What is naturalism?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Have you ever read some of the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy and by the end of all of the explanation feel more confused than before reading some of their entries?

Yes, and here is the reason. The "Holy Grail" in philosophy is the complete, coherent and sufficient system/method, which is foundationally sound. I can unpack those words, but the reason is that apparently that is not possible. It is in effect the theoretical and rational version of having knowledge like a perfect God.
But it doesn't work in practice because of cognitive relativism.
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

In short after doing this for over 20 years now my best answer is that you figure out what works for you and forget if it is really, really True. To hunt Truth is to go down the rabbit hole. It is fun, but you don't need that to have a life. Figure out how the world works for you and don't worry to much about all the rest of us, who claim Truth.

 

[Willamena]

To us materialists, 'behavior' is a concept, and a concept is a physical brain-state.

The same is true of all generalizations ('a car' rather than 'this car'), abstractions (two, love, justice, behaviors, impudence &c) since they're all concepts, and have no specific real counterpart, though from the beholder's point of view they may have real instantiations.,

To abscond with a concept as something material trivializes both materialism and the non-material.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

To abscond with a concept as something material trivializes both materialism and the non-material.

Well, it is maybe also the fallacy of reification.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, and here is the reason. The "Holy Grail" in philosophy is the complete, coherent and sufficient system/method, which is foundationally sound. I can unpack those words, but the reason is that apparently that is not possible. It is in effect the theoretical and rational version of having knowledge like a perfect God.
But it doesn't work in practice because of cognitive relativism.
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

In short after doing this for over 20 years now my best answer is that you figure out what works for you and forget if it is really, really True. To hunt Truth is to go down the rabbit hole. It is fun, but you don't need that to have a life. Figure out how the world works for you and don't worry to much about all the rest of us, who claim Truth.

It works in practice if you begin from the ground, which is truth. As Aristolte did.

The trick is to realize that "really really True" is "just tue."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It works in practice if you begin from the ground, which is truth. As Aristolte did.

The trick is to realize that "really really True" is "just tue."

There is in practice only local truth and for some cases involving 2 or more humans, there is no one truth.

 

[PruePhillip]

In a sense, yes. The term 'cause' is a very problematic one. But, after that, the causal closure becomes the *definition* of the word 'physical'.

Was the origin of the Big Bang within this 'causal enclosure.'

 

[blü 2]

Try to show a belief as physical in a brain and you can't, because you can't see it.

The brain is an organ of enormous complexity and is still not fully mapped, described or explained, but the progress has been steady and accelerating.

The brain constantly monitors its sensory inputs to establish and maintain its relationships to the external world. In that process, and in the brain's internal functions, research at no stage has found any indication whatsoever of anything else. Thoughts, ideas, memories, instincts, appetites, emotions, language, reason, are all the result of physical processes, dynamic brainstates and interactions of its biochemistry and bioelectricity.

You have not the slightest evidence to argue with any of that.

And 'immaterial' can only mean 'wholly imaginary' or 'wholly conceptual',

 

[blü 2]

To abscond with a concept as something material trivializes both materialism and the non-material.

No test will distinguish the 'immaterial' from the wholly conceptual / wholly imaginary.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The brain is an organ of enormous complexity and is still not fully mapped, described or explained, but the progress has been steady and accelerating.

The brain constantly monitors its sensory inputs to establish and maintain its relationships to the external world. In that process, and in the brain's internal functions, research at no stage has found any indication whatsoever of anything else. Thoughts, ideas, memories, instincts, appetites, emotions, language, reason, are all the result of physical processes, dynamic brainstates and interactions of its biochemistry and bioelectricity.

You have not the slightest evidence to argue with any of that.

And 'immaterial' can only mean 'wholly imaginary' or 'wholly conceptual',

I have evidence, negative evidence, i.e. the falsification that you can give evidence for everything in physical terms. That is simple - the concept of evidence as evidence has no natural law. You can't reference the scientific natural law of evidence like you can with say, gravity. Evidence is an mental concept in your brain that has no corresponding scientific law.
Thus as per evidence, evidence as concept is not scientific.

See, it is very simple. You always have to check for internal consistency. If everything can be expressed with evidence in physical terms alone, then this sentence can be expressed in physical terms alone for its meaning as meaning.
Everything is physical and doesn't have to be explained otherwise including the meaning of this.
But you can't do that as there is no physical theory of everything including a physical theory of meaning.
Now it is that simple.

So show a peer-reviewed article about the physical theory of meaning and you have shown that everything can be described in physical terms.
I don't want words about it. I want the physical theory of meaning.
Remember you have failed unless you provide actual science and not philosophy as your words.

 

[blü 2]

the concept of evidence as evidence has no natural law.

Evidence is understood by reason, and my recollection is that you share my assumption that reason is a valid tool. If you don't, please say so clearly.

If everything can be expressed with evidence in physical terms alone

Sorry, I don't know what you mean by that.

But I say again, reason is a brain function and brain functions are all material. Abstractions and generalizations are concepts and concepts are physical brainstates. Concepts, themselves physical, can be of things that are not objectively real, in the same way you can take a sketch pad and draw a unicorn, or write (2+2) - (2x2) = 0 &c.

Everything is physical and doesn't have to be explained otherwise including the meaning of this.

Yup. Your ability to perceive these letters as words and in the same process turn the words into meaning is all done with your physical brain. No magic is involved.

So show a peer-reviewed article about the physical theory of meaning and you have shown that everything can be described in physical terms.

You can look that stuff up for yourself if you're interested. I'm not persuaded you have any inclination to be persuaded.

Whereas if you can tell me the objective test to distinguish the immaterial from the imaginary, I'll be not only impressed but forced to reconsider my position.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, it is maybe also the fallacy of reification.

Actually your proposal is the 'fallacy reification' or the negative obfuscation of the 'fallacy of misplaced concreteness.'

Kant is dead.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Evidence is understood by reason, and my recollection is that you share my assumption that reason is a valid tool. ...

Reason is an useful toll but it has limits. Show as show with observation or instruments reason as physical in a brain. Show valid as physical in a brain. Show assumption as physical in a brain.

You are playing the following game. All words from the brain as happening in the brain are nothing but physical states. Then stop using words and use physical evidence. Not words about evidence, but evidence as physical evidence.
State the natural physical scientific law of words just like gravity.
Don't write about physical states, show them. EVIDENCE!!! Not words about evidence. SHOW THE EVIDENCE!!!

Yes, I am yelling, because you don't do as you say you can. You just keep repeating, that you can do it, but you don't do it.
BTW show as physical "not objectively real". Everything is physical states so not objectively real is a physical state.

You are playing a mental game. You are using concepts, you believe in. Fair enough, turn that into action and show the physical states. Stop writing it, show the evidence. Stop saying you have it, produce it. SHOW IT!!!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Actually your proposal is the 'fallacy reification' or the negative obfuscation of the 'fallacy of misplaced concreteness.'
...

Explain more.

 

[shunyadragon]

Explain more.

You are arguing from the vague obtuse negative as to what objective observation versus subjective nature of our physical existence to justify a Theist agenda.

Kant is dead.

 

[blü 2]

Reason is an useful toll but it has limits. Show as show with observation or instruments reason as physical in a brain. Show valid as physical in a brain. Show assumption as physical in a brain.

Here's an introduction. You could have found it yourself as effortlessly as I did.

Now what's that objective test that will distinguish the immaterial from the imaginary? If you don't have an answer, why can't you support your own position with any evidence at all?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are arguing from the vague obtuse negative as to what objective observation versus subjective nature of our physical existence to justify a Theist agenda.

Kant is dead.

Be precise.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Here's an introduction. You could have found it yourself as effortlessly as I did.

Now what's that objective test that will distinguish the immaterial from the imaginary? If you don't have an answer, why can't you support your own position with any evidence at all?

No! I want to actual physical state of things, that are not objective real. Everything is physical states, so I want the physical state of things, that are not objective real.
Please do that.

As for the objective test, you have already done the test. You have failed to show evidence for the physical state of things, that are not objective real. The result is a negative. You can't show with evidence the physical state of things, that are not objective real.
We have already done the test. And the test was a negative. The outcomes is negative. You can't show with evidence the physical state of things, that are not objective real. You yourself use as real the the imaginary - the physical state of things, that are not objective real. That is imaginary in your brain and has no objective evidence, because it is in you brain as in your mind.
It is that simple.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, to use the sofa. You are talking about the sofa-to-you, not the sofa-in-itself.

No, I am talking about the sofa. I don't have to be around for the sofa to be there. That sofa has certain properties. Among those properties is the way that it reflects light. When I *am* around and there is ambient light, I can 'see' the sofa because of that reflected light.

Context, Kant accepts Descartes in that he, Kant, accepts the problem of the evil demon. So when you are talking about the sofa, you are talking about the sofa-to-you. You are not talking about the sofa-in-itself, because of the problem of the evil demon.

You can see the effect of the problem of the evil demon here:
" Vaccaro, Joan. "Objectiveism".
-Objective reality exists beyond or outside our self. Any belief that it arises from a real world outside us is actually an assumption. It seems more beneficial to assume that an objective reality exists than to live with solipsism, and so people are quite happy to make this assumption. In fact we made this assumption unconsciously when we began to learn about the world as infants. The world outside ourselves appears to respond in ways which are consistent with it being real. The assumption of objectivism is essential if we are to attach the contemporary meanings to our sensations and feelings and make more sense of them. Joan Vaccaro"

Full blown solipsism cannot be defeated logically. To even talk about a sofa means you are stepping away from that straight jacket. So, yes, there is a real sofa there that exists independent of whether I see it or even think about it. it exists independent of me.

AND I can get information about that sofa because of the way it interacts with other things in the environment, such as light. Some of those things also interact with me, carrying that information and allowing me to process it. That gives me knowledge about the sofa.

It is certainly NOT perfect knowledge simply because my senses are imperfect (demonstrably so). But, by a variety of techniques, I can use other things in my environment to interact with the sofa to get more knowledge. By hypothesis formation and testing based on observation, I can get better knowledge about that sofa.

So you and I share that assumption. You just have the additional assumption that objective reality is natural. I don't share that additional assumption with you. We share the first one, but not the assumption that objective reality is natural.

How do you define the concept 'natural'? How is it distinguished from 'non-natural' or 'super-natural'? You have yet to precisely define those concepts in this context (by the way, I did define what the word 'natural' means to me).

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, and here is the reason. The "Holy Grail" in philosophy is the complete, coherent and sufficient system/method, which is foundationally sound.

Except that we *know* and have proven that such is impossible, even in the limited arena of mathematics.

But that doesn't mean that everything is random, either.

Even though there are many self-consistent axiom systems, there are still systems that are better than others: more expressive, easier to work with, capable of better results, etc.

For example, trying to do math without the axiom of choice is an experience no mathematician will forget. Very quickly one learns why that particular axiom is adopted.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, I am talking about the sofa. I don't have to be around for the sofa to be there. That sofa has certain properties. Among those properties is the way that it reflects light. When I *am* around and there is ambient light, I can 'see' the sofa because of that reflected light.



Full blown solipsism cannot be defeated logically. To even talk about a sofa means you are stepping away from that straight jacket. So, yes, there is a real sofa there that exists independent of whether I see it or even think about it. it exists independent of me.

AND I can get information about that sofa because of the way it interacts with other things in the environment, such as light. Some of those things also interact with me, carrying that information and allowing me to process it. That gives me knowledge about the sofa.

It is certainly NOT perfect knowledge simply because my senses are imperfect (demonstrably so). But, by a variety of techniques, I can use other things in my environment to interact with the sofa to get more knowledge. By hypothesis formation and testing based on observation, I can get better knowledge about that sofa.



How do you define the concept 'natural'? How is it distinguished from 'non-natural' or 'super-natural'? You have yet to precisely define those concepts in this context (by the way, I did define what the word 'natural' means to me).

3 options:
Natural
Supernatural
Neither works for everything, because everything is not coherent for only one methodology.

Further the supernatural is in practice subjective. That is how I subjectively can believe in God and you can subjectively demand in effect objective evidence for everything. Everything is neither objective/physical/natural nor subjective/mental/cultural, but you insist on a single methodology which must be coherent. That is your problem, not mine.