Philosophical Questions We'll Never Solve

[pokerfan]

Realizing that we will have disagreement over #4....

Philosophy goes where hard science can't, or won't. Philosophers have a license to speculate about everything from metaphysics to morality, and this means they can shed light on some of the basic questions of existence. The bad news? These are questions that may always lay just beyond the limits of our comprehension. Here are eight mysteries of philosophy that we'll probably never resolve.
http://io9.com/8-great-philosophical-questions-that-well-never-solve-1570833699

[AtheistCrusader]

1. I see no reason to think the first three won't be solved by physics.

In fact, Hawking's last book has a whole section on why certain conditions MUST produce a universe, in a sense, answering the question why there is something, rather than nothing.

[cbayer]

2. Fun article.

I think that is a good list, though I might word some of it differently.

And who in the world really wants to live in a world where everything can be answered and there is no mystery?

Not me.

[skepticscott]

14. Who ever said they did want to live in such a world?

Certainly no scientists, so I'm not sure why your taking a sideswipe at them.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. I do, but we're not going to get there in my lifetime.

I would be thrilled if we knew WHY everything happens. That doesn't imply we would know what happens next, or that it would remove/negate our perception of beauty or wonder in the universe, even taken to an extreme (impossible) of literally knowing everything.

[AverageJoe90]

60. Makes sense to me. =)

[Starboard Tack]

96. I find it interesting that many atheists share this desire with believers.

The problem I have is with the question itself. Humans are the reasoning creatures. We, to my knowledge, are the only species motivated by our curiosity for knowledge that does not directly affect our immediate survival. Asking the question WHY is making an assumption that there was a reason for everything, which implies the presence of a creator. Not only a creator, but one who thinks like a human.

I stopped asking the question WHY many years ago, when pondering the meaning of life or the universe. Thiis was at the same time that I dismissed the notion of a god creator. Once free of that notion, the question I should've been asking became clear. That question is HOW. It requires not motive, just scientific and philosophical thinking and discovery. Asking HOW leads to a greater understanding of both the universe and oneself.

What strange creatures we are, seeking a "truth" that we ourselves invented, while ignoring the reality that surrounds us. What different people believe and why they believe it is irrelevant. How they live their lives and how they treat others and the planet they inhabit is what counts.
Asking WHY may reveal some human motive, but will not lead to enlightenment.

[pinto]

97. Ha. Good points. I'd add What?

I don't know if we're the only species motivated by curiosity but I suspect we're not alone in that.

I like those times when one goes, Wow, what's that?

[Starboard Tack]

100. I would definitely add "what", if followed by the word "for"

Curiosity, I agree, is not exclusive to humans, but looking for intellectual reasoning is. Religions come up with all kinds of reasons why God did this or that and based on those "reasons" we should behave in a particular way. A perfect way to manipulate the masses. But, as God only speaks to a select few, the messages become highly suspect, especially when they don't sound very "godly". Wrapping up these "messages" in ritual and mysticism obviously makes it all the more palatable.
Ironically, many atheists are on a similar quest. They seek answers to the same questions, in an effort to bolster their assumption that everything can be answered by scientific inquiry, which of course it can't. Nature doesn't operate on deductive reasoning, but rather cause and effect. Not the WHY, but the HOW.

[AtheistCrusader]

103. Desire in a sense, yes.

But they have a ready-made answer. Why has a catch-all answer for them, that as far as I know, tells us not a damn thing about anything.

I think the universe is indeterminate and we have free will.

I just think that in time, everything is discoverable to us.

[Starboard Tack]

107. Everything that is discoverable is discoverable

That which does not exist, like a reason for the existence of the universe, is not discoverable. The only reason any of us are here is because our mothers became pregnant and decided to bring us into this world, where our purpose is to survive and procreate, and also to explore and discover, especially if we exercise our free will.
I don't think that belief in a deity necessarily impedes an individual's quest for knowledge. Interpretation of the results may differ, but the quest is pretty universal.

[skepticscott]

99. The kinds of "why" questions that religion likes to puff up with

are preloaded with the (utterly unproven) assumption that there is purpose, intent or design to what we see around us. In other words, they're pretty much meaningless, and never really answered by religion in any case, just debated endlessly without progress.

I'm perfectly happy with the answers science provides to questions like "why is the sky blue?", "why do stars twinkle", or "why do we have seasons?".

[AtheistCrusader]

102. Sure, I didn't mean it in the 'purpose' sense.

There are answers to 'why' questions, that don't imply or require purpose or supernatural guidance. I meant it in a cause/effect or 'magnets, how do they fuckin' work!?' sense.

[AverageJoe90]

3. Numbers 1, 2, 3, and 5 actually can be explained thru quantum science, believe it or not.

And in fact, there's been lots of interesting research done on consciousness over the past 20 years which ever more strongly suggests with each passing year, that there is indeed some sort of consciousness that can survive, in some form, after bodily death. It isn't something that the mainstream is willing to accept yet, despite the growing body of evidence.....and it will probably be a few decades before it does start to become accepted(but, then again, the acceptance of the equality of the "races" took a long time to accept as well. Even the theory of evolution had it's doubters until it was absolutely proven).

One pretty decent site that covers stuff like this is Alex Tsakiris's Skeptiko site. While I don't agree with everything he puts out(he has, unfortunately, become a bit of an AGW skeptic in recent years, but I hope that doesn't dissuade people from his site anyway), some of the info is simply undeniably thought-provoking to say the least, especially the stuff on consciousness research, above all:

http://www.skeptiko.com/category/consciousness-research/

As for 4, however, I'm afraid that even quantum science may not be able to answer that question at all. All the others, I would suspect, truly are philosophical in nature.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. Hypnotic regression isn't a real thing.

That's the hokum that actually landed people in jail for child abuse that didn't occur.

"The empirical literature provides no support for the idea that hypnosis selectively increases accurate memories. The typical finding is that while hypnosis may produce a slight increase in accurate memories, this slim advantage, if present at all, comes at the expense of a trade-off of increased errors and an increased tendency to respond to misleading information. (Appelle, Lynn, & Newman, 2000, p. 266)"


That shit is just woo of one of the worst kinds.

Susan A. Clancy has an excellent book (and some Harvard studies she worked on, and authored) that explores this called 'Abducted: How people come to believe they've been abducted by aliens'. It spends a lot of time on how memories are formed and retrieved, and how hypnosis works (or doesn't work). Great reviews from Publishers Weekly, Scientific American, etc. Also contains some information on why, in fact, people who report such non-events aren't crazy or mentally impaired, etc.

[AverageJoe90]

5. I didn't say anything about hypnotic regression, though.

Did you honestly come here just to pick a fight?

[AtheistCrusader]

6. I followed your link to Skeptiko.

Top item for april is their piece on hypnotic regression 'revealing' 'lives between lives'.

I considered it a red flag.


If I just wanted to pick a fight, I would have been an asshole and just called the source stupid, and offered no counter-material.

[AverageJoe90]

8. Well, alright.

I'll have to be honest and admit that the fact that it wasn't part of my OP and the way you worded some things did set off some red flags. But I guess that may not have been the intention. My apologies.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Sorry, now that I re-read it, it sounds like a super random attack that has nothing

to do with your post.

[cbayer]

7. I think that's definitely the question that causes me the most pause.

Do we, as individuals or collectively, contain something other than what we currently understand.

Does that thing move away from us when we die and be somehow independent.

I don't think we will ever know, but there seems some things about being human that just don't make biological sense - at least not in our current level of understanding.

Great post. Thanks and welcome.

[AverageJoe90]

12. Agreed, pretty much.

Though I'm convinced that at least most of the extraordinary phenomena we don't currently understand & and can't currently be explained may indeed be revealed one day, at least to some extent, at least thru the field of quantum sciences if nothing else. After all, just 120 years ago, nobody thought that man could fly or that we could travel faster than on horseback without suffocating; 80 years ago, it was assumed that splitting the atom was impossible; and even 50 years ago, flying to the moon was still seen as a pipe dream. But time and time again, the orthodoxy has been proven wrong, and has had to accept some changes. This truly appears more and more to be same with this stuff when you really think about it.

Thanks for the welcome.

[cbayer]

17. I tend to agree with this.

We have come so far in terms of understanding brain chemistry and neuroanatomy. I tend to think just about everything experienced by a human can be traced and accounted for if we look closely enough at the brain.

But I'm not going to be absolute about it. I am not willing to rule out that there might be a little something that can't be accounted for.

I will never know, but it can be a comforting, or alarming, thought.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. Um, uh, that site, despite using the letters: s,k,e,p,t, and i, seems to be all about the woo.

There is no good evidence of consciousness persisting after death.

[AverageJoe90]

16. "There is no good evidence of consciousness persisting after death." Or so the orthodoxy says.

But let me tell you, the stuff on consciousness in particular has been a real mind-opener for me, personally.

Honestly, the main reason the scientific mainstream has not yet begun to look at this, sadly really has very little to do with any actual genuine skepticism, but rather, basically their version of office politics; in other words, it's not the science that's to blame, it's the people interpreting it, and their reasons for doing so. Same general reason, by the way, why equality of the "races" took so long to be accepted as biological fact; it had to become undeniably obvious before the eugenicists & their ilk finally had to shut up and screw off.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. If you are referring to NDE, it has been looked at and it is bullshit.

There are no biological facts regarding consciousness being independent of the wet stuff in your skull.

[AverageJoe90]

23. That hasn't actually been objectively proven, either, though, TBH.

There is speculation that it is all untrue, yes. But as with survival of consciousness, there's been no conclusive evidence that's totally disproved NDEs, either. And with NDEs, too, there seems to be more legitimate evidence pointing to their existence than their nonexistence(and certainly none of this "it's all nothing more than magical brain fireworks" woo that's been put out there by some more dogmatic people out there).

With that said, however, I think it can be said that some events that may have been originally thought of as NDEs might not actually have been NDEs after all. But I find it too highly reductivist to claim that they are either all true or all false.....especially the former but also the latter as well.

[muriel_volestrangler]

47. There is loads of evidence that consciousness depends on a brain

Chemicals in the brain alter consciousness; physical damage to it alters it; consciousness is more notable in animals with larger brains. There is, however, no evidence whatsoever for life after death. Saying it's something to do with 'quantum science' doesn't alter that.

"Near-death experiences" are that - near-death, not death. They are, basically, dreams.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. I see it as an aircraft, guttering on the edge of an unrecoverable stall.

Sometimes you smack the ground, sometimes you find a way to pull it out.

People with NDE's are in that state. In the stall. Maybe even in a spin. Not augured into the ground. No one comes back from smacking the ground at speed. (Actual neuron death.)

Very much a malfunctioning dream with intermittent actual (possibly garbled) sensory input.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. I've wondered about this.

Some things that tend to make me doubt are traumatic brain injuries. You can radically alter a person's mind, their disposition, etc, by excising parts of the physical wetware that make up their brain. You can even see life-long alteration in many people struck by lightning.

Unless you think of the brain as somehow an antenna/anchor for a consciousness that exists elsewhere, and injury to the brain 'releases' bits that it drags on or holds, brain injury seems to put the lie to the claim that our consciousness exists in any fashion outside ourselves.

If you DO think the brain acts as an anchor, then why all the biochemical and bioelectrical activity IN the meat of our brain that seems to explain thought entirely? I mean, we can 'read' visual input off the optic nerve. There doesn't seem to be any need for info 'beyond' what the brain appears to be, to support consciousness.

[AverageJoe90]

24. "Unless you think of the brain as somehow an antenna/anchor....."

Really more along the lines of a transmitter or TV tuner, TBH. And that model honestly explains things quite a bit better than the "brain is the creator" model.

then why all the biochemical and bioelectrical activity IN the meat of our brain that seems to explain thought entirely?

It really doesn't explain thought entirely, that's the problem. Not even close. Even mainstream scientific discourse agrees that it's not entirely settled yet.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. Yet, physical impediments alter thought.

Magnetic fields. Temperature. Bioactive drugs.

These are all very real things that affect the brain. If the brain isn't doing the processing work, then it shouldn't have an effect, unless the drugs/fields/temp/etc can impact the signal.

There's no reason to think there's a signal being pulled in. Zero evidence for it.

[AverageJoe90]

29. Of course, it's actually more complicated than I implied back there.

There's no reason to think there's a signal being pulled in. Zero evidence for it.

TBH, as I may have pointed out earlier, it can be said that the exact mode how consciousness expresses itself isn't really settled, but there is some legitimate reason to doubt that only chemicals alone are responsible.

Another theory that perhaps better explains my POV is more along the lines of the brain as a organic film projector of sorts; it interprets & reinterprets things in a certain way, for sure, but does not actually outright create the basic concepts that it receives.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. So if a magnetic field can alter consciousness, what prevents a person

from wandering through a field so strong it kills the signal entirely?

Researchers found trans-cranial magnetic stimulation to certain parts of the brain could inhibit the subject's ability to tell a lie.

That's not a content interpretation effect. If consciousness were outside the meat of your brain, that wouldn't happen.



There is ZERO evidence for what you are suggesting.

[longship]

21. Skeptico is a woo-woo site.

Alex was interviewed on the SGU a few years back.

Here is the transcript:

http://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/SGU_Episode_125

The guy is definitely a woo enabler, if not a true believer. He certainly does not understand what Dr. Novella's objections are to pseudoscientific research literature.

Skeptico is not a skeptical site. But like many in woo-woo land, they like to adopt a veneer of legitimacy by using labels of science without ever actually doing science.

[Silent3]

67. Question 1 is answered by quantum mechanics only if you don't consider the question deeply enough.

QM only gives you a reason why physical matter could spontaneously appear in a vacuum.

But a vacuum that obeys the laws of QM is far, far more than a mere nothing. It's the something that is a stage upon which events can play out. It is the something that is a set of rules for how events play out. It is a something that has the something of time, so that you can speak of the something that is "before", and the something that is "after".

Even if the question has no answer, it's a very good mental exercise to thoroughly consider the question, to try to understand what complete nothingness would mean.

[skepticscott]

11. Is there ANY mystery of philosophy that has ever been resolved?

Philosophy goes where science sees no reason to waste its time. And then resents science for actually answering the questions it asks.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

95. It would appear that you don't know much about philosophy, philosophers or what they do

There are real questions that philosophers consider, and that scientists do no go into, not because these questions are a waste of time, but because science has no real way of approaching them.

For example, "How do we know what we know?" is the basic question in epistemology. Psychology is helpful in considering it, but does not even attempt to give an answer.

"What is the nature of time?" is a topic in metaphysics, as well as physics. One of the best considerations of it that I know is by Augustine of Hippo in his Confessions.

My son, who is looking over my shoulder as I write, just quoted Bill Cosby's "Why is there air?" ("There's air to blow up basketballs with.&quot

[skepticscott]

98. "Considering" a question is not what I brought up.

Yes, people like philosophers and theologians "consider" questions all the time, and debate them until they're blue in the face, spilling oceans of ink. Goody for them.

My question was, do they resolve them? Do they answer them? Do they come to any kind of consensus over time that comports with reality? Do they improve knowledge and understanding? Or are their declarations more on a par with those saying that two button suits are back "in" this year, and that it's now OK to wear socks with sandals?

And sorry, Augustine really had no clue about the nature of time. He had no understanding of relativity theory, which pretty much leaves him in the dust right there, and the real nature of time (assuming it is even a real thing) goes even beyond that.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

106. So your objection is that philosophers do not come up with final, objective answers?

Scientists don't either. Kurt Gödel demonstrated that in any mathematical system, there are questions you can ask but not answer. Is Schrödinger's cat alive or is it dead? Werner Heisenberg showed that uncertainty is inherent in physics.

Let me take one specific example from a branch of philosophy that particularly interests me: Ethics. All ethical systems are what mathematicians would call axiomatic systems -- axiom meaning a proposition you cannot prove, but which you assume to be true. So, when building an ethical systems, you start with a belief that you accept, "The greatest good for the greatest number" or the Stoic view that the greatest good is contentment and serenity or the ancient Chinese view which evaluates the moral worth of an act based on how it contributes to the social harmony of the state and so on; you then see how you can develop an ethical system from it.

Now, you can say that these any of these starting points are wrong. Indeed, Nietzsche said essentially they are all wrong. But don't try to claim that examining ethical systems is a meaningless or useless endeavor. You remind me of a man I used to know, who claimed that if he, himself, was not interested in a topic, then no one should be interested in it. Specifically, he said that geology and cosmology were useless fields, and anyone who studied either one was simply wasting his or her time. When I pointed out that petroleum companies found geology extremely useful, he airily dismissed it.

Oh, and sneering at Augustine merely shows your ignorance.

[skepticscott]

108. No, that wasn't my objection

Go back and read again. Not did I say that no one finds philosophy "useful". Nothing that you wrote here is a revelation, or particularly relevant.

And you're right...it's silly for anyone to say that because they don't like a particular kind of music, no one should.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

109. I did read your posts, both of them

In your first post, you said

Philosophy goes where science sees no reason to waste its time. And then resents science for actually answering the questions it asks.

This says to me that philosophy is waste of time. It cannot answer any questions, and the ones it asks are answered by science. You make it quite clear that you believe that philosophy is a waste of time when you say

My question was, do they resolve them? Do they answer them? Do they come to any kind of consensus over time that comports with reality? Do they improve knowledge and understanding? Or are their declarations more on a par with those saying that two button suits are back "in" this year, and that it's now OK to wear socks with sandals?

Your statement is both arrogant and stupid. There are many, many questions that philosophers ask that scientists cannot answer; Stephen Jay Gould, in his essay "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" makes this point at length. (Yes, I know that he is actually speaking of religion, not philosophy; and I am also well aware of various peoples' objections to Gould's idea.) As I said, science cannot answer ethical questions, you need philosophers for that.

When you say, "Not did I say that no one finds philosophy 'useful'." You are, shall I say, contradicting yourself. (Saying "you are being a bloody liar" might be considered an attack on you, so I shall just say you are contradicting yourself.)

[rug]

13. Excellent questions. Imo, the last seven flow from the first.

[longship]

15. Here are the questions.

Which should have been at least quoted in the OP.

1. Why is there something rather than nothing?

2. Is our universe real?

3. Do we have free will?

4. Does God exist?

5. Is there life after death?

6. Can you really experience anything objectively?

7. What is the best moral system?

8. What are numbers?

I find some of these to be silly, mainly the last three.

But here are my brief comments on them.

1. Why is there something rather than nothing?

Richard Feynman answered this in one pithy short phrase... because nothing is unstable. And according to the best science we know, that is correct.

Next question...

2. Is our universe real?

Answer: What a lame question! And it's totally irrelevant if it is not real, whatever that might mean. Regardless, try going through life as if it isn't real. I think we call those people psychotics.

3. Do we have free will?

Well, this one is one that neurologists have been working on for some time, if only just doing the basic science of how brains work. So far, there is no indication that the brain is anything other than a deterministic organ. Those who disagree like to invoke quantum mechanics. But they would be likely wrong. However, this question can likely be resolved.

4. Does God exist?

Please! Pray tell, which God? On base, this is a question that theists like to ask, mainly because they have an argument that their specific God exists. Meanwhile, there are those of us who live life presuming the null hypothesis, that there are no gods. The positive claimant here has a tall order, and has the burden of proof. Next question.

5. Is there life after death?

See response to question #4.

6. Can you really experience anything objectively?

Getting a bit post modernist here aren't we. Isn't this just a restatement of question #2? See the response there.

7. What is the best moral system?

I am sure that there are many who would say that it is their personal own moral system, interpreted from one of the gods from question #4, and if you don't agree, they'll kill you. Quite a moral system they have, but for a long, long time that's the one the world has had.

I think the best moral system is one that does not kill people. Let's start there.

8. What are numbers?

A most silly question. How about this one instead.

8. Why do mathematical equations, derived by humans, have the ability to make predictions of behaviors in the universe and even predict future hitherto undiscovered things which are later found to exist, even decades later.

In other words, what is it about the universe that allows people to study it and learn how it works?

The answer seems to be that the universe operates on ordered rules, just as those equations predict. Otherwise the equations would not work. There does not seem to be any mysterious entity moving things around outside those rules. That kind of rules out gods. (Kind of. At least all those gods most folks are talking about.)

This reminds me of something Blaise Pascal has been reported to have said: Oh physics! Save me from metaphysics!

[AtheistCrusader]

20. I read 'is the universe real' to mean 'is the universe a hologram'.

Which at a subatomic level, sure, it's all energy. So in a fashion, yup. But it's a distinction without a difference. Physical matter being energy at the smallest levels isn't really 'unreal'. It's a rhetorical trick.


Nice list by the way.

[AverageJoe90]

22. My responses.

Last edited Fri May 2, 2014, 09:04 PM - Edit history (1)

3.)Is there free will? Like number 2, this should be a complete no-brainer, honestly. Free will does indeed exist to some extent(that's not to say that determinism doesn't also pay a limited role as well, though); we're not just a bunch of biological robots, you know.

5.)Also, as much as many hardcore Fundies & atheists alike may object to this, you truly don't need to be necessarily religious to be open to the possibility of survival of consciousness in some form after bodily death; I'm an agnostic myself.

[longship]

27. Well there is no evidence for #5.

And the so-called near death experiences are entirely explainable by neurology, which also strongly argues for no free will.

As I stated in my post, #3 will likely be resolved, and the burden of proof is on those who claim #5.

I call myself an atheist. But I prefer not to play rhetorical games. I do not believe there are gods. Am I sure? Fairly certain due to the claims by believers are explainable by normal mundane occurrences or by human psychology. Then, there's Okham and his razor which gives gods a rather close shave. No beard there. So I feel I can confidently state that gods have been falsified, at least to the extent that I am comfortable living my life without them.

By the way agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive. Agnostic means "not knowing". Atheist means "not believing". They are orthogonal terms. For instance, Dawkins might call himself an agnostic atheist, as might I. I just use atheist (as does Dawkins) and welcome the occasional friendly discussion about what that means.

[AverageJoe90]

30. There's some support for #5 as well as that of #3 (but not at all for no free will).

BTW, I'd like to clarify that when I talk about survival of consciousness after death, I do not refer specifically to any religious concept. In fact, IMO, if there is an "afterlife", it very likely isn't going to be quite as any of the major religions have described it; there may indeed not even be a Supreme Being......but as I stated, a supreme being isn't required for the possibility of the survival of consciousness, in some form, after the body has ceased functioning.



By the way agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive. Agnostic means "not knowing". Atheist means "not believing".

Okay, and that's true. I think that actually fits my middle brother(17 y/o) to a T, btw.

[longship]

35. Well, myself, I don't see how one can rip life after death from religion.

I think it is an inherently religious concept. So that's where I disagree with you. There is no evidence for it and a lot of mounting evidence that the ghost in the machine is an illusion, an emergent property of brains.

Any speculation to the contrary resides within the realm of faith. And I am fine with that, although I am not an adherent.

No matter.

Best regards.

[AverageJoe90]

36. Well, TBH, I respect your opinion.....but it's just that. An opinion.

that the ghost in the machine is an illusion, an emergent property of brains.

Not at all.In fact, there is increasingly mounting evidence disproving that old antiquated notion of consciousness being an illusion, not supporting it. Not that the scientific establishment is still really listening at the moment, but that evidence is certainly out there. After all, even the equality of the "races" of humanity took a long time to accept until it became absolutely undeniable, but it eventually did. There's no reason to believe this will be any different once you've done your research on the matter.

Any speculation to the contrary resides within the realm of faith.

Quite the opposite, actually. I respect your opinion, but honestly, your opinion is no less "faith-based" than mine is. In fact, if anything at all, the view I have taken is looking more and more plausible by the day, that is, that there truly is more to consciousness than just random chemicals interacting with each other haphazardly; if it truly was that simple, frankly, the science would have been permanently settled long ago. But it's becoming more & more clear (despite the cries of disbelief from the traditionalist ontological materialists) that there's more to it than that. Exactly what? We don't know yet. But that's where the real evidence is taking us right now.....regardless of where you may stand on religion.

[longship]

37. For me it's all about the evidence.

I have not seen any neurological evidence that indicates anything other than that the mind is what the brain does and when one impedes the brain, by medication, trauma, or malady, the parts and functions of the brain impeded are consistent with that hypothesis.

I would be willing to change my opinion if there were a body of evidence consistent with that change. I just do not see such neurological evidence. My opinion is not based on faith.

Consider to yourself what it would take to change your opinion on the matters at hand here.

Much enjoying the discussion.

[AverageJoe90]

39. " For me it's all about the evidence." Me too.

I would be willing to change my opinion if there were a body of evidence consistent with that change.

And there *is*. The one major difference between us is that I'm looking outside the predetermined box for answers; and there's been a lot of good answers outside the box. On the other hand, it seems you're not so willing to take the jump. And that's fine, btw. But I'm just saying that's how it is.

My opinion is not based on faith.

Me neither. My position may be *supported* by *hope*, maybe, but it, too, is still *based* on evidence above all else.

Consider to yourself what it would take to change your opinion on the matters at hand here.

Undeniably conclusive evidence. And unlike with subjects such as climate change, or human equality, where such does indeed hold true, the same cannot be said of this theory of consciousness being nothing more than random chemicals interacting haphazardly; in fact, there's more and more legit evidence coming out every year that puts serious doubts on that. But this thinking is still so ingrained in the minds of the establishment that many can't imagine that they might *possibly* have been incorrect; again, the same held true for equality of humans as well for many years.

So I guess we're at an impasse, then.

[longship]

52. No problem, friend.

As an atheist I don't post in the Religion group to find agreement, although there are some here that do. I post here because I enjoy a friendly chat with people on religion. So I try not to ruffle feathers too much. Why would anybody want to be an angry atheist anyway?

It's not about agreement; it's about understanding.

My best regards to you.

[Lordquinton]

53. I'd correct your assessment

It'snot " random chemicals interacting haphazardly" it's specific chemicals interacting in a specific, and predictable manner. And it all came about through evolution, each generation building on what was before it, little by little, until we get to us now. And we're not the culmination, we're just the current model, the whole process will keep going for a long time.

[AverageJoe90]

59. "And we're not the culmination, we're just the current model," That may be true. nt

[Starboard Tack]

101. Or maybe we're just driving the current model

the possibilities are as infinite as the universe itself.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. Not just chemicals. Electrical impulses too.

And not just the brain, also, the brain stem and spinal cord. Remove any one of the three from the equation, and consciousness does not appear to be possible.

[AlbertCat]

70. we're not just a bunch of biological robots, you know.

How do you know that?

If this moment right now!...ooops it's past

Well if this moment.... oops.... well anyway, if any moment (and you still have to decide exactly what a moment is) is the culmination of every single moment that came before, that gives free will a really hard time. Besides, we...as homo sapiens.... can never be aware or act until after the fact.

And what IS the boarder between one moment and the next? At what point did, say, day become night? Or exactly when did you decide to go for a walk? Chaos Theory, and stuff like the Mandelbrot Set make things like "boundaries" and "borders" impossible to pin down. If you cannot even determine when you decide to do something...except that it is after you are even aware, what does that say for free will?


These 8 questions are sophomoric.

Oh and here's a Mandelbrot Set.... I forgot how lovely it is.

Mandelbrot and Julia set explorer

http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/julia/explorer.html

[AverageJoe90]

92. "How do you know that?" Isn't it obvious, really?

Well if this moment.... oops.... well anyway, if any moment (and you still have to decide exactly what a moment is) is the culmination of every single moment that came before, that gives free will a really hard time. Besides, we...as homo sapiens.... can never be aware or act until after the fact.

And what IS the boarder between one moment and the next? At what point did, say, day become night? Or exactly when did you decide to go for a walk? Chaos Theory, and stuff like the Mandelbrot Set make things like "boundaries" and "borders" impossible to pin down.

And what does this have to do with anything? This is honestly one of the poorest arguments against free will I've ever heard. And coming from somebody who admittedly isn't that good at arguing himself sometimes, that's really something!

If you cannot even determine when you decide to do something...except that it is after you are even aware, what does that say for free will?

Nothing, really.

[rug]

25. What thing makes nothing unstable?

[longship]

31. Quantum field theory, which Feynman helped originate.

And that has since given rise to the Standard Model (also a quantum field theory), the most successful physical theory of all time. Physicists have been spending billions of dollars for decades trying to break it. They've had top people on that very task. All for naught, so far.



Hopefully, cracks in the theory will show soon. It cannot be the final word anymore than Newton was the final word on gravitation, or indeed Einstein.

The thing is, empty space isn't empty and cannot be because of instabilities at the Planck length in distance and time -- related to Heisenberg indeterminacy. If space were empty it would violate known rules of physics, and apparently the universe. Therefore, nothing is unstable. There has to be something.

[rug]

32. If the universe has expanded, what then is beyond the furthest limits of expansion?

And what did it expand into?

Nothing? And is that nothing the same nothing that is inside the field of expansion?

Would the properties, including stability, of each nothing be the same?

A lovely subject for a fine Friday night.

[longship]

34. A Zen adherent might unask your question.

Last edited Fri May 2, 2014, 11:07 PM - Edit history (1)

indeed! A lovely subject. And people are being polite.

The problem is in visualizing the universe as some bubble within something else, so that it had to expand into something else. The reality, as best as anybody can tell, is that the geometry of the universe is different than that. Einstein described it as four dimensional space-time. Was that a mere mathematical convenience in order to solve the dynamics of accelerated reference frames? Or is that how the universe is actually structured? The philosopher might ponder and argue one side or the other of that question. The physicist might say, it does not matter. The universe acts as if it is four dimensional space-time. Indeed, the universe may be unbounded, so there is nothing to expand into.

Alas, we humans, trapped on our insignificant planet and have a problem visualizing such things. That's why these questions keep on coming up. Sometimes one has to throw up ones arms and say, "I don't know."

[rug]

49. Shunryu Suzuki Roshi once said, “enjoy your problems.”

He also wrote this short essay.

I found out that it's necessary, absolutely necessary, to believe in nothing. We have to believe in something which has no form, or no color. Something that exists before any form and colors appear. This is a very important point. Whatever we believe in -- whatever god we believe in -- when we become attached to it, it means our belief is based on more or less self-centered idea. If so, it takes time to acquire -- to attain perfect belief, or perfect faith in it. But if you are always prepared for accepting everything which we see is appearing from nothing, and we think there is some reason why some form or color or phenomenal existence appear, then, at that moment, we have perfect composure.

http://www.cuke.com/Cucumber%20Project/lectures/beginners-mind-ms-derby/03-nothing.htm

[goldent]

57. To me, looking at this chart is good evidence that modern physics has went off the rails.

Is nature really this haphazard? Is this woo? I think I prefer the previous theory that all of the universe is composed of earth, water, air, and fire.

[longship]

58. Hmm! Off the rails?

J. B. S. Haldane said something about that:

My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.

J. B. S. Haldane

Of course, he was correct.

The Standard Model is anything but haphazard. It explains the mind boggling complexity of the universe (except gravity) in one equation, twelve particles, and three forces of nature. Gravity was one of Einstein's solutions, of course, and stands separately.

Physics is far from off the rails. The quantum theory of the Standard Model is what makes the computer you used to post here work. I hope you appreciate that.

Yes, it involves some complex and fairly high level mathematics, but who in Sam Hell promised that the universe was going to be simple? Still that's exactly what the Standard Model ends up being. Physicists have been trying to break it for over three decades. It has predicted every major advancement in physics during that time, all the way up to the discovery of the Higgs boson.

Have a nice day in the universe.

[goldent]

104. That picture reminds me of someone trying to describe something

where they don't understand the fundamentals. They try to organize it the best they can, given their limited understanding. Maybe this is the best humans will be able to do, maybe if we ever figure out AI, computers will be able to take it forward and teach us how things really work. But full marks for the physicists for getting as far as they did.

[longship]

105. Well, everything you are made of is three of those particles.

The up and down quarks, and the electron. The former form the nucleus (protons and neutrons), the latter the electron cloud surrounding the nucleus of the atom. Every bit of chemistry and biology that we know is bound up in those three particles. All of it! It's what almost everything that you are aware of is made up of. And there are three forces which determine all of the particle interactions. The Strong Nuclear force holds the quarks together in the nucleus of the atom forming protons and neutrons. The electro-magnetic force, the electrons and their interactions, determines pretty much all of chemistry and virtually all of biology. The weak nuclear force explains radioactivity, where a neutron can become a proton; or a proton can become a neutron.

All this is very accurately predicted by the standard model. If one disagrees with it one had better damned well have a theory which does better. A Nobel Prize and instant worldwide fame awaits for the people who accomplish that.

As somebody who has actually studied physics and the many years of mathematics to get a physics degree I assure you that I understand the principles. I may be wrong, but I am not altogether sure that you do.

My best regards.

[Jim__]

28. Would you please cite the empirical observations that confirm "nothing is unstable?"

I have asked you before for the context of Feynman's statement, but you didn't respond. In the link I just provided, you will note that I cite an interview of Lawrence Krauss asking about his similar statement, and he admitted that in that statement when he said nothing, he meant empty space.

As to your claim: So far, there is no indication that the brain is anything other than a deterministic organ. Those who disagree like to invoke quantum mechanics. - it is just wrong. From the abstract of a paper, Towards a scientific concept of free will as a biological trait: spontaneous actions and decision-making in invertebrates, by Björn Brembs:

Until the advent of modern neuroscience, free will used to be a theological and a metaphysical concept, debated with little reference to brain function. Today, with ever increasing understanding of neurons, circuits and cognition, this concept has become outdated and any metaphysical account of free will is rightfully rejected. The consequence is not, however, that we become mindless automata responding predictably to external stimuli. On the contrary, accumulating evidence also from brains much smaller than ours points towards a general organization of brain function that incorporates flexible decision-making on the basis of complex computations negotiating internal and external processing. The adaptive value of such an organization consists of being unpredictable for competitors, prey or predators, as well as being able to explore the hidden resource deterministic automats would never find. At the same time, this organization allows all animals to respond efficiently with tried-and-tested behaviours to predictable and reliable stimuli. As has been the case so many times in the history of neuroscience, invertebrate model systems are spearheading these research efforts. This comparatively recent evidence indicates that one common ability of most if not all brains is to choose among different behavioural options even in the absence of differences in the environment and perform genuinely novel acts. Therefore, it seems a reasonable effort for any neurobiologist to join and support a rather illustrious list of scholars who are trying to wrestle the term ‘free will’ from its metaphysical ancestry. The goal is to arrive at a scientific concept of free will, starting from these recently discovered processes with a strong emphasis on the neurobiological mechanisms underlying them.

As to whether or not what is number is a most silly question, Roger Penrose appears to disagree. From Penrose's wikipedia page:

Sir Roger Penrose OM FRS (born 8 August 1931), is an English mathematical physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science. He is the Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute of the University of Oxford, as well as an Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College.

Penrose is known for his work in mathematical physics, in particular for his contributions to general relativity and cosmology. He has received a number of prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics, which he shared with Stephen Hawking for their contribution to our understanding of the universe.[1]

And, from Penroses's essay, WHAT is REALITY?:

An important point to be made about these physical theories is that they are not just enormously precise but depend upon mathematics of very considerable sophistication. It would be a mistake to think of the role of mathematics in basic physical theory as being simply organisational, where the entities that constitute the world just behave in one way or another, and our theories represent merely our attempts – sometimes very successful – to make some kind of sense of what is going on around us. In such a view there would be no particular mathematical order to the world; it would be we who, in a sense, impose this order by describing, in an elaborate mathematical scheme, those aspects of the world’s behaviour that we can make sense of.

To me, such a description again falls far short of explaining the extraordinary precision in the agreement between the most remarkable of the physical theories that we have come across and the behaviour of our material universe at its most fundamental levels. Take, for another example, that most universal of physical influences, gravitation. It operates across the greatest reaches of space, but as early as the 17th century Newton had discovered that it was subject to a beautifully simple mathematical description. This was later found to remain accurate to a degree that is tens of thousands of times greater than the observational precision available to Newton. In the 20th century, Einstein gave us general relativity, providing insights at a yet deeper level. This theory involved considerably more mathematical sophistication than Newton’s: Newton had needed to introduce the procedures of calculus in order to formulate his gravitational theory, but Einstein added the sophistication of differential geometry – and increased the agreement between theory and observation by a factor of around 10 million. It should be made clear that, in each case, the increased accuracy was not the result of a new theory being introduced only to make sense of vast amounts of new data. The extra precision was seen only after each theory had been produced, revealing accord between physical behaviour at its deepest level and a beautiful, sophisticated mathematical scheme.

...

Whether we look at the universe at the quantum scale or across the vast distances over which the effects of general relativity become clear, then, the common-sense reality of chairs, tables and other material things would seem to dissolve away, to be replaced by a deeper reality inhabiting the world of mathematics. Our mathematical models of physical reality are far from complete, but they provide us with schemes that model reality with great precision – a precision enormously exceeding that of any description that is free of mathematics. There seems every reason to believe that these already remarkable schemes will be improved upon and that even more elegant and subtle pieces of mathematics will be found to mirror reality with even greater precision. Might mathematical entities inhabit their own world, the abstract Platonic world of mathematical forms? It is an idea that many mathematicians are comfortable with. In this scheme, the truths that mathematicians seek are, in a clear sense, already “there”, and mathematical research can be compared with archaeology; the mathematicians’ job is to seek out these truths as a task of discovery rather than one of invention. To a mathematical Platonist, it is not so absurd to seek an ultimate home for physical reality within Plato’s world.

[longship]

33. Okay, where to start.

I guess Feynman. I do not have a specific citation for the quote, but have heard it for decades, since my undergrad physics years. What Feynman meant was that space cannot be empty, as I cite in response 31.

I see the "mindless automata" free will argument to be a bit of a straw man. Dennett goes into this a bit sometimes. Nobody is saying that animals are mindless automatons. Brains are dynamic and are rewired by their environment and experiences. But there is no evidence of any ghost in the machine. Or some element of free will. Humans are just going to give these things up.


The numbers argument is just silly. Numbers and mathematics are a technique to describe our environment. It demonstrably works and that is good enough for me and all those who use it. I don't give a fuck whether people think they are real or not. They are real enough to get the job done. And yes! Even considering Gödel.

Concerning the universe as a simulation... Somebody needs to show me. In the meantime, those people have some work to do. I must presume, until I see evidence to the contrary, that the universe is real. I mean... Do we really have to -- or want to -- go down The Matrix wet dream rabbit hole?

William of Okham slices off most of these things. The rest are just silly, like the "are numbers real?" type of question. I do not know what they are and I don't care. Having studied years of mathematics I know that they work pretty damned well and that's good enough for me.

I guess I was just not cut out to be a philosopher. I'll stick to my bottom-up reductionist science.

[Jim__]

38. The article is not talking about "empty space" so that's just equivocation.

Last edited Fri May 2, 2014, 11:57 PM - Edit history (2)

It is an old philosophical question, and it is not about empty space. Space is not nothing. So, if that's what Feynman is talking about, it's not relevant to the statement in the article.

... Brains are dynamic and are rewired by their environment and experiences. But there is no evidence of any ghost in the machine. Or some element of free will. ...

Your answer indicates that you did not read - or at least didn't understand - Brembs' paper. He is not talking about changes in response due to re-wiring. He is talking about fruit flies reacting differently under conditions that are identical as far as test conditions can be measured. That fact may not fit your presuppositions about nature, but that fact has been established through testing.

The numbers argument is just silly. Numbers and mathematics are a technique to describe our environment. It demonstrably works and that is good enough for me and all those who use it.

As previously stated, Penrose does not find it silly. Penrose is a world-renowned user of numbers - world-renowned because he uses them so well. You may not understand Penrose's point - your lack of understanding does not render the point silly.

[longship]

43. Okay, another round.

Well, what is nothing if not empty space. And yes, Feynman was obviously talking about empty space. I do not see a difference other than the obvious rhetorical one. Beyond that, what can one say? I don't know if there is a multiverse, although it seems that there may be. I am not a fan of strings, but there certainly are other ways a multiverse might exist. Beyond that, I find the Feynman quote to be insightful, undoubtedly the way he might have wanted it to be. That is why I used it in this context.

I am aware of the fruit fly research but I don't think that one ought to hitch ones free will horse on it. Yes, they act like there is free will. But can one say that it is not determinate? I think it is the little fly brain adapting, just like human brains do. However, I will reread the article on the research as it's been a while since I read it.

And about Penrose. He gets into philosophical stuff that I just do not care about. I don't give a damn whether he (or anybody) thinks numbers are real or not. It's just not high on my list of hot topics, which is why I called the whole question silly. Numbers and mathematics seem to work well enough. That's good enough for me and apparently most other mathematicians and physicists.

All around, a good discussion. Appreciate your responses.

Regards.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. Nothing would be non-existence. Not 'empty space'.

Empty space, even a quantum vacuum, isn't 'empty'.

Outside the 'bubble' (not really a bubble, but you get my meaning) there may be nothing, not even time.

[longship]

45. Now there's a real quandary.

I choose not to ponder non-existence of the universe. Every time I do, it's like a mind fuck. Boinggggg!

I studied physics in undergrad, so I studied quantum. It's difficult to know whether Feynman meant empty space or nothingness. I suspect he was just toying with the questioner, whoever that may have been. It is still a great quote that spurns discussion, which is why I cited it.

Time is another quandary. The arrow of time seems to be tied in with entropy. I am not up on my statistical mechanics these days. It's been too much time -- so to speak -- since that course work. That topic is yet another mind fuck. Cause and effect presumes an arrow of time. Quantum mechanically all physical processes are reversible in time. But not in the macro world. Could somehow decoherence have some factor in this, since that's about the only thing between QM time symmetries and the broken symmetry of the macro world? Yup! It is still a mind fuck.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. Indeed it is.

No disagreement there.

I would suggest talking to one of Feynman's contemporaries. Perhaps they could shed some light on whether that was a rhetorically loose comment, or a highly specific comment.

Freeman Dyson is still alive. I send him Christmas cards sometimes. You might write him a letter or some other mode of communication.

[struggle4progress]

40. I dunno: "What are numbers?" doesn't seem a silly question to me.

It seems laden with all manner of potential logical pitfalls

[longship]

42. Such are the philosophical quandaries.

However, in practice, numbers -- and mathematics in general -- have such demonstrably great utility that such quandaries pale in importance.

Now here's one which may bake your noodle , would numbers or math form an effective communications base with an alien intelligence? (Ignoring distances and other stuff, of course.) In other words, are numbers and math universal?

I claim that they might be. Counting seems to be a natural thing. There are even some other animals which can apparently do it. And mathematics may very well be a logical and appropriate extension to counting.

But, that would be speculation.

[gcomeau]

112. It's an incredibly silly question.

They're symbolic designations of quantity. It's not some deep profound mystery.

[cbayer]

48. A most enjoyable post and equally enjoyable conversations spurred by it.

We are moving today, so I might not get a chance to thoughtfully respond to this, but I am going to try.

Hope the melt is in full swing and spring is upon you!

[longship]

50. Snow is gone. It is still cool here.

We've had a bit of flooding here, all the rivers full of water (lot of rivers in MI).

Are you headed back to San Diego area?

Moving on a boat isn't difficult though, is it? Just untie and hoist the sail?

[cbayer]

51. It is very hot here these days.

Moving on a boat is not difficult at all. We are anchored, so just have to get things stowed properly and pull up the anchor.

We are moving about 4 hours down the coast today and will just drop the anchor when they get there.

The day is super calm right now, so it should be a "breeze", lol.



PS - never going back to the West Coast if I can help it.

[Silent3]

68. While I enjoy Feynman's answer to "Why is there something rather than nothing?"...

...it misses the deeper question about why there's a universe at all that can have such a quality as instability.

[longship]

69. That's a good question.

It could be that the universe is eternal. That would answer that. No beginning. No ending. There are some cosmologists who toy with that hypothesis. Or there could be a multiverse.

Sean Carroll has an interesting take on the multiverse. He speaks of it in his CalTech TEDx talk. I like that guy a lot. He's wicked smart, and communicates very well. I am reading his latest book, "The Particle at the End of the Universe". It's a must read for physics junkies, like me.

Here's the TEDx Talk:

Regards.

[Silent3]

71. Still not nothing enough. :)

It's hard to get the language right here, because words like "be" and "exist" are tied to our concept of the flow of time. Words like "nothing" and "nothingness" are nouns, and nouns are things, not non-things.

Why any universe at all, eternal or not? Why not just a nothingness so complete that there could never be anyone or anything to contemplate that nothingness? I can see the idea of nothingness perhaps being self-contradictory, but that contradiction implies a set of rules of logic, and such rules are a thing too. To have rules, physical or logical, that would make nothingness unstable requires that you've already left nothingness behind, that you have the something which is those rules and laws and a stage of sorts upon which they will play out.

[longship]

73. As I wrote in another response...

Sometimes one has to admit, "I don't know."

But if one watches the Sean Carroll TEDx talk, one may get an inkling of how the search for answers to such questions proceeds. I think it is a particularly good explanation of some of those very complex questions.

So I don't think anybody can answer your questions. They are very good questions, but there are yet no answers to them. Maybe some day...

[Silent3]

82. These questions are good questions for an atheist to be familar with and think about...

...because they're important to understanding why proposing a Creator deity doesn't solve anything.

[rrneck]

61. The more tractable the problem, the less likely philosophy will be interested in dealing with it. nt

[Silent3]

62. It's disappointing that the author doesn't fully understand what an atheist is.

Simply put, we cannot know if God exists or not. Both the atheists and believers are wrong in their proclamations, and the agnostics are right.

As someone said in the comments section for the article, "Jeebus loueebus, how many times must the memo be circulated? Theism: belief in a god or gods. A-theism: no belief."

[cbayer]

63. So what shall we call those that loudly proclaim that there is no god

and take atheism one step further?

There can be seen in this group frequently.

BTW, I think he is speaking of that general group, but is there a term that should be used?

[skepticscott]

64. Call them strong atheists if you want

But if there are people out there saying affirmatively that it is certain that no "gods" exist anywhere in the universe, period, that's not an intellectually defensible position. I suspect you'd have a hard time finding anyone who actually holds that position, though, if you took the trouble to actually question them in detail about the nuances of what they think, rather than just plucking a one-line comment off of a website.

So-called "strong" atheism (as opposed to simply lacking belief in any "gods" due to a lack of evidence for them) has to be taken one well-defined "god" at a time to be tenable. On that basis, it can be perfectly rational and justified to take the view that a particular "god" doesn't exist. Pretty much all religious believers take that view about the gods Zeus, Thor, Osiris and many others. Based on the available evidence, it's no less rational to think that the "god" of the Judeo-Christian Bible doesn't exist than to think that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

[rug]

65. "that's not an intellectually defensible position."

You're absolutely correct.

That's why humans have considered the question of god(s) for millennia. A far cry from delusion.

[Silent3]

66. *Considering the question* isn't delusional...

Fixating on a narrow definition of what a deity might be, and taking the possibility of the existence of a deity matching that definition so seriously that you structure your life around devotion to that deity, talking to it like its listening to you, perhaps even imploring that it perform miracles for you, or for or causes important to you... that's where delusion enters into the picture.

The only thing that makes this particular type of delusion more common and less weird than other delusions is the system of social support to back it up, not the quality of the reasoning or evidence that would convert delusion into rational belief.

[cleanhippie]

72. THIS!!! You should turn this post into an OP.

[rug]

80. You're easily impressed.

[rug]

78. There's a pretty wide swath between acknowledging there may be a god(s) and what you describe.

What would you call a fixation on considering religion to be what you describe.

Remember, the description of a delusion is a fixed, false belief.

BTW, in your haste to call religious faith a delusion, you show a gross misunderstanding of the difference between a false belief and an unprovable belief.

[Silent3]

84. The definition of "delusion" doesn't require absolute assurance...

...that the thing believed by the deluded person is definitely false, just that there's no good rational reason to believe that thing, and elevate that thing to such serious consideration that it's treated for practical purposes as being true. A delusional person might stumble into the truth by accident and still be crazy.

I'm not at all misunderstanding "the difference between a false belief and an unprovable belief". It's just a difference that has little practical difference beyond special pleading for some of the implausible that people believe, especially the socially blessed implausible beliefs.

[rug]

85. That's why it's not in the definition.

Nor is, "there's no good rational reason to believe that thing".

Delusions are the product of pathology and the symptoms of that pathology.

What pathology are you asserting is the cause of religious delusions? Religious belief itself?

[Silent3]

88. No, I'm not playing that game where you act like "delusional" is this terrible accusation...

...and how dare I say such a thing, where you pull out some specific, narrow, and hardly necessarily or applicable technical definition of what a delusion is and make that the thing I have to defend while you pretend to not understand perfectly well what I mean.

[rug]

89. Precision in words and thought is not a game.

Without it, people tend to say the most outlandish and indefensible things.

[Silent3]

90. I'll worry about being more precise...

...when it's about what adding precision to what I mean, not when it's about you trying, in a purely rhetorical game, to impose a self-serving precision on what I mean, especially knowing that any attempt to be more precise on my part won't be treated with any respect, but simply more BS of the same nature, ad nauseam.

[rug]

91. There's an objective meaning to the word delusion.

[stone space]

77. Half a century ago, we just called ourselves "atheists", and that was it.

So what shall we call those that loudly proclaim that there is no god

Well, ok...maybe "loudmouth atheists". But atheists, whether of the quiet or loudmouthed variety, claimed that God didn't exist, and did so quite openly.

The doubters were content in those days to call themselves "agnostics".

Maybe it's the internet, but I see a lot of people who call themselves "atheists" these days, but seem a bit more wishy-washy about their beliefs. Not that there's anything wrong with being an agnostic, but folks who didn't have a belief one way or the other used to just call themselves agnostics.

Guess I'm getting old.

I suppose that I should just call myself an "old school atheist", to distinguish myself from the more wishy-washy new-fangled atheism.

[cbayer]

79. There is a lot of pushback, primarily from people who call themselves atheists,

against people who call themselves agnostic.

There is a repeated argument that one has to choose to be either a theist or atheist and that agnostic can only be used as a modifier.

I take great issue with this argument. Not only do I think that people should be able to call themselves whatever they want, I think taking an agnostic position without any position on theism is perfectly legitimate.

But there is also a lot of pushback when someone tries to define atheist as anything other than someone who simply does not believe in a god or gods.

So, I ask again. What should someone call those who believe there is no god or gods, if not atheist?

Not disagreeing with you here. In fact, I agree very much.

[AverageJoe90]

94. Good point, here. nt

[gcomeau]

114. Atheist gnostics.

It's not that complicated.

Theist/Atheist = Belief/Non Belief

Gnostic/Agnostic = Knowledge/No Knowledge



They don't believe in God = atheists.

They think they can *know* whether or not God exists = Gnostics.



Why is this so difficult to get people to wrap their heads around? Seriously?

[cbayer]

116. People can't wrap their heads around this because they don't agree with your

narrow and rigid definitions.

Why is that so difficult for you to wrap your head around? Seriously?

[gcomeau]

119. You mean the correct definitions?

And spare me the snark. You just asked this question like you were honestly befuddled by what the proper terminology for the situation you described was despite the fact that I know that you have had this explained to you at least a dozen times on this board, and not just by me. Then you refuse to accept the answer, wander on like there isn't one, then criticize anyone for pointing it out to you the *next* time you ask for being "rigid" or "narrow minded" or "dogmatic" because they don't have your safe easy flexibility with refusing to listen to simple damn answers to basic questions.

[cbayer]

120. You do not own these definitions, and there are many accepted

definitions that do not sync with your own.

I am not befuddled at all. I've seen you argue this over and over and over again, but while I've seen you chase a few people away, I've never seen you sway anyone.

The fact that I don't get it despite your so kindly explaining it to me a dozen times is not because I am stupid, it's because I don't agree with you. It's not that I refuse to accept your "answer" and wander away. I fully reject your "answer" and push back.

What you are doing is just like a believer who insists that they have the truth, the one way and that anyone who doesn't see it that way is just blind or stupid.

[gcomeau]

122. Uh huh...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=128498


"I don't have to "own" the definition. Just like I don't have to own numbers to say 2+2 =/= banana.

[cbayer]

125. I am neither a theist nor an atheist, and you will just have to deal with that.

I know you will define me as one, and you can feel free to do so. But your label only exists in your own head and is meaningless to me or to anyone else.

And that's objectively fucking true.

[gcomeau]

127. Yes you are.

And I'm not the one that appears to be having difficulty dealing with basic logical realities.

"But your label only exists in your own head"

...and the fundamental laws of logic that govern our reality and are the foundation of all rational thought. But yeah, don't concern yourself with little details like that.

[cbayer]

128. Lol, yes. I suffer from great deficits in the areas of basic logical realities.

I can't imagine how you can even attempt to stoop down to my level and try to 'splain things to me.

It must be killing your knees.

[gcomeau]

129. No, just giving me a headache... -eom

[Goblinmonger]

131. You either believe in a god/gods or you don't.

There's no "maybe" on that. Even if it is a god that hasn't been defined yet be religion, it's still a belief in a god.

And I think you meant "that's subjectively fucking true" because if you are arguing for objectivity, you would be arguing for the binary distinction.

[Humanist_Activist]

74. I find number 6 to be nonsensical...

Experiences are subjective by their nature, they cannot, by definition, be objective.

[skepticscott]

75. It makes more sense if you don't try to characterize things

as 100% totally OBjective or 100% totally SUBjective. Some experiences are more objective than others, such as how people experience gravity when they jump off of a tall building, as opposed to how they experience Wagner.

[Humanist_Activist]

83. I still find the question nonsensical, or, at best, not a good question.

So the answer to the question would be no, and it doesn't matter either.

[skepticscott]

86. Well, if the question is, can anything ever be experienced

with 100% objectivity, then the answer is indeed a rather obvious no. But there is some understanding to be gained from a more nuanced examination of the issue, though from the subtext to the question, the person writing the piece was pretty clueless about that.

[stone space]

76. The answer is 42.

[cbayer]

81. NO, it is not. It is most assuredly 14.

I am certain.

[AverageJoe90]

93. DUzy! =) nt

[pinto]

87. Interesting piece.

Thanks for the post.

[gcomeau]

110. Yeah...

"Philosophy goes where hard science can't, or won't. Philosophers have a license to speculate about everything from metaphysics to morality, and this means they can shed light on some of the basic questions of existence."

...another way to phrase that would be "whenever we don't know the answer, philosophers can just make shit up since science can't call them on it."


(Please note that I do not characterize all contributions of philosophy that way, but let's face it, that's accurate more often than any of us would like.)




(Also, any article about philosophy written by someone who doesn't know what the terms "theism", "atheism" or "agnostic" even mean is not high on my list of things people should be reading.)

[cbayer]

111. Lol. Anyone who doesn't agree with your definitions of theism, atheism and

agnostic is not high on your list of people who should be listened to. This despite the fact that their are likely many more people who don't agree with your definitions than there are that do.

Dogma. That's sheer dogma.

[gcomeau]

113. The fact that many people are objectively wrong about something.,..

...doesn't make them less wrong via appeal to popular opinion. It would be nice if you could grasp that one of these days.

[cbayer]

115. Clinging on to ideas that have evolved and taken on new meanings

in the general population, while continuing to insist that you are right and everyone else is wrong, must be a very frustrating experience.

And then, once again, wrapping it in condescension, which is surely likely to make your audience more receptive to your dogma.

It would indeed be nice if I could grasp this one of these days, because that would mean that I had reached your level of enlightenment!

[gcomeau]

117. When something "takes on a new meaning"

...in the general population that is OBJECTIVELY FUCKING WRONG the correct course of action is not to decide to go with the flow and start believing 2+2=banana because all your friends are doing it.

[cbayer]

118. Lol, but it's not "OBJECTIVELY FUCKING WRONG".

See, that's the problem. You can scream that you are right about this, but it doesn't make you more correct.

Terms change over time. People define themselves in many ways and a whole lot of people define themselves as agnostic and do not define themselves as either theist or atheist.

I know you don't like it and it grates on your last nerve because you are convinced that you are OBJECTIVELY FUCKING RIGHT, but you really may need to choose a new battle, because this one is over.

[gcomeau]

121. Yes, it actually is.

"Terms change over time."

And sometimes they change into something that is a straightforward contradiction in terms that is objectively incorrect.

For example, there does not logically exist a third alternative to either believing or not believing in a proposition. Claiming there is is in violation of an actual logical law

It's called the Law of the Excluded Middle.


Believing/Not Believing is a binary condition. And any term claiming to mean that someone is neither condition of a binary set ... is objectively incorrect. So when people try to claim that's what they are and then call themselves "agnostics" they are OBJECTIVELY FUCKING INCORRECT.

[cbayer]

124. Oh, there is a law. Ok, you win and everyone will

immediately begin using these terms only in the way that you have defined them. Because your are OBJECTIVELY FUCKING CORRECT.

Well, not everyone, but you don't have to listen to anyone who doesn't….

and that would be most everyone, so you can pursue some of your other interests!

And I will feel free to use snark whenever I think it is called for.

[gcomeau]

126. Oh look...

...faced with a fact you can't argue now instead of acknowledging the reality you're going to stomp your feet and sulk and then, no doubt, continue using the terms wrong ... and then I'll see you asking all befuddled and bemused once again in a few weeks or months "well, then what do you call these people..."



Shocking...

[cbayer]

130. I am neither stamping my feet nor sulking.

Rather, I am giggling quite a bit. But that's how we idiots are.

Yep, sorry to say that I am going to continue to use the terms "wrong" and continue to have discussions with other people who use the terms "wrong" and perfectly understand what they are saying.

That is if I can pull myself out of my befuddlement and bemusement.

See you later agnostic atheist! Or are you a gnostic atheist? And why in the world would anyone care what you label yourself?

[gcomeau]

132. No, just the written equivalent.

"I don't have to listen to your 'facts' and 'figures', so there!!"

[cbayer]

133. Well, since they are not facts and accompanied by no figures,

I don't have to listen to them…. over and over and over again.

But this all started with your statement that you don't have to listen to anyone who doesn't use the terms in the way you define them.

So perhaps it is you that is stamping your feet here?

[gcomeau]

134. Laws of logic are, in reality, facts.

You may of course refuse to deal with that reality as is your demonstrated preference.

[cbayer]

135. I'll just file that away with all the other parts of reality I don't deal with.

Maybe, just maybe, I will be able to emulate the paragons of logic that surround me.

One can dream, can't they?

[gcomeau]

136. It's sad...

..that you're trying to make light of an abject denial of reality and trying to pass through with your blinders firmly in place and undisturbed by making snarky jokes to show everyone how totally unconcerned you are with it all rather than just facing up to being wrong and learning something

[cbayer]

137. Oh, don't be sad. I'll be ok. Really.

I know this frustrates the crap out of you and I suspect it is going to continue to frustrate the crap out of you.

And you continue to use ad hominem attacks hoping that you will just get it through my thick head without ever once asking me why I reject your entire argument.

I'm not wrong and I have nothing to learn from you on this matter. I see things differently. I reject your position.

Full stop.

[gcomeau]

138. That's even more sad...

You appear to legitimately think that the act of pointing out your refusal to deal with what you have presented zero counter to being an inarguable fact... that a popular claim made about the meaning of agnostic is a logical contradiction... is an ad hominem.

And you're totally not wrong. But you can't say why (beyond an appeal to popular opinion which has already been refuted). But you're not wrong. Nope. Anyone who says you are is just being a meanie.

[cbayer]

139. BTW, if you get a chance to listen to "Forum today, you might enjoy it.

It's about yesterday's SCOTUS decision on prayer in legislative parties.

One of the panelists is representing the national humanist organization. He's their chief legal counsel, someone probably well versed in things logical.

And her repeatedly refers to non-religious groups, including atheists and agnostics!!

It's a call in show, so you might be able to straighten him out.

Oh, gcomeau. I don't think you are a meanie at all. I just think you resort to ad homs when someone refuses to agree with your position.

[gcomeau]

140. She can refer to them all she wants...

The reality is most agnostics are atheists so referring to people who call themselves "agnostics" as part of the non religious community is generally accurate, regardless of the fact that they are screwing up the terminology.

[cbayer]

141. It's a he, not that that makes any difference.

He knew exactly what he was doing. He was addressing himself to the large population of people who refer to themselves as agnostic and not atheist.

He was avoiding forcing people to choose a label that they do not identify with, might even actively reject and being inclusive.

Something that makes a whole lot of sense when one is trying to send their message.

But that's logic for you!

[gcomeau]

142. Uh-huh...

"He knew exactly what he was doing. He was addressing himself to the large population of people who refer to themselves as agnostic and not atheist."

...because most of them actually are atheist.

"He was avoiding forcing people to choose a label"

And that's probably a not bad idea for his situation. But his assessment of the political expedience of dealing with peoples tender sensibilities is irrelevant to the correct meaning of the words.

[cbayer]

143. Insisting that people fit your label and be neatly placed in one box

or another is political foolhardiness.

So, even if you may be technically correct, you are wrong on so many other levels.

Have you ever seen a legitimate poll that only allows for those two options? No? That's because it would be stupid to create such a poll. There would be some who could easily choose one box or another, but many who would not.

However, it appears to be a crusade for you. An alienating and pointless crusade, but a crusade nonetheless.

Perhaps your assessment of the necessity of being technically correct and completely ignoring other people's sensibility is what is irrelevant.

[Goblinmonger]

144. No poll would give just those two options

because when collecting demographics, you would want to have as many control options as possible to test for possible correlations.

[gcomeau]

145. Try to grasp this...

" Insisting that people fit your label and be neatly placed in one box or another is political foolhardiness."

We are not engaged in a political exercise in this thread. This is a philosophy thread. The proper meaning of words MATTERS.

Have you ever seen a legitimate poll that only allows for those two options? No?

Because that would be stupid. The point of polls is to capture as many responses as possible. So you include all the responses people would be inclined to give, even if some of them are predictably mostly inaccurate.

Then you can recognize that the majority of the people who answered "agnostic" probably don't know what the word actually means... but at least you know how many of them there are.

[cbayer]

146. Oh, I will try very hard to grasp it, but, as you know, will likely fail!

I fully grasp your argument. It is obviously important that you be correct about this.

This is a political board, not a board about linguistics.

Might I suggest that you take your complaint to the myriad of dictionaries that define agnostic differently than you do.

You can start by insisting that it's not a noun and can not be applied on it's own to describe an individual.

Good luck with that.

As for me, I am finished arguing about this with you. You have adopted this as some kind of ultimate truth and arguing about it is akin to arguing with anyone who holds a similarly completely inflexible position.

[gcomeau]

147. How many different ways can this be explained to you...

...without you ever acquiring a clue?

Might I suggest that you take your complaint to the myriad of dictionaries that define agnostic differently than you do.

WHY THE HELL WOULD I WANT TO????

Dictionaries list popular usage. That is what they're supposed to. So they are not wrong to include the WRONG popular definition as being something many people mean when they use the word. Even if those many people are clueless when they do it.


That doesn't make it less wrong. Do I really need to metaphorically beat you over the head with the fact that argumentum ad populum is a fallacy YET AGAIN? I have clearly demonstrated that the popular usage is nonsensical, logically contradictory, plain old incorrect. And you have offered no rebuttal. All you keep doing is hand waving and making excuses for refusing to use the word correctly.

[Goblinmonger]

123. People also think that this is a government based on Christian principles.

My favorite Carlin quotation applies here, "Think about how dumb the average person is and then realize that half the population is more dumb than that." Just because a lot of people want to think something doesn't make it right. More than half the people in the US don't "believe" in evolution.

And perhaps so many people want to identify as agnostic when they really mean atheist because of what the U of Minn proved in a study about the horrible way people feel about those that are atheists. That couldn't have anything to do with it.

[MisterP]

148. but nylon and gravity prove we don't need philosophy!