), logic and reason are pains in the aces, but such is life, and it's more fascinating because of this.

 

[Gadarene]

As long as no-one is trying to sneak God or anything else in the back door of that particular axiom, I don't really care for the issue beyond that.

 

[Davian]

Why does it stand?

Lol. It wasn't until I joined this site that I saw evasion being used as a counter-argument.