Material monism, science, mind and God

[IWantGod]

The problem that I have with theists isn’t so much with the first two, because we all have problems with the first two, it’s that they seem to disregard number three. That they could be wrong.

The problem is, if we are wrong, everything in existence becomes unintelligible and irrational, and existentially speaking intelligibility and rationality is what the theist is seeking. An intelligent cause just makes the most intelligible and rational sense of our existence. But you are free to entertain other so-called possibilities.

 

[IWantGod]

Nonsense, the idea that my life has no meaning without an overarching God is complete rubbage. I matter because I am, and nothing, be it God or man can take that importance away from me. Kill me, destroy me, obliterate me from history, but my life matters…because I am…I AM.

You can tell yourself that all you want. But it’s not true if there is no God. Things are just happening, there is no meaning to them and things don’t matter beyond the subjective utility value that somebody perceives in you, and that won’t change just because you demand otherwise. But it’s not surprising to me that you would demand such a thing. You were created by God after-all.

 

[IWantGod]

If there’s no God, I still have you to give my existence meaning…but without us, what does God have?

God is absolute perfection. I don’t imagine that God lacks anything for he is already everything that truly matters and what we desire. But for the most part, in this life, there are things about God’s nature that is beyond our comprehension. We can only know him through faith or in a metaphysical way. One thing i know for absolute certain is that if only physical events exist, then any meaning that you think i give you is imaginary and not something that is objectively real. But if the very ground of our reality is absolute perfection and goodness and love, then i can rationally say that my life has meaning and moral value and purpose. I have a real and significant identity with God. God is my dignity, my meaning, my value, my purpose. I have nothing without him, and want nothing for i cannot live by bread alone.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

We have to stop somewhere and that somewhere should correspond to what we know to exist and its causes.

You mean the buck should stop with physical causes because that’s all we know a-prior. What is your justification for that?

I think that you will find that were looking for a definition of ‘natural’. I expanded on that to include the ‘unatural’ (clumsy word in this context) and the supernatural. Or metaphysical causes if you like.

You’ll note that each of them interact with the physical world as we comprehend it. If there is a cause that is undetectable then what would we talk about? How would we know what had happened, let alone what caused it.

 

[IWantGod]

I think that you will find that were looking for a definition of ‘natural’. I expanded on that to include the ‘unatural’ (clumsy word in this context) and the supernatural. Or metaphysical causes if you like.

You’ll note that each of them interact with the physical world as we comprehend it. If there is a cause that is undetectable then what would we talk about? How would we know what had happened, let alone what caused it.

A natural event is one that doesn’t have an intelligent cause.

We cannot directly or indirectly detect a non-physical cause with the scientific method. But what we may be able to do is find effects that have qualities that cannot be reduced to the underlying process from which they emerged; as such that they are intrinsically more than the sum of their parts. So we are talking about an effect that exists in conjunction with a process but does not share it’s nature with that process. One can argue from that point that a physical cause is not enough to explain that things existence or action in the world and therefore it is reasonable to think that there is also a non-physical cause. I argued as such when explaining effects that arise from intentionality; if you remember i said that an effect created by intention cannot logically be reduced to directionless blind natural processes alone, because intention is intrinsically goal directed and as such is contrary to something that is directionless…

Another way we can search for non-physical causes is by searching for physical brute-facts. A physical brute fact would be an effect with no physical events proceeding it. For example some people think they have identified one because of the big-bang theory. Personally i don’t think that they have necessarily found one.

Another way would be to use the principles of metaphysics as presented by Aquinas, but that is clearly not a popular approach for people today.

 

[benjamin1973]

“Meta” as we normally use it means a thing applied to itself. By metaphysical, we mean that the physical system in which we live is part of a larger system, which need not share its properties-- i.e. that there’s a greater system of systems.

As for what we “know.” There’s no such thing unless we make at least some basic philosophical assumptions. Once they are made, all knowledge is predicated on the scope defined by those philosophical assumptions. For example, I reach out and touch physical objects, and believe them to have an objective existence apart from my own experience of them. In that context, objects are related in certain ways.

Then, identifying my physical features and those of my mother as human, I learn that other humans have feelings, as I do, and subjective experience, as I do. But this cannot be demonstrated. It can only be taken as given.

This is something that escapes material monists, I think: that their OWN world views are dependent on a choice to believe something-- except they’ll use words like “most likely” or “best fit for the evidence,” when in fact you cannot assign probability to an axiom, and the principle of physical evidence is itself dependent on an axiom-- which means that their whole line of reasoning begs the question.

 

[Bradskii]

A non physical cause can have a physical result. But again, if there is no physical result, then to all intents and purposes, nothing has happened. Because there is nothing to detect. Even if there is something obviously non physical like love and someone does something that causes me to love that person, there is something we can physically investigate: Do you now love that person? Yes? Well we have investigated a supposed transformation in my feelings to someone and we have confirmed them.

And bear in mind that we can physically investigate if the person involved actually exists. So no sliding in a ‘God loves me so He must be real’. Otherwise anyone can bring in any non physical entity and say that there is an emotional connection (I love Wonder Woman so she must exist).

 

[Bradskii]

I think that if we ask enough people if pain is pleasant or to be avoided then we can reasonable assume that people think as we do. And therefore conclude that people are empathetic. We can’t physically measure what pain they experience but again, there is a line to be drawn. Otherwise no sensible discussion can be had.

 

[benjamin1973]

Fair enough. It’s a very pragmatic assumption. If I was a solipsist, I might not bother getting out of bed in the morning. Or. . . I might run down the streets with no clothes on just for hoots, because hey-- nobody’s watching.

But pragmatism and absolute truth are not the same thing. In accepting your axiom as intrinsically truthful, you take what might be described as a leap of faith.

The problem is that once someone makes that decision, they are unlikely to un-make it. Now, we have science that shows that nothing I perceive exists in the sense that I experience it. There’s no real flatness to a table-top, for example, exact in a mathematical sense-- this is true because there is in fact no continuous surface to anything, flat or otherwise, in physics.

How do we reconcile this situation, when we know, like 100% know, that something is true, just as I know my desk is flat, and then we find out that what we knew does not represent a literal fact?

The scientific response is to keep bending the definition of material. “Oh yeah, sure we knew that everything was made of little balls, but now we know everything is really a complex superposition of quantum states.”

But I propose the opposite should occur. We should arrive at the conclusion that our axioms aren’t sound. They are pragmatic in the sense that they let us go to work and act with purpose, but they cannot represent Truth-As-It-Really_Is™ .

 

[Bradskii]

I think that we use science acoording to our needs. For example, Newtons laws are fine for mosr applications but we need Einsteins if we need to be more accurate.

Yes, a surface may not be flat if we are investivating the relationships between objects at a very small scale but the table is flat enough for me to put my coffee cup on it.

 

[IWantGod]

They shouldn’t be positive about the existence of God, because they can’t be.

The most reasonable theists don’t arrive at the existence of God through the scientific method. You seem to be assuming that just because we cannot know for certain that the object of our senses is really as it appears to be that we cannot make any rational inferences at all. But we can identify more than just our own existence. We can identify change. We can know that we are not producing all the information that we sense. Also it does not follow that it is reasonable to believe that no objective reality exists even if the particularities of what we sense are not what reality truly is in and of itself. Also, faith is a necessity. as much as reason. As much as you qeustion reality, i think you like everyone else treats reality as something real and objective. I don’t think you will be walking in front of a bus anytime soon to test your theory; i don’t think you have that much faith in the possibility that it’s just all in your head… .

Reality is not what you are producing, but rather it is something that is happening to you.

 

[Bradskii]

I agree with IwantGod. Whatever reality might be, we must treat it as we find it.

I might be the only consciousness in existence. We might be characters in some highly advanced Playstation. We might all be manufatured organisms in an experiment. But we might as well treat it as being real because what other choices do we have?

It may be described as a pragmatic approach but if that’s the only approach available…

 

[IWantGod]

You don’t need me. But it’s the fact that you don’t seem to realize the limitations of what you can and cannot know that makes me question your existence.

What, am i just the subconscious part of your being that doesn’t want to let go? From a purely practical point of view, I think you are going down a dangerous path if you are seriously questioning the existence of other people. You just don’t have a good enough reason to.

 

[IWantGod]

Why do people believe so fervently in things that they cannot know to be true?

Reality and life becomes more intelligible and makes a lot more sense if they are true. That’s probably the bottom line.

 

[IWantGod]

One person believes that belief in God is rational and necessary, and another person believes that it isn’t. I as a solipsist believe that what I do says more about what I am, than whatever ideology I may profess to believe.

If I am wrong about everything, then what I do will still speak volumes about the character of what I am. And if anyone wishes to judge me, then judge me by that.

Okay, so being a solipsist for you doesn’t prevent you from being active in the world. So you have faith. If you didn’t have faith that other people really existed outside of your mind, there wouldn’t be much point in debating with them…

From our interactions, from what i can understand, it seems you at least hope that people are objectively real.

 

[benjamin1973]

I think, and maybe I’m speaking out of turn, that lisaandlena’s position is that an assumption (call it an axiom if you like) should never be taken completely for granted. The only thing a person knows for sure is that he/she’s having some kind of experience.

This even goes for the existence of an objective material world. Sure, we have experiences of rocks falling, the smell of flowers, etc. but in what sense do we know those experiences map to actual things. For all we know, we’re a brain in a jar, or we’re trapped in the Matrix or the Mind of God.

Sometimes we forget the implications of these hidden assumptions. Not only have materialists accepted the pragmatic assumption that there is an objective reality beyond their experiences, they are so convinced of it that they insist there is nothing else to reality BUT that.

Consider this. To a worm, things have no color. If you could speak Worm, and tried to explain color to it, it would undoubtedly mock you. Are people not the same? What are the chances that there aren’t a million things in the Universe that are there to be known, but are unknowable to us?