Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Francois Tremblay · 03-05-2002, 05:10 PM

Humanism is completely irrelevant, especially since most materialists are not humanists (I'm not, anyway).

A3 · 03-05-2002, 05:29 PM

Anyone interested in a book? I will not send it willy nilly. In other words just send email and I would be thrilled to hear your responses.
My address is abraam@idirect.com
A3 (Adri)

ksagnostic · 03-05-2002, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Laurentius:
AVE Malaclypse the Younger,
I have not defined Humanism myself, I have only searched for definitions. The ones I used for my initial (FAQ) post were taken from "Larousse", but as you can see, definitions from the Internet show the same thing: Humanism is intrinsically dualist.

Proof that the mind is organized by different laws than matter? Here's one:
Among the first to lay the foundation for the new behaviorism was American psychologist Edward Lee Thorndike. In 1898 Thorndike conducted a series of experiments on animal learning. In one study, he put cats into a cage, put food just outside the cage, and timed how long it took the cats to learn how to open an escape door that led to the food. Placing the animals in the same cage again and again, Thorndike found that the cats would repeat behaviors that worked and would escape more and more quickly with successive trials. Thorndike thereafter proposed the law of effect, which states that behaviors that are followed by a positive outcome are repeated, while those followed by a negative outcome or none at all are extinguished.

Here's another:
Gestalt Laws of Grouping
The three founders of Gestalt psychology were German researchers Max Wertheimer, Kurt Koffka, and Wolfgang K�hler. These men identified a number of principles by which people organize isolated parts of a visual stimulus into groups or whole objects. There are five main laws of grouping: proximity, similarity, continuity, closure, and common fate. A sixth law, that of simplicity, encompasses all of these laws.

Although most often applied to visual perception, the Gestalt laws also apply to perception in other senses. When we listen to music, for example, we do not hear a series of disconnected or random tones. We interpret the music as a whole, relating the sounds to each other based on how similar they are in pitch, how close together they are in time, and other factors. We can perceive melodies, patterns, and form in music. When a song is transposed to another key, we still recognize it, even though all of the notes have changed.

Argument from ignorance: From the definitions quoted in the posts above, it is obvious to me that rigorous materialism inevitably leads to determinism, which denies the power of human will and reflective reasoning - and that is why I was saying that materialism fails to provide a satisfactory explanation of these.
AVE

Hello Laurentius.

I fail to see how your two posted quotes above relate to your contention that "materialism inevitably leads to determinism".

Two points:

First of all, you post two quotes describing two very different theoretical (and old) approaches to psychology as "proof" that the mind is organized differently from matter. I am not sure what you mean here. However, I am going to go out on a limb, and procede from the assumption that you see the behavioral approach as consistent with a "material" mind, and "gestalt psychology" as being inconsistent with a "material" mind. With regards to the latter, a LOT of neurological research has been done in the area of sensory perception and evaluation, and how neurological damage can and does greatly alter how people perceive and evaluate their world. For example, brain damage can indeed result in someone going from interpreting music as a whole to perceiving it as a series of unrelated sounds, or someone who responds to sound intelligently but is apparently not aware of what she hears, or that she hears at all (i.e., certain types of cortical deafness). More to the point, there are literally millions of examples of the link between the status and health of people's material brains and their ability to think, to reason, and to make decisions. In my work, I am confronted daily with how neurological deformations, developmental mistakes, and acquired damage effect the ability of people to communicate and reason.

Secondly, as excreationist described so well, the brain is a hugely complex interconnected system consisting of approximately 100 billion neurons, most of which have many thousand connections to other neurons. Neurons are also usually parts of neurological structures (many of them quite tiny) which are also interconnected to not only many millions of other neurons, but also to many thousand vertical and horizontal cortical mini-structures, subcortical structures, and peripheral nerve bundles that connect to sensory, muscular, and organ systems throughout the body. Hundreds of billions, if not a trillion, bits of information are traveling through the brain several times a second in patterns that are still not well understood. To think that such a complex system would be prohibited from being capable of reflective reasoning or an enormous range of decision making capability simply because it has a material basis is, I think, misguided

BTW, I am currently finishing PHANTOMS OF THE BRAIN by V.S. Ramachandran and Sandra Blacksee. Someone else here recommended this book, and I wanted to second that recommendation.

Regards,

"Ed"

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]

1sec · 03-06-2002, 04:40 AM

ksagnostic

i got the feeling that Laurentius was not refering to the quotes in that post but to the definitions he had posted above.

man, it's stuffy in here (phylosophically, I mean, of course).

Laurentius · 03-07-2002, 04:59 AM

AVE John Page & ksagnostic

In fact I may agree in many respects with everyone here, but I have got this feeling that everyone uses different definitions of terms.

I would take more time elaborating this, but it seems that my "soul" is too much "materially" determined to do so at the time.

Here is a highly rough hierarchy, which may clarify my position:

......>......................|(a)INERT MATTER
non self-conserving....|A rock may well fit in
non will-bearing.........|this category.
non self-reflecting.....|Physical laws only
.............................|govern at this level.
..............................|
..............................|
......>.....................|(b)BASIC LIVING MATTER
self-conserving........|A plant may well fit in
non will-bearing.........|this category.
non self-reflecting.....|Physical laws + laws of
.............................|the living govern here.
..............................|
..............................|
......>.....................|(c)INFERIOR LIVING MATTER
self-conserving........|A cat may well fit in
will-bearing.............|this category.
non self-reflecting.....|Physical laws + laws of
..............................|the living + laws of the
..............................|psyche govern here.
..............................|
......>.....................|(d)SUPERIOR LIVING MATTER
self-conserving........|A man may well fit in
will-bearing...........|this category.
self-conserving........|Physical laws + laws of
..............................|the living + laws of the
..............................|psyche + laws of
..............................|consciousness govern here.

I'll be back.
AVE

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]

John Page · 03-07-2002, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Laurentius:
AVE John Page & ksagnostic
Here is a highly rough hierarchy, which may clarify my position....
I'll be back.
AVE

[ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]

Laurentius:

I think you have some categories here, I'm not sure that I would yet call them a hierarchy - we need to measure their qualities in soem way to get one of those. I also think the use of the adjective "superior" is perjorative (superior in what way and why?).

Can we move the cat, please, I think cats have consciousness. Maybe not exactly in the same way as humans, but nevertheless.

I await your return.

Cheers.

excreationist · 03-07-2002, 06:31 AM

John Page:
I also made a hierarchy - of "intelligent systems" - on <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000078&p=" target="_blank">page 1</a>.

Basically the things higher up are more sophisticated and intelligent - e.g. thermostats vs. ants vs. people.

Laurentius · 03-08-2002, 04:26 AM

AVE
Okay, I'm back.

I was saying that there is indeed a hierarchy, on which my "dualism" grounds, each level being superior to the previous one in that it functions on additional laws {additional to the strictly natural ones, in particular), which seem to endow entities greater and greater independence from the natural laws that some materialists I've come across on this blessed forum stick to so closely when explaining human behavior that almost make me jump into the spiritualists' boat. Yet, I'm not.

......>......................|(a)INERT MATTER
non self-conserving....|A rock may well fit in
non will-bearing.........|this category.
non self-reflecting......|Physical laws only
...............................|govern at this level.
..............................|
..............................|
......>......................|(b)BASIC LIVING MATTER
self-conserving..........|A plant may well fit in
non will-bearing.........|this category.
non self-reflecting......|Physical laws + laws of
..............................|the living govern here.
..............................|
..............................|
......>.......................|(c)INFERIOR LIVING MATTER
self-conserving..........|A cat may well fit in
will-bearing................|this category.
non self-reflecting......|Physical laws + laws of
..............................|the living + laws of the
..............................|psyche govern here.
..............................|
......>......................|(d)SUPERIOR LIVING MATTER
self-conserving..........|A man may well fit in
will-bearing...............| in this category.
self-reflecting............|Physical laws + laws of
..............................|the living + laws of the
..............................|psyche + laws of
..............................|consciousness govern here.

Yes, I was quite reluctant to place the cat there (I myself have a faithful tomcat for a pet) but I decided to leave it there on the grounds that they don't manifest self-reflection. Dolfins, whales, some species of apes and humans do.

Well, this hesitation proves that despite the evolutionary leaps our categorization is still conventional. However, it is not a point of biology that I am trying to make here.

(a)INERT MATTER
Inert matter is not inert in the physical sense. It is though indifferent to the forces that are exercised on it. Entities are not preserved in their existing form due to an inner drive but because of external universal laws to which inert matterial structures never oppose on their own.

(b)BASIC LIVING MATTER
Basic living matter tends to conserve its structure against natural laws. There is a tendency that entities should increase their degree of organization, which goes against the pervasing natural trend toward higher entropy. Entities of this level succeed in conserving and multiplying themselves.

(c)INFERIOR LIVING MATTER
Inferior living matter manage to employ resources of the environment more freely in order that they should ensure their own preservation and multiplication. Their inner hormonal and nervous systems allow a comparatively higher level of complexity, which results in the ability of gathering, storing, analyizing and employing larger amounts of information necessary to achieve the goals mentioned above.

(d)SUPERIOR LIVING MATTER
Superior living matter show the highest independence in using resources and ability in emplyoing information, which translates in the greatest adaptability on earth. Not only are they able to view themselves in the environment they inhabit, recognizing themselves as distinct entities, but they can also attempt to view the environment and themselves from the presumed point of view of another entity of the same kind, which give them the most effective comparative autonomy and individuality.

The mind (which isn't, by any means, a paranormal "soul" or "spirit") functions on different laws than the matter the brain consists of (yes, without the necessary brain parts, the mind will fail to work, but with its foundation the mind will represent a parallel spiritual universe where the laws of psyche will have the most significant role).

ksagnostic
Please, note that the laws I have quoted in the older post and which you labelled as "old" (is gravity any younger? Or is has it been rendered obsolete by Einstein's theory or relativity?) demonstrate the the mind has its own internal organization and activity differently regulated from how sheer matter works. Unless you can prove these laws invalid, I see no reason why I should struggle to convince you of the specificity of the mind.

john page
From the chart and rough categorization above I would say that the level of INERT MATTER and that of SUPERIOR LIVING MATTER present highly divergent properties. Obviously, in the long run the INERT MATTER level seems to win, but on the short run the SUPERIOR LIVING MATTER level is clearly superior. I mean, is the matter that is writting all this post here, striving to phylosophize? No. It's the mind.
AVE

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]

John Page · 03-08-2002, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Laurentius:
john page
From the chart and rough categorization above I would say that the level of INERT MATTER and that of SUPERIOR LIVING MATTER present highly divergent properties. Obviously, in the long run the INERT MATTER level seems to win, but on the short run the SUPERIOR LIVING MATTER level is clearly superior. I mean, is the matter that is writting all this post here, striving to phylosophize? No. It's the mind.

Laurentius:

For me, hypothesizing is the in-stock trade of philosophy and I have no problem with you suggesting structures. I'm interested to know the key axis for your hierarchy, are you suggesting "Degrees of Consciousness"?

Cheers.

03-08-2002, 01:04 PM

Laurentius,

Quote:

Argument from ignorance: From the definitions quoted in the posts above, it is obvious to me that rigorous materialism inevitably leads to determinism, which denies the power of human will and reflective reasoning - and that is why I was saying that materialism fails to provide a satisfactory explanation of these.

That is indeed an argument from ignorance.
I don�t see how materialism is incompatible with our beliefs about human will. Certainly it entails that will, like most phenomenon, are not what we want them to be. I do not see anything devaluing about this. However strong the wonder evoked prescientific conceptions of the mind, it cannot compare with the complexity and subtly of the reality we are beginning to uncover.

Quote:

......>.....................|(b)BASIC LIVING MATTER
self-conserving........|A plant may well fit in
non will-bearing.........|this category.
non self-reflecting.....|Physical laws + laws of
.............................|the living govern here....

(b)BASIC LIVING MATTER
Basic living matter tends to conserve its structure against natural laws. There is a tendency that entities should increase their degree of organization, which goes against the pervasing natural trend toward higher entropy. Entities of this level succeed in conserving and multiplying themselves.

Biological �laws� do NOT transcend physical laws they are manifestations of them. Human beings and all other life forms obey the second law of thermodynamics just as much as a sack of bricks. If you were put into a closed box for three hundred years, the energy in your system would dissipate just the same as if we did the same to a refridgerator.

ksagnostic ,

Quote:

With regards to the latter, a LOT of neurological research has been done in the area of sensory perception and evaluation, and how neurological damage can and does greatly alter how people perceive and evaluate their world.

<a href="http://www.nature.com/nsu/020121/020121-1.html" target="_blank">http://www.nature.com/nsu/020121/020121-1.html</a>

That article describes indication that brain disease had a heavy influence upon the form of Ravel�s later music.

03-07-2002, 04:59 AM	#35
Laurentius Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Lucky Bucky, Oz Posts: 5,645	AVE John Page & ksagnostic In fact I may agree in many respects with everyone here, but I have got this feeling that everyone uses different definitions of terms. I would take more time elaborating this, but it seems that my "soul" is too much "materially" determined to do so at the time. Here is a highly rough hierarchy, which may clarify my position: ......>......................\|(a)INERT MATTER non self-conserving....\|A rock may well fit in non will-bearing.........\|this category. non self-reflecting.....\|Physical laws only .............................\|govern at this level. ..............................\| ..............................\| ......>.....................\|(b)BASIC LIVING MATTER self-conserving........\|A plant may well fit in non will-bearing.........\|this category. non self-reflecting.....\|Physical laws + laws of .............................\|the living govern here. ..............................\| ..............................\| ......>.....................\|(c)INFERIOR LIVING MATTER self-conserving........\|A cat may well fit in will-bearing.............\|this category. non self-reflecting.....\|Physical laws + laws of ..............................\|the living + laws of the ..............................\|psyche govern here. ..............................\| ......>.....................\|(d)SUPERIOR LIVING MATTER self-conserving........\|A man may well fit in will-bearing...........\|this category. self-conserving........\|Physical laws + laws of ..............................\|the living + laws of the ..............................\|psyche + laws of ..............................\|consciousness govern here. I'll be back. AVE [ March 07, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]</p>

03-08-2002, 04:26 AM	#38
Laurentius Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Lucky Bucky, Oz Posts: 5,645	AVE Okay, I'm back. I was saying that there is indeed a hierarchy, on which my "dualism" grounds, each level being superior to the previous one in that it functions on additional laws {additional to the strictly natural ones, in particular), which seem to endow entities greater and greater independence from the natural laws that some materialists I've come across on this blessed forum stick to so closely when explaining human behavior that almost make me jump into the spiritualists' boat. Yet, I'm not. ......>......................\|(a)INERT MATTER non self-conserving....\|A rock may well fit in non will-bearing.........\|this category. non self-reflecting......\|Physical laws only ...............................\|govern at this level. ..............................\| ..............................\| ......>......................\|(b)BASIC LIVING MATTER self-conserving..........\|A plant may well fit in non will-bearing.........\|this category. non self-reflecting......\|Physical laws + laws of ..............................\|the living govern here. ..............................\| ..............................\| ......>.......................\|(c)INFERIOR LIVING MATTER self-conserving..........\|A cat may well fit in will-bearing................\|this category. non self-reflecting......\|Physical laws + laws of ..............................\|the living + laws of the ..............................\|psyche govern here. ..............................\| ......>......................\|(d)SUPERIOR LIVING MATTER self-conserving..........\|A man may well fit in will-bearing...............\| in this category. self-reflecting............\|Physical laws + laws of ..............................\|the living + laws of the ..............................\|psyche + laws of ..............................\|consciousness govern here. Yes, I was quite reluctant to place the cat there (I myself have a faithful tomcat for a pet) but I decided to leave it there on the grounds that they don't manifest self-reflection. Dolfins, whales, some species of apes and humans do. Well, this hesitation proves that despite the evolutionary leaps our categorization is still conventional. However, it is not a point of biology that I am trying to make here. (a)INERT MATTER Inert matter is not inert in the physical sense. It is though indifferent to the forces that are exercised on it. Entities are not preserved in their existing form due to an inner drive but because of external universal laws to which inert matterial structures never oppose on their own. (b)BASIC LIVING MATTER Basic living matter tends to conserve its structure against natural laws. There is a tendency that entities should increase their degree of organization, which goes against the pervasing natural trend toward higher entropy. Entities of this level succeed in conserving and multiplying themselves. (c)INFERIOR LIVING MATTER Inferior living matter manage to employ resources of the environment more freely in order that they should ensure their own preservation and multiplication. Their inner hormonal and nervous systems allow a comparatively higher level of complexity, which results in the ability of gathering, storing, analyizing and employing larger amounts of information necessary to achieve the goals mentioned above. (d)SUPERIOR LIVING MATTER Superior living matter show the highest independence in using resources and ability in emplyoing information, which translates in the greatest adaptability on earth. Not only are they able to view themselves in the environment they inhabit, recognizing themselves as distinct entities, but they can also attempt to view the environment and themselves from the presumed point of view of another entity of the same kind, which give them the most effective comparative autonomy and individuality. The mind (which isn't, by any means, a paranormal "soul" or "spirit") functions on different laws than the matter the brain consists of (yes, without the necessary brain parts, the mind will fail to work, but with its foundation the mind will represent a parallel spiritual universe where the laws of psyche will have the most significant role). ksagnostic Please, note that the laws I have quoted in the older post and which you labelled as "old" (is gravity any younger? Or is has it been rendered obsolete by Einstein's theory or relativity?) demonstrate the the mind has its own internal organization and activity differently regulated from how sheer matter works. Unless you can prove these laws invalid, I see no reason why I should struggle to convince you of the specificity of the mind. john page From the chart and rough categorization above I would say that the level of INERT MATTER and that of SUPERIOR LIVING MATTER present highly divergent properties. Obviously, in the long run the INERT MATTER level seems to win, but on the short run the SUPERIOR LIVING MATTER level is clearly superior. I mean, is the matter that is writting all this post here, striving to phylosophize? No. It's the mind. AVE [ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-05-2002, 05:10 PM	#31
Francois Tremblay Banned Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Montreal, QC Canada Posts: 876	Humanism is completely irrelevant, especially since most materialists are not humanists (I'm not, anyway).

03-05-2002, 05:29 PM	#32
A3 Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Toronto Canada Posts: 166	Anyone interested in a book? I will not send it willy nilly. In other words just send email and I would be thrilled to hear your responses. My address is abraam@idirect.com A3 (Adri)

03-06-2002, 04:40 AM	#34
1sec Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 41	ksagnostic i got the feeling that Laurentius was not refering to the quotes in that post but to the definitions he had posted above. man, it's stuffy in here (phylosophically, I mean, of course).

03-07-2002, 06:31 AM	#37
excreationist Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Australia Posts: 4,886	John Page: I also made a hierarchy - of "intelligent systems" - on <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000078&p=" target="_blank">page 1</a>. Basically the things higher up are more sophisticated and intelligent - e.g. thermostats vs. ants vs. people.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.