Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can a materialistic formula explain a non-materialistic process?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 6 of 38 (458125)
02-27-2008 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bertvan
02-26-2008 11:54 AM


How can a materialistic process be distinguished from a non-materialistic process? Answer: judgment. Making such a distinction is itself a non-materialistic process, a subjective, fallible, free-judgment choice.
So says the dualists. However, there must be more to this than what you claim.
  1. Is a judgement made by a simple computer visual processor non-materialistic?
  2. Is a judgement made by a zombie non-materialistic?
In short why should this present any challenge to materialism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bertvan, posted 02-26-2008 11:54 AM bertvan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-27-2008 1:16 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 11 by bertvan, posted 02-27-2008 2:04 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 8 of 38 (458146)
02-27-2008 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Cold Foreign Object
02-27-2008 1:16 PM


Why don't you just answer his issue or question, is it a judgement call or not?
Is what a judgement call? I asked him what would count as a judgement call that would require some non-materialistic cause.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-27-2008 1:16 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-27-2008 2:03 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 12 of 38 (458157)
02-27-2008 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by bertvan
02-27-2008 2:04 PM


I would argue that neither computers nor zompies make independent judgments. They spit out the answer they are programmed to make.
So how does that differ in our case? A zombie is a highly advanced robot that appears to respond exactly as if it were making independent judgements. At what point is some non-materialistic force required and why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by bertvan, posted 02-27-2008 2:04 PM bertvan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by bertvan, posted 02-27-2008 3:21 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 13 of 38 (458160)
02-27-2008 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Cold Foreign Object
02-27-2008 2:03 PM


The phenomena of nature: is it caused by materialistic based processes or non-materialistic based processes?
As far as I can tell, materialism can explain decision making in nature.
I don't think he was advocating both or any type of dualism
He is saying that materialist explanations work for things like weather, but that non-materialist explanations are needed for intelligent decision making. That is essentially Cartesian dualism. Very few, if any, philosophers who study intelligence, decision making etc etc ascribe to this kind of thing.
since a judgement is not a materialistic based process...then the judgement that the phenomena of nature is the result of a materialistic based process is "subjective, fallible" etc.etc.
I thought that the philosophy of science had already concluded that fallibility and tentativity were integral to epistemological claims. If the point was being raised in the 18th Century, perhaps Kant would be interested in it - but I don't think this point is worth a lot of discussion now.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-27-2008 2:03 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by bertvan, posted 02-27-2008 2:57 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 17 of 38 (458177)
02-27-2008 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by bertvan
02-27-2008 2:57 PM


Is it your argument that dualism and the concept of mind as something separate from the brain are "out of fashion" among philosophers?
That's not really my argument, no. I did point out that those that study this phenomenon don't generally come to the conclusion that materialism has to be abandoned. I made that point because Ray thought that you weren't "advocating...any type of dualism". I take it from your reply that Ray was wrong and you are advocating a type of dualism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by bertvan, posted 02-27-2008 2:57 PM bertvan has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 18 of 38 (458186)
02-27-2008 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by bertvan
02-27-2008 3:21 PM


The point that a non-materialistic force would be required would be when new, unforeseeable information was introduced, which the robot would be required to interpret for itself. If a programmer interprets the new information and tells the robot how to react to it, the programmer is making the decision - not the robot. (Yes, I consider the mind of a human programmer a non-materialistic force.)
And what prevents the robot from being able to interpret unexpected/unforseeable information? What exactly is unexpected/unforseeable information? A zombie for instance, would react to the unexpected/unforseeable information in the same way as a human would (that's the nature of the thought experiment).
I am yet to see any reason to assume that a person has to represent a non-materialistic force simply because it possesses a significantly complex discrimination system. Why should we be compelled to agree that there is some non-materialist force in play? I am certainly not going to accept your word on it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by bertvan, posted 02-27-2008 3:21 PM bertvan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-27-2008 5:01 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 20 of 38 (458214)
02-27-2008 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object
02-27-2008 5:01 PM


Naturally, and I hope you do not expect anyone to take your word on it, either, which brings us right back to the earlier point. Is it a judgement call or is it not?
Well of course I'm not expecting anyone to take my word for it. We can argue about it and present our cases. The OP says: "I have concluded that non-materialistic forces such as volition, motivation, and fallible free choice". I simply challenged this statement that volition/motivation etc are necessarily non-materialistic forces. If bertvan wants to concede that ultimately his argument relies on a metaphysics position we can debate the metaphysics.
Choosing a metaphysic obviously requires judging the virtues of the arguments presented.
I did not respond to your last reply because you chopped all of my quotes and then answered the chopped quote, which, of course, is not my quote anymore but your quote. And it appears that the reason you did this is because you do not understand the issues or points being raised here.
Does this advance the debate or is just to a way for you to attempt to patronise me? In case you hadn't noticed, you just did respond to my last reply - with this contentless attempt to assert your alleged superior understanding of the issue. If you are not going to respond because you think I don't understand - then just don't respond.
On the other hand, if you want to debate me - bring it on. Expose my lack of understanding of the issues for the hollow faades they are. I will consider it a service of great value should you do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-27-2008 5:01 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-27-2008 6:04 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 23 of 38 (458224)
02-27-2008 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Cold Foreign Object
02-27-2008 6:04 PM


STOP. I hate to interrupt you but the question was, for the third time, is it a judgement call or not?
You made a statement about hoping I don't expect others to take my word on a point of metaphysics. I addressed this statement. You also asked the judgement question which I replied:
quote:
Choosing a metaphysic obviously requires judging the virtues of the arguments presented.
The funny thing is - in text format you don't need to interrupt a person...you can continue reading to the end of their point to see if they answered both issues raised. The joy is, that you get to back and read it again without having to ask for a person to repeat themselves.
I realize that sometimes oversights are made, and I hope your STOP was just a little bit of fun - I hope you didn't just skip over what I wrote after that part.
In case you hadn't noticed, you just did respond to my last reply.
At the time your last outstanding reply to one of my messages was this one:
You do realize that you can respond to a reply in a different post? You responded to my reply in a different subthread Message 19. If this causes confusion, just ignore it - it's not important. The important point is that your tone is much less patronising now and the discussion can try to move forward.
It is a judgement call if reality is produced by material or non-material causation.
It really doesn't say anything about reality being produced by non-materialistic causes. It simply says that the act of judging something requires a non-material cause.
quote:
How can a materialistic process be distinguished from a non-materialistic process? Answer: judgment. Making such a distinction is itself a non-materialistic process, a subjective, fallible, free-judgment choice.
bervan is discussing how volition and free judgement are the hallmarks of a non-materialistic process and cannot be produced by materialistic forces.
But since the judgement is unquestionably an intelligence based judgement either conclusion is subjective. He may have another point to make if this is answered, but as it sits this question, and in my judgement it is a damn good question, is his concluding point and question for other participants to answer.
And as I said - that our judgements are subjective and thus subject to being flawed is not a new concept. If that was all that the OP was about it would be a very dull thread. Hey guys, did you know that you cannot explore objects as they really are but only as they appear to be? The answer - yes Kant pointed this out already. But this means that everything you know could be wrong. Yes, Descartes already wrestled with this one and Pierce and Popper were instrumental to formalising this as a principle of epistemology (fallibilism).
are Materialists suggesting that material causation produced intelligence so the latter could identify the former as its cause?
No. Material causation did not lead to intelligence for any reason at all, let alone so that it could identify materialism as its cause. Materialists are just saying that material causation has lead to intelligent beings that argue about the metaphysics of reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-27-2008 6:04 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-28-2008 2:49 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 26 of 38 (458297)
02-28-2008 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by bertvan
02-28-2008 1:04 AM


However, I don’t believe materialism should be obligatory.
It isn't. See - you're not a materialist!
I participate because I care passionately about academic freedom, and I’ve seen enough to convince me of the very real intimidation and harassment directed toward anyone questioning materialism in biology.
A thread in its own right. Perhaps you can start one to lay out your evidence?
I have a non-materialistic understanding of life that satisfies me.
Fantastic. But is it true? You stated that "a materialistic process be distinguished from a non-materialistic process [by the presence of] judgement." Are you now stating this is just an opinion and you have no way of defending it but by stating that it is an opinion. If that is the case there is nothing to debate.
So as long as skepticism of materialism is equated with biblical creationism, I do all I can to spread the word that one doesn’t even have to be religious to be skeptical of random mutation and natural selection.
Skepticism of materialism is not equated with biblical creationism, your job is done. See the non-creationist dualistic biologist Kenneth Miller for an example.
One doesn’t have to be committed to a personal god to believe in an immaterial soul capable of free will, love and all sorts of immaterial things. Theism is not the only alternative to materialism.
Yep - that's true. You can also not believe in an immaterial soul with free will and other immaterial things (I wouldn't say love is necessarily immaterial) and also believe in a personal god. What has this got to do with the OP?
You ask can a materialistic formula explain a non-materialist process? No it can't. The question is: do any non-materialist processes exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by bertvan, posted 02-28-2008 1:04 AM bertvan has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 33 of 38 (458374)
02-28-2008 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Cold Foreign Object
02-28-2008 2:49 PM


You do not want to admit that it is a judgement call because you actually believe your judgements are objective and not subjective.
When you talk about the 'phenomenon' of nature being caused by various processes are you referring to the opposite of the Kantian concept of 'noumenon'? If so, then obviously all phenomenon are inherently subjective judgements. Only noumenon are objective and we can't access them directly. We can make judgements about them, but those judgements would be based on the subjective phenomenon
It does seem a bit unusual to accuse someone of "actually believ[ing] [their] judgements are objective and not subjective" when that same person has been talking about Kantian noumenon and the fallibilism of Pierce and Popper. My judgements are obviously subjective. How could they possibly be otherwise?
The rest of your post doesn't seem worth getting into. If you want to simply be patronising and say 'you do not understand the question or issue' then don't bother replying - it doesn't advance the discussion.
Instead of repeating the question, and then complaining because my answers show a lack of understanding. Why don't you just explain what the question means? Maybe if you word it differently I'll be able to divine what you are saying.
quote:
Is the phenomena of nature caused by materialistic or non-materialistic processes a judgement call
The Kantian phenomena is obviously a judgement.
The Kantian noumena is not based on a judgement.
With my best understanding of what you are trying to ask, that is the answer. I've asked for you to explain it further; if you just repeat the question at me and say 'you don't understand' - I won't answer the question I'll just refer you to this post and ask for you to explain your question in more detail if that is not a satisfactory answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-28-2008 2:49 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-28-2008 5:26 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 35 of 38 (458388)
02-28-2008 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Cold Foreign Object
02-28-2008 5:26 PM


Actually I said "phenomena of nature" and when was Kant brought into the subject matter of this topic?
Kant was brought up in Message 13 after you made the observation that "the judgement that the phenomena of nature is the result of a materialistic based process is "subjective, fallible" etc.etc." To which I replied by telling you that this was not news - and that if that was your only point then Kant already made the point and that this same point has made its way into scientific thought.
Kantian 'noumenon' (as you describe it) is speaking about, OR presupposes, that nomianism or natural laws make up the "phenomena of nature".
The noumena do not make up the phenomena of nature by any stretch of the imagination. Phenomena are, at best, made up of judgements and perceptions and discrimations about noumena.
Is this not contradictory?
Care to explain?
I trust you understand the words being used, so I'm not sure how you might think it is contradictory. Here is wiki's introduction to the subject:
quote:
The noumenon (plural: noumena) classically refers to an object of human inquiry, understanding or cognition. The term is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to, "phenomenon" (plural: phenomena), which refers to appearances, or objects of the senses. Phenomena is that which is perceived. Noumena is the actual object that emits the phenomena in question.
You may read more at your leisure and it is obviously more complex that described here. However, the idea that we can only experience and thus judge subjective experiences of phenomena has long been known. Various methods have been put forward to try an minimize possible mistakes that arise as a result of this known philosophical problem.
Is it a judgement call whether you believe something has a material cause or a non-material one? Yes. Is it a judgement call whether something actually has a material or non-material cause? No - judgements don't change reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-28-2008 5:26 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-29-2008 1:48 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 37 of 38 (458547)
02-29-2008 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Cold Foreign Object
02-29-2008 1:48 PM


I do not consider Wikipedia a source for anything except ordinary Tabloid slander by anonymous persons who have access to a computer.
Yes I know, that's why I invited you to read more at your leisure.
'noumenon' or 'noumena' is a contraction coinage from two terms; the ancient prefix 'noma' which means 'law' and the suffix 'menon' or 'mena' taken from 'phenomenon' or its plural. Literally, it means "law(s) of reality".
Its etymology is not important (it actually comes from the Greek 'noeo-', similar to the word 'paranoia' ). Kant used it to mean "Ding an sich" - the thing in itself, which is how I was using it (it's more complex than this because being a human, Kant didn't use it completely consistently).
Personally, the problem between you and I over definitions is because we hold diametrically different worldviews: I am a hardline special creationist and you are a materialist. This vast gulf is hard to bridge sometimes. In the end, as we know, terms have more than one accurate definition.
And that's why I didn't want to give you a simple answer to your question because I wasn't sure what you meant by 'phenomena'. If you meant 'the thing in itself' as in, the actuality of natural events - then my answer is no. If you meant it to mean 'the perception of the thing in itself', my answer would be yes.
But my real position is that it is NOT a subjective judgement call, that both Creationists and Evolutionists believe their judgements are objective corresponding to objective reality. One side is obviously very wrong.
Well, your position aside - I do not believe my judgements are objective, but I have a strong argument which explains why I think it corresponds to objective reality more than your own position.
Yes, I agree. And because this is true [EDIT: MY VERY BAD ERROR; I DO NOT AGREE AND I BELIEVE IT IS NOT TRUE]
You are now arguing that the inherent fallibility of subjective perception hasn't been discussed in philosophy for a long time? What do you think Kant or Pierce or Popper were doing then?
Anyway, I know for an absolute fact that there is a way to know if your view of reality is objective corresponding to objective reality. This argument will be written in my forth coming paper and I actually look forward to your reaction.
Wow, your paper not only refutes evolution but also provides an epistemological revolution? I'll continue my long wait to read it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-29-2008 1:48 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 02-29-2008 7:21 PM Modulous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024