The real discussion: Values (Humans)

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Monday, December 14, 2015, 16:11 (3018 days ago)

I think the discussion we really *ought* to be having is more of a meta-discussion. I hate to seem to hijack the thread but...-David clearly values faith higher than myself or dhw. Otherwise, he wouldn't be willing to leap away from science into the purely philosophical realm of an intelligent designer. (Yes he uses science to justify his opinions, but using science to justify yourself doesn't mean your opinion is scientific.) -Myself, faith is something that probably doesn't break my top 100 list for traits worth having. I can't talk to why David or dhw place faith where they do, but for me its because of this:-Life has demonstrated to me, that not only are human beings pretty bad at making judgments about probabilities, we're generally pretty bad at making judgments overall. Part of that is evolutionary short-sigtedness: evolution has determined that I should really like sweet things. But it is rarely in my best interest to indulge. The other part is that we're programmed for intuitional leaps... snap judgments that exist because in the past, making them made it more likely to live through an encounter. -My highest value is placed upon epistemology: How we know what we know. Skepticism tells us that the less concrete some fact is, the less value we should place on it. This basic heuristic has seen us move from dawdlers, to penultimate masters of the biosphere, in less than 1000 years. A blink of an eye in geological terms. -So part of the discussion to me seems, that with values about faith, we should discuss our values about skepticism. (Scepticism for my good British friend!) -I say all this because, part of the reason I tapered off on this forum wasn't from lack of interest, but from lack of movement from the practitioners. (Myself included.) The things that motivate us to make particular arguments are values and judgments, and thanks to my friends the Stoics, I've learned that it is *these* that need to be changed, if our desire is to change hearts and minds. Otherwise we're just talking past each other in beautifully posed prose and sophistry. To what end? Isn't the point of philosophical inquiry to arrive at the truth of things? Or is there no truth here to be gained, as was the judgment of a former member, Mr. Jeliss?-So perhaps if we laid bare our "first principles," in regards to why we hold particular values that lie at the ROOT of our debates, we could expose those things that if exposed to light, could extinguish darkness and actually cause us to change our minds?

--
\"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.\"

The real discussion: Values

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 15, 2015, 00:21 (3017 days ago) @ xeno6696

Matt: I think the discussion we really *ought* to be having is more of a meta-discussion. I hate to seem to hijack the thread but...-I can't think 0f the proper way to tell you how pleased I am at you return, with your incisive mind and way of looking at things, but there it is said.
> 
> Matt: David clearly values faith higher than myself or dhw. Otherwise, he wouldn't be willing to leap away from science into the purely philosophical realm of an intelligent designer. (Yes he uses science to justify his opinions, but using science to justify yourself doesn't mean your opinion is scientific.) -Of course I know that my opinion is my judgment of the things I learn, not at all scientific, but I hope logical for me. 
> 
> Matt: Myself, faith is something that probably doesn't break my top 100 list for traits worth having. I can't talk to why David or dhw place faith where they do, but for me its because of this:
> 
> Life has demonstrated to me, that not only are human beings pretty bad at making judgments about probabilities, we're generally pretty bad at making judgments overall. Part of that is evolutionary short-sigtedness: evolution has determined that I should really like sweet things. But it is rarely in my best interest to indulge. The other part is that we're programmed for intuitional leaps... snap judgments that exist because in the past, making them made it more likely to live through an encounter.-From what I see you have made excellent decisions in furthering your career. Evolution may have given us tastes with negative results, but here we are noting that we can identify and control them. I weighed 203 pounds in medical school, the result of first-generation-born American parents who thought healthy kids meant fat kids. but I have a thinking brain, and starting at the end of my first year in med school I changed my approach. I am 142 lbs as I write this.-Further med school made me think like Sherlock Holmes, no emotion, precision in med diagnosis and the conduct of my life. (Remember A.C. Doyle's background.) I view my life as a fabulous adventure. I don't think we share the same view of life, but knowing your background, that is understandable.-> 
> Matt: My highest value is placed upon epistemology: How we know what we know. Skepticism tells us that the less concrete some fact is, the less value we should place on it. This basic heuristic has seen us move from dawdlers, to penultimate masters of the biosphere, in less than 1000 years. A blink of an eye in geological terms. -I agree. 
> 
> Matt: So part of the discussion to me seems, that with values about faith, we should discuss our values about skepticism. (Scepticism for my good British friend!) 
> 
> I say all this because, part of the reason I tapered off on this forum wasn't from lack of interest, but from lack of movement from the practitioners. ....Isn't the point of philosophical inquiry to arrive at the truth of things? Or is there no truth here to be gained, as was the judgment of a former member, Mr. Jeliss?-I don't think you are proposing that we can reach ultimate truth, but insghts, yes. 
> 
> Matt: So perhaps if we laid bare our "first principles," in regards to why we hold particular values that lie at the ROOT of our debates, we could expose those things that if exposed to light, could extinguish darkness and actually cause us to change our minds?-We are what we have become through our own inventions for our career in life. I know it is more complicated than that. I've opened up a little of mine as a background to the discussion you are beginning. Lead on!

The real discussion: Values

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Sunday, December 27, 2015, 23:54 (3004 days ago) @ David Turell

Ultimate truth? No. I'm not willing to accept this. I'm with you. -However, we DO have the power for universally agreed upon truth... to me, this is the end goal of science. This isn't meant to silence divergent views, only to reinforce that science is currently assuming its proper function: As an intellectual organ designed to ensure its own evolution. -> > Matt: So perhaps if we laid bare our "first principles," in regards to why we hold particular values that lie at the ROOT of our debates, we could expose those things that if exposed to light, could extinguish darkness and actually cause us to change our minds?
> 
> We are what we have become through our own inventions for our career in life. I know it is more complicated than that. I've opened up a little of mine as a background to the discussion you are beginning. Lead on!-I'm hesitant here... I don't agree that our career does, or should play such a prominent role in who we are as humans. This is because my career, puts me at odds thinking about all the ways a person can negatively affect society and attack other human beings. -This can't possibly reflect reality. Just as how law enforcement doesn't have a great view of humanity, I think placing that much faith in one's occupation is more room to try and neglect your own perspectives of life based on your career... kind of off topic, but I think we ought to avoid our career's insights here, as opposed to embracing them. -I don't handle compliments well, so I'll just say thank you, and that at some point we should have this talk around a fire, where compliments belong... incisive maybe, aggressive and flawed? Always.

--
\"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.\"

The real discussion: Values

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 29, 2015, 01:09 (3003 days ago) @ xeno6696


> > David: We are what we have become through our own inventions for our career in life. I know it is more complicated than that. I've opened up a little of mine as a background to the discussion you are beginning. Lead on!
> 
> Matt: I'm hesitant here... I don't agree that our career does, or should play such a prominent role in who we are as humans. This is because my career, puts me at odds thinking about all the ways a person can negatively affect society and attack other human beings.-I understand your reluctance, but I can't escape my background as a body mechanic and how it influences my thinking about evolution. Shapiro's approach to the read-write cell functions, ventures into your area of expertise, and so your background might influence your interpretations. 
> 
> Matt: I think placing that much faith in one's occupation is more room to try and neglect your own perspectives of life based on your career... kind of off topic, but I think we ought to avoid our career's insights here, as opposed to embracing them. -I don't see how you can escape it, unless you are more compartmentalized than I am.

The real discussion: Values

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Saturday, January 02, 2016, 00:05 (2999 days ago) @ David Turell


> > > David: We are what we have become through our own inventions for our career in life. I know it is more complicated than that. I've opened up a little of mine as a background to the discussion you are beginning. Lead on!
> > 
> > Matt: I'm hesitant here... I don't agree that our career does, or should play such a prominent role in who we are as humans. This is because my career, puts me at odds thinking about all the ways a person can negatively affect society and attack other human beings.
> 
> I understand your reluctance, but I can't escape my background as a body mechanic and how it influences my thinking about evolution. Shapiro's approach to the read-write cell functions, ventures into your area of expertise, and so your background might influence your interpretations. 
> > -I use my work's experiences where it makes sense, and where the broader insights of computer science can shed light on the subjects we discuss here. That said, the last few years has seen my work take me into using computers in ways that don't translate to the big questions we discuss here. (Learning how to co-opt or corrupt an industrial control system, and how to defend against it isn't exactly the kind of thing that relates easily to where we come from.) -
> > Matt: I think placing that much faith in one's occupation is more room to try and neglect your own perspectives of life based on your career... kind of off topic, but I think we ought to avoid our career's insights here, as opposed to embracing them. 
> 
> I don't see how you can escape it, unless you are more compartmentalized than I am.-Well, this IS veering into OT-land, my over-arching thought process some years ago, mainly in regards to morality and ethics but truly applied across the board of what falls under "epistemology" was to do this: When my mind decided to opine, I would tell it to shut up. -That probably sounds weird, but I don't know how else to describe it. I'm not a "normal" programmer in the sense that I don't necessarily believe that "reinventing the wheel is bad." So, I started myself as close to zero as I possibly could, and to date, anytime that I say/write something that displays some kind of subconscious thinking, I try to deconstruct the subconscious bias as far as it will go. -In a sense, we could say that I don't trust being me. My Buddhist training has been invaluable in identifying what comes from a subconscious source. So yes, in a sense, it might be safe to say that I can compartmentalize my thinking--when I concentrate on doing so. -Keep in mind, I'm a born skeptic.

--
\"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.\"

The real discussion: Values

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 02, 2016, 00:28 (2999 days ago) @ xeno6696

Matt: So, I started myself as close to zero as I possibly could, and to date, anytime that I say/write something that displays some kind of subconscious thinking, I try to deconstruct the subconscious bias as far as it will go. 
> 
> In a sense, we could say that I don't trust being me. My Buddhist training has been invaluable in identifying what comes from a subconscious source. So yes, in a sense, it might be safe to say that I can compartmentalize my thinking--when I concentrate on doing so. 
> 
> Keep in mind, I'm a born skeptic.-Thank you for being so revealing about yourself.

The real discussion: Values

by dhw, Tuesday, December 15, 2015, 22:33 (3016 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT: I think the discussion we really *ought* to be having is more of a meta-discussion. I hate to seem to hijack the thread but...-Like David, I am delighted to have you back with us, and the subject you've raised here really strikes at the heart of our discussions, so if I may, I'll cherry-pick the points I'd like to comment on.
 
MATT: My highest value is placed upon epistemology: How we know what we know. -We had a long discussion on epistemology, because we tried to set up an epistemological framework that would remove many of the misunderstandings that continue to dog our discussions. It might be worth revisiting that thread. -MATT: Skepticism tells us that the less concrete some fact is, the less value we should place on it. [...] So part of the discussion to me seems, that with values about faith, we should discuss our values about skepticism. (Scepticism for my good British friend!)-Scepticism is the hallmark of my own agnosticism, and it's something I am acutely conscious of. Whenever someone comes up with a theory, whether theistic or atheistic, I find myself focusing on the flaws, and of course there always are flaws because if there weren't, we would have facts and not theories. This negativity may well be a problem for some people.-MATT: I say all this because, part of the reason I tapered off on this forum wasn't from lack of interest, but from lack of movement from the practitioners. (Myself included.) -This is a very fair criticism. Most contributors have left when they have failed to convince others that their beliefs are right, and I am certainly the most guilty party because of the negative approach mentioned above. But the negativity should not be taken for a lack of respect. I would not want to offend people (and I should add that my attitude to life itself is generally very positive!). I would like to feel, though, that the forum has developed into a kind of sounding board for ideas. David has been faithful to this principle from the very beginning, and has provided us with an ongoing education, updating us on all the latest developments whether he agrees with them or not. I find this admirable. 
 
MATT: The things that motivate us to make particular arguments are values and judgments, and thanks to my friends the Stoics, I've learned that it is *these* that need to be changed, if our desire is to change hearts and minds. Otherwise we're just talking past each other in beautifully posed prose and sophistry. To what end? Isn't the point of philosophical inquiry to arrive at the truth of things? Or is there no truth here to be gained, as was the judgment of a former member, Mr. Jeliss?
-My desire has never been to change hearts and minds, unless those represent views that might cause damage to other people. The questions we discuss have preoccupied me since childhood, but the values and judgements in this context (I take it you are referring to philosophical and not moral or social values) are based fairly and squarely on trying to find “the truth of things”. I remain sceptical as to whether we will ever find it. (I think George Jelliss has in fact found a version that satisfies him.) But thanks to David, yourself, BBella, Tony and many others down through the years, I have learned an enormous amount and, for the most part, have found the discussions wonderfully stimulating. Do I actually want to change? Probably not. I'm comfortable on my picket fence, and it does not in any way stop me from enjoying all the good things in my life, while I continue to accept the not-so-good things with my own brand of Stoicism. Do I want to change other people? Yes, I probably do - not to the extent of them losing their faith, which would be a terrible responsibility, but to engender a greater sense of tolerance. Although we often have to take decisions in life, I just wish people would acknowledge that there are nearly always at least two sides to an argument!

The real discussion: Values

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 16, 2015, 00:52 (3016 days ago) @ dhw


> MATT: Skepticism tells us that the less concrete some fact is, the less value we should place on it. [...] So part of the discussion to me seems, that with values about faith, we should discuss our values about skepticism. (Scepticism for my good British friend!)
> 
> dhw: Scepticism is the hallmark of my own agnosticism, and it's something I am acutely conscious of. Whenever someone comes up with a theory, whether theistic or atheistic, I find myself focusing on the flaws, and of course there always are flaws because if there weren't, we would have facts and not theories. This negativity may well be a problem for some people.-It has never been a problem for me.
 
> dhw:I would like to feel, though, that the forum has developed into a kind of sounding board for ideas. David has been faithful to this principle from the very beginning, and has provided us with an ongoing education, updating us on all the latest developments whether he agrees with them or not. I find this admirable. -I've enjoyed doing it. 
> 
> dhw: My desire has never been to change hearts and minds, unless those represent views that might cause damage to other people. Do I actually want to change? Probably not. I'm comfortable on my picket fence, and it does not in any way stop me from enjoying all the good things in my life, while I continue to accept the not-so-good things with my own brand of Stoicism. Do I want to change other people? Yes, I probably do - not to the extent of them losing their faith, which would be a terrible responsibility, but to engender a greater sense of tolerance. Although we often have to take decisions in life, I just wish people would acknowledge that there are nearly always at least two sides to an argument!-Well said!

The real discussion: Values

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Sunday, December 27, 2015, 23:40 (3004 days ago) @ dhw

MATT: My highest value is placed upon epistemology: How we know what we know. 
> 
> We had a long discussion on epistemology, because we tried to set up an epistemological framework that would remove many of the misunderstandings that continue to dog our discussions. It might be worth revisiting that thread. 
> -I don't disagree, but for the participants here... it seems most of us don't disagree with the basic ideas of epistemology posited in that thread. However, David, is willing to include ideas in his epistemology that I am not. The personal experience of another being, are simply not something that I'm willing to include in a *universal* epistemology. -Maybe in the context of that thread... he can chime in. Yes, I'm aware he's discussed this somewhat in his book, but I'd like to explore the ideas more deeply. Why should society at large adopt an encompassing view that allows untestable claims the same weight as the testable? -> MATT: Skepticism tells us that the less concrete some fact is, the less value we should place on it. [...] So part of the discussion to me seems, that with values about faith, we should discuss our values about skepticism. (Scepticism for my good British friend!)
> 
> MATT: I say all this because, part of the reason I tapered off on this forum wasn't from lack of interest, but from lack of movement from the practitioners. (Myself included.) 
> -> MATT: The things that motivate us to make particular arguments are values and judgments, and thanks to my friends the Stoics, I've learned that it is *these* that need to be changed, if our desire is to change hearts and minds. Otherwise we're just talking past each other in beautifully posed prose and sophistry. To what end? Isn't the point of philosophical inquiry to arrive at the truth of things? Or is there no truth here to be gained, as was the judgment of a former member, Mr. Jeliss?
> 
> 
> My desire has never been to change hearts and minds, unless those represent views that might cause damage to other people. The questions we discuss have preoccupied me since childhood, but the values and judgements in this context (I take it you are referring to philosophical and not moral or social values) are based fairly and squarely on trying to find “the truth of things”. I remain sceptical as to whether we will ever find it. (I think George Jelliss has in fact found a version that satisfies him.) But thanks to David, yourself, BBella, Tony and many others down through the years, I have learned an enormous amount and, for the most part, have found the discussions wonderfully stimulating. Do I actually want to change? Probably not. I'm comfortable on my picket fence, and it does not in any way stop me from enjoying all the good things in my life, while I continue to accept the not-so-good things with my own brand of Stoicism. Do I want to change other people? Yes, I probably do - not to the extent of them losing their faith, which would be a terrible responsibility, but to engender a greater sense of tolerance. Although we often have to take decisions in life, I just wish people would acknowledge that there are nearly always at least two sides to an argument!-My excursions in my generation and in the one just behind me is precisely this: There may be two sides to a coin, but both sides of that coin come with thousands of years of baggage... baggage that seems okay to previous generations, but not baggage we are willing to accept on the generic notion of tradition... -This is why my studies have taken me back to Plato, Aristotle, Diogenes the Cynic (my heart of hearts!)

--
\"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.\"

The real discussion: Values

by dhw, Monday, December 28, 2015, 17:10 (3004 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT: My highest value is placed upon epistemology: How we know what we know. -DHW: We had a long discussion on epistemology, because we tried to set up an epistemological framework that would remove many of the misunderstandings that continue to dog our discussions. 
MATT: I don't disagree, but for the participants here... it seems most of us don't disagree with the basic ideas of epistemology posited in that thread. However, David, is willing to include ideas in his epistemology that I am not. The personal experience of another being, are simply not something that I'm willing to include in a *universal* epistemology. -For me epistemology concerns the nature and boundaries of knowledge - not what we think we know, but whether and how it is even possible to know anything. Knowledge to me implies something absolute, and so we have to draw a distinction between knowledge and belief. That's why the common definition of agnosticism (“the impossibility of knowing whether God exists or not”) seems to some of us to be obsolete: nobody KNOWS - though people may BELIEVE they know - so we are all agnostics. In everyday life, we tend for practical reasons not to think in absolute terms, but if I remember rightly, we agreed that the nearest we can get to “actual” knowledge is a general consensus on what is true among those who are aware of the matter in question. For instance, there is general consensus that the Earth goes round the sun, but not that God exists.-MATT: Why should society at large adopt an encompassing view that allows untestable claims the same weight as the testable?-I'm not sure how one can test any claims relating to the divine versus chance origin of the universe, life and consciousness, but in any case I would put it the other way round. It seems right to me that human beings are allowed to adopt whatever view they like, so long as it does not harm other people. Society consists of individuals and should not adopt any single ”encompassing view” of origins - that is the route to oppression and persecution.
 
Dhw: Although we often have to take decisions in life, I just wish people would acknowledge that there are nearly always at least two sides to an argument!
MATT: My excursions in my generation and in the one just behind me is precisely this: There may be two sides to a coin, but both sides of that coin come with thousands of years of baggage... baggage that seems okay to previous generations, but not baggage we are willing to accept on the generic notion of tradition...-My own and every other generation I have known has always been deeply divided on matters pertaining to religion and origins. What you call ”baggage” may still be valid for millions of people, and since there is no general consensus on any of the theories, ultimately we fall back on subjective values. We draw comfort from intersubjectivity, but that is not the same as truth.
 
ROMANSH: I think when we have this kind of discussion we are very much stuck in the psychological ... ie the perception of our perceptions. I can't help thinking a little bit of reductionism won't go amiss here. I don't think it will give the "Big Answers" but it might give some insights rather than squabbling about our perceptions.I assume a materialist world, primarily because I have no evidence of a dualistic existence. In this materialist world my thoughts which include any faith, belief or knowledge I may profess, seem to be an arrangement of fundamental particles and fields ... whatever.-I sometimes get the feeling that by reductionism you actually mean materialism, and what you mean by insights is the belief that all things can be traced back to material causes and effects. If this were so, there would be very little to discuss. We would simply conclude that science will eventually prove that life, consciousness, psychic phenomena, emotional, aesthetic and mystic experiences will one day all be traced back to material causes. That in itself is a matter of faith, and so has no more current validity than the belief that there are a dozen or so dimensions, other universes, and/or other forms of being beyond those that we know (or think we know).
 
MATT: The materialist world is the only game in play. In epistemology, any other description of reality is necessarily bereft. Logically consistent--perhaps. But in regards to being the police of what is *actual* knowledge, as opposed to speculation, materialism for me has no legitimate competitor.-Bereft of what? (And for ”actual knowledge” see above.) I regard epistemology as an attempt not to describe reality but to describe how we arrive at our different concepts of reality. Materialism is one of those concepts, from which believers may derive conclusions that are no less subjective than concepts relating to personal experience. It may be rightly argued that in many contexts materialism has been proven right (thunder and lightning are not the product of war between the gods), but in others we CAN only speculate. We have to face up to the possibility that the material world may extend far beyond what we think we know, but we cannot discount the possibility that the material world is not all there is. Until every mystery has been definitively solved, epistemology - it seems to me - leaves us with a choice between faith of one kind or another and open-mindedness.

The real discussion: Values

by romansh ⌂ @, Monday, December 28, 2015, 21:33 (3003 days ago) @ dhw
edited by romansh, Monday, December 28, 2015, 21:39

dhw: I sometimes get the feeling that by reductionism you actually mean materialism, 
If you mean can we apply reductionist methods to things that are immaterial and I suspect don't exist, I think you are right.-> dhw: and what you mean by insights is the belief that all things can be traced back to material causes and effects. 
With the possible exception of quantum phenomena, yes.-> dhw: If this were so, there would be very little to discuss. 
Oh I think Matt and I can have a good discussion on how the universe ticks and where we are at the boundaries knowledge.-> dhw: We would simply conclude that science will eventually prove that life, consciousness, psychic phenomena, emotional, aesthetic and mystic experiences will one day all be traced back to material causes. 
This of course is an assumption, but I would argue a very useful and I suspect accurate one. While the form of solipsism you are (seem to be) advocating is useful only in the sense that we should not be overly certain. -Having said that I don't have assume that pandimensional white mice are directing our evolution.-And one more time ... science does not prove things. You should know better!-> dhw: That in itself is a matter of faith, and so has no more current validity than the belief that there are a dozen or so dimensions, other universes, and/or other forms of being beyond those that we know (or think we know).-Philosophers have questioned the validity of assuming that cause and effect are true and quite accurately point out there is no deductive method validating cause and effect. Having said that the inductive method (reductionism) has been really useful in moving what passes for knowledge forward.-What advances has assuming the reality of the immaterial brought forward dhw?

The real discussion: Values

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 29, 2015, 01:24 (3003 days ago) @ romansh

Romansh: Philosophers have questioned the validity of assuming that cause and effect are true and quite accurately point out there is no deductive method validating cause and effect. Having said that the inductive method (reductionism) has been really useful in moving what passes for knowledge forward.-Quite correct, but reducing a cell to all of its operating parts and reactions doesn't tell us why it is alive. Put all the lab-reproduced parts in a lab-produced membrane and all you have is a sack of parts. There must be something beyond reductionism.

The real discussion: Values

by romansh ⌂ @, Tuesday, December 29, 2015, 03:53 (3003 days ago) @ David Turell

David: Quite correct, but reducing a cell to all of its operating parts and reactions doesn't tell us why it is alive. Put all the lab-reproduced parts in a lab-produced membrane and all you have is a sack of parts. There must be something beyond reductionism.
But it does give us a sense of how.-So understanding that pandimensional white mice are responsible for something being alive does not tell us why either.

The real discussion: Values

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 29, 2015, 15:06 (3003 days ago) @ romansh

David: There must be something beyond reductionism.-> Romansh: But it does give us a sense of how.-Perhaps the faintest of glimpses.
> 
> Romansh: So understanding that pandimensional white mice are responsible for something being alive does not tell us why either.-I didn't know you were fond of imaginary mice.

The real discussion: Values

by dhw, Tuesday, December 29, 2015, 21:33 (3002 days ago) @ romansh

dhw: I sometimes get the feeling that by reductionism you actually mean materialism... 
ROMANSH: If you mean can we apply reductionist methods to things that are immaterial and I suspect don't exist, I think you are right.
dhw: ...and what you mean by insights is the belief that all things can be traced back to material causes and effects. 
ROMANSH: With the possible exception of quantum phenomena, yes.
dhw: ...We would simply conclude that science will eventually prove that life, consciousness, psychic phenomena, emotional, aesthetic and mystic experiences will one day all be traced back to material causes. -ROMANSH: This of course is an assumption, but I would argue a very useful and I suspect accurate one. While the form of solipsism you are (seem to be) advocating is useful only in the sense that we should not be overly certain.-I don't suppose anyone would dispute the usefulness of scientific research into the material world, but I don't think material “usefulness” is the only value we should be considering. Our mysterious consciousness is linked to all kinds of subjective experiences (categories listed above) that are every bit as real and important to us in our daily lives as the material benefits from scientific research. The assumption that they are explicable in material terms may be accurate, but I am certainly not prepared to dismiss the hypothesis that there are phenomena beyond the scope of the material world as we know it.
 
ROMANSH: Having said that I don't have assume that pandimensional white mice are directing our evolution.-You constantly talk of assuming and assumptions. I prefer to talk of hypotheses, one of which is David's hypothesis of a universal intelligence directing evolution. I don't share it, but I don't dismiss it and I don't sneer at it, because I don't share your declared leanings towards materialism any more than I share his theism. -ROMANSH: And one more time ... science does not prove things. You should know better!
Agreed. I should have written: We would simply conclude that science will eventually convince everyone that life, consciousness etc. etc. My next comment still stands:-dhw: That in itself is a matter of faith, and so has no more current validity than the belief that there are a dozen or so dimensions, other universes, and/or other forms of being beyond those that we know (or think we know).
ROMANSH: Philosophers have questioned the validity of assuming that cause and effect are true and quite accurately point out there is no deductive method validating cause and effect. Having said that the inductive method (reductionism) has been really useful in moving what passes for knowledge forward.
What advances has assuming the reality of the immaterial brought forward dhw?
-Re usefulness, the response is the same as above, but I will be more precise: my love for my family and my friends, my delight in a Beethoven symphony, my acute awareness of the beauty and ugliness of the world around me, my fascination with the utter mystery of life and consciousness - these are all immaterial experiences which I share with a lot of other people and which are actually more real to me than quantum phenomena. For many people, God is also real. “Advances?” “Usefulness”? The subject of this thread is values, and I would suggest that the immaterial values of empathy, tolerance, patience, open-mindedness, and above all love for our fellow creatures are pretty useful, and if they were more widely practised our human society would ”advance” beyond all recognition. But if you want to confine the discussion to materialism as the key to knowledge, please explain how chemicals can produce consciousness, love and empathy.

The real discussion: Values

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 30, 2015, 00:12 (3002 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: The subject of this thread is values, and I would suggest that the immaterial values of empathy, tolerance, patience, open-mindedness, and above all love for our fellow creatures are pretty useful, and if they were more widely practised our human society would ”advance” beyond all recognition. But if you want to confine the discussion to materialism as the key to knowledge, please explain how chemicals can produce consciousness, love and empathy.-All of our consciousness is immaterial. That is Nagel's point; we have no theory as to how it appears. Reducing it to a material description of what every neuron does and how they all are connected, and how the brain hormones work will not answer the question. fMRI's tell us roughly where thoughts are made, but not how they are made.

The real discussion: Values

by romansh ⌂ @, Thursday, December 31, 2015, 17:53 (3001 days ago) @ dhw
edited by romansh, Thursday, December 31, 2015, 18:38

dhw: I don't suppose anyone would dispute the usefulness of scientific research into the material world, 
You would be surprised.
> dhw:but I don't think material “usefulness” is the only value we should be considering. 
I am not sure why the "usefulness"? What is your point? I did not use the word.-Advances and usefulness are not synonymous.
> dhw: Our mysterious consciousness is linked to all kinds of subjective experiences (categories listed above) that are every bit as real and important to us in our daily lives as the material benefits from scientific research.
This is an article of faith of course. 
I might agree we experience consciousness but I am far less convinced of its usefulness than you are. Evolution has endowed us with the capacity to perceive consciousness. Take away the material I am totally dubious of its existence. 
> dhw: The assumption that they are explicable in material terms may be accurate, but I am certainly not prepared to dismiss the hypothesis that there are phenomena beyond the scope of the material world as we know it.
And I am certainly not prepared to dismiss the hypothesis as hogwash.
the claim that there are [may be] phenomena beyond the scope of the material world is of course completely untestable by definition! And how do these immaterial concepts interact with the world. immaterially? Should I take Douglas Adams' concept of hyper-intelligent pandimensional white mice seriously? I would argue about as seriously as cosmic universal intelligences.-> dhw: You constantly talk of assuming and assumptions. I prefer to talk of hypotheses, one of which is David's hypothesis of a universal intelligence directing evolution. 
Frankly I would not count David's universal intelligence as a hypothesis. Avogadro's hypothesis was testable and in fact the BIMP is considering changing the definition of a mole to an Avogadro's Number of entities. 
> dhw: I don't share it, but I don't dismiss it and I don't sneer at it, 
I must admit I can't take David's deeply held position seriously. -> dhw: Re usefulness, the response is the same as above, but I will be more precise: my love for my family and my friends, my delight in a Beethoven symphony, my acute awareness of the beauty and ugliness of the world around me, my fascination with the utter mystery of life and consciousness - these are all immaterial experiences which I share with a lot of other people and which are actually more real to me than quantum phenomena. For many people, God is also real.
I don't see these things as immaterial (in either sense of the word). 
I can ask questions of "your experiences" and your responses are material in both senses of the word. And despite David's (what are for me poorly thought out objections) I could get material responses from various physical aspects of these thoughts and feelings that originate in the brain.-> dhw: “Advances?” “Usefulness”? The subject of this thread is values, and I would suggest that the immaterial values of empathy, tolerance, patience, open-mindedness, and above all love for our fellow creatures are pretty useful,
I notice understanding is not in your list. 
I would argue they are not immaterial ... but very material. You can't bottle these things in a vacuum, despite David's best efforts.-> dhw: and if they were more widely practised our human society would ”advance” beyond all recognition. But if you want to confine the discussion to materialism as the key to knowledge, please explain how chemicals can produce consciousness, love and empathy.
consciousness - illusion
love - oxytocin
empathy - mirror neurons-how? ... evolution-Let me tell you a story ... after my son died eight years ago I experienced intense grief, as one would expect. The thought crossed my mind that evolution had endowed us with the capacity to experience grief. Not for one moment did I doubt that the biochemistry that was raging through my body was somehow immaterial. I decided not to fight evolution and let the "grief" (biochemistry) wash over me or do its thing. As the years passed that particular bit of biochemistry has subsided and is a welcome old friend on the odd day it decides to pay a visit.-Is this an advance? Is it useful? It is totally material.

The real discussion: Values

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 31, 2015, 20:24 (3001 days ago) @ romansh

Romansh: I can ask questions of "your experiences" and your responses are material in both senses of the word. And despite David's (what are for me poorly thought out objections) I could get material responses from various physical aspects of these thoughts and feelings that originate in the brain.-Of course what we experience as consciousness is based on material neurons, hormones, shifts in blood flow, but that does not explain the experience itself, which you consider an illusion. Nagel does not.
> 
> Romansh: Let me tell you a story ... after my son died eight years ago I experienced intense grief, as one would expect. The thought crossed my mind that evolution had endowed us with the capacity to experience grief. Not for one moment did I doubt that the biochemistry that was raging through my body was somehow immaterial.-I've lost a son also, with the same result as yours. Of course the material biochemistry underlay it. The experienced grief was immaterial.

The real discussion: Values

by dhw, Friday, January 01, 2016, 16:07 (3000 days ago) @ romansh

dhw: ...but I don't think material “usefulness” is the only value we should be considering. 
ROMANSH: I am not sure why the "usefulness"? What is your point? I did not use the word.-You wrote:”This of course is an assumption, but I would argue a very useful and I suspect accurate one. While the form of solipsism you are (seem to be) advocating is useful only in the sense that we should not be overly certain.” Later: “the inductive method (reductionism) has been really useful in moving what passes for knowledge forward.” Since we're discussing values, I don't see why you are querying your own criterion of usefulness and my response to it.-dhw: Our mysterious consciousness is linked to all kinds of subjective experiences (categories listed above) that are every bit as real and important to us in our daily lives as the material benefits from scientific research.
ROMANSH: This is an article of faith of course. 
I might agree we experience consciousness but I am far less convinced of its usefulness than you are. [...] Take away the material I am totally dubious of its existence.-Strangely, you have changed my “real and important” to “useful” - the word you challenged above! I do not think my conscious (and to me very real) love for my family, for instance, is an ”article of faith”, and I do consider it useful, since love leads to happy relationships. You may be right, however, that it will disappear when we die.-dhw: The assumption that they are explicable in material terms may be accurate, but I am certainly not prepared to dismiss the hypothesis that there are phenomena beyond the scope of the material world as we know it.
ROMANSH: And I am certainly not prepared to dismiss the hypothesis as hogwash.
the claim that there are [may be] phenomena beyond the scope of the material world is of course completely untestable by definition! And how do these immaterial concepts interact with the world. immaterially? Should I take Douglas Adams' concept of hyper-intelligent pandimensional white mice seriously? I would argue about as seriously as cosmic universal intelligences.-I don't understand this at all. If you are NOT prepared to dismiss the hypothesis as hogwash, why do you put Adams' mice on a par with David's universal intelligence? Immaterial concepts such as ideas, ambitions, principles may be translated into material actions, but that does not endow them with physicality.
 
dhw: You constantly talk of assuming and assumptions. I prefer to talk of hypotheses, one of which is David's hypothesis of a universal intelligence directing evolution. 
ROMANSH: Frankly I would not count David's universal intelligence as a hypothesis. -Hypothesis: “An idea that is suggested as an explanation for something, but that has not yet been proved to be true” (Longman). “Yet” is a problem, as it suggests proof is possible, but I can't think of a better term. “Assumption” = “something that you think is true although you have no definite proof” (Longman), which cannot be applied to the agnostic view of hypotheses concerning the existence or non-existence of a universal intelligence.-dhw: I don't share it, but I don't dismiss it and I don't sneer at it...-ROMANSH: I must admit I can't take David's deeply held position seriously. -There are aspects I can't swallow either, but I take very seriously the argument that life and the mechanism for evolution are too complex to have arisen by chance.
I shall telescope our remaining exchanges for the sake of brevity:-dhw: “Advances?” “Usefulness”? The subject of this thread is values, and I would suggest that the immaterial values of empathy, tolerance, patience, open-mindedness, and above all love for our fellow creatures are pretty useful...
ROMANSH: I would argue they are not immaterial ... but very material. -You switched from values back to materialism! OK. By ”material” I understand physical. The source may be physical, and there may be physical manifestations, but you cannot touch empathy, tolerance etc., or analyse them under a microscope or in a test tube. You wrote: “I could get material responses from various physical aspects of these thoughts and feelings that originate in the brain.” Yes, you can examine the brain's activity, but you cannot tell whether this is the producer or the product of the immaterial phenomena. -dhw: ...if you want to confine the discussion to materialism as the key to knowledge, please explain how chemicals can produce consciousness, love and empathy.-ROMANSH: consciousness - illusion
love - oxytocin
empathy - mirror neurons
how? ... evolution-If you are think oxytocin is a synonym for love, or an injection of it would bind you emotionally to the first woman you laid eyes on, and that evolution explains how a peptide hormone which causes the uterus to contract and the mammary glands to release milk also creates an emotion that transcends any physical description I can think of, then so be it.-ROMANSH: Let me tell you a story ... after my son died eight years ago I experienced intense grief, as one would expect.[...] -I can imagine nothing worse than losing a child. I can only sympathize, and admire both you and David for finding ways to cope with the grief.

The real discussion: Values

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Saturday, January 02, 2016, 00:45 (2999 days ago) @ dhw

For me epistemology concerns the nature and boundaries of knowledge - not what we think we know, but whether and how it is even possible to know anything. Knowledge to me implies something absolute, and so we have to draw a distinction between knowledge and belief. That's why the common definition of agnosticism (“the impossibility of knowing whether God exists or not”) seems to some of us to be obsolete: nobody KNOWS - though people may BELIEVE they know - so we are all agnostics. In everyday life, we tend for practical reasons not to think in absolute terms, but if I remember rightly, we agreed that the nearest we can get to “actual” knowledge is a general consensus on what is true among those who are aware of the matter in question. For instance, there is general consensus that the Earth goes round the sun, but not that God exists.
> -This ties into to ideas further down the road from this regarding assumptions. I know you jumped on romansh for using this word, but we use assumptions daily and in the things we discuss here. Even the statement "I don't believe we can have knowledge about God," makes assumptions, even if you don't think about them. An implied assumption here is that even if the supernatural exists, we can't access it. But this is an assumption, not a fact. -Assumptions are as important as values in the broader subject. -I assume materialism, because I am required to in order to accept scientific theories and data. If I don't make that assumption, then I have to take quite seriously the idea that the sun won't rise tomorrow. Assumptions in all of this *is* necessary. And we did reach an agreement: -"we agreed that the nearest we can get to “actual” knowledge is a general consensus on what is true among those who are aware of the matter in question."-To me, that's exactly what science does, but for science to even function, there are a series of assumptions that everyone who uses the method or its results *must* make. You might recall me drilling similar points home in the past, but you can't say that you trust a scientific cure for an ailment without assuming that an omnipotent deity can't swoop in and turn it into a poison before you receive it. -
> I'm not sure how one can test any claims relating to the divine versus chance origin of the universe, life and consciousness, but in any case I would put it the other way round. It seems right to me that human beings are allowed to adopt whatever view they like, so long as it does not harm other people. Society consists of individuals and should not adopt any single ”encompassing view” of origins - that is the route to oppression and persecution.
> -I've often said that I find the "divine vs. chance" a false dichotomy. The ancients provide some insights here: Everything that the Gods do to us is a product of fortune. Read Diogenes of Sinope, and the Stoics to see this line of thought in action. We'll have to revisit this, clearly, but my direct question to you: How would you tell the difference between something created divinely or created by chance? I've probably asked this in the past, but we seem to be stirring up lots of basic conversations since my return. -
> My own and every other generation I have known has always been deeply divided on matters pertaining to religion and origins. What you call ”baggage” may still be valid for millions of people, and since there is no general consensus on any of the theories, ultimately we fall back on subjective values. We draw comfort from intersubjectivity, but that is not the same as truth.
> -In my experience, growing up here in the midwest, supposedly the epitome of work ethic and Christian values, is that atheism and materialism in my generation are more or less assumed. I'm 36 now, and I've met three adults in my age cohort or younger that believe in God in the way my family does back where I grew up. The current generation doesn't have much of a split in their minds at all: Religion and all of its trappings are hogwash, end of story.

--
\"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.\"

The real discussion: Values

by dhw, Saturday, January 02, 2016, 18:19 (2999 days ago) @ xeno6696

Dhw: In everyday life, we tend for practical reasons not to think in absolute terms, but if I remember rightly, we agreed that the nearest we can get to “actual” knowledge is a general consensus on what is true among those who are aware of the matter in question. For instance, there is general consensus that the Earth goes round the sun, but not that God exists.
MATT: This ties into to ideas further down the road from this regarding assumptions. I know you jumped on romansh for using this word, but we use assumptions daily and in the things we discuss here. Even the statement "I don't believe we can have knowledge about God," makes assumptions, even if you don't think about them. An implied assumption here is that even if the supernatural exists, we can't access it. But this is an assumption, not a fact. -No disagreement here. I merely objected to Romansh's use of ”assumption” where I felt “hypothesis” was a more suitable term. As an agnostic I regard David's explanations of a God-directed evolution as a hypothesis and not an assumption, and I defined the difference. You go on to list various types of necessary assumptions, and I agree with most of those too, but as regards materialism, I think we need to be careful. You say: “I assume materialism, because I am required to in order to accept scientific theories and data.” There are many fields in which I think it is perfectly correct, not to mention practical, to assume materialism, and the result is indeed that we reach consensus. But there are others where materialism becomes a hypothesis, by which I mean an idea that has been suggested as an explanation, as opposed to an idea we believe to be true. These are areas that include the origin of life, the nature and products of consciousness (such as emotional, aesthetic, and psychic experiences), and the values which both David and I have called “immaterial”. There is no consensus here, and the assumption of a materialistic explanation seems to me (of course I can only make a subjective judgement) just as blinkered as the assumption of a supernatural explanation.-Dhw: I'm not sure how one can test any claims relating to the divine versus chance origin of the universe, life and consciousness, but in any case I would put it the other way round. It seems right to me that human beings are allowed to adopt whatever view they like, so long as it does not harm other people. Society consists of individuals and should not adopt any single ”encompassing view” of origins - that is the route to oppression and persecution.
MATT: I've often said that I find the "divine vs. chance" a false dichotomy. The ancients provide some insights here: Everything that the Gods do to us is a product of fortune. Read Diogenes of Sinope, and the Stoics to see this line of thought in action. We'll have to revisit this, clearly, but my direct question to you: How would you tell the difference between something created divinely or created by chance? I've probably asked this in the past, but we seem to be stirring up lots of basic conversations since my return. -I can't. That is why we have a never-ending discussion on the subject! One person sees divine purpose, and another sees chance. I do not see it as a false dichotomy, regardless of what the ancients say, but we are not talking here about what the gods “do to us”. Our context is “the origin of the universe, life and consciousness”.-Dhw: My own and every other generation I have known has always been deeply divided on matters pertaining to religion and origins. What you call ”baggage” may still be valid for millions of people, and since there is no general consensus on any of the theories, ultimately we fall back on subjective values. We draw comfort from intersubjectivity, but that is not the same as truth.
MATT: In my experience, growing up here in the midwest, supposedly the epitome of work ethic and Christian values, is that atheism and materialism in my generation are more or less assumed. I'm 36 now, and I've met three adults in my age cohort or younger that believe in God in the way my family does back where I grew up. The current generation doesn't have much of a split in their minds at all: Religion and all of its trappings are hogwash, end of story.-I expect David will also distance himself from the established religions and their trappings, so it might be better to stick to theism versus atheistic materialism. I suspect you're right about your own generation in the predominantly Christian West, though there is certainly no general consensus, and there are other regions where I'd advise you not to repeat such antireligious views out loud, even (especially?)among 36-year-old men! I trust, however, that you are not claiming your generation in the Christian West knows that materialist atheism is the “truth”, while any other belief is hogwash.

The real discussion: Values

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Saturday, January 02, 2016, 00:45 (2999 days ago) @ dhw

ROMANSH: I think when we have this kind of discussion we are very much stuck in the psychological ... ie the perception of our perceptions. I can't help thinking a little bit of reductionism won't go amiss here. I don't think it will give the "Big Answers" but it might give some insights rather than squabbling about our perceptions.I assume a materialist world, primarily because I have no evidence of a dualistic existence. In this materialist world my thoughts which include any faith, belief or knowledge I may profess, seem to be an arrangement of fundamental particles and fields ... whatever.
> 
> I sometimes get the feeling that by reductionism you actually mean materialism, and what you mean by insights is the belief that all things can be traced back to material causes and effects. If this were so, there would be very little to discuss. We would simply conclude that science will eventually prove that life, consciousness, psychic phenomena, emotional, aesthetic and mystic experiences will one day all be traced back to material causes. That in itself is a matter of faith, and so has no more current validity than the belief that there are a dozen or so dimensions, other universes, and/or other forms of being beyond those that we know (or think we know).
> -^^Reductionism is usually used as an epithet by Intelligent Design proponents to be synonymous with materialism. Yet for the few things of faith we would be required to take by assuming materialism, we drop many, many, many more. To me, materialism represents epistemological conservatism at its best.-> Bereft of what? (And for ”actual knowledge” see above.) I regard epistemology as an attempt not to describe reality but to describe how we arrive at our different concepts of reality. Materialism is one of those concepts, from which believers may derive conclusions that are no less subjective than concepts relating to personal experience. It may be rightly argued that in many contexts materialism has been proven right (thunder and lightning are not the product of war between the gods), but in others we CAN only speculate. We have to face up to the possibility that the material world may extend far beyond what we think we know, but we cannot discount the possibility that the material world is not all there is. Until every mystery has been definitively solved, epistemology - it seems to me - leaves us with a choice between faith of one kind or another and open-mindedness.-Epistemology's goal is to provide the foundation to force us to justify how we know what we know. To me it is a directed study. Otherwise we could just assume Agrippan Skepticism and deny knowledge is possible. "Actual knowledge" is knowledge independently verifiable and free from cultural bias. (It must be true no matter the culture involved.) Materialism does require some speculation, but I will ask you the question, does it make us speculate more or less compared to other alternatives?

--
\"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.\"

The real discussion: Values

by dhw, Saturday, January 02, 2016, 18:21 (2999 days ago) @ xeno6696

Dhw (to Romansh): I sometimes get the feeling that by reductionism you actually mean materialism, and what you mean by insights is the belief that all things can be traced back to material causes and effects. If this were so, there would be very little to discuss. We would simply conclude that science will eventually prove that life, consciousness, psychic phenomena, emotional, aesthetic and mystic experiences will one day all be traced back to material causes. That in itself is a matter of faith, and so has no more current validity than the belief that there are a dozen or so dimensions, other universes, and/or other forms of being beyond those that we know (or think we know).
MATT: Reductionism is usually used as an epithet by Intelligent Design proponents to be synonymous with materialism. Yet for the few things of faith we would be required to take by assuming materialism, we drop many, many, many more. To me, materialism represents epistemological conservatism at its best.-I agree, but with the reservation I expressed earlier, concerning those matters which so far science has been unable to explain. I do not accept the “assumption” that all things can be explained by materialism. That is a hypothesis.-MATT: Epistemology's goal is to provide the foundation to force us to justify how we know what we know. To me it is a directed study. Otherwise we could just assume Agrippan Skepticism and deny knowledge is possible. "Actual knowledge" is knowledge independently verifiable and free from cultural bias. (It must be true no matter the culture involved.) Materialism does require some speculation, but I will ask you the question, does it make us speculate more or less compared to other alternatives?
-The nearest we can get to “actual knowledge”, we agreed, is a “general consensus on what is true among those who are aware of the matter in question.” This of course must be independent of culture. I agree that generally materialistic science involves less speculation than, say, philosophy, but there are some subjects as listed earlier that even materialists can only speculate about, possibly because with our current means of access to “knowledge”, we are too limited to get to the bottom of the mysteries. That does not mean materialists should give up the search to justify their faith, but currently their speculations are far from achieving a general consensus and therefore have no more objective validity than those of the “immaterialists”.

The real discussion: Values

by romansh ⌂ @, Monday, December 28, 2015, 03:06 (3004 days ago) @ xeno6696

Matt My highest value is placed upon epistemology: How we know what we know. -My personal agnosticism extends past Huxley's original coinage of the word. 
Pretty much to everyday things ... not just the Big Questions.-
I think when we have this kind of discussion we are very much stuck in the psychological ... ie the perception of our perceptions. I can't help thinking a little bit of reductionism won't go amiss here. I don't think it will give the "Big Answers" but it might give some insights rather than squabbling about our perceptions.-
I assume a materialist world, primarily because I have no evidence of a dualistic existence. In this materialist world my thoughts which include any faith, belief or knowledge I may profess, seem to be an arrangement of fundamental particles and fields ... whatever.-So these things ultimately are a pattern that for various reasons are not susceptible to change.-just a starter.

The real discussion: Values

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Monday, December 28, 2015, 04:37 (3004 days ago) @ romansh

I assume a materialist world, primarily because I have no evidence of a dualistic existence. In this materialist world my thoughts which include any faith, belief or knowledge I may profess, seem to be an arrangement of fundamental particles and fields ... whatever.
> 
> So these things ultimately are a pattern that for various reasons are not susceptible to change.
> 
> just a starter.-We are in a similar boat. The materialist world is the only game in play. In epistemology, any other description of reality is necessarily bereft. Logically consistent--perhaps. But in regards to being the police of what is *actual* knowledge, as opposed to speculation, materialism for me has no legitimate competitor.

--
\"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.\"

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum