[12Bass]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wink /img/forum/go_quote.gif Originally Posted by Lazarus Short View Post Hey, Fido, he may have just knocked the props out from under most of the preceding dozens/hundreds of posts. Not really, Speculation is always speculation. Mathematical models and philosophies do not take the place of reality. What is true/real is true/real. Mathematical models and philosophical points of view may be real, but until they have been proven they remain models and philosophical points of view.

Although it is imperfect, we use language to describe and communicate what we take to be true/real. The notion of proof itself is another contentious concept, as very few things can be proven beyond all doubt. Thus, what we're left with is claims which are justified by evidence and/or sound arguments, but often without anything approaching absolute certainty.

 

[Head_case]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nealric /img/forum/go_quote.gif Headcase: I believe we are at an impasse- viz. both of us think the other does not understand the issue, and I'm afraid no amount of spilled electronic ink will rectify that.

We're not at an impasse at all: your position is something I grasp completely: years ago, I held similar tenets which you do. The difference is, your premises are philosophically indefensible, thus your difficulty in answering objections to a 'systematised' belief system in evolution. In this respect, it is more like a set of opinions, which can pass as either plausible or implausible, so long as no depth in analysing the form of your arguments are applied....


Quote:

... But you are still stuck in Platonism

Off the mark again. It's Thomism actually. I make no secret of my love for medieval and renaissance philosophy.

Quote:

PS: Sorry about the post edits. It's not because I'm trying to hide my tracks- it's just the way I write. I very often go back and revise my ideas as I think. I never knowingly edit them after someone responds.

[/quote]

That's okay - I know you're not trying to hide anything. The premises of your beliefs, will require continuous revision, that is why I said I had no problem with this kind of 'revision', and that 'revision' with respect to this kind of belief system, is the only possible outcome when pursuing integrity of thought.....until either distillation or rejection of the very premises of the systematised belief takes place

 

[Head_case]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonathanjong /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ah, do we agree now Head_Case? I've not changed my mind on anything, so perhaps our disagreements were misunderstandings?

Of course you've not changed your mind Jonathan. You have however, changed your way of reasoning. That is what I am referring to. Not the content.

Here's what I said earlier:

Quote:

I'm mostly in accord with (almost) everything you've reframed here. This is precisely what we do when we search truthfully; what you have done. There is no point in insisting on defending the indefensible and abandoning such a defence and starting over again, is a far more entertaining enterprise

You misunderstand: it is not the content of your reframing which I care for: I have no difficulty with anyone who wishes to propose spontaneous generation; evolution or belief in a Green Eggs and Ham as the ultimate source of the universe and so on - this is your 'choice'. An inauthentic, or an authentic one. It is the reasoning which matters most: your reframing of reason to something 'more' sensible, and less logically incongruent.

Mostly, your former reasoning has been riddled with internal inconsistencies and internal contradictions from a philosophical perspective; it is not that there were misunderstandings between our views at all.

There is simply no authentic kind of Gadamerian dialogue between our worldviews.

This is as much your responsibility, as it is mine: yours, because you cannot see beyond the simplistic modern reductionism of the philosophy inherent in your learning; mine because I've tired of it years ago and can't help doing a pisstake on the incoherence of your former arguments

It still remains the case; the difficulty in your philosophical position is that your method cannot differentiate astrology from evolution from geology nor biochemistry. Neal's method on the otherhand, cannot structure evolution in coherent metaphysical or philosophical tenets, and instead relies on propping up his arguments for evolutionary theory with biological articles of faith.

In both cases, I take the view that Neal and Jonathan's position are very similar, in terms of fitting in neatly into a materialistic and biological reductionist view of the world, with unexciting and standard 20th fare arguments to make it sound pseudo-convincing.

Here is a quote paraphrased from EM Forster for you:

"It is reflection; reflection alone that ever points the way towards a life beyond the everyday."

Forster is not talking about navel gazing, nor admiring yourself and your own belief systems in the reflection of a philosophically reductionist universe: he is referring to the 'act' of philosophical reflection: that of thinking ~ secondary and tertiary mentalisation of what you have scroted down as first premises in any theory you choose to believe. 'Choose' is the precise word intended: you are not compelled to believe; you are not compelled to defend, untenable premises. However when such 'choice' for why you believe this theory or that theory is unreflected, then the philosophical premises disguised therein, are little more than 'mere' opinion.

 

[12Bass]

Evolution is faith? Physicalism is philosophically indefensible?

The straw men are being lined up in rows....

 

[Head_case]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12Bass /img/forum/go_quote.gif Evolution is faith? Physicalism is philosophically indefensible? The straw men are being lined up in rows....

Just Jonathan & Neal's version. And yours too, if you can't make this distinction between specific vs general. ? Why not read the past 20+ pages and find out where your own straw men make good company in constellation with the proud and almighty in their belief set?

Oh second thoughts, maybe Neal is right. This would be the Socratic Method of 'knowing'. Maybe Jonathan is right too. Philosophy is mostly method

 

[wink]

Head case said:
Philosophy is mostly method .

Perhaps method is mostly philosophy.

 

[12Bass]

Physicalism is the view that everything is physical (including all matter, forces, etc...) or supervenes on the physical. The explanatory and predictive power of this view is immense, and makes the backbone of the whole scientific endeavor.

 

[Fido2]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12Bass /img/forum/go_quote.gif Since when should the voice of reasoned skepticism be silenced?

Exactly..."reasoned" skepticisim. It's quite simple to be a skeptic. all you need do is say "I don't believe that" or "that's not enough proof" blah blah
No one can EVER prove anything to anyone else beyond all shadow of the other persons' OWN doubts. It all comes down to what is the most reasonable and thus "true" explanation...IMO

We have already discussed that we cannot know everything and that there is an eternal. The material universe cannot be eternal simply because it is material. It relies on something else to keep it afloat. If material came from immaterial then they would basically be the same which is a contradiction. Since you cannot be material and non-material at the same time in the same context. And we ARE in a material universe at the same time and in the same context.

So the whole infinite universe(s) thing is not logical or reasonable. Scientific OBSERVATION and the space-time theorem of general realtivity both show the universe had a beginning in the finite past. Einstein himself recognized this and said that it affirms the necessity of "a superior reasoning power". A superior reasoning power does not evolve in a vacuum. THIS IS the eternal ONE. Can I "prove" this to you or anyone with absolute overwhelming triumph to the point that it counters all ability to say "I don't believe that"? No. AGAIN, What is THE most reasonable explanation as to how we got here and what is going on? There can only logically be ONE true explanation.
If this is not reasonable or logical please illustrate how in combination with observable data, not just clever sophistry. This discussion is about truth not competition...to me anyway. Isn't philosophy concerned with truth? Or is it a game that lawyers and university scholars play to show how "smart" they are?


SO...we are left with a universe that HAD to have been made or created by an eternal being and from whom we get this VAST amount of order and design(that we can see) and thus we get our personhood and personality(which we can see) etc etc. If we could agree on this we could move further into discussing my favorite "philospher" who you are correct is WAY more than a mere "philospher".
Antony Flew..now there's a good thinking man and an honest thinking man.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fido2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The material universe cannot be eternal simply because it is material. It relies on something else to keep it afloat. If material came from immaterial then they would basically be the same which is a contradiction. Since you cannot be material and non-material at the same time in the same context. And we ARE in a material universe at the same time and in the same context.

In the old days, material looked like material, that is to say, a rock looked very solid. Nowadays, as we know from modern physics, the molecule, atom, and the sub-atomic world has been explored, and the most astounding news is that just like the macro universe, most of the volume of the atom is vacuum. It seems that most of the volume of subatomic particles is also vacuum, but correct me if I am wrong. When you get right down to it, the material universe, at some level, can hardly be distinguished from the non-material. Is the material universe an illusion, then? A holographic projection? To me, it becomes easier to understand how the universe was spoken into existence.

 

[Head_case]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wink /img/forum/go_quote.gif Head case said: Philosophy is mostly method . Perhaps method is mostly philosophy.

Oops. Chiasmus is not working well for you today. Attention to the power of the preverbal communication

Here's what I said - quoted below - read carefully. Or alternative, read Kierkegaard! Especially - "The Concept of Irony".

Quote:

Maybe Jonathan is right too. Philosophy is mostly method

You might not have read the rest of this thread. This is what was said about the confusion or overdetermination of 'method' with philosophy:

http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f11/wh...0/index18.html

Summary: Is it justifiable to enslave philosophy to methodology? If it is, then feel free to welcome the Cartesian method and its subsequent reductionism which has spiralled into the great Comtean Delusion. If it is not, then the legacy of medieval and renaissance philosophy, remains untapped as a repository of philosophical 'knowing', which is rejected by us moderns, and also deemed inappropriate to discuss within these forum pages. Whatever, the trade-off between the relevant and tremendous benefits of empiricism, need to be weighed up against its concomitant self-neglect: the neglect of Being, to the point of rubbishing Being in the name of 'progress' and technological 'scientific' advances.

 

[12Bass]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fido2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Exactly..."reasoned" skepticisim. It's quite simple to be a skeptic. all you need do is say "I don't believe that" or "that's not enough proof" blah blah No one can EVER prove anything to anyone else beyond all shadow of the other persons' OWN doubts. It all comes down to what is the most reasonable and thus "true" explanation...IMO We have already discussed that we cannot know everything and that there is an eternal. The material universe cannot be eternal simply because it is material. It relies on something else to keep it afloat. If material came from immaterial then they would basically be the same which is a contradiction. Since you cannot be material and non-material at the same time in the same context. And we ARE in a material universe at the same time and in the same context. So the whole infinite universe(s) thing is not logical or reasonable. Scientific OBSERVATION and the space-time theorem of general realtivity both show the universe had a beginning in the finite past. Einstein himself recognized this and said that it affirms the necessity of "a superior reasoning power". A superior reasoning power does not evolve in a vacuum. THIS IS the eternal ONE. Can I "prove" this to you or anyone with absolute overwhelming triumph to the point that it counters all ability to say "I don't believe that"? No. AGAIN, What is THE most reasonable explanation as to how we got here and what is going on? There can only logically be ONE true explanation. If this is not reasonable or logical please illustrate how in combination with observable data, not just clever sophistry. This discussion is about truth not competition...to me anyway. Isn't philosophy concerned with truth? Or is it a game that lawyers and university scholars play to show how "smart" they are? SO...we are left with a universe that HAD to have been made or created by an eternal being and from whom we get this VAST amount of order and design(that we can see) and thus we get our personhood and personality(which we can see) etc etc. If we could agree on this we could move further into discussing my favorite "philospher" who you are correct is WAY more than a mere "philospher". Antony Flew..now there's a good thinking man and an honest thinking man.

Even if accepted as valid, the cosmological argument does not imply the existence of a personal deity, only an eternal first cause. Quite simply, the truth regarding ultimate origins is beyond our ability to know, which means that all we can do is speculate. Some think that our Universe might be a bubble from a multiverse. What we've observed thus far is that the Universe, and everything in it, is more bizarre than we had ever imagined.

Given that our understanding the the physics involved in cosmology is still in its infancy, it does not appear reasonable to make any firm judgments about the necessity of any particular conclusions, especially those which affirm personal desires through emotional appeals to dogma. What it comes down to is that our intuitions about the most complex problem imaginable are insufficient to justify belief in the absence of empirical evidence; thus I remain skeptical and open to changing my views as new evidence arises.

 

[12Bass]

Further, I agree that there must be one true explanation. However, we are unable to know it at present. That there is a truth of the matter does not logically imply that we also have access to that truth. Unfortunately, many truths are unknowable to us because of our limited access to evidence. What is not rationally justified is taking a firm stand on such matters when the evidence is simply absent.

 

[Fido2]

12 Bass...thank you for being honest. All I can say is: think about things.....with no preconceived notions. What is the most reasonable explanation?

 

[12Bass]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fido2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif 12 Bass...thank you for being honest. All I can say is: think about things.....with no preconceived notions. What is the most reasonable explanation?

It is practically impossible to do anything without preconceived notions. We are situated in all sorts of ideological frameworks, some contingent on our own physiology.

What is most reasonable? I have no idea! The Universe has revealed all sorts of phenomena which strain our capacity for imagination and understanding.

Where doxastic matters are concerned, I have no personal power to make truth. The evidence decides for me and has no concern whatsoever for what I might prefer. In this case, we presently have no evidence regarding what occurred before Planck time. Thus, there is insufficient reason to come to firm conclusions about what may have happened before that, regardless of how much one might desire such answers.

I fail to understand why some people seem to want answers where no answers are rationally or evidentially justified. While I'm not suggesting abandoning the search for truth, what is so wrong with simply admitting that you do not know, and may never know certain things?

 

[Lazarus Short]

Ivan Panin on philosophy:

"Philosophy has so far been only a vast pyramid upside down : and the slightest breeze blows it o'er. It has so far been only a series of card houses which fall first one against another, and then all together as soon as even one is seriously touched. Aristotle leans on Plato, Abelard on Aristotle, Leibnitz on Abelard. Kant leans on Descartes, Schopenhauer on Kant, Dr. Abbot on the rest; when lo, touch at one end, touch at other end, touch at middle, touch anywhere with the mere tip of Reality's finger, and forthwith as systems they collapse with the speed of inflated industrial stocks on a Black Friday..."

This is aphorism #1581 from his book The Writings of Ivan Panin.

There's also this tidbit, from the book's Introduction:

"...any Philosophy being already an intrinsic piece of abiding worthlessness."