Naturalism and human faculties...

Mark Hamill

kelly1 wrote: »

The way I look at it, it's like concentric circles, science in the middle, philosophy outside that, and theology on the outside. Maybe a Venn diagram would be more appropriate, dunno.

Science is indeed very powerful but it's not the full picture. Science answers the how questions and philosophy, the why.

But the how and the why questions are the same question.
"How does it rain?" is the same as "why does it rain?".
And if philosophy never actually checks it's conclusions (like I said, it stops at point 2), then how do you know if it is actually answering anything? How do you know science is not the full picture?

magicbastarder

smacl wrote: »

If Schroedinger's cat snuck into Pandora's box for a quick nap

in a newton's cradle?

RichieO

Quote:
Originally Posted by kelly1 View Post
The way I look at it, it's like concentric circles, science in the middle, philosophy outside that, and theology on the outside. Maybe a Venn diagram would be more appropriate, dunno.

Science is indeed very powerful but it's not the full picture. Science answers the how questions and philosophy, the why.

That statement is typical of of thinking inside boxes (shape is irrelevant) it is part of the reason I posted the atheist mindset, you never get the bigger picture until you are able to stand well back, also, like it or not you are as much agnostic as theist....

sKeith

RichieO wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by kelly1 View Post
The way I look at it, it's like concentric circles, science in the middle, philosophy outside that, and theology on the outside. Maybe a Venn diagram would be more appropriate, dunno.

Science is indeed very powerful but it's not the full picture. Science answers the how questions and philosophy, the why.

That statement is typical of of thinking inside boxes (shape is irrelevant) it is part of the reason I posted the atheist mindset, you never get the bigger picture until you are able to stand well back, also, like or not you are as much agnostic as theist....

I have no idea how you can make such a diagnosis. Maybe you have some divine gift or calling with powers like that.


Do me next. what am i?

smacl

sKeith wrote: »

I have no idea how you can make such a diagnosis. Maybe you have some divine gift or calling with powers like that.


Do me next. what am i?

I'm guessing it is a reference to this diagram, though I tend to run with whatever labels people give themselves

RichieO

sKeith wrote: »

I have no idea how you can make such a diagnosis. Maybe you have some divine gift or calling with powers like that.


Do me next. what am i?

Sure, just post what you think is factual in the OT, and the age you think the Earth is...

And your opinion on astrophysics, evolution, special relativity and your answers to the thread 7 questions to ask.

nozzferrahhtoo

kelly1 wrote: »

How can matter produce consciousness?

We do not know. It is an open question. We are working on it.

I expect the answer to be a very complex one, but I expect it will include things along the lines of the outputs of the brain being fed back into itself as another form of input in an iterative and ongoing process.

So rather than the brain merely taking in input from the eyes and ears...... its response to that input is itself fed BACK into the brain AS an input.

That is just my expectations though, nothing I am claiming as true. Interestingly I see the latest Sam Harris podcast is called "The Nature of Consciousness: A Conversation with Thomas Metzinger" though I have not yet listened to it. It might be a conversation that is useful to you however. You could listen to it or, if you like, wait until I listen to it and report back whether I think it is relevant.

kelly1 wrote: »

Where does the faculty of reason come from and how do we know we can trust it if it has a physical origin?

Do we "trust" it though? The whole methodology of science for example is based on us not trusting reason alone. It is a methodology that is built to be aware of human delusion, bias, narrative, error and more. We use the methodologies of science precisely because we do not trust reason and mind alone.

kelly1 wrote: »

Do we have free-will or is it just a convincing illusion?

I am open minded on that one too at the moment, I genuinely do not know. But certainly a lot of recent scientific findings are giving me pause. Such as the experiments showing that certain decisions are made at the level of the brain BEFORE we ourselves feel like we are making that decision.

I always did enjoy Christopher Hitchens answer to it of "Yes I believe in free will.... I have no choice". But joking aside I am more and more inclined to the idea it is more illusory than real.

kelly1 wrote: »

How do you guys deal with these questions?

By watching, reading and learning the new data as it comes in and forming conclusions, or at the very least explanations, based on it.

How I do NOT deal with them is to simply make up my own narratives that please me and fit them in in the place of substantiated answers. I do not make the jump so many people seem to make of "I really can not answer that..... therefore god!"

Fourier

I just finished reading this thread and found it very interesting. I know it is old, but I thought others might want to know a few things.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Our system isn't unbounded. There's a finite (very large, but finite) number of particles in the universe, and there was a start point (the big bang) and we think will have an end point, which means a finite (very, very large, but still finite) number of interactions between particles. And a hypothetical being, observing the universe from without and gifted with total knowledge and total understanding, knowing the initial arrangement of particles, forces, etc, could reliably predit the entire history of the universe to the end of time.

This isn't really in response to this alone, but just a jump off point for some of the physical ideas discussed in the thread.

The number of particles in the universe is neither finite nor infinite, but undefined. It depends on the observer as to what the total particle count is. For some it is even infinite.

Also quantum mechanics is agnostic on whether there are in fact such things as particles. Technically speaking it only refers to localised marks in certain experimental equipment and there is a theorem (Malament's theorem) that essentially proves that particles are only an idealisation applicable to certain limited scenarios (Geiger counters, photographic plates) and not really fundamental entities. The conventional picture of a hydrogen atom being "made of" an electron and proton for example is just a simplification.

As for predictability, this is hard to establish as it is not known if the random element of Quantum Mechanics is real or simply reflects lack of knowledge, just like probabilities in horse race betting don't reflect true randomness, but lack of knowledge of all the factors influencing the race.

Even if the reality underneath QM is deterministic, this does not mean it would be predictable. There is a strong possibility it would not be. If something lies underneath QM, the "true" physics, it is known that this "true" physics must be:

(A) Contextual
(B) Either Unresolvable or Uncomputable

Contextual means that the fundamental objects (which are almost certainly not particles) are aware, in the sense of having access to, the information of the rest of the universe. The stuff in your body would know about the stuff on Saturn.

Unresolvable means it is impossible to obtain "total knowledge" of the states of physical systems.

Uncomputable, means that it cannot be expressed as an algorithm, it cannot be "worked out".

So the world might be deterministic, but the fundamental laws are not something amenable to calculation or simulation.