What is naturalism?

[blü 2]

Self has travelled with you? Okay. But do you really know its nature?

Two answers to that ─ first, only what it tells me; and second, like the whole of the brain, it's entirely physical.

Your statement "YOU assume there's a world external to the self, because if you didn't, you wouldn't post here.", presumes a localised object as the self. But what actually is the form of self?

However much we've yet to learn about the way brains work, we can say the sense of self arises from physical brain function, since there's no credible alternative

Sarcasm will not do, sir.

What, even among friends?

Then of course I unreservedly apologize.

Do you have any doubt that you exist?

No. But there are times, sleep being the main example, anesthesia another, when my conscious mind isn't present and "I" don't know I exist.

I can answer for Vedanta. The self, the awareness "I exist" is more intimate than an apple on your palm.

It is the subject that illumines and knows the objects, including the body and the thoughts, emotions, imaginations that comprise the mind.

As I've said before, 'mind' is a word for an imprecisely defined collection of brain functions, generally including emotional states, memory, language, 'personality', problem-solving, decision making and so on.

As it is the very subject that knows, it is naive to search for it presuming that it is an object.

We can certainly agree on that. It's an idea, a concept with fluffy edges.

Vedanta prescribes neti-neti (not-this not-this) enquiry process to strip away all objects that we take as 'Me' to unravel the subject.

As against that, the conscious part of the brain is usually the last to know what the non-conscious brain is doing, and the non-conscious brain is doing just about everything ─ forming these words for me and directing my fingers in typing them, reminding me to buy some more milk, noticing something for sale and suggesting it'd be a good present for my granddaughter, making me cautious, or delighted, or affectionate ─ as well as monitoring my sensory input and responding to it, and keeping track of how my body and its various subsystems are functioning.

Even as sub-atomic scale objects are not what they seem to the senses, the self is not what it seems to the senses.

Yes and no (again) ─ it feels like me who's looking at this screen and conversing with you; I need to go into a different mode of thought, more deliberate and analytical, to consider my body as a set of subsystems, those subsystems as sets of interacting biochemicals and bioelectricals, those in turn being patterns of atoms and spaces, and those in turn being fundamental particles and energy speaking QM to each other.

I know that this answer will not satisfy you and you will continue as Trump "I already won"

I think the English expression is Harrumphh ...

But it remains the case that I see the universe, and us as part of it, as entirely material because, as I said, there's no credible option, not even in theory.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Surely to goodness you can work that out for yourself, since you do it many times a day?
To maximize objectivity, you at all times ─

proceed in a skeptical and open-minded manner;
hence be alert to your own expectations and possible biases;
inform yourself of the learning of the subject;
argue transparently and honestly from examinable evidence;
if you use induction, set out your data;
clearly describe your methods so that others can repeat your experiments;
when sampling with humans, whether as to opinions, behaviors, reactions, effects of treatments, or the like, use stringent double blind methods;
express your conclusions in terms of falsifiable propositions;
publish your results in respected peer-reviewed journals of science (or history &c);
expect and address informed criticism from your peers;
re-test your former conclusions, knowing they're not absolute​

and so on.

-express your conclusions in terms of falsifiable propositions.

As a former professional soldier I wanted to learn to kill other humans, because I believed it would be better for me to kill them than they kill me.
Now the learning of being better in killing other humans is objective, but to want to learn that is subjective and can't be tested using falsification. And to chose to do that voluntarily is subjective and not open to falsification.
Now this list of yours is not complete as how the everyday world works, because it leaves out this:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
These categories of human behavior-

Doing morality.
Stating what is subjectively pleasing.
Determining what is subjectively useful.
Determining if you want to believe in naturalism, supernaturalism or what ever in regards to the metaphysical.​

-Are not subject to falsification using science.

You are in effect dishonest, because you know this and you have left it out on purpose, if you did so. Either that or you are irrational. I.e. you don't really understand, how the everyday world works and you believe in some version of objectivity, which is in fact subjective.

Don't play this with a general skeptic. I just do your list and find where it is not complete for the everyday world.
I in effect know, that you in effect subjective believe science is good and that you believe, that this is objective and rational. It is not. It is your subjective bias and you don't want to admit that.
You are not as rational as you believe you are.
You can't rationally, objectively and with science do this:

Doing morality.
Stating what is subjectively pleasing.
Determining what is subjectively useful.
Determining if you want to believe in naturalism, supernaturalism or what ever in regards to the metaphysical.
​

In effect this has been know for over 2000 years now: As per Protagoras' "Man is the measure..." and Agrippa's Trilemma.
That you are not skeptical about your own subjectivity, is because it subjectively works for you to believe subjectively as you do in rationality, objectivity and science. And in effect like any believer you can subjectively deny that it is subjective, because that is what always happens with some believers. They won't admit that they are subjective.
You are just a believer in naturalism, rationality, objectivity and that science is objectively good.

 

[atanu]

Two answers to that ─ first, only what it tells me; and second, like the whole of the brain, it's entirely physical.
However much we've yet to learn about the way brains work, we can say the sense of self arises from physical brain function, since there's no credible alternative
What, even among friends?

Then of course I unreservedly apologize.
No. But there are times, sleep being the main example, anesthesia another, when my conscious mind isn't present and "I" don't know I exist.
As I've said before, 'mind' is a word for an imprecisely defined collection of brain functions, generally including emotional states, memory, language, 'personality', problem-solving, decision making and so on.
We can certainly agree on that. It's an idea, a concept with fluffy edges.
As against that, the conscious part of the brain is usually the last to know what the non-conscious brain is doing, and the non-conscious brain is doing just about everything ─ forming these words for me and directing my fingers in typing them, reminding me to buy some more milk, noticing something for sale and suggesting it'd be a good present for my granddaughter, making me cautious, or delighted, or affectionate ─ as well as monitoring my sensory input and responding to it, and keeping track of how my body and its various subsystems are functioning.
Yes and no (again) ─ it feels like me who's looking at this screen and conversing with you; I need to go into a different mode of thought, more deliberate and analytical, to consider my body as a set of subsystems, those subsystems as sets of interacting biochemicals and bioelectricals, those in turn being patterns of atoms and spaces, and those in turn being fundamental particles and energy speaking QM to each other.
I think the English expression is Harrumphh ...

But it remains the case that I see the universe, and us as part of it, as entirely material because, as I said, there's no credible option, not even in theory.

I may come back to you with point wise response if I get time and if I am motivated (I am not motivated since I do not see anything new from you. All these points have already been discussed many times).

Here, I can try to explain why I do not see anything new in your responses by citing your statement:

“But it remains the case that I see the universe, and us as part of it, as entirely material because, as I said, there's no credible option, not even in theory.”
​

If I open a tap 1000 times, water will pour out. If I switch on a light bulb, the bulb will light up. A fool may well say ‘The tap is the source of water’ or ‘The switch is the creator of electricity’.

This is philosophical naturalism in nutshell. And one who ponders a bit will see that the ‘naturalism’ is broken since the conclusion has no empirical basis. You cannot claim that the conclusion of absence of ‘A’ is empirical.

Furthermore, you seem neither willing to explore the very source of I nor are you willing to give any credence to the words of sages (and even some modern scientists).

Without consciousness you will not even see a brain. OTOH, you can very well see a brain in a dead body that does not generate any consciousness. So, the physical brain is not intrinsically conscious.

Yet you will cling to your blind FAITH that the self that knows everything can be known as an object and that the self that is the source of conscious awareness can be known through its instruments, namely the senses.

PS: Between friends and between two who respect each other's views, sarcasm is allowed.
...

 

[paarsurrey]

I confess to a fondness, a prejudice if you like, in favor of the real.

So, what is one's Method for knowing the reality, please?

Regards

 

[blü 2]

All these points have already been discussed many times.

Just so.

you seem neither willing to explore the very source of I .

On the contrary, as we learn more about the brain we learn more about "I", and that understanding has grown steadily in the last two decades. The human brain is an extraordinary product of evolution, of nature.

nor are you willing to give any credence to the words of sages (and even some modern scientists)

That's correct. The sages don't argue from examinable evidence, and no amount of sincerity will make up for that deficit. I don't know which modern scientists you have in mind, but the ones I can think of have the same deficit.

Without consciousness you will not even see a brain.

That doesn't stop the conscious state being the result of brain function.

OTOH, you can very well see a brain in a dead body that does not generate any consciousness.

Yes, the brain is a living organ, requiring oxygen and nutrients, the right temperature range, freedom from injury, toxins, and malfunctions, to keep its biochemistry and bioelectricity functionally active.

So, the physical brain is not intrinsically conscious.

Once we include the biochemistry and the bioelectricity, it's plain that the brain produces the conscious state.

Yet you will cling to your blind FAITH that the self that knows everything can be known as an object

As I said, the self, the conscious part of the brain, is usually the last to know what the non-conscious brain is doing ─ and in my previous post I gave you a few examples. You'll recall the experiments that show the brain having made the decision before the subject is aware / conscious that he or she has done so, and that's only a small part of it.

and that the self that is the source of conscious awareness can be known through its instruments, namely the senses.

I don't say the self is the source of awareness ─ I say the brain and its functions are the source of both.

PS: Between friends and between two who respect each other's views, sarcasm is allowed. ...

PHEW!

 

[blü 2]

So, what is one's Method for knowing the reality, please?

I start with three assumptions (which I have to assume because I can't demonstrate their correctness without first having assumed they're already correct). they are that a world exists external to the self, that the senses are capable of informing us of that world, and that reason is a valid tool.

I've never met anyone who, knowing or unknowing, doesn't share those assumptions.

Objective reality (or just 'reality' for short) is thus the world external to the self and the entities and processes that constitute it. With our senses, and with our tools and instruments, we can explore, describe and seek to explain that world and its entities and processes. We best do this by the methods of reasoned enquiry, of which scientific method is a subset.

And that enables us to know about reality.

Scientific method proceeds by empiricism and induction and its conclusions are never protected from unknown unknowns about reality. Thus its statements and conclusions are never absolute, only retrospective.

(Of course, there are no absolute statements to be found anywhere outside this sentence.)

 

[paarsurrey]

I start with three assumptions (which I have to assume because I can't demonstrate their correctness without first having assumed they're already correct). they are that a world exists external to the self, that the senses are capable of informing us of that world, and that reason is a valid tool.

I've never met anyone who, knowing or unknowing, doesn't share those assumptions.

Objective reality (or just 'reality' for short) is thus the world external to the self and the entities and processes that constitute it. With our senses, and with our tools and instruments, we can explore, describe and seek to explain that world and its entities and processes. We best do this by the methods of reasoned enquiry, of which scientific method is a subset.

And that enables us to know about reality.

Scientific method proceeds by empiricism and induction and its conclusions are never protected from unknown unknowns about reality. Thus its statements and conclusions are never absolute, only retrospective.

(Of course, there are no absolute statements to be found anywhere outside this sentence.)

" We best do this by the methods of reasoned enquiry, of which scientific method is a subset ".

Thanks for one's response.
What are other methods of which scientific method is one among many, please?

Regards

 

[blü 2]

" We best do this by the methods of reasoned enquiry, of which scientific method is a subset ".

Thanks for one's response.
What are other methods of which scientific method is one among many, please?

Historical method (which is concerned with reality), mathematical method (which is concerned with reality only infrequently), and it would be nice were there such a thing as philosophical method, though at least that tries to be rational.

But any form of reasoned, impartial and evidence-based enquiry will suffice.

 

[MikeF]

What is naturalism?

That is my question.

Naturalism is an antiquated philosophical term that is no longer useful. It is derived out of the dichotomy of natural and supernatural, which is an artificial construct. The term should be relegated to the history books, along with most of classical philosophy.

There is only reality, that which is real and existant. For we human beings, there is that of reality that we know and are fairly certain about, that which we only have a hint of, and finally, all that of reality that is completely unknown to us. Outside of reality is that which is nonexistent and imaginary.

For whatever the many possible reasons, human beings seem compelled to fill in the blank canvas of unknown reality and create, often imaginatively, a complete picture of reality. This, however, traps and stagnates us in an artificial reality of our own making. Creating an artificial reality suppresses and constrains our ability to actually expand our understanding of reality into the region of the unknown.

Perhaps it is time to coin a new "-ism" that reflects this modern understanding. How about Truthism, the belief in the discovery of that which is true and real with respectful acknowledgement that there is still that which is unknown and may never be known.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Naturalism is an antiquated philosophical term that is no longer useful. It is derived out of the dichotomy of natural and supernatural, which is an artificial construct. The term should be relegated to the history books, along with most of classical philosophy.

There is only reality, that which is real and existant. For we human beings, there is that of reality that we know and are fairly certain about, that which we only have a hint of, and finally, all that of reality that is completely unknown to us. Outside of reality is that which is nonexistent and imaginary.

For whatever the many possible reasons, human beings seem compelled to fill in the blank canvas of unknown reality and create, often imaginatively, a complete picture of reality. This, however, traps and stagnates us in an artificial reality of our own making. Creating an artificial reality suppresses and constrains our ability to actually expand our understanding of reality into the region of the unknown.

Perhaps it is time to coin a new "-ism" that reflects this modern understanding. How about Truthism, the belief in the discovery of that which is true and real with respectful acknowledgement that there is still that which is unknown and may never be known.

Neither the words real or existence has any objective referent. You can't see them or otherwise interact with them though your external senses and they have no scientific measurement standard and there are no instrument, which can measure them.
Real and existence are in your brain just like gods. You can believe in them, but you don't have to.
What is reality BTW?

Here are 2 entries from philosophy about real and existence:
"Austin highlights the complexities proper to the uses of ‘real’ by observing that it is (i) a substantive-hungry word that often plays the role of (ii) adjuster-word, a word by means of which “other words are adjusted to meet the innumerable and unforeseeable demands of world upon language” (Austin 1962a, 73). Like ‘good,’ it is (iii) a dimension-word, that is, “the most general and comprehensive term in a whole group of terms of the same kind, terms that fulfil the same function” (Austin 1962a, 71): that is, ‘true,’ ‘proper,’ ‘genuine,’ ‘live,’ ‘natural,’ ‘authentic,’ as opposed to terms such as ‘false,’ ‘artificial,’ ‘fake,’ ‘bogus,’ ‘synthetic,’ ‘toy,’ but also to nouns like ‘dream,’ ‘illusion,’ ‘mirage,’ ‘hallucination.’ ‘Real,’ is also (iv) a word whose negative use “wears the trousers” (a trouser-word) (Austin 1962a, 70)."
Austin, John Langshaw | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
I.e. you use real as a philosophical marker of epistemology, but you haven't grounded it as true.

"
1. Frege and Russell: Existence is not a Property of Individuals
There are two sets of reasons for denying that existence is a property of individuals. The first is Hume and Kant’s puzzlement over what existence would add to an object. What is the difference between a red apple and a red existing apple? To be red (or even to be an apple) it must already exist, as only existing things instantiate properties. (This principle—that existence is conceptually prior to predication—is rejected by Meinongians.) Saying it is red and an apple and furthermore exists is to say one thing too many. The thought seems to be that instantiating any property whatsoever presupposes existence and so existence is not a further property over and above a thing’s genuine properties. The thought is not merely that everything that instantiates any property exists, as the same is true of being self-identical, being either human or not human—assuming the law of excluded middle—and being such that 2+2=4, all of which seem to be unproblematic properties of individuals even if that status is denied of existence. Instead the thought is that instantiating any property whatsoever conceptually presupposes the existence of a subject in a way that makes it incoherent to then think of existence as a further property of that thing. The thing’s existence is prior to any predication to it and so it is incoherent to think of existence as a property had by the thing. This thought is behind Aristotle’s thesis that existence is not a further feature of a thing beyond its essence.

The second consideration favoring the thesis that existence is not a property of individuals concerns the puzzle of negative singular existentials. Suppose that existence is a property of the designation of the subject term in a singular existential sentence. Then ‘Ronald McDonald does not exist’ predicates nonexistence of the designation of the subject term, in which case reality includes an entity—the designation of the singular term and subject of predication—that has the property of not existing. That, Russell complained, runs contrary to a robust sense of reality, according to which everything exists. (See [Russell 1905a].) So, we should reject the claim that existence is a property of the designation of subject terms in existential sentences."
Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
In short there is no existence other than the philosophical idea of it.

As for truth, what truth are we talking about?
Truth | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Correspondence?
Coherence?
Pragmatic?
Deflationary?

What kind of truth are you using?
And what about cognitive relativism?
"
3. The definition of relativism
There is no general agreed upon definition of cognitive relativism. Here is how it has been described by a few major theorists:

“Reason is whatever the norms of the local culture believe it to be”. (Hilary Putnam, Realism and Reason: Philosophical Papers, Volume 3 (Cambridge, 1983), p. 235.)
“The choice between competing theories is arbitrary, since there is no such thing as objective truth.” (Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, Vol. II (London, 1963), p. 369f.)
“There is no unique truth, no unique objective reality” (Ernest Gellner, Relativism and the Social Sciences (Cambridge, 1985), p. 84.)
“There is no substantive overarching framework in which radically different and alternative schemes are commensurable” (Richard Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism (Philadelphia, 1985), pp. 11-12.)
“There is nothing to be said about either truth or rationality apart from descriptions of the familiar procedures of justification which a given society—ours—uses in one area of enquiry” (Richard Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism and Truth: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1 (Cambridge, 1991), p. 23.)
Without doubt, this lack of consensus about exactly what relativism asserts is one reason for the unsatisfactory character of much of the debate about its coherence and plausibility. Another reason is that very few philosophers are willing to apply the label “relativist” to themselves. Even Richard Rorty, who is widely regarded as one of the most articulate defenders of relativism, prefers to describe himself as a “pragmatist”, an “ironist” and an “ethnocentrist”.

Nevertheless, a reasonable definition of relativism may be constructed: one that describes the fundamental outlook of thinkers like Rorty, Kuhn, or Foucault while raising the hackles of their critics in the right way.

Cognitive relativism consists of two claims:

(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;

(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others."

So the long answer is that you should stop claiming philosophy as if you have solved solipsism, "das Ding an sich" and can actually do epistemological realism, because that is what you are trying to do.
That you believe in real, existence, truth and what not, doesn't mean that I have to. I just believe differently.

 

[MikeF]

Neither the words real or existence has any objective referent. You can't see them or otherwise interact with them though your external senses and they have no scientific measurement standard and there are no instrument, which can measure them.
Real and existence are in your brain just like gods. You can believe in them, but you don't have to.
What is reality BTW?

Here are 2 entries from philosophy about real and existence:
"Austin highlights the complexities proper to the uses of ‘real’ by observing that it is (i) a substantive-hungry word that often plays the role of (ii) adjuster-word, a word by means of which “other words are adjusted to meet the innumerable and unforeseeable demands of world upon language” (Austin 1962a, 73). Like ‘good,’ it is (iii) a dimension-word, that is, “the most general and comprehensive term in a whole group of terms of the same kind, terms that fulfil the same function” (Austin 1962a, 71): that is, ‘true,’ ‘proper,’ ‘genuine,’ ‘live,’ ‘natural,’ ‘authentic,’ as opposed to terms such as ‘false,’ ‘artificial,’ ‘fake,’ ‘bogus,’ ‘synthetic,’ ‘toy,’ but also to nouns like ‘dream,’ ‘illusion,’ ‘mirage,’ ‘hallucination.’ ‘Real,’ is also (iv) a word whose negative use “wears the trousers” (a trouser-word) (Austin 1962a, 70)."
Austin, John Langshaw | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
I.e. you use real as a philosophical marker of epistemology, but you haven't grounded it as true.

"
1. Frege and Russell: Existence is not a Property of Individuals
There are two sets of reasons for denying that existence is a property of individuals. The first is Hume and Kant’s puzzlement over what existence would add to an object. What is the difference between a red apple and a red existing apple? To be red (or even to be an apple) it must already exist, as only existing things instantiate properties. (This principle—that existence is conceptually prior to predication—is rejected by Meinongians.) Saying it is red and an apple and furthermore exists is to say one thing too many. The thought seems to be that instantiating any property whatsoever presupposes existence and so existence is not a further property over and above a thing’s genuine properties. The thought is not merely that everything that instantiates any property exists, as the same is true of being self-identical, being either human or not human—assuming the law of excluded middle—and being such that 2+2=4, all of which seem to be unproblematic properties of individuals even if that status is denied of existence. Instead the thought is that instantiating any property whatsoever conceptually presupposes the existence of a subject in a way that makes it incoherent to then think of existence as a further property of that thing. The thing’s existence is prior to any predication to it and so it is incoherent to think of existence as a property had by the thing. This thought is behind Aristotle’s thesis that existence is not a further feature of a thing beyond its essence.

The second consideration favoring the thesis that existence is not a property of individuals concerns the puzzle of negative singular existentials. Suppose that existence is a property of the designation of the subject term in a singular existential sentence. Then ‘Ronald McDonald does not exist’ predicates nonexistence of the designation of the subject term, in which case reality includes an entity—the designation of the singular term and subject of predication—that has the property of not existing. That, Russell complained, runs contrary to a robust sense of reality, according to which everything exists. (See [Russell 1905a].) So, we should reject the claim that existence is a property of the designation of subject terms in existential sentences."
Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
In short there is no existence other than the philosophical idea of it.

As for truth, what truth are we talking about?
Truth | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Correspondence?
Coherence?
Pragmatic?
Deflationary?

What kind of truth are you using?
And what about cognitive relativism?
"
3. The definition of relativism
There is no general agreed upon definition of cognitive relativism. Here is how it has been described by a few major theorists:

“Reason is whatever the norms of the local culture believe it to be”. (Hilary Putnam, Realism and Reason: Philosophical Papers, Volume 3 (Cambridge, 1983), p. 235.)
“The choice between competing theories is arbitrary, since there is no such thing as objective truth.” (Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, Vol. II (London, 1963), p. 369f.)
“There is no unique truth, no unique objective reality” (Ernest Gellner, Relativism and the Social Sciences (Cambridge, 1985), p. 84.)
“There is no substantive overarching framework in which radically different and alternative schemes are commensurable” (Richard Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism (Philadelphia, 1985), pp. 11-12.)
“There is nothing to be said about either truth or rationality apart from descriptions of the familiar procedures of justification which a given society—ours—uses in one area of enquiry” (Richard Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism and Truth: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1 (Cambridge, 1991), p. 23.)
Without doubt, this lack of consensus about exactly what relativism asserts is one reason for the unsatisfactory character of much of the debate about its coherence and plausibility. Another reason is that very few philosophers are willing to apply the label “relativist” to themselves. Even Richard Rorty, who is widely regarded as one of the most articulate defenders of relativism, prefers to describe himself as a “pragmatist”, an “ironist” and an “ethnocentrist”.

Nevertheless, a reasonable definition of relativism may be constructed: one that describes the fundamental outlook of thinkers like Rorty, Kuhn, or Foucault while raising the hackles of their critics in the right way.

Cognitive relativism consists of two claims:

(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;

(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others."

So the long answer is that you should stop claiming philosophy as if you have solved solipsism, "das Ding an sich" and can actually do epistemological realism, because that is what you are trying to do.
That you believe in real, existence, truth and what not, doesn't mean that I have to. I just believe differently.

It is apparent that you have some understanding of the limits of human perception. What I am unsure about is whether you fully appreciate the limits of human reason.

Would you agree that human beings are susceptible to falsely held belief, confirmation bias, self-deception, and the extremes of psychological pathology?

I would suggest to you that you have frequently asserted a strong bias in many discussions. Perhaps self-reflection is required to evaluate how a strong bias impacts your ability to fully integrate and evaluate all available information.

You state above that you, "just believe differently". Certainly, and anyone can believe whatever they want about anything. But if the goal is to understand how we human beings and the rest of the universe works, we have to address and reconcile all available information and to continually re-evaluate our conclusions as new information becomes available. We must also be comfortable with the fact that there will be that of which we just don't know. We can certainly speculate about the unknown as long as speculation doesn't slip into belief.


Your emotional response to my post indicates to me that, on some level, you understand and appreciate the veracity of my position.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It is apparent that you have some understanding of the limits of human perception. What I am unsure about is whether you fully appreciate the limits of human reason.

Would you agree that human beings are susceptible to falsely held belief, confirmation bias, self-deception, and the extremes of psychological pathology?

I would suggest to you that you have frequently asserted a strong bias in many discussions. Perhaps self-reflection is required to evaluate how a strong bias impacts your ability to fully integrate and evaluate all available information.

You state above that you, "just believe differently". Certainly, and anyone can believe whatever they want about anything. But if the goal is to understand how we human beings and the rest of the universe works, we have to address and reconcile all available information and to continually re-evaluate our conclusions as new information becomes available. We must also be comfortable with the fact that there will be that of which we just don't know. We can certainly speculate about the unknown as long as speculation doesn't slip into belief.


Your emotional response to my post indicates to me that, on some level, you understand and appreciate the veracity of my position.

Yes, you speak for a we. I don't. Tell me something new.

I am a strong general skeptic. I have been so for over 20 years now. I know nothing. I only have beliefs. I don't believe in truth, real, existence and so on. I don't believe in justified true beliefs, i.e. knowledge or justified rational objective reasons for how humans ought to live.

So what can you tell me, that I don't already know? So far you haven't told me anything, I hadn't heard before.

 

[MikeF]

Yes, you speak for a we. I don't. Tell me something new.

I am a strong general skeptic. I have been so for over 20 years now. I know nothing. I only have beliefs. I don't believe in truth, real, existence and so on. I don't believe in justified true beliefs, i.e. knowledge or justified rational objective reasons for how humans ought to live.

So what can you tell me, that I don't already know? So far you haven't told me anything, I hadn't heard before.

If it could be shown that a belief you held was incomplete, innacurate, or completely unfounded, would you reevaluate that belief and even abandon it, if necessary?
I am fallible and susceptible to false belief, bias, and self-deception, as are all human beings. When trying to get at what is and is not, it is important to keep that at the forefront.
You have declared elsewhere, a mandatory conclusion for the source and meaning of all that is, however you may characterize all that is. Instead of an unbiased, open-minded approach to exploring reality, you have constructed an artificial philosophical reality that permits your mandatory assumption to always be true, regardless of contradictory evidence.
I am not willing to discuss these topics in an adversarial format. If you can never be wrong about anything, then it would be a futile exercise. I would, however, be willing to work collaboratively to find common ground from which to build an understanding of reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If it could be shown that a belief you held was incomplete, innacurate, or completely unfounded, would you reevaluate that belief and even abandon it, if necessary?
I am fallible and susceptible to false belief, bias, and self-deception, as are all human beings. When trying to get at what is and is not, it is important to keep that at the forefront.
You have declared elsewhere, a mandatory conclusion for the source and meaning of all that is, however you may characterize all that is. Instead of an unbiased, open-minded approach to exploring reality, you have constructed an artificial philosophical reality that permits your mandatory assumption to always be true, regardless of contradictory evidence.
I am not willing to discuss these topics in an adversarial format. If you can never be wrong about anything, then it would be a futile exercise. I would, however, be willing to work collaboratively to find common ground from which to build an understanding of reality.

No, I have no beliefs, that are true as per correspondence of the real, existence and reality as you use it. I use in effect pragmatic truth. It appears to work and I only hold unprovable non-true beliefs about what reality is as independent of the mind, i.e. metaphysics.
In effect I am a cognitive, moral, cultural and subjective relativist. What might work for you, don't have to work for me and it has nothing to do with truth in any strong sense. It is only beliefs, which appears to work.

In effect I hold some religious beliefs, but I don't consider them true. They only work for me subjectively as in the end as a form of pragmatic psychology. They make sense to me and work for me as useful to me, all that is subjective and has nothing to do with truth.

You seem unaware that knowledge as justified true beliefs are not possible because of the problem of solipsism/"das Ding an sich" and Agrippa's trilemma.
All knowledge is first person cognitive in the mind and rests on unprovable axiomatic assumptions. Hence methodological naturalism as modern philosophy of science:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
I hold 1: "that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers. ..." With a caveat, see below.
I don't hold 2 and 3: "that this objective reality is governed by natural laws ..." and "that reality can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation. ..."

In effect I hold that the screen I am looking at, is there as the screen in itself independent of me but that objective reality is not reality. Rather the world is in effect subjective and objective parts and that science doesn't work on this as subjective:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

 

[MikeF]

No, I have no beliefs, that are true as per correspondence of the real, existence and reality as you use it. I use in effect pragmatic truth. It appears to work and I only hold unprovable non-true beliefs about what reality is as independent of the mind, i.e. metaphysics.
In effect I am a cognitive, moral, cultural and subjective relativist. What might work for you, don't have to work for me and it has nothing to do with truth in any strong sense. It is only beliefs, which appears to work.

In effect I hold some religious beliefs, but I don't consider them true. They only work for me subjectively as in the end as a form of pragmatic psychology. They make sense to me and work for me as useful to me, all that is subjective and has nothing to do with truth.

I am not sure how you wish me to proceed. I certainly understand that your artificial philosophical construct works for you personally and psychologically, and I want to respect that. If you do not wish to reevaluate the construct, or see if approaching our limited view of reality from a different perspective might be helpful, then I am happy to leave it here.

I will leave you with this, though. Since prehistory, when our animistic ancestors struggled to put meaning on the unknown and to control the unpredictability and harshness of nature, we humans have developed imaginative ways to fill in the unknown and create a complete picture of reality. That artificial picture of reality changed over the centuries, essentially had to change, to adapt and fit to our slowly growing body of knowledge about the world and accommodate our increasingly complex social systems. The problem with filling in the unknown with an artificial construct is that it can leave us trapped in a stagnant and potentially unhealthy reality of our own making. Is it not better to brave the unknown, left as the unknown, and see the picture of reality be revealed as it actually is?

You seem unaware that knowledge as justified true beliefs are not possible because of the problem of solipsism/"das Ding an sich" and Agrippa's trilemma.
All knowledge is first person cognitive in the mind and rests on unprovable axiomatic assumptions.

As is the case with all of us mere mortals, Agrippa can be wrong, and is certainly wrong in this instance.

Why these statements have no foundation and are false can certainly be explored.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Why these statements have no foundation and are false can certainly be explored.

I am a post-modern relativist and don't believe in foundations as you do.
We will leave it there. You are dealing with this:
"...
3. The definition of relativism
There is no general agreed upon definition of cognitive relativism. Here is how it has been described by a few major theorists:

• “Reason is whatever the norms of the local culture believe it to be”. (Hilary Putnam, Realism and Reason: Philosophical Papers, Volume 3 (Cambridge, 1983), p. 235.)
• “The choice between competing theories is arbitrary, since there is no such thing as objective truth.” (Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, Vol. II (London, 1963), p. 369f.)
• “There is no unique truth, no unique objective reality” (Ernest Gellner, Relativism and the Social Sciences (Cambridge, 1985), p. 84.)
• “There is no substantive overarching framework in which radically different and alternative schemes are commensurable” (Richard Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism (Philadelphia, 1985), pp. 11-12.)
• “There is nothing to be said about either truth or rationality apart from descriptions of the familiar procedures of justification which a given society—ours—uses in one area of enquiry” (Richard Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism and Truth: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1 (Cambridge, 1991), p. 23.)

Without doubt, this lack of consensus about exactly what relativism asserts is one reason for the unsatisfactory character of much of the debate about its coherence and plausibility. Another reason is that very few philosophers are willing to apply the label “relativist” to themselves. Even Richard Rorty, who is widely regarded as one of the most articulate defenders of relativism, prefers to describe himself as a “pragmatist”, an “ironist” and an “ethnocentrist”.

Nevertheless, a reasonable definition of relativism may be constructed: one that describes the fundamental outlook of thinkers like Rorty, Kuhn, or Foucault while raising the hackles of their critics in the right way.

Cognitive relativism consists of two claims:

(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;

(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.
..."

Read at least the bold parts. It is real old classical philosophy from from the 1960's to 1990's.
I really love all of it and believe in it.
I don't believe in objective truth and I don't believe in ancient religion and philosophy. I am a postmodern relativist.

 

[MikeF]

I am a post-modern relativist and don't believe in foundations as you do.
We will leave it there. You are dealing with this:
"...
3. The definition of relativism
There is no general agreed upon definition of cognitive relativism. Here is how it has been described by a few major theorists:

• “Reason is whatever the norms of the local culture believe it to be”. (Hilary Putnam, Realism and Reason: Philosophical Papers, Volume 3 (Cambridge, 1983), p. 235.)
• “The choice between competing theories is arbitrary, since there is no such thing as objective truth.” (Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies, Vol. II (London, 1963), p. 369f.)
• “There is no unique truth, no unique objective reality” (Ernest Gellner, Relativism and the Social Sciences (Cambridge, 1985), p. 84.)
• “There is no substantive overarching framework in which radically different and alternative schemes are commensurable” (Richard Bernstein, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism (Philadelphia, 1985), pp. 11-12.)
• “There is nothing to be said about either truth or rationality apart from descriptions of the familiar procedures of justification which a given society—ours—uses in one area of enquiry” (Richard Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism and Truth: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1 (Cambridge, 1991), p. 23.)

Without doubt, this lack of consensus about exactly what relativism asserts is one reason for the unsatisfactory character of much of the debate about its coherence and plausibility. Another reason is that very few philosophers are willing to apply the label “relativist” to themselves. Even Richard Rorty, who is widely regarded as one of the most articulate defenders of relativism, prefers to describe himself as a “pragmatist”, an “ironist” and an “ethnocentrist”.

Nevertheless, a reasonable definition of relativism may be constructed: one that describes the fundamental outlook of thinkers like Rorty, Kuhn, or Foucault while raising the hackles of their critics in the right way.

Cognitive relativism consists of two claims:

(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;

(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.
..."

Read at least the bold parts. It is real old classical philosophy from from the 1960's to 1990's.
I really love all of it and believe in it.
I don't believe in objective truth and I don't believe in ancient religion and philosophy. I am a postmodern relativist.

I am not opposed to relativism as it pertains to what people think and feel. I would argue that it is a mistake to lump what people think and feel in with reality and say that it is all relative.
If human beings became extinct tomorrow, what would be left? Would there be anything, in your opinion?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am not opposed to relativism as it pertains to what people think and feel. I would argue that it is a mistake to lump what people think and feel in with reality and say that it is all relative.
If human beings became extinct tomorrow, what would be left? Would there be anything, in your opinion?

Can you solve the problem of solipsism and what objective reality as independent of the mind is? I haven't solved it, so I don't know.
Here is a variant of a Boltzmann Brain universe. Physically it consists of space for the heat of the computer produced, a computer and a power source. In the computer runs a program that simulates the universe to you and you are the only mind. There are no other humans.
I don't believe that the universe is so, so I act as if you exists, but I don't know that for real. I don't know that I exist with a body in this universe and that you exist.

As far as I can tell you act as if you have solved that and know what objective reality as independent of the mind is. You don't. Nobody have solved that. That is how you understand methodological naturalism:
"...
Naturalism's axiomatic assumptions
All scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that are untested by scientific processes.[43][44] Kuhn concurs that all science is based on an approved agenda of unprovable assumptions about the character of the universe, rather than merely on empirical facts. These assumptions—a paradigm—comprise a collection of beliefs, values and techniques that are held by a given scientific community, which legitimize their systems and set the limitations to their investigation.[45] For naturalists, nature is the only reality, the only paradigm. There is no such thing as 'supernatural'. The scientific method is to be used to investigate all reality.[46]

Naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists.[47] The following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method.[48]

1. that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.[48][49] "The basis for rationality is acceptance of an external objective reality."[50] "Objective reality is clearly an essential thing if we are to develop a meaningful perspective of the world. Nevertheless its very existence is assumed." "Our belief that objective reality exist is an assumption that it arises from a real world outside of ourselves. As infants we made this assumption unconsciously. People are happy to make this assumption that adds meaning to our sensations and feelings, than live with solipsism."[51] Without this assumption, there would be only the thoughts and images in our own mind (which would be the only existing mind) and there would be no need of science, or anything else."[52]
2. that this objective reality is governed by natural laws;[48][49] "Science, at least today, assumes that the universe obeys to knoweable principles that don't depend on time or place, nor on subjective parameters such as what we think, know or how we behave."[50] Hugh Gauch argues that science presupposes that "the physical world is orderly and comprehensible."[53]
3. that reality can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.[48][49] Stanley Sobottka said, "The assumption of external reality is necessary for science to function and to flourish. For the most part, science is the discovering and explaining of the external world."[52] "Science attempts to produce knowledge that is as universal and objective as possible within the realm of human understanding."[50]
4. that Nature has uniformity of laws and most if not all things in nature must have at least a natural cause.[49] Biologist Stephen Jay Gould referred to these two closely related propositions as the constancy of nature's laws and the operation of known processes.[54] Simpson agrees that the axiom of uniformity of law, an unprovable postulate, is necessary in order for scientists to extrapolate inductive inference into the unobservable past in order to meaningfully study it.[55]
5. that experimental procedures will be done satisfactorily without any deliberate or unintentional mistakes that will influence the results.[49]
6. that experimenters won't be significantly biased by their presumptions.[49]
7. that random sampling is representative of the entire population.[49] A simple random sample (SRS) is the most basic probabilistic option used for creating a sample from a population. The benefit of SRS is that the investigator is guaranteed to choose a sample that represents the population that ensures statistically valid conclusions.[56]

..."
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

Naturalism is a belief system. It can't be proved with truth. And it is possible to use other belief systems than naturalism.
It is not that everything is relative. It is that all truths are local and based on assumptions/beliefs.
I get it that we share this belief: "that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers."
From there doesn't follow what you are trying to do and speak for a "we" for all humans.

That you are really reading this and not in the above Boltzmann Universe is unknown and without truth. If we as it seems agree on that we are in this world, it doesn't follow that it is natural and that all versions of religion are wrong. Some metaphysical versions of religion are neither right/true or wrong/false. They are unknown just as a naturalistic assumption.

 

[Skywalker]

What is naturalism?
That is my question.

Its a belief system that nature is all there is, evolution is true, and that there's no God. I think everyone knows deep down that it isnt true. Romans 1:20 NIV: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." ... So they have no excuse for not knowing God."

 

[MikeF]

Can you solve the problem of solipsism and what objective reality as independent of the mind is? I haven't solved it, so I don't know.

Certainly I can.

Here is a variant of a Boltzmann Brain universe. Physically it consists of space for the heat of the computer produced, a computer and a power source. In the computer runs a program that simulates the universe to you and you are the only mind. There are no other humans.
I don't believe that the universe is so, so I act as if you exists, but I don't know that for real. I don't know that I exist with a body in this universe and that you exist.

We can imagine just about anything.

As far as I can tell you act as if you have solved that and know what objective reality as independent of the mind is. You don't. Nobody have solved that. That is how you understand methodological naturalism:

And here we see your emotion rising again. As I said, this is not meant to be adversarial. You keep throwing definitions of naturalism at me like it explains everything. I thought my post #229 was clear on my opinion of naturalism. It seems you are trying to keep me defined in a way that you feel comfortable arguing against. I've said it before, I think you need to set all the philosophical mumbo jumbo aside and really listen to how people are defining their positions. Perhaps their position is as yet unlabeled and not found in a philosophy book. Perhaps you might learn something new. This is where letting go of the bias and keeping an open mind comes in. To say that I don't have the answer to objective reality when I haven't given the answer speaks volumes of your mindset.

I get it that we share this belief: "that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers."

Just for clarity's sake, I have never asserted that the human observer is rational. I think I continually refer to humans as fallible and imperfect observers.

That you are really reading this and not in the above Boltzmann Universe is unknown and without truth. If we as it seems agree on that we are in this world, it doesn't follow that it is natural and that all versions of religion are wrong. Some metaphysical versions of religion are neither right/true or wrong/false. They are unknown just as a naturalistic assumption.

It seems you feel this discussion is leading to an inevitable conclusion and the assumed conclusion makes you uncomfortable. Again, if you do not wish to reevaluate your artificial philosophical reality, I understand. Keep in mind however, that if you rely on your artificial philosophical reality as justification in support of an argument on an open forum, people are going to want to evaluate said artificial reality to see if it merits the justification you claim.