STEM, STEMG, Other

[Leela]

Hi All,

When I began posting in this forum it wasn’t long before I was accused of being a scientistic materialist. It seems that Catholics around here think that either someone believes in God or is a materialist, though there are many other philosophical positions that believers and disbelievers can subscribe to.

The term STEM seems to have been coined in this forum to refer to the view of reality as describable solely in terms of space, time, energy, and matter. It appears that people in this forum believe that without a belief in God, then one must believe in STEM.

As I tried to refute this idea it occured to me that the believers in this forum are much closer to being materialists than I am. They believe in STEM plus God–a material universe with a personal supernatural aspect that occasionally intervenes.

Am I correct that this is your view? If so, how can it be said that thoughts exist which are neither space, time, matter,or energy? What meaning could free will have in STEMG (STEM plus God)?

For those who do not believe in God, do you think that the Catholics are correct in saying that you subscribe only to STEM in understanding your experience?

Best,
Leela

 

[Orogeny]

Hi All,

When I began posting in this forum it wasn’t long before I was accused of being a scientistic materialist.

Don’t feel bad. That happens to us Catholics who accept science all the time.

As I tried to refute this idea it occured to me that the believers in this forum are much closer to being materialists than I am. They believe in STEM plus God–a material universe with a personal supernatural aspect that occasionally intervenes.

I’m not sure how that would make someone more materialist. Could you expound a bit on your assumption?

Am I correct that this is your view? If so, how can it be said that thoughts exist which are neither space, time, matter,or energy? What meaning could free will have in STEMG (STEM plus God)?

Well, I believe that God is constantly intervening, not occasionally, so I would say that in my case the answer would be no, you are not correct.

I don’t understand your question regarding free will.

Peace

Tim

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Hello Leela,

Am I correct that this is your view?

Doubtful.

Most (and I use this term to its maximal effect) subscribe to a philosophy which recognizes a whole host of non-material being – not just God, but angels, thoughts, soul, etc.

By the way, STEM wasn’t coined here. “Nothing new under the sun” and all that.

I note, too that I use the word material to encompass those things that are concomitants of materiality such as time, space and energy.

VC

 

[fhansen]

Hi All,

Am I correct that this is your view? If so, how can it be said that thoughts exist which are neither space, time, matter,or energy? What meaning could free will have in STEMG (STEM plus God)?

How/why would STEMG exclude free will?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

As I tried to refute this idea it occured to me that the believers in this forum are much closer to being materialists than I am. They believe in STEM plus God–a material universe with a personal supernatural aspect that occasionally intervenes.

Am I correct that this is your view? If so, how can it be said that thoughts exist which are neither space, time, matter,or energy? What meaning could free will have in STEMG (STEM plus God)?

we don’t believe in STEMG, we believe that G-d is outside of the observable universe the same way a potter is outside a vase he makes.

we dont’ view G-d as an aspect of the universe rather we view the universe as an aspect of Him.

as such our view is that G-d exists outside of STEM, science, specifically M-theory states, that many things can exist outside of STEM.

further free will is a consequence of a G-d, with no G-d you simply have mathematical determinism.

the universe becomes a giant game of 8-ball, played with almost uncountable numbers of particles, with only one shot made at the beginning.

but since each particle has a definite mathematical relationship with every other particle, with enough computational power and a complete knowledge of the beginning state one may predict with complete accuracy the end state and any point in between.

therefore if the universe is whole and complete, with no exterior forces there is no such thing as free will.

nothing could be any different than it is. and it was all predictable from the starting state of the system.

only with G-d can we have free will. without Him we are a set system with no real choices available to us.

 

[Leela]

Hi Fran, (atheists?)

I asked what materialism means to you…

This quote from the following site summarises my understanding:

answers.com/topic/materialism
…
“The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.”

That is my understanding of materialism and what people around here seem to mean by STEM.

I wholeheartedly diagree with this idea. Yet, because I don’t believe in God people expect me to subscribe to it.

I have further claimed that the idea of a scientistic materialist is a straw man, though I could easily be proven wrong if there is one in this forum. Are there any atheists among us who consider themselves materialists as Fran describes?

In my own words, it is the theory that nothing exists outside physical matter. That conscious experience has a purely biological basis, that there is no soul and when the brain dies, so does individual experience. That there is no God and nothing beyond the confines of the observable (potentially) physical universe; and that the origin of the universe can be explained in terms of physical laws and processes (albeit unknown at the moment) etc.

I do think that individual experience such as self-consciousness ceases with the brain though there is only one way to know for sure.

Best,
Leela

 

[fhansen]

Hi Fran, (atheists?)

I have further claimed that the idea of a scientistic materialist is a straw man, though I could easily be proven wrong if there is one in this forum. Are there any atheists among us who consider themselves materialists as Fran describes?

One argument sometimes put forth by atheists here for the non-existence of God is that, since the existence of God apparently cannot be proven by scientific method, he must not exist.

I do think that individual experience such as self-consciousness ceases with the brain though there is only one way to know for sure.

Best,
Leela

So would you say that, by purely natural means, order not only springs from disorder, in the form of, say, man ultimately arising from simple matter, but also that this ordered being may even have received from this process a consciousness which lingers on after the matter is destroyed?

 

[Michael_David]

Leela, when you said "I do think that individual experience such as self-consciousness ceases with the brain though there is only one way to know for sure.
", I just have to ask one question.

What part of the self is conscious and what part knows that it is conscious of the self?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Hi Fran, (atheists?)

I asked what materialism means to you…

That is my understanding of materialism and what people around here seem to mean by STEM.

I wholeheartedly diagree with this idea. Yet, because I don’t believe in God people expect me to subscribe to it.

I have further claimed that the idea of a scientistic materialist is a straw man, though I could easily be proven wrong if there is one in this forum. Are there any atheists among us who consider themselves materialists as Fran describes?

I do think that individual experience such as self-consciousness ceases with the brain though there is only one way to know for sure.

Best,
Leela

one either believes in the supernatural, or one doesn’t believe in the supernatural

in the same manner one cannot be a little bit pregnant, you are or you are not

the universe is either completely material, or is is not completely material

basic logic would seem to indicate that the positions you are claiming are mutually exclusive.

how do you explain this contradiction?

 

[Fran65]

Hi Leela,

I think that you either totally confused or being deliberately obtuse so that you can continue to take pot shots should anyone be unwise enough to try and continue a meaningful discussion with you.

When flaws are demonstrated in your posts you ignore them and move onto something or someone else. this has occured over and over again. You will no doubt find a new audience with yet another thread but the same old agenda.

Take care

 

[Leela]

Hi Tim,

I’m not sure how that would make someone more materialist. Could you expound a bit on your assumption?

Some people (clearly not you as you say below) seem to start with the assumption of a universe as generally explainable by reducing everything to physical laws and of course find some fault with such thinking then postulate a God to solve all the philosophical problems associated with materialism.

Though they believe in a supernatural deity, I find their thinking to be closer to materialism than mine because I do not accept the materialism assumption while they (at least as a sytarting point)do.

Well, I believe that God is constantly intervening, not occasionally, so I would say that in my case the answer would be no, you are not correct.

I don’t understand your question regarding free will.

If one starts with the fundamental assumption that the universe is explainable by reduction to physical laws except for where God intervenes by creating the universe and the occasional miracle, then I don’t see any room for free will. Everything is either caused by God or caused by physical laws.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

How/why would STEMG exclude free will?

see #11

Best,
Leela

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Hi Tim,

Some people (clearly not you as you say below) seem to start with the assumption of a universe as generally explainable by reducing everything to physical laws and of course find some fault with such thinking then postulate a God to solve all the philosophical problems associated with materialism.

Though they believe in a supernatural deity, I find their thinking to be closer to materialism than mine because I do not accept the materialism assumption while they (at least as a sytarting point)do.

If one starts with the fundamental assumption that the universe is explainable by reduction to physical laws except for where God intervenes by creating the universe and the occasional miracle, then I don’t see any room for free will. Everything is either caused by God or caused by physical laws.

Best,
Leela

what ‘things’ are there , existent, that don’t obey known physical laws, or theories?

i don’t know of anything that exists in the observable universe, that is not material.

can you give examples of things existent, in the observable universe, that are not made of matter?

the fact that G-d exists is the instrument by which free will is possible. it is the escape from mathematical determinism so to speak please refer to post # 5

we as Catholics believe that ‘free will’ is an aspect of our creation in the manner that a toy robot may be built as remote control or programmed to react to its environment.

how do you support the apparent presumption that a G-d capable of Creating a universe, would not be capable of creating the mechanisms for free will?

something happening in a simplified way at toy factories all over china, eveyday.

can you support the implication that, G-d and free will are mutually exclusive?

 

[Orogeny]

Some people (clearly not you as you say below) seem to start with the assumption of a universe as generally explainable by reducing everything to physical laws and of course find some fault with such thinking then postulate a God to solve all the philosophical problems associated with materialism.

Though they believe in a supernatural deity, I find their thinking to be closer to materialism than mine because I do not accept the materialism assumption while they (at least as a sytarting point)do.

Thanks. I think I had a slight misunderstanding of your original post. I should read things more closely!

You say you don’t accept the STEM approach, but I am not clear what you do believe. I have not read any of your posts in other threads, so please forgive me if this is something that you have already discussed.

If one starts with the fundamental assumption that the universe is explainable by reduction to physical laws except for where God intervenes by creating the universe and the occasional miracle, then I don’t see any room for free will. Everything is either caused by God or caused by physical laws.

I’m still not sure how that would exclude or even touch on free will. Free will has to do with the choices we make in relation to God. The universe doesn’t have free will.

I think that I am still not hearing what you are saying or what your objection is.

Peace

Tim

 

[Leela]

One argument sometimes put forth by atheists here for the non-existence of God is that, since the existence of God apparently cannot be proven by scientific method, he must not exist.

One could counter that the validity of the scientific method itself cannot be confirmed with the scientific method.

So would you say that, by purely natural means, order not only springs from disorder, in the form of, say, man ultimately arising from simple matter, but also that this ordered being may even have received from this process a consciousness which lingers on after the matter is destroyed?

Yes, I would agree. Though I think there is reason to doubt that conscousness can continue without a physical body. For example, we know based on stroke victims and those sufferring brain injuries that their subjectivity is altered by these physical changes. But I do not think we know enough about consciousness to rule out the possibility that it is not entirely dependent or that it could become independent of a physical body.

Also, to say that order springs from disorder suggests a creative aspect of the universe corresponding to the god of Einstein, but I don’t see such evidence as suggesting a personal God.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Leela, when you said "I do think that individual experience such as self-consciousness ceases with the brain though there is only one way to know for sure.
", I just have to ask one question.

What part of the self is conscious and what part knows that it is conscious of the self?

Hi Michael David,

It’s an interesting question. I can talk about my hands so my hands aren’t my self. I recognize my whole body, but what is it that attatches a possessive pronoun to it that is not a body? Same with my brain. So what then is the self?

I tend to think about such things in terms of patterns rather than material stuff. I am a particular collection of biological, social, and intellectual patterns but with a consciousness. It is this awareness rather than the patterns that you want explained.

I think that awareness may be fundamental to nature rather than something tacked on top of nature. I think of the patterns I mentioned earlier as value relationships. Don’t sunflowers respond to the quality of the heat of the sun as they track it across the sky throughout the day. Isn’t this a sort of awareness at a biological level? It obviously is not SELF-awareness though.

A rock is an inorganic pattern that can only respond to physical laws (other inorganic patterns). A sunflower is biological pattern that can only respond to biological and inorganic patterns. In this evolutionary hierarchy of patterns, patterns of a given type can only respond to (are aware of?) patterns on their level or lower.

As human beings, we respond to inorganic, biological, social, and intellectual value patterns. It is only intellectual level patterns (human beings) that can be self-aware because “the self” we are talking about in self-consciousness is an intellectual pattern–a concept.

I further posit an unpatterned post-intellectual awareness to explain the contemplative tradition that apprears in virtually every culture.

So in short, to answer questions such as yours I posit that awareness goes all the way down and there is nothing more fundamental to nature than awareness. Awareness may be understood as the subjectivity of a collection of patterns that fall into four categories and a fifth category of what may be thought of as the unpatterned mystical awareness that gives rise to patterning itself.

Sorry, Michael, if this was boring or not what you were looking for. The good news is that I’m not often in the mood for metaphysics. As a pragmatist I conclude that such metaphysical postulates can seem completely at odds with a seemingly different metaohysical view but have no pragmatic difference.

Best,
Leela

 

[Michael_David]

Leela, your thoughts on consciousness and awareness are not boring to me. Although you use words (like metaphysical) that I do not delve into, I merely look outward and inward with common terms, letting others put a word on it. The word used may or may not be true to the concept I’m perceiving, or may be partially true… like the branches on the tree while not being the whole tree. It is then to run down the various branches to get to the trunk, which supports/feeds all the branches. However, looking further, we have the roots (it is not only the sun that feeds the tree, but the rain).

To be hanging on only one branch and saying it is the whole works is not the way I am when I keep asking the ‘why’ questions of myself. And as you can see, I also ask the ‘why’ question of others.

You see, I look at awareness (consciousness) as the one outside of what is to the one observing that which is being observed. How many levels I can observe in myself always means there is another level doing the observing not attached to that level. I’ve gotten to seven so far, so that means eight is doing the observing. Haven’t got to know eight yet, but I know it’s there, just not what it is.

Isn’t it fun to explore… both outer and inner realms…

 

[Fran65]

II do think that individual experience such as self-consciousness ceases with the brain though there is only one way to know for sure.

I could not resist.

This is a materialist statement. You can say it ain’t so as many times as you are willing to type it. That does not make it true.

What you are talking about - would that you knew - is emergence.

Emergence is a variation on materialism. It posits that properties such as consciousness emerge somehow from complex systems and yet may behave in ways that are inconsistent with its physical basis.

In addition, please don’t include my name along with the term ‘atheists’ again. It is misleading. I am Catholic. I am Theist. I am not materialist because I believe that, for example the soul exists independently of the body and that there exists a supernatural world and these are not emergent properties of a physical system(s).

I am certain that you will now slip into another position. In which case the new thread button is that way… points…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Hi Michael David,

It’s an interesting question. I can talk about my hands so my hands aren’t my self. I recognize my whole body, but what is it that attatches a possessive pronoun to it that is not a body? Same with my brain. So what then is the self?

I tend to think about such things in terms of patterns rather than material stuff. I am a particular collection of biological, social, and intellectual patterns but with a consciousness. It is this awareness rather than the patterns that you want explained.

I think that awareness may be fundamental to nature rather than something tacked on top of nature. I think of the patterns I mentioned earlier as value relationships. Don’t sunflowers respond to the quality of the heat of the sun as they track it across the sky throughout the day. Isn’t this a sort of awareness at a biological level? It obviously is not SELF-awareness though.

A rock is an inorganic pattern that can only respond to physical laws (other inorganic patterns). A sunflower is biological pattern that can only respond to biological and inorganic patterns. In this evolutionary hierarchy of patterns, patterns of a given type can only respond to (are aware of?) patterns on their level or lower.

As human beings, we respond to inorganic, biological, social, and intellectual value patterns. It is only intellectual level patterns (human beings) that can be self-aware because “the self” we are talking about in self-consciousness is an intellectual pattern–a concept.

I further posit an unpatterned post-intellectual awareness to explain the contemplative tradition that apprears in virtually every culture.

So in short, to answer questions such as yours I posit that awareness goes all the way down and there is nothing more fundamental to nature than awareness. Awareness may be understood as the subjectivity of a collection of patterns that fall into four categories and a fifth category of what may be thought of as the unpatterned mystical awareness that gives rise to patterning itself.

Sorry, Michael, if this was boring or not what you were looking for. The good news is that I’m not often in the mood for metaphysics. As a pragmatist I conclude that such metaphysical postulates can seem completely at odds with a seemingly different metaohysical view but have no pragmatic difference.

Best,
Leela

1. sunflowers track the sun through physical processes, at the chemical level, in response to thermal radiation, basic botany, not any kind of awareness, biochemistry.
2. you stated this

"I further posit an unpatterned post-intellectual awareness to explain the contemplative tradition that apprears in virtually every culture.

play all the word games you want, you just admitted to believing in G-d

welcome home.

1. though i still would like to discuss this post

"As a pragmatist I conclude that such metaphysical postulates can seem completely at odds with a seemingly different metaohysical view but have no pragmatic difference.

if 2 postulates disagree then one must be wrong, or metaphysically one either is or is not

 

[JDaniel]

Leela, your thoughts on consciousness and awareness are not boring to me. Although you use words (like metaphysical) that I do not delve into, I merely look outward and inward with common terms, letting others put a word on it. The word used may or may not be true to the concept I’m perceiving, or may be partially true… like the branches on the tree while not being the whole tree. It is then to run down the various branches to get to the trunk, which supports/feeds all the branches. However, looking further, we have the roots (it is not only the sun that feeds the tree, but the rain).

To be hanging on only one branch and saying it is the whole works is not the way I am when I keep asking the ‘why’ questions of myself. And as you can see, I also ask the ‘why’ question of others.

You see, I look at awareness (consciousness) as the one outside of what is to the one observing that which is being observed. How many levels I can observe in myself always means there is another level doing the observing not attached to that level. I’ve gotten to seven so far, so that means eight is doing the observing. Haven’t got to know eight yet, but I know it’s there, just not what it is.

Isn’t it fun to explore… both outer and inner realms…

Michael:

I am at about level four. You are at seven!? I must keep looking inward.

However, there’s enough truth that can be drawn from: an awareness, of awareness, of awareness, that should loudly proclaim to anyone, “there’s more than just a reactive/analytical mind” in there.

Very interesting.

JD