For me it’s metaphysical naturalism + philosophical materialism, pretty much in their usual meanings. On defending any particular philosophy of mind, I must remain agnostic.
There are also ID proponents who operate from within the Islamic paradigm, and surely from other theistic conceptions too. They’re just not as common as the Christian variety. The religious specifics may alter the storyline but the plot remains essentially the same in all cases.
'Luthon64
Could you perhaps expand on what you mean when you say metaphysical naturalism + philosophical materialism. I have not come across a single agreed upon definition of either. Some definitions are limited, some are far-reaching especially when it comes to the mind. Could you also perhaps differentiate between the two and perhaps differentiate between philosophical materialism and eliminative materialism (if possible).
Seeing that you are a philosophical materialist (whatever you believe that to be), could you perhaps give your opinion on what you think intentionality is. Are intentions and thus design real, is intentionality real or are they just illusions as a result of an ongoing, impersonal competition among genes and memes, or just material particles and fields interacting between inputs, internal states, and outputs without any intrinsic meaning or intention?
Also, seeing that you are a metaphysical naturalist (whatever you believe that to be), could you perhaps expand on what you believe “the self” is.
Major naturalists have come out to argue as follows:
Pinker from “Is Science Killing the Soul?”
"There's considerable evidence that the unified self is a fiction--that the mind is a congeries of parts acting asynchronously, and that it only an illusion that there is a president in the Oval Office of the brain who oversees the activity of everything."
Susan Blackmore in The Meme Machine.
“each illusory self is a construct of the memetic world in which it successfully competes. Each selfplex gives rise to ordinary human consciousness based on the false idea that there is someone inside who is in charge."
What is your point of view on the above statements and the statement that points of view are nothing more than material particles and fields interacting between inputs, internal states, and outputs without any intrinsic meaning or intention?
Methodological naturalism = “The supernatural may or may not exist; in either case, it has no explanatory role in science.”
Metaphysical naturalism = “The supernatural surely does not exist at all.”
Philosophical materialism = “Only matter and matter-mediated properties such as energy exist, and these are governed only by immutable laws of nature.”
Eliminative materialism = “Mind states that cannot be reduced to a biological level exist only as epiphenomena of physical brain function.”
What part, exactly, of “On defending any particular philosophy of mind, I must remain agnostic” is giving you trouble?
'Luthon64
Does Philosophical materialism allow for information to be viewed as a fundamental category of Nature. What is the origin of information? Only chance, only necessity, only intentionality, or a combination of some of these? Also, could you perhaps clear up whether you believe matter and matter-mediated properties have any intentionality and intentions or propositions towards something? If not, do you agree with the following statement?
Consciousness can be reduced to material particles and fields interacting between inputs, internal states, and outputs without any intrinsic meaning or intention because only matter and matter-mediated properties such as energy exist.
Can one really differentiate between Philosophical materialism and Eliminative materialism without discarding certain elements from one or the other?
The part where I asked you what your point of view was. Do agnostics with regards to any particular philosophy of mind have no point of view with regards to any particular philosophy of mind?
Surely you must have some opinion or point of view.
I am sure you can expand on what you think a coherent, non-self refuting materialistic philosophy of mind would look like. At least try.
You or someone else might point out that you say “On defending any particular philosophy of mind, I must remain agnostic”. However, how long can you hold out on being an agnostic AND have no opinion on consciousness, intentionality and your “self”? At least try and provide a coherent, non-self refuting point of view…
I have given my answers. In all cases I chose my words very, very carefully and they are clear enough. Use them as they are, or not. Infer from them what you will, or not. The choice is yours.
As for rendering any opinions on assorted philosophies of mind, I won’t do that to satisfy some or other transient narcissism, whoever’s it may be. I am not a neuroscientist or cognitive specialist. But given your insistence, here’s my POV about a slightly different subject for you: There are far too many people eagerly hopping over one another to dispense with great conviction opinions on subjects that they know next to nothing about, who expect that those opinions should on the whole be received with glowing admiration, that they should automatically be regarded as unassailable, and who resort to a veritable armoury of ruses to avoid rigorous substantiation of those declarations. But, as said, it’s just my POV.
So I’ll ask you once more: What part, exactly, of “On defending any particular philosophy of mind, I must remain agnostic” is giving you trouble?
'Luthon64
That is good. Now it has at least been established that you at least have a point of view on something. Now just to have you give a POV on your “self”. I also find your point of view of people with opinions on subjects they know next to nothing about interesting. Seeing that you are neither a neuroscientist nor a cognitive specialist, one has to wonder why you have a point of view with regards to consciousness in relation to quantum mechanics… seeing that it is a testable hypothesis. Could you perhaps elaborate there why you wanted to give your opinion? This was also interesting to see from you…“Veritable armoury of ruses to avoid rigorous substantiation of those declarations”.
You really seem to love to categorise and classify people and their beliefs, putting them in little post-boxes and labelling them neatly. Does it help you to understand them, or is it just so that you can play strawman, strawman more easily?
Hmm, let’s see now. Could it be that I have expertise directly relevant to the topic and ready access to more of the same? No, I guess it can’t be that because it’s just too simple and pat and straightforward to be true. What else? Could it be that mind and consciousness are not the same thing? Nope, can’t be that either I suppose because it’s also too darn obvious. Well, I have to admit that you’ve got me totally stumped.
Clueless, mindless, obstinate repetition doesn’t magically produce true statements, although it may raise a chuckle or two.
In any case, I’m pleased that you’re lending weight to my earlier assessment.
'Luthon64
“I don’t know” is so a point of view, it ain’t even funny. When you learn this, you will be much wiser and actually acquire some of your vaunted “truth”.
How about for giggles you tell us how old the earth is? (8th time!!)
If you answer is, “I don’t know”, I may accept it, even coming from you who doesn’t accept “I don’t know” answers and think every “I don’t know” answer has to be qualified somehow.
Or why don’t you produce a link for us where you answer me straightforwardly? That would be awesome seeing as I can produce the opposite quite easily. As a preview look at the very first one ever:
It started on 10/08/07 right here
cyghost: How old is the Earth please? 1
fearisgood: How old does it look to you? 2
cyghost: Sparkling new every day. What’s the point? 3
The issue is not resolved but we get sidetracked
and the 2nd one on 24/08/07 I try again: (in another thread)
cyghost:How old is the earth please Fearisgood? 4
fearisgood: How old does it look to you? 5
Insidious! Again a question with a question! This time he blabs on about it being either very old or very young
[i]Certainly looks as if it might be a few billion years old, say… maybe 6 billion years? I think the earth looks like it could be that old. However you would be surprised that many YEC wont contend this, and that others do.
These that do will question the dating methods and the assumptions that go with them. Evolution needs time, lots of it, to make it look plausible, but it is untestable. YEC’s dont, and will try and describe biodiversity with the created kinds (baraminology) and Discontinuity Systematics and squash it in a very short time-frame, by taking adaptive radiation into consideration.[/i]
PostmanPot:So what is your final answer then? 6
cyghost: You also note the evasion then? 7
PostmanPot: Yes Sir. 8
roflol – that was the very first thread I met you in. aaaah the nostalgia and I see upon rereading, we haven’t gotten anywhere, although it certainly has been entertaining.
btw I wish you well in your search. 
I asked you the same question 4 more times and twice now and received the same kind of evasive answer. (well except for this eighth time that we are waiting to see how you answer on)
We’ll wait for you to give evidence of the opposite or apologise for lying?
Yo! Mechano_TelePhrone old chap! I’ve found a little box you can put me in:
G) Defecatory Fatalist. We believe that “Sh1t happens”!
So Mechanist, it looks like your past of dispensing vapour and inanity is catching up with you and that it consisted of much the same kind of nonsense that we have witnessed here.
Tell me, how do you defend your ID and creationist notions? I mean, besides weaving together a threadbare tapestry of “Oh, look at all the coincidences! I can’t explain them therefore a greater intelligence must be at work!”, and hijacking cherry-picked scientific findings, especially those concerning biological evolution, before shoehorning them, mostly by innuendo, into these preconceptions?
How old is Earth, do you think? Do you think abiogenesis is possible? Can you give a straight answer?
'Luthon64
You are neither a neuroscientist nor a cognitive specialist… so there goes expertise directly relevant to consciousness.
Now… you said:
There are far too many people eagerly hopping over one another to dispense with great conviction opinions on subjects that they know next to nothing about, who expect that those opinions should on the whole be received with glowing admiration, that they should automatically be regarded as unassailable, and who resort to a veritable armoury of ruses to avoid rigorous substantiation of those declarations. But, as said, it’s just my POV.
Does your great convictions with regards to quantum physics and consciousness come from your expertise in quantum mechanics, and are your opinions about it unassailable and should it be received with glowing admiration?
Why not just have a civil conversation and don’t resort to a veritable armoury of ruses?
Ditto ;).
@ cyghost? Do you forget that I have actually answered…
Me:
Now, imagine person X writes this, do you think person Y would be a bit stupid in asking person X what the age of the earth is in trying to make person X look like he does not know or does not want to give an answer? I think any sane person would just ignore person Y’s… nonsense.
Anyway, reason for asking questions back to you is just to show that your incapable of being constructive in actually giving any answers… mind you, i think we all will be interested to hear your answers to the following:
You assert that:
You are not a materialist, not a naturalist and bear no metaphysical biases.
The questions remain:
Lay out what exactly you agree and disagree with naturalism and materialism.
Lay out these “metaphysical biases” you disagree/agree with?
Name them and explain them!
Waiting…
That is cute. How about a manifesto?
The Manifesto of the Defecatory Fatalist:
The Defecatory Fatalist believer believes so strongly that he is the result of never ending sh1t that happens for no reason at all.
The Defecatory Fatalist believer believes he is just another one of the sh1ts that just so happened to spawn… well more sh1t.
Do not dare to question the logic and rationality of the Defecatory Fatalist as you will be hit with a barrage of… more sh1t.
The Defecatory Fatalist believer knows his beliefs are just… well… more sh1t that happens for no reason at all.
There shall be no churches for he Defecatory Fatalist believers as the stench left by sh1t that happens for no reason at all can not and shall not be tolerated even by the members.
The Defecatory Fatalist believer believes the Manifesto of the Defecatory Fatalist is not sh1t that happens for no reason at all.
Prepping up that armoury of ruses?
Phew…hijacking cherry-picked scientific findings? Prepping up that armoury of ruses…again?
How do I defend ID and creationist notions?
Intentionality for one…
Fine-tuned argument is a reasonable argument unless you posit a multiverse.
The repeated emergence of biological structures of eyes, brains, minds (convergence) etc… ie. the biased nature of evolution.
To mention a few.
Round about 4.5 billion years, perhaps a little more, perhaps a little less, give or take an error of 10%. Abiogenisis…possible? Yes. Heck, one might even argue…inevitable.
Please be so kind and at least give a point of view of the following:
Does Philosophical materialism allow for information to be viewed as a fundamental category of Nature. What is the origin of information? Only chance, only necessity, only intentionality, or a combination of some of these? Also, could you perhaps clear up whether you believe matter and matter-mediated properties have any intentionality and intentions or propositions towards something? If not, do you agree with the following statement?
Consciousness can be reduced to material particles and fields interacting between inputs, internal states, and outputs without any intrinsic meaning or intention because only matter and matter-mediated properties such as energy exist.
Can one really differentiate between Philosophical materialism and Eliminative materialism without discarding certain elements from one or the other?
Thanks for the “cute” compliment. Fairly close old chap, but don’t get too carried away there LOL! You’re a bit off base here and there, and REMEMBER! - we believe it of YOU too. Allow me to correct you:
[b]The Manifesto of the Defecatory Fatalist:[/b] The Defecatory Fatalist believer believes that we are all the result of never ending sh1t that happens for no purpose at all. Maybe it does have an end, but we'll be long gone so weh!The Defecatory Fatalist believer believes everyone, including and especially TelePhrone, is just another one of the sh1ts that just so happened to spawn… well more sh1t.
Do not dare to question the logic and rationality of the IDiot as you will be hit with a barrage of… unbelievable sh1t.
The Defecatory Fatalist believer knows his beliefs are just… well… more sh1t that happens for no purpose at all.
There shall be no churches for the Defecatory Fatalist believers as the stench left by the sh1t that happens in christian churches, especially those run by IDiots, sets a sufficiently distasteful example for the DF that he gets put off this whole sh1tty church idea completely.
The Defecatory Fatalist believer believes the Manifesto of the Defecatory Fatalist is just more sh1t that happens for no reason at all, other than by our choice, to amuse and entertain us while our brief candles flicker and burn.
Careful of all this “for no reason” stuff - rather say “with no conscious purpose” or such like, as causality can be construed as a “reason”. Lots of causality and stuffs around: lots of basic chemistry too.
:o
EDIT. PS, Mechano-chappy, where you been? Or do you have to post via your work’s computers? Doesn’t your boss mind? Lollers!
Ya thinks? Well, like I said, “I have to admit that you’ve got me totally stumped.” Or do you?
Why, yes, so I did. Except for making some of the bits bold, that is.
It would appear so, wouldn’t it? It would also appear that I am not the one making unsupported positive claims for the reality and existence of something, wouldn’t it?
But you’re not interested in civil conversation, only in deploying that armoury. You keep making that much perfectly clear. Your hypocritical approach to civility needs quite a bit of work, I’d say.
There, you see? Back to tu quoque.
Yes. Very tidily phrased, BTW.
There, you see? Back to tu quoque … again.
What “intentionality”? Whose?
A reasonable argument for what exactly?
So the fact that a die comes up with a six about once in six throws means that it is purposely willed and guided to be thus. Sharp. Razor sharp. Positively xyresic.
Good answer.
Define “information” as a “category of Nature.”
Define “intentionality,” “intentions” and “propositions” as relevant to matter and matter-mediated properties having them.
Read again the definitions I gave. The answer is in them. Here’s a hint: What part, exactly, of “On defending any particular philosophy of mind, I must remain agnostic” is giving you trouble?
'Luthon64
Hi Mechanist,
I’ve been following this race of stamina with interest. When asked your opinion on the age of the earth you replied:
Certainly looks as if it might be a few billion years old, say.... maybe 6 billion years?
and then
Round about 4.5 billion years, perhaps a little more, perhaps a little less, give or take an error of 10%.
which is around the same order of magnitude, so thats all good.
Now, given an earth old enough for evolution to take place, I was hoping you could clear two things up for me re the ID dogma:
Do you believe that God’s ultimate goal from the start was to create humans?
If so, and assuming God is all-powerful, why did God chose such a massively elaborate process spanning 4-6 billion years (or perhaps 13-15, depending on your point of view of when it all started) to come up with us? Surely God could have made us in, say, six days flat?
Mintaka
Finally an answer! It seems you simply didn’t want to answer me? lol
For the record this was his “answer” he alludes to above and I responded with this, noting his “if” qualification. This was the third time.
The fourth time:
cyghost: Or rather, simply answer the question I have put to you three times, ducked and evaded three times: How old is the earth? 1
phrony: What… and give the same answer 4 times in a row. 140 years ago the age of the earth was 100 million years, 1.6 billion years in 1913 and now seems like its 4.5billion years. Why dont you wait a few years, science may very well change that “fact” seeing how it rest so heavily on quite a few assumptions. Homo habilis and Lucy were seen as a real “factual” ancestors, and now? 2
I couldn’t for the life of me get him to answer this really simple question. For instance, as everyone can see, he didn’t give me the same answer 3 times in a row and he certainly didn’t give me the same answer 6 times as he claimed here either.
And he has the audacity to ask me questions and insist I answer them? roflol
Two can play the game phrony, and even if you are a master at it, all you really have to do is actually read what I write to you and you wouldn’t remain in the dark
Nope, not so ???. Going to have to remain agnostic until real evidence pops up ;).
What “intentionality”? Whose?
[/quote]
Mine, yours, other minds…
A reasonable argument can be made that chance alone won’t explain the fine-tuned universe.
Someone throws the die… Nice analogy.
The transmission and receiving of bits carrying information about something? Information in the sense that energy supervenes on information.
Is information non-local? Perhaps…
A) Energy is understood to be the ultimate foundation of all matter in this universe.
B) From Einstein’s equation, E=mc^2, all matter ultimately emerged out of energy, and is theoretically reducible to energy.
C) From there it can also be derived that time comes to complete stop at the speed of light.
D) In addition, the first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
E) The quantum teleportation experiments (such as this one) showed the entire information content (properties) of one photon can be transported/teleported instantaneously onto another photon whereby the second photon assumes the complete identity of the first photon, while the first photon loses its complete identity.
From the article:
In conclusion, we have performed an experimental test of the Bell inequality with space-like separation large enough to include a hypothetical delay of the quantum state reduction until a macroscopic mass has signi cantly moved, as advocated by [b]Penrose and Diosi[/b]. Indeed, in the reported experiment each detection event triggers the application of a step voltage that expands a piezo actuator and displaces a mirror.[b] The time of collapse of the mirror plus the time it takes to move it is shorter than the time the light needs to travel the distance between the receiving stations.[/b] In addition, this distance (18 km) sets a new record for Bell experiments with an independent source located in the middle. Let us emphasize that under the assumption that a quantum measurement is nished only once a gravity-induced state reduction has occurred, none of the many former Bell experiments in- volve space-like separation, that is space-like separation from the time the particle (here photons) enter their mea- suring apparatuses (here interferometers) until the time the measurement is nished. [b]In this sense, our exper-ment is the firrst one with true space-like separation. [i]The results con firm the nonlocal nature of quantum correlations[/i][/b].
F) So from there, energy can be argued to supervene on information, and information can be argued to be a fundamental category of Nature.
Also thought this might be interesting:
What is Information?
(A) Facts carry information.
(B) The informational content of a fact is a true proposition.
(C) The information a fact carries is relative to a constraint.
(D) The information a fact carries is not an intrinsic property of it.
(E) The informational content of a fact can concern remote things and situations.
(F) Informational content can be specific; the propositions that are informational contents can be about objects that are not part of the indicating fact.
(G) Indicating facts contain such information only relative to connecting facts; the information is incremental, given those facts.
(H) Many different facts, involving variations in objects, properties, relations and spatiotemporal locations, can indicate one and the same informational content—relative to the same or different constraints.
(I) Information can be stored and transmitted in a variety of forms.
(J) Having information is good; creatures whose behavior is guided or controlled by information (by their information carrying states) are more likely to succeed than those which are not so guided.
Intentionality with regards to minds is the ability of a mental state to be about something and to refer to something outside of itself.
Intentionality has the function of guiding behaviour.
An object with intentionality can characterize nonexistent objects such as square triangles even though there is no such thing as square triangles.
An object with intentionality can characterize an object as being A and not B, even if all A’s are B’s.
An object with intentionality can believe in the four horsemen without believing in the square-root of 16 horsemen.
Intentions can be argued to represent the intentionality of an object.
Propositions
Yeees… discarding certain elements from one or the other much?
Perhaps you should rename this thread to:
Fool’s Gold: Teleology in Metaphysical Materialism
Science is a teleological endeavour… An endeavour with a purpose and an end… the search for truth. It is carried out by teleological agents (scientists)… searching for the truth. So perhaps you have found teleogy in science and your fool’s gold in the scientists that do the actual science but not in scientific explanations.
Now where is that teleology in Metaphysical Materialism. Do you think it can not be argued that Metaphysical Materialism is so throroughly anti-scientific that it does not even warrant any consideration?
Hi Mintaka,
Seeing that this is a skeptic site, are there any people on this site skeptical about the claims of naturalism and materialism?
Cyghost… your question has been answered by me…to you. Maybe an incorrect answer at first you might argue, but an answer was given to YOU, this assertion is incorrect:
Finally an answer! It seems you simply didn’t want to answer me? lol
So, for the 7th or 8th time (who cares really), could you perhaps elaborate on your assertions that:
You are not a materialist, not a naturalist and bear no metaphysical biases.
The questions remain:
Lay out what exactly you agree and disagree with naturalism and materialism.
Lay out these “metaphysical biases” you disagree/agree with?
Name them and explain them!
Waiting…