Thanks for your understanding.
First – You have absolutely no evidence to substantiate your assertions, thus rendering them to mere opinion (regardless of who makes them), as you are merely stating them (and “Assertum Non Est Demonstratum”) and not providing factual basis for them.
That paragraph was meant as an introduction. What followed was the case itself.
Second – Phenomena such as altruistic love, the Laws of “Mathematics” and “Logic” (etc…) were not INVENTED by man, they were DISCOVERED by man. Therefore they are not CONCEPTS, they are PHENOMENA; and yet they are METAPHYSICAL.
By ‘concept’ I mean they have been conceptualized. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to understand love and hate as concepts, especially from an atheist perspective.
As I demonstrated, love and hate are EMOTIONS, reducible to physical processes and cultural values.
Third – There is absolutely NO evidence that these Phenomena have not ALWAYS been as they are now. So, your “emergence” hypothesis has no foundation.
Yes there is indeed evidence. A cursory look at any two literary texts, from two discrete periods will tell you as such. There is no evidence, rather, to suppose they have remained the same throughout recorded history.
Fourth – If these phenomena could have “definitions imposed upon them”, they would be capricious in nature, and not be self-evident. And yet they ARE self-evident! For example: 1+2 can never equal 4! It is self-evidence that it will always be 3! And two tings cannot be contradictory AND the same, at the same time in the same sense. Again, man did not invent this like he did the rules of baseball, therefore you’re “imposition” fallacy is moot as well.
You mean *your*. And yes it does. Love is not self-evident. I think for the purpose of debate it would be better to separate ‘feelings’ such as love and hate from ‘laws’ such as mathematics and logic. Would you agree?
You misunderstand what I mean by imposed. I meant that they have been explicated and categorized through language. I did not mean that man forced them to behave in a certain way. Sorry, my fault for not explaining that.
Once again, neither you, nor your link provides anything but opinion on the subject. Nor does simply providing links with nothing more than more opinions, in anyway substantiate/validate these claims.
In order to substantiate your assertions, you MUST provide FACTUAL evidence (historic AND extant) to prove that altruistic love, or hate has somehow evolved (and that they have evolved from nothing for that matter).
Further, saying that you agree with “many scientists” is nothing more than “Argumentum ad Populum
My links did substantiate my claims. If you couldn't access the paper, I’m sorry. I’m afraid you can’t just dismiss them so cursorily without explaining why.
It is incontrovertible, though, that the concepts of altruistic love and happiness have changed over time. Look at two texts from different periods if you want proof. It’s obvious. Take The Odyssey or Iliad and compare it with Joyce’s Ulysses for example. Completely different, yet sharing a core, which I perceive as biological.
On extant definitions: take the definition of happiness in Hinduism:
And compare it to how you yourself would consider happiness. Different, no? Read any book on changing definitions of happiness throughout the ages. An interesting-looking book came out in the UK a few weeks ago; unfortunately I can't remember its name but its subject was how vastly the definition of happiness has changed throughout the history of Western Civilization. If this book comes out near you then it might be worth taking a look at. When I find the newspaper in which it was reviewed I'll let you know.
By evolving from nothing: well, the fact that a microbe cannot feel happiness, a dog can to some degree, and a human a more complicated version indicates evolution.
I was not using the ‘many scientists phrase’ to corroborate my opinion; I was introducing my point.
Quite simply actually… When you can touch, taste, smell, see, or in any other manner “Measure” ANY of the Laws of Mathematics, then you have the empirical scientific right to call them physical and not metaphysical. But the problem you’re going to run into right away is this: You can ONLY “touch, taste, smell, see, Measure” the effects of mathematics, NOT the laws themselves. Therefor your argument fails
It does not ‘fail’ in any way, shape or form. The laws of mathematics are explications of natural processes. Language, plus observation of natural phenomena, equals laws (over-simplification, I know, but not a bad starting point). God, or any other supernatural being, is not required. Your argument only holds ground if you assume they exist in some sort of noumenal space. I do not.
Exactly my point Rhodi… Thanks! The “EFFECTS” are measureable; and ONLY the effects. The laws themselves are not (unless you can do the impossible and provide how they are?).
Again, you’re not proving anything. Laws are forms of taxonomy, resulting from natural processes. ‘Laws’ can be reduced to language, arising from human minds, describing the enactment of physical processes. If the burden of proof is on me, however, I will concede the debate, as I cannot completely remove all spaces in which to locate the metaphysical.
Yep… Once again THANK YOU, you make my point once again! The EFFECTS may be observable, the hypothesis, model, theory or law IS NOT
Same again. Theory arises from human brains. Law describes that. No need for metaphysical in this either.I think the mistake you're making is conflating the concept law with its sense as a rule with an agency behind it.
First – The anthropic principle itself is metaphysical (it is a philosophical argument based upon many precise constraints that make life on earth possible, and not random), but therefore NOT something you can observe. The only phenomena you CAN observe are the effects of said principle! You keep using examples that prove my case, and destroy yours. Again, thank you
I know what it is; as i stated, I didn't want to go into it because it had little to do with this present argument. I was not using it in my argument. I was merely stating the fact that many physicists believe the universe derives from chance. I'm not really sure why I even wrote it to be honest. I apologize.
Once again, you could NOT be further from the truth. Therefore, it is incumbent upon YOU to provide factual evidence that the Laws of Mathematics are random AND physical.
First – I would suggest that you look up the definition of Random (and its antonyms).
Second – I would suggest that you somehow attempt to reconcile how something as rigidly inflexible and deliberate in its foundation of truth as the Laws of mathematics could possibly come about from something as chaotic as randomness. Keeping in mind that these laws were discovered not invented; that they are not capricious; they are true EVERYWHERE; and there is absolutely NO evidence that they are not as they ALWAYS have been.
I am well versed in the definition of random, thank you. On a quantum level, the ‘laws’ that govern the universe do indeed appear to be random.
The laws of mathematics emerge from this randomness at the level of Newtonian mechanics and Euclidean geometry. Neither of these phenomena applies at quantum level. So actually your statement about them being true everywhere is utterly incorrect.
No offence taken, as I know for a fact that you haven’t provided an iota of evidence where I have offered any ‘false analogy’ of any sort. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to provide how it is so (since you leveled the accusations).
Your analogy was false because it was irrelevant. Thoughts obviously cannot be painted, but neither can dark matter. The factors that lead to thoughts can be measured. A thought is a composite result of a thousand processes. To ‘measure’ it would require a thousand measurements. To reduce something so complex to a request to ‘paint it green’ is oversimplification to an incredible degree. As I previously stated, I was not trying to obviate the metaphysical. I was merely showing how it can be redundant when describing thought.
http://engineering.m...oughts-measured -This is the kind of thing to which I’m referring.
Again, if I have to provide evidence of complete thought measurement, I will concede, because my philosophical position is limited by current advances. As yours is not, this is not a problem for you.
You did not reply to the links I sent. They were actually pretty relevant in this case. The more prominent our understanding of the unconscious becomes, the less we require the notion of the metaphysical consciousness. (Again, note I state it will be required less, not rendered completely redundant)
Firstly – I did read your post, and I factually supported ALL of my assertions in post # 30. You really should re-read said post before you levy anymore accusations.
Secondly – Argumentum ad Futuris IS hope, not proof. It is argument by anticipation, not demonstration; regardless of whether or not you attempt to use the “positive assertion” claim. A claim is a claim!
Example of the Argumentum ad Futuris fallacy:
"Missing links may yet be found to support evolution."
"Scientists may soon find a natural cause for the origin of life."
"Archeology will one day disprove the Bible."
You are once again prevaricating on your assertions by attempting to claim that you didn’t make a “positive claim”. But, once again a claim is a claim. Further, you are attempting to use your less that “positive claim” to support your “positive claim” that the Laws of Mathematics, Laws of Logic, Altruistic Love, or Thought are physical rather than metaphysical.
I’m aware of what Argumentum ad Futuris is. I didn’t commit it. What I said was that scientific materialism cannot fully explain consciousness, yet that does not currently invalidate it as an ontological model. I did not express hope that it would. If you reread my post, what I said was just because it can’t today explain all facets of consciousness, it doesn’t immediately follow that it will not. This is not a logical fallacy. Saying that it cannot be proven as it is not yet proven, is an argument from ignorance. I don’t believe there’s much point quibbling over this, however; it isn’t relevant to the debate and should not be treated as such. Additionally, Archaeology has disproved some facets of the Bible, so that is not Argumentum ad Futuris. In case you meant disprove the Bible to a debilitating extent, in which case I apologize and completely concur.
Once again, you attempt to reconcile a thought, with physical phenomena. But, until (and only until) you can catch one and paint it green (or any such color), you totally fail in your attempt to provide thought as physical. And until you do, you do nothing more than equivocate on the definition. Which begs the question: Are you going to continue to equivocate on the definition? Or are you going to provide where a thought can possibly be physical.
Again, false analogy. If it is susceptible to vicissitude within the material realm, then it must by definition be SOMEWHAT physical. For example, playing devil’s advocate, I could not spit on your soul. As an aside, what do you think of the Noetic Scientists’ soul-weighing experiments?
Actually, I have provided over-and-over when your attempts have failed
No you have not.
Further, NO you have not “conducted my response in accordance with the outlined rules”, as you have continually equivocated on definitions and terms (i.e. conversion by definition”) amongst other things. Further, you asserted that I “misrepresented” you claims, when in fact, I addressed each claim individually, with concise and succinct dialogue. I might suggest that you provide the actual examples where I misrepresented you!
Again, I believe you did. For the sake of decency, though, sorry.
I have not equivocated on definitions or terms once. I believe we unanimously possess the same beliefs regarding what constitutes a thought and physical. Where I believed you have erred is not what constitutes ‘thought’ and ‘physical’, but how one might prove that a ‘thought’ may be physical