Pomp

ManM,

It is not necessary that the solipsist recognize order in his vision of reality...

I disagree, but I'm going to let this tangential issue drop if that's all right with you.

I would contend that we do not believe in naturalism prerationaly.

I would contend that the broad version of naturalism I described in my previous post to you would encompass your take on the obvious prerational assumptions.

I think a the obvious pre-rational assumptions are that I exist, something besides me exists (the world), I can control and direct what I think, and that I have a limited ability to interact with the world.

Sure. To this I would add that the external world functions according to consistent rules. (i.e. induction works)

I am free to think, hence I somehow more than a mere product of scientific laws.

I agree that this is a pretty obvious prerational assumption. However, the broad prerational naturalism I am talking about here has no problem accomodating this belief.

excreationist

WJ:
Excreationist, you spoke about the cosmological argument for the [choice to] belief in the existence of God, Deity, Designer etc.. and some other causal agent.

Well this is what I wrote:
"I think it is illogical that ALL events have a cause... e.g. why did the big bang happen? And if that question can be answered... what caused the cause of the big bang? If the cause of the big bang is God, then why did God decide to create the world, and what caused God to exist? Eventually you'd get to the point where you can't go any further and there are just some "brute facts". e.g. physical reality exists just because. Or God exists just because."

Basically I was disagreeing with your earlier statement:
"Speaking of experience and pure reason, the synthetic a priori is what makes us say things like 'all events have a cause' and otherwise wills us to want to know something about our existence, and even keeps us suspended in faith about the discovery of an unknown. I believe that is natural and without experience."

So I'm saying that "all events have a cause" isn't absolutely True... it eventually breaks down, both in atheistic and theistic world-views when you begin to think about the origins/causes of *everything*. (such as gods or physical reality)

I don't agree that in order to say 'every event has a cause' it must first be derived purely from experience. ManM might be able to share some thoughts from James', but I think there is a Kantian innate need at work here which is 'hard wired' in consciousness that wills us to wonder the way in which we do.
I think the desire to learn about our environment and find new patterns is definitely "hard wired", but I doubt specific beliefs such as "every event has a cause" are hard-wired... (see my reply to you on <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000501&p=4" target="_blank">page 4</a>)

...To that end, the cosmological argument is a matter of choice because you have all the evidence that suggests causation, but you choose to stop all the regress based upon such inference from the evidence. (Logical necessity being another topic of course.)
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here... I'll just say that I don't believe in infinite regress. I think that something (such as "the metaverse) is uncaused and eternal. So I'm just saying that the belief that "all events have a cause" has problems.

Beyond that, the question returns to why do most humans care at all? I propose it is hard-wired apriori in human consciousness.
Well I would agree except I'd call it "motivational drives" - these motivate our desire to satisfy hunger, etc. Animals have these kinds of drives too although our ability to learn language to a really high level lets us seek mental stimulation/newness in very complex ways.

I think most of us wonder about our existence out of 'childish curiousity' with very little knowledge about the world. The primacy here, is in the apriori. And as M said, a bit of intuition along the way. There must exist an innate need to know.
Yeah... I think our desire for connectedness is mostly involved. It makes us want our beliefs and experience to be coherent and connected - to resonate - to be complete. When something doesn't quite make sense we want it to make sense - so that our world-view is fairly manageable. If our world-view diverges too much from reality we have a nervous breakdown and we have to rebuild a lot of our world-view.
It could also partly be motivated by our desire for newness... I mean it can be mentally stimulating to think about things on a higher level rather than on an ordinary non-philosophical level.
So I think our desires for mental stimulation (newness/challenges/etc) and completeness are involved. Or maybe the desire for newness is the main thing... the motivations involved would depend on the person... I think in the case of Decartes, he was motivated mainly because he was trying to overcome feelings of insecurity (lack of connectedness)... he wanted to work out what things he could be sure of.

Why do we even agree that the cosmological argument is necessary and should exist?
Well I'm an atheist and I don't think the cosmological argument is a very good one... it involves a conscious God creating the universe rather than just some quantum phenomena creating it...

[ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: excreationist ]</p>

excreationist

ManM:
2+2=5
If we are determined, my assertion that 2+2=5 is nothing more than a manifestation of the laws of nature,
Ok.

just like an apple.
The logical statement "2+2" = "5" which you've communicated to me is different from a physical apple. In this case, the logical statement exists in the form of pixels on screens and signals in computers and is also in my brain and yours. Apples aren't logical statements. There's no "x" = "y" encoded into the apple.

Would you tell me that an apple was nonsensical?
It depends in what context it is in. If it is being worshipped then the apple is pretty nonsensical. But usually all it does is sit around. Being nonsensical is a value statement.

How then can you justify telling me that 2+2=5 is wrong?
Most people have been taught that statements about quantities that have a different quantity on either side of the equal sign are "wrong". I haven't really been taught that an apple is "wrong". Maybe if the context is about what fuels are good for a car, then the apple would be wrong...

Ah, but you don't have to justify it, for your counter-claim is nothing more than a manifestation of the laws of nature, just like an orange.
Oranges just sit around as well. Me thinking and typing involves logical computations and things which involve intelligence... oranges don't have intelligence.

But how can anyone say an apple is any more true than an orange?
My definition of a true thing -
(a) When a series of symbols correctly refers to reality - or (b) the symbols are equivalent to another specified series of symbols.

e.g. a) "The sky above me is blue"
That is a true statement if its meaning corresponds to actual reality.

e.g. b) "1 + 1 = 2 + 0"
That is true if the left side is equivalent to the right side...

"True" can also mean that something is reliable or dependable...

But anyway, apples and oranges aren't really things that can have the property of being "true".

Any objective claim of truth becomes meaningless, and this includes the validity of reason and logic. Determinism itself cannot be excluded from this conclusion. A belief in determinism renders itself meaningless (in an objective sense).
Why? Perhaps this conclusion is based on your apples and oranges examples.

But that doesn't matter anymore. Everything is simply a manifestation of the laws of nature.
Since determinism destroys the line between humanity and nature, I find it inhuman. Since it can be used to justify anything, be it bad logic or bad behavior,I find it repulsive.
In a deterministic world, the consequences of your decisions are still very real... so you'd still go to jail, etc, depending on what decisions you make.

...Now why are you all so willing to accept determinism? Is it because you know that real human freedom is incompatible with naturalism?
Probably. So do you think people should believe in real free will for emotional reasons and then adopt a belief in something non-physical like a soul in an attempt to justify their belief for free will?

Since you find my criteria for truth to be lacking, what do you propose I use? Reason can't do the trick. What then do you propose is a good criterion for truth? If you admit the answer is value, how can you criticize me for rejecting a theory because I don't like it?
I am very wary about calling things the "truth"... anyway, I think a good way to look for it is to try and look at evidence by its own merit and then you'd only arrive at what *seems* to make sense at that moment in time (rather than saying you arrived at the "truth").

ManM

DRFseven,
We've gone around the block again... All I have left to say is that were this true, no one would have ever been able to believe in elves (assuming elves do not in fact exist). How did anyone come to believe in elves without any experience of them? How was the first elf born?

excreationist,
You claim that typing 2+2=4 is somehow different from an apple. How so? Both were the inevitable product of processes we had no control over. In other words, there is the same amount of meaning encoded in the apple that there is in a logical statement.

Hence I think people should believe in free will because determinism destroys the validity of our value judgements.

DRFseven

You seriously can't imagine how concepts of elves came to be? Think about it. People know from experience what beings are. They know what little is. They know what mischieveous is. They have concepts for other magical things, such as fairies or small magical animals. Our brains do what they need to do to provide explanations for unexplained phenomena, such as chores apparently getting done by themselves, things turning up missing, items being broken. We're much better than any other animal at putting things together from the perceptions we have.

And I think people should believe in everlasting life because belief in the alternative destroys a good mood. How can determinism destroy the "validity" of our value judgements, when we still make them and they still work? And no matter what facing up to the fear of mechanism might do, if it's true, it's true; we have no say. The same thing was said about evolution; that people couldn't take knowing the truth; that they needed to be sheltered by an elite minority who patronizingly spoon-fed the multitudes what they needed to hear.

[ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: DRFseven ]</p>

excreationist

ManM:

You claim that typing 2+2=4 is somehow different from an apple. How so? Both were the inevitable product of processes we had no control over.
During typing, a motivated decision-making brain with a lifetime of accumulated memories was involved. It can wonder about free-will. Apples can't wonder about free will due to their lack of intelligence. Typing 2+2=4 requires real (learnt) intelligence to understand what's going on.

In other words, there is the same amount of meaning encoded in the apple that there is in a logical statement.
Meaning is about symbols representing something else... the following shapes 2+2=4 represent a complex idea involving two groups of two objects being compared with four objects.
An apple isn't a symbol for anything - unless it is *given* (or assigned) a meaning by someone.

Hence I think people should believe in free will because determinism destroys the validity of our value judgements.
You mean determinism makes our values seem less special? I guess it does... but values/priorities are still compatible with determinism. They are the criteria during decision-making - e.g. like how chess computers might "value" certain pieces over others.

Jamie_L

ManM:

You may be on to something about there being a choice involved when two "beliefs" seem equally consistent. Then there may enter a phase that involves judging values in one theory versus another so that one can believe something. However, this could be viewed as intellectual dishonesty, with agnosticism on the topic being a more reasonable choice.

However, I don't think that in the case of god-belief we have an idea that is as consistent as other options. In fact, I think it's very rare that you have that situation at all when dealing with beliefs, especially big, "foundational" ones. Usually, one has an edge over the other, and you believe in that one.

Jamie

joedad

As you said, I think we're engaged in semantics here, as we're pretty much using "belief" and "conclusion" to mean the same thing. I can easily imagine my life and society existing without any concept of "belief" at all. But I understand how the word is used. I just wish to get beyond it sometimes and use language that is more accurate.

But to answer your question, Yes, I could call that a belief. But if I let it rattle around long enough and weighed it against other experiences I've had and maybe checked meteorological data, I might come to the conclusion that indeed the claim is true.

You say later:
DRFseven:
My emphasis

Notice how nicely you didn't use the "b" word even once. That's how I prefer to sense reality.

In another thread,

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000514" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000514</a>

SUTG asked the question, "Why don't you believe in God?" Personally, I'd rather be asked, "Do you think gods are real?" I think the latter question more accurately reflects how I think, and of course, the answer is "No." It nicely avoids the whole question of what a person might mean by "believe" or "believe in." And I know I'm nitpicking a bit.

I honestly think we all function via our observations, not our beliefs. But because we're so quick to move from observation to conclusion, or maybe don't dwell on observation at all, we have the impression that there is this realm called "beliefs." I'm radically proposing that it just isn't there, same as an ether for light.

Also, whether we think we have beliefs, or think that another person has beliefs, truly IS only a matter of perspective. I have often claimed that if you want to know what another person believes, you need only watch what they do. In other words, from my personal perspective, another person's actions come first, from which I ascertain what that person "believes." But such a person might very well claim that indeed he or she has certain beliefs, which in turn causes action. So, from that person's perspective, the belief is primary, not the act. It's just a different way to perceive other people and make sense of reality.

In a way, I'm stating that our brains no more have beliefs than a computer memory has beliefs. I think that concluding we have "beliefs" only reinforces a mystical leaning.

But you question, whether we choose or have a choice at all, is definitely a good one. Possibly, by staying with our observations, and not moving so quickly to conclusion, many of us would "choose" to give up our "beliefs" entirely. In a way they just become unnecessary, especially if, like me, you've concluded that they're not there at all.

Hope that makes a bit of sense at least.

joe

ManM

DRFseven,
This is just as frustrating as a Christian who claims the bible is true because the bible says so. Your belief in determinism obviously does not destroy your ability to make value judgments. I am saying that you act as though your value judgments mean something in spite of your determinism.

Now, to use your own example... Let's say someone uses their experience to create the idea of an elf. Are they no longer free to conceive of another hypothesis that explains the exact same experience? Or are you claiming that it is impossible for two theories to both interpret the exact same experiences?

And no, this isn't on the same level as a green chicken. Determinism is like relativism: if you follow the conclusions through you destroy the validity of the original claim. Apparently you can live with that contradiction. I value consistency in my beliefs, so I cannot believe in determinism any more than the good God of double predestination. I don't fear determinism. I simply find it to be nonsense.

excreationist,
We don't consider the results of one natural process to be any more true than another. A lightning strike is not truer than an earthquake, right? Is your declaration of 2+2=4 somehow more than the result of a natural process? If not, then on what grounds do you say it is any more true than other results of natural processes? Is it because we are intelligent? How is that any different from saying that it just the result of a really complex natural process? Are complex natural processes more true than simpler ones?

You have basically asserted that value judgments are meaningful. When I ask why, you re-assert in some trivial way that value judgments are meaningful. I am well aware they are meaningful. That is why I can't believe they are just the results of some external natural process.

Jamie_L,
Actually, the bigger theories are the ones most subject to choice. For example, how falsifiable is deism? When given a choice between two consistent worldviews, both sides can be justified by reason. I'm not sure you can call something intellectually dishonest unless there is a blatant logical contradiction involved. Now which conceptions of God are consistent is another topic altogether.

DRFseven

What makes you think a determined judgement is meaningless? You seem to have the idea that if there is no Little ManM up there in your head with a megaphone directing the script, that no choices are being made. How does Little ManM find out what he wants to choose? I'll tell you how; the receiving neuron picks up information about the environment and that info is reflected in the tranmission signal (firing pattern) from the "bottom up"; it's kind of like smoke signals. Then, after the signal goes all the way up, there is a "back signal" that goes all the way back to the receiving neuron and the back signal reflects information from the target neurons. So the receiving sensory neurons that started the transmission find out what the target neurons have to say about the overall state of the organism as relating to that signal, and depending upon what the overall state is reflected to be, the sensory neuron adjusts its response (keeps signaling, changes signaling or stops signaling). In this way, the organism and the environment form a loop. You've got a big disconnect here between the stimulus coming in and the response going out - how does LIttle ManM find out about all the neural signaling and what does neural signaling mean to Little ManM? And what does he do with the information when he gets it? Unless you just don't think we need a physical connection.

I didn't say it was "on the same level" as a green chicken, whatever that means. I asked, what if determinism turns us into green chickens, does that make it not true? You act as if, because unpleasant things might happen if we accept the idea of determinism, we should just refuse to think about it and it will go away and not be true

That's because you have this a priori idea that relativism and determinism don't permit morals and choice. As if they are excluded by definition. Can't you see that you have constrained choice to a definition that stipulates a free agent and in so doing have mandated the ghost in the machine? You're saying we can't do this with biology; this is beyond "mere" biology. Yet the flatworm clearly chooses to avoid electrical shocks without benefit of any conscious will or ghost.

OK, then please tell me how we, physically, perceive a choice needs to be made and how we proceed to make it. I'm not asking for anything complicated; just incorporate the behavioral choice into the firing of the neurons.