Ask the materialist...

[FrankSchnabel]

Process guys would say that, as we move from event to event in a process, there necessarily is change. Something that didn’t exist before has been added.

I don’t think that’s trivial. It is a denial of determinism, for one, and also materialism.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

You seem to be saying that metaphysical propositions (when one attempts to say something true about everything) have no informational value. By this I think you mean that metaphysical statements are merely rational (axiomatic). And that is a point on which we will be forever hung up, I am afraid

And so your position seems to be that there can be true metaphysical propositions, but they are necessarily trivial. And I will say How can they be trivial if they say something true about everything?

 

[ateista]

Process guys would say that, as we move from event to event in a process, there necessarily is change. Something that didn’t exist before has been added.

Take those three twigs on the beach. The random movements of the water and wind happen to push them into a position so now they form a triangle. There was no triangle before, and there is a triangle now. Where is the intellectual creative element in this process?

I don’t think that’s trivial. It is a denial of determinism, for one, and also materialism.

Is it now? In what way? That is a very serious statement, which just cries out for some substantiation.

You seem to be saying that metaphysical propositions (when one attempts to say something true about everything) have no informational value. By this I think you mean that metaphysical statements are merely rational (axiomatic). And that is a point on which we will be forever hung up, I am afraid

Yes, I am sure we are. Because so far you did not give me one example of a metaphysical statement which is more than rational (axiomatic).

And so your position seems to be that there can be true metaphysical propositions, but they are necessarily trivial. And I will say How can they be trivial if they say something true about everything?

Trivial in the sense that they do not contain any new information. It does not make them useless, of course. Any axiomatic system needs axioms, which describe some necessarily true conditions that everyone agrees upon.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Mornin Ateista,

Process philosophy denies determinism because it holds that, given complete knowledge of the causes of a future event, it will, in principle, be impossible to completely predict the outcome.

Process philosophy denies materialism because it holds that a completed event is always a whole which is more than the sum of its parts (causes). In each completed event (being) there is more there than what you started with. Something new that never existed before and which is not explainable in terms of the antecedent causes exists.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

You say metaphysical props are trivial in that they don’t convey any new information. What do you mean by that?

 

[ateista]

Process philosophy denies determinism because it holds that, given complete knowledge of the causes of a future event, it will, in principle, be impossible to completely predict the outcome.

Process philosophy denies materialism because it holds that a completed event is always a whole which is more than the sum of its parts (causes). In each completed event (being) there is more there than what you started with. Something new that never existed before and which is not explainable in terms of the antecedent causes exists.

Well, you described what process philosophy claims, but that is not the same as giving reasons why it should be taken seriously.

Let’s go back to those three twigs. Tell me where is the extra element in the existence of the random triangle which needs a non-materialist explanation.

You say metaphysical props are trivial in that they don’t convey any new information. What do you mean by that?

Give me a proposition which you consider “truly” metaphysical and I will be able to answer.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Well, you described what process philosophy claims, but that is not the same as giving reasons why it should be taken seriously.

True enuff. Those reasons haven’t been offered yet.

Let’s go back to those three twigs. Tell me where is the extra element in the existence of the random triangle which needs a non-materialist explanation.

If you point to any concrete event and ask where is the creative addition, I can’t tell you. All I can say is that it must be there.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Give you a “truly” metaphysical proposition?

Well, I can offer one that you believe in: Every event is completely explainable in terms of it’s material causes.

 

[ateista]

True enuff. Those reasons haven’t been offered yet.

I am not impatient. Will gladly wait for the reasons.

If you point to any concrete event and ask where is the creative addition, I can’t tell you. All I can say is that it must be there.

I am sure you realize that this is not very satisfactory. Do you mean that you (personally) cannot point out the creative addition, or do you mean that the creative addition cannot be pointed out - in principle?

Give you a “truly” metaphysical proposition?

Well, I can offer one that you believe in: Every event is completely explainable in terms of it’s material causes.

Sounds good. Every materialist accepts this pronciple. But is it a truly metaphysical proposition?

What you said before that a metaphysical proposition is necessarily true. Yet, the adherents to process philosophy do not accept this proposition as necessarily true, actually they believe that its opposite is true: “NO event is completely explainable in terms of it’s material causes.”

So we are in a conundrum. The two quoted propositions contradict each other. Both of them cannot be necessarily true. Therefore both of them cannot be “metaphyiscal propositions” - which you defined as “necessarily true”.

 

[brycelaliberte]

No, mass is not absolute either, it depends on the speed of the obkect.

Sure. The point originally was that we can measure another society’s morality from our point of view, even in the absence of an absolute measuring rod. We can decide that **from our point of view **one society is more moral than another one.

And how can we say this? Our society shall invariably change. What then about what we might call right? If that becomes wrong? Were we wrong, or are we ‘sufficiently right for the circumstances?’ Sounds like a dodge the bullet game of being responsible for one’s morality.

I disagree. My beliefs influence others in some small ways. They inflenced my child, and hopefully they influence some people on this board - even if they disagree with them. So they will not disappear without a trace even when I die.

Yes, but you will die. I will die. What does it matter to us if our beliefs influence others?

That is definitely not true for certain types of “faith”. This word has many different meanings, and some of them do contradict reason.

Ok, let’s take the Catholic. It would be entirely an article of faith that despite how unlikely it may seem, how physically impossible it is, that transubstantiation does indeed happen. By itself, this would be a ridiculous faith to hold onto, but in light of what else we believe, that Jesus was God, if Jesus says this is done, who are we to deny God’s omnipotence over matter?

Of course, I do posit that it would be entirely on faith one would reject transusbstantiation, and that as long as one were to hold the views of anything contradictory to Jesus’ divinity, a very reasonable faith to hold.

But seeing in the Catholic light, this is entirely expected of belief, for Jesus said so.

Which brings us onto authority. But that’s a whole issue of itself…

Since I don’t know if we’ve talked about this yet, you don’t believe in God. Why? I ask this after noticing my comment of the ‘underlying physics’ as a similarity to a proof of God, so let me restate for common knowledge.

‘If there were then, mass, what began mass’ effect? If this were to be attributed to another causer (as I would be entirely accepting), what began that causer’s effect? And if that had a causer itself, what began that effect? And so on, but this cannot go on infinitely (infinite regression), there must be an initial cause.’

Your understanding of such?

 

[Sarpedon]

True again. As a side note here (not wishing to derail the conversation) is the problem that the Bible is not simple, straightforward, and easy to understand. Even for two Christians, who hold that the Bible is “essentially” true there are many “local” issues, where they disagree and still both can find “supporting arguments” from the very same Bible. Among other things this is why atheists reject that the Bible could have come from an infallible deity.

Allow me to jump in here…

The problem you mention doesn’t really apply to the Catholic Church because we believe that the magisterium of the Church infallibly interprets scripture for us. Thus, there is one true interpretation and any opposing interpretation is heresy. People can certainly choose to go against the church and interpret scripture on their own, but then they become heretics.

On certain issues, such as whether the first chapters of Genesis are literal, the Church allows several different interpretations. This doesn’t negate the Church’s teaching authority, for she simply does not bind us to any specific interpretation on that specific issue. These sections are not vital for salvation, so having an infallible assurance of true interpretation is not necessary.

In fact, you argument is one of the main Catholic arguments against protestantism. Protestants usually believe that the Holy Spirit individually guides each person to the true interpretation, but this is absurd because people obviously do not come to the same interpretation of the Bible on their own. If this were true, then there would be only one Christian creed.

I’d like to ask you my question from the free will thread- If the mind is not designed and only physical (or an emergent attribute, which is dependant upon the physical) why do you believe that it always arrives at true conclusions? If it is only neurons, what makes you think they are infallible?

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Happy Good Friday!

I am not impatient. Will gladly wait for the reasons.

Thanks for you patience. I yam, after all, A Bear of Very Little Brain, and these weighty matters tax my poor abilities.

I am sure you realize that this is not very satisfactory. Do you mean that you (personally) cannot point out the creative addition, or do you mean that the creative addition cannot be pointed out - in principle?

Of course. I think I mean that I personally don’t know how one would go about identifying the creative addition present in any specific happening. In general, we are looking at an event that has occurred, and then, looking backwards, identifying all (and I mean each and every one) of the material causes that were at play. I suppose the general method would be to look at some aspect of the result and connecting it with a particular cause. And doing this until we’ve exhaustively worked through every cause. If there is some aspect of the event to which we haven’t connected a cause, then that residue would be “creative addition.”

But to accomplish the above we would have to “completely know” the concrete happening in question as it is now as well as all the causes which preceded it. Doable in principle?

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Sounds good. Every materialist accepts this pronciple. But is it a truly metaphysical proposition?

What you said before that a metaphysical proposition is necessarily true. Yet, the adherents to process philosophy do not accept this proposition as necessarily true, actually they believe that its opposite is true: “NO event is completely explainable in terms of it’s material causes.”

So we are in a conundrum. The two quoted propositions contradict each other. Both of them cannot be necessarily true. Therefore both of them cannot be “metaphyiscal propositions” - which you defined as “necessarily true”.

There’s no conundrum. Remember, just because someone proposes something as a metaphysical truth doesn’t make it one. In fact, metaphysicians are quite humble in the way they propose metaphysical truths. AN Whitehead sez in Process and Relaity, p. 12: “Metaphysical categories are not dogmatic statements of the obvious; they are tentative formulations of the ultimate generalities.”

So, the way to look at this is that we have two camps with each promoting its own metaphysic, which are contrary. Each camp holds its proposition out to the world as something that is not only logical and coherent, but also empirically adequate and generally applicable. Each side is saying that is no instance where this statement will be untrue. It is always and unavoidable true.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Each side is saying that its metaphysic is not merely axiomatic (rational); it is generally and necessarily exemplified in every event. Examine any event, say the Process Guys, and you will find some creative addition. The Material Guys say you find none.

Now what is the method by which we gain confidence that we have identified a truly metaphysical statement? I think, primarily, it is a rational process. It is a philosophical endeavor. A search for meaning. But it is one that has to pay attention to the empirical world. It has to account for the world as we know it. And the history of thought gives us examples of commonly held metaphysical assumptions being brought down by greater scientific, empirical knowledge.

Determinism is a good example that we’ve discussed before. We both reject determinism in this sense. The determinist metaphysic sez that, if we know all the material causes at work in any concrete situation, we can completely predict the outcome. This idea was dominant until quantum physics showed otherwise.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Now, as between our competing process and materialist metaphysics, how are we going to settle things? Clearly if one is right, the other is wrong.

This will take some time.

 

[ateista]

Physics lesson!

Mass refers to the quanity of matter at rest. While commonly referred to as weight, the difference would be of use for a) absolute measurements of an object’s weight due to earth’s varying gravitation pull or b) the object far in space and unaffected by earth’s gravitational pull or c)on another planet with its own gravitation pull.

Mass is not dependent upon speed. (Don’t mind a , but this is only junior high physics)

If it is physics, let it be physics. “Junior high school” does not teach special relativity, which dispensed with the concept of “resting matter”. (Mass is measured by the force on needs to exert to chance the speed of an object. To refer to it as weight is really an error.)

To be more precise, all cooridate systems, which are at “rest” or move in a linear fashion, without accelaration are identical, and cannot be told apart by any experiment. A coordinate system which moves almost at the speed of light is just as valid as an “etalon” as one which is completely “at rest”.

So the “mass” of an object is not the same in these both systems. But I suggest we drop the physics and go back to the morality of different societies.

And how can we say this? Our society shall invariably change. What then about what we might call right? If that becomes wrong? Were we wrong, or are we ‘sufficiently right for the circumstances?’

That is exactly what happens. In the South slavery was an accepted custom, which rested heavilty of the Bible. The slaveholders would have been thumping the Bible in your face if you dared to deny the morality of slavery - or would have done even worse thing. (Do you recall the movie “Mississippi Burning”?)

Time went on and the morality changed. Yes, there are still some people who assert that blacks are inferior, but they are a small minority now, and their views are not of the mainstream.

Yes, but you will die. I will die. What does it matter to us if our beliefs influence others?

That is a different question, but it certainly does to me. Precisely because my “trace” in the world matters to me. It is carried on - genetically - in my child, and in the miniscule, but existent influence I might have left behind me.

Ok, let’s take the Catholic.

It is still not what I had in mind. I was not merely referring to the Catholic vs. Protestant vs. Muslim, etc. “faiths”, I was referring to the widely different “kinds” of beliefs, which are commonly called “faith”.

Many a times I have been told that I “merely have faith” when I expect that Sun will rise tomorrow. Or that I take it on “faith” that my wife is faithful to me.

This indiscriminate and intentionally confusing use of the word “faith” is what I alluded to.

But, let’s examine the way how you used it.

It would be entirely an article of faith that despite how unlikely it may seem, how physically impossible it is, that transubstantiation does indeed happen. By itself, this would be a ridiculous faith to hold onto, but in light of what else we believe, that Jesus was God, if Jesus says this is done, who are we to deny God’s omnipotence over matter?

Please do not take me wrong. The least of my intentions is to insult you. To prop up one faith with another is exactly what I call irrational. Actually I was asked before: “how do you explain that only humans have immortal souls, if don’t believe in God?”.

Sure, if you believe in God as articulated in the Catholic faith, you can logically believe in anything it teaches.

Since I don’t know if we’ve talked about this yet, you don’t believe in God. Why?

I was born in a family which was religious. One side was Catholic (and quite devout) the other side Protestant (not very devout). I was introduced to both views. It took a long time (decades) that I started to question the whole concept of God. When I looked around in the world, I caould not reconcile a benevolent deity with the state of affairs as I perceived them. But this just in a nutshell. If you are interested in detail, we can do it in a another thread.

‘If there were then, mass, what began mass’ effect? If this were to be attributed to another causer (as I would be entirely accepting), what began that causer’s effect? And if that had a causer itself, what began that effect? And so on, but this cannot go on infinitely (infinite regression), there must be an initial cause.’

This is a grammaticaly well-formed but still invalid question. Just because there are causal chains - which no one denies - it does not follow that there “must be” a first one. This has been discussed in depth and at length in other threads.

 

[ateista]

The problem you mention doesn’t really apply to the Catholic Church because we believe that the magisterium of the Church infallibly interprets scripture for us.

And that is presicely where the problem lies. You understand that all humans are fallible, and yet maintian that the Church - which is an institution composed of fallible humans - is infallible. And that is yet another contradiction. (Very interesting, but the communist party claimed the very same thing. )

Thus, there is one true interpretation and any opposing interpretation is heresy. People can certainly choose to go against the church and interpret scripture on their own, but then they become heretics.

The question here is: “how can you substantiate this in a manner which is not circular reasoning?”. We must accept the autority of teh Catholic Church, because the Catholic Church says so? This carries no weight to someone who is not Cathoilc. Moreover, a growing number of Catholics denies the authority of the Church in certain matters (contraception comes to mind).

I’d like to ask you my question from the free will thread- If the mind is not designed and only physical (or an emergent attribute, which is dependant upon the physical) why do you believe that it always arrives at true conclusions? If it is only neurons, what makes you think they are infallible?

But I don’t think so. It is far from infallible. The facts of the universe are “there”. We try to interpret them and frequently fail. When we formulate hypotheses, we test and re-test them, and when finally we find one which seems to explain and make predictions - we accept them as tentatively correct.

 

[Sarpedon]

And that is presicely where the problem lies. You understand that all humans are fallible, and yet maintian that the Church - which is an institution composed of fallible humans - is infallible. And that is yet another contradiction. (Very interesting, but the communist party claimed the very same thing. )

Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and keeps it from teaching error in certain circumstances. Thus, the fallibility of humans doesn’t really come into play.

The question here is: “how can you substantiate this in a manner which is not circular reasoning?”. We must accept the autority of teh Catholic Church, because the Catholic Church says so? This carries no weight to someone who is not Cathoilc.

I’m not trying to argue the case with you, rather simply to argue that it would be logically consistent, if it is true. If you accept the Catholic faith for other reasons you can accept the authority of the Church, which resolves the issue of interpretation.

Moreover, a growing number of Catholics denies the authority of the Church in certain matters (contraception comes to mind).

These are heretics. Not representative of the true faith.

But I don’t think so. It is far from infallible. The facts of the universe are “there”. We try to interpret them and frequently fail. When we formulate hypotheses, we test and re-test them, and when finally we find one which seems to explain and make predictions - we accept them as tentatively correct.

I’m talking more about how we know that the “facts of the universe” are there and true. Imagine you can only look at things through a “telescope” that wasn’t designed for seeing things clearly. How could you really know what’s out there?

Catholics believe that God has made the telescope to see things clearly.

You may argue that the telescope sees things clearly.
If so, can you give me a reason? Why would undirected, atheistic evolution find the ability to accurately philosophize about abstract things that have no relation to survival or reproduction something to be selected for?

 

[ateista]

Happy Good Friday!

And to you, too! I am always surprised that this day is called “good” Friday. Makes no sense to me why it is not called a “sad” Friday? What is “good” about the execution of Jesus? Don’t answer… It is not a real question.

Thanks for you patience. I yam, after all, A Bear of Very Little Brain, and these weighty matters tax my poor abilities.

May I respectfully disagree?

Of course. I think I mean that I personally don’t know how one would go about identifying the creative addition present in any specific happening. In general, we are looking at an event that has occurred, and then, looking backwards, identifying all (and I mean each and every one) of the material causes that were at play. I suppose the general method would be to look at some aspect of the result and connecting it with a particular cause. And doing this until we’ve exhaustively worked through every cause. If there is some aspect of the event to which we haven’t connected a cause, then that residue would be “creative addition.”

But to accomplish the above we would have to “completely know” the concrete happening in question as it is now as well as all the causes which preceded it. Doable in principle?

I don’t think it can be done. The reason is that we both agree that determinism is false, so it is impossible to “roll” back a full causal chain.

But it is not really necessary. If there is no “creative element” in one actual instance - like those three twigs on the beach, then we have a “partial” causal chain, where the assumption of “creative element” is superfluous. And since the process philosophy asserts that all events must contain a creative element - not just full causal chains - it is clearly false.

 

[ateista]

Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and keeps it from teaching error in certain circumstances. Thus, the fallibility of humans doesn’t really come into play.

The word “guides” is undefined, so it is not a real explanation. Humans are capable of distorting even if there is a “guidance”.

I’m not trying to argue the case with you, rather simply to argue that it would be logically consistent, if it is true. If you accept the Catholic faith for other reasons you can accept the authority of the Church, which resolves the issue of interpretation.

Unfortunately something being logically consistent is far from sufficient. As Asimov wrote a few times: “robots are logical but not reasonable”. The “reasonableness” of a logical chain is not only contingent upon the line of logical process, it is also contingent upon the validity of the axioms one adheres to. If someone does not accept the upderlying principle, it does not matter how logical the tought process is, it is not convincing.

These are heretics. Not representative of the true faith.

As you define “true faith”. Their definition is different. They do not accept that the problem of contraception is an “ex cathedra” utterance of the Pope, therefore it is subject to interpretation.

The concept of “ex cathedra” is questionable, too. What makes an utterance of the Pope “ex cathedra”? It is also questionable, and the Pope is not above being fallible. And of course the alleged infallibility of the Pope is not accepted by non-Catholics.

I’m talking more about how we know that the “facts of the universe” are there and true.

Well, materialists are not solipsists. Only solipsists believe that everything is the product of their imagination. I would say that solipsism is a serious mental disorder. What else would it be to talk to someone else and try to convince the other person that he is not real, just a figment of the speaker’s imagination?

Imagine you can only look at things through a “telescope” that wasn’t designed for seeing things clearly. How could you really know what’s out there?

By seeking **more **information.

Imagine that you are in a desert, and see some vibration on the surface at a distance. It could be a mirage, or it could be a lake. How to resolve this problem? By going closer and obtaining more sensory information. If you go closer and see the water, able to drink from it, take a dip in it, it would be nonsensical to say: “but maybe it is all just an illusion, after all we are fallible beings”. It would be a clear case of solipsism.

It is one thing to generally say “we are fallible beings and therefore we might make incorrect interpretations of our senses”, and it is totally different to say: “since we are fallible beings, we must doubt each and every instance of our sensory (name removed by moderator)uts”. I am sure you see the difference.

You may argue that the telescope sees things clearly. If so, can you give me a reason? Why would undirected, atheistic evolution find the ability to accurately philosophize about abstract things that have no relation to survival or reproduction something to be selected for?

Philosophy is just a very abstract game. But abstractions are not confined to some humans. Even animals are capable of rudimentary abstractions and learning. That does have serious survival ramifications. Being able to recognize a predator is very important to them.

Philosophy is just a game. People who are otherwise well-fed, healthy and have free time on their hands may engage in it. Others, who struggle with survival every day, do not care about it.