Godless Business - Latest Comments

Re: Ultimate Answers

Findo — Mon, 14 May 2012 14:32:59 -0000

Sigh. Your brain is physics and chemistry.

But meaning isn't. You said so yourself.

We have been over this.

Right.. and you're still making the same mistakes. ;p

Thoughts exist in the physical realm; not as separate “things” but represented within the physical realm as patterns with physic and chemistry.

It interacts with the physical brain, yes. But you said yourself that you can't show me meaning purely in terms of the physics and chemistry. You're trying to have your cake and eat it.

“Semantic meaning” is added by a physical brain. Your physical brain is interpreting the symbols on the screen as language (specifically English), constructing words and sentences, and applying “meaning” to them. The “meaning” is your brain working out what the original author (me) might have meant when he wrote the words.

Sure - but none of that is the meaning. Put any of those things "under the microscope" and show me meaning - you can't, because however much it is emergent from those physical processes, it cannot be reduced to them. You think it can, but you've not shown it to be so.

There is nothing ... metaphysical about the process at all. Where’s the problem?

But we're not talking simply about a process. You want to talk only about the means of sending and receiving semantic meaning as if that somehow accounts for the actual semantic meaning itself. Sigh all you like, but you haven't shown that it does.

Re: Ultimate Answers

Andrew Skegg — Mon, 14 May 2012 06:34:55 -0000

"Which would, of course, mean that it's not reducible to the physics and chemistry ...”

Sigh. Your brain is physics and chemistry.

"Can you give me empirical evidence that this revelation / testimony of yours is true? If not, I am justified in rejecting the claim”

We have been over this. Thoughts exist in the physical realm; not as separate “things” but represented within the physical realm as patterns with physic and chemistry.

"if semantic meaning is added, and thus not physical, as you've just said, how is it not a metaphysical thing?”

“Semantic meaning” is added by a physical brain. Your physical brain is interpreting the symbols on the screen as language (specifically English), constructing words and sentences, and applying “meaning” to them. The “meaning” is your brain working out what the original author (me) might have meant when he wrote the words. There is nothing supernatural, magical, or metaphysical about the process at all. Where’s the problem?

Re: Ultimate Answers

Findo — Mon, 14 May 2012 05:08:44 -0000

You always seem to miss the part where I point out that “semantic meaning” is added by the observer

Which would, of course, mean that it's not reducible to the physics and chemistry - which is my point!

You claim metaphysical things exist. I have never seen any verifiable evidence of this in any form - empirical, testimonial, or revolutionary. As such, I am justified in rejecting your claims.

Can you give me empirical evidence that this revelation / testimony of yours is true? If not, I am justified in rejecting the claim... see the problem? ;)

(btw, if semantic meaning is added, and thus not physical, as you've just said, how is it not a metaphysical thing?)

Re: Ultimate Answers

Andrew Skegg — Mon, 14 May 2012 02:51:45 -0000

You always seem to miss the part where I point out that “semantic meaning” is added by the observer - it is not something inherent in the writing itself. This is what makes alternative interpretations possible, for if the meaning was transmitted in the substance itself (or via metaphysical means) then how exactly do people interpret the same words differently?

I am not sure the charge "that metaphysical things must simply be accepted" is a straw man. You say revelation is one way of knowing metaphysical things exist, yet I have not experienced such things nor could be sure I was not hallucinating, dreaming, under the effects of drugs, or simply mistaken. So all I have to go on is your testimony and that of millions of others who claim to have similar experiences - many of which differ wildly and are attributed to any number of gods, aliens, and other weird creatures.

Accepting testimony is a matter of pragmatism. There is no feasible way to validate every claim being made by everyone you are likely to encounter during the course of a day. As such, a certain degree of trust is extended to individuals. The level of trust varies with how reliable the information has proven to be and how congruent with existing knowledge it seems to be. For example, I readily accept people keep cats as pets for I have done this myself and I know of many others who do so. However, if you tell me you have a pet dragon I am likely to consider your testimony bogus and give it little weight. You see, it is all dependant on how much empirically verifiable evidence match up with your claims.

You claim metaphysical things exist. I have never seen any verifiable evidence of this in any form - empirical, testimonial, or revolutionary. As such, I am justified in rejecting your claims.

Re: Ultimate Answers

Findo — Sun, 13 May 2012 14:34:46 -0000

I have given you a purely physical means my through which “meaning” is transferred, yet you continue to assert there is “something metaphysical” about the process.

No, I'm saying that the means of transfer is not itself the semantic meaning. You cannot put the means of transfer "under a microscope" and see semantic meaning.

I'm going to ignore the strawman that I'm arguing that metaphysical things must simply be accepted.

I do note, however, that you agree that in everyday life, we do consider testimony / revelation to be a means of gathering information, although I see you invoke Hume's axiom (never mind that for now). And I see that you agree that we do weigh the reliability of this against evidence - I would add, reason, not wanting to restrict evidence to the kind of strict empircal proof that your apparent positivism seems to want. This, at least, puts a bullet through your binary view that we must either accept all testimony or none at all.

Btw, how would a detective establish motive apart from testimony and/or revelation?

Of course metaphysical things would not display physical properties which makes them indistinguishable from non-existence.

This is a fundamental difference between us - I don't beg the question like that.

Re: Ultimate Answers

Findo — Sun, 13 May 2012 14:26:52 -0000

One day, Andrew, you might just see how circular this reasoning is.

Re: Ultimate Answers

Andrew Skegg — Sat, 12 May 2012 21:09:54 -0000

Close - the complete lack of evidence for “metaphysical things” puts them at the same probability as everything else for which there is no evidence. It’s like they don’t exist at all. How do you tell the difference between things for which there is no evidence and “metaphysical things”?

Re: Ultimate Answers

Andrew Skegg — Sat, 12 May 2012 21:08:12 -0000

I have given you a purely physical means my through which “meaning” is transferred, yet you continue to assert there is “something metaphysical” about the process./

Testimony and revelation are believed in accordance with the weight of corroborating physical evidence to support them. This is why we convict people of murder based on genetic evidence no matter how many people swear the murderer was not at the scene of the crime. Of course for practical purposes in everyday life we afford people a certain amount of belief, but of they are making extraordinary claims our belief is suspended until the evidence is forthcoming.

You are claiming “metaphysical things exist” which may be true, but I see no evidence beyond your claims that this is the case. Of course metaphysical things would not display physical properties which makes them indistinguishable from non-existence. The post above illustrates this is a way - I could claim any number of metaphysical things exist then wave my hands at anyone who questions me because “metaphysical things do not require evidence and you simply must accept by testimony that they do”.

Sorry, I don’t play that game.

Re: Ultimate Answers

Findo — Sat, 12 May 2012 10:36:24 -0000

Not a bad summary ;)

Re: Ultimate Answers

Original_BluePrint — Sat, 12 May 2012 09:36:50 -0000

I admit his last post is somewhat disconnected from the sentence by sentence dissection of posts so far but the meaning in the reply is obviously rooted in the fundamental (dis)agreement: Metaphysical being non-demonstrable.

The way I see it so far is:
Skegg: Asserting Metaphysical is pointless without evidence.
Finden: Metaphysical can't be evident by purely physical means, but is not pointless.
Skegg: I can't accept a preposterous claim without evidence, and neither can you.
Finden: My claim is not ridiculous.

Re: Ultimate Answers

Findo — Sat, 12 May 2012 06:24:31 -0000

Original_BluePrint

in what way that post was a strawman.

Well I'm talking about metaphysical things like (semantic) meaning, and he posits a "metaphysical flying unicorn" - whatever that is supposed to mean. The "analogy" simply fails to engage with anything I've actually written on the concept of revelation and instead invokes reducto ad absurdum. Andrew seems to hold to some sort of logical positivism, and appears to view the issue in a rather binary way, whereby we have to accept all-or-nothing when it comes to testimony / revelation as a source.I'm afraid that this unwillingness to engage seriously with any kind of serious thought (dismissing metaphysics out of hand like this is to fail to engage at all with historical - let alone contemporary- philosophical thought on the issue) that doesn't fit within a pre-conceived paradigm is, frankly, tiresome. Andrew and I have been around this particular mulberry bush many times, and nothing new is showing it's face. Andrew seems to think he can win arguments by playing devil's advocate for absurd caricatures.. well, I'm not playing that game, sorry.

Please don't read any kind of ill-feeling into this.. I'm simply bored by this kind of silliness.

Re: Ultimate Answers

Original_BluePrint — Sat, 12 May 2012 05:58:24 -0000

Then you would have no problem explaining in what way that post was a strawman.
So, if you please.

Re: Ultimate Answers

Findo — Sat, 12 May 2012 03:10:15 -0000

I see how absurd your strawman is ;)

Re: Ultimate Answers

Andrew Skegg — Fri, 11 May 2012 02:16:58 -0000

If I claimed there were metaphysical unicorns flying around, would you believe me? It’s coincidentally handy that the unicorns talk to me and have revealed their presence, but you have no way to determine their truth because they exist beyond the physical realm. Any evidence I could give you would clearly be within the physical realm, so “please supply evidence” would be entirely the wrong *type* of question to ask. What you need to do is convince yourself our metaphysical unicorn masters really do exist and they may decide to “reveal” themselves to you.

See how absurd your argument is?

Re: Ultimate Answers

Findo — Thu, 10 May 2012 07:18:34 -0000

The problem is you have given me no methodology to determine whether metaphysical "things" actually exist. I suspect it is "revelation", but to my mind it is difficult to discern revelation from imagination, or the competing (and often contradictory) revelations within and between religions.

As ever, this remains a begged question.

If you want to throw out empiricism you are welcome to, however you must admit you are replacing it with something you admit cannot be tested at all. I think that is rather self-defeating too.

It's only self-defeating if you beg the question in the manner you do ;)

Wrong. The "software" still exists as patterns of magnetism on the hard drive, or pits in reflective surfaces of a DVD.

But you still cannot equate the two.

In other words, it *always* has a physical representation. It is very difficult to extrapolate a new substance called "software" which is separate from the physical world; we use the linguistic shortcut between "software", "hardware" and "firmware" to aid communication.

Well, yes, the software is connected to (interacts with / relient upon) the hardware - I didn't say othwerwise. The point is that it cannot be reduced to the hardware.

No, you are not going to see a "mind" under the microscope because the "mind" does not exist on that scale.

But you just told us that we've no reason to think that the mind is anothing other than the brain - therefore, put the brain "under a microscope" and you'll be able to point me to a mind... and now you agree that we won't see a mind by doing that?

The sum is equal to the parts, it's just some of the time *we* bring parts to the table.

What do you mean by that?

If the sum is equal to the parts - show me the 'meaning' part in the physics and chemistry of ink & paper. If you cannot, then the sum is clearly greater than the parts.

> "If you put every step of the communication process, from brain to brain and the mediums in-between "under a microscope" at no point will you find a physical thing to which you can point to and say "there's the meaning"."
Scale.

That seems to be an acknowledgement that you can't reduce everything down to its physics and chemistry..

Re: Ultimate Answers

Andrew Skegg — Thu, 10 May 2012 07:07:39 -0000

> "This is exactly the kind of fallacious statement I have issue with, because you're clearly demanding an empirical demonstration of something meta-physical…"

The problem is you have given me no methodology to determine whether metaphysical "things" actually exist. I suspect it is "revelation", but to my mind it is difficult to discern revelation from imagination, or the competing (and often contradictory) revelations within and between religions.

> But of course, you can't actually demonstrate empirically that your (philosophical) view of empiricism is actually true, can you! It's self-defeating.

And you can't demonstrate anything about your metaphysical claims because they are not physical in any way. If you want to throw out empiricism you are welcome to, however you must admit you are replacing it with something you admit cannot be tested at all. I think that is rather self-defeating too.

> > I think we both agree that the physical brain seems massively connected with our identity of “self”, however you also claim that this is due to a “soul” or “spirit” which is somehow interacting with they old grey matter.

> I have talked about consiousness & the mind, and how that is not necessarily reducible to "nothing but" the brain.

Not necessarily, but what would make the difference is evidence.

> "Maybe consciousness is a new kind of force, in the way electricity or magnetism is. It might be that, as we explore the brain, we come to an understanding of consciousness as being a separate property." - David Eagleman

Perhaps consciousness is a new kind of force, but until physics can develop a model to measure and predict consciousness we are not justified in believing such a thing. Again, evidence is king.

> ".. Eagelman points out, the brain has capabilities that machines don't) …"

Then again, we don't have a machine as complex, indicate, or interconnected as the human brain.

> "I think the idea of software and hardware might be a helpful way of thinking about the mind - brain connection. If the processor breaks, I lose access to the software until the hardware is repaired."

Wrong. The "software" still exists as patterns of magnetism on the hard drive, or pits in reflective surfaces of a DVD. In other words, it *always* has a physical representation. It is very difficult to extrapolate a new substance called "software" which is separate from the physical world; we use the linguistic shortcut between "software", "hardware" and "firmware" to aid communication.

> "The software is in that sense rather emergent from the hardware, but it is not the hardware. I mean, if you put a brain under a microscope, you're not going to see a mind."

No, you are not going to see a "mind" under the microscope because the "mind" does not exist on that scale. Just like you cannot see the ocean in a molecule of water. This is what I am referring to when I use the term "emergent"; perhaps "scale" is a better term?

> "Physical reductionism falls down at this point. The sum is greater than the parts."

Naturally I disagree. The sum is equal to the parts, it's just some of the time *we* bring parts to the table.

> "If you put every step of the communication process, from brain to brain and the mediums in-between "under a microscope" at no point will you find a physical thing to which you can point to and say "there's the meaning"."

Scale.

Re: Ultimate Answers

Findo — Tue, 08 May 2012 06:47:56 -0000

It seems to me in your view we must accept all claims are true - so long as they seem logical.

What makes you think that?

Moreover, you cannot even demonstrate such a thing as “non-physical” actually exists at all.

This is exactly the kind of fallacious statement I have issue with, because you're clearly demanding an empirical demonstration of something meta-physical, that is, you're demanding demonstration via a methodology whose scope is limited to the physical. It's circular and fallacious. Perhaps you're ok with that? The alternative is recognise the limitations of our methodologies and allow other disciplines (such as philosophy etc.) to explore issues and ideas.

The very reason I constrain my conclusions it to prevent imagination from intruding into my model of reality.

But of course, you can't actually demonstrate empirically that your (philosophical) view of empiricism is actually true, can you! It's self-defeating.

I think we both agree that the physical brain seems massively connected with our identity of “self”, however you also claim that this is due to a “soul” or “spirit” which is somehow interacting with they old grey matter.

I've not made, to my knowledge, any claims, either here, on on my blog, about souls / spirits, and how they might be connected to our physicality. I have talked about consiousness & the mind, and how that is not necessarily reducible to "nothing but" the brain. There is so much we do not know in this area, and to draw such reductive conclusions is unwarranted, and due largely to presuppositions IMO. For example, just take what the leading Neuroscientist David Eagleman recently wrote:

Maybe consciousness is a new kind of force, in the way electricity or magnetism is. It might be that, as we explore the brain, we come to an understanding of consciousness as being a separate property.

While it's an incomplete analogy (as Eagelman points out, the brain has capabilities that machines don't), I think the idea of software and hardware might be a helpful way of thinking about the mind - brain connection. If the processor breaks, I lose access to the software until the hardware is repaired. The software is in that sense rather emergent from the hardware, but it is not the hardware. I mean, if you put a brain under a microscope, you're not going to see a mind.

I think you misunderstood my (perhaps poor) explanation of “emergent”. I meant to say that the intention of communication is encoded in the physical ink and paper through the commonly agreed semantics of language (or the glowing phosphorus of the screen, as the case my be). Physical light bounces off the page to reach our eyes, where physical cells detect the photons and convert them into electrical signals to be interpreted by our brains. Our brain reconstruct the symbols, letters, words, sentences, and paragraphs into an approximation of what the original author intended (the better writers are able to encode their thoughts effectively). It is in *this sense* that the “meaning” of the ink emerges from the paper - not that there is some non-physical substance which travels long side the texts. Is that clearer?

I think you're using the term 'emergent' somewhat differently than the standard usage... but I could be wrong. In any case, I think you ignore the point that the meaning cannot be found in the physical stuff (ink or phosphorus). Physical reductionism falls down at this point. The sum is greater than the parts. If you put every step of the communication process, from brain to brain and the mediums in-between "under a microscope" at no point will you find a physical thing to which you can point to and say "there's the meaning". Sure, it travels along those physical paths, but it is not the paths themselves.
But we've been down this path ourselves before...

Re: Ultimate Answers

Andrew Skegg — Tue, 08 May 2012 05:40:16 -0000

I appreciate you think empiricism is circular, but what is the alternative? It seems to me in your view we must accept all claims are true - so long as they seem logical. The would mean unicorns, dragons, gremlins, ghouls, ghosts, and pixies must exist somewhere, even if in the “non-physical” realm. Moreover, you cannot even demonstrate such a thing as “non-physical” actually exists at all. The very reason I constrain my conclusions it to prevent imagination from intruding into my model of reality.

Take the brain example. I think we both agree that the physical brain seems massively connected with our identity of “self”, however you also claim that this is due to a “soul” or “spirit” which is somehow interacting with they old grey matter. This claim I cannot accept at face value without some sort of empirical evidence to support it, and no amount of “feeling” or “wishing” it to be true can count. I wish my mother was still here, but I have absolutely zero evidence that that is the case. Evidence, my dear boy.

Lastly, I think you misunderstood my (perhaps poor) explanation of “emergent”. I meant to say that the intention of communication is encoded in the physical ink and paper through the commonly agreed semantics of language (or the glowing phosphorus of the screen, as the case my be). Physical light bounces off the page to reach our eyes, where physical cells detect the photons and convert them into electrical signals to be interpreted by our brains. Our brain reconstruct the symbols, letters, words, sentences, and paragraphs into an approximation of what the original author intended (the better writers are able to encode their thoughts effectively). It is in *this sense* that the “meaning” of the ink emerges from the paper - not that there is some non-physical substance which travels long side the texts. Is that clearer?

Re: Ultimate Answers

Findo — Mon, 07 May 2012 03:29:58 -0000

It was simply out of interest :)

Re: Ultimate Answers

Original_BluePrint — Sun, 06 May 2012 23:50:18 -0000

I fail to see how is that related in any way to the communication problem we're having here. My native language is not a factor in my misunderstanding of your English via an English dictionary.

Re: More Ultimate Answers

Andrew Skegg — Sun, 06 May 2012 22:51:51 -0000

I meant to say “cannot prove”. I will correct the error. The rest I will respond to in due time.

Re: More Ultimate Answers

Findo — Sun, 06 May 2012 08:59:45 -0000

Just to clarify

It is encouraging to read the opening statement of this section where Andrew admits “that one can prove that God exists”

What I wrote was:
I do not argue that one can prove that God existsI think that's what you meant to imply, but it could easily be misunderstood in the way you've written it.

I have to say, I get the feeling you're trying to have your cake and eat it when you claim you're not a philosophical naturalist, but merely a methodological naturalist - it seems to me that by insisting that methodological naturalism is how we must going about things (not just science) then that's a philosophical position. If it quacks like a duck...

You also seem to have conflated empiricism and rationality - as if a rational intelligence is only intelligible via empirical means?

why is there a god rather than not?

That's what the difference between contingent and necessary means, and your question is thus a category error. But even so, it's just an attempt at tu quoque and doesn't remove any of the force of the original question of why there is something rather than nothing.

I know am I somewhat of a loner here, but we simply do not have other universes to sample. We have no idea what the qualities potential universes may sustain. The “precise physical properties” are a result of *descriptive* laws which may not in fact be free to change. Our universe may be the *only* way a universe could exist, and in a similar way the universe may not permit absolutely nothing to “exist”. The default state may be existence rather than nonexistence.

I've never really understood this objection..
I'd give cosmologists and physicists enough credit to know what a different value might do.
And what do you mean that properties are "the result" of descriptive laws?
I just don't think it follows that by saying that we don't know if they could be different, our thoughts about how they might be different are invalid. The universe and it's laws do appear to be contingent and not necessary. And if was the case that if they were different then the universe couldn't exist then that just reinforces the point of the argument and reiterates the question of why there is something rather than nothing - why are those values the way they are?

I cannot rule it out as a possibility and would be interested to see how Andrew Finden did so

I don't know that it's fair to say that I've ruled them out - I'm talking about how things appear to be, and that this is a pointer. So while the rational intelligibility of the universe doesn't prove anything, it does, to my mind, point to a rational intelligence - that seems the most reasonable explanation.

Re: Ultimate Answers

Findo — Sun, 06 May 2012 08:41:42 -0000

What's your native language?

Re: Is materialistic reductionism self refuting?

Andrew Skegg — Fri, 04 May 2012 00:39:36 -0000

Let me rephrase you question and put it back to you: How can unthinking electrical circuits perform calculation or play music?

Re: Is materialistic reductionism self refuting?

Tavmaker — Thu, 03 May 2012 19:31:13 -0000

What happens though is that, There is no proof that the brain creates consciousness, How can unconscious pieces of matter create rich inner subjective experiences. And also atoms or matter act probabilistic, So if the mind or consciousness really was created by the brain we would just be doing things randomly with no free will. But we do have free will though, And free will is part of the mind or consciousness and this is the big problem for materialism or emergentism. And also emergentism can't escape the fact that atoms and matter are probabilistic same with materialism, Read the book called (irreducible mind by Kelly and Kelly) and also look at the (Quantum Randi challenge) everything we do is in consciousness you can not go behind consciousness.