Yes, it seems believing in free will doesn’t actually cause one to behave any more responsibly. A determinist would have learned by now.
I’m a new kid ( :D) on the block and have been quite intrigued by the threads and comments, riposts, flames and the like. Clearly some people like to have ‘fun’ at other’s expense, but clearly some believe that Bullshit Baffles Brains. Commitment to reason is the commitment to full intellectual focus (is that an illusion?) and that one should never fake or attempt to fake reality (what’s that, some would immediately ask…try kicking a stone!) or permit oneself contradictions or sabotage the proper function of consciousness. Integrating reality with logic and reasoning is the sign of a healthy consciousness while a consciousness that evades reality is fundamentally unhealthy. Mysticism is the creed of those who choose to evade reality.
If poor Jennifer Eccles has terrible freckles, it would be nasty of the boys to call her names. If Lilly the Pink invented a medicinal compound most efficacious in every case and Jennifer declines taking it, her decision deserves ridicule. Satire and banter can be very effective elements of debate; the Zapiro cartoon and the well reasoned editorial next to it complement each other. The extent to which we use a humorous approach is a matter of style.
Wow, been doing some hard introspection lately hey muffles?
Haha, that is rich coming from you. You desperately try and pigeon-hole all religious people as delusional and complain about a Q&A trying to see how certain position or viewpoints logically lead to eliminative materialism and who are comfortable with such a position. Come on, at least play along and say you don’t agree with certain propositions or just not participate.
Let’s assume you are not trolling… what do you think you are doing here then?
Anyway, I am still interested in people’s opinions about these two statements:
5) The primary qualities of matter are related to size, shape, mass, charge, spin and motion.
6) Thoughts are nothing but matter in motion
Agree, disagree? Why.
Okay, at least now you have revealed your motive. I have nothing to hide, so I’ll play along.
5) The primary qualities of matter are related to size, shape, mass, charge, spin and motion.I can accept those as qualities of matter, but they have limitations and at least some of the ones you mention would be affected by factors such as relative speed. By some measures matter have qualities which correspond more to waves than to particles.
6) Thoughts are nothing but matter in motionDisagree.
Always, and here’s a fat hint: With me, unlike with certain other individuals, hard introspection’s an ongoing vigilance. Even if it is at the expense of derailing one of your threads.
'Luthon64
What do you think waves consist of?
Fair enough. Do you think thoughts are physical or non-physical? Are thoughts composed of matter or are they immaterial?
Here are more statements for you guys:
7) Valid explanations of phenomena must always be in terms of small, elementary units in regularly changing relations.
8 ) The ultimate causality of phenomena is to be found in motion of physical elementary units.
Agree, disagree? Why?
Vibrations or undulations at a frequency.
Thoughts are generated by the material brain, but are not material themselves. They cannot “exist” without the brain, though. We’ve discussed the complexity of “existence” or “to be” recently, particularly relating to issues such as thoughts, emotions, dreams and verbal contracts.
Disagree. Would you describe a solar eclipse in terms of small, elementary units in regularly changing relations? Explaining it in terms of the moon moving in front of the sun in orbits that do not change regularly would be a valid approach.
What is “ultimate causality”? Is it the same as “final cause”? And is “final cause” the same as “purpose”? What are the differences?
BTW, since this is an open survey, we would like to learn your views on these questions now. Surely if you expect us to participate, you should set an example by doing so yourself?
Yes, I understand, but what do you think these vibrations and undulations at certain frequencies consist of? Are they material, physical? Non-material, non-physical?
Ok, fair enough. Do you think thoughts (which are immaterial according to you) can have an effect on material substances, objects, entities etc.? If so, how do you (or can for that matter) scientifically explain the interaction between immaterial and material entities?
Your “valid approach” is still in terms of units (sun and moon, which in turn are of course composed of more elementary units) in regularly changing relations. Let’s zoom in on a more fundamental level. Perhaps phenomena at Planck scale? Although not observable (perhaps someday in the future), do you think valid explanations must be in terms of units in regularly changing relations?
It is not the same as final causality or purpose or any other teleological (not me :P) notion.
If I can try and put it differently:
8 ) The causality of all phenomena are ultimately to be found in motion of physical elementary units.
Fair enough. The statements again:
- Everything in the universe is reducible to fundamental particles in motion that can be mathematically described.
- There is no external influence from an outside agent or something else at the fundamental levels of physics.
- There are no unconscious goal-directedness or purposive behaviour or intrinsic directionality at the fundamental level of physics.
- There are no kinds of things other than physical or material things and by physical/material I mean anything that has a measurable property.
- The primary qualities of matter are related to size, shape, mass, charge, spin and motion.
- Thoughts are nothing but matter in motion.
- Valid explanations of phenomena must always be in terms of small, elementary units in regularly changing relations.
8 ) The ultimate causality of phenomena is to be found in motion of physical elementary units.
Replies:
- I reject reductionism.
- I reject existential inertia (once something exists it tends to remain in existence). I favour existential conservation (once something exists it is in need of conservation to remain in existence).
- I reject 3 and restate it as follows: All material substances (any material entity) have intrinsic, immanent directionality/goal-directedness whether conscious or unconscious, purposive or non-purposive, rational or non-rational.
- I reject 4. Thoughts, as an example, have immaterial aspects.
- I reject the primary/secondary quality distinction. Instead, I think accidents (quantity and quality) inhere in substances. Thus, there is a distinction between substances and accidents.
- I reject 6. (see 1 and 4)
- I reject this watered down version of efficient causality. Rather, valid causal explanations can be analysed in terms of formal, material, efficient and final causes. Final causes should not be confused with purposiveness, rationality or conciousness.
8 ) Change is the reduction of potentiality to actuality and analysed in terms of the four causes in 7.
Isn’t putting your argument in point form kind of reductionistic?
We are all reductionists to a greater or lesser extent, despite the contrarian raillery and clamour from certain quarters. If we forsake all reductionism (if that is even achievable), it becomes impossible to make any rational sense at all of ourselves and the world because each experience must then be viewed in isolation. Even something as trivial as the observation that unsupported denser-than-air objects always fall to the ground entails reductionism in the form of an abstract law that describes said behaviour.
Although he hasn’t clarified it, I suspect that what Teleological means is what Daniel Dennett has termed “greedy reductionism,” which is the idea that all phenomena can be meaningfully reduced to some form of ultimate elementarity. So, for example, it would be greedily reductionistic to assert that analysing a region’s climate in terms of the motions of individual atoms and particles will yield more useful information than performing such an analysis in terms of the empirical laws of meteorology. Clearly, it would be absurd to insist on such a position, even if in principle it may be valid, assuming that we are able to construct a sufficiently representative model. I know of no reputable scientist who holds such a view.
'Luthon64
I am not surprised, old teleo is very fond of discussing views that no one actually holds.
We have four or five threads on Eliminative Materialism he sseems eager to discuss and have we have yet to find a single person that actually subscribes to this view.
Oh I donno about that. Mintaka seems not too sure if thoughts actually exist. That is compatible with EM. Muffles, although a bit apprehensive when it comes to reductionism, is a through and through materialist. How her kind of materialism differs from EM is a complete mystery. Perhaps she needs to ponder a little more and follow the logical implications of her view. Don’t hold your breath though.
Also, I don’t think you need to speak for anyone, the people here are able to give their own views. It is also safer, since that prevents you from building more fat straw men. So, rather than speaking for others and their views related to EM, let them answer for themselves.
Of course, if it is the case that no-one holds EM to be true, it would be a good sign. At least there would be no insane and idiotic people when it comes to believing in EM right cyghost?
Only to those with significant cognitive impairment and severe attention deficit, augmented with an obsessive devotion to straw constructions propped up with little else beside hot air.
Ah, some truth at last, arrogantly self-serving and self-evident though it may be! But you did miss the bit where that applies to everyone. Was that deliberate or a slip?
Perhaps you should do just that. If you do it for long enough, it may help to temper your inane armchair pontifications with an ample dose of reality.
'Luthon64
I think your audience desperately wants to know how your materialism differs from EM. I am also interested how Peter Grant’s naturalism differs in any interesting manner from EM.
Waiting…
Wait on, Macduff. Or read my various posts on the matter in this and other threads. But take off your distortion spectacles first, see?
'Luthon64
I have never spoken for anyone. Read what I write as opposed to what you think I mean. You are notoriously bad at doing that.
Of course, if it is the case that no-one holds EM to be true, it would be a good sign. At least there would be no insane and idiotic people when it comes to believing in EM right cyghost?Indeed. And having yet to find one, I suggest we are on safe ground. Unless one of these day you do the miraculous and follow through on your argument that materialism leads to EM. We are on point 8 already and going nowhere fast.
Wait, what, you actually made a clear distinction between your materialism and EM? All I saw was that you moaned that materialism is not a complete and fully-developed metaphysical position. You call yourself a materialist but at the same time haven’t got a clue what it entails. How about you try a little harder there muffles :-*.
On a macro scale the vibrations or frequencies would of course be movements of the underlying substance. On a micro level, certain phenomena have characteristics which correspond with waves rather than particles.
No.
I’m sorry, but you seem to have forgotten what your 7th statement was: “7) Valid explanations of phenomena must always be in terms of small, elementary units in regularly changing relations.” In order to illustrate this notion, you should at least be able to give a few diverse examples. Give me a valid explanation of the following five phenomena in terms of small, elementary units in regularly changing relations:
1.) A solar eclipse;
2.) An egg hatching;
3.) A tsunami;
4.) A cow eating grass;
5.) A global stock market crash.
What do you think is the nature of the underlying substance of these phenomena at micro-scale that have characteristics which correspond to waves? Do you think there is an underlying substance? Physical, non-physical?
No to the question of whether thoughts (which are immaterial according to you) can have an effect on material substances, objects, entities etc.? Just checking.
A cow eating grass.
Muscle movement caused as of neurological stimuli
Neurological stimuli caused as a result opening and closing sodium and potassium channels in nerve fibres (conducts the signal)
Opening and closing of sodium and potassium channels caused by moving proteins and sodium ions as well as water.
Moving proteins and sodium ions as well as water caused by moving subatomic particles.
Continue until you find the ultimate cause in terms of moving fundamental units.