AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

http://www.uvm.edu/~uvmpr/?Page=news&storyID=11482&category=uvmhome

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3467 views

http://www.uvm.edu/~uvmpr/?Page=news&storyID=11482&category=uvmhome-Some of the findings about how adaptable the robots were cast evolution in an interesting light...-Like I suggested some time before, a full deist God might make more sense; robustness comes not from strong, centralized control, but from letting many things make many mistakes.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3400 views

http://www.uvm.edu/~uvmpr/?Page=news&storyID=11482&category=uvmhome&am... 
> Some of the findings about how adaptable the robots were cast evolution in an interesting light...
> 
> Like I suggested some time before, a full deist God might make more sense; robustness comes not from strong, centralized control, but from letting many things make many mistakes.-Agreed. What we find in nature as evolved organism is cooperation of the whole entity, and way more complex than we can design at this time. How come nature is so much smarter a designer than we are? Nano-engineering is nature's forte. I know the drill, one step at a time up Mount Improbable. The interlocking parts develop bit by bit, and somehow work despite the incompleteness in development. This is Missing George's just-so story.

3485 views

http://www.uvm.edu/~uvmpr/?Page=news&storyID=11482&category=uvmhome&am... > 
> > Some of the findings about how adaptable the robots were cast evolution in an interesting light...
> > 
> > Like I suggested some time before, a full deist God might make more sense; robustness comes not from strong, centralized control, but from letting many things make many mistakes.
> 
> Agreed. What we find in nature as evolved organism is cooperation of the whole entity, and way more complex than we can design at this time. How come nature is so much smarter a designer than we are? Nano-engineering is nature's forte. I know the drill, one step at a time up Mount Improbable. The interlocking parts develop bit by bit, and somehow work despite the incompleteness in development. This is Missing George's just-so story.-No... my objection is similar to George's but not the same. Amazement or incredulousness (which is exactly your emotion here) simply isn't enough to justify a grand design. Inference isn't enough. Physics trumps metaphysics any day of the week. Scientific Materialism is reliable. It just depends on what you want from life... -At some point we all need to make a decision about what's important to us, philosophically. Knowledge is important. In my view, knowledge is all. I long ago abandoned truth for knowledge; relativity for predictability. -As I've said often enough, we are firmly trapped in terms of our means to study the universe. I accept the limitations; you go beyond them. Reason vs. empiricism, to be more precise--reason alone isn't enough for a claim to be true, so our search is limited to knowledge. What can we know to be true? (dhw; and what we know to be true can shift.) I admit that God could exist, but insomuch as it is beyond our capacity to study, I see no reason to go down that path.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3420 views

No... my objection is similar to George's but not the same. Amazement or incredulousness (which is exactly your emotion here) simply isn't enough to justify a grand design. > 
> At some point we all need to make a decision about what's important to us, philosophically. Knowledge is important. In my view, knowledge is all. I long ago abandoned truth for knowledge; relativity for predictability. 
> 
> As I've said often enough, we are firmly trapped in terms of our means to study the universe. I accept the limitations; you go beyond them. -We always come back to the same wall between us. If proof beyond a reasonable doubt was good enough for Adler, it is good enough for me.

3451 views

No... my objection is similar to George's but not the same. Amazement or incredulousness (which is exactly your emotion here) simply isn't enough to justify a grand design. > 
> > At some point we all need to make a decision about what's important to us, philosophically. Knowledge is important. In my view, knowledge is all. I long ago abandoned truth for knowledge; relativity for predictability. 
> > 
> > As I've said often enough, we are firmly trapped in terms of our means to study the universe. I accept the limitations; you go beyond them. 
> 
> We always come back to the same wall between us. If proof beyond a reasonable doubt was good enough for Adler, it is good enough for me.-Adler was philosophically misguided; the goal of philosophy is a search for truth yes--however you cannot take a position of truth based on reason alone. Inference however nicely dressed up it is, isn't knowledge, and also isn't truth. It's an educated guess on what we think or judge the truth to be! The same reason I don't say "God doesn't exist" is the same reason I don't say "God exists." -Our difference is less a wall and more a difference of style. As a doctor, you were undoubtedly trained to trust your instincts--a good doctor takes the ambiguous evidence presented to him and makes a judgement. But there's a wisdom that comes through experience where I guarantee you felt more of what was the right choice. Intuition guided by empiricism. Doctors make decisions all the time on incomplete data, and you learn to trust that developed and honed instinct. I've watched it happen. -My training--Computer Science and Math is really a diametric opposite in style. We're trained (and we experience) that our intuitions as humans are too linear to be trusted for complex questions. Have a problem? It's the data. Not the data? It's the logic. Nothing can be ambiguous. If your problem is ambiguous, you can't engineer a solution, as simple as that. -Really in the end I'm just pointing out that there's a good reason for our differences--partly due to training--and that I don't see this as a wall as much as an opportunity to gain a different perspective.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3442 views


> Really in the end I'm just pointing out that there's a good reason for our differences--partly due to training--and that I don't see this as a wall as much as an opportunity to gain a different perspective.-Fair enough. In medicine we are taught to have a list of 'differential diagoses', with the 'best' one first. But it is all based on the mental odds for it being true. We were also taught to write a 'present illness' illustrating the most probably diagnosis first. So you are right, I play the odds. And you are on the straight and narrow.

3429 views


> > Really in the end I'm just pointing out that there's a good reason for our differences--partly due to training--and that I don't see this as a wall as much as an opportunity to gain a different perspective.
> 
> Fair enough. In medicine we are taught to have a list of 'differential diagoses', with the 'best' one first. But it is all based on the mental odds for it being true. We were also taught to write a 'present illness' illustrating the most probably diagnosis first. So you are right, I play the odds. And you are on the straight and narrow.-The biggest thing I can offer--if I could reduce my field to one thing, it's deciding whether or not a problem is solvable by the process of making the ambiguous problem unambiguous. -(dhw, not forgetting about you, I just have schoolwork to tackle this weekend.)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3443 views

The exchange between Matt and David (28 Jan. at 23.35 and 29 Jan. at 02.16) is such a pleasant and informative one that I'd like to join in if I may. We probably ought to put it on the epistemology thread, but since we're using that for definitions and general principles, let's stay here. I just want to make two comments, starting with Matt's conclusion:-MATT (to David): Really in the end I'm just pointing out that there's a good reason for our differences--partly due to training--and that I don't see this as a wall as much as an opportunity to gain a different perspective.-You've summed up the whole purpose of this forum, and it's thanks to contributors like David and yourself that I for one have had my horizons expanded way beyond expectations. Thank you. However, in the same spirit, let me pursue one of the differences.-MATT: Adler was philosophically misguided; the goal of philosophy is a search for truth yes--however you cannot take a position of truth based on reason alone. Inference however nicely dressed up it is, isn't knowledge, and also isn't truth. It's an educated guess on what we think or judge the truth to be! The same reason I don't say "God doesn't exist" is the same reason I don't say "God exists." [...] We're trained (and we experience) that our intuitions as humans are too linear to be trusted for complex questions. Have a problem? It's the data. Not the data? It's the logic. Nothing can be ambiguous. If your problem is ambiguous, you can't engineer a solution, as simple as that.-What approach can we adopt, then, if there is no definitive solution? I presume you're suggesting, not that we should stop discussing God's possible existence or the origin of life and the universe or the nature of consciousness, but only that we should not take a decision. And this is where perspectives come in. Since we've agreed that science can't provide "truth" either ... only knowledge ... your attack on Adler applies to all such contexts. The moment anyone, including a scientist, draws a conclusion from their findings/experiments/ knowledge/ reasoning/intuition, they're doing no more than offer "an educated guess on what we think or judge the truth to be". In these contexts, you and I do refuse to take a decision, but there's a major difference between us. You have said on this thread (28 January at 01.38): "Physics trumps metaphysics any day of the week. Scientific Materialism is RELIABLE." Does it? Is it? Are all the factors, faculties, emotions, decisions that you regard as most important in your personal life based on scientific materialism? (I'm thinking of love, empathy, aesthetic pleasures, reason, imagination, and so on.) Is it not possible that these and all the intuitions you've been taught not to trust reflect phenomena beyond the reach of scientific materialism? Unless you have faith that scientific materialism has all the answers in store for us (which means you've already decided that there's nothing beyond the material world as we know it), why not ... in these contexts of unknowable truths ... keep an open mind? Your answer appears to be that this is due to your training. If you can't remove the blinkers of your training, might you not be denying yourself the opportunity of gaining a different perspective?

3428 views


> You have said on this thread (28 January at 01.38): "Physics trumps metaphysics any day of the week. Scientific Materialism is RELIABLE." Does it? Is it? Are all the factors, faculties, emotions, decisions that you regard as most important in your personal life based on scientific materialism? -Scientific materialism is reliable until the next better theory arrives. A theory is only a workable conjecture, based on the best present evidence at hand. Metaphysical theories are exactly the same, realiable until the next better theory arrives, based on the best present evidence at hand. How and why are two sides of the same coin, not separate magesteria! That makes my theory of a universal intelligence just as valid as theories from sc. mat.

3380 views


> > You have said on this thread (28 January at 01.38): "Physics trumps metaphysics any day of the week. Scientific Materialism is RELIABLE." Does it? Is it? Are all the factors, faculties, emotions, decisions that you regard as most important in your personal life based on scientific materialism? 
> 
> Scientific materialism is reliable until the next better theory arrives. A theory is only a workable conjecture, based on the best present evidence at hand. Metaphysical theories are exactly the same, realiable until the next better theory arrives, based on the best present evidence at hand. How and why are two sides of the same coin, not separate magesteria! That makes my theory of a universal intelligence just as valid as theories from sc. mat.-I am intrigued that you assert that physics and metaphysics are two sides of the same coin.-Science is reliable because its application consistently improves itself both in precision and accuacy. Continued application of the same technique took us from an earth-centered universe to something much larger. We went from earth, fire, wind, and water, to subatomic particles. -To radically change something in science, you need massive amounts of experimental data exposing flaws in the old thought, and demonstrating that your formulation explains the same thing, only better.-Not so with metaphysics. To invalidate a metaphysical theory, one must only dislike it. One is allowed to argue however he sees fit with no regard at all for fact, observation, or demonstration, or even logic! It's a child's playground of the mind.-Attempting to say that there is anything close to the same rigidity in metaphysics as in science is missing its point.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3403 views


> Attempting to say that there is anything close to the same rigidity in metaphysics as in science is missing its point.-I'm still Adlerian in thought. He went from being born Jewish to accepting Catholicism before his death, based on his proof of God! I'll accept your point that metaphysics is not as rigid as science, but I have every right to read science, and reach my own conclusions as to the necessary existence of a UI. I am an acceptor of Aristotilean first cause, from reading Feser's "The Last Superstition". Why is there anything? Are you suggesting that a beginning is not necessary?

3405 views


> > Attempting to say that there is anything close to the same rigidity in metaphysics as in science is missing its point.
> 
> I'm still Adlerian in thought. He went from being born Jewish to accepting Catholicism before his death, based on his proof of God! I'll accept your point that metaphysics is not as rigid as science, but I have every right to read science, and reach my own conclusions as to the necessary existence of a UI. I am an acceptor of Aristotilean first cause, from reading Feser's "The Last Superstition". Why is there anything? Are you suggesting that a beginning is not necessary?-I've never moved to deny you the right; only that public declarations require public responses! -I'm resorting back to my Buddhist experiences here, but yes; there is an entire universe of thought where a beginning is not only unnecessary it is destructive. A common Tibetan meditation is, "What did your face look like before your parents were born?" -Causality is a misperception that distracts from the oneness of reality. Our minds and our egos move us continuously away from the uniting principle of here and now. You see a similar strand of thought when you read Christ, Ezekiel--any number of Rabbis actually--but in all great religions that prompt for action above words. -Eastern thought has one thing that Western thinkers have been amazed at for years: They've thought more about "nothing" than anyone else. You began with Aristotle, I began with Siddhartha. Piercing the dark veil, the east asserts that the universe always is and always was. They too deny--on metaphysical terms--that because we cannot perceive a beginning, we have no right to claim knowledge of it. But clearly the world isn't primarily spiritual the material exists; therefore there must be a "middle way..."-So yes, you have someone whose metaphysics is also categorically opposed to claiming knowledge beyond that we can conceivably reach. -These discussions today are making me yearn again for zazen...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3420 views

Allow me to barge in.-David says his theory of a universal intelligence is just as valid as theories from scientific materialism. -MATT: Science is reliable because its application consistently improves itself both in precision and accuracy. [...] To invalidate a metaphysical theory, one must only dislike it. One is allowed to argue however he sees fit with no regard at all for fact, observation, or demonstration, or even logic! [...] Attempting to say that there is anything close to the same rigidity in metaphysics as in science is missing its point.-Epistemological framework: What exactly are you discussing here? With questions that cannot be answered ... e.g. existence of God, origin of life and all its mechanisms, origin of the universe, nature of consciousness ... science can never come up with "the truth". Twenty-four-one-eleven: There is no hierarchy of approaches to such questions. Ergo David's theory of a UI is as valid as the atheist theory that everything can be explained by scientific materialism. Ergo it is also as valid as any theories (e.g. abiogenesis) derived from scientific materialism. However, since none of the theories can claim validity, it might be argued that the use of the word "valid" is invalid. -It's suppertime. Ergo I go.

3395 views


> Epistemological framework: What exactly are you discussing here? With questions that cannot be answered ... e.g. existence of God, origin of life and all its mechanisms, origin of the universe, nature of consciousness ... science can never come up with "the truth". Twenty-four-one-eleven: There is no hierarchy of approaches to such questions. Ergo David's theory of a UI is as valid as the atheist theory that everything can be explained by scientific materialism. Ergo it is also as valid as any theories (e.g. abiogenesis) derived from scientific materialism. However, since none of the theories can claim validity, it might be argued that the use of the word "valid" is invalid. 
> 
> It's suppertime. Ergo I go.-Your commentary is right on. Go enjoy your fish and chips. When in London Susan and I have.

3400 views

dhw,-David and I have been deliberately discussing outside of the framework; but within the framework, his explanation has less going for it than anything else we've discussed... it's faith-based, and he admits this. I'm incapable of faith, and I admit that too. Should we just leave the discussion at that? -Besides, with the rudimentary framework we've laid out now, we still don't have the problem of the order of rank solved; what takes priority?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3401 views

dhw,-I thank you for this safe haven, and am happy that you've chosen to keep me on for these past (3???) years. -> ... Since we've agreed that science can't provide "truth" either ... only knowledge ... your attack on Adler applies to all such contexts. The moment anyone, including a scientist, draws a conclusion from their findings/experiments/ knowledge/ reasoning/intuition, they're doing no more than offer "an educated guess on what we think or judge the truth to be". -To a greater or lesser extent, this is true. Let me tell you how I approach this. We agree that at a minimum, truth is hard to find. So I set any pretensions of the truth aside. I accept explanations that are "most likely" to be true, and the "most likely" explanations are those where we can observe or recreate the predicted results time and again. Most likely explanations can always be made better, and if an explanation comes along that explains our same subject matter in a better way--with fewer or equal assumptions--then we have more confidence that we have an idea of what's really going on. But if any explanation lacks predictive power--this property is paramount--it is a bad explanation. -I will repeat myself here in another way: From Nietzsche on, philosophy has been faced with the problem of the order of rank; how to rank ideas without resort to a supreme being, or in the absence of objective truth. It took the greater part of the last ten years for the final death pangs of truth to die in my soul. The only thing left is knowledge. The only reliable method to gain knowledge is the scientific method by the principles of induction, abduction, and deduction. -The only way to rank ideas, concepts, morals--whatever the philosophical subject is--is to test them. Those ideas that cannot be tested, have no practical use for philosophy or for man at large. -To do this I make certain assumptions:
1. The world behaves (sans humans) in a predictable fashion. Not deterministic--but predictable. It is clear that our world has a "causality" principle. -2. Any explanation I offer cannot extend beyond that which I can sense; and by that I mean any and all tools or techniques that work to make principles of reality understandable to myself and others. -I make hierarchical distinctions: Because knowledge is king, inference is second. Knowledge is the goal of inference, and therefore inference is the servant of knowledge. Most importantly--an inference that does not lead to knowledge should be abandoned.-In the discussions with David, he himself has declared his leap of faith unknowable. His inference therefore does not serve knowledge. -
In these contexts, you and I do refuse to take a decision, but there's a major difference between us. You have said on this thread (28 January at 01.38): "Physics trumps metaphysics any day of the week. Scientific Materialism is RELIABLE." Does it? Is it? Are all the factors, faculties, emotions, decisions that you regard as most important in your personal life based on scientific materialism? (I'm thinking of love, empathy, aesthetic pleasures, reason, imagination, and so on.) Is it not possible that these and all the intuitions you've been taught not to trust reflect phenomena beyond the reach of scientific materialism? Unless you have faith that scientific materialism has all the answers in store for us (which means you've already decided that there's nothing beyond the material world as we know it), why not ... in these contexts of unknowable truths ... keep an open mind? Your answer appears to be that this is due to your training. If you can't remove the blinkers of your training, might you not be denying yourself the opportunity of gaining a different perspective?-Here you ask me how I value the subjective part of my nature? I accept it and live by it. But you ask about the human world of feelings; what role for an order of rank here? Philosophy, yes the entire human race bows to the man in love! But here is where my Buddhist training sets in: Language is a poor fit for experience. In fact, the very act of trying to name and categorise things is a no-no in Zen practice. You concentrate on the oneness in all things; the only truth is that there is only one reality, only now--yesterday gone---tomorrow a whisper!-So the deeper question for you, "Does a whisper compare to a rose in your hand?"

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

3401 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum