NEED Help with a theist.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-11-2017, 07:13 AM
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(05-11-2017 07:00 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Indeed, what it means to "exist" is a very difficult question. I have concluded that there is (as yet) no practical, meaningful definition for this that isn't circular. We know what it means informally, but when we get scientific about it, I feel we can't get to grips with it without assuming it to be true. It's pragmatic to make certain assumptions, and that's as far as it goes. Further analysis is certainly interesting, but in my opinion offers no practical use. For example, if it turns out we are in fact all just parts of a computer program operating in some other place, this may cause us to change our mind about whether we really "exist", but we have no option but to continue regardless as if we did.

Another point is the link between the abstract and the existent. I'm assuming that the existent is something that is part of reality, whereas the abstract is a way of describing things that exist. So "a dog" is an abstract concept, but it can point directly to a part of reality that exists independently from that concept.

We can also have abstract concepts that don't point to anything in reality (as far as we know), which are purely imaginary. Some of these can be still be used scientifically, those being tools used in modeling reality. I would place in this category numbers and "gravity". There is no "number 1" that is part of reality. There are things which we understand better by introducing the notion of quantity, and numbers are a tool to help us do that. Gravity, at least for now, doesn't point to part of reality either as far as we know. It's the umbrella term for a series of models which try to understand aspects of reality and how it appears to interact with itself. It may be we find out that there really are "gravitrons" or whatever that perform this function, and if so, we could point to them as the "existent" portion of gravity. Or maybe there are "rules" to how reality works, but honestly I think this is beyond scientific enquiry, and enters the realm of metaphysics.

Consciousness is so complicated that I don't feel qualified to comment much. My layman's understanding is that it's an emergent process, and as such it's patterns within reality we are highlighting, rather than bits of reality itself; like we could highlight waves on the sea.

My conclusion to all this drivel, with many thanks to anyone who has read this far, is that I subscribe to a form of absurdism: things are as real to any particular observer as they appear to be. I don't try and objectively define what it means to "exist"; instead I used the term relatively. Parts of this supposed "objective reality" all exist as much as each other. Abstract concepts, whether they point to parts of reality or not, all "exist" as much as each other. Things in my dreams all "exist" as much as each other. The utility in this approach is that I haven't insisted that any of these things exist at all, or more/less than any other group, thus covering all possibilities.

Your long post describes in some detail exactly why I don't like philosophy. Philosophers seem to think we "exist" entirely in a world of words, and we don't. No wonder they get so confused.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
05-11-2017, 07:14 AM
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(05-11-2017 04:07 AM)Belaqua Wrote:  
(05-11-2017 03:33 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  I've not heard too many people "insisting" on material explanations for anything. I've heard people question what other explanation even mean, without seeing any coherent answers.

Maybe you'd like to define what "material" means to you in a scientific context. To me it means "literally existent", as opposed to an abstract concept. It's another word for physical. What it doesn't mean is something that exists which is covered by our current/future scientific knowledge.

I don't know what it would mean to say something exists but isn't material, or what it would mean to say something doesn't exist but can still hold some kind of influence.

Many thanks for your temperate language here. I'd almost forgotten that we can speak to each other like grown-ups.

I suspect we both see that a definition of "material" gets tricky, once we try to pin it down. Like "nature" or other big terms. Even "literally existent" seems hard in some cases -- as in the case of gravity, which obviously exists, yet can't be explained, only described. Not to mention things like numbers, which still seem Platonic.

I've learned not to suggest on this forum that consciousness arises from the material but is not itself material. That made some people surprisingly emotional.

Best for me to keep in mind what you were saying the other day: we create models of reality, not direct knowledge.

But I think if you keep an eye out on this forum, you'll see that a number of people use the word "reality" to indicate the stuff which science has so far described. And I'll stick to my statement that this begs the question.

Primates, who evolved brains for gene survival, not truth, on a tiny planet in a big universe, should know better than to claim that they know reality, it seems to me. But humility is out of fashion.

Maybe later you can tell me how you keep cool while other posters are getting pleasure from near-incoherent shouting. Is it benzodiazepine?

"Primates, who evolved brains for gene survival, not truth, on a tiny planet in a big universe, should know better than to claim that they know reality, it seems to me. But humility is out of fashion. "


I don't see why gene survival and truth should be mutually exclusive. I kind of see them as going hand in hand. But regardless of how our brains evolved, we are extraordinarily capable of knowing reality down to the minutest detail. Your own statement here admits this when you say that that we should "know better". But how should we "know better". If we are not capable of knowing reality.

The concepts that your statement is composed of, do they not refer to something in reality. It seems to me that you expect them to.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
05-11-2017, 07:25 AM
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(04-11-2017 12:10 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  Greetings all,

First let me clear up a misconception I'm not a religious theist, I'm a philosophical theist. I'm not promoting or defending any religion and I'm not involved in any organized religion and haven't been for many years.

Jesses B wrote

Quote:Please do. I'm not talking some ontological or other metaphysical/philosophical argument that demonstrates the possibility that a "god" COULD exist. I mean tangible evidence that such a being DOES exist. Because I can create far stronger arguments than any of the theistic ones that would argue that the existence of a god is logically inconsistent with the world and could not exist.

You'll be the first one most atheists bash theism from pillar to post claiming it is preposterous and absurd idea but then hide behind the 'atheism is a lack of belief dodge' and go on to claim they don't actually deny God exists...they just lack that belief.

Evidence are simply facts that comport with a belief. For instance a dead body comports with the belief a murder occurred. Is it proof a murder has occurred? No its not because death occurs for other reasons than murder. We have to delineate evidence from proof. When atheists ask for evidence they often mean provide proof. I don't have proof a Creator caused the universe to exist...I do have evidence. Suppose the only information we have is a corpse. By itself it is evidence of murder because someone has to be killed for murder to occur. However its far from conclusive because we know death can occur from natural causes. Since we know most deaths occurs from natural causes without any further information we can infer it was probably natural causes. When it comes to the universe we have no history we know of only one. We can't say its most likely due to natural causes or due to a Creator.

The rest of your post is mostly incoherent rambling about the size of your penis which I'd prefer not to know...but let me ask you this. You know that scientists, engineers and programmers have been able to create a virtual universes. They wield god like power over such universes. Suppose a thousand years from now scientists can cause a real universe to exist. Would that be logically impossible as you claim?

I think you're being very uncharitable to the vast majority of atheists here. What about all those who genuinely don't know if there's a god or not but don't believe. That's most atheists. If they don't know then they are not "hiding behind" their lack of belief but only being honest.

You can count me in that small minority of strong atheists though, drewpaul.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes true scotsman's post
05-11-2017, 07:26 AM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2017 07:34 AM by unfogged.)
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(04-11-2017 09:05 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  The existence of universe gives rise to a variety of potential explanations. That is how knowledge is advanced because truly crazy ideas sometimes turn out to be correct. Want examples? Even so every explanation has one thing in common, it was some mindless process that caused all we observe to exist or some intentional process. We have to dig deeper than just the universe existing.

That I have no real disagreement with. The answer is currently unknown.

Quote:
Quote:Nobody has denied any facts. Nobody has denied that there are facts that comport with theism. What is denied is your inane definition of evidence and your basis for believing not based on evidence.

You mean the inane dictionary definition of evidence?

Dictionaries explain how words are used. I noted that they can sometimes lag behind current usage but that this one agreed with how I, and other people here, use the term. If you want to explain yourself or discuss an issue here but insist on using uncommon definitions you are going to keep running into this problem. Your definition for "evidence" is bad.


Quote:
Quote:There is no reason to believe that anything cares about planets, stars, or humans other than us. The arrogance of insisting that we must be here for a reason is a huge part of the problem of theism.

The fact they exist and are necessary for our existence raises the question if it was intentionally caused. That would explain why the laws of physics cause planets, stars, galaxies and a host of other conditions. Some of the conditions necessary for our existence occurred right at the onset of the universe existing. Or we could just be lucky to exist on a miraculous scale. You agree there is no reason natural forces have to exist right? You agree there is no reason a universe has to exist true? Based on that alone its incredibly fortunate the conditions for us to exist came about minus any planning or intent from mindless forces.

From our perspective but that gets us back to it being an arrogant view of the universe. The puddle that is amazed that the hole it is in fits it exactly illustrates the problem perfectly. The evidence shows that we evolved to survive in the universe that we found ourselves in. If you stop assuming humans are an intended outcome things become much simpler and the "lucky on a miraculous scale" collapses into nothing.


Quote:
Quote:It's a shame then that that is what the actual evidence points towards.

No actually its wonderful. You can inform me of the evidence you believe comports with I mean points towards the claim we owe our existence to happenstance. Be-careful not to use the kind of evidence you've already disqualified.

It is wonderful IF you assume humans were intended to exist. That's a huge assumption. Every thing we know about the formation of solar systems, abiogenesis, and evolution points to random factors influencing the development. That we appeared is lucky for us but that's meaningless from any other perspective.

Quote:
Quote:Show that those properties COULD be different.
Show that there aren't multiple chances for different values.

Why listen to me read Just Six Numbers by Sir Martin Rees or just read the summary here. You'll like him he's an atheist.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012...ees-review

I don't like somebody because they are an atheist or not. I appreciate people who use evidence and rational arguments. That just happens to mean that they are almost always atheists.

Quote:
Quote:This universe appears to be designed to create black holes if it was This universe appears to be designed to create black holes if it was designed at all. We seem to be an incidental, accidental by product. Only by ignoring 99.9999999+% of the universe could you even begin to think humans have any importance.

Don't look now but you just sited some facts that 'point to' or comport with your belief we owe our existence to naturalistic forces and are offering them as evidence. Busted...

I silenced no facts. I don't believe that the universe was designed to create black holes, I was pointing out that if you believe that the universe was designed to support humans then you have a lot of hurdles to explain why it looks the way it does since it is virtually all inhospitable to us. If the universe is just random events and natural causes then there is no problem; we are an insignificant by-product of an uncaring universe.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
05-11-2017, 07:52 AM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2017 08:01 AM by Robvalue.)
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
I'd invite drewpaul, and any other theist, to tell me why I should care about this "God" character, even if it's something real. I've never heard a convincing answer to this throughout all the forums, books and videos I've examined. It always seems to boil down to one of these:

1) "You'll be sorry if you don't worship it". Threats, the last refuge of someone with nothing to back up their ideas. Responsibility for such obvious threats is never taken either; instead the finger is pointed at some magical figure somewhere which is both hugely powerful beyond my imagination and in dire need of my praise. Even if it really is threatening me, I have no reason to think it will stick to its word, so I'm not interested in being its bitch.

2) "Don't you want to know about it?" Scientific curiosity. Of course, I indeed would want to know about it, out of interest. It would be something new to learn about. And I'd be very happy to start studying it just as soon as someone can tell me what the hell it is and how I can do that, other than just listening to other people tell me about it, waving old texts at me and presenting fallacious arguments. What I wouldn't want to do however, is worship it. I've no interest in worshipping anything, I find it a totally pointless act for all involved. Saying "thank you" is usually sufficient for me.

3) "You get your morals/purpose/existence from it." Necessity. If this is in fact true, then I can carry on regardless of its existence. Still no interest in locating its arse hole so I can kiss it; especially since I'm usually told that all this requires no effort at all on its part.

I think there's an evolutionary benefit to submitting to the most powerful looking thing around, which drives people to such behaviour. Religion, to the unindoctrinated, looks like this:




I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Robvalue's post
05-11-2017, 07:58 AM
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(05-11-2017 07:13 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(05-11-2017 07:00 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Indeed, what it means to "exist" is a very difficult question. I have concluded that there is (as yet) no practical, meaningful definition for this that isn't circular. We know what it means informally, but when we get scientific about it, I feel we can't get to grips with it without assuming it to be true. It's pragmatic to make certain assumptions, and that's as far as it goes. Further analysis is certainly interesting, but in my opinion offers no practical use. For example, if it turns out we are in fact all just parts of a computer program operating in some other place, this may cause us to change our mind about whether we really "exist", but we have no option but to continue regardless as if we did.

Another point is the link between the abstract and the existent. I'm assuming that the existent is something that is part of reality, whereas the abstract is a way of describing things that exist. So "a dog" is an abstract concept, but it can point directly to a part of reality that exists independently from that concept.

We can also have abstract concepts that don't point to anything in reality (as far as we know), which are purely imaginary. Some of these can be still be used scientifically, those being tools used in modeling reality. I would place in this category numbers and "gravity". There is no "number 1" that is part of reality. There are things which we understand better by introducing the notion of quantity, and numbers are a tool to help us do that. Gravity, at least for now, doesn't point to part of reality either as far as we know. It's the umbrella term for a series of models which try to understand aspects of reality and how it appears to interact with itself. It may be we find out that there really are "gravitrons" or whatever that perform this function, and if so, we could point to them as the "existent" portion of gravity. Or maybe there are "rules" to how reality works, but honestly I think this is beyond scientific enquiry, and enters the realm of metaphysics.

Consciousness is so complicated that I don't feel qualified to comment much. My layman's understanding is that it's an emergent process, and as such it's patterns within reality we are highlighting, rather than bits of reality itself; like we could highlight waves on the sea.

My conclusion to all this drivel, with many thanks to anyone who has read this far, is that I subscribe to a form of absurdism: things are as real to any particular observer as they appear to be. I don't try and objectively define what it means to "exist"; instead I used the term relatively. Parts of this supposed "objective reality" all exist as much as each other. Abstract concepts, whether they point to parts of reality or not, all "exist" as much as each other. Things in my dreams all "exist" as much as each other. The utility in this approach is that I haven't insisted that any of these things exist at all, or more/less than any other group, thus covering all possibilities.

Your long post describes in some detail exactly why I don't like philosophy. Philosophers seem to think we "exist" entirely in a world of words, and we don't. No wonder they get so confused.

I think you're saying you like my post, because it highlights common philosophical errors? Indeed, and I've found those trying to cram "God" into the philosophy to be the most guilty. The intangibility of the thing they are trying to describe forces them to lump the real and the abstract together, in an attempt to force a square peg through a round hole. I used to debate endlessly a guy on another forum who just repeatedly said, "But are you saying numbers aren't real", no matter how many times I explained this. It shows how one irrational belief can leak into other modes of thinking.

I prefer to draw a hard line under that which has practical implications, and to try to be clear when I'm musing below that line just for the pleasure and mental exercise.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Robvalue's post
05-11-2017, 08:16 AM
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(05-11-2017 07:52 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  I'd invite drewpaul, and any other theist, to tell me why I should care about this "God" character, even if it's something real. I've never heard a convincing answer to this throughout all the forums, books and videos I've examined. It always seems to boil down to one of these:

1) "You'll be sorry if you don't worship it". Threats, the last refuge of someone with nothing to back up their ideas. Responsibility for such obvious threats is never taken either; instead the finger is pointed at some magical figure somewhere which is both hugely powerful beyond my imagination and in dire need of my praise. Even if it really is threatening me, I have no reason to think it will stick to its word, so I'm not interested in being its bitch.

2) "Don't you want to know about it?" Scientific curiosity. Of course, I indeed would want to know about it, out of interest. It would be something new to learn about. And I'd be very happy to start studying it just as soon as someone can tell me what the hell it is and how I can do that, other than just listening to other people tell me about it, waving old texts at me and presenting fallacious arguments. What I wouldn't want to do however, is worship it. I've no interest in worshipping anything, I find it a totally pointless act for all involved. Saying "thank you" is usually sufficient for me.

3) "You get your morals/purpose/existence from it." Necessity. If this is in fact true, then I can carry on regardless of its existence. Still no interest in locating its arse hole so I can kiss it; especially since I'm usually told that all this requires no effort at all on its part.

I think there's an evolutionary benefit to submitting to the most powerful looking thing around, which drives people to such behavior. Religion, to the unindoctrinated, looks like this:




I agree Rob, just to assert a god made everything is a hollow and useless claim. The person making this claim also needs to show how it is relevant.
If it's a deist god, then it started everything and left the universe, it has no principles to teach us, no communication with us, no influence on us, you will live a limited time and then die with no afterlife.
This is exactly the same outcome as a god that doesn't exist, it doesn't answer prayers, it doesn't make your life better or worse, it has no substantive effect on us.

So if we grant that a god exists, then what? A list of more specific characteristics about this entity need to demonstrated and how it specifically relates to the universe and us.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TheInquisition's post
05-11-2017, 09:16 AM
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(05-11-2017 08:16 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  If it's a deist god, then it started everything and left the universe, it has no principles to teach us, no communication with us, no influence on us, you will live a limited time and then die with no afterlife.
This is exactly the same outcome as a god that doesn't exist, it doesn't answer prayers, it doesn't make your life better or worse, it has no substantive effect on us.

Not only that, there's no reason to impute consciousness to the deistic God concept for the reasons you stated, and without consciousness it isn't a God at all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thoreauvian's post
05-11-2017, 11:33 AM
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(05-11-2017 03:15 AM)Belaqua Wrote:  
(05-11-2017 02:58 AM)M. Linoge Wrote:  Not "dumb fucks"; The word is 'indoctrinated'.

Several people here do use the term "dumb fucks."

(05-11-2017 02:58 AM)M. Linoge Wrote:  The reason people believe we come from a creator is adults have declared this to be true with such passion and consistency throughout their childhoods, most of them stopped asking questions and started making assumptions based on this vacuous wish-thinking.

Extremely broad statement!

"The reason people believe..." All people? Is it possible that some religious people have in fact thought about it? Or is your statement intentionally broad so as to be more insulting, though not true?

(05-11-2017 02:58 AM)M. Linoge Wrote:  Assumptions which would be encouraged by - what was the number you said? 80%? Four out of five people you meet will encourage you to think this way, which makes you encourage others to think this way and the circle goes on and on.
Until you start asking questions.

Four out of five of my fellow atheists are extremely incurious about how thinking people can be religious, preferring instead to type blanket statements that stamp out exceptions, stereotype believers, and encourage prejudice.

(I don't know if it's really four out of five atheists. It feels like more. But accuracy doesn't seem to be paramount here.)

Actually I think you have and do think about this stuff. Which is why you came closer to the correct answer than @drewthedumbfuck (and yea I just like a good excuse to say fuck)

Your problem is not that you don't think, it's that you have errors in your logic structure, which have been pointed out.

For example:
You complain that people use "science" or more specifically you think they make some assumption that science is the only way to know anything about the world, and that it's assumed that any other "path to knowledge" is false. That is not correct. Not even a little correct.

Can you define science for the class? It would be very helpful if you did, in doing so you would see the error in the position you've taken.

There was once a scientist (this is another true story by the way), I can't remember the hypothesis he was proposing, however I remember he kept getting smacked down for years, decades. He started thinking there was some conspiracy to keep the "truth" he had found hidden from the world (geeze I wish I could remember the scientists name or the theory he was working on, if I remember I'll tell you). Just as with the people here the scientists in his field saw errors in his work and in his hypothesis so they wouldn't take him seriously, this same thing happens to "young earth creationists" who happen to be scientists and put out asinine hypothesis' that are easily refuted. However he did something most theists never do, he bothered to listen to his opponents I mean it took decades but at some point the message sunk in (either that or he stubbornly decided to prove them wrong and make them accept he was right fuck if I know lol) either way he went back to the drawing board. See the problem wasn't that his theory was incorrect it was that his methodology for reaching the conclusions he reached were incorrect as such there were always going to be problems with his Theory, he realized this. He took an honest approach accepting that he could be wrong, setting up tests designed to remove personal bias and then he followed the fucking evidence. In the end he was able to demonstrate his original theory through sound methodologies and his theory was accepted, he was celebrated even.

People here are treating you the exact same way, it's not that there could be no other ways to reach the answers you seek, it's that science is used because it works, we can test it, we can repeat it. ANYONE can do it, you don't need faith or trust or anything fucking do the experiments, learn the scientific method (which is all that science is, a methodology for finding out what is real and factual and verifiably so). You adopt sound methodologies and present your findings it doesn't fucking matter what your findings are, or who you are, if they stand up to scrutiny you will be respected and your ideas will be taken seriously.

Science is essentially a system of methodologies that we know consistently bring us the most accurate information that we can know about the world we live in. You can adopt these principles as a philosophical approach to how you handle every question in your life and you'll consistently gain more accurate more logically sound answers to the questions in your life. And since the standards of this philosophy require that anyone can put your methodologies to the test and verify your results for themselves you can be reasonably confident you're usually going to be heading in the right direction (until someone can refute your position).

We use the scientific method because it works, I can't abandon it simply because it tells me things about the world YOU PERSONALLY don't like. Why? Well because I can build a computer (from scratch) I understand how it works and why and without the scientific method such a thing could not exist in this world. Your proposed alternatives have produced NO results ever within the entity of human history. So why should anyone take you seriously? Unless you can demonstrate your claims you SHOULD expect EVERYONE to reject your position. At least anyone who gives a flying fuck about understating reality. Hell if you wanna live in a delusion fantasy go right on ahead, just stop harassing the rest of us ya?

And this is important, science isn't in the business of telling you what fucking is. It's actually quite the opposite. The role of science is to falsify things that are not consistent with the universe we live in. AKA rather than tell you what is science is mainly in the business of telling you what is not, what remains can be considered what is real with a reasonable degree of confidence. This is why the description of "evidence" presented by @drewthebraindeadrodent seems so ass backwards to most people here. By focusing on falsification we by default harden our methodologies against being tainted by personal biases. The goal is to find out what is, not what we want there to be. And the methodologies you've postulated on several times (and @drew even more often) will consistently result in findings tainted with confirmation bias (aka the results are worthless, it's great that you can tell me your view of the world is what you want it to be but if I want to know what the world is then listening to you would be a waste of my time).

This is why I've stated on multiple occasions that if you present some evidence that can stand up to scrutiny you would have an instant forum full of theists here. Very few people here would hold an atheistic position as a matter of strong ideological belief. That's what ya'll do. People round here would prefer to follow the evidence regardless of where it leads. If they aren't following you perhaps you should examine your evidence and methodologies not tell them they are wrong.

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like JesseB's post
05-11-2017, 11:48 AM (This post was last modified: 05-11-2017 11:52 AM by JesseB.)
RE: NEED Help with a theist.
(05-11-2017 07:14 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  
(05-11-2017 04:07 AM)Belaqua Wrote:  Many thanks for your temperate language here. I'd almost forgotten that we can speak to each other like grown-ups.

I suspect we both see that a definition of "material" gets tricky, once we try to pin it down. Like "nature" or other big terms. Even "literally existent" seems hard in some cases -- as in the case of gravity, which obviously exists, yet can't be explained, only described. Not to mention things like numbers, which still seem Platonic.

I've learned not to suggest on this forum that consciousness arises from the material but is not itself material. That made some people surprisingly emotional.

Best for me to keep in mind what you were saying the other day: we create models of reality, not direct knowledge.

But I think if you keep an eye out on this forum, you'll see that a number of people use the word "reality" to indicate the stuff which science has so far described. And I'll stick to my statement that this begs the question.

Primates, who evolved brains for gene survival, not truth, on a tiny planet in a big universe, should know better than to claim that they know reality, it seems to me. But humility is out of fashion.

Maybe later you can tell me how you keep cool while other posters are getting pleasure from near-incoherent shouting. Is it benzodiazepine?

"Primates, who evolved brains for gene survival, not truth, on a tiny planet in a big universe, should know better than to claim that they know reality, it seems to me. But humility is out of fashion. "


I don't see why gene survival and truth should be mutually exclusive. I kind of see them as going hand in hand. But regardless of how our brains evolved, we are extraordinarily capable of knowing reality down to the minutest detail. Your own statement here admits this when you say that that we should "know better". But how should we "know better". If we are not capable of knowing reality.

The concepts that your statement is composed of, do they not refer to something in reality. It seems to me that you expect them to.

Personally I would place the two slightly hierarchical
1. Our genes primary function is to reproduce and thereby survive, this is not a thought through process, it requires no divine spark, it is simply something that has happened consistently and in general it is the highest priority

2. A factual understanding of the world is generally beneficial aka knowing there's a tiger and avoiding it is more beneficial than being dinner, however there are exceptions to this which is why I would say it's ranked lower than point number 1 There are times (for instance being slightly paranoid about a tiger that isn't actually there) which can result in a higher chance for number 1 to be successful, this results in the predisposition of people to be able to hold superstitious beliefs founded in nonsense. But as with the everything in biology our very consciousness is also evolving. Now you have an informed understanding of evolution so you understand that there is no implication that things are always improving in this equation, which is good, it is correct. That said through our continual biological and cognitive development as individuals and a species as a whole we may yet come to a point where a factual understanding of the world takes priority above all else. But then any number of things could happen we could be wiped out by a quasar in 2 seconds for all we know. hehe


That said I fully agree with your premise that these two concepts are not mutually exclusive and that @Drew would suggest otherwise is..... mindboggling

Edit^ Also @drew our brains weren't specifically evolved to spread our genes.... there are processes which result in that regardless of our brains involvement.... nuance is such a delightful thing for those who bother to understand it. Geeze it's so clear that everything you think is seeping with biases.... you inject meaning into meaningless like it's your only raison d'etre stop fucking assuming everything then engaging in confirmation bias please... it's really pathetic

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like JesseB's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: