Correspondence Theory implies Dualism

[greylorn]

When Matthias says “immaterial” he is talking about what you would call the conceptual. Metaphysically speaking, the conceptual exists within a “universe of concepts” where things like perfect circles can exist even though they cannot exist physically. The 2 universes don’t interact. Truth is an issue of conceptual construction, not physical. The mind builds concepts into a picture of objective, physical reality in an effort to make a “map of the terrain” which is what “correspondence theory” is supposed to be about.

You are making things up. If Matthias meant “conceptual,” he should have used that word. That is why we have dictionaries. Are you a Biblical interpreter on the side?

I find that the term “immaterial” is commonly used synonymously with “spiritual,” as an implication of something which is real but not normally perceptible. It creates a lot of confusion when applied to any notion about the physical universe, which is composed of matter (material) and non-matter (immaterial).

The poster, Mathias, obviously does not even understand the terms he is using, which means that he does not know what he is talking about. I continue to be amazed at the willingness of apparently intelligent people like yourself to be sucked into a meaningless conversation. My point was simply the pointlessness of the OP, and the absurdity of ongoing comments.

People will readily attribute meaning to meaningless statements if the statements include key terms and vague implications of meaning.

A well documented psychology experiment involved reading a suitably vague and meaningless political speech, the same speech, to groups of Democrats and Republicans. Each group interpreted the speech in its own favor. To do so, they attributed meaning to meaningless and incoherent statements. That’s exactly what people replying to the OP are doing, yourself included.

I’d complain that you have no idea about what I regard as “conceptual” if your assessment was incorrect. Did you get lucky?

There is no such thing as a “universe of concepts.” That is a goofy, meaningless term that you or some fool who you took seriously made up. Would you settle for a less pretentious term, like “a set of concepts?” Even better, “some notions?”

Let’s not try to make the ninnies think that we know something by painting our ignorance with misapplied words and pretentious phrases.

 

[James_S_Saint]

You are making things up. If Matthias meant “conceptual,” he should have used that word. That is why we have dictionaries. Are you a Biblical interpreter on the side?

I find that the term “immaterial” is commonly used synonymously with “spiritual,” as an implication of something which is real but not normally perceptible. It creates a lot of confusion when applied to any notion about the physical universe, which is composed of matter (material) and non-matter (immaterial).

The poster, Mathias, obviously does not even understand the terms he is using, which means that he does not know what he is talking about. I continue to be amazed at the willingness of apparently intelligent people like yourself to be sucked into a meaningless conversation. My point was simply the pointlessness of the OP, and the absurdity of ongoing comments.

People will readily attribute meaning to meaningless statements if the statements include key terms and vague implications of meaning.

A well documented psychology experiment involved reading a suitably vague and meaningless political speech, the same speech, to groups of Democrats and Republicans. Each group interpreted the speech in its own favor. To do so, they attributed meaning to meaningless and incoherent statements. That’s exactly what people replying to the OP are doing, yourself included.

I’d complain that you have no idea about what I regard as “conceptual” if your assessment was incorrect. Did you get lucky?

There is no such thing as a “universe of concepts.” That is a goofy, meaningless term that you or some fool who you took seriously made up. Would you settle for a less pretentious term, like “a set of concepts?” Even better, “some notions?”

Let’s not try to make the ninnies think that we know something by painting our ignorance with misapplied words and pretentious phrases.

Wow, you are SO consumed in your obstinate and arrogant misunderstandings, I think I’ll let you go your way without further assistance.

 

[tonyrey]

Mathias, your question is directly related to the reality of intangibles - which materialists reject. For them truth cannot be correspondence unless correspondence is physically observable. It cannot be more than a physical relationship, like the reflection of an object in a mirror. So it boils down to the nature of knowledge. How do we know anything?

We obviously do not have direct knowledge of things. We perceive the shape, colour, size, and other qualities of a table with which we construct a concept of what a table is. The important point is that we do not need an image. We can think of a table without specifying its dimensions or other attributes. What counts is its origin, function or purpose. Already we are at a level of abstraction which is way beyond the scope of physical activity. How can abstraction itself be explained in physical terms?

Bertrand Russell accepted the reality of intangibles because he realised that the fact of similarity cannot be ignored. It does not exist in the objects themselves. It is a relationship which is undeniably real and exists even if we are not aware of it. Even if we ignore the reality of the mind we cannot reject similarity, symmetry, proportions, quantities and other abstractions. The world therefore is not composed solely of physical objects.

Correspondence falls into the category of abstractions. Until the materialist explains how the brain succeeds in constructing and recognising abstractions there is no reason to suppose any physical organ has insight and can transcend time and space. The simplest explanation is that correspondence implies dualism…

 

[antunesaa]

That cast the world in kind of Laplacian mode, which is not my understanding at all, or a supportable one in light of science. Randomness and stochastic/probabilistic features of natural processes obtain at the lowest, fundamental levels of reality, which makes for a kind of evolving “dance”, the interaction of deterministic law and non-deterministic probabilities.

I don’t think the introduction of a stochastic element changes tonyrey’s argument fundamentally. Your materialistic view remains Laplacian. Whether macro physical laws or some kind of combination of macro- and micro-level laws are in place in the human mind, the truth is that any product of the mind is subject to the vagaries of matter. Then I don’t see how you can trust any proposed truth; not even consulting other people, for they also are subject to the same physical macro and micro laws and their contingency. If there’s a “glue” that aligns those mental processes together, then that sounds dangerously like a superstition.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t think the introduction of a stochastic element changes tonyrey’s argument fundamentally. Your materialistic view remains Laplacian. Whether macro physical laws or some kind of combination of macro- and micro-level laws are in place in the human mind, the truth is that any product of the mind is subject to the vagaries of matter. Then I don’t see how you can trust any proposed truth; not even consulting other people, for they also are subject to the same physical macro and micro laws and their contingency. If there’s a “glue” that aligns those mental processes together, then that sounds dangerously like a superstition.

Thank you for pointing that out. Our conclusions could well be affected by whether we have had a bad night’s sleep or a bout of indigestion…

 

[Touchstone]

I don’t think the introduction of a stochastic element changes tonyrey’s argument fundamentally. Your materialistic view remains Laplacian.

Maybe you are talking about a different Mssr. Laplace? Laplace was the dude, in case you have forgotten, that held that if we had knowledge of the states of present conditions, we could apply deterministic laws to accurately predict any and all future conditions.

Science has shown that to be spectacularly, stupendously wrong. The more we learn about nature, the more non-determinism obtains, and at the lowest, most fundamental levels. The world is highly probabilistic, a characteristic which utterly discredits Laplace’s model of the world. So a materialism that accepts probabilistic dynamics at the lowest level COULD NOT BE FARTHER from a Laplacian view, and still keep any laws at all.

Whether macro physical laws or some kind of combination of macro- and micro-level laws are in place in the human mind, the truth is that any product of the mind is subject to the vagaries of matter. Then I don’t see how you can trust any proposed truth; not even consulting other people, for they also are subject to the same physical macro and micro laws and their contingency. If there’s a “glue” that aligns those mental processes together, then that sounds dangerously like a superstition.

You don’t need to trust it in any “a priori” sense. On the one hand, you (and I) are biologically wired to accept our cognitive models that integrate and synthesize our sensory (name removed by moderator)uts and experiences. You cannot do otherwise, and your cognitive patterns in this regard are not optional – some of them you are literally “hard-wired” for, and the others became fixed when you were too young to even understand what was happening, let along consider other models.

On the other hand, you don’t need to trust it beforehand, not just because it’s too late, but because it’s performative after the fact. You can see for yourself that experience and empirical models achieve isomorphisms and contexts for meaning and understanding that are highly useful toward practical ends, whether that be getting a glass of wine to you mouth without spilling it on your nice new shirt, or programming genetic algorithms for fun and profit in the stock market.

In any case, saying “why should I trust my mind” is the very same question as “How do I know this is not some kind of Cartesian theatre, and my mind is really a brain in a vat of chemicals just imagining all this”. It’s an utterly empty, moot question. If it’s true, you don’t and can’t know, and can’t do anything about it – the illusion is the reality so far as you are concerned. Same with “why should I trust my physical mind?”. There are no other practical options, it’s a perfectly moot question.

There’s no “glue” that I know of, or any glue needed. Does a rock need “glue” to find the path of east resistance as it rolls down the side of a mountain? Human minds are the products of biological processes working over long periods of time. It’s natural, just as natural as the rock obeying gravity as it rolls down the slope. The mind needs precisely as magic and superstitious influence to do what it does as the rock does to roll down the mountain.

-TS

 

[tonyrey]

So a materialism that accepts probabilistic dynamics at the lowest level COULD NOT BE FARTHER from a Laplacian view, and still keep any laws at all.

It does not alter the fact that - in Antunesaa’s words - any product of the mind is subject to the vagaries of matter. Materialism implies that the lump of tissue we call the brain functions mechanistically without insight, awareness or control over what it is doing.

On the other hand, you don’t need to trust it beforehand, not just because it’s too late, but because it’s performative after the fact. You can see for yourself that experience and empirical models achieve isomorphisms and contexts for meaning and understanding that are highly useful toward practical ends, whether that be getting a glass of wine to you mouth without spilling it on your nice new shirt, or programming genetic algorithms for fun and profit in the stock market.

Meaning and understanding do not exist in the isomorphic theory of knowledge…

In any case, saying “why should I trust my mind” is the very same question as “How do I know this is not some kind of Cartesian theatre, and my mind is really a brain in a vat of chemicals just imagining all this”. It’s an utterly empty, moot question. If it’s true, you don’t and can’t know, and can’t do anything about it – the illusion is the reality so far as you are concerned. Same with “why should I trust my physical mind?”. There are no other practical options, it’s a perfectly moot question.

You may ignore it in theory but in practice you don’t and are convinced your view of reality is true…

There’s no “glue” that I know of, or any glue needed. Does a rock need “glue” to find the path of least resistance as it rolls down the side of a mountain? Human minds are the products of biological processes working over long periods of time. It’s natural, just as natural as the rock obeying gravity as it rolls down the slope. The mind needs precisely as magic and superstitious influence to do what it does as the rock does to roll down the mountain.

If human minds are products of biological processes working over long periods of time they do indeed find the path of least resistance. They have no choice in the matter even if they are mistaken - and there are far more ways of making a mistake than finding the truth. They are geared solely to survival and are not equipped to understand their own nature, let alone the nature of reality - which of course rules out materialism…

 

[Touchstone]

It does not alter the fact that - in Antunesaa’s words - any product of the mind is subject to the vagaries of matter. Materialism implies that the lump of tissue we call the brain functions mechanistically without insight, awareness or control over what it is doing.

It doesn’t imply that at all. Rather, it understands insight, awareness and control to be material, natural functions themselves. If you are thinking that somehow “awareness”, for example, has to be somehow supernatural, ask yourself why that would be so. Awareness is a natural faculty of natural beings. Not only is “immaterialism” not needed or implied, it doesn’t help epistemically, or in terms of a models of reality. It’s in fact problematic, where a natural rendering is not.

Meaning and understanding do not exist in the isomorphic theory of knowledge…

As I’ve said several times now in this thread, isomorphisms are the stuff of meaning. That is how understanding is achieved, through isomorphism – “model” is a term we use to refer to the isomorphism between concepts (subjects, objects standing in relation to each other) and the extramental world. That’s what “understanding” means – to have a “map” in one’s head that is somehow (often crudely) isomorphic to the state and the behavior of the world around us.

You may ignore it in theory but in practice you don’t and are convinced your view of reality is true…

It’s the other way around. It’s only in theory – armchair philosophers scratching their heads – where “can I trust my mind” even gets any attention. In practice, it’s just not an option. It’s the rare individual that driving down the road begins to doubt wether the cars rushing past in the oncoming lane are really there or any of this is real and trustable by the brain that is telling us through the senses that a 6,000lb vehicle approaching at a net 100mph just a hundred yards off…

It’s only when we have the luxury of detachment from the penalties we suffer for “not trusting our minds” that we allow ourselves to think about that. Cartesian theaters are a bit of novice philosophy that is fun for people to explore conceptually at some point, but it’s not a practical matter. You stay on your side of the road, and believe your senses and mind, understanding that “letting go of the wheel” as an expression of doubt about those senses and your brain is quite likely to be fatal as a practical matter.

If human minds are products of biological processes working over long periods of time they do indeed find the path of least resistance. They have no choice in the matter even if they are mistaken - and there are far more ways of making a mistake than finding the truth. They are geared solely to survival and are not equipped to understand their own nature, let alone the nature of reality - which of course rules out materialism…

I agree they are not geared to study metaphysics, generally. This is one of my principal contributions to the discussion, here. This is a bit of narcissistic folly that stretches back to Plato and before. We do have faculties that enable us to understand how nature works in terms of models and empirical discovery. But we work from the “inside out”, from our experiences toward the edge of understanding about the world. That knowledge base grows and grows, but we are limited by the nature of our natural minds and faculties. We are not gods, we are not party to the ultimate answers about reality.

We are finely honed by nature to survive and thrive in our environment. But the faculties and adaptions nature has developed in us, while ever accountable to the hazards and constraints of that environment, do not, and cannot limit those faculties in some directed way – these are just impersonal process working away, as far as we can tell. So when man develops meta-representational cognitive faculties, that is indeed a huge advantage toward survival and fecundity. But the capability is by definition general, so man’s abstract thinking capabilities can be devoted to all sorts of topics and questions that aren’t directly survival related or practical at all; a mind that thinks abstractly is a powerful tool in the evolutionary game, but that capability goes far beyond that, and has ramifications that go way beyond just propagating ones’ genes.

-TS

 

[tonyrey]

Materialism implies that the lump of tissue we call the brain functions mechanistically without insight, awareness or control over what it is doing.

.It depends what you mean by awareness. It is not a natural faculty of inanimate matter, for sure. We take it for granted that an amoeba is in some way aware but it has never been explained what that primitive awareness consists of. Human beings are in another category altogether. Awareness of oneself is a remarkable phenomenon - which scientists have not even begun to understand. Nor for that matter the power of abstraction which enables us to have a concept of the self.

Not only is “immaterialism” not needed or implied, it doesn’t help epistemically, or in terms of a models of reality. It’s in fact problematic, where a natural rendering is not.

Why is a natural rendering not problematic?

As I’ve said several times now in this thread, isomorphisms are the stuff of meaning. That is how understanding is achieved, through isomorphism – “model” is a term we use to refer to the isomorphism between concepts (subjects, objects standing in relation to each other) and the extramental world. That’s what “understanding” means – to have a “map” in one’s head that is somehow (often crudely) isomorphic to the state and the behavior of the world around us.

You need to explain how and why patterns in the brain have developed to grasp the** reasons** for the occurrence of events. Survival value seems a grossly inadequate cause. Animals associate certain situations with danger but they have no insight into general principles or rules. The fact that their language lacks syntax shows that it is one thing to have a map in the head but another to
grasp all the implications, causes and consequences of that map.

You may ignore it in theory but in practice you don’t and are convinced your view of reality is true…

It’s only in theory – armchair philosophers scratching their heads – where “can I trust my mind” even gets any attention. In practice, it’s just not an option. It’s the rare individual that driving down the road begins to doubt whether the cars rushing past in the oncoming lane are really there or any of this is real and trustable by the brain that is telling us through the senses that a 6,000lb vehicle approaching at a net 100mph just a hundred yards off…

I am not referring to the reality of the physical world - which is not in dispute - but the view that the physical world is the **sole **reality.

If human minds are products of biological processes working over long periods of time they do indeed find the path of least resistance. They have no choice in the matter even if they are mistaken - and there are far more ways of making a mistake than finding the truth.

They are geared solely to survival and are not equipped to understand their own nature, let alone the nature of reality - which of course rules out materialism…
I agree they are not geared to study metaphysics, generally. This is one of my principal contributions to the discussion, here. This is a bit of narcissistic folly that stretches back to Plato and before. We do have faculties that enable us to understand how nature works in terms of models and empirical discovery. But we work from the “inside out”, from our experiences toward the edge of understanding about the world. That knowledge base grows and grows, but we are limited by the nature of our natural minds and faculties. We are not gods, we are not party to the ultimate answers about reality.

I’m glad you recognise the fact that we work from the “inside out” - which demonstrates that for us the primary reality is our mind and its contents rather than the outside world. If we are not party to the ultimate answers about reality you are not justified in assuming that our minds and their faculties are “natural”. You despise Plato but he exposed the weaknesses in the arguments of cynics and sceptics alike.

We are finely honed by nature to survive and thrive in our environment. But the faculties and adaptations nature has developed in us, while ever accountable to the hazards and constraints of that environment, do not, and cannot limit those faculties in some directed way – these are just impersonal process working away, as far as we can tell.

An impersonal process is limited by the very fact that it is impersonal and determined by previous events. You, understandably, describe this impersonal process as if you are a detached observer whereas, according to materialism, your description is itself an impersonal process which cannot take itself into account.

So when man develops meta-representational cognitive faculties, that is indeed a huge advantage toward survival and fecundity.

There are two problems here:
how they have developed and how they are advantageous. The more complex an organism becomes the less likely it is to survive. Monocells still exist whereas many more advanced organisms have become extinct.

But the capability is by definition general, so man’s abstract thinking capabilities can be devoted to all sorts of topics and questions that aren’t directly survival related or practical at all; a mind that thinks abstractly is a powerful tool in the evolutionary game, but that capability goes far beyond that, and has ramifications that go way beyond just propagating ones’ genes.

You have shifted from a specific capability - a survival mechanism- to a general capability. This certainly requires justification. Ironically, our power of abstract thought jeopardises our prospects of survival rather than enhances them…

 

[Touchstone]

.It depends what you mean by awareness. It is not a natural faculty of inanimate matter, for sure.

No, not for sure, and here in the second sentence, you’ve already signaled the major conceptual errors you are laboring under, here. Awareness does indeed appear to a natural feature/behavior of matter in some configurations, configurations we are well aware of. Matter/energy, in some of the more exquisite configurations we find it, is aware of other matter/energy, “nature beholding itself” as I think Carl Sagan put it.

In any case, what you suppose is “for sure” is not “for sure” by any reasonable measure, and is fact manifestly false based on our natural knowledge.

We take it for granted that an amoeba is in some way aware but it has never been explained what that primitive awareness consists of.

But it has. If you go read a college level text book – or better, current research in the reviewed literature – you will find a robust account of what kinds of sensory (name removed by moderator)uts and processing an amoeba has to bring to bear on its surroundings. A jellyfish is a bit more complex than an amoeba, and yet conspicuously has no nervous system, even, but it does have (name removed by moderator)uts, processing and output actions that facilitate interaction with its environment in gene-propagating ways (survival + fecundity, that is).

Human beings are in another category altogether. Awareness of oneself is a remarkable phenomenon - which scientists have not even begun to understand. Nor for that matter the power of abstraction which enables us to have a concept of the self.

These two sentences refute themselves. Just by saying what you’ve said, you’ve demonstrated that man is well begun in understanding this very problem. I think there is a whole body of knowledge and literature out there on this you just may not be aware of. Either that, or you are casting “that which doesn’t support my supernaturalism/theism” as an ipso fact sign of ignorance on the subject.

Why is a natural rendering not problematic?

Why, because it’s empirical, of course – it’s grounded in natural experience, and methodologically vetted by a community that is collaborating on that method, emphasizing objective and repeatedly performance of its renderings.

You need to explain how and why patterns in the brain have developed to grasp the** reasons** for the occurrence of events.

Why? This is a trick question. Any answer there is just fodder for the next level of regress. Why should that explanation I provide be the case? What are strings in string theory made of? Oh, and then what is that stuff made of? and that stuff?

Over and over this we go. In order for you drop your irrational views you cherish – it’s not my goal to convince you to drop them, by the way; I’m really interested in getting atheist and theists alike talking honestly and in serious ways about knowledge, experience, method and epistemology – you want me to square a circle. You’re willing to listen, understand, if I can provide an infinite regress of detail for you. And your mind is shut and comfy with supernaturalism until then.

I know a fool’s errand when I see one. Pass. Supernaturalism is not the default answer, barring the furnishing of an infinite regress of explanations rendered in material terms.

Survival value seems a grossly inadequate cause. Animals associate certain situations with danger but they have no insight into general principles or rules. The fact that their language lacks syntax shows that it is one thing to have a map in the head but another to grasp all the implications, causes and consequences of that map.

Sure, but these are blind, impersonal processes we are talking about. It’s remarkable that even with the deep time effects we have working on this in our history that things have developed to the level of diversity and complexity they have, even if in very localized niches. Advantages can be very small and rudimentary and still statistically very effective. Being able to sense light just a little better than your peers may be all it takes to make your survival chances much better than the mean. A little adaptation goes a long way in many real-world contexts.

I am not referring to the reality of the physical world - which is not in dispute - but the view that the physical world is the **sole **reality.

You are boxing shadows here. I do not know anyone on this forum that claims to know in some positive sense that the physical reality we are aware of is the SOLE reality. The views espoused by materialists I know, and by myself do not entail that claim. Rather, the claim is this: nature is the reality we are aware of. We don’t know what we don’t know, and so we must remain open on that issue. There may be more, we cannot say. But given what is available to us, the only reality that coheres in terms of experience and reason is the natural one. If there is more, we don’t have any way to apprehend such - theistic imaginations and credulity notwithstanding.

That is a very different claim. There may be more than nature, we just have no basis to suppose there is.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

tonyrey:

I’m glad you recognise the fact that we work from the “inside out” - which demonstrates that for us the primary reality is our mind and its contents rather than the outside world. If we are not party to the ultimate answers about reality you are not justified in assuming that our minds and their faculties are “natural”. You despise Plato but he exposed the weaknesses in the arguments of cynics and sceptics alike.

It’s not an assumption. It’s a conclusion drawn from a vast body of evidence. The evidence for the mind as brain as matter/energy is compelling. The evidence for mind as supernatural is conspicuously NOTHING, and can’t be more than that so long as supernatural means what it does – unaddressable by evidence!

An impersonal process is limited by the very fact that it is impersonal and determined by previous events. You, understandably, describe this impersonal process as if you are a detached observer whereas, according to materialism, your description is itself an impersonal process which cannot take itself into account.

Why not. I don’t see why matter/energy in some configurations CANNOT take account of itself. On what do you base this claim that it simply CANNOT be?

There are two problems here:
how they have developed and how they are advantageous. The more complex an organism becomes the less likely it is to survive. Monocells still exist whereas many more advanced organisms have become extinct.

Why is that a problem? That doesn’t rule out humans or octopuses, any more than it rules out bacteria. Nature has ana abundance of niches and exploitable contexts. Different forms for different opportunities, and some solutions come in big, energy-hungry packages and some come in very small, energy-light packages.

You have shifted from a specific capability - a survival mechanism- to a general capability. This certainly requires justification. Ironically, our power of abstract thought jeopardises our prospects of survival rather than enhances them…

All adaptations are general – by definition, if it’s an impersonal process. Light sensitivity, for example. Advantageous? For sure, in many cases. But it’s not “adapted for seeing” as some kind of specific program. Rather, the chemistry changes to render parts of the organism more sensitive to light, and this is a general, physics-based capability. The uses of that capability that promote survival may be quite targeted, but evolutions produces generic, general changes, and nature sifts through them, sorting out which are specifically valuable for the environment for that being/population.

That means that abstract thinking is not an adaptation somehow tailored and confined to 'abstract thinking about hunting Mammoths for food". Abstract thinking may indeed aid in that goal, but it’s a general faculty, and if the situation permits, those general capabilities get put to specific uses toward advantageous ends.

-TS

 

[tonyrey]

The evidence for the mind as brain as matter/energy is compelling. The evidence for mind as supernatural is conspicuously NOTHING, and can’t be more than that so long as supernatural means what it does – unaddressable by evidence!

Your notion of evidence is that which is tangible. Since the mind is intangible there is no evidence that it is natural nor even that it exists. It becomes synonymous with the brain. Why postulate an intangible mind if everything is natural?

Why not. I don’t see why matter/energy in some configurations CANNOT take account of itself. On what do you base this claim that it simply CANNOT be?

It is logically possible that one set of atomic particles is aware that another set of atomic particles exists but scientists do not usually include awareness in their list of the attributes of matter.

That doesn’t rule out humans or octopuses, any more than it rules out bacteria.

Increased complexity doesn’t rule out anything in theory but it remains to be explained why there has been an increase in complexity and why highly complex organisms have survived in spite of their increased vulnerability. An amoeba was far more likely to survive than a dinosaur and has done so.

Nature has an abundance of niches and exploitable contexts. Different forms for different opportunities, and some solutions come in big, energy-hungry packages and some come in very small, energy-light packages.

The very abundance of nature requires explanation - unless you regard it as an inexplicable brute fact. The very existence of so many opportunities and solutions requires explanation - unless you are content to take refuge in obscurity…

All adaptations are general – by definition, if it’s an impersonal process.

Since adaptations are tailored to a particular situation they cannot all be general.

Light sensitivity, for example. Advantageous? For sure, in many cases. But it’s not “adapted for seeing” as some kind of specific program. Rather, the chemistry changes to render parts of the organism more sensitive to light, and this is a general, physics-based capability.

Which is also disadvantageous in many cases - as moths have discovered to their cost.
Simplicity is the best guarantee of survival. That is why survival value is an inadequate explanation of the development of persons from particles.

The uses of that capability that promote survival may be quite targeted, but evolution produces generic, general changes, and nature sifts through them, sorting out which are specifically valuable for the environment for that being/population.

You take it for granted that fortuitous mutations can cater for every contingency. The fact that the life has developed does not imply that it had to develop. The emergence of man is immeasurably more improbable than the emergence of a microbe - which itself was incalculably improbable. The fact that the life has emerged does not imply that it had to emerge… It is a mistake to attribute necessity to evolution.

That means that abstract thinking is not an adaptation somehow tailored and confined to 'abstract thinking about hunting Mammoths for food". Abstract thinking may indeed aid in that goal, but it’s a general faculty, and if the situation permits, those general capabilities get put to specific uses toward advantageous ends.

You have not explained how abstract thinking originated. It is not self-evidently a requirement for hunting. In fact it seems an inordinate luxury which militates against the prospects for survival - as we know to our cost…

If you go read a college level text book – or better, current research in the reviewed literature – you will find a robust account of what kinds of sensory (name removed by moderator)uts and processing an amoeba has to bring to bear on its surroundings.

Have you discovered how inanimate molecular structures became alive, aware of their immediate environment and responded in order to survive?

…

 

[tonyrey]

Just by saying what you’ve said, you’ve demonstrated that man is well begun in understanding this very problem.

On the contrary. I am not a materialist and believe the self is necessarily aware of itself.
The materialist rejects the existence of the self as an entity and remains faced with the problem of self-awareness.

I think there is a whole body of knowledge and literature out there on this you just may not be aware of.

Can you summarise briefly how the power of abstraction has developed?

Why is a natural rendering not problematic?

Why, because it’s empirical, of course – it’s grounded in natural experience, and methodologically vetted by a community that is collaborating on that method, emphasizing objective and repeatedly performance of its renderings.

Empiricism rules out introspection which is our primary source of knowledge. “We work from the “inside out” from our experiences…”

You need to explain how and why patterns in the brain have developed to grasp the reasons for the occurrence of events.

Why? This is a trick question.

You regard it as a trick question only because you replace “why?” with “how?” You reduce everything to a mechanistic, purposeless system… I have pointed out that if human minds are products of biological processes all our conclusions are caused by those processes. There are strict limits to what computation can achieve because it lacks insight, flexibility and imagination. If our minds are machines we cannot choose to alter our conclusions even when we are mistaken - and there are far more ways of making a mistake than finding the truth. The truth makes us free but we have to be free to arrive at the truth…

In order for you drop your irrational views…

Ironically, you accuse me of having irrational views when in your scheme of things there are no reasons, only physical causes. For you reality is irrational whereas I believe rationality is at the heart of reality…

Sure, but these are blind, impersonal processes we are talking about. It’s remarkable that even with the deep time effects we have working on this in our history that things have developed to the level of diversity and complexity they have, even if in very localized niches.

Remarkable is an understatement! In Hume’s words, the cause is not proportioned to the effect. Rational persons from blind, impersonal processes…

I do not know anyone on this forum that claims to know in some positive sense that the physical reality we are aware of is the SOLE reality.

The very fact that you regard my views as irrational contradicts your claim that you remain open on the issue. Your dogmatism is revealed in the phrase “theistic imaginations and credulity notwithstanding”…

 

[Leela]

Hi Touchstone,

Do you identify as a materialist? If so, how do you define materialism?

Best,
Leela

 

[Touchstone]

Your notion of evidence is that which is tangible. Since the mind is intangible there is no evidence that it is natural nor even that it exists. It becomes synonymous with the brain. Why postulate an intangible mind if everything is natural?

Why do you say the mind is intangible? I still can’t get you to address your basis for your premises. At the start of the inquiry, I don’t see any reason to rule out an immaterial mind, or to rule out a material mind. If we are reasoning, we understand that we begin from a state of ignorance, and are initially agnostic on the matter. That’s why we are asking the question, because we don’t know as an a priori matter.

If one begins with such a reasonable, open disposition, then, it is the evidence we gather as regards that question that points to the mind as a material phenomenon, just like everything we can qualify as real. If you destroy the mind, for just one example, all evidence of mind terminates with the destruction of that brain. That doesn’t itself prove an immaterial mind cannot/does not exist – that’s an unfalsifiable idea, as I keep saying, and perfectly immune from being discredited by any evidence or all evidence – but rather it supports the economy and efficacy of the materialist hypothesis; no “out of body” mentality needs to be accounted for, based on what we observe, so the materialist idea holds in that respect.

It is logically possible that one set of atomic particles is aware that another set of atomic particles exists but scientists do not usually include awareness in their list of the attributes of matter.

The vast majority do just that, at least in the hard sciences. Ask your local physicist if he subscribes to the theory of evolution. If so, he is endorsing the theory whereby matter and energy become configured by natural processes to effect awareness of matter/energy by matter energy. There’s nothing in a hydrogen atom that includes “star heating a solar system” as one of its attributes. And yet, the properties that it does have are conducive to just that, given suitable environmental factors. Not all hydrogen atoms are powering fusion in stars. And not all carbon atoms are components of some brain that is materially aware of its surroundings. You apparently have confused the attributes of an element or particle with the ways it can be incorporated into larger and more complex systems.

Increased complexity doesn’t rule out anything in theory but it remains to be explained why there has been an increase in complexity and why highly complex organisms have survived in spite of their increased vulnerability. An amoeba was far more likely to survive than a dinosaur and has done so.

The only way to explain it is to recapitulate the whole of natural history! If you “ran the tape” again, you’d likely seem similar structures and forms, but the replay would produce a much different “film” of biological development, because of the stochastic nature of the process itself. The only way to account for what has happened at the level you desire is to understand why probabilistic collapses of wave functions happened in the particular way they do. Good luck with that. Again, you’re holding up a completely insane demand for near-infinite knowledge as a shield against a reasonable conclusion based on the knowledge we can expect to obtain and use here.

The very abundance of nature requires explanation - unless you regard it as an inexplicable brute fact. The very existence of so many opportunities and solutions requires explanation - unless you are content to take refuge in obscurity…

What do you mean by “requires explanation”. Required for what purpose? Required for you doubt your superstitions? I don’t think that would suffice, even. Ask yourself, what explanation is required to explain what you do accept? The irony is thick. If we went and applied this kind of pseudo-skepticism to your own beliefs, they wouldn’t get out of the starting block. It would be a complete disaster. And yet, you are satisfied with the total impotence of your own beliefs on this level while continually declaring that science and real knowledge hasn’t produced the infinite regressions you “require”. It’s maximally hypocritical, as uncritical of the self as it is unreasonably demanding of the other.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

tonyrey:

Since adaptations are tailored to a particular situation they cannot all be general.

But there’s no “tailoring” in view, here. That’s the whole point. Light sensitivity as a general development gets selected for in some particular environments, but that is the environment filtering out specifically favorable conditions that arise as general variations. The trilobite that is born with increased light sensitivity in its “proto-eye” knows nothing of the process. It tailors nothing. Nature does the tailoring based on environmental factors.

Which is also disadvantageous in many cases - as moths have discovered to their cost.
Simplicity is the best guarantee of survival. That is why survival value is an inadequate explanation of the development of persons from particles.

That isn’t the case, demonstrably. The environment is diverse, and the survival opportunities are diverse. Some opportunities for survival and propagation favor small, rudimentary, simple. Others are only exploitable via more complex, energy-intensive configurations. There’s a market niche available for the blue whale, AND for the humble krill that it eats. The profound takeaway from biology is that there is no “silver bullet” strategy as you suggest which trumps all else. No one formula beats all the others. Instead, natural conditions produce a rich and diverse array of different strategies and adaptations for survival.

You take it for granted that fortuitous mutations can cater for every contingency. The fact that the life has developed does not imply that it had to develop. The emergence of man is immeasurably more improbable than the emergence of a microbe - which itself was incalculably improbable. The fact that the life has emerged does not imply that it had to emerge… It is a mistake to attribute necessity to evolution.

I don’t assume it’s necessary. I only conclude it to be actual.

You have not explained how abstract thinking originated. It is not self-evidently a requirement for hunting. In fact it seems an inordinate luxury which militates against the prospects for survival - as we know to our cost…

Many organisms (nearly all!) hunt without the benefit of abstract thinking. It’s not a requirement, manifestly. It’s a capability with tremendous advantages, even so, though. It’s such a powerful asset that man has likely pressed his advantage so far in hunting that he hunted his quarry to extinction, based on the evidence we have, much to his eventual detriment. None of this is magic, though. It’s a real capability, but like all configurations, it comes with risks and trade-offs.

Have you discovered how inanimate molecular structures became alive, aware of their immediate environment and responded in order to survive?
…

What do you mean by “how”? Are you looking for a calendar date, with lat and long coordinates, and the specific chemical pathway, somehow obtained by me 3.5 billion years later from chemical compounds that don’t leave a trace behind a year after they expire let alone a billion?

What would satisfy you short of omniscience, here?

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

Hi Touchstone,

Do you identify as a materialist? If so, how do you define materialism?

Best,
Leela

I do identify myself as a materialist, which is a term I understand to mean that all that is real and actual for us is reified in space/time/energy/matter (often referred to as “STEM” in materialist circles). That’s a good nutshell summary right there, but given the exchanges that go on here, typically, it’s worth pre-empting misunderstandings by pointing out that STEM represents the context for all that I can reasonably defend and understand as real and actual, but there is no a priori rule for me or my materialism that something “beyond” in an immaterialist sense cannot obtain, or exist in some coherent way that just remains unknown that this point.

As a matter of reasoning then, I’m open to whatever holds together as the best performative model of reality, including a model that integrates immaterialist elements, if needed. The way the world around us falls out, though, models that integrate immaterialism fail badly in contrast to materialist models.

It’s possible that reality could have been such that immaterialism was coherent and compelling, so far as I know. The actual world isn’t like that, so far as I can see, and the more one looks at the real world, honestly and in a disciplined way, the more the materialist model prevails, and immaterialism fails.

That makes me a “post facto” materialist, then, I guess. I don’t being there, haven’t begun there, or rule the supernatural out. Those notions just don’t cut it, where materialist paradigms, problematic as they are in many respects, fare much, much better.

-TS

 

[tonyrey]

Have you discovered how inanimate molecular structures became alive, aware of their immediate environment and responded in order to survive?..

Your sarcasm fails to conceal ignorance of the putative mechanism by which purposeless inanimate objects became purposeful living organisms. It seems rather odd that the incredible success of science does not include an explanation of such an apparently simple transition…

Why do you say the mind is intangible? I still can’t get you to address your basis for your premises.

Are your thoughts, insights, intuitions, feelings, perceptions, images and perceptions tangible? If that isn’t a sufficient basis I don’t know what is…

At the start of the inquiry, I don’t see any reason to rule out an immaterial mind, or to rule out a material mind. If we are reasoning, we understand that we begin from a state of ignorance, and are initially agnostic on the matter.

We do not begin from a state of ignorance but from direct knowledge of our thoughts, feelings and perceptions. Our primary datum is intangible and immaterial.

If you destroy the mind, for just one example, all evidence of mind terminates with the destruction of that brain. That doesn’t itself prove an immaterial mind cannot/does not exist – that’s an unfalsifiable idea, as I keep saying, and perfectly immune from being discredited by any evidence or all evidence – but rather it supports the economy and efficacy of the materialist hypothesis; no “out of body” mentality needs to be accounted for, based on what we observe, so the materialist idea holds in that respect.

You infer that the tangible world exists from your intangible perceptions and then you proceed to explain the latter in terms of the former and even reject the reality of all that is intangible! The fact remains that throughout your life you, like everyone else, will remain in your egocentric predicament. The only thing you will ever experience directly and know for certain is your stream of consciousness. It is the “out of one’s mind” mentality that needs to be accounted for! No wonder materialism is a relatively rare phenomenon in the history of thought…

You apparently have confused the attributes of an element or particle with the ways it can be incorporated into larger and more complex systems.

You seem to be confusing awareness with material properties. I am referring to forms of consciousness ranging from that of the most primitive cell to the self-awareness of a person. Do you believe an inanimate molecular structure is aware of its environment in the same way that a living organism is? Does it have a purpose and an urge to survive?

Increased complexity doesn’t rule out anything in theory but it remains to be explained why there has been an increase in complexity and why highly complex organisms have survived in spite of their increased vulnerability. An amoeba was far more likely to survive than a dinosaur and has done so.

The only way to account for what has happened at the level you desire is to understand why probabilistic collapses of wave functions happened in the particular way they do. Again, you’re holding up a completely insane demand for near-infinite knowledge as a shield against a reasonable conclusion based on the knowledge we can expect to obtain and use here.

To ask why living organisms have become more complex hardly seems “a completely insane demand for near-infinite knowledge”! It is the most fundamental question which has baffled renowned specialists in evolutionary research. The simple truth is that simplicity is easy to explain whereas complexity is not. Complexity requires co-ordination, subordination and organization whereas simplicity does not. Complexity is associated with intelligence and design whereas simplicity is, often unfairly, associated with lack of intelligence!

The very abundance of nature requires explanation - unless you regard it as an inexplicable brute fact.

What do you mean by “requires explanation”. Required for what purpose? Required for you doubt your superstitions?

I have obviously touched a raw nerve! Whenever I ask a question you cannot answer you are irritated… There are many possible universes - as you have intimated. They range from those with no opportunities to those with many. The more there are the less likely it is that they are fortuitous… Superstition doesn’t come into the picture. It is a matter of recognising the extreme improbability that stochastic processes are an adequate explanation of the glory, richness, variety, beauty and wealth of opportunity of life on this planet - and probably elsewhere in the universe…

If we went and applied this kind of pseudo-skepticism to your own beliefs, they wouldn’t get out of the starting block. And yet, you are satisfied with the total impotence of your own beliefs on this level while continually declaring that science and real knowledge hasn’t produced the infinite regressions you “require”.

Your onslaught is based on the false presupposition that my beliefs do not have a rational foundation and I am demanding “infinite regressions”. On the contrary I stake everything on the primacy of reason whereas you reduce it to irrational processes. I do not need infinite regressions because I regard truth, goodness, freedom, beauty and love as aspects of Supreme Reality whereas you regard them as mere fantasies of strange freaks of nature which have emerged for no reason or purpose whatsoever from heaven knows where!

 

[Touchstone]

Your sarcasm fails to conceal ignorance of the putative mechanism by which purposeless inanimate objects became purposeful living organisms. It seems rather odd that the incredible success of science does not include an explanation of such an apparently simple transition…

There’s nothing to conceal. We understand living organisms – all of them – are made of out base materials that occur in abundance in our environment, and recombine and interact in various ways to manifold and complex to recount here. But we do NOT know the precise chemical pathways from inanimate compounds to rudimentary, reproducing, living organisms. It’s not a secret, and it’s not a problem in terms of what we would reasonably expect to be available to us. It’s astonishing that we’ve come to know as much as we have about the likely timelines and plausible environments for this process.

Are your thoughts, insights, intuitions, feelings, perceptions, images and perceptions tangible? If that isn’t a sufficient basis I don’t know what is…

I’ve said at least a dozen times now to you that we have all the evidence we need to understand all of those things – all of them – as completely tangible, thoroughly natural and physical. An “insight” is just as physically real as any rock in your garden. You just can’t (usually) stick your hands into your skull like you might stick your hands into the soft earth of your garden to experience an insight in the same sensory way as a rock. But mental activity is real in an actual, physical way, just as much as a rock is, according to all we can observe and reason toward.

It’s all tangible. And I know now I will have to repeat this over, and over and over to you. I do so, understanding it’s futile between us, but for the benefit of the odd reader who may be interested.

We do not begin from a state of ignorance but from direct knowledge of our thoughts, feelings and perceptions. Our primary datum is intangible and immaterial.

I say it’s tangible, and have a mountain of evidence to cite in support of that. On what grounds do you say it’s intangible? Superstition?

You infer that the tangible world exists from your intangible perceptions and then you proceed to explain the latter in terms of the former and even reject the reality of all that is intangible!

I haven’t tried to explain anything that’s intangible. I’m just not making the superstitious mistakes you are making in naked assertions like “feelings are intangible”. That’s an ignorant thing to say. Upon looking at the world around us, that’s an unsupportable conclusion. You just need to suspend your superstitions a moment and think about this from outside them, and you will see the coherence and continuity of the model. Nothing intangible here stands to be explained as such, or as transitional from intangible to tangible. Just because you can’t “touch” the electrons in your brain does not mean thoughts are intangible!

The fact remains that throughout your life you, like everyone else, will remain in your egocentric predicament. The only thing you will ever experience directly and know for certain is your stream of consciousness. It is the “out of one’s mind” mentality that needs to be accounted for! No wonder materialism is a relatively rare phenomenon in the history of thought…

Well, “out of one’s mind” and “mentality” are terms in tension with each other. “Mentality” implies “in mind”. But that notwithstanding, what needs to be accounted for here? I must account for why my mind cannot transcend itself??

You seem to be confusing awareness with material properties.

I don’t think I’m confused. We have a solid reasonable foundation for understanding awareness to be a material feature of living organisms.

I am referring to forms of consciousness ranging from that of the most primitive cell to the self-awareness of a person. Do you believe an inanimate molecular structure is aware of its environment in the same way that a living organism is? Does it have a purpose and an urge to survive?

No, not in isolation, of course not. Hydrogen atoms aren’t “wet” by themselves, either, and a “middle C” note all by itself is not a symphony or a fugue. See my earlier comments on your now pronounced inability to understand levels of description, complex systems and emergence. If you understand that hydrogen isn’t “wet”, but when combined in certain configurations with oxygen it produces a “wet” compound, you have your answer. Hydrogen isn’t “aware” of wet, right? How does that work, then, in your view?

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

To ask why living organisms have become more complex hardly seems “a completely insane demand for near-infinite knowledge”!

It is. There is no reasonable basis for thinking we should have that kind of knowledge.

None.

One only demands that to soothe cognitive dissonance. If we’re not certain of the details in the remote, obscure past, our superstitions are more easily maintained and protected.

It is the most fundamental question which has baffled renowned specialists in evolutionary research.

Yeah, so why do suppose this should be common knowledge? What does that tell you? This is far beyond the epistemological frontier of humans, and is like to remain so for a long, long time. It’s just nuts to think this is something you or are should know or must be required to know.

The simple truth is that simplicity is easy to explain whereas complexity is not.

I don’t see why that’s the case. I think as things get more simple, they become harder to explain. I will try this on you if you doubt this. No matter, though, as I think we are not at all agreed on what an explanation is. Superstitious intuitions qualify in your worldview, and thus “explain” everything and anything. That puts a full stop to comparing explanations with me. There’s plenty I don’t know, but I can apply reason and skepticism to distinguish between explanation and superstition.

Complexity requires co-ordination, subordination and organization whereas simplicity does not. Complexity is associated with intelligence and design whereas simplicity is, often unfairly, associated with lack of intelligence!

Randomness, for example, produces maximal complexity. By definition, you cannot get more complex than interactions based on random (name removed by moderator)uts (see Kolmogorov info theory, for example). Coordination is not only not required, it reduces the complexity of a system. Structure or anything that enforces patterns reduces system complexity. This is a topic I gather now, at length, you just are not at all familiar with in more than a breezy, intuitive way. Which is to say not at all.

I have obviously touched a raw nerve! Whenever I ask a question you cannot answer you are irritated…

It’s not the question, it’s the rut of repetition. I’m fine with calling 'em as I see 'em. But this conversation has become a parody of itself now, chasing its tail over and over. This is like the 10th time or more we have repeated this loop, and that is annoying.

There are many possible universes - as you have intimated. They range from those with no opportunities to those with many. The more there are the less likely it is that they are fortuitous… Superstition doesn’t come into the picture. It is a matter of recognising the extreme improbability that stochastic processes are an adequate explanation of the glory, richness, variety, beauty and wealth of opportunity of life on this planet - and probably elsewhere in the universe…

There is zero basis for that probability calculation. Forget the nonsense about stochastic processes being inadequate to explain (for their part) the world around us. Show me your math! What is your phase space, and what are the denominators and numerators you are using here. Failing that, I think you are indulging in a very thick form of superstition right here in this post. Magical thinking in action.

Your onslaught is based on the false presupposition that my beliefs do not have a rational foundation and I am demanding “infinite regressions”. On the contrary I stake everything on the primacy of reason whereas you reduce it to irrational processes.

Reason doesn’t entail any of what you are attaching to it. The primacy of reason doesn’t demand a chemical pathway be known in detail to accept the empirical equity of natural biological development. That’s superstition straight away looking to pass itself off as reason. It’s not. What you identify as reason is anti-reason, irrational thinking. The more you want to press on this, the more clearly this will be shown, so have at it!

I do not need infinite regressions because I regard truth, goodness, freedom, beauty and love as aspects of Supreme Reality whereas you regard them as mere fantasies of strange freaks of nature which have emerged for no reason or purpose whatsoever from heaven knows where!

Well, it’s worse than I feared, then. Even infinite regressions of explanations are insufficient, because, well you’ve laid it all out here. Your superstitions trump all. Explanations cannot prevail against such a stance.

-TS