ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (07/18/85)
> [Rich Rosen] >> [me] >> Please note that, if evolution is true [I believe it has much essential >> truth], then the present complexity was there from the beginning, only >> it was dormant -- exactly like a seed. > >That's not strictly true either, unless you once again define some "planning >force" that designed the complexity. I refer you to the much debated `Design Implies Designer' argument. Both sides have been adequately presented, and I have nothing new to add on this point. Incidentally, it is peculiar to hear the watchmaker argument coming from you, Rich. >> Science only describes objective mechanisms, not subjective things like >> `purpose' or `meaning'. As such, it will always be soulless, and its >> descriptions incomplete. But that does not mean that is wrong -- >> except when science declares itself to be All That Is. > >Pardon me for thinking, Mike, but my gut response is "What a load of crap!" >(Or, to quote a famous philosopher: Ingest excrement and self-terminate! :-) >Is it "soulless" to avoid wishful thinking presumption of intended meanings >and purposes, ... How are we in disagreement here? Why such invective -:O We both agree that science tells only How and not Why. Purpose and meaning are metaphysical concerns, yes? Likewise, we both agree that souls, if they exist, have minimal scientific existence -- they are supposed to be, after all, supernatural entities. Do you agree that science ought not to be concerned with souls? If so, we agree that science is soulless -- soul-free, if you prefer. >...or to avoid presuming their existence at all in the absence of >evidence for them? In the absence of OBJECTIVE evidence, such things MAY lack OBJECTIVE existence. We agree. But is that the only kind of existence that is meaningful? Most people attribute existence to at least a few kinds of nonobjective things -- like beauty, meaning, awareness, causality, science, schroedinger probability waves, probably `physical objects', and maybe music, time, space... Clearly SOME meaningful things exist that have little or no objective existence whatsoever. There are many things that are important to me for which the evidence is purely subjective. If we are in disagreement on any of these points, please let me know. Otherwise, your flamage would appear unprovoked. >Is it (science) "incomplete" in any sense other than that *you*, >my friend, like so many others, wish for something more that that which is? Like it or not, Rich, some, perhaps MOST of us cannot cease perceiving such nonobjective phantoms as {purpose, meaning, awareness..} -- the damn things simply have equal or greater reality than any objective entities described second-hand by science. Again and again, you offer the accusation `wishful thinking' when you really ought to be demolishing the idea presented, by means of logical argument. If you think a statement is false, please demonstrate its fallacy -- you might even shut me up! If you cannot, your estimation of my motives, witty as it may be, is a cheap substitute for real discourse. Worst of all, I think your judgement is wrong on this point. {awareness, purpose, meaning, beauty..} are not necessarily wished into existence, their reality is typically THRUST into one's experience. Another thing, Rich. You seem to believe that most people have a great deal invested in their point of view, and you are apparently dedicated to the beliefs below: The universe of science is All That Is. Science will somehow be able to describe everything. Wishful Thinking? >All the "purposes" and "meanings" ever proposed have no basis in reasoning >or fact or evidence, only in wishful thinking and presumption, never backed >by anything more than that. If I'm wrong, show me a counterexample. Uncle! Of course I cannot offer objective evidence of `purpose' or `meaning', since these are SUBJECTIVE phantoms, which, along with others like {love, beauty, awareness...} recur in every natural language and in every human being that I've ever encountered. So what they do not objectively exist? THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO!! Nor does my conscious awareness. Nor does yours. [There! have a counter-counter-example] Do you need to know WHY purpose and meaning are important to human beings? >...The tone of the beginning of the paragraph may be harsh, but I've grown >to become literally offended by that sort of "fuzzy thinking". Sorry, most subjective terms like {purpose, meaning, awareness} are very difficult to define. Notice that interest in these ideas is not restricted to religion, mysticism, metaphysics, philosophy, etc., but also encompasses modern disciplines like artificial intelligence, cognitive psychology, linguistics, etc. Apparently I'm not alone in attributing great importance to such chimaera. I suppose someday we'll know more about these fuzzy concepts. For now, all we can do is grope about under the foggy subjective light of introspection. It is not totally unreasonable to deny something's existence, simply because it has proven to be resistant to the SUBSET of experience known to objective scientific analysis -- but you are mistaken to expect others to have such pure faith. >> Why evolution cannot be seen, by Christians, as a description of part >> of the mechanism God used to make the present complexity, is beyond me. >> Fundamentalist Christians and Scientific Materialists are so much alike. >> Tweedledum or Tweedledee? SMASH CAUSALITY!!! > >On the other hand, religionists of all sorts, neo-mystics, and hopeful >causality smashers are so much alike, too. (Three blind mice? Or three >something-elses?) Hopeful causality smashers? Sorry to disturb your slumber, but causality is limping badly this century: Is it possible to provide causal explanations of QM phenomena? I do not know. Van Fraassen argues cogently, on the basis of Bell's inequality and relevant experimental results, that "there are well attested phenomena which cannot be embedded in any common-cause model" (1982). It appears that causal explanations are possible only if the concept of causality is fundamentally revised. John Forge seems to evade the issue by suggesting that "a causal process is one which is governed by scientific laws (theories)" (1982). On this account of causality, every QM process becomes causal by definition simply because QM is a scientific theory. Such problems as the EPR paradox then disappear... For purposes of argument, we might adopt the following definition: {the causal net == whatever structure of relations science describes}. We could then leave "to those interested in causation as such the problem of describing that structure in abstract but illuminating ways, if they wish"... (from _Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World_ Wesley C. Salmon, Princton University Press, 1984.) >>> I did not reply to those arguments, but I believe that now is >>> the time to do so. Sure, design is subjective. But subjectivity >>> is not akin to irrational. I can't believe that a scientist >>> who prides himself in being rational, intelligent, and >>> objective can look at a world that behaves according to certain >>> laws of nature and mathematics, at a race of individuals who >>> can reason, learn, experience a myriad of emotions and argue >>> that all of this can just as reasonably be explained by chance. >>> [DAN BOSKOVICH] > >Why not, Dan? If you look only at your own little world, it seems real >remarkable. If you look at the universe at large, it is all within the >scope of probability. Thus, your bold presumption that it MUST have been >by design is irrational in the extreme. [RICH ROSEN] Sounds good both ways, Rich: If you look at your own little world, it is all withing the scope of probability. But if you look at the universe at large, it seems most remarkable. khronos ouketi estai -michael
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/19/85)
>>> Please note that, if evolution is true [I believe it has much essential >>> truth], then the present complexity was there from the beginning, only >>> it was dormant -- exactly like a seed. [ELLIS] >>That's not strictly true either, unless you once again define some "planning >>force" that designed the complexity. [ROSEN] > I refer you to the much debated `Design Implies Designer' argument. Both > sides have been adequately presented, and I have nothing new to add on > this point. > Incidentally, it is peculiar to hear the watchmaker argument coming from > you, Rich. You miss the point. I was saying that the position above only has meaning if you assume a creator who "designed" the complexity. >>> Science only describes objective mechanisms, not subjective things like >>> `purpose' or `meaning'. As such, it will always be soulless, and its >>> descriptions incomplete. But that does not mean that is wrong -- >>> except when science declares itself to be All That Is. >>Pardon me for thinking, Mike, but my gut response is "What a load of crap!" >>(Or, to quote a famous philosopher: Ingest excrement and self-terminate! :-) >>Is it "soulless" to avoid wishful thinking presumption of intended meanings >>and purposes, ... > How are we in disagreement here? Why such invective -:O > We both agree that science tells only How and not Why. Purpose and > meaning are metaphysical concerns, yes? > Likewise, we both agree that souls, if they exist, have minimal > scientific existence -- they are supposed to be, after all, supernatural > entities. Do you agree that science ought not to be concerned with > souls? No, of course not, though apparently you seem to. I just love the way some people choose to divide the world arbitrarily into these physical and non-physical categories based solely on their limits of observation, and then seek to cage science (that awful thing!) into examining only the "physical", claiming that their pet "nonphysical" ideas should be free of the shackles of science, which really means "let's not examine these things rigorously because such thinking might debunk these notions the way they got rid of geocentrism hundreds of years ago". > If so, we agree that science is soulless -- soul-free, if you prefer. And then they use deceptive debasing terminology to describe science like "it's soulless". What is it that you have against rigorous objectified examination using verifiable evidence? That's all the heinous science is after all. Why should such examination have "limits"? >>...or to avoid presuming their existence at all in the absence of >>evidence for them? > In the absence of OBJECTIVE evidence, such things MAY lack OBJECTIVE > existence. We agree. > But is that the only kind of existence that is meaningful? Since other so-called evidence is rife with the flaws of preconception, presumption, faulty patterning of the mind imposed on events, it ain't worthwhile evidence. > Most people attribute existence to at least a few kinds of nonobjective > things -- like beauty, meaning, awareness, causality, science, > schroedinger probability waves, probably `physical objects', and maybe > music, time, space... Clearly SOME meaningful things exist that have > little or no objective existence whatsoever. We're talking about constructs and patterns designed by the mind to REPRESENT reality, not reality. >>Is it (science) "incomplete" in any sense other than that *you*, >>my friend, like so many others, wish for something more that that which is? > Like it or not, Rich, some, perhaps MOST of us cannot cease perceiving > such nonobjective phantoms as {purpose, meaning, awareness..} -- the > damn things simply have equal or greater reality than any objective > entities described second-hand by science. See above. > Again and again, you offer the accusation `wishful thinking' when you > really ought to be demolishing the idea presented, by means of logical > argument. If you think a statement is false, please demonstrate its > fallacy -- you might even shut me up! If you cannot, your estimation of > my motives, witty as it may be, is a cheap substitute for real > discourse. Since the idea presented has no supporting evidence, one can assume that you must believe in it for a reason. If not factual evidence, and if not just because it fits notions of the world as you might like to see it (wishful thinking) then what??? > Another thing, Rich. You seem to believe that most people have a great > deal invested in their point of view, and you are apparently dedicated to > the beliefs below: > The universe of science is All That Is. > Science will somehow be able to describe everything. Here we go again with science-hating. The universe of things that are are the things that are. That's my position. What is a "universe of science"? Furthermore, whether or not science is able to describe "everything", does it mean that, if science cannot describe something, someone's wishful speculation have a bearing on the truth? > Wishful Thinking? Unfortunately, my "wishful thinking" is backed up by evidence. (See above.) >>All the "purposes" and "meanings" ever proposed have no basis in reasoning >>or fact or evidence, only in wishful thinking and presumption, never backed >>by anything more than that. If I'm wrong, show me a counterexample. > Uncle! Thank you. I didn't think you could. Really. > Of course I cannot offer objective evidence of `purpose' or `meaning', > since these are SUBJECTIVE phantoms, which, along with others like {love, > beauty, awareness...} recur in every natural language and in every human > being that I've ever encountered. Just as subjective as one's biased feelings that occur on a daily basis, like when you might assume that someone (by their words/actions) feels a certain way (based on your own preconceptions about the person and about people in general) when they don't. With that sort of track record for subjectivity, I don't think it worthwhile as a descriptor of the real world in a realistic physical sense. It works for you as the way you experience the world, and in that sense it is real, but beyond that it does not accurately (necessarily) describe the real world. >>...The tone of the beginning of the paragraph may be harsh, but I've grown >>to become literally offended by that sort of "fuzzy thinking". > Sorry, most subjective terms like {purpose, meaning, awareness} are very > difficult to define. Notice that interest in these ideas is not > restricted to religion, mysticism, metaphysics, philosophy, etc., but > also encompasses modern disciplines like artificial intelligence, > cognitive psychology, linguistics, etc. Apparently I'm not alone in > attributing great importance to such chimaera. Attribute all the personal importance to them that you like. That doesn't mean that such things describe the physical world outside the mind. > I suppose someday we'll know more about these fuzzy concepts. For now, > all we can do is grope about under the foggy subjective light of > introspection. Given how inaccurate the light has been at casting real illumination on reality, it's best not taken literally. >>> Why evolution cannot be seen, by Christians, as a description of part >>> of the mechanism God used to make the present complexity, is beyond me. >>> Fundamentalist Christians and Scientific Materialists are so much alike. >>> Tweedledum or Tweedledee? SMASH CAUSALITY!!! >>On the other hand, religionists of all sorts, neo-mystics, and hopeful >>causality smashers are so much alike, too. (Three blind mice? Or three >>something-elses?) > Hopeful causality smashers? Sorry to disturb your slumber, but causality > is limping badly this century: > Is it possible to provide causal explanations of QM phenomena? I do > not know. Van Fraassen argues cogently, on the basis of Bell's > inequality and relevant experimental results, that "there are well > attested phenomena which cannot be embedded in any common-cause > model" (1982). It appears that causal explanations are possible only > if the concept of causality is fundamentally revised. This still sounds a good deal like anthropocentrism to me. Because WE can't attribute a cause to something, it's "acausal". -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (07/23/85)
[This line intentionally left blank] From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen), Message-ID: <1248@pyuxd.UUCP>: >>>...or to avoid presuming their existence at all in the absence of >>>evidence for them? [Rosen] > >> In the absence of OBJECTIVE evidence, such things MAY lack OBJECTIVE >> existence. We agree. >> But is that the only kind of existence that is meaningful? [Ellis] > >Since other so-called evidence is rife with the flaws of preconception, >presumption, faulty patterning of the mind imposed on events, it ain't >worthwhile evidence. Mr. Rosen, you've just acknowledged the existence of something ("so-called evidence") which you claim isn't worthwhile as scientific evidence. Will you either conceed the point that some things are beyond science, or will you demonstrate how the "so-called evidence" itself (which you agree exists) falls under the scope of science? >I just love the way some >people choose to divide the world arbitrarily into these physical and >non-physical categories based solely on their limits of observation, and >then seek to cage science (that awful thing!) into examining only the >"physical", claiming that their pet "nonphysical" ideas should be free of >the shackles of science, which really means "let's not examine these things >rigorously because such thinking might debunk these notions the way they >got rid of geocentrism hundreds of years ago". You seem to be fighting very hard to prove that everything "real" falls under the domain of science. Very well, here are some challenges for you: Music is real and most of it is quite distinguishable from that which is heard near a construction site. I'm hereby challenging you to make the distinction scientifically. Would you please a describe scientific method of distinguishing between a painting of Rembrandt's and a spare canvas he used to clean his brushes off (better yet, do it for Picasso instead! (-:)? Can you scientifically determine who is President of the United States? The consensus of a large group of people has never constituted valid scientific evidence, yet that is *all* that determines who holds the presidency. Is the presidency then not real, or can you really fit it into a scientific framework? Is the political climate there unreal, or is there a science that describes who rules what parts of the Middle East and when? How can you scientifically distinguish between a married couple and co-habitants? Is marriage real? >> Again and again, you offer the accusation `wishful thinking' when you >> really ought to be demolishing the idea presented, by means of logical >> argument. If you think a statement is false, please demonstrate its >> fallacy -- you might even shut me up! If you cannot, your estimation of >> my motives, witty as it may be, is a cheap substitute for real >> discourse. > >Since the idea presented has no supporting evidence, one can assume that you >must believe in it for a reason. If not factual evidence, and if not just >because it fits notions of the world as you might like to see it (wishful >thinking) then what??? >[...] >Unfortunately, my "wishful thinking" is backed up by evidence. (See above.) What scientific evidence would you present to support the statement "rocks exist"? You'd probably show us a rock. Mr. Ellis stated that things beyond the reach of science exist. He then provided "rocks" to support his claim, namely beauty, meaning, awareness, .... You simply stated that such things merely "REPRESENT reality" and are not real. You certainly gave no "evidence" for such a claim. You didn't even give a *reason* for it. *Why* aren't they real? Is it because you only define as real those things to which science applies? Then of course nothing that you think is real is beyond science - it's contrary to the defintion. >> Of course I cannot offer objective evidence of `purpose' or `meaning', >> since these are SUBJECTIVE phantoms, which, along with others like {love, >> beauty, awareness...} recur in every natural language and in every human >> being that I've ever encountered. > >Just as subjective as one's biased feelings that occur on a daily basis, >like when you might assume that someone (by their words/actions) feels a >certain way (based on your own preconceptions about the person and about >people in general) when they don't. With that sort of track record for >subjectivity, I don't think it worthwhile as a descriptor of the real world >in a realistic physical sense. It works for you as the way you experience >the world, and in that sense it is real, but beyond that it does not >accurately (necessarily) describe the real world. Because you don't think "X is a worthwhile descriptor of the real world in a realistic physical sense" doesn't mean X is unreal. It simply means you don't think it's a worthwhile descriptor of the real world in a realistic physical sense. So what? >>>...The tone of the beginning of the paragraph may be harsh, but I've grown >>>to become literally offended by that sort of "fuzzy thinking". > >> Sorry, most subjective terms like {purpose, meaning, awareness} are very >> difficult to define. Notice that interest in these ideas is not >> restricted to religion, mysticism, metaphysics, philosophy, etc., but >> also encompasses modern disciplines like artificial intelligence, >> cognitive psychology, linguistics, etc. Apparently I'm not alone in >> attributing great importance to such chimaera. > >Attribute all the personal importance to them that you like. That doesn't >mean that such things describe the physical world outside the mind. ---------------- Again, the fact that things don't "describe the physical world" doesn't mean they aren't real. And the underlined part seems to imply that you *do* acknowledge that there are things beyond science. What *are* you saying? >> I suppose someday we'll know more about these fuzzy concepts. For now, >> all we can do is grope about under the foggy subjective light of >> introspection. > >Given how inaccurate the light has been at casting real illumination on >reality, it's best not taken literally. And how accurate has the light cast by science on crime been? Or on marriage? Or on discussions of this type? You just can't see beyond your precious *physical* reality, and anything that doesn't fit into it must not exist (i.e., be real). >> Hopeful causality smashers? Sorry to disturb your slumber, but causality >> is limping badly this century: >> Is it possible to provide causal explanations of QM phenomena? I do >> not know. Van Fraassen argues cogently, on the basis of Bell's >> inequality and relevant experimental results, that "there are well >> attested phenomena which cannot be embedded in any common-cause >> model" (1982). It appears that causal explanations are possible only >> if the concept of causality is fundamentally revised. > >This still sounds a good deal like anthropocentrism to me. Because WE can't >attribute a cause to something, it's "acausal". Have you ever read Hume? The problem is not that "WE can't attribute a cause to something". It's that WE can't figure out HOW and WHEN things are causally linked. Go ahead, try to rigorously define "causal connec- tion". Do it and you'll rock the world of philosophy. And probably that of physics as well. > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr -- --JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) All we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/23/85)
> Mr. Rosen, you've just acknowledged the existence of something ("so-called > evidence") which you claim isn't worthwhile as scientific evidence. Will > you either conceed the point that some things are beyond science, or will > you demonstrate how the "so-called evidence" itself (which you agree > exists) falls under the scope of science? [BETH CHRISTY] I'm not sure I understand the line of thinking here. Because scientific tools do not allow us to see EVERYTHING there is, we thus take our subjective minds' word for the rest? Knowing as we do how that mind works in the absence of evidence to form patterns based on preconceptions? Knowing how different people's minds come up with different patterns and models based on different preconceptions? Are they ALL right? >>I just love the way some >>people choose to divide the world arbitrarily into these physical and >>non-physical categories based solely on their limits of observation, and >>then seek to cage science (that awful thing!) into examining only the >>"physical", claiming that their pet "nonphysical" ideas should be free of >>the shackles of science, which really means "let's not examine these things >>rigorously because such thinking might debunk these notions the way they >>got rid of geocentrism hundreds of years ago". > You seem to be fighting very hard to prove that everything "real" falls > under the domain of science. No, YOU seem to be fighting very hard to prove that things that are unverifiable by scientific means ARE real. Not "may be real". ARE real because *your* mind says so! > Very well, here are some challenges for you: > Music is real and most of it is quite distinguishable from that which is > heard near a construction site. I'm hereby challenging you to make the > distinction scientifically. You obviously haven't heard a lot of modern music. What distuinguishes the two is purpose, as deemed by a designer. Music (with the possible exception of Cage and his ilk) is structured sound according to the plan of a designer. If the rhythm of the bulldozers and cranes is pleasing, fine. So? The distinction has only to do with the purpose imbued upon the event by the creator, OR by the listener. (My favorite top 40 song is "This is only a test", which consists of a steady tone for 60 seconds.) Physically, the events are what they are. > Would you please a describe scientific method > of distinguishing between a painting of Rembrandt's and a spare canvas he > used to clean his brushes off (better yet, do it for Picasso instead! (-:)? Whichever one he says is his painting is his painting. What's the point? Who is any of us to judge otherwise? Perhaps he likes the brushcleaning canvas just as much and decides to sell it. What does any of this have to do with the existence or non-existence of pseudoscientific phenomena? > Can you scientifically determine who is President of the United States? The > consensus of a large group of people has never constituted valid scientific > evidence, yet that is *all* that determines who holds the presidency. But the rules of the system you are talking about say that the consensus of a large group of people DOES determine who is President. Are you contradicting that? Note that all these systems you describe, art, music, politics, are human-defined systems where people make the rules (supposedly). We are not so all powerful as to make the rules of the physical world itself. Though some might proclaim "I believe in XXXX because I say so." Much as some of us might like, we can't do that except in our imagination, and that has no bearing on what actually happens outside of our brains. > Is the presidency then not real, or can you really fit it into a scientific > framework? Is the political climate there unreal, or is there a science > that describes who rules what parts of the Middle East and when? In a human defined system, follow the laid down rules, and you'll get your answer. Add a little real world science (actually a lot of it) to that, analyzing conditions, situations, etc. in incredible detail, and you might even be able to know who WILL be President! Of course, the amount of knowledge and analysis necessary probably exceeds our abilities, especially since some of the variables to the equation are in individual people's minds. >>Since the idea presented has no supporting evidence, one can assume that you >>must believe in it for a reason. If not factual evidence, and if not just >>because it fits notions of the world as you might like to see it (wishful >>thinking) then what??? >>[...] >>Unfortunately, my "wishful thinking" is backed up by evidence. (See above.) > What scientific evidence would you present to support the statement "rocks > exist"? You'd probably show us a rock. Mr. Ellis stated that things > beyond the reach of science exist. He then provided "rocks" to support > his claim, namely beauty, meaning, awareness, .... You simply stated that > such things merely "REPRESENT reality" and are not real. You certainly > gave no "evidence" for such a claim. You didn't even give a *reason* for > it. *Why* aren't they real? Is it because you only define as real those > things to which science applies? Then of course nothing that you think is > real is beyond science - it's contrary to the defintion. Bullshit. The reason they are not "real" is because they depend upon observers to label existing things with these qualities. "Rock" is not a subjective quality, it is a rigorously defined concept. "Beauty", etc. are LABELS and GRADES put upon things by observers, different observers given different labels and grades, if any at all. In any case, these are all words used by people to describe things. "Rock" is a definition of a specific type of object, whereas "beauty" et al depends on the observer to grant an object with that quality. It has no bearing on the thing's physical existence except in the way THAT PARTICULAR OBSERVER relates to it. >>> Of course I cannot offer objective evidence of `purpose' or `meaning', >>> since these are SUBJECTIVE phantoms, which, along with others like {love, >>> beauty, awareness...} recur in every natural language and in every human >>> being that I've ever encountered. >>Just as subjective as one's biased feelings that occur on a daily basis, >>like when you might assume that someone (by their words/actions) feels a >>certain way (based on your own preconceptions about the person and about >>people in general) when they don't. With that sort of track record for >>subjectivity, I don't think it worthwhile as a descriptor of the real world >>in a realistic physical sense. It works for you as the way you experience >>the world, and in that sense it is real, but beyond that it does not >>accurately (necessarily) describe the real world. > Because you don't think "X is a worthwhile descriptor of the real world in > a realistic physical sense" doesn't mean X is unreal. It simply means you > don't think it's a worthwhile descriptor of the real world in a realistic > physical sense. So what? I prefer realistic descriptors of the real world to unrealistic descriptors of the real world. Don't you? >>>>...The tone of the beginning of the paragraph may be harsh, but I've grown >>>>to become literally offended by that sort of "fuzzy thinking". >>> Sorry, most subjective terms like {purpose, meaning, awareness} are very >>> difficult to define. Notice that interest in these ideas is not >>> restricted to religion, mysticism, metaphysics, philosophy, etc., but >>> also encompasses modern disciplines like artificial intelligence, >>> cognitive psychology, linguistics, etc. Apparently I'm not alone in >>> attributing great importance to such chimaera. >>Attribute all the personal importance to them that you like. That doesn't >>mean that such things describe the physical world outside the mind. ---------------- > Again, the fact that things don't "describe the physical world" doesn't > mean they aren't real. And the underlined part seems to imply that you > *do* acknowledge that there are things beyond science. What *are* you > saying? I'm saying that people's imaginations can come up with the most unusual explanations and descriptions of things that have no bearing on reality. Like when a child knocks over a lamp and says "A gorilla came in and did that". Often those explanations and descriptions are nothing but wishful thinking. >>Given how inaccurate the light has been at casting real illumination on >>reality, it's [SUBJECTIVITY] best not taken literally. > And how accurate has the light cast by science on crime been? Or on > marriage? Or on discussions of this type? You just can't see beyond your > precious *physical* reality, and anything that doesn't fit into it must > not exist (i.e., be real). And for you, anything that someone says that claims to talk about things BEYOND our "physical reality" is taken ipso facto as truth. That's the only alternative there is to what you describe above. After all, how could you DARE to claim that such a person is lying JUST because he/she has no hard proof of his/her wild notions. Thus, you MUST accept them all! Hopefully, endeavors in human psychology will answer many of our questions about human relationships and such things in more detail. Actually, there are a lot of obvious answers right now about things like marriage that people seem to ignore. (See net.singles discussion ongoing) >>This still sounds a good deal like anthropocentrism to me. Because WE can't >>attribute a cause to something, it's "acausal". > Have you ever read Hume? The problem is not that "WE can't attribute a > cause to something". It's that WE can't figure out HOW and WHEN things > are causally linked. Go ahead, try to rigorously define "causal connec- > tion". Do it and you'll rock the world of philosophy. And probably that > of physics as well. WE (almighty US) can't do it. So? I don't understand what the big deal is. Seems like people are going from both ends to try to force-fit subjective notions into "reality": one says "what about non-causality" and the other says "but we don't know precisely what causality is". Anything to force-fit the notions in, or so it seems. -- Providing the mininum daily adult requirement of sacrilege... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (07/25/85)
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen), Message-ID: <1288@pyuxd.UUCP>: >I'm not sure I understand the line of thinking here. Because scientific >tools do not allow us to see EVERYTHING there is, we thus take our >subjective minds' word for the rest? >[...] >Note that all these systems you describe, art, music, politics, are >human-defined systems where people make the rules (supposedly). Exactly! See, you *do* understand the line of thinking. There exist *real things* where people, and people alone (no science, no "laws of nature"), make the rules. And because scientific rules *can't* allow us to see them, we *must* take our subjective minds' word for it. What alternative is there? Write them off as "unreal"? Breaking a law which has no physical existence and which is completely unscientific will nevertheless have very real consequences. I don't think treating them as "unreal" would be particularly wise. >We are not so all powerful as to make the rules of the physical world >itself. Though some might proclaim "I believe in XXXX because I say >so." Much as some of us might like, we can't do that except in our >imagination, and that has no bearing on what actually happens outside >of our brains. I assume (since you sign yourself as Rich) that you're male, and I assume (since I'm guessing that pyuxd is in Piscataway) that you live in the US. Try wearing a dress, hose, high-heels and makeup to work tomorrow. You'll find some very real hostility and other very real emotions that have a very real effect on what happens "outside of our brains". There's no "law of nature" that prevents you from wearing that outfit, but there are rules that people have made up that are real enough to prevent it. In that sense, at least, they do indeed have bearing on something's physical existence. Similarly, breaking the unscientific law can have some pretty noticable physical consequences. But (I think) the real issue is: can it be real even if it doesn't have a bearing on something's *physical* existence? >>>Given how inaccurate the light has been at casting real illumination on >>>reality, it's [SUBJECTIVITY] best not taken literally. > >> And how accurate has the light cast by science on crime been? Or on >> marriage? Or on discussions of this type? You just can't see beyond your >> precious *physical* reality, and anything that doesn't fit into it must >> not exist (i.e., be real). > >And for you, anything that someone says that claims to talk about things >BEYOND our "physical reality" is taken ipso facto as truth. That's the only >alternative there is to what you describe above. After all, how could you >DARE to claim that such a person is lying JUST because he/she has no hard >proof of his/her wild notions. Thus, you MUST accept them all! Well now you're just being silly. Saying "some things exist beyond the scientific, physical world" is just eons away from saying "everything that anyone thinks is real is, in fact, real". Politics, art, music, all those "human-defined systems where people make the rules" are real. There's no *hard, scientific* proof that Reagan is president, nor is there *hard, scientific* proof that an original Rembrandt is worth millions of dollars. But there's plenty more evidence that those two facts are true than there is evidence that the ghosts of all our ancestors live in the coffee cups sold by a little store in Maine. >> it. *Why* aren't they real? Is it because you only define as real those >> things to which science applies? Then of course nothing that you think is >> real is beyond science - it's contrary to the defintion. > >Bullshit. The reason they are not "real" is because they depend upon >observers to label existing things with these qualities. I *still* think you're saying "it's only real if science deals with it". It's science that requires that things be independent of the observer, that things be reproducible by anybody with similar technique. The real-world, everyday humans I deal with don't (except that we require at least a general agreement on the meaning of words so we can communicate). And even science is slipping on independence - ask Schroedinger or Heisenberg. -- --JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) All we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/26/85)
>>I'm not sure I understand the line of thinking here. Because scientific >>tools do not allow us to see EVERYTHING there is, we thus take our >>subjective minds' word for the rest? >>[...] >>Note that all these systems you describe, art, music, politics, are >>human-defined systems where people make the rules (supposedly). [ROSEN] > Exactly! See, you *do* understand the line of thinking. There exist > *real things* where people, and people alone (no science, no "laws of > nature"), make the rules. And because scientific rules *can't* allow us > to see them, we *must* take our subjective minds' word for it. What > alternative is there? Write them off as "unreal"? Breaking a law which > has no physical existence and which is completely unscientific will > nevertheless have very real consequences. I don't think treating them > as "unreal" would be particularly wise. [BETH CHRISTY] Our conversation was talking about the nature of the physical world, not about mental constructs with which people organize the physical world. We were talking, not about human codifications of notation within such human-defined systems, but subjective claims as to the nature of things in the physical world as purported by people's wishful thinking notions. Ronald Reagan is President because a popular consensus does determine who is President in THAT system. Are you saying that there are such things as free will, souls, etc. just because we say so? >>We are not so all powerful as to make the rules of the physical world >>itself. Though some might proclaim "I believe in XXXX because I say >>so." Much as some of us might like, we can't do that except in our >>imagination, and that has no bearing on what actually happens outside >>of our brains. > I assume (since you sign yourself as Rich) that you're male, and I assume > (since I'm guessing that pyuxd is in Piscataway) that you live in the US. > Try wearing a dress, hose, high-heels and makeup to work tomorrow. You'll > find some very real hostility and other very real emotions that have a very > real effect on what happens "outside of our brains". There's no "law of > nature" that prevents you from wearing that outfit, but there are rules > that people have made up that are real enough to prevent it. In that > sense, at least, they do indeed have bearing on something's physical > existence. Funny, the last time I did that no one noticed. :-) Of course there are no "laws of nature" there, human interaction "rules" of "conduct" are (often arbitrarily) defined by people. Why would going against a societal grain have an effect on people? Why not examine the biological and psychological nature of humans, the kinds of constructs they build, etc. At root level, there are very physical reasons for all these things happening: they don't just magically appear! As Poirier mentioned in another article (and others, too), just because the interweaving physical forces are too complex for us to comprehend in one swell foop, doesn't mean they don't happen. > Similarly, breaking the unscientific law can have some pretty > noticable physical consequences. But (I think) the real issue is: can it be > real even if it doesn't have a bearing on something's *physical* existence? The question has nothing to do with the "real"-ness of such systems, for as I said above, if you were able to examine it much more closely, you would find a physical basis for all such things. >>>>Given how inaccurate the light has been at casting real illumination on >>>>reality, it's [SUBJECTIVITY] best not taken literally. >>> And how accurate has the light cast by science on crime been? Or on >>> marriage? Or on discussions of this type? You just can't see beyond your >>> precious *physical* reality, and anything that doesn't fit into it must >>> not exist (i.e., be real). >>And for you, anything that someone says that claims to talk about things >>BEYOND our "physical reality" is taken ipso facto as truth. That's the only >>alternative there is to what you describe above. After all, how could you >>DARE to claim that such a person is lying JUST because he/she has no hard >>proof of his/her wild notions. Thus, you MUST accept them all! > Well now you're just being silly. Saying "some things exist beyond the > scientific, physical world" is just eons away from saying "everything that > anyone thinks is real is, in fact, real". Yet in the realm of things that I had been discussing (free will, souls, etc.---human subjective preconceptions about the physical world rather than the mental construct systems you have been speaking of), if you can accept one you can (and must) accept ALL such notions, since they are equally valid as views of the physical world. That's not "silly" at all! That's the only reasonable course of action. > Politics, art, music, all those > "human-defined systems where people make the rules" are real. There's no > *hard, scientific* proof that Reagan is president, nor is there *hard, > scientific* proof that an original Rembrandt is worth millions of dollars. What does "hard scientific proof" mean in this context? If you follow the rules of scientific inquiry, learn the rules of the system involved, you can obtain an answer. Sounds clear to me. And, again, there are physical roots to even these human-made systems at base level. > But there's plenty more evidence that those two facts are true than there > is evidence that the ghosts of all our ancestors live in the coffee cups > sold by a little store in Maine. Well, you just said it. Such evidence is REAL evidence, because it is based on facts about the system, not subjective notions. Ronald Reagan is the President, that's a fact that can be verified. If you were to say that *YOU* are Ronald Reagan (or Teddy Roosevelt: "another yellow fever victim?" :-) just because you say so, THAT is the type of subjective notion worth debunking. And the notions of free will, "supernatural", religious experiences, etc., all similar types of notions, since they all have equal evidence, must be given equal weight, either they're ALL right, or none of them are to be accepted. >>> *Why* aren't they real? Is it because you only define as real those >>> things to which science applies? Then of course nothing that you think is >>> real is beyond science - it's contrary to the defintion. >>Bullshit. The reason they are not "real" is because they depend upon >>observers to label existing things with these qualities. > I *still* think you're saying "it's only real if science deals with it". Well, that's fine, because that's not what I said above. You've just offered a perfect example of why we shouldn't accept subjective notions. I made a statement above, and you, in your subjective opinion, said that I was saying something else! You've got your cart before your horse. Those things are not considered "unreal" because they don't apply in science, they don't apply in science because they should be considered unreal, because there's no objective evidence for them. > It's science that requires that things be independent of the observer, that > things be reproducible by anybody with similar technique. The real-world, > everyday humans I deal with don't (except that we require at least a general > agreement on the meaning of words so we can communicate). The "real-world humans" that you deal with simply lead their (our) lives making assumptions about things and NOT being rigorous in the way they deal with the world. AND VERY OFTEN THEY (WE) ARE WRONG!!!! Precisely because we were not rigorous. When you assume that someone has just done something to deliberately insult you, when in reality there were some circumstances in his/her own life that caused him/her to act in a way YOU interpreted as insult. Such things happen all the time in human interaction. That's precisely why scientists, when making observations about the world, only call them facts after severe and rigorous verification. Since subjective notions cannot be so verified (without brain surgery and analysis techniques not within our capabilities yet), they cannot be accepted as fact. It's that simple. When the only evidence for a phenomenon is "I say so", that's grounds for throwing it out. -- "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (07/30/85)
........ >Exactly! See, you *do* understand the line of thinking. There exist >*real things* where people, and people alone (no science, no "laws of >nature"), make the rules. And because scientific rules *can't* allow us >to see them, we *must* take our subjective minds' word for it. What Why *must* we? >alternative is there? Write them off as "unreal"? Breaking a law which Why not? >has no physical existence and which is completely unscientific will >nevertheless have very real consequences. I don't think treating them >as "unreal" would be particularly wise. Give examples please. In addition, how do you differentiate these *real things* from delusions of *real things*? Do you deny that people have delusions? Do you deny that people can sincerely believe that the moon is made of green cheese and also be *wrong*? >noticable physical consequences. But (I think) the real issue is: can it be >real even if it doesn't have a bearing on something's *physical* existence? Even if it can, how can we know it? KNOWing it is different than WISHing or HOPEing it. >Well now you're just being silly. Saying "some things exist beyond the >scientific, physical world" is just eons away from saying "everything that >anyone thinks is real is, in fact, real". Politics, art, music, all those >"human-defined systems where people make the rules" are real. There's no >*hard, scientific* proof that Reagan is president, nor is there *hard, >scientific* proof that an original Rembrandt is worth millions of dollars. >But there's plenty more evidence that those two facts are true than there is >evidence that the ghosts of all our ancestors live in the coffee cups sold >by a little store in Maine. Perhaps, but if I create art, it is art because I say it is art. If my art looks just like a rock, and I don't tell you it's art, you'll think it's a rock. Maybe it IS a rock. On the other hand, maybe it's art. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd "One man's music is another mans noise"
peter@kitty.UUCP (Peter DaSilva) (07/31/85)
What is a discussion of science vs. religion doing in net.origins? The creationists are are claiming that their theory IS scientific. Whether there is something OUTSIDE science is ir-relevent.
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (08/05/85)
[This line intentionally left blank] From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle), Message-ID: <723@cadovax.UUCP>: >........ >>Exactly! See, you *do* understand the line of thinking. There exist >>*real things* where people, and people alone (no science, no "laws of >>nature"), make the rules. And because scientific rules *can't* allow us >>to see them, we *must* take our subjective minds' word for it. What > >Why *must* we? > >>alternative is there? Write them off as "unreal"? Breaking a law which > >Why not? > >>has no physical existence and which is completely unscientific will >>nevertheless have very real consequences. I don't think treating them >>as "unreal" would be particularly wise. > >Give examples please. OK. Stand in front of 3 police officers and 30 witnesses, and shoot and kill 5 civilians. Chances are, within an hour you'll be physically unable to move more than 3 yards in any direction (cause you'll most likely be in jail). The legal system is real, and I don't think it's wise to truly believe it isn't. Furthermore, of the infinite number of things you could choose to do in front of 3 police officers and 30 witnesses, there are a number of things you could do that would get you thrown in jail, and a lot more that wouldn't. Can you scientifically determine which physical actions will result in incarceration and which things won't? The legal system sure *seems* beyond science. >In addition, how do you differentiate these *real things* from delusions of >*real things*? Do you deny that people have delusions? Do you deny that >people can sincerely believe that the moon is made of green cheese and >also be *wrong*? Of course I don't deny those things. How do I differentiate? I don't know. Do you deny that the legal system is real? If so, on what grounds? If not, how do *you* know it's real? I doubt you've scientifically determined it. But I think we know it anyway, and that's my whole point: science doesn't apply to *everything* that's real. >>noticable physical consequences. But (I think) the real issue is: can it be >>real even if it doesn't have a bearing on something's *physical* existence? > >Even if it can, how can we know it? KNOWing it is different >than WISHing or HOPEing it. Well, how do you KNOW anything? How do you know that gravity exists? Do you know that any differently than you know that you'll get thrown in jail when you break a law (I'm talking UNnatural laws here :-)? Do you know that molecules are composed of atoms any differently than you know that your parents are married? Do you know that the sun is 93 million miles away differently than you know that Reagan is president? Do you really say that you KNOW the formers, but WISH or HOPE the latters? For that matter, knowledge itself is probably one of the (many :-) things that are real, but are beyond scientific inquiry. >Perhaps, but if I create art, it is art because I say it is art. If my >art looks just like a rock, and I don't tell you it's art, you'll think >it's a rock. Maybe it IS a rock. On the other hand, maybe it's art. Exactly. You can't tell objectively, scientifically, whether or not it's art (especially if it looks like a rock! :-). But I guarantee that a large majority of people KNOW at first sight that an original Rembrandt is art. They don't wish it, or hope it. They KNOW it, and not by any even remotely scientific process. And how else could we know it unless we take our subjective minds' word for it? >Keith Doyle [This blank line, however, was an accident] -- --JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) All we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.
gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson) (08/08/85)
>>>[Beth, I think] >>>Exactly! See, you *do* understand the line of thinking. There exist >>>*real things* where people, and people alone (no science, no "laws of >>>nature"), make the rules. And because scientific rules *can't* allow us >>>to see them, we *must* take our subjective minds' word for it. Why can't these things be studied scientifically? Since people make these things up, and people can be scientifically studied (psychology, sociology, etc.), one should be able to study these things too. >>> What >>>alternative is there? Write them off as "unreal"? Breaking a law which >>>has no physical existence and which is completely unscientific will >>>nevertheless have very real consequences. I don't think treating them >>>as "unreal" would be particularly wise. >>[Keith Doyle] >>Give examples please. >[Beth Christy] >OK. Stand in front of 3 police officers and 30 witnesses, and shoot and >kill 5 civilians. Chances are, within an hour you'll be physically unable >to move more than 3 yards in any direction (cause you'll most likely be in >jail). The legal system is real, and I don't think it's wise to truly >believe it isn't. But, insofar as it has any effects, the legal system can be studied scientifically. Even parts of the legal system that have no effects can be studied, if you can find them. > Furthermore, of the infinite number of things you could >choose to do in front of 3 police officers and 30 witnesses, there are a >number of things you could do that would get you thrown in jail, and a lot >more that wouldn't. Can you scientifically determine which physical >actions will result in incarceration and which things won't? The legal >system sure *seems* beyond science. Consider this: science is based on experimentation, right? What could be simpler than the experiment you almost described above? To determine whether doing <x> is illegal, get together 3 police officers and 30 witnesses, then do <x> in front of them. Wait a while, then check to see whether you're in jail. If you are, doing <x> is probably illegal. If not, it's probably legal. Ideally, one would repeat this experiment several times to decrease the chance of error, and also run control experiments: get the cops and witnesses together, then do <not x> in front of them. Wait the usual time, and if you're in jail this time, there's probably something wrong with your experimental procedure. These experiments are, of course, based on a rather empirical view of law (if you don't get caught, it wasn't illegal. This becomes important when <x> involves killing 3 cops and 30 witnesses.) One could also study the theoretical aspects of law, but since you stressed the practical side, so did I. >For that matter, knowledge itself is probably one of the (many :-) things >that are real, but are beyond scientific inquiry. Please don't tell that to anyone working in artificial intelligence. AI research may not be conducted like most science, but it's giving us a basis for studying the kind of things you're talking about. *Ahem*. Well, having thoroughly disagreed with you, I'll now turn around and come up with an example of something that exists, but is beyond the capabilities of scientific investigation: the inside of black holes. This isn't a really great example, because we're not sure black holes exist, let alone being sure they behave the way we think they would. Um, it's also kinda hard to be sure that the inside of a black hole really does exist. But this shows that it's not totally impossible for something to exist and be beyond science. There is, however, one aspect of this example you probably won't like. There aren't any good non-scientific ways of finding out what goes on inside a black hole either. This is also true of all the other such examples that I can think of offhand (an omnipotent being who is out to hide its own existence, for example). -- Human: Gordon Davisson ARPA: gordon@uw-june.ARPA ps. What's this doing in net.origins?