Primal

Ah so since we don't have a strong answer concerning the technical details at hand lets just propose a radical new substance. Since when did such a method become reasonable?

We likewise do not know how certain diseases start, should we now argue whether or not the cause is ghosts?

Isn't such a "mystery" and dualist argument to that effect merely a modified version of the "God in gaps" type argument?

King's Indian

Hello again, John.
Yes, you've sussed me: I was too quick in dismissing the metaphysical, and I accept the definition. I think I had in mind some (half-baked) opposition such as physical/metaphysical, when the latter term should have been supernatural. This would have been more in context with the idea that a "free will" as illusion secreted by the mind would be the same sort of thing as a visit from the BVM, and would leave as little impact in the physical world. Bugger.
The original phrase was, a while back, "There is no room from the viewpoint of Physics for a non-physical mind" (in strong agreement with Mykell). Now I see I was making a different point, which was that there are useful levels of description other than that of Physics. That being the case, of course I can't dismiss metaphysics as one of them tout court (although as a matter of taste I prefer "philosophy" inclusively for such matters as consciousness etc).
Sorry for the confusion. I suppose you and Mykell will be wanting your money back?
Take care,
KI.

John Page

Big Velvet Mole?

MyKell

King,
I have, and I'm sure many others, have enjoyed your posts greatly. We might differ on some points, but it doesn't make the discussion less enjoyable

Regarding the metaphysical, I think John and I agree on that. It's come up before on the "metaphysical (matrix) hypothesis" thread. Many versions of metaphysical models exist, but I don't think we're at a stage to test any right now... if ever
Thoughts?

King's Indian

No, silly it's the Blessed Virgin Mary. Do you know, whenever she is mentioned, I always think of that fine Raphael in the National Gallery. The effortlessness with which he depicts her sleek fur, streamlined in the direction of nose to tail, her muscular, powerful forearms to aid burr...oh, but hang on a minute...

King's Indian

Hello again, Mykell. Hope you're well. (and I return the compliment).

Thank you for the nudge. I did rather like the film myself, although I would have thought it has better value as a good yarn than as a springboard to some quite deep questions. As an example, I think the idea that one can be injured or die in the real world in analogous ways to one's injuries or death in the Matrix is not very clearly thought through. Even the idea of one's being unplugged seems to suggest images of the spirit taking flight and not being able to find its resting place, rather than anything science seems to suggest (Philosophy has found room for the idea, but it has also shown why such duality cannot be the whole answer). This aspect of the story does have enormous narrative force, however, and is none the worse for that.
As to the ideas expressed in the link, I think they raise some valuable points: particularly as to the pragmatic acceptance of "reality" to a brain so wired in a tank. I think, however, it would be a confusion to accept that reality as objective. After all, it is necessary to accept that an awful amount of energy and work has gone into each of the "realities" generated by the evil computers: Those skyscraper-like stacks can't have built themselves. In this sense, one can never be wholly relativistic about the "realities" that the film represents.
I understand that this doesn't answer from the perspective of someone who is having his energy tapped while curled up in his amniotic fluid. But even then, the presupposition is that one's "spirit" (and in the film, is it more scientific than that?) can be easily detached from the surrounding body, to the extent that one's sensorium can be swapped wholesale for an illusion of life as imagined in the late '90's. Do we have any examples of something similar that we may compare? Out of Body experiences are well attested by the people experiencing them. More commonly, we have all had dreams that, however fleetingly, seemed real at the time. Here we find no confusions about frames of reference, or competing realities. One wakes up, or learns that one has experienced unusual mental activity whilst one has been out for a jaunt.
This, then, would be the conclusion that I would draw in regarding metaphysical models: one must always take one's body into account. Divorcing the mind and body in such an effortless way as implied by the link (and the film) does a real disservice to the amount of work needed to sustain the functions of our brains, including consciousness. There has also never been any real evidence that the need of brains could be supplied elsewhere, such as glass vats. What there has been is ideas, in many cultures and well before Descartes, of the migration of souls, of metempsychosis, and the usefulness there was in such things as coming to terms with, and preparing for, death.
There were a couple of other things I wanted to shoe-horn in as well, but I think I'll call it a night. All thoughts welcome.
Look after yourself,
KI.

John Page

:notworthy ROFLMTO!

Frotiw

It is great to see the thread is alive and kicking as well as it is great to see many wellwritten posts.

a few notes:
Maybe this is trivial and maybe it is slightly straying from the subject but concerning "metaphysics" and the definition I would like to express my view.
First of all the debate of what metaphysics is about(as already said) is by no means final. It is an ongoing philosophical debate tightly connected to epistemology and discussions such as the mind/body duality. That said I do believe that there is some concensus that metaphysics is about what IS. It is the study of nescessary and sufficient reasons Being. Now this description is not so much to differentiate the more philosophically inclined concept with the layman concecpt(that metaphysics is about the supernatual). The reason for for such a differentiation is that the view on the role of metaphysics might be connected to a persons stance in mind/body duality. I submit myself to the stance that metaphysics is not merely about what IS but the nescessary and independant being. Being in this sense is understood as the generalization of what is. The mutual of everything existing including dust, horses and people. I think it can be justified that metaphysics is about what is independant and not just what is. I know this definition is trivial to many and properly everybody in this thread has an adequate concept of metaphysics but the aim is that this definition opens up the possibility of being a non-reductive materialst. Im my case being a phenomenological realist while strictly upholding materialisme.


King's Indian:
Hello

1) I don’t think that it is necessarily against parsimony to state that one effect may have more than one cause. One example may be rainfall: it depends on such things as adiabatic lapse rates, but also the geography of the area specified.

-----------------------

This I cannot agree on. Within one explanatory layer e.g. physics I believe there is one and just one suffiecient reason to a cause. Else it obviosly wouldn't be sufficient. I know quantum mechanics is fuzzy at this point but I think there are strong philosophical reasons to believe in determism and the idea that the is just one sufficient reason to an effect(witch is the same). Very briefly:
1. It is simply not comprehendable to imagine an effect with more that one sufficient cause.
2. Our macroworld seems to be deterministic. -> It is not understandable how indetermism(e.g. subatomar) can turn in to determism. There is no leap between indetemism and determinism. It is an either yes or no. This is the equivalent of finity/infinity debate. There is no leap from infinity to finity.

A note concerning finding more than one cause to an effect: It is very important not to mix up explanatory layers. I more sceptical if there truly can be more than one reason to rain if one consequenty stays within a physcial view. I am not sure if this is the case here but it often seemt to be a cause of confusion between explanatory levels when there appear to be more than one cause to an effect.

I haven't got the time to write more right now.

John Page

Hi Frotiw:

Sorry, but I don't understand. I'm finding it difficult to imagine an effect that doesn't have more than one cause. Or are you positiing material causes as the only single type of cause?

Cheers, John

Frotiw

King's Indian:
The stessing point is sufficient cause. There can be several nescessary reasons for an effect but only one sufficient. This is matter of logic and independant of metaphysical views. The view that there can be more than one sufficient reason is an attempt to refute all science and rational thinking. I know modern physics is unclear about subatomar determinism and therefor where either there can be more than one cause to an effect BUT. As Niels Bohr has pointet out years ago. Though modern physics might seem indeterministic it can still only be understood on a determistic framework(in atomar physics).

BTW. now I read it again it seems like you mean that there are more causes to an effect due to a chain of causes. This I obviosly agree on. That there are chains of causality. I logic and philosophy I focus on an isolatet effect. What is the nescessary and sufficient cause to this effect. There can be only one sufficient. However observing an entire chain there might be more causes leading up to an effect when view from "distance" but each effect will each have it's own sufficient cause.
I hope this make sense.

Cheers Frotiw