Metaphysical-Physicalism.

[F1fan]

There might be a fundamental difference between memorization and inductive logic. For instance, a dog might memorize the sound of the doorbell and know the food dude is home. That's like, well, Pavlov's dog. Which is instinctual.

No, it's called classical conditioning. It works on dogs and humans and many other animals. It happens when an animal associates a certain stimuli to a consequence. This is learned behavior.

But say for example that whenever the food dude goes on a multi-day hiatus (so that the dog must go a day or two without getting fed) he always rides his motorcycle home from work (the food dude not the dog). Memorizing this fact, when food dude open the pantry, loads up the food bowl, and starts toward the patio, the dog quickly and undetected grabs the food bag and stashes it under a chair where food dude can't see it so that while the feeder is gone, the dog can eat anyway.

At this point, memorization, and instinct, both of which are quasi-natural, get transcended by non-inductive thought. In Popper's parlance nothing whatsoever, regardless of memorization, or instinct, causes the dog to use his reasoning in a way to out-think food dude, memorization, and instinct. Nothing natural, logical, instinctual, is behind the dog taking things into his own hands, or teeth, through a fairly complex set of reasoning logic, and actions, all of which are generated, and planned, by an ability that's not instinctual, or even natural.

If this was included on a psych test you'd get an F. None of this reflects what we know about how minds function. You keep insisting typical behaviors are not natural, so I have to wonder how you are defining this word. It's used out of any proper context above.

 

[John D. Brey]

And what is an atheistic placebo?

If a hypochondriac is given a placebo it can work, since the hyperactive belief in sickness isn't technically a real sickness, even as a placebo isn't technically a real cure.

If the human mind transcends its natural frame, the biological body and brain, but the person living in the biological body and the brain never bothered to notice the distinct difference between their self-conscious sentience versus the other assemblages of nature, then, like a hypochondriac, they can use the fallacy of inductive logic as a placebo making them think the supernatural things their mind is doing is actually natural since it occurred though the natural cause and effect processes associated with inductive inference or logic.

In truth, no human being's mind is purely natural. And likewise, no human mind was ever subject to inductive logic, any more than a placebo really did cure the hypochondriacs non-existent ailment.



John

 

[Magical Wand]

John, can you present a single quote by Popper in which he said what the human mind does is supernatural? I dare you.

 

[John D. Brey]

Other have already noted that your use of language isn't descriptive enough, and none of us seem to know what you are saying or looking for here. I can't even begin to respond to that comment except in the manner I have - what does it mean? Use more words and flesh out your ideas in paragraphs that don't skimp on description, definition, or explanation as I have just done here. There is nothing about these words that isn't clear.

We need a Wittgenstein-Popper tag-team to address the comments above.

In the intro to his Tractatus, Ludwig Wittgenstein said that no one would read, or find anything in the tract interesting or understandable unless they'd already though about the questions and problems, to one degree or other, themselves.

On the other hand, Popper said that though it seem like using care, and expansive definitions, in one's scientific expressions, would make things more clear, that belief is a prejudice that's not factual. He explained that every definition can lead to an infinite regression of explanations of explanations so that in truth you must merely state your position as clearly, and briefly, effectively, as you can, and let the cards fall where they may.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Once again, what does this mean? How does one use a divine spirit? I'm an atheist. Are you saying I do that? If so, what are you saying I'm doing? Am I getting that divine spirit to help me?

Atheism is superior to theism in many ways. And vice versa. As a human being, your are a divine species. The chasm between you and an ape or peacock isn't a prejudice. It's as clear as anything could possibly be:

The universe could so easily have remained lifeless and simple----just physics and chemistry, just scattered dust of the cosmic explosion that gave birth to time and space. The fact that it did not----the fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing----is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice. And even that is not the end of the matter. Not only did evolution happen: it eventually led to beings capable of comprehending the process, and even of comprehending the process by which they comprehend it.

Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale, p. 613.​

John

 

[F1fan]

On the other hand, Popper said that though it seem like using care, and expansive definitions, in one's scientific expressions, would make things more clear, that belief is a prejudice that's not factual. He explained that every definition can lead to an infinite regression of explanations of explanations so that in truth you must merely state your position as clearly, and briefly, effectively, as you can, and let the cards fall where they may.

So be vague so you can achieve less clarity. It assures others can't comprehend what you're on about.

And that is what the intention is with your posts. Don't be clear, create ambiguity. Suggest mystery. Try to find gaps to imply a divine/God must be it there somewhere for anything to work.

Am I wrong?

 

[John D. Brey]

And what is this other thing you say I might be doing at the same time. What would be an example of something a person like me might have done that could be described as, "treating the abilities circumscribed by that divine spirit as though they're produced inductively --- naturally." Did you mean innately or intuitively rather than inductively?

A great deal of what we do everyday as human beings has never been done one time, cognatively, sentiently, by any organism in the first few billions years of the existence of life on earth. Not by an insect, or any other mammal. And as many great scientist, say Chomsky, point out, there's no line from there to here. It's impossible. And yet it's both true that it's impossible to get from there to here by the laws of physics, and also that we're here.

So what I say the atheist does, which my instincts want to demonize, is use logic like this:

John says I'm divine. And he makes a true case that scientists like Chomsky show that the way we human's function, communicate, and think, is impossible within the laws of physics. But that would mean I possess something that's not natural, while I'm quite comfortable in my skin, with my job, my beautiful wife and kids, and our Tesla, and new tv, and Sheila, our Mexican maid. So no. I think I'll just stay natural thank you. For otherwise, you know, to whom much is given, much is expected. So that if I go down that slippery slope of supernatural-ness, I might find that some supernatural being shared his supernaturalness with me and expects me do some something I know not what, nor care to know what, in return. Uh . . . thanks but no thanks. Call my rejection of supernatural things "inductive logic" if you like, but it's served me well so far, so, so be it, you trouble-making so-n-so.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

It reminds me of the lyrics to Dylan's Desolation row, which is just as opaque:

Cinderella, she seems so easy, "It takes one to know one, " she smiles
And puts her hands in her back pockets Bette Davis style
And in comes Romeo, he's moaning. "You Belong to Me I Believe"
And someone says, "You're in the wrong place, my friend, you'd better leave

Einstein, disguised as Robin Hood with his memories in a trunk
Passed this way an hour ago with his friend, a jealous monk"

Exactly what is Dylan saying? Nothing, really. It's poetry, and you are expected to experience it like a verbal Rorschach test, where you insert some of your own imagination to give these sentences some meaning, some relevant narrative.

And yet Desolation Row is one of the lyrics Dylan sold recently in a compilation of such mindless mush for $300 million or something like that. And using his verbal slickness he tricked the Nobel people into making him a Nobel Laureate.

I suspect that Dylan intuited early on in his development that the duality between the conscious mind and the sub, or unconscious mind, is one of of those unities that most people pretend has been subsumed in the elevation of their conscious mind as the part of their soul that wears the pants in the relationship. In the global transgendering of the soul, which Dylan didn't take part in, the subconscious mind is only allowed to speak when the husband (the conscious mind) is sleeping.

Dylan may have realized that the subconscious mind is the true husband of the soul even though he is (the subconscious mind is) mute, and can only communicate through his bride. Knowing this, the bride (the verbal, conscious part of the mind) always takes great liberties in voicing what the mute groom want's to say. Heck, what's he gonna do about it. Well Dylan's subconscious mind outwitted its bride and talks freely to masculine souls all over the planet every one of them laughing their butts off that the ladies don't know what's going on or why poetic fluff would be worthy of a Nobel Prize in literature?


John

 

[John D. Brey]

My advice if you seek more clarity in your writing is to stick with smaller, less technical words in full sentences that you would expect children to understand, and build up from there using more vocabulary and more complicated sentences, checking to see that you have included everything necessary to understand you.

So what do you think about trying to rewrite the OP together? I'm sure that I can help once I know what you want to communicate. And you can compare the starting and ending product to see the difference.

Thank you for the offer. I'm fascinated more than you know since you seem to be using the very metaphysical-physicalism the thread is discussing when you assume that what I want to say can be straight-jacked, encased in Formica, or ink, to peer at, poke at, laugh at, or even admire in its immobilized state.

In poetic jargon, you're offering to help me murder the life of my idea so we can paint a picture of it together from its corpse.

In less poetic prose, you seem to think that I'm dialoging like most everyone else, under the illusion that since what I say is derived inductively, more induction will make much clearer what I'm trying to say. But what I'm trying to say requires living dialogue and not another layer of inductive inferences based on wrong-headed epistemological prejudices never corrected because of the cost of such mental retooling.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

So be vague so you can achieve less clarity. It assures others can't comprehend what you're on about.

And that is what the intention is with your posts. Don't be clear, create ambiguity. Suggest mystery. Try to find gaps to imply a divine/God must be it there somewhere for anything to work.

Am I wrong?

Not within the context you're using to judge what I'm saying. Within that context you're correct.

But I'm making an argument, no matter how badly I'm making it, that your context is broken in such a manner that you would have to intuit it might be broken, and be willing to jettison it, before you could fully see how broken it was, and how lucky you were to have listened to that little voice of intuition.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Induction is a cognitive heuristic that we and many other animal species use to make choices and behavioral decisions.

As I noted earlier, or later, as it were, in regards to your statement, induction might be associated with instinct or memory, or natural, animalistic kinds of instinctual reasoning, but in my opinion, Popper and Einstein are correct that it plays no part whatsoever in the kind of human thinking associated with the scientific-endeavor.

It's a beneficial tendency because it grants us a mental model that corresponds to reality much more often than not.

Popper says that though it grants a mental model, with it alone, we could only act instinctually in relationship to that model. For instance, if two men are walking down a path and one notices that every bird they've passed has been black yellow and red, while his peer didn't even notice passing a bird, he could say, I'll bet you fifty-dollars the first bird we pass will be black yellow and red.

Popper points out two things in relationship to this inductive heuristic. First, though it seems like having passed say ten or fifteen black yellow and red birds means the next one will be black yellow and red, in truth, that's a mere prejudice that has no sound, factual relationship to truth. The next bird could be a damn Magpie as truly as it might be black yellow and red.

Next, Popper points out that nothing required, incited, or encouraged, the one man to notice and take account of the birds, nor to hypothesize inductively that the next would be the same as the last few. Induction doesn't make anyone do anything unless, perhaps, it's an instinctual proclivity to trust inductive inferences.

According the Popper, the man is likely to lose his money in the bet for trusting induction, and yet he will make up for it somewhere down the road for his non-inductive ability to hypothesize from his own downright ornery human logic.

For that reason, it has persisted as a feature of biological brains over the course of evolution. We can test and demonstrate the accuracy (and benefit) of induction. This isn't difficult. There is no need to call this a "placebo" or a subconscious denial of magic spirits.

The main idea is that the human mind parasites the mammal brain in the human body: that it's not fully subject to the limitations of the animal brain.

I know of very, very few atheists who believe in "metaphysical physicalism," which only sounds like an oxymoron for etymological reasons in the way you are choosing to describe it. It is essentially the belief in the absolute claim that "natural physical things are all that exist in reality." Another way of describing the same concept is "philosophical naturalism," or "ontological naturalism."

Virtually all atheists are uncomfortable making absolute claims about the fundamental nature of reality, because we don't currently appear to have any grounds for this kind of metaphysical knowledge. It is all merely speculative, and unjustifiable with our current tools of inquiry.

The well-educated atheists, like say Chomsky, would agree with your statement. But the garden variety atheist is usually a philosophical naturalist. Chomsky, on the other hand, said he doesn't see how anyone could be a materialist since to date we haven't found one morsel of actual material in the universe: it's all information packaged in a manner that some mammals interpret as solid matter. Human's should be the wiser.

To be a philosophical naturalist is almost as irrational as believing a god exists. I say "almost" because at least we can demonstrate that nature does exist. To go farther and say it is all that exists or can exist is not supported by any evidence. So yes, I would experience epistemological discomfort if I, as an atheist, had to try and believe this. That's why I'm a methodological naturalist, which involves tentative conclusions based on current available tools and evidence.

Popper and Einstein would probably fit the same mold you're creating for yourself. Which is to say that even though they refuted inductive logic, and admitted that aspects of human thought are miraculous so far as sound logic and science are concerned, nevertheless, this didn't lead them to theism.

It's that failing that I'm attempting to get my head around. How do you, Popper, or Einstein, not get theological when you see that the human mind is not fully a product of the natural world?

Your entire post is basically a straw man. "Look at this thing that an imaginary atheist believes. It's just as irrational as supernatural beliefs. Boy, do atheists have a bad epistemology!" In actuality, you're projecting your own epistemological failures onto us, then criticizing these failures. You're only harming yourself here.

I don't think you're correct here. We'd have to examine it further for you to convince me of it.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

John, can you present a single quote by Popper in which he said what the human mind does is supernatural? I dare you.

I suspect this is a semantic game where if he doesn't use the word "supernatural," but says the same thing in his own parlance, you say "Nope! He didn't say 'supernatural,' so you lose."



John

 

[AlexanderG]

As I noted earlier, or later, as it were, in regards to your statement, induction might be associated with instinct or memory, or natural, animalistic kinds of instinctual reasoning, but in my opinion, Popper and Einstein are correct that it plays no part whatsoever in the kind of human thinking associated with the scientific-endeavor.



Popper says that though it grants a mental model, with it alone, we could only act instinctually in relationship to that model. For instance, if two men are walking down a path and one notices that every bird they've passed has been black yellow and red, while his peer didn't even notice passing a bird, he could say, I'll bet you fifty-dollars the first bird we pass will be black yellow and red.

Popper points out two things in relationship to this inductive heuristic. First, though it seems like having passed say ten or fifteen black yellow and red birds means the next one will be black yellow and red, in truth, that's a mere prejudice that has no sound, factual relationship to truth. The next bird could be a damn Magpie as truly as it might be black yellow and red.

Next, Popper points out that nothing required, incited, or encouraged, the one man to notice and take account of the birds, nor to hypothesize inductively that the next would be the same as the last few. Induction doesn't make anyone do anything unless, perhaps, it's an instinctual proclivity to trust inductive inferences.

According the Popper, the man is likely to lose his money in the bet for trusting induction, and yet he will make up for it somewhere down the road for his non-inductive ability to hypothesize from his own downright ornery human logic.



The main idea is that the human mind parasites the mammal brain in the human body: that it's not fully subject to the limitations of the animal brain.



The well-educated atheists, like say Chomsky, would agree with your statement. But the garden variety atheist is usually a philosophical naturalist. Chomsky, on the other hand, said he doesn't see how anyone could be a materialist since to date we haven't found one morsel of actual material in the universe: it's all information packaged in a manner that some mammals interpret as solid matter. Human's should be the wiser.



Popper and Einstein would probably fit the same mold you're creating for yourself. Which is to say that even though they refuted inductive logic, and admitted that aspects of human thought are miraculous so far as sound logic and science are concerned, nevertheless, this didn't lead them to theism.

It's that failing that I'm attempting to get my head around. How do you, Popper, or Einstein, not get theological when you see that the human mind is not fully a product of the natural world?



I don't think you're correct here. We'd have to examine it further for you to convince me of it.



John

This reply is very strange. It's as if you think quoting some older atheists and their philosophical speculations can substitute for evidence supporting your model. I looked up some of their quotes, and it sounds like you're misunderstanding them or extrapolating your ideas from their slightly unrelated or less sweeping comments.

Either way, if Popper and Einstein said that induction has nothing to do with the scientific method, then they were wrong. If they thought there was evidence that the brain is miraculous or not fully natural, then they were wrong. That's the thing about science, and atheism: we don't have prophets, or dogma, or infallible authorities. We can confirm that Newton was correct about his insights on calculus so we use that method, and we don't use his insights on alchemy because they were unverifiable, regardless of any of his enthusiastic quotes you could find on the subject.

I also don't care that Popper points out situations where induction can lead to problems. If you noticed, I said induction is correct "much more often than not," so that entire section of your response is irrelevant. People have explored the limits of induction, which is good and useful, and not relevant here. I use my words carefully so that they are as accurate as possible. You should try doing the same.

Quoting philosophers is not evidence for anything in empirical or metaphysical reality, but only evidence for human conceptual (aka imaginary) speculation. Quoting the philosophical musings of scientists is even less useful. Likewise for your reliance on arguments from ignorance. Instead, maybe you should try and find actual evidence for your supernatural claims. Good luck. It's never been done, which is a big part of why I'm an atheist.

 

[AlexanderG]

It's that failing that I'm attempting to get my head around. How do you, Popper, or Einstein, not get theological when you see that the human mind is not fully a product of the natural world?

I wanted to pull out this quote from the same post to emphasize your problems. We have no need to "get theological" because we do NOT "see that the human mind is not fully a product of the natural world." No one using the scientific method sees this. You should start by "getting your head around" that.

Your pulling this supernatural conclusion out of the current frontiers of neuroscience is a textbook argument from ignorance fallacy. It is a form of reasoning that reliably leads to false conclusions and beliefs. It is irrational, unjustified, and reflects a poor understanding of how science operates. It is in fact diametrically opposed to the scientific method. Not only is it a major flaw in your reasoning, but I find it bizarre that you project this flaw onto the rest of us and assume we agree with you when we are clearly, repeatedly stating that we have not reached this same conclusion.

Still, I can see why you would feel confused if you actually believe that scientists and evidence-oriented atheists secretly believe in magic, miracles, or supernatural influences. That would be indeed be very strange and inconsistent of us, since we so highly value logic, reason, and evidence.

 

[Brian2]

Virtually all atheists are uncomfortable making absolute claims about the fundamental nature of reality, because we don't currently appear to have any grounds for this kind of metaphysical knowledge. It is all merely speculative, and unjustifiable with our current tools of inquiry.

What tools of inquiry are you talking about?

To be a philosophical naturalist is almost as irrational as believing a god exists. I say "almost" because at least we can demonstrate that nature does exist. To go farther and say it is all that exists or can exist is not supported by any evidence. So yes, I would experience epistemological discomfort if I, as an atheist, had to try and believe this. That's why I'm a methodological naturalist, which involves tentative conclusions based on current available tools and evidence.

Methodological naturalism is a tool to help understand nature and assumes no interference from the supernatural, which would just complicate things it seems.
Tentative conclusions from a methodological naturalist would be naturalistic conclusions and that is what we find in science with it's tentative conclusions.
Even in history any conclusion must be based on the initial assumption of methodological naturalism, meaning that the Bible is assumed wrong and lies from the get go with many methodologically naturalistic historians and they they use their conclusions to show that the bible is lies and wrong. Circular reasoning, yes, but liked by other methodological naturalists and the circular reasoning not recognised.

 

[F1fan]

Not within the context you're using to judge what I'm saying. Within that context you're correct.

I'm using the same faculties to judge your claims as you are using to make your claims, It's a matter of whether if we are following the rules of logic/reasoning to determine what is true about how things are. True claims can be verified as true, and there needs to be a certain level of satisfactory evidence and proper language being used to convey the ideas. Your approach seems to be deliberately vague and contradictory to avoid any clarity. Here you say I'm wrong and right, and just leave it at that without explaining how your approach accomplishes anything.

But I'm making an argument, no matter how badly I'm making it, that your context is broken in such a manner that you would have to intuit it might be broken, and be willing to jettison it, before you could fully see how broken it was, and how lucky you were to have listened to that little voice of intuition.

As AlexanderG pointed out you are relying on obsolete references to make your bad argument. And what is the point of that except to demonstrate how badly you can argue a flawed proposition?

My question to you is: why aren't you adjusting your own flawed contexts to create more relevant and interesting set of arguments?

 

[John D. Brey]

As I noted earlier, or later, as it were, in regards to your statement, induction might be associated with instinct or memory, or natural, animalistic kinds of instinctual reasoning, but in my opinion, Popper and Einstein are correct that it plays no part whatsoever in the kind of human thinking associated with the scientific-endeavor.​

. . . I looked up some of their quotes, and it sounds like you're misunderstanding them or extrapolating your ideas from their slightly unrelated or less sweeping comments.

On the contrary. Whereas I was willing to entertain the idea of induction being used in an instinctual way, or as being associated perhaps with memorization, Popper himself would have none of that:

I hold that neither animals nor men use any procedure like induction, or any argument based on the repetition of instances. The belief that we use induction is simply a mistake. It’s a kind of optical illusion.

David Miller’s, Popper Selections, p. 103,104.​

I would have to do some digging to find it, but Popper once said refuting the broad illusion that induction works was probably the most important philosophical work he ever did. And I did quote Einstein earlier saying nothing like induction is the answer to how man devises his scientific thought. And not that it matters, but Einstein was a close friend of Popper.

I was asked earlier in the thread to show where Popper implied that the human mind possessed supernatural abilities. And he (Popper) did imply that in a guarded way in many places. But as an agnostic, bordering on atheism, he was careful in his speech, not wanting to be cast out of his agnostic clique. Nevertheless, he did say:

. . . I am inclined to think that scientific discovery is impossible without faith in ideas which are of a purely speculative kind, and sometimes even quite hazy; a faith which is completely unwarranted from the point of view of science, and which, to that extent, is “metaphysical” (LSD, p. 38).​

Some agnostics and atheists thought Popper was on LSD when he said that. But he actually said it in his magnum opus, The Logic of Scientific Discovery.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

This reply is very strange. It's as if you think quoting some older atheists and their philosophical speculations can substitute for evidence supporting your model.

And then:

Either way, if Popper and Einstein said that induction has nothing to do with the scientific method, then they were wrong. If they thought there was evidence that the brain is miraculous or not fully natural, then they were wrong.

You chide me for quoting two of the most important ---if old ---scientific thinkers of the last century (one a great scientist himself, and the other, quite possibly the greatest historian and philosopher of the scientific-method of the last century) and for taking a stab at showing why I agree with what they say in their quotation, and then you seem to offer me your pure dogmatism rather than any kind of thoughtful argument?


John

 

[RestlessSoul]

On the contrary. Whereas I was willing to entertain the idea of induction being used in an instinctual way, or as being associated perhaps with memorization, Popper himself would have none of that:

I hold that neither animals nor men use any procedure like induction, or any argument based on the repetition of instances. The belief that we use induction is simply a mistake. It’s a kind of optical illusion.

David Miller’s, Popper Selections, p. 103,104.​

I would have to do some digging to find it, but Popper once said refuting the broad illusion that induction works was probably the most important philosophical work he ever did. And I did quote Einstein earlier saying nothing like induction is the answer to how man devises his scientific thought. And not that it matters, but Einstein was a close friend of Popper.

I was asked earlier in the thread to show where Popper implied that the human mind possessed supernatural abilities. And he (Popper) did imply that in a guarded way in many places. But as an agnostic, bordering on atheism, he was careful in his speech not wanting to be cast out of his agnostic clique. Nevertheless, he did say:

. . . I am inclined to think that scientific discovery is impossible without faith in ideas which are of a purely speculative kind, and sometimes even quite hazy; a faith which is completely unwarranted from the point of view of science, and which, to that extent, is “metaphysical” (LSD, p. 38).​

Some agnostics and atheists thought Popper was on LSD when he said that. But he actually said it in his magnum opus, The Logic of Scientific Discovery.



John

In my experience, people who have experienced the effects of lysergic acid dyethylemide at first hand, do tend towards more expansive, imaginative thinking. They may also be more ready to acknowledge that some phenomena, including consciousness itself, cannot be readily quantified or analysed using logic or reason.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And then:



You chide me for quoting two of the most important ---if old ---scientific thinkers of the last century (one a great scientist himself, and the other, quite possibly the greatest historian and philosopher of the scientific-method of the last century) and for taking a stab at showing why I agree with what they say in their quotation, and then you seem to offer me your pure dogmatism rather than any kind of thoughtful argument?


John

Are you saying that merely quoting famous people validates anything a person says? I had no idea. I am going to start validating every absurdity that comes to my mind now that I know the secret.