STEM, STEMG, Other

[Fran65]

You say that you are not a materialist because you believe in a supernatural world. What can you tell me about this world? You say that you believe in souls that exist independently of the body. Can you explain what you mean by soul? What is it like for a soul to live on after death? Do souls exist before earthly life? Do souls include memory and self-consciousness and awareness of what is happening on earth?

You can find the answers to your questions in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is available online.

I subscribe to neither of these. Biological patterns,social patterns, and intellectual patterns are supported by this pattern of matter but are independent of it. They have rules and laws of their own that are not derivable from the rules or laws of substance.

This is idealism. It has been taught before. You could read more about if you have the time.

Biological and social and intellectual patterns are not the possession of substance. The laws that create and destroy these patterns are not the laws of electrons and protons and other elementary particles. …
Thus, thoughts do not originate out of inorganic nature explainable by the laws of physics and whatever can be observed in brain imaging scans. They originate out of society, which originates out of biology which originates out of inorganic nature.

I hope (for your own sake) that you can see the contradiction in this. You have made a series of clear links between thoughts and nature. You start out saying not originating from material and end up saying they do.

I don’t think I have the time or the interest to continue this.

 

[Leela]

You can find the answers to your questions in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which is available online.

I guess I could start a new thread to get some “Catholic Answers” on the subject.

This is idealism. It has been taught before. You could read more about if you have the time.

As I understand idealism, it is the philosophical position that everything is mind. I’m saying nothing of the kind. It is interesting that I could be accused of being a materialist (everything is substance) and an idealist (everything is mind) at the same time.

I hope (for your own sake) that you can see the contradiction in this. You have made a series of clear links between thoughts and nature. You start out saying not originating from material and end up saying they do.

I don’t think I have the time or the interest to continue this.

I’m sorry that you won’t have time to discuss this, but so I won’t get acused of not responding even as you excuse yourself, I will address your point:

Yes there is a clear link, but there is no contradiction. I’m sorry for not making the relationship between thoughts and physical laws clearer.

The mind-body problem (If the world consists only of patterns of mind and patterns of matter, what is the relationship between the two?) is a major philosphical issue that I think gets resolved with this understanding. It is this issue that gives rise to the materialist and idealist schools of thought.

When mind and matter are viewed as eternally separate and eternally unalike, it becomes impossible to see how one can possily relate to the other. Everything has got to be object or subject, substance or non-substance, because that’s the primary division of the universe.

But if we think in terms of inorganic, biological, social, and intellectual patterns we can understand why mind and matter are so unalike–they are separated by two complete levels of evolution: biological and social patterns–but are still linked in the overall evolutionary hierarchy and supported by the same ground of being.

As for materialism and idealism, they are both right in a way:
Mind actually is contained in inorganic patterns in the sense that mind depends on the existence of a brain which depends on the existence of matter even though a mind is not reducible to matter. Matter is contained in intellectual patterns as a concept, though its reality is not thought to be merely conceptual. Both mind and matter are completely separate evolutionary levels of static patterns of value, and as such are capable of each containing the other without contradiction. The mind-matter paradoxes seem to exist because the connecting links between these two levels of value patterns have been disregarded. Two
terms are missing: biology and society. Mental patterns do not originate out of inorganic nature. They originate out of society, which originates out of biology which originates out of inorganic nature.

As anthropologists will tell you, what a mind thinks is as dominated by social patterns as social patterns are dominated by biological patterns and as biological patterns are dominated by inorganic patterns. Thoughts and substance are indeed linked, but there is no DIRECT connection between mind and matter.

Best,
Leela

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I understand the difficulty for you of imagining the subjectivity of a rock or a plant. It’s quote a stretch since we are evolutionarily so far removed from rocks. It may be easier to start with the cow and work back from there. Do you also believe that the cow is not aware in any way of kicking the rock?

the cow may be aware of kicking the rock, but they usually don’t notice, at least none of my cattle ever mentioned it

Ideas exist, yet have no physical form. To give a more specific example: the concept of the number zero has no physical form. Also materialism and science have no physical form. The concept of “physical form” has no physical form.

ideas exist but they do have a physical form as established in the science of neurochemistry

the concept of the number zero is the lack of a physical form

‘zero’, ‘materialism’, ‘science’, and ‘physical form’ are all examples of ideas with a physical form as stated above.

why do you think that the these things are in some way existent apart from the physical?

 

[JDaniel]

As for whether emergence is a variation of materialism I think the key is in your phrase “these are not emergent properties of a physical system.” If we take thoughts as an example, the materialist (possible straw man) understands thoughts as properties of a brain–everything has to be an extension of matter because matter is the only thing that is really real.

Two categories of “emergence” are being used here and they are being confused. One category of emergence is emergence from a set of ideas, a philosophy. An emergent idea here is a new idea springing forth from past ideas, or new understandings, for whatever reasons.

The second category, completely unrelated to the first, is emergence from real matter. Because of evolution, et al, new, better, more enhanced, real matter emerges from old, less better, less enhanced real matter through some biological “urge to evolve up”.

As you see, the processes are “descriptively” the same, but, they are not the same. In order for this dialog to be more than just a mindless “word game”, this distinction should be kept in mind.

While I agree that thoughts do seem to take on a character (life) of their own, they are not alive (by definition), though they are existent even if for just a split second. There are sciences that are concerned with describing what thoughts “are”. Some sciences say that thoughts are snapshots of every second of our lives, recorded in our analytical minds (or, other parts of the mind), that we can perform calculations (wider sense than purely mathematics) on.

In the physico-natural order, thoughts are said to be arrays of chemicals sprayed through membranes. The chemicals are said to be the carriers, so to speak, for the bits and pieces of thought. Thus, they are energy things held by matter that are translated by other energy things.

In the hyper-realm, thoughts could, I guess, be seen as some sort of ethereal beings that are (or, could be), in some way, metaphysical in nature. I am inclined to believe that this is a wished-for attribution though. We all “know” what thoughts are, just like we know what light is, but, there is no physical evidence of what they are (which is what is demanded by science) except as stated above. One day, we may really know about these mysterious extants.

That said, I think you are thoughtomorphising (don’t think it’s a word yet) the physical into the ethereal. That would be an interesting monstro-leap of, um, well, faith.

Consider the analogy of the relation of hardware to software in a computer. Suppose that right now I am plagiarizing from a novel that is stored as a word processing file. Certainly the novel cannot exist in the computer without a pattern of voltages to support it, but that does not mean that the novel is an expression or property of those voltages. It doesn’t have to exist in any electronic circuits at all. It can also reside in magnetic domains on a disk or a drum or a tape, but again it is not composed of magnetic domains nor is it possessed by them. It can reside in a notebook but it is not composed of or possessed by the ink and paper. It can reside in the brain of a programmer, but even here it is neither composed of this brain nor possessed by it. The same program can be made to run on an infinite variety of computers. So the program is in some very important ways independent of the voltages.

It’s interesting that you would use the word ‘plagiarizing”! But, back to your paragraph, though: this paragraph sounds like ravings. Read it again. You may want to disown it, which is fine with me. I don’t even want to go anywhere near it, so, I’ll let it be unless you need to resort back to it at some later date.

Trying to explain thoughts in terms of brains is like trying to explain the plot of a word-processor novel in terms of the computer’s electronics. You can’t do it. You can see how the circuits make the novel possible, but they do not provide a plot for the novel. The novel is its own set of patterns. Similarly the biological patterns of life and the molecular patterns of organic chemistry have a “machine language” interface called DNA but that does not mean that the carbon or hydrogen or oxygen atoms possess or guide life. A primary occupation of every level of evolution seems to be offering freedom to lower levels of evolution. But as the higher level gets more sophisticated it goes off on purposes of its own.

In your paragraph you say, “You can see how the circuits make the novel possible, but they do not provide a plot for the novel.” You are misunderstanding words. The circuits don’t make the novel possible. They make “recording” the novel possible. Two completely different concepts. A number of ideas (thoughts) ordered into a meaningful set make possible the novel (and plot).

The rest of the paragraph seems to be more opaque meanderings. Responding to it is not a useful endeavor for me, so, it, too, will be left alone.

continued . . .

 

[JDaniel]

The materialist philosophy says reality is all matter, which creates mind. There is the idealist philosophy that says it is all mind, which creates matter. I subscribe to neither of these. Biological patterns,social patterns, and intellectual patterns are supported by this pattern of matter but are independent of it. They have rules and laws of their own that are not derivable from the rules or laws of substance.

In this paragraph, you say, “The materialist philosophy says reality is all matter, which creates mind.” I guess this is a statement that requires, at least for me, documentation or retraction. Material cannot create anything; it can receive “information”, or orders, that allows particles to be moved around into new utterances or sets of matter, but, not create them. This is a subtle distinction, but, Lavoisier and Einstein proved the Law of Conservation of Mass (and Energy). In short, matter can neither be created nor destroyed, unless you are thinking of it as “interconversion”. But, even this is problematic as the quantities must remain unchanged because the mass and energy of the universe is constant. Thus, I can’t imagine a materialist holding this philosophy.

The balance of this paragraph is obtuse. (Can anyone help me to understand it? I really do want to understand it.)

This is not the customary way of thinking, but, when you stop to think about it you wonder how you ever got conned into thinking otherwise. What, after all, is the likelihood that an atom possesses within its own structure enough information to build the city of New York? Biological and social and intellectual patterns are not the possession of substance. The laws that create and destroy these patterns are not the laws of electrons and protons and other elementary particles.

Thus, thoughts do not originate out of inorganic nature explainable by the laws of physics and whatever can be observed in brain imaging scans. They originate out of society, which originates out of biology which originates out of inorganic nature. Thoughts and the laws of physics are separated by two complete levels of evolution–biological evolution and the evolution of social patterns–and cannot be understood through the flatland reductionism of materialism.

This paragraph sounds almost like an apologetics for the existence of God, or, more precisely, the soul. You say, “Biological and social and intellectual patterns are not the possession of substance. The laws that create and destroy these patterns are not the laws of electrons and protons and other elementary particles.” Hmmm. And so, what laws are they? What are you postulating here?

For expediency, the definition of “postulate” is to assert (usually for the sake of argument) a premise without proof. So, it would appear that you do have a tendency towards a reality that we call “soul”. But, I could be wrong.

To my knowledge, no one herein has premised that “thoughts originate out of inorganic nature, explainable by . . . .” I have gathered from the posts that people herein believe that thoughts originate from “organic” nature, and, that they are explainable. If this is “flatland reductionism” then that is what science is, by your description.

Again, the rest of the paragraph is based upon an incorrect starting assumption, and, it must follow, that the resulting assertions are probably false.

At the risk of being thought to be boringly redundant, I will reiterate what I and so many others have concluded and stated herein: “Undocumented assertions are not logic and are not proofs (whatsoever) of anything . . . ad infinitum, or, odd infant item, forever, eternally, etc., etc.

EVERYTHING you have provided is no more than meanderings of undocumented (and, probably, undocumentable) assertions. There are no proofs from science. There are no epistemic proofs. There are no logical proofs. There are no proofs from preponderances of evidence.

It remains “amazing” to us how you can actually continue to hold your beliefs. I’m not trying to be mean, or mean-spirited. I say this to you with complete respect for your humanity and personhood. In fact, the “energy” you must expend in order to remain resilient has got to be enormous. You should be commended for that. But, what we cannot understand is “why”, in the light of having never produced a single cogent argument.

I think this can be remedied: in a post, state (or plagiarize, I don’t’ care) just one argument that you think is cogent. That is something an opponent can tackle. What’s daunting is a kitchen sink full of unfounded and, often arcane, assertions.
In fact, the so-called “plagiarized" argument is an argument I’d love to see tackled in these forums.

JD

 

[Leela]

Hi Michael David, (Petey and JD mentioned)

Leela, I like your #36 post. It is starting to state your resulting beliefs by reasoning.

Is a compass aware of the magnetism that makes it turn North? It must be, it responds to it… although, each exists separate of the other and neither needs the other to exist in their own form.

I like your example of the magnetic compass. I usually tend to think that my awareness being intellectual (and therefore social and biological and inoranic as well) includes all awareness that patterns of lower levels have, but a collection of inorganic patterns such as a compass is able to respond to stimuli that I am not at all aware of.

Still, what causes the magnetism to be? Metal can be made into many things, and some into a compass needle.

I think of magnetism as a type of value pattern that is inorganic. Can you can stretch the concept of value that far? I think all the patterns I’ve talked about (inorganic, biological, social, intellectual) can be thought of in terms of quality–as value ralationships. Values are not some merely arbitrary tacked on subjective opinions but fundamental to reality. Intellectual value is the sort that holds ideas together, social value is what holds societies together, biological value holds a living being toether, and inorganic value is the sort that holds the properties of a glass of water together.

I’m sure Petey or JDaniel will want to jump in and ask where the evidence is for such assertions, but I haven’t asserted anything here. I’m just defining what I mean by different sorts of value patterns. I’m offering a way of thinking about things that is neither true nor false but rather useful for you or not.You can prefer polar coordinates and I can prefer rectangular and we can still be civil to one another. I hope.

If we keep going back (sorta) to what causes the effect to be, how far back can you go to find the cause that ‘is’ with no other cause needed for existence?

Let me explain how causality can be viewed if you think of reality in terms of patterns of value…

If morals are assertions of value and if you can follow me (or accept for the sake of argument) in thinking of value as the fundamental ground-stuff of the world, then moral judgments are the fundamental ground-stuff of the world.

The “Laws of Nature” can be thought of as moral laws. Of course it sounds peculiar at first and awkward and unnecessary to say that hydrogen and oxygen form water because it is moral
to do so. But it is no less peculiar and awkward and unnecessary than to say chemistry professors smoke pipes and go to movies because irresistible cause-and-effect forces of the cosmos force them to do it.

For materialists the logic has been that if Catholics are composed exclusively of atoms and if atoms follow only the law of cause and effect, then Catholics must follow the laws of cause and effect too. We are stuck in a deterministic universe.

Note that this logic can be applied in the reverse direction: If Catholics have free will as they claim, and Catholics are composed exclusively of atoms, then it follows that atoms must exercise choice too.

See how flipping that around still works? The difference between these two points of view is completely philosophical, not scientific. I assert (take note of assertion Petey and JD) that the question of whether an electron does a certain thing because it has to or because it wants to is completely irrelevant to the data of what the electron does. To say that the compass points north out of a reliable preference to do so is no different than saying that it points north becuse it is caused to. In general “A causes B” can be thought of as “B values precondition A” without changing the logical content of the statement. (Quantum physics fans might consider whether thinking in terns of value and preference clears may even make more sense as the idea of substance breaks down on the subatomic level.)

I am referring to human existence here, and what gives a platform for the surface existence… and how many levels are in this structure of ours? So to say, finding the ‘foundation’ that supports all the other levels, and is the only level that does not need the others for support… but rather, supports the others.

I hope I have addressed your questions about the ground of being above. All the above is pretty much what Robert M Pirsig’s work is about. His Quality, made famous in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, can be thought of as the ground of being that gives rise to patterns of value and is assiciated with God, the Tao, Brahman, etc. I would be glad to discuss these ideas further.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Two categories of “emergence” are being used here and they are being confused. One category of emergence is emergence from a set of ideas, a philosophy. An emergent idea here is a new idea springing forth from past ideas, or new understandings, for whatever reasons.

The second category, completely unrelated to the first, is emergence from real matter. Because of evolution, et al, new, better, more enhanced, real matter emerges from old, less better, less enhanced real matter through some biological “urge to evolve up”.

As you see, the processes are “descriptively” the same, but, they are not the same. In order for this dialog to be more than just a mindless “word game”, this distinction should be kept in mind.

Emergence was Fran’s word. He thought that I was describing was a school of thought called emergence. I do not think that what I was saying follows that school of thought or either of your definitions.

While I agree that thoughts do seem to take on a character (life) of their own, they are not alive (by definition), though they are existent even if for just a split second. There are sciences that are concerned with describing what thoughts “are”. Some sciences say that thoughts are snapshots of every second of our lives, recorded in our analytical minds (or, other parts of the mind), that we can perform calculations (wider sense than purely mathematics) on.

Ideas are not alive. Life is a biological pattern. Thoughts are intellectual patterns.

In the physico-natural order, thoughts are said to be arrays of chemicals sprayed through membranes. The chemicals are said to be the carriers, so to speak, for the bits and pieces of thought. Thus, they are energy things held by matter that are translated by other energy things.

Ideas can be contained in brains as you describe, but they can also be contained in computers as voltages, or in spoken words as vibrations in air, and flashes of light, and within lots of other containers. None of these containers can be said to be what ideas actually are. Ideas are not properties of the containers, though different thoughts correlate with different states of these physical containers.

In the hyper-realm, thoughts could, I guess, be seen as some sort of ethereal beings that are (or, could be), in some way, metaphysical in nature. I am inclined to believe that this is a wished-for attribution though. We all “know” what thoughts are, just like we know what light is, but, there is no physical evidence of what they are…

That is because thoughts are not physical things. I’m not proposing some mystical realm where thoughts reside. They reside in all the places listed above and more. I’m just saying we shouldn’t confuse thoughts with states of the containers.

Best,
Leela

 

[Michael_David]

Leela, I’ll get back to you on post #46.

It may not be till monday as there is a lot of life to be lived actively away from the computer till then (by both my outer and inner being).

I remember that ‘philosophy’ is not only the ‘love of knowledge’ but also the ‘love of wisdom’ (or perspective). As such, until one has looked at something from all 360 degree’s (and I have not even added looking at it in a ‘sphere’ yet… how many degree’s does that have?), that that knowledge or wisdom is not mature yet, rather still growing… learning.

Till then…

 

[JDaniel]

Emergence was Fran’s word. He thought that I was describing was a school of thought called emergence. I do not think that what I was saying follows that school of thought or either of your definitions.

Ideas are not alive. Life is a biological pattern. Thoughts are intellectual patterns.

Ideas can be contained in brains as you describe, but they can also be contained in computers as voltages, or in spoken words as vibrations in air, and flashes of light, and within lots of other containers. None of these containers can be said to be what ideas actually are. Ideas are not properties of the containers, though different thoughts correlate with different states of these physical containers.

That is because thoughts are not physical things. I’m not proposing some mystical realm where thoughts reside. They reside in all the places listed above and more. I’m just saying we shouldn’t confuse thoughts with states of the containers.

Best,
Leela

Ok, ok, I think I see what you’re driving at. Conceptually, I don’t have it complete yet. You can help me with this:

Thought = real; thing; shapable; attachable; (sometimes) unique; not physical; powerful exigency (necessary + existing) carried with or by physical or material exegencies, but not related or dependent upon them. Very interesting.

In a way, this “thought” could be thought of as an Immortal Substance, where the word “substance” is not the right word, but, because of our human language limitations I can’t think of a better word.

If “thought” was understood in this way, then the existence of thought itself would tend to support the “value system(s)” required (not the right word either) by Dewey’s, or, axiological, atheism/agnosticism (possibly). If this is relatively correct, I’ll tell you that I hadn’t thought of this before and haven’t thought it through.

Is this description OK?

Now, I’m still wrestling with what you mean by X - patterns. I think you mean, “complexities”, or, “singular-complexities”. But, I’m not sure. Would you mind expanding on this? That is, providing what I said above is right. Or, correct the above and then please expand.

JD

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I like your example of the magnetic compass. I usually tend to think that my awareness being intellectual (and therefore social and biological and inoranic as well) includes all awareness that patterns of lower levels have, but a collection of inorganic patterns such as a compass is able to respond to stimuli that I am not at all aware of.

weren’t most of these ideas discredited by the forties?
because they didn’t coincide with organic theories of mind?

its a fallacy to continue to assign ‘awareness’ to inanimate objects. when they react, it is only based on the laws of physics.

especially as you seem not to have evidence of these claims
while evidence against is massive.

let me number your assertions here

1. I think of magnetism as a type of value pattern that is inorganic.

1. I think all the patterns I’ve talked about (inorganic, biological, social, intellectual) can be thought of in terms of quality–as value ralationships.

1. Values are not some merely arbitrary tacked on subjective opinions but fundamental to reality.

4.Intellectual value is the sort that holds ideas together, social value is what holds societies together, biological value holds a living being toether, and

5.inorganic value is the sort that holds the properties of a glass of water together.

maybe 4 &5 should be together, but it was too sweet to pass up.

last i checked the properties of a glass of water were completely dependent o on the properties of physics

‘defining’ is asserting the meaning of a word that you would like to use

I’m sure Petey or JDaniel will want to jump in and ask where the evidence is for such assertions, but I haven’t asserted anything here. I’m just defining what I mean by different sorts of value patterns. I’m offering a way of thinking about things that is neither true nor false but rather useful for you or not.You can prefer polar coordinates and I can prefer rectangular and we can still be civil to one another. I hope.

if it is neither true nor false then what is it worth?

you cant believe anything that is based on this theory, because the premises admit to their own error.

so what good is it?

if you find truth you won’t know it.

if you find error you won’t know that.

the end result of a logical premise that is neither true nor false, would seem to be of no value.

one might as well just whistle in the wind.

with that i believe your newest theory, quantonics, has died a quick and merciful death.

Let me explain how causality can be viewed if you think of reality in terms of patterns of value…

If morals are assertions of value and if you can follow me (or accept for the sake of argument) in thinking of value as the fundamental ground-stuff of the world, then moral judgments are the fundamental ground-stuff of the world.

i can follow you its just that i keep hearing about these atom thingies.

The “Laws of Nature” can be thought of as moral laws. Of course it sounds peculiar at first and awkward and unnecessary to say that hydrogen and oxygen form water because it is moral
to do so. But it is no less peculiar and awkward and unnecessary than to say chemistry professors smoke pipes and go to movies because irresistible cause-and-effect forces of the cosmos force them to do it.

For materialists the logic has been that if Catholics are composed exclusively of atoms and if atoms follow only the law of cause and effect, then Catholics must follow the laws of cause and effect too. We are stuck in a deterministic universe.

Note that this logic can be applied in the reverse direction: If Catholics have free will as they claim, and Catholics are composed exclusively of atoms, then it follows that atoms must exercise choice too.

See how flipping that around still works? The difference between these two points of view is completely philosophical, not scientific. I assert (take note of assertion Petey and JD) that the question of whether an electron does a certain thing because it has to or because it wants to is completely irrelevant to the data of what the electron does. To say that the compass points north out of a reliable preference to do so is no different than saying that it points north becuse it is caused to. In general “A causes B” can be thought of as “B values precondition A” without changing the logical content of the statement. (Quantum physics fans might consider whether thinking in terns of value and preference clears may even make more sense as the idea of substance breaks down on the subatomic level.)

more quantonic nonsense, if any one cares to review the quality of work by “doug” the current lone serious quantonic proponent you may view his page at quantonics.com

I hope I have addressed your questions about the ground of being above. All the above is pretty much what Robert M Pirsig’s work is about. His Quality, made famous in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, can be thought of as the ground of being that gives rise to patterns of value and is assiciated with God, the Tao, Brahman, etc. I would be glad to discuss these ideas further.

frankly leela, this is becoming laughable, yesterday you propose the validity of perpetual motion, today you push theories based on almost nonsensical ‘quantum beliefs’

even worse you pirate their arguments as your own, even they admit that they have no evidence. no wonder you keep avoiding giving some evidence. if you hadnt said pirsigs name i would have outed you in the this space

do you have any original work?

now that you are down to quoting conspiracy theorists the infinitesimal credibility you had left after the last incident of plagiarism is gone

instead of bothering to write out other peoples ideas, why don’t you just cut and paste their urls and save yourself the work

 

[Leela]

with that i believe your newest theory, quantonics, has died a quick and merciful death.

i can follow you its just that i keep hearing about these atom thingies.

more quantonic nonsense, if any one cares to review the quality of work by “doug” the current lone serious quantonic proponent you may view his page at quantonics.com

I followed that link on quontonics and I still have no idea of what it is. You’ll have to explain, or better yet, just stop harassing me.

Best,
Leela

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I followed that link on quontonics and I still have no idea of what it is. You’ll have to explain, or better yet, just stop harassing me.

Best,
Leela

you can keep saying the word "harrassing’ all you want, all these posts are recorded. youre arguments are being refuted, and if you really believed that you were harrassed you could always hit the ignore button

www.quantonics.com

its the complete set of the arguments that you are proposing. i can prove it if you force me. remember all these posts are recorded,i can compare what you have written with what they have on their site, thats not your work leela

what about your ‘friend’ ilovethelord, awful convenient timing wasn’t it, now a fake identity to support your own arguments is even worse than plagiarism.

it seems like ethics aren’t your strong suit

 

[Fran65]

It is interesting that I could be accused of being a materialist (everything is substance) and an idealist (everything is mind) at the same time.

As I and several others have said your arguments are often confused. In addition, your statements and assertions change tack and position according to the point that you are trying to score.

I am not saying that *you are *both of these things at the same time. I have pointed out that what you have expressed includes both of these positions.

It is indeeed contradictory.

Thoughts and substance are indeed linked, but there is no DIRECT connection between mind and matter.

Presumably you mean that there are indirect links in that case? In which case you are still talking about emergence or are you agreeing that we have a soul? Which is what it would be if you mean something to do with consciousness is interacting with our physical body and that ‘something’ is non-material.

I’ll run through emergence again:

Emergence is the concept that complex systems, for example, the nervous system or brain (to be specific) may ‘produce’ (somehow - no one is sure) properties that are beyond the properties of the physical system. If you are familiar with team building it can be thought of as a type of ‘synergy’ - the team works beyond the capacities of any of the individuals in the team. As you say, this is clearly indirect as one cannot predict the properties from the system. (But I’ll remind you - emergence is still a variety of materialism).

You cannot, as you clearly say above be both an idealist and a materialist. You can say that you are not sure. None of us knows everything!

 

[Leela]

If “thought” was understood in this way, then the existence of thought itself would tend to support the “value system(s)” required (not the right word either) by Dewey’s, or, axiological, atheism/agnosticism (possibly). If this is relatively correct, I’ll tell you that I hadn’t thought of this before and haven’t thought it through.

Pirsig’s brand of pragmatism may be more akin to James than Dewey. At any rate I am more acquainted with James. James defined truth from the pragmatic prospective as that which is good by way of belief. So true is a species of good. It is what we mean by good when talking about intellectual patterns, while “moral” is a word for good that we usually only use for social patterns, and “pleasure” is one word for good when talking about biological patterns, interestingly, as is the word “immoral” since what is good on one level could be considered evil on another. So this evolutionary hierarchy can be useful for understanding moral conflicts and the theological Problem of Evil.

Now, I’m still wrestling with what you mean by X - patterns. I think you mean, “complexities”, or, “singular-complexities”. But, I’m not sure. Would you mind expanding on this? That is, providing what I said above is right. Or, correct the above and then please expand.

Pattern is used in the mathematical sense of repetition. It is a perceived value relationship that can be more or less reliable or stable. It the sort of use of the word pattern when we say “pattern of behavior” or “pattern of thought.” Pirsig describes these four types of patterns as “patterns of value.” Everything can be understood in terms of relationships, valuation, or preference just as well as or perhaps better than with the far less empirical concept of causality which can be understood as a very stable pattern of value.

As I and several others have said your arguments are often confused. In addition, your statements and assertions change tack and position according to the point that you are trying to score.

From my perspective, I have been very consistent. I do try to explain the same things in different ways, but my thinking on the issues we have been discussing has not changed since I joined this forum, though I have learned more about what Catholics believe.

Presumably you mean that there are indirect links in that case? In which case you are still talking about emergence or are you agreeing that we have a soul? Which is what it would be if you mean something to do with consciousness is interacting with our physical body and that ‘something’ is non-material.

You are saying that I either believe in a soul or believe in emergence, but you didn’t want to answer when I asked what you mean by a soul, so I don’t know how to respond.

I’ll run through emergence again:

Emergence is the concept that complex systems, for example, the nervous system or brain (to be specific) may ‘produce’ (somehow - no one is sure) properties that are beyond the properties of the physical system. If you are familiar with team building it can be thought of as a type of ‘synergy’ - the team works beyond the capacities of any of the individuals in the team. As you say, this is clearly indirect as one cannot predict the properties from the system. (But I’ll remind you - emergence is still a variety of materialism).

I am not just saying that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. That sort of thinking may be enough to explain nonsummativity within levels (how a molecule is more than a bunch of atoms, or how a society is more than a bunch of people), but the difference between nonexistence and existence, or a molecule and a living being, or a living being and a society, or words and an idea is categorical and not merely emergent as you describe emergent.

You cannot, as you clearly say above be both an idealist and a materialist. You can say that you are not sure. None of us knows everything!

I am neither a materialist nor an idealist. I am a pragmatist and from that perspective I can make sense of how both of these views can contain the other.

The difference is rooted in the historic chicken-and-egg controversy over whether, as the materialist perspective says, that matter came first and produces ideas, or as the idealist perspective takes, that ideas come first and produce what we conceptualize as matter. As a pragmatist, I just say that the idea that matter comes first is a high quality idea, but an idea nonetheless.

One does not need to reject one and accept the other. In the Metaphysics of quality, mind and matter are separate and coexisting levels of evolution In a materialist system mind has no reality because it is not material. In an idealist system matter has no reality because it is just an idea. Materialist explanations and idealist explanations can coexist because they are descriptions of coexisting levels of a larger reality.

In Pirsig’s words:
“The Metaphysics of Quality does not deny the traditional scientific view of reality as composed of material substance and independent of us. It says it is an extremely high quality idea. We should follow it whenever it is practical to do so. But the MOQ, like philosophic idealism, says this scientific view of reality is still an idea. If it were not an idea, then that “independent scientific material reality” would not be able to change as new scientific discoveries come in.”

Best,
Leela

 

[Fran65]

I am neither a materialist nor an idealist. I am a pragmatist and from that perspective I can make sense of how both of these views can contain the other.

More contradiction in your posts. I am not saying that you are contradictory - just that what you have posted is contradictory.

Contrast your post above with your previous post:

It is interesting that I could be accused of being a materialist (everything is substance) and an idealist (everything is mind) at the same time.

You used this post to suggest that I was mistaken in my assertions regarding what you appeared to be saying.

Now you have posted that you *are * both.

Finally, I in my penultimate post, referred you to the catechism for the official (and my) definition of the soul.

SOUL: The spiritual principle of human beings. The soul is the subject of human consciousness and freedom; soul and body together for one unique human nature. Each human soul is individual and immortal; immediately created by God. The soul does not die with the body, from which it is separated by death, and with which it will be reunited in the final resurrection.

As you know, I like to cite my sources.

This is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Perhaps it was unfair of me to expect you to look it up or quote from it. It should answer your question - and sounds, if I may say so - with the exception of the creation of God/individual/unique - remakably similar to what you are suggesting in the interaction of material and ‘something’ else.

Sorry I don’t have time right now to look at the rest of your post in detail.

 

[Leela]

More contradiction in your posts. I am not saying that you are contradictory - just that what you have posted is contradictory.

Contrast your post above with your previous post:

You used this post to suggest that I was mistaken in my assertions regarding what you appeared to be saying.

Now you have posted that you *are * both.

Hi Fran,

I see no contradiction in those two posts. In fact the second quote was taken from a larger explantion of how pragmatism and specifically Pirsig gets us around the chicken-and-egg philosophical problem of materialism/idealism by putting the issue in the broader context of evolution from chaos to matter to life to society to intellect.

Please consider the possibility that I know what materialism and idealism are and know whether or not I subscribe to either of these metaphysical positions. I have said that I subscribe to neither, and I stand by that statement. Is it possible that what appears to you as a contradiction is misunderstanding what I am saying?

More later on the soul…

Best,
Leela

 

[fhansen]

Hi Fran,

I see no contradiction in those two posts. In fact the second quote was taken from a larger explantion of how pragmatism and specifically Pirsig gets us around the chicken-and-egg philosophical problem of materialism/idealism by putting the issue in the broader context of evolution from chaos to matter to life to society to intellect.

Best,
Leela

What I don’t understand about this thinking is that: if the atom doesn’t have enough info to build NYC, where does the info to build the atom reside-since the atom is on the order of- who knows-millions of times more complex than NYC?

 

[Leela]

What I don’t understand about this thinking is that: if the atom doesn’t have enough info to build NYC, where does the info to build the atom reside-since the atom is on the order of- who knows-millions of times more complex than NYC?

Hi fhansen,

I’m not sure what you are asking. Do you disagree with the idea that the atom doe doesn’t contain the information needed to build NYC?

Best,
Leela

 

[fhansen]

Hi fhansen,

I’m not sure what you are asking. Do you disagree with the idea that the atom doe doesn’t contain the information needed to build NYC?

Best,
Leela

Sorry, I could’ve been more clear. No, I don’t disagree. But if we believe that intelligence is necessary to design and build NYC, then shouldn’t we have the same consideration for the design and construction of the atom-except that a great deal more intelligence/knowledge would be required in its’ case? IOW, doesn’t our own experience in building things tell us that intelligence or mind must come first rather than being an emergent property?

 

[Leela]

Sorry, I could’ve been more clear. No, I don’t disagree. But if we believe that intelligence is necessary to design and build NYC, then shouldn’t we have the same consideration for the design and construction of the atom-except that a great deal more intelligence/knowledge would be required in its’ case? IOW, doesn’t our own experience in building things tell us that intelligence or mind must come first rather than being an emergent property?

Hi fhansen, evolutionists, antievolutionists,

My argument is not that intelligence is an emergent property. In fact, I’ve tried to stress that intellect is not a property of atoms any more than a novel stored as voltages in a computer is a property of the voltages. Intellect is independent of material and to a lesser degree independent of living beings and to a lesser degree independent of the culture, but independent nonetheless. Intellect is independent in the sense that the rules that govern intellectual patterns (the value that holds ideas together) are not the same ones that govern societies or living beings or atoms.

Your question is about whether the fact a building needs an intelligent designer says to me that atoms need an intelligent designer as well. Biological evolution demonstrates how complex order is created and problems are solved without a designer or intelligent problem solver.

I believe that cats and dogs do not require a designer, so the far less complex atoms do not either. (Though buildings certainly do.) From what I understand about pragmatism, it is inspired by evolutionary thinking and would not be very convincing to someone who does not already believe in biological evolution. I’m not sure where you stand, but if we don’t already accept biological evolution, then that is a conversation that we would have to have first.

What we all probably recognize is that there is a creative aspect of the universe (theists would prefer to say that I have that backwards, and that the universe is an aspect or product of a creative deity, but we are still pretty much on the same page for the purposes of this discussion, and neither of us could ever win the argument with the other anyway) that is necessary to explain why there is something instead of nothing, and how life was born of inorganic material, how this life evolves to create higher life forms, some of which then go on to form societies and cultures and ninth symphonies and theories of relativity…

What always seems so nonsensical to me about biological evolution is that it is not supposed to be evolving towards anything, yet the superiority of cats and dogs to paramecia and the superiority of human beings to dogs and cats is so obvious to me. But materialistic science has outlawed values. Nothing is supposed to be better than anything else. Life isn’t evolving toward anything. Life is just an extension of the properties of atoms, nothing more to materialistic science.

For me, Pirisg asked some interesting questions and came up with some satisfying solutions. In the Metaphysics of Quality, what is evolving isn’t patterns of atoms but patterns of value, and while that doesn’t change the data of evolution it completely up-ends the interpretation that can be given to evolution.

First, Pirsig points out that materialistic science goes into many volumes about how the fittest survive but never once answers the question of why. "This is the sort of irrelevant-sounding question that seems minor at first, and the mind looks for a quick answer to dismiss it. It sounds like one of those hostile, ignorant questions some fundamentalist preacher might think up. But why do the fittest survive? Why does any life survive? It’s illogical. It’s self-contradictory that life should survive. If life is strictly a result of the physical and chemical forces of nature then why is life opposed to these same forces in its struggle to survive? Either life is with physical nature or it’s against it. If it’s with nature there’s nothing to survive. If it’s against physical nature then there must be something apart from the physical and chemical forces of nature that is motivating it to be against physical nature.

Why, for example, should a group of simple, stable compounds of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen struggle for billions of years to organize themselves into a professor of chemistry? What’s the motive? If we leave a chemistry professor out on a rock in the sun long enough the forces of nature will convert him into simple compounds of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, and small amounts of other minerals.
It’s a one-way reaction. No matter what kind of chemistry professor we use and no matter what process we use we can’t turn these compounds back into a chemistry professor. Chemistry professors are unstable mixtures of predominantly unstable compounds which, in the exclusive presence of the sun’s heat, decay irreversibly into simpler organic and inorganic
compounds. That’s a scientific fact.

The question is: Then why does nature reverse this process? What on earth causes the inorganic compounds to go the other way? It isn’t the sun’s energy. We just saw what the sun’s energy did. It has to be something else. What is it?"

to be continued…

Best,
Leela