I
IWantGod
Guest
Metaphysical naturalism is not a proven knowledge.
- Status
I
IWantGod
Guest
He does not know why we enjoy them, he only understands the physical reactions that actualize those experiences. Again science is not metaphysics. We enjoy them because of what we find in the experience itself (beauty).
Last edited:
S
STT
Guest
Humans have similar nature which this is the result of evolution. We need to eat, like to make love, love our children, etc. Any species how lack any of the above mentioned simply disappear.
S
STT
Guest
Yes.
Yes. This one is very easy and doesn’t need serious thinking. Where would we have been if our mothers didn’t love us?
What? Do you mind to elaborate?
I
IWantGod
Guest
Indeed. Fortunate for us that there is such a thing as love.
If love exists for a purpose (rather than an effect that arbitrarily exists for no reason and just-so-happens to favour the continuation of human life), then there is goal direction in it’s existence, and where there is a goal there is a plan and ultimately an intelligent mind behind it, even if natural physical processes mediate the effect.
The reason i arrive at this conclusion is not only because we see an analogy of this when humans create something for a desired end. Rather it is because the existence of self-directing goal directed behaviour, or something simply being actualised in service of a purpose, is inconsistent with the idea of a reality that is comprised entirely of blind natural impersonal processes that do not by their very nature act for a goal or an end. If everything is comprised of that, then it makes no rational sense that the opposite exists in any nature in which this process finds itself to be a part.
In fact there are no goals or ends in that world and thus to act for the preservation of life (life being a goal and an end in itself) is meaningless, because there is no objective thing that is life which requires preservation (only blind physical processes); thus any actuality or natural impulse to that end would be to an end that doesn’t actually exist, which equally doesn’t make sense of the fact that we actually do have a natural impulse to live and preserve it. Much less does it make sense that we should discover experiences that are meaningful in and of themselves - this especially since the drama of human life is driven by the meaning we find in our emotional experiences; not physics. This is why i reject metaphysical naturalism, and given the argument i think i am rationally justified in doing so.
I don’t expect you to agree, but for the sake of dialogue i do expect you to understand why i have arrived at that conclusion, and in so doing i expect you to judge the argument on that basis alone.
Last edited:
W
Wozza
Guest
Your problem is that you seem to believe that that is what I am arguing. Could you point out where I have said that the experiences we have are ONLY reducible to physics? They are based, without any question whatsoever on physics. But what emerges from that is something we can call real in an emotional sense.Wozza:
No it shows that chemical reactions actualise what we experience as love. There is not a group of atoms floating around that is the experience of love. The meaning we find in those experiences are not reducible to quantitative values. What you are saying here is not a scientific statement, it is a metaphysical statement about the nature of that experience we describe as love.
You think it’s meaningful to reduce that experience to physics alone, i am arguing that it is meaningless to reduce those experiences to physics alone in a world that is objectively meaningless, has no meaning in it’s parts, does not exist for a purpose, is not acting for a goal or end. In other-words the existence of these things are not consistent with metaphysical naturalism, which is not science by the way.
As I said, knowing why we appreciate a rose doesn’t stop us enjoying the sensation.
I
IWantGod
Guest
What else can there be other than physics in your world view. Are you not a metaphysical naturalist? I want you to look at the logical consequences of a world that is only physical. If you say that you experience things in a physical world and that therefore all experiences are comprised of nothing more than physical processes alone, then this is to hold the position of materialism, and materialism is an assumption, and that is not what science teaches us.
If only physical things exist, if reality is only comprised of blind impersonal natural processes and forces, then your position certainly does lead to serious problems, irrecoverable ones as soon as you accept the reality of your experience as a personal agent in the world.
Your problem is that you simply assume and take the idea for granted that a world where only physical things exist is consistent with the reality of our experiences. You jump to this conclusion because you identify a dependency between physical processes and the activation of certain sensations. Identifying a conjunction between the two such as our experience of emotions and the physical processes that allow us to have the sensation of emotion is one thing. That at least you can say is science. But as soon as you say that the experience of emotion is itself a physical object and is not simply an experience actualised by the activity of physical objects, you are no-longer doing science, you are instead presenting a philosophical belief, a monist belief.
I guess what i am trying to say is, stop hiding behind science because what you are saying is not science. It’s materialism and you are trying to squeeze everything into that paradigm.
Last edited:
W
Wozza
Guest
Who says that they are impersonal? You are building straw men right, left and centre.
There are physical reasons why we feel as we do, why we love and hate etc. But you seem to believe that explaining how this or that happens from a physical viewpoint - from a materialist viewpoint if you like, discounts the personal feelings that we have. Which are still physical reactions but no less real.
If you describe a rose in terms of reflected radiation and molecular make-up and chemical reactions then it is no doubt a very sterile manner in which to approach it. But no-one is saying that that is the only way. You keep insisting that that is what I am arguing and I keep telling you it isn’t but you don’t appear to accept that.
You seem to think that a materialist doesn’t appreciate things in themselves. That the processes themselves are totally blind and indifferent doesn’t mean to say that the effect they have on us is likewise.
I did a soccer coaching course a few years ago. And the ex international running it warned us on Day One that what we thought we knew about soccer was probably wrong. Because we watched it with the emotional part of our brain. And he was going to teach us how to break the game down and dissect and analyse it and get us to look at it unemotionally. And he said that it could spoil our enjoyment of any given game if that was how we approached it. Because the emotion was what gave us the pleasure.
So the game, from a ‘materialist’ viewpoint, was all about physics and positioning and game theory and tactics. A very dry and sterile way of looking at it. But the game exists on two levels. You can watch it just as an excercise in the how and the why. Should this formation be preferred. Should you push further upfield. Should you play defensively and attack on the break. And you can watch it purely on an emotional level and get involved with the excitement and the passion and enjoy it just as a spectacle.
Just because it’s a game based on sterile tactics and physics doesn’t mean that it can’t have an effect on us over and above the ‘materialist’ view of the game. Both are true and equally valid.
I
IWantGod
Guest
If metaphysical naturalism is true, then the building blocks of physical reality is purposeless, directionless (is not directed to an end), blind, impersonal, physical processes and forces; and does not have any meaning in it’s activity. Everything is comprised of this activity and nothing transcends it. Therefore certain things in our experiences do not follow logically if metaphysical naturalism is true, such as goal direction, free-will, the meaning we find in our emotional experiences etc.
Do not charge people with fallacies unless you are going to back it up with an explanation, unless of course you’re willing to admit that physical reality does exist for a purpose, does have goal direction in it’s activity, is acting towards an intelligible end, as opposed to the just-so-story you wish to maintain.
I
IWantGod
Guest
It’s how a scientist approaches a rose apart from any consideration of it’s beauty. It;s beauty is irrelevant under the microscope. The rose just so happens to be beautiful.
If you wish to have a philosophical discussion about why there is such a thing as beauty, i will be waiting for you.
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
No, i am saying that certain things in our experience point to a different order of being, not just physics, and this is what i think you fail to appreciate. It’s not a question of science. It’s a metaphysical question. Science deals with a particular aspect of nature.
Yes there is the physics of a rose, but the physics of a rose doesn’t explain why we happen to find the appearance of a rose desirable. It doesn’t explain why certain shapes and patterns are beautiful to us. Science only measures the dimensions of these things and the constitutions of these things. You wish to jump to the conclusion that physical activity alone explains why we find things beautiful. But this is either not a complete explanation (because physical activity alone cannot tell us why there is such a thing as beauty in the first place, only that things are beautiful to us in conjunction with physical activity) or it is your own philosophical explanation which you have failed to defend beyond begging the question.
The is no above the ‘materialist’ view of the game. If metaphysical naturalism is true, then there is no game, it’s just blind physical processes, without a goal or purpose, playing out it’s activity and expressing it’s energy. Games can only be an expression of a personal mind capable of goal direction and the assimilation of meaning.
In the real world (not the world you imagine yourself to be in) what makes the game fun is not just the physical activity, it is the meaning it presents to us or the meaning we made for it.
Otherwise, it’s just physical activity and nothing more.
Last edited:
W
Wozza
Guest
Didn’t I just spend a complete post explaining just that? That is exists on two levels? And that one does not preclude the other?
As regards beauty, I see the point I think you are trying to make frequently. It’s not that beauty exists in itself and we enjoy things because they are beautiful. You are looking down the wrong end of the telescope. It’s what we find pleasurable we describe as beautiful.
Hitchens told a story about an old dear that used to teach him in school when be was about ten years old. The class was out on a nature ramble. And she commented that God in His infinite wisdom made the grass green because that was a restful colour to our eyes and it was pleasant to look at. Even at that age he said he knew she had it compmetely the wrong way around.
You are using the exact same argument.
And there are aims in life. From finding a partner we can share a life with to growing a rose to scoring the winning goal in the final to making a great pizza. Only a fool would deny that we find no purpose in existence. But does it matter in the grand scheme of things? Not in the slightest.
Think of all the love and hate and aspirations and desires of those who lived thousands of years ago. Did it mean anything then. Oh, you bet. Does it mean anything now? Zero.
‘Look on my works, Ye mighty and despair’ wrote Shelley about Ozimandias. Now just a name and a few desolate ruins. You are the most important person in very many people’s lives I have no doubt. But you will be remembered as well as those who came before you who that you don’t even know existed. That is, not at all.
Last edited:
E
Economist
Guest
It is hard to explain to some people, who don’t understand metaphysical naturalism that there is something called “emergent attributes”. Even though “down” at the bottom everything is composed of particles, you cannot “reduce” everything directly to the four forces of nature.
Let’s consider a bunch of LEGO blocks. There is nothing “spiritual” or “non-physical” about them, they are just LEGO blocks. Yet we can build all sorts of excellent constructions from them, some even represent seemingly physically impossible buildings - at least viewed from a specific point. Type in “m. c. Escher buildings from lego” into google.
Of course, there is no “objective” beauty in nature, we find something beautiful if we are exposed to it frequently. The “golden ratio” (1.618… to 1) is all over the place in nature, and therefore we find it more “pleasing” than 2:1
Of course there are “aims” in life. We invent them. The definition of “life” is the attempt to maintain one’s homeostasis in a changing environment. Nothing “mysterious” about it. There is no “non-physical life force” or “animating principle”. It was an invention in the days of yore, right along the “luminiferous aether” or the “soul”, when people attempted to explain nature.
Let’s consider a bunch of LEGO blocks. There is nothing “spiritual” or “non-physical” about them, they are just LEGO blocks. Yet we can build all sorts of excellent constructions from them, some even represent seemingly physically impossible buildings - at least viewed from a specific point. Type in “m. c. Escher buildings from lego” into google.
Of course, there is no “objective” beauty in nature, we find something beautiful if we are exposed to it frequently. The “golden ratio” (1.618… to 1) is all over the place in nature, and therefore we find it more “pleasing” than 2:1
Of course there are “aims” in life. We invent them. The definition of “life” is the attempt to maintain one’s homeostasis in a changing environment. Nothing “mysterious” about it. There is no “non-physical life force” or “animating principle”. It was an invention in the days of yore, right along the “luminiferous aether” or the “soul”, when people attempted to explain nature.
W
Wozza
Guest
Well said. I can’t seem to get this across myself. Maybe your post might help.
M
MarysLurker
Guest
Step one is to prove that metaphysical experiences exist. Let’s start with metaphysical entities.
Here’s one: π
Last edited:
I
IWantGod
Guest
In the real world this is true. For metaphysical naturalism it is not. If there is fundamentally no goal direction or intentionality in physical nature, physical reality being all there is, then logically i do not expect that quality to emerge since it would contradict the fundamental constituents of which such a process is comprised. So you making the conscious goal to conflate scientific and metaphysical issues cannot possibly exist in a world where metaphysical naturalism is true.
Last edited:
W
Wozza
Guest
You think a Greek letter is a metaphysical entity?Cabeelibob:
Step one is to prove that metaphysical experiences exist. Let’s start with metaphysical entities.
Here’s one: π
W
Wozza
Guest
You are now simply repeating what you think people believe when they have specifically told you something completely different.Economist:
In the real world this is true. For metaphysical naturalism is not. If there is fundamentally no goal direction in physical nature, physical reality being all there is, then logically i do not expect that quality to emerge since it would contradict the fundamental constituents of which such a process is comprised. So you making the conscious goal to conflate scientific and metaphysical issues cannot possibly exist in a world where metaphysical naturalism is true.
W: Purpose does not exist in the basic material world. But purpose emerges at higher levels. It is an emergent property. Short lived and non consequential in the grand scheme of things but purpose nevertheless.
I: But you don’t believe that!
W: Yes I so. It is part of my philosophical outlook.
I: No it isn’t!
Last edited:
M
MarysLurker
Guest
I think the transcendental number represented by that letter (π) is a metaphysical entity.
The anti-theist always says, prove that God exists in a lab. Labs measure material objects and effects. So what the anti-theist is really saying, “the only things that exist are material objects and effects.”
The funny thing is, labs don’t work very well without metaphysical entities such as transcendental numbers. You kind of need them to have, you know, science.
Last edited:
W
Wozza
Guest
The ratio of circumference to diameter is metaphysical? You’re off to a bad start.Wozza:
I think the transcendental number represented by that letter (π) is a metaphysical entity.
The anti-theist always says, prove that God exists in a lab. Labs measure material objects and effects. So what the anti-theist is really saying, “the only things that exist are material objects and effects.”
The funny thing is, labs don’t work very well without metaphysical entities such as transcendental numbers. You kind of need them to have, you know, science.
And I don’t know any anti theists. If I did I would tell them in no uncertain terms that one cannot prove that God exists or not. I’m not sure why you brought that up. But I would tentatively agree with her if she suggested that all that exists are material objects and effects. As long as she understood that there are properties that emerge from that basic viewpoint.
Do you know any anti theists with whom we could discuss this?
- Status