tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post6951559191546976353..comments2024-03-28T08:58:27.412-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: The Naturalism thread redoneVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75770920873019389352013-05-01T18:35:37.135-07:002013-05-01T18:35:37.135-07:00Hal,
No, I'm saying that if I want to underst...Hal,<br /><br /><i>No, I'm saying that if I want to understand something like why Tom arrested Jones what is happening at the subatomic level is irrelevant to obtaining that understanding.</i><br /><br />And I'm saying that if I want to understand if 'naturalism' is true, I'm going to have to know what 'natural' and 'nature' and therefore 'supernatural' are, at all levels of investigated and discussed reality.<br /><br />I'm repeating it, I know, but I still want to know about the atheist who believes in the supernatural. Or hell, if you just don't know, tell me that much.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-15596157269851180062013-05-01T10:26:35.082-07:002013-05-01T10:26:35.082-07:00Hal,
Not sure why you think I've sidestepped ...Hal,<br /><br /><i>Not sure why you think I've sidestepped any question. I've tried to point out that if we are only going to talk about possibilities than anything that is not logically impossible is possible.</i><br /><br />So you'd agree that an atheist can believe in the supernatural or reject naturalism, and have a consistent position? Not 'believe in the supernatural by accident', like they believe X and X turns out to be supernatural but they think X is natural. But literally hold, 'I am an atheist. I do not believe in God's existence. I reject naturalism and believe supernatural things exist.'?<br /><br /><i>It should be clear from that what my answer will be to anything you ask regarding something being possible. </i><br /><br />Excellent, that should make answers to my questions straightforward.<br /><br /><i>As to the "material". I'm not a reductionist. I really think it irrelevant what happens at the atomic or subatomic level when it comes to understanding the substances we encounter in the world around us.</i><br /><br />You're saying that 'naturalism' has nothing to do with the atomic or subatomic levels? Really? So (say) quantum physics is neither natural nor supernatural?Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44787346517502723192013-04-30T22:37:14.699-07:002013-04-30T22:37:14.699-07:00Hal,
Anything that is not logically impossible is...Hal,<br /><br /><i>Anything that is not logically impossible is a possibility. But the existence of a possibility does not imply the existence of an actuality.</i><br /><br />I don't need it to to make the point I'm making with that question. If the answer is 'yes, everything is possibly supernatural because if everything requires God's existence to actually exist, then all things are supernatural by measure', well, that's going to have some very interesting results.<br /><br /><i>I've already specified what I think is actually the case: the only substance that exists is what we commonly refer to with the word "material", this substance is not the only thing that exists and no supernatural substances (or entities) exist.</i><br /><br />Except I'm sure you're going to amend that what we commonly refer to as "material" is not what we think it is - folk physics is severely busted. If you're going to tell me that 'material' is whatever 'physics' tells us exists, then the problems with that mode are going to be self-evident. And I'm still sitting here wondering what you even regard as supernatural. Demons at first seemed to qualify, but demons in a world where God doesn't exist seems up in the air. <br /><br />I'm not sure why you're sidestepping the atheist supernaturalist question. It's pretty straightforward.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81620494604078547972013-04-30T20:27:33.925-07:002013-04-30T20:27:33.925-07:00Hal,
I don't know whether or not demons can e...Hal,<br /><br /><i>I don't know whether or not demons can exist without God. How could one determine such a thing?</i><br /><br />Arguably the existence of anything at all without God is up in the air. Is everything therefore possibly supernatural?<br /><br /><i>I would think the existence of any supernatural entity would entail that naturalism is false.</i><br /><br />Right. So are you saying that one can be an atheist yet believe in the supernatural? This is a possible consistent state of beliefs?Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-76972139501681466322013-04-30T17:50:08.854-07:002013-04-30T17:50:08.854-07:00Hal,
I'm sorry but you've lost me here.
...Hal,<br /><br /><i>I'm sorry but you've lost me here. <br /><br />Maybe it would help if you provide an example of a "non-theistic non-naturalism".</i><br /><br />'An atheist who believes in the supernatural and/or who rejects naturalism, but does not believe God exists.'<br /><br />I'd try to give more specific examples, but I'm trying to figure out your views of natural/naturalism and supernatural rather than give mine, for obvious reasons.<br /><br />On your view, is it impossible to be both an atheist yet reject naturalism or believe in the supernatural? You said if you encountered a demon, you'd regard that as an encounter with the supernatural. Are you saying demons - whatever they are - can't exist without God existing?<br /><br /><i>Of course not. But I don't see that entailing the view that a belief is a cause.</i><br /><br />Alright, something's not being communicated well here. That's fine though - just trying to learn your views.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41130813613882540112013-04-30T15:55:00.591-07:002013-04-30T15:55:00.591-07:00So I decide I will use the remote to turn on the t...<i>So I decide I will use the remote to turn on the tv at 5:55 in order to ensure I miss none of the episode. At 5:55 the following day I am sitting on the sofa next to the remote. Should I now just wait patiently for my arm to move towards the remote? After all, if my beliefs are causes of my behavior shouldn't I be able sit back and let it move my arm?</i><br /><br />I don't see how you'd take that from what Victor said. Why would a belief playing a causal role in behavior cash out to 'you don't have to do anything, your belief will do the job for you'?<br /><br />Let's say you do, after all, pick up the remote and turn on the TV. You did so because you believed your favorite show was on. Are you saying this makes no sense?Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51649312970451562342013-04-30T15:50:09.042-07:002013-04-30T15:50:09.042-07:00Hal,
If I were to believe that God exists then I ...Hal,<br /><br /><i>If I were to believe that God exists then I would no longer consider myself to be a naturalist. My conception of the mind would remain unchanged: The mind is not an entity that can exist apart from the body. Nor is the mind an agent that can cause things to happen.<br /><br />Does that answer your question?</i><br /><br />No, actually. I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I asked you if you think rejecting naturalism entails theism. Do you not allow for non-theistic non-naturalism?<br /><br /><i>Unless you can demonstrate that because a term or word is misused by someone that entails that the word can never be used meaningfully, I don't see much point in continuing this particular portion of the discussion. </i><br /><br />But I haven't said a word can never be used meaningfully. In fact, I said outright that's possible to do - in fact, it's damn easy. 'Naturalist: Noun. A person who likes italian sausage.' It really is as easy as that.<br /><br />Now, my contending that naturalism and natural are poorly defined? I can marshal a good amount of evidence right there, from the SEP entry to Richard Carrier's own admission. In fact, I think the very act of Carrier admitting 'well, we better actually define this term meaningfully' is evidence that, you know... it ain't meaningful as it stands. And I think there are clear historical reasons why that's the case. There's also largely rhetorical reasons why a lot of people are vested in pretending otherwise.<br /><br />That's not some slight directed at you.<br /><br /><i>Well I’ve forgotten things at times and then later remembered them. Seems to keep happening more and more as I age. I see little reason to deny someone has a belief they've claimed to believe simply because they are unable to remember it. <br />Do you have any thoughts on the matter?</i><br /><br />Honest to God, not at the moment. I really was just curious. Your views on the mind are saner than most, as near as I've been able to decipher them. Are they materialist? Physicalist? Naturalist? That's another story. (One we probably won't get into much more. I'm more interested in that subject than many are, as important as I regard it.)Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91502484457715151002013-04-30T14:56:21.799-07:002013-04-30T14:56:21.799-07:00Hal,
What is the mind to you then?Hal,<br /><br />What is the mind to you then?ingx24https://www.blogger.com/profile/03336709510575904262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69703184250722427322013-04-30T12:17:56.413-07:002013-04-30T12:17:56.413-07:00Hal,
I'm still not sure what your conception ...Hal,<br /><br />I'm still not sure what your conception of the mind is (I still can't help but think of you as a pseudo-behaviorist), but let me clarify mine (what I believe to be the "common-sense" position) and I'll let you tell me what part you think is mistaken.<br /><br />Basically: Things like thoughts, sensations, emotions, and the like seem to be events occuring within the same object. One thought does not disappear and become replaced by another; there is a temporal unity between conscious experiences that seems to imply that they are simply events or properties of one thing. This one thing is what we call the mind. However, this is not to say that the mind is this disconnected entity that interacts with the brain by "pulling levers" - at least under normal circumstances, mind and body work as a unit, combining to form a unified person. ingx24https://www.blogger.com/profile/03336709510575904262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-34228241844972485242013-04-30T10:10:48.471-07:002013-04-30T10:10:48.471-07:00Hal,
After all I think Victor and have a strong d...Hal,<br /><br /><i>After all I think Victor and have a strong disagreement over our conceptions of the mind. Even if I were to convert and become a theist, I would still think my conception is the correct one and his mistaken.</i><br /><br />Sure, I don't doubt that. Are you saying that you think rejecting naturalism automatically entails theism?<br /><br /><i>I think most people consider the Christian God to be a supernatural being. Certainly Lewis saw supernaturalism as being an essential part of Christianity. </i><br /><br />I think most people consider God/gods/X 'supernatural' in a way that is little more than a largely useless tag. Like I said, one experience I've had repeatedly is conversations going this way: 'What is supernatural?' -> "Things that aren't natural." -> 'What is natural?' -> "Things that aren't supernatural." I've seen attempts like "anything made of matter". Despite that having obvious problems, it ends up making Zeus and the Mormon deities natural.<br /><br />I think Lewis' defense of the supernatural turns critically on 'natural' not having a certain amount of elasticity.<br /><br /><i>If you accept that Victor can have a legitimate use for the term “natural” and I don't think you can then turn around and claim “supernaturalism” can’t have any. </i><br /><br />My accepting that Victor could legitimately use the term 'natural' turned on what I thought was your view that any use of the terms 'natural' or 'supernatural' were okay so long as the person using them subjectively defined their terms when asked. So sure, Victor could define natural and include God, various kinds of dualisms, angels, etc in the definition. He could also define supernatural to mean 'the fourth season of ALF'.<br /><br /><i>If they come to think the belief is mistaken. For example, If I believed that the American Civil War started in 1862 and then learned that it started in 1861 I would then abandon my original belief.</i><br /><br />Okay. Let me ask something slightly trickier (this isn't some setup - I am just figuring out your thoughts here.)<br /><br />What about in cases where you just forget information? Either the belief itself, or information relevant to the belief?Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8282431375219278942013-04-29T18:03:49.853-07:002013-04-29T18:03:49.853-07:00But don't counterfactuals hold concerning his ...But don't counterfactuals hold concerning his beliefs about Smith and his arresting Smith. If he didn't believe Smith was guilty, he wouldn't arrest him. If whether he believes Smith was guilty has nothing to do with whether he arrests Smith, he should be fired immediately. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24075287010950782992013-04-29T16:03:52.695-07:002013-04-29T16:03:52.695-07:00Zach,
My offer stands. You have a deep personal, ...Zach,<br /><br />My offer stands. You have a deep personal, emotional problem with me. Hit my blog, we can sort it out. I try to avoid namecalling and other such antics entirely nowadays, so if you're hoping for a bit of that kind of sparring - not interested.<br /><br />Relax.<br /><br />Heuristics,<br /><br />Well, I agree in large part. I think the real issue where the 'meaningless aspect comes up is when we're talking about the historical development of scientific explanations and their relation to the 'supernatural'. We may disagree at some points - I plan on writing more about this over at my blog sometime, maybe it will be of interest to you.<br /><br />Hal,<br /><br />First off, thanks for the calm conversation. It's welcome.<br /><br /><i>Look at the concept of “games”. That covers a wie variety of activities from physical sporst like football to computer role-playing games to board-games and card-games. Any such category concept is going to have to be elastic to be of any use. </i><br /><br />Sure, but it's also possible to hit a point where the elasticity renders a word rather useless. If 'card-games' is now covering football, Tony Hawk Pro Skater, and the act of cooking soft-boiled eggs, we have a term which is no longer very useful. At the very least, it's going to be confusing, maybe even worthless, in some old contexts.<br /><br />I think something like this has happened with 'naturalism' and, to a degree, 'materialism'.<br /><br /><i>What I am rejecting to is the restriction of the use of the word “naturalism” to reductive-physicalism as if you and Victor know the one true meaning of that word. Not all naturalists accept reductive-physicalism. </i><br /><br />See, this doesn't seem to square with what you told me before. You say on the one hand that you have no problem with including 'God, angels, ghosts' etc under the natural category. But then why is it a problem for you if Victor says he's arguing against naturalism, and points out how he's defining it? Likewise, by Feser's view, you're not a naturalist (if I understand your thoughts on mind and nature correctly) - you're something closer to Bertrand Russell, maybe an atheist non-naturalist.<br /><br />Now, I don't deny that you can use the letters arranged in the form 'naturalist', slap a tag on it, and get use out of it that way. 'Naturalist, noun, A person who enjoys italian sausage'. But I don't think the words have much meaning in the way they expect them to. Back to the extra-dimensional supremely powerful mischief-making being. Is that being supernatural? In any other age he likely would be called that. At this point, no. And I think that illustrates a major problem with those terms, just one of many.<br /><br />Anyway, a quick comment on your philosophy of mind views.<br /><br /><i>But a person doesn't cease to believe something when he falls asleep or if he is thinking about something else. </i><br /><br />When DOES someone cease to believe something on your view? I take it you do accept that beliefs exist, right?Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70619906425832478462013-04-29T06:27:51.501-07:002013-04-29T06:27:51.501-07:00"For me I rule 'information' in as an..."<i>For me I rule 'information' in as an element of materialism.</i>"<br /><br />That still leaves you with the problem of identity. <br /><br />Also, if information exists independently of the platform on which it is stored, then it is something other than the stored copy of it. That "something other" is non-material, even if for no other reason than it is not identified with its medium of storage.<br /><br />And if you do so identify it, then you will have to assert that my CD of Barber's Violin concerto is not the same thing as my MP3 download, and is again different than my memory of a live performance of it at Merriweather. Absurd!B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10008105325691037652013-04-29T06:17:44.341-07:002013-04-29T06:17:44.341-07:00Bob
"Ergo, The Brothers Karamazov exists inde...Bob<br /><i>"Ergo, The Brothers Karamazov exists independently of the physical and/or virtual expressions of it, and remains a singular entity regardless of how many copies exist. It is a non-material reality."</i><br /><br />That would hold if materialism is synonymous with physicalism. But I do know that 'information' we might have is also said to be 'material', e.g. We say, "I have a fair amount of material on that." The meaning here refers to information rather than a book or some such physical object. So I think it depends on how one defines 'material' and whether information, as in the case with the The Brothers Karamazov for which there is nothing physical of its presence. For me I rule 'information' in as an element of materialism.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14729263025651767972013-04-29T05:53:32.537-07:002013-04-29T05:53:32.537-07:00My personal favorite example of the objective exis...My personal favorite example of the objective existence of the non-material (other than personal consciousness, which seems to cause way too much debate) is, of all things, <i>The Brothers Karamazov</i>.<br /><br />Let's think about this for a minute. Now we should all be in agreement that such a thing as <i>The Brothers Karamazov</i> exists. But what exactly <i>is</i> it? Is it the physical copy of the book one can hold in his hands? If so, then there is not one <i>Karamazov</i>, but millions. An obvious absurdity. Would the book still exist if every paper copy in the world were burned, a la <i>Fahrenheit 541</i>? Well... What if were maintained in some data file somewhere? So then are we talking about <b>information</b> here? Possibly. But does information have objective existence, outside of a tangible physical structure? Apparently so. The database could exist in multiple programming languages, and be stored on differing platforms. The book itself can (and of course does) exist in multiple translations, but all are still <i>The Brothers Karamazov</i>.<br /><br />What if somehow <i>every last physical and virtual copy of the book in the world</i> were to be destroyed, but it remained as an oral tradition, similar to how <i>The Iliad</i> was transmitted in its first few centuries of existence? Even if you regarded peoples' memories as just another form of database, you still have the problem of there being one <i>Brothers Karamazov</i> and multiple people knowing it.<br /><br />Ergo, <i>The Brothers Karamazov</i> exists <b>independently</b> of the physical and/or virtual expressions of it, and remains a singular entity regardless of how many copies exist. It is a non-material reality.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58046743110862933682013-04-29T05:52:15.064-07:002013-04-29T05:52:15.064-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75283604603198363442013-04-29T05:22:24.020-07:002013-04-29T05:22:24.020-07:00Hal I didn't mean that Wittgenstein was a beha...Hal I didn't mean that Wittgenstein was a behaviorist (depending on which version of W we are talking about, my hunch is he was not), but simply this strand of thought in his work that resonates with behaviorism, a strand of neo-behaviorism that is making a resurgence among philosophers for some reason. They like to say the brain doesn't do X, the whole person does, or whatever, by which they typically just mean behavior.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23602232098087094062013-04-28T22:05:28.973-07:002013-04-28T22:05:28.973-07:00Holy buckets! This thread ballooned in my absence...Holy buckets! This thread ballooned in my absence. I'm sorry to have missed the action. <b>Hal</b>, way to hold down the fort while I was gone. Zach may think that he's too good for Hacker, but I'm glad that you cite him.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12030785676230758243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13276735592884733782013-04-28T18:39:39.402-07:002013-04-28T18:39:39.402-07:00Hal regardless of its origins you are bringing us ...Hal regardless of its origins you are bringing us into outdated waters with this Bennett/Hacker horse that has been dead for 50 years. The fact that it is so old isn't what is wrong with it, but that it was conclusively abandoned, for good reasons, 50 years ago, and only lives on in some philosophers because of a couple of silly British cults of personality.<br /><br />It is so trivial to refute these lines of thought in this century that I won't even bother, but leave it to Victor. Heck, even Crude could do this for me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18602705947911796152013-04-28T18:36:26.452-07:002013-04-28T18:36:26.452-07:00Hal,
OK. What do you think the mind is, then, if ...Hal,<br /><br />OK. What do you think the mind is, then, if not a substance?ingx24https://www.blogger.com/profile/03336709510575904262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39012361341260298242013-04-28T17:58:22.116-07:002013-04-28T17:58:22.116-07:00That's all well and good, Hal, but please tell...That's all well and good, Hal, but please tell me you aren't endorsing a behaviorist view of mental-state terms. Even if behavior is often the main evidenciary base we have used for application of such terms, this doesn't imply that the essence of pain is to be behaving in such-and-such a way. Such behavioristic Wittgensteinian Rylian nonsense is long dead, no? That's...so 1950s :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43049034753189218382013-04-28T17:55:44.577-07:002013-04-28T17:55:44.577-07:00But here it looks like a mental event (the policem...But here it looks like a mental event (the policeman believes that Smith has committed a crime), causes a physical event (the policeman puts handcuffs on Smith.) How does this fit in with the causal closure of the physical. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45657933159164964422013-04-28T17:52:38.001-07:002013-04-28T17:52:38.001-07:00Hal,
Can you define pain for me? This will help m...Hal,<br /><br />Can you define pain for me? This will help me more than anything else in pinpointing what your position is.ingx24https://www.blogger.com/profile/03336709510575904262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66572607017009234762013-04-28T17:01:36.048-07:002013-04-28T17:01:36.048-07:00Along the same lines as Victor's promises caus...Along the same lines as Victor's promises causing things to happen, how about this one? A policeman walks up to a man and says, "You're under arrest!" Now nothing physical has occurred, but the man's status has nevertheless changed from free to under arrest.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28938022436986508442013-04-28T16:32:21.730-07:002013-04-28T16:32:21.730-07:00If you have a definition of what is natural that i...If you have a definition of what is natural that is equivalent to something like Dennett's "no skyhooks" rule, then I think you can have a consistent account of it. But if you widen it to just everything except what religion talks about, then I think it is an arbitrary distinction. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.com