The "Kangaroo Court" Debate Style

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no "thing". Thing-ness is a concept created in our minds by the way our minds respond to physical stimuli.

And the "thing" in your mind is not the same "thing" that produced the stimuli.

All "actual" physical stimuli (that we can perceive) becomes immediately conceptualized in our brain. It's compared and contrasted many, many times with many other recalled experiences of physical stimuli until this experience is contextualized, and labeled, and adequately (we feel) conceived. And that conceptualization gets added to a bigger, more inclusive set of them. And those to yet another, even greater set, and so on until everything is being fit into a very large elaborate conceptual complex that we call "reality".

It gets incorporated into our mental model of reality: our understanding of how the world works, which us different from the world itself.

And we really want to believe that our conceptualized "reality" is an accurate representation because if it's not, we are living life blind and rudderless. And that's very dangerous.

Right: we want our mental models to be as accurate as possible. But they're still models.

But the drawing is of the concept of a "bicycle". And the metal thing with the wheels is a functional manifestation of the concept of the bicycle. Neither of these is more or less "real" than the other.

My understanding of a bicycle includes that it's a thing that a person can sit on and pedal to make it move, and that can steer and stop. Whatever concept is in my head, if it can't do these things, I can recognize that it isn't a bicycle.

But it's not those things that define a bicycle.

Right: the attributes of a bicycle define a bicycle. Those attributes are missing to some degree from any human conception of a bicycle.

 

[MikeF]

Two points, really. One is that we don’t know what is possible and what isn’t. And the other is that things that were not otherwise possible can become possible through the power of our imaginative minds creating connections and relationships that otherwise wouldn’t happen.

As pertains to your first point, Homo sapiens actually know a lot about what is possible that was previously *not* known to be possible by Homo sapiens 100,000 years ago.

As to point two, I would rephrase as, "things that are possible as delimited by Reality, might be actualized through the power of a species imaginative minds creating connections and relationships that otherwise wouldn’t happen absent a species creative and ingenious mind.

 

[Alien826]

This is a bird ... not an airplane.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-g9STQqFQ9Ik/UScse2IifqI/AAAAAAAAA08/mh1immEtVZo/s1600/bluebird.jpg

This is an airplane ... not a bird.

https://www.jetgala.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/C1C2953s.jpg

Sarcasm noted. But yes I know the bird and the airplane are different objects. But are they so different in principle? Both use a basic principle of the natural world. It's called "lift". Essentially, if air moves over a curved surface, the different speeds of the air above and below the plane move at different speeds, and the air pressure is greater underneath the "wing", causing an upward movement to occur. Both the bird and the airplane use that principle to fly.

The bird was always "obectively" possible. And so it "objectively" occurred (completely apart from human cognition). The airplane was not objectively possible. And it would never have objectively occurred (completely apart from human cognition). It only occurred because we humans imagined it, and then were able to make it happen.

If you mean that the bird was objectively possible because the the physics of the air allowed it to fly, yes! And some other things like power to weight ratios, all part of the physical world. As the airplane flies using these same physical properties, I don't know why you consider it was not objectively possible. Incidentally, we could say that the bird would never have come into existence if evolution had taken a different turn. All the components needed for the airplane's physical existence already existed, as they did for the bird. Sure a mechanism (evolution) was needed to create the bird and a mechanism (human invention) was needed to created the airplane, but so what? I'm looking for an essential difference between the two things. Yes, the human ability to form and manipulate mental concepts is pretty impressive, but neither it nor evolution actually caused the necessary physical components of the bird and plane to exist. They were there all along.

 

[PureX]

And the "thing" in your mind is not the same "thing" that produced the stimuli.


Right: we want our mental models to be as accurate as possible. But they're still models.

My understanding of a bicycle includes that it's a thing that a person can sit on and pedal to make it move, and that can steer and stop. Whatever concept is in my head, if it can't do these things, I can recognize that it isn't a bicycle.

Right: the attributes of a bicycle define a bicycle. Those attributes are missing to some degree from any human conception of a bicycle.

The problem with all this is that there is no "world itself". Perception is conception and conception is perception. There is no "world" apart from us. The "world" is in us. Is of us. Objectivity is a delusion based on the false idea that we are not the world and the world is not us. An idea we hold onto because we are obsessed with wanting to control everything.

 

[PureX]

Sarcasm noted. But yes I know the bird and the airplane are different objects. But are they so different in principle? Both use a basic principle of the natural world. It's called "lift". Essentially, if air moves over a curved surface, the different speeds of the air above and below the plane move at different speeds, and the air pressure is greater underneath the "wing", causing an upward movement to occur. Both the bird and the airplane use that principle to fly.


If you mean that the bird was objectively possible because the the physics of the air allowed it to fly, yes! And some other things like power to weight ratios, all part of the physical world. As the airplane flies using these same physical properties, I don't know why you consider it was not objectively possible. Incidentally, we could say that the bird would never have come into existence if evolution had taken a different turn. All the components needed for the airplane's physical existence already existed, as they did for the bird. Sure a mechanism (evolution) was needed to create the bird and a mechanism (human invention) was needed to created the airplane, but so what? I'm looking for an essential difference between the two things. Yes, the human ability to form and manipulate mental concepts is pretty impressive, but neither it nor evolution actually caused the necessary physical components of the bird and plane to exist. They were there all along.

I'm not going to belabor this because you're trying way too hard not to understand. But birds were an innate possibility regardless of human cognition. Airplanes were never an innate possibility. They only became possible because of human consciousness and it's propensity for cognitive abstraction. In fact, a lot of things that were never innately possible became possible because of human cognitive abstraction. More important that airplanes are abstractions like beauty, justice, self-sacrifice, spirituality, meaning and purpose. These are all real phenomenal possibilities now that were not innate to an unconscious existence and would never that occurred in that "objective reality" that the materialists here love to worship so.

 

[PureX]

As pertains to your first point, Homo sapiens actually know a lot about what is possible that was previously *not* known to be possible by Homo sapiens 100,000 years ago.

Well, we think we do, until we keep trying new things and finding out that we were wrong.

As to point two, I would rephrase as, "things that are possible as delimited by Reality, might be actualized through the power of a species imaginative minds creating connections and relationships that otherwise wouldn’t happen absent a species creative and ingenious mind.

Thus, metaphysics transcend the limitations of "objective" physics. Oh, no!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The problem with all this is that there is no "world itself". Perception is conception and conception is perception. There is no "world" apart from us. The "world" is in us. Is of us. Objectivity is a delusion based on the false idea that we are not the world and the world is not us. An idea we hold onto because we are obsessed with wanting to control everything.

I don't think solipsism solves anything, but that's besides the point I'm making: our mental models can be recognized as incomplete even within the model themselves.

Imagine a dragon.

Does it have internal organs? You can recognize that yes, it must have them.

What is the layout of the internal organs of a dragon? I'll bet that your mental model of a dragon doesn't have an internal organ layout even though - even in your mental model - you recognize that your concept of a dragon does have internal organs... right?

 

[PureX]

I don't think solipsism solves anything, but that's besides the point I'm making: our mental models can be recognized as incomplete even within the model themselves.

Solipsism has nothing to do with it. It's simple self-awareness.

Imagine a dragon.

Does it have internal organs? You can recognize that yes, it must have them.

That made no sense at all.

What is the layout of the internal organs of a dragon? I'll bet that your mental model of a dragon doesn't have an internal organ layout even though - even in your mental model - you recognize that your concept of a dragon does have internal organs... right?

My idea of an airplane likewise has no "internal organs" and yet it exists and flies because we humans ideated it into existence. How about that!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Solipsism has nothing to do with it. It's simple self-awareness.

You were describing solipsism.

That made no sense at all.

Then think about it a bit more.

My idea of an airplane likewise has no "internal organs" and yet it exists and flies because we humans ideated it. How about that!

In your idea of an airplane, airplane are empty? No cockpit, no space for passengers, nothing in the engine nacelles? Really?

 

[MikeF]

Well, we think we do, until we keep trying new things and finding out that we were wrong.

On the one hand you seem to agree that we figure out Reality enough to build an airplane, and on the other hand seem to insist we know absolutely nothing. If that gives you peace, so be it.

Thus, metaphysics transcend the limitations of "objective" physics. Oh, no!

Not sure how you are drawing that conclusion since you seem to agree that possibility is restricted to what is delimited by Reality. Beyond that, as was demonstrated with the example of a bird and an airplane, actualizing aerodynamic flight was not dependent upon a brain thinking in abstraction. That Homo sapiens exist and have existed in the billions of organisms, and things and events occurred that would not have happened except for them is no different from all the other myriad events, both inorganic and organic, that would not have happened except for some continuation of a probabilistic series of events, all occurring well within the possibilities delimited by Reality. There is nothing being "transcended", all of it firmly rooted in objective reality.

 

[Alien826]

I'm not going to belabor this because you're trying way too hard not to understand. But birds were an innate possibility regardless of human cognition. Airplanes were never an innate possibility. They only became possible because of human consciousness and it's propensity for cognitive abstraction. In fact, a lot of things that were never innately possible became possible because of human cognitive abstraction. More important that airplanes are abstractions like beauty, justice, self-sacrifice, spirituality, meaning and purpose. These are all real phenomenal possibilities now that were not innate to an unconscious existence and would never that occurred in that "objective reality" that the materialists here love to worship so.

I do see what you are saying. Maybe the problem arises from your phrase "innate possibility". My point is that for things that get instantiated through human invention and those that came about some other way were both "possible" (not sure what you mean by "innate" as it doesn't seem to add any meaning to "possible") before that happened because all the components of the finished object were in existence previously.

I'll try another example. Would you agree that it is possible for you to travel to <pick your own destination>? Now let's take the case where you decide to do so. It seems that you are claiming that the journey only became possible when you decided to travel to <wherever>. Yes or no? Be careful, because if you say yes, then that excludes all possibilities that might accomplish the same end.

And, if you want to continue with this, please drop the snarky stuff.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not going to belabor this because you're trying way too hard not to understand. But birds were an innate possibility regardless of human cognition. Airplanes were never an innate possibility.

The idea of a bird is only possible because of human cognition.

There's nothing "innate" in the decision to see the organism as the object as opposed to the flock or the cell as the object (or any other way to look at it).

I remember a Steven Pinker talk where he touches on the difference between a river (a body of water that's essentially linear, though we grant it a finite width) and a lake (a body of water that's essentially planar). While the body of water and all its molecules exist no matter how we think about it, the difference between a wide river and a narrow lake ultimately comes down to nothing more than what humans think is important.

 

[PureX]

I do see what you are saying. Maybe the problem arises from your phrase "innate possibility". My point is that for things that get instantiated through human invention and those that came about some other way were both "possible" (not sure what you mean by "innate" as it doesn't seem to add any meaning to "possible") before that happened because all the components of the finished object were in existence previously.

But the combination of them would never have happened. We were necessary to envision those combinations ... combination that didn't and wouldnlt ever exist. The "objective" reality that the materialists worship as the only true reality couldn't muster those combinations. Only the metaphysical reality of cognitive awareness and abstraction could do that. And in fact, there os no "objective reality" that isn't being generated metaphysically via cognitive abstraction.

This is the ultimate and catastrophic logical failure of philosophical materialism. It negates ITSELF by it's own absurd materialist bias.

 

[PureX]

The idea of a bird is only possible because of human cognition.

The bird, however, was possible regardless of human cognition.

There's nothing "innate" in the decision to see the organism as the object as opposed to the flock or the cell as the object (or any other way to look at it).

This is completely irrelevant as no one sees anything at all if no one is looking and cognating the visual stimuli they are receiving sensually.

I remember a Steven Pinker talk where he touches on the difference between a river (a body of water that's essentially linear, though we grant it a finite width) and a lake (a body of water that's essentially planar). While the body of water and all its molecules exist no matter how we think about it, the difference between a wide river and a narrow lake ultimately comes down to nothing more than what humans think is important.

I agree. Existence without cognition is completely irrelevant, and absolutely moot. Yet this is the "objective reality" that the materialists want to worship as the only true reality.

It's patently absurd,

 

[MikeF]

But the combination of them would never have happened. We were necessary to envision those combinations ... combination that didn't and wouldnlt ever exist. The "objective" reality that the materialists worship as the only true reality couldn't muster those combinations. Only the metaphysical reality of cognitive awareness and abstraction could do that. And in fact, there os no "objective reality" that isn't being generated metaphysically via cognitive abstraction.

This is the ultimate and catastrophic logical failure of philosophical materialism. It negates ITSELF by it's own absurd materialist bias.

See, this is where you seem to be getting off-track. These combinations of abstract thought (that enable the actuation of airplanes and bicycles) are not dependent on Homo sapiens, they are dependent on an organism of whatever form that have the capacity for abstract thought. There have been other species on this planet with this capacity and/or potential that are now extinct.

If birds are an "innate possibility", a possibility delimited by Reality, then so too, organisms that acquire abstract thought are an "innately possible" of Reality. Just as quite different organism have acquired aerodynamic properties, namely insects, pterosaurs, birds, and bats, the "innate possibility" of abstract thought is not strictly limited to Homo sapiens. You cannot really say that airplanes would not have occurred but for Homo sapiens, and you cannot say that airplanes and their changes over time could only occur exactly as they have occurred independently of the subjective preferences of those *individuals* involved. I only mention this to ward off a potential argument that some other abstract thinking species flying devices would not be the same as Homo sapiens airplanes thus airplanes or flying devices in general are solely dependent on the existence of Homo sapiens.

 

[PureX]

See, this is where you seem to be getting off-track. These combinations of abstract thought (that enable the actuation of airplanes and bicycles) are not dependent on Homo sapiens, they are dependent on an organism of whatever form that have the capacity for abstract thought. There have been other species on this planet with this capacity and/or potential that are now extinct.

It doesn't matter what they are dependent on (brain biology, whatever). What matters is that they transcend the realm of possibility from which they spring. They create a new realm of possibility that did not and could not exist, otherwise. Cognition is the doorway to a new universe of possibility. And that matters. That usurps the previous circumstance.

If birds are an "innate possibility", a possibility delimited by Reality, then so too, organisms that acquire abstract thought are an "innately possible" of Reality. Just as quite different organism have acquired aerodynamic properties, namely insects, pterosaurs, birds, and bats, the "innate possibility" of abstract thought is not strictly limited to Homo sapiens. You cannot really say that airplanes would not have occurred but for Homo sapiens, and you cannot say that airplanes and their changes over time could only occur exactly as they have occurred independently of the subjective preferences of those *individuals* involved. I only mention this to ward off a potential argument that some other abstract thinking species flying devices would not be the same as Homo sapiens airplanes thus airplanes are solely dependent on the existence of Homo sapiens.

 

[MikeF]

It doesn't matter what they are dependent on (brain biology, whatever). What matters is that they transcend the realm of possibility from which they spring. They create a new realm of possibility that did not and could not exist, otherwise.

You are romanticizing this. Nests in precarious cliff faces would not be a possibility until aerodynamic wings created a "new realm of possibility" that did not and could not exist without aerodynamic capability. You see, not a transcendent realm after all, simply an expression of the set of possibility afforded by Reality.

 

[Alien826]

But the combination of them would never have happened. We were necessary to envision those combinations ... combination that didn't and wouldnlt ever exist. The "objective" reality that the materialists worship as the only true reality couldn't muster those combinations.

As I said though, the process of evolution also acted to combine existing physical factors to produce birds hat would not have otherwise existed. For some reason, you seem to put the two things in different categories, and I haven't seen you support that convincingly.

Only the metaphysical reality of cognitive awareness and abstraction could do that. And in fact, there os no "objective reality" that isn't being generated metaphysically via cognitive abstraction.

This is an interesting assertion. Are you suggesting that the physical world didn't exist before there were conscious minds to observe it? I know that is a particular philosophical position.

This is the ultimate and catastrophic logical failure of philosophical materialism. It negates ITSELF by it's own absurd materialist bias.

Is there no middle ground? Even putting thought into a different category (which I don't) the airplane needs both thought and the components of the physical world to exist, no?

 

[Alien826]

You are romanticizing this. Nests in precarious cliff faces would not be a possibility until aerodynamic wings created a "new realm of possibility" that did not and could not exist without aerodynamic capability. You see, not a transcendent realm after all, simply an expression of the set of possibility afforded by Reality.

Indeed. If you go far enough back in time, the formation of our biosphere by totally natural forces created the entire "realm of possibility" that we call life. No consciousness involved or required.

 

[PureX]

As I said though, the process of evolution also acted to combine existing physical factors to produce birds hat would not have otherwise existed. For some reason, you seem to put the two things in different categories, and I haven't seen you support that convincingly.

Birds happened because they were a possibility within the limitations of an unconscious universe. Airplanes were not. They were only made possible through the cognitive abstractions of a sufficiently awakened consciousness.

Before conscious abstraction - no possibilty. After conscious abstraction - an otherwise non-extant (new) possibility.

Consciousness kicks the whole universe into a new realm of possibilities that we humans have only barely touched.

This is an interesting assertion. Are you suggesting that the physical world didn't exist before there were conscious minds to observe it? I know that is a particular philosophical position.

Nothing exists if existence itself cannot be idealized.

Even putting thought into a different category (which I don't) the airplane needs both thought and the components of the physical world to exist, no?

The airplane is an idea. That's how it exists. And there are many different kinds of manifestations of that idea. Stories, pictures, drawings, models, replicas, and actual flying machines. They are ALL "airplanes". They are ALL valid and they are ALL real. Not understanding this is the faulure of philosophical materialism.