Thursday, October 05, 2017

Naturalism is true" A self-contradictory statement

By Albrecht Moritz. Here. 

52 comments:

Hal said...

Mr. Moritz gives a nice illustration of the perils for a scientist to put on a philosophical hat. He does such a nice job as a scientist here in attacking creationsim.

Unfortunately, his attack on naturalism is too shallow to be taken seriously. Interestingly some of the fine points he makes in his discussion of evolution should have led him to see how emerging things can lead to new properties such as consciousness and to new capacities such as that of reasoning and acting for a reason.
For example:
Science shows us that the universe evolved by self-organization of matter towards more and more complex structures.

And this:
In fact, creationists should seriously ask themselves if their concept of God is not a belittling one: the Intelligent Designer as "tinkerer" who is forced to break his own created laws of nature once in a while because they are insufficient to achieve certain stages in the development of the material world. From a theistic philosophical perspective, the actual findings of science suggest a much grander idea of God: the Designer who laid out an elegant and self-sufficient set of laws of nature that accomplish the unfolding of his creation by inducing self-organization of the material world. This idea is easily compatible with the concept of God of many mainstream religions, including most Christian ones.

Victor Reppert said...

But what kinds of emergence can there be if

1) The world described by physics is, at base nonteleological, nonintentional, non-normative, and has no perspective.

2) Physics is causally closed

and

3) Whatever else exists, supervenes upon and is determined by the physical.

This is the first divide we have to consider. Do you accept materialism thus defined, or not?

Hal said...

Victor,
1)The world described by phyiscs is, at base, non living. Yet the world abounds with physical substances that are living. Why is it that when disputing naturalism philosophers only focus on abiotic matter?

2)To be honest, I've not given enough thought to the question of causal closure to state a definitive position on it. At this point it just seems irrelevant to my conception of the mind since I don't conceive of the mind being an agent that causally interacts on a patient.

3) I don't accept the philosophical theory of supervenience. It is a flawed attempt at explaining emergence. How can there be change in the world without emergence?

I'm not a materialist accept in the sense that I deny that there are mental or supernatural substances. The mental does exist but it is not a substance or an entity. Though many living substances are conscious and capable of self-movement, it is only humans that have the array of mental capacities that warrants attributing a mind to them.

The article linked is critical of naturalism. Unfortunately, the author too readily assumes that naturalism is identical with materialism.

Joe Hinman said...

I'm not a materialist accept in the sense that I deny that there are mental or supernatural substances. The mental does exist but it is not a substance or an entity. Though many living substances are conscious and capable of self-movement, it is only humans that have the array of mental capacities that warrants attributing a mind to them.

that is nonsense,a ,ot of scientists have written about creatures lik,e ameba and slim molds that display mind-like qualities and they have no brains, so how about dogs,chimps and dolphins? see this circle

Jabr, Ferris. "How Brainless slime molds redefine in intelligence," Scientific American, (November 7, 2012) website URL:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/brainless-slime-molds/

Joe Hinman said...

3) I don't accept the philosophical theory of supervenience. It is a flawed attempt at explaining emergence. How can there be change in the world without emergence?

I thin it's close enough to the notion of intervening verifiable in sociology, which is a fact, that it has enough merit to considered true.

Joe Hinman said...

3) Whatever else exists, supervenes upon and is determined by the physical.

This is the first divide we have to consider. Do you accept materialism thus defined, or not?


sorry Doc I think that is an assertion not in evidence.

Joe Hinman said...

Science shows us that the universe evolved by self-organization of matter towards more and more complex structures.

Hey Hal I cruelty did a lot of study on self organizing principles for a book for a Canadian publishers that may go to press next year or so. It's pretty complex but the concept is really misnomer,things don't organize themselves and the concept does not rule out a divine organizing principle guiding the process,

And this:
In fact, creationists should seriously ask themselves if their concept of God is not a belittling one: the Intelligent Designer as "tinkerer" who is forced to break his own created laws of nature once in a while because they are insufficient to achieve certain stages in the development of the material world.

I agree, and forced to do so at every hands turn,of course once we assume God wants evolution that ceases to be a problem.

From a theistic philosophical perspective, the actual findings of science suggest a much grander idea of God: the Designer who laid out an elegant and self-sufficient set of laws of nature that accomplish the unfolding of his creation by inducing self-organization of the material world.

agreed for want of a better term


This idea is easily compatible with the concept of God of many mainstream religions, including most Christian ones.

agree

Hal said...

Joe,
that is nonsense,a ,ot of scientists have written about creatures lik,e ameba and slim molds that display mind-like qualities and they have no brains, so how about dogs,chimps and dolphins? see this circle

Hey, if you want to extend the concept of mind to other critters, go at it. Even though I think you are being too generous, the examples you point to substantiate my claim about how widespread emergence is. It also helps to show how the biological evolution that has taken place has produced beings like us.

Glad to see we agree that biological evolution is really no threat to theism.

Stardusty Psyche said...

OP
" While emergence results in phenomena that would not have been predicted from the basic components of the system on their own, it never violates the physical laws by which these basic components operate. Such a violation would have to occur if free thought could be the result of purely physical processes, which are either deterministic or, at the quantum level, random on a probabilistic basis (yet significant quantum level influence on thought is not feasible under naturalism, since it would just produce random thoughts)."
--Right, free thought is an illusion, determinism is the case, and emergence is merely an approximation at the macro scale for analytical purposes. There is no new thing that emerges, and in that sense emergence is illusory as are phenomena.

" natural selection may not suffice to explain the human mind's capacity for recognition of truth and objective thought"
--Right, our only known objective truths are derived from self awareness, such as cogito ergo sum.

"How then can naturalists nonetheless assert that naturalism is true and its acceptance rational?"
--Naturalism simply doesn't make that objective assertion.

"Thus under naturalism the claim that naturalism is true becomes incoherent and self-contradictory. Naturalism defeats itself."
--False. The author forgets his own words:

"Naturalism is the view..."

A view is an opinion, it is something one has become personally convinced of, absent a claim to objective truth.

To argue against naturalism Moritz at first accurately defines it, but then equivocates to a strawman so he can defeat that strawman. Reppert agrees. Both are wrong in their conclusion because their argumentation is fallacious, that of equivocating to a strawman.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Victor Reppert said.. October 05, 2017 6:11 PM.

" But what kinds of emergence can there be if
1) The world described by physics is, at base nonteleological, nonintentional, non-normative, and has no perspective.
2) Physics is causally closed
and
3) Whatever else exists, supervenes upon and is determined by the physical."
--Indeed, no new thing can emerge in that case. Emergence, like the notion of a phenomena, is merely a macro scale approximate model useful for analysis and large scale function.

" Do you accept materialism thus defined, or not?"
--Moritz gets close with this:
"Naturalism is the view that nothing exists beyond the natural world and that only physical laws operate in our world"

It would have been better to omit the word "laws" and use some other language that does not imply the necessity of a law giver.

The word "view" is critical. The selfconsciously provisional nature of the materialistic view breaks the assertion of circularity theists attempt.

Moritz equivocates from his opening definition that recognizes the provisional nature of the materialistic "view" and switches to a strawman "know" and "true" as applied to materialism and rationality.

In the closing paragraph of the first section Moritz pays lip service to "working hypothesis" and "rationally convinced" yet manages to get his thinking all twisted up like a pretzel.

In the end, Moritz simply slaps on the notion that the materialist somehow claims something about the materialistic view is objectively true, and having voiced that confused strawman he promptly knocks it down.

The answer is simple. Rationality itself is provisionally postulated, not proved. The principles of logic are provisionally postulated, not proved. Materialism makes no claim to objective truth in any respect outside of cogito ergo sum, and thus is not self contradictory and is in fact coherent, unlike Moritz, who closes with a confused jumble in this paragraph.

"A more modest position might be taken. The naturalist can simply hold that naturalism is a useful 'working hypothesis', with no truth claim attached. However, given the issues discussed above, how can naturalists even know that this working hypothesis makes sense and is rational? Or if they do not claim to know if it is useful and valid, then how can they at least be rationally convinced that it is? The problem persists. Also as a mere working hypothesis, naturalism defeats itself."



Joe Hinman said...

Joe,
that is nonsense,a ,ot of scientists have written about creatures lik,e ameba and slim molds that display mind-like qualities and they have no brains, so how about dogs,chimps and dolphins? see this circle

HalHey, if you want to extend the concept of mind to other critters, go at it.

there's a Trump Joke in there somewhere

Even though I think you are being too generous, the examples you point to substantiate my claim about how widespread emergence is. It also helps to show how the biological evolution that has taken place has produced beings like us.

I have problem with emergence. It;s part of holism and is consistent with my anti reductionist agenda

Glad to see we agree that biological evolution is really no threat to theism.

amen brother! preach the word. Jesus likes evolution.

Joe Hinman said...

Stardusty Psyche said...
OP
" While emergence results in phenomena that would not have been predicted from the basic components of the system on their own, it never violates the physical laws by which these basic components operate. Such a violation would have to occur if free thought could be the result of purely physical processes, which are either deterministic or, at the quantum level, random on a probabilistic basis (yet significant quantum level influence on thought is not feasible under naturalism, since it would just produce random thoughts)."

that is bullshit, there are proponents of free will in scientific world who tear that up for breakfast, even MATHATCIIAN WITH PHYSICS ADDENDUM HRG ON carm IS PRO FREE WILL HE'S A TOTAL REDUCTIONIST ATHEIST,

--Right, free thought is an illusion, determinism is the case, and emergence is merely an approximation at the macro scale for analytical purposes. There is no new thing that emerges, and in that sense emergence is illusory as are phenomena.

wrong it's not, that is propaganda

" natural selection may not suffice to explain the human mind's capacity for recognition of truth and objective thought"

then the atheist pretense of reason is a lie,you are not a man of reason your attempts at reason are an illusion you are not a thinker (no one is) you are an illusion with no mind. You say stuff and really don't know what it means, and don't even mean to say it, you are an illusion. you area joke. meaningless nothing of a joke, unreasoning unthinking. your deepest thoughts are lie,as are all alleged thoughts.


--Right, our only known objective truths are derived from self awareness, such as cogito ergo sum.

see the nihilist can't accept his nihilism, you can't Live consistently with your pronouncements, everyone else's mind mind is suspect but your mind is real. why would that be? if there is no real thinking if there is no free thought your thoughts are being determined for you so you are not really thinking,

"How then can naturalists nonetheless assert that naturalism is true and its acceptance rational?"
--Naturalism simply doesn't make that objective assertion.

you just made it for yourself. Unless you are willing to admit "our only known objective truths are derived from self awareness" is bull shit which is the only way to be consistent,that means you are a meaningless joke, your are most Private hatred of God is just some meaningless bullshit,

"Thus under naturalism the claim that naturalism is true becomes incoherent and self-contradictory. Naturalism defeats itself."
--False. The author forgets his own words:

"Naturalism is the view..."

you forget your words there is no free thinking its all an illusion so your most coherent thoughts are garbage,

A view is an opinion, it is something one has become personally convinced of, absent a claim to objective truth.

like determinism?

To argue against naturalism Moritz at first accurately defines it, but then equivocates to a strawman so he can defeat that strawman. Reppert agrees. Both are wrong in their conclusion because their argumentation is fallacious, that of equivocating to a strawman.

what you just said is not insight, it's an illusion you have no insight you did not figure it out that idea it was forced on you by forces you have no idea about and can't refuse,

you are not a thinker you are an empty automaton,as are all scientists and everyone who thinks he's thinking,

Joe Hinman said...

Stardusty Psyche said...
Victor Reppert said.. October 05, 2017 6:11 PM.

" But what kinds of emergence can there be if
1) The world described by physics is, at base nonteleological, nonintentional, non-normative, and has no perspective.
2) Physics is causally closed
and
3) Whatever else exists, supervenes upon and is determined by the physical."
--Indeed, no new thing can emerge in that case. Emergence, like the notion of a phenomena, is merely a macro scale approximate model useful for analysis and large scale function.

how can there be such a thing as "useful for analysis when analysis itself is useless illusion forced on us by forces we can;'t understand?

" Do you accept materialism thus defined, or not?"
--Moritz gets close with this:
"Naturalism is the view that nothing exists beyond the natural world and that only physical laws operate in our world"

in what sense can it be said one accepts when there is no free thinking all ideas are determined by external forces we are not thinking?

It would have been better to omit the word "laws" and use some other language that does not imply the necessity of a law giver.

they can't come up with another word. they have been trying

The word "view" is critical. The selfconsciously provisional nature of the materialistic view breaks the assertion of circularity theists attempt.

Moritz equivocates from his opening definition that recognizes the provisional nature of the materialistic "view" and switches to a strawman "know" and "true" as applied to materialism and rationality.

Dusty an all atheists who pretend to be reason users re doing the same,

In the closing paragraph of the first section Moritz pays lip service to "working hypothesis" and "rationally convinced" yet manages to get his thinking all twisted up like a pretzel.

the cogito is not reasoning, the IO whosaysI think is merely being told to say it by forcres he does not understand which are determined for him,

It's already been stipulated there is no thinking,it's all determine, they can't live with that so they have to make species for their own little thoughts however trivial to be there own,

all this duplicity so they wont feel guilty of sin


Joe Hinman said...

--Right, free thought is an illusion, determinism is the case, and emergence is merely an approximation at the macro scale for analytical purposes. There is no new thing that emerges, and in that sense emergence is illusory as are phenomena.

" natural selection may not suffice to explain the human mind's capacity for recognition of truth and objective thought"
--Right, our only known objective truths are derived from self awareness, such as cogito ergo sum.

what self awareness? to have self awareness there must be a self if all thought is determined for us there is no free thought there is no self, self awareness is an illusion

Legion of Logic said...

Stardusty: "Right, free thought is an illusion, determinism is the case, and emergence is merely an approximation at the macro scale for analytical purposes. There is no new thing that emerges, and in that sense emergence is illusory as are phenomena."

To which we can sit back and say "prove it". There is an unjustifiable level of certainty here if you can't do so.

Hal said...

There is no new thing that emerges, and in that sense emergence is illusory,,,

So I guess we can conclude from this that you are an illusion, SP. After all you did emerge from the coupling of your parents.

Hal said...

Joe,
I have problem with emergence. It;s part of holism and is consistent with my anti reductionist agenda

Sorry Joe, but am not sure what it is about emergence you have a problem with. Or did you just leave out a “no” before the word “problem”?

Stardusty Psyche said...

Legion of Logic said.. October 06, 2017 11:46 PM.

Stardusty: "Right, free thought is an illusion, determinism is the case, and emergence is merely an approximation at the macro scale for analytical purposes. There is no new thing that emerges, and in that sense emergence is illusory as are phenomena."

" To which we can sit back and say "prove it". There is an unjustifiable level of certainty here if you can't do so."
--Recall, my statement was predicated on a description Victor provided.

People like Victor and WL Craig often understand the consequences or inevitable conclusions of naturalism better than many atheists who still cling to vague notions of objective morality and emergence and phenomena while rejecting reductionism. I don't have that problem.

When WL Craig points out that on atheism there is no basis for objective morality I completely agree with him. When Victor posts a link that points out that the supposed emergence of phenomena are really just in accordance with physics on naturalism I agree with that too.

On naturalism objective morality does not exist, and the emergence of phenomena is just a macro scale approximation of aggregate behavior with no real new emergent thing or property.

That was what Victor was getting at October 05, 2017 6:11 PM wrt the OP. He gave a description of naturalism. The inevitable logical conclusion of that description is that emergence is illusory.

The alternative to determinism is intrinsic randomness (aka purely stochastic). If determinism is the case then something can happen for no reason, by no cause. Things just go poof. First X is here, then for no reason, by no transfer function, by no cause, by no application of force, with no energy source, X just suddenly goes over there.

But putting aside the absurdity of intrinsic randomness consider an omniscient being. Such a being mandates determinism, which in turn rules out free will. If the future is known now then the future is pre-determined, which is necessarily determinism. The speculation of the time traveler that observes a random event doesn't work. Perhaps the time traveler could observe and event, but if the time traveler can tell me in my time with a probability of 1 what will happen in my future on my timeline then my future is pre-determined for me. Negative time travel that carries information mandates determinism.

Joe Hinman said...

Hal said...
Joe,
I have problem with emergence. It;s part of holism and is consistent with my anti reductionist agenda

Sorry Joe, but am not sure what it is about emergence you have a problem with. Or did you just leave out a “no” before the word “problem”?

my problem is dyslexia because I meant to say No probable with emergence, sorry. Looked right at it could have sworn it said no problem

Hal said...

SP,
I am curious, how small does something have to be before you consider it to be truly existant? Is an atom small enough? Or is it only sub-atomic particles that pass muster for an existant entity?

Hal said...

Joe,
my problem is dyslexia because I meant to say No probable with emergence, sorry. Looked right at it could have sworn it said no problem

Thanks for the clarification. At least you have a good excuse for making such typing errors. I'm not dyslexic and I make such mistakes all the time.

Completely off topic, but I've been reading the Percy Jackson books along with my granddaughter. Don't know if you are aware of that fantasy series but the main characters are half-breeds: they have a Greek god and a human for parents. Many of them suffer from dyslexia because they want to try and read everything in ancient Greek.:-)

Joe Hinman said...

Stardusty Psyche said...
Legion of Logic said.. October 06, 2017 11:46 PM.

Stardusty: "Right, free thought is an illusion, determinism is the case, and emergence is merely an approximation at the macro scale for analytical purposes. There is no new thing that emerges, and in that sense emergence is illusory as are phenomena."

" To which we can sit back and say "prove it". There is an unjustifiable level of certainty here if you can't do so."
--Recall, my statement was predicated on a description Victor provided.

People like Victor and WL Craig often understand the consequences or inevitable conclusions of naturalism better than many atheists who still cling to vague notions of objective morality and emergence and phenomena while rejecting reductionism. I don't have that problem.

you have the problem that you can't live consistanlty with your ideology, because you want to think of yourself as having ideas and thinking everyone else is determoned,

When WL Craig points out that on atheism there is no basis for objective morality I completely agree with him. When Victor posts a link that points out that the supposed emergence of phenomena are really just in accordance with physics on naturalism I agree with that too.

On naturalism objective morality does not exist, and the emergence of phenomena is just a macro scale approximation of aggregate behavior with no real new emergent thing or property.

we recognize the existence of morality because morality does exist it's not just imposed by nature but by God

That was what Victor was getting at October 05, 2017 6:11 PM wrt the OP. He gave a description of naturalism. The inevitable logical conclusion of that description is that emergence is illusory.

you are so confused, without emergence you can't expansible consciousness or much else in evolution. Your ideas are so stupid, by your own philosophy you are not thinking, its silly to argue because if you are right we just think this stuff because we have to,we can't think otherwise and you did not figure anything out,you know nothing you are not intelligent no one is! you are a puppet.

The alternative to determinism is intrinsic randomness (aka purely stochastic).

no it's not, you are confusing cause and effect with determinism, causes do not necessitate that all thoughts are caused by external 1x1 correspondences,

If determinism is the case then something can happen for no reason, by no cause. Things just go poof.

that is stupid your reason for deterministic is cause cause and effect,

Joe Hinman said...

First X is here, then for no reason, by no transfer function, by no cause, by no application of force, with no energy source, X just suddenly goes over there.

I think you meant to say if emergence is the case,no that's not how top down cause works

But putting aside the absurdity of intrinsic randomness consider an omniscient being. Such a being mandates determinism, which in turn rules out free will.

that's a fallacy too, it comes from not reading ethology, you don't know crap about ideas of God,


If the future is known now then the future is pre-determined, which is necessarily determinism.

unless God knows the change too, or he could know the future selectively or he could know all possible worlds

The speculation of the time traveler that observes a random event doesn't work. Perhaps the time traveler could observe and event, but if the time traveler can tell me in my time with a probability of 1 what will happen in my future on my timeline then my future is pre-determined for me. Negative time travel that carries information mandates determinism.

God is not analogous to a time taveler there are also different ideas of how God knows the future, if it hasn't happened yet then he could know it probabalistically, or if he's outside of time then he knows all events as past events or as contemptibly events,

none of that justifies the spaces you try to perverse for your own intellect, you are trying to impose logic on an idea but by your own thinking there are no ideas there is no understanding you are not thinking its all controlled for you,

Joe Hinman said...

Hal said...
SP,
I am curious, how small does something have to be before you consider it to be truly existant? Is an atom small enough? Or is it only sub-atomic particles that pass muster for an existant entity?

you talking to me? it's not the size it's the substance,we don't know what subatomic particles they are not balls,they are not lumps of energy.
It's not a matter of no existence but of solidity,what is solid to the touch is not solid when you consider it's substance. what is the eal difference in energy and spirit?

Hal said...

Joe,
Not addressed to you, but to SP (Stardusty Psyche).

Since you and I agree that there is emergence (even though we conceptualize it differently) am not too concerned about what you consider to be an existant entity.
I agree with your point that it is not the size that is important. But SP is a reductionist and I'm not sure he'd agree with us.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Hal said...
"SP,
I am curious, how small does something have to be before you consider it to be truly existant? Is an atom small enough? Or is it only sub-atomic particles that pass muster for an existant entity?"
--Human beings form models. We have to. It is the only means we have available to function. Else we will die.

We consider a model to be valid when it converges on reality, when it gets close to reality under a wide variety of circumstances.

If reality is a wiggly line on a graph our model is the trend line through the middle of the wiggles, as it were. If the wiggly line goes way off some other direction and our model for a trend line still goes through the middle of the wiggles we consider the model to be valid to some degree of precision under some specified set of circumstances.

All known physics theories are approximations, models, of some as yet undiscovered underlying reality. Whatever that reality may be it is what is real, the rest is our approximate modeling of that underlying reality from the standard model up to cosmology and everything in between.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Hal said.. October 07, 2017 2:30 PM.

... emergence (even though we conceptualize it differently) am not too concerned about what you consider to be an existant entity.
I agree with your point that it is not the size that is important. But SP is a reductionist and I'm not sure he'd agree with us.
--There is apparent emergence but no new thing actually emerges.

Theists like V Reppert and WL Craig who have carefully considered some of the implications of atheistic naturalism say that on such naturalism there can be no basis for objective morality or the emergence of a new thing. They are correct. Thus, there is no such thing as objective morality or the emergence of an actual new thing.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said.. October 07, 2017 1:52 PM.

" my problem is dyslexia "
--That's just your excuse for continually hurling scattershot bits and pieces rants instead of making coherent arguments.

Your writing style is akin to the guy wandering down the street shouting angry disjointed warnings to nobody in particular.

Once you sit down to write a cohesive piece you occasionally make some actual arguments. On this thread you are mostly shouting dissociated phrases, often consisting of nothing more than your pop psychology mind reading attributions of what I or some other poster believe or think.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Joe Hinman said.. October 07, 2017 2:15 PM.

Case in point, just one of many :

"you want to think of yourself as having ideas and thinking everyone else is determoned,"

Wtf do you know what I want to think?

You are using dyslexia as an excuse to write like a jackass.

Hal said...

Human beings form models.

So? I see no answer to my question as to what you think really exists. What is the existant that you wish to reduce everything to?

Hal said...

You are using dyslexia as an excuse to write like a jackass.

Man, what is it with all these insults?
Are you just trolling or do you want to engage in rational discourse?

Stardusty Psyche said...

Hal said.. October 07, 2017 5:54 PM.
" I see no answer to my question as to what you think really exists.

You either did not read or did not understand October 07, 2017 4:23 PM

Legion of Logic said...

Stardusty: "Whatever that reality may be it is what is real, the rest is our approximate modeling of that underlying reality from the standard model up to cosmology and everything in between."

Emergence explains the evidence far better. Having to dismiss everything that refutes your position as an illusion does not bode well for you.

For example, a quark is not conscious. A proton is not conscious. A carbon molecule is not conscious. A neuron is not conscious. A human (if alive) is conscious. The only two positions to take in opposition to this is, either the most micro of micro things have consciousness, or humans do not. That is a tough position for a conscious being to argue.


Stardusty: "Theists like V Reppert and WL Craig who have carefully considered some of the implications of atheistic naturalism say that on such naturalism there can be no basis for objective morality or the emergence of a new thing. They are correct. Thus, there is no such thing as objective morality or the emergence of an actual new thing."

I suppose since there is emergence, then naturalism is false.


Stardusty Psyche said...


Blogger Legion of Logic said...

" Emergence explains the evidence far better. "
--What new thing emerges? What does this emergent thing come from? What is it made of? How did it emerge?


" either the most micro of micro things have consciousness, or humans do not. "
--1 micro of micro thing does not have consciousness. 10^n micro of micro things organized as they are in the human brain exhibit a combined sequence of interactions we model as "consciousness".


Stardusty: "Theists like V Reppert and WL Craig who have carefully considered some of the implications of atheistic naturalism say that on such naturalism there can be no basis for objective morality or the emergence of a new thing. They are correct. Thus, there is no such thing as objective morality or the emergence of an actual new thing."

" I suppose since there is emergence, then naturalism is false."
--What emerges from what? How is something created from nothing, or is emergentstuff created at the loss of regularstuff such that conservation is not violated? If so, what is emergentstuff? Is there an emergentstuff particle that should be added to the standard model?

Joe Hinman said...

Hal said...
You are using dyslexia as an excuse to write like a jackass.

Man, what is it with all these insults?
Are you just trolling or do you want to engage in rational discourse?

why don't you try looking at what I said, rather than trying to enhance your own importance?

(1) obviously Using dyslexia as an excuse because I didn't link the so called "insults" to dyslexia, i used dyslexia as an explanation as to why I left out the word "No" in the phrase "no problem with emergence." Of course I never said that Dusty can;t think because I have dyslexia, what sense would that make?

(2) I included myself and everyone in the statements about not being able to think. It's not a personal insult it's a consonance of the assertion about determinism,try thinking about the words next time.

Joe Hinman said...

tardusty Psyche said...
Joe Hinman said.. October 07, 2017 2:15 PM.

Case in point, just one of many :

"you want to think of yourself as having ideas and thinking everyone else is determoned,"

Wtf do you know what I want to think?

I know what you said, you contradict your own assumptions because you are afraid to extend your determinism to your own view, can I not trust your words to tell me what you think?

You are using dyslexia as an excuse to write like a jackass.

I did not ascribe your contradiction to my dyslexia; listen i can be a jackass without dyslexia,I was acting like a jackass long before I knew Abbott dyslexia,

Just tell me how it is that you can reason when the rest of us are determined and there's no free thought?

I thought atheists claimed to be free thinkers,

Joe Hinman said...

I guess the way I made my point was clumsy but it was not an attack on Dusty personally but an attempt to force the issue on the contradiction his thinking.

Legion of Logic said...

Stardusty: "10^n micro of micro things organized as they are in the human brain exhibit a combined sequence of interactions we model as "consciousness""

You just described emergence. "Organized as they are in the human brain" is a higher level of order that exhibits features not found on smaller scales. A brain's worth of neurons do not result in consciousness unless arranged into a brain. Emergence in a higher order. Unless there is no such thing as a brain...?

Hal said...

SP,
You either did not read or did not understand October 07, 2017 4:23 PM

I do not understand how it answers my question to you:

Do you think atoms or subatomic particles exist? Or are they among the things you consider to be illusory?

Stardusty Psyche said...

Legion of Logic said.. October 08, 2017 1:26 AM.

Stardusty: "10^n micro of micro things organized as they are in the human brain exhibit a combined sequence of interactions we model as "consciousness""

" You just described emergence. "
--What new thing emerged? Some new emergentstuff? What is emergentstuff made of? Does emergentstuff have mass?

""Organized as they are in the human brain" is a higher level of order that exhibits features not found on smaller scales."
--The more elements there are the more combinations of them there are and the more complex their interactions are. What new thing emerged?

" A brain's worth of neurons do not result in consciousness unless arranged into a brain. Emergence in a higher order."
--A higher order of what?

A crystal can be fantastically complex. It is still just a large number of molecules. There are far too many molecules for us to count and model individually, so we use the macro scale model of a crystal to describe their aggregate behavior.

Nothing new emerges. With large numbers of elements there can be aggregate behaviors we model at our scale of perception.

How many atoms does it take for a new thing to emerge?
10^0?
10^1?
10^10?
10^20?
10^30?

Does this emergent thing have properties? If so, what are they and where do they reside?

Hal said...

SP,
For example, a quark is not conscious. A proton is not conscious. A carbon molecule is not conscious. A neuron is not conscious. A human (if alive) is conscious. The only two positions to take in opposition to this is, either the most micro of micro things have consciousness, or humans do not. 

A quark is not alive, a proton is not alive a carbon molecule is not alive. Up until around 3 billion years ago all matter on this planet was abiotic. Then a new thing emerged: biotic matter. Biotic matter did not come into existence from nothing. It was a combination of abiotic matter that enabled that emergence.

There is nothing magical or mysterious about emergence. What is magical or mysterious are some misonceptions of emergence such as holism or epistemological emergence (the claim that emergence is unexplainable).

Stardusty Psyche said...

Hal said.. October 08, 2017 1:43 AM.

" Do you think atoms or subatomic particles exist? Or are they among the things you consider to be illusory?"
--If we could see an atom it would not be a single thing, of course, everybody knows that now. At one time that was no known. An atom was considered to be an indivisible chunk of stuff. That notion of being indivisible was an illusion.

For a while protons and neutrons were considered elementary. That was an illusion.

Quarks really do organize into groups we call protons and neutrons. Protons, neutrons, and electrons really do organize themselves into groups we call atoms. These characteristic groupings are not illusions, so long as we understand that the grouping acts in the aggregate of the most fundamental constituents.

No new thing emerges. Larger numbers of subatomic elements do increasingly complex things. We can characterize the aggregate behaviors of large number of subatomic elements into classifications, but it is still just a very large collection of subatomic elements acting as they do at the subatomic level.

Hal said...

SP,

Thanks for the answer. Hopefully, I understand better your position.

One thing that strikes me as unusual is your use of the word "thing". You apparently take the position that it can only be used to refer to subatomic particles. That is certainly outside of the standard usage of the word, even scientists don't use it in that restricted sense.

So it would seem your metaphysical position amounts to little more than insisting on others adopting your peculiar meaning of the word "thing".
Why do you think all other English speakers should adopt your usage? What makes it superior or better than the standard usage?

Stardusty Psyche said...

Hal said.. October 08, 2017 9:05 AM.

" One thing that strikes me as unusual is your use of the word "thing". You apparently take the position that it can only be used to refer to subatomic particles. That is certainly outside of the standard usage of the word, even scientists don't use it in that restricted sense."
--There is no god of English. People can use words to mean whatever they want. But when speaking about the nature of reality it is useful to precisely define terms and to shed some of the inaccuracies of the vernacular.


" So it would seem your metaphysical position amounts to little more than insisting on others adopting your peculiar meaning of the word "thing"."
--You can use whatever words you want. I am not required to agree with you and you are not required to agree with me.

" Why do you think all other English speakers should adopt your usage? "
--I didn't say all English speakers should always use the word "thing" in one particular way in all settings.

"What makes it superior or better than the standard usage?"
--"Thing" has many usages. Some usages lead to conflating aggregate behaviors of material constituents with some sort of existent ethereal object, perhaps made of ectoplasm, called "the mind" or "the soul".

On the subjects of mind and soul dissecting the word "thing" helps to expose the illusory nature of the assertion of a mind or soul as some sort of existent object.

Hal said...

SP,
People can use words to mean whatever they want. But when speaking about the nature of reality it is useful to precisely define terms and to shed some of the inaccuracies of the vernacular.

Stipulated meanings are fine. You can certainly stipulate that in your metaphysical theory you are using the word "thing" to only refer to what you think exists: subatomic particles. I can see how applying that usage can lead to the claim that other things such as elephants or rocks or planets don't really exist. They are all illusory based on your stipulated meaning of "thing".

It would be helpful if you made that stipulated meaning clear at the start of a discussion like this.

In any case, unless you can give good reasons for adopting your stipulated meaning, I see little chance of you persuading others to adopt you metaphysical claim that only subatomic particles are the things that exist.
It looks like you are begging the question as to what new things can come into existence.

Legion of Logic said...

Stardusty: "What new thing emerged?"

Consciousness.


Stardusty: "What is emergentstuff made of?"

Specific configurations of smaller components which result in emergent traits or properties not found in the components themselves.


Stardusty: "The more elements there are the more combinations of them there are and the more complex their interactions are."

Indeed. This is a more "macro" level. Increasingly complex systems can and do result in new properties not found in the individual components comprising the system, such as a brain compared to a neuron.


Stardusty: "What new thing emerged?"

Consciousness.


Stardusty: "A crystal can be fantastically complex. It is still just a large number of molecules."

Reduce past atoms and the components no longer have the properties of the crystal. Thus at the molecular level, the properties of a crystal emerge.


Stardusty: " Nothing new emerges."

Either quarks are self-aware or humans are not. Or consciousness emerged.


Stardusty: "How many atoms does it take for a new thing to emerge?"

Anywhere from none to incalculable. Water has properties not shared by either oxygen or hydrogen, for example, the addition of one atom causing a drastic change. A radioactive isotope doesn't even require an entire atom, just a different number of neutrons.


Stardusty: "Does this emergent thing have properties?"

Is there anything that doesn't have properties?


Stardusty: "If so, what are they and where do they reside?"

Too general for a response.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Hal said.. October 08, 2017 10:26 AM.

" It looks like you are begging the question as to what new things can come into existence."
--What thing emerges? What sort of object is this thing? What is it made of? Nothing at all? Then in what sense is it a thing?

You seem to be concerned with definitions, so here is one:
thing
THiNG/
noun
1.
an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to.
2.
an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.


What material is an emergent thing composed of?

Hal said...

SP,

One example I gave earlier, biotic matter emerged from abiotic matter about 3 billion years ago on this planet. As with any new thing that emerges, biotic matter has many properties that are not found in abiotic matter.

Hal said...

Legion of Logic,
I suppose since there is emergence, then naturalism is false.

Certainly Stardusty's version of naturalism. Emergence does not entail the claim that things appear ex nihilo as he mistakenly claims.

I find it rather ironic that he rejects emergence but accepts supervenience which, at least to me, appears to be as mystical as holism because it assumes that properties can exist without the things they are properties of.

By the way, I just read your last post to Stardusty while I was composing this one. Think you made some very good points.

Stardusty Psyche said...

Legion of Logic said.. October 08, 2017 10:39 AM.

Stardusty: "What is emergentstuff made of?"

" Specific configurations of smaller components"
--In what sense is a "thing" "made of" "configuration"?


Stardusty: "What new thing emerged?"

" Consciousness."
--So consciousness is a "thing"? What sort of material object is consciousness?


Stardusty: "Does this emergent thing have properties?"

" Is there anything that doesn't have properties?"
--So a property has properties?

If consciousness is a property of an organization of things then how can a property have properties?

If consciousness is itself a thing what material is it made of such that this material object, "thing", can have properties?

Hal said...

SP,
Consciousness is a property of many living things. It is those living things that have emerged through evolutionary processes. They are the new things that have come into existence. When a new thing emerges, so do new properties.

Legion of Logic said...

Stardusty: "In what sense is a "thing" "made of" "configuration"?"

"Configuration" is not a substance from which things are made. If a more grammatically common version of the question would be "In what sense is a "thing" a configuration", then it would depend of course on what the thing in question was.


Stardusty: "So consciousness is a "thing"?"

Yes. Possibly not per your definition of "thing", but then there's no need to repeat your conversation to Hal, is there?


Stardusty: "What sort of material object is consciousness?"

Things do not have to be material objects. Consciousness is a phenomenon that exists, thus it is a thing.

Or do you deny that consciousness exists? We get into some deep rabbit-hole reasoning with consciousness being an illusion, since an illusion requires consciousness in order to be perceived and, thus, to exist as an illusion. Illusions require illusions in order to be perceived as illusions, said perception also being an illusion. Illusions require illusions in order for illusions to result in illusions.

A somewhat more cogent alternative is that consciousness is not an illusion, but rather an emergent phenomenon.


Stardusty: "So a property has properties?"

Do you agree that properties exist?

If you agree that properties exist, then we can analyze at what point a property emerges, which proves emergence as a valid description of reality.

If you deny that properties exist, your question becomes rather nonsensical. "So an illusion has illusions?"