Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can a materialistic formula explain a non-materialistic process?
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 7 of 38 (458139)
02-27-2008 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Modulous
02-27-2008 12:31 PM


In short why should this present any challenge to materialism?
Why don't you just answer his issue or question, is it a judgement call or not?
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2008 12:31 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2008 1:46 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 10 of 38 (458154)
02-27-2008 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Modulous
02-27-2008 1:46 PM


Is what a judgement call?
The phenomena of nature: is it caused by materialistic based processes or non-materialistic based processes? I don't think he was advocating both or any type of dualism. He was probing how judgements, which are the result of intelligence, conclude for one or the other. His conclusion was that whatever one decides the same is subjective.
Once more: in case it might have escaped you, his point is very good, which is: since a judgement is not a materialistic based process, but a non, or intelligence based process, then the judgement that the phenomena of nature is the result of a materialistic based process is "subjective, fallible" etc.etc.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2008 1:46 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2008 2:25 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 19 of 38 (458200)
02-27-2008 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Modulous
02-27-2008 4:17 PM


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
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?
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.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2008 4:17 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2008 5:38 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 22 of 38 (458218)
02-27-2008 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Modulous
02-27-2008 5:38 PM


Well of course I'm not expecting anyone to take my word for it. We can argue about it and present our cases......
STOP. I hate to interrupt you but the question was, for the third time, is it a judgement call or not?
If you don't believe me then allow me to re-paste the quote that you are responding to:
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?
**********
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:
http://EvC Forum: Can a materialistic formula explain a non-materialistic process? -->EvC Forum: Can a materialistic formula explain a non-materialistic process?
If you are not going to respond because you think I don't understand - then just don't respond.
That is one of the reasons why I did not respond to message #13. In addition, like I said, you chopped my quotes thus changing their meanings, then you answered the chopped quote.
I even speculated that the reason you did this was because you didn't understand. But maybe it is I who does not understand?
Anyway, Bertvan has an interesting topic. Instead of returing to the message of mine that I am complaining about I will re-type the points and questions here - okay?
I believe (but I could be wrong) that Bertvan is making the following point in conclusion:
It is a judgement call if reality is produced by material or non-material causation? 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 these questions, and in my judgement they are damn good questions, is his concluding points for other participants to answer.
I might add: are Materialists suggesting that material causation produced intelligence so the latter could identify the former as its cause?
Ray
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2008 5:38 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2008 6:35 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 27 of 38 (458351)
02-28-2008 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Modulous
02-27-2008 6:35 PM


According to you - Modulous - this is your answer to the question (repeatedly asked): Is the phenomena of nature caused by materialistic or non-materialistic processes a judgement call or not?
Choosing a metaphysic obviously requires judging the virtues of the arguments presented.
This is why I have said and still say that you do not understand the question or issue. I have every right to point this out everytime you choose to not remain silent and respond.
BUT, farther down in your post you say this:
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.
Is it a judgement call that nature is caused by material or non-material causation? I am not talking about metaphysics. I am talking about Creationism or Divine causation causing living things to exist or material causation causing living things to exist. Is it a judgement call or not?
Obviously it is, a persons worldview determines the answer.
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.
False.
Message 19 was not a response to Message 13. Message 19 told you why I did not respond to message 13. Message 19 states this clearly.
The important point is that your tone is much less patronising now and the discussion can try to move forward.
Is it possible that you are a little too sensitive? Most people ignore such perceptions lest recognition confirms inferiority.
Bertvan writes:
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.
Modulous in response writes:
bervan is discussing how volition and free judgement are the hallmarks of a non-materialistic process and cannot be produced by materialistic forces.
That may be implied but that is not his point. You do not want to admit that it is a judgement call because you actually believe your judgements are objective and not subjective.
Ray
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : minor grammar correction

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2008 6:35 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by bluegenes, posted 02-28-2008 4:20 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 02-28-2008 5:14 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 29 of 38 (458364)
02-28-2008 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by bluegenes
02-28-2008 4:20 PM


Re: Judgement calls.
Actually, you are.
No, I am not. Like Modulous, you do not understand. Your understanding assumes I am speaking of a metaphysical biological First Cause, when I am actually addressing as to the means that living things owe their existence to: Divine or material causation, that is, I am specifically talking about after First Causes. You assume that Creationism only claims First Cause, but the fact of the matter is that Creationism claims that species, each species, owes their existence to direct Divine causation.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by bluegenes, posted 02-28-2008 4:20 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 30 of 38 (458367)
02-28-2008 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by bluegenes
02-28-2008 4:20 PM


Re: Judgement calls.
Yes, obviously.
I commend you for supplying a direct and straight answer. Something that Modulous has failed to do four separate times now. And I generally agree with your answer.
By which you mean, presumably, "obviously it is a person's world view that determines his or her answer."
Apparently you replied right before I made the grammatical correction now noted in my post.
Can a materialistic formula explain a non-materialistic process?
Bluegenes: "is No!"
Ray: Because Materialism by definition says non-materialistic processes do not exist. Materialism is supported by definition, not evidence.
But to frame the wholistic issue in a objective manner:
The issue is this. Whose presuppositions best explain and correspond to scientific reality, Supernaturalism or Materialism?
Answer: well, because I am a Creationist you know the answer.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by bluegenes, posted 02-28-2008 4:20 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by bluegenes, posted 02-28-2008 5:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 31 of 38 (458370)
02-28-2008 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by bertvan
02-28-2008 1:04 AM


Obviously for those of you who are materialists, random mutation and natural selection (or some equally mechanical explanation) can be sufficient to completely explain living processes. If you believe life is nothing more than a series of chemical reactions, you are not going to look for explanations that include intelligent, purposeful organization.
Good point.
They do not look for them because the presuppositions of their interpretive filter (= Materialism) has already ruled them out. To accept their existence is to recognize the existence of God.
I don’t participate in these debates just for the fun of arguing. 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.
Evolutionists do not allow competition because "only their science is genuine science". They have become what they replaced: the Priests and Bishops who controlled science before the rise of Darwinism. They secretly admire the way Theists ran the show as seen in their emulation.
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. 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.
You are attempting to stake-out a non-commital objective position that does not exist. Materialists (= Atheists) will label you a Creationist anyway.
Ray
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : both edits were spelling and grammar

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

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 34 of 38 (458376)
02-28-2008 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Modulous
02-28-2008 5:14 PM


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'?
Actually I said "phenomena of nature" and when was Kant brought into the subject matter of this topic? What does pre-Darwinian philosophy have to do with the OP or any relevant post addressing the OP?
"Phenomena of nature" means whatever one sees in nature in totality. Kantian 'noumenon' (as you describe it) is speaking about, OR presupposes, that nomianism or natural laws make up the "phenomena of nature". Of course I am basing the definition of 'noumenon' on my knowledge of prefixes and suffixes, not Kant.
The Kantian phenomena is obviously a judgement.
The Kantian noumena is not based on a judgement.
Is this not contradictory?
Care to explain?
But please produce a post that conveys everything that is on your mind. Just let it out, criticism and all: I won't take anything personally.
Ray
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 02-28-2008 5:14 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Modulous, posted 02-28-2008 5:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 36 of 38 (458510)
02-29-2008 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Modulous
02-28-2008 5:53 PM


You may read more at your leisure and it is obviously more complex that described here.
I do not consider Wikipedia a source for anything except ordinary Tabloid slander by anonymous persons who have access to a computer.
Just a quick stab based on the prefix and suffix (I have not studied Kant on this issue): '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".
But, of course, your knowledge of Kant as relayed accurately to whatever degree by Wikipedia, communicates a very complex philosophical breakdown of reality, which is what your blue box comment above seems to indicate.
However, the idea that we can only experience and thus judge subjective experiences of phenomena has long been known.
Yes, I agree. And because this is true [EDIT: MY VERY BAD ERROR; I DO NOT AGREE AND I BELIEVE IT IS NOT TRUE], and because this intrudes into the ancient philosophical debate between Realism and Idealism I have no interest in going any further in this vein of the discussion. I am a Realist - my mind is made up - because Idealism is nonsense.
SOMEWHAT OFF TOPIC:
I am a firm advocate of serious scientific discussions at EvC Forum, whether the subject is history, archaeology or the traditional disciplines, that the author define his terms. It doesn't really matter which definition as long as a definition or definitions are in place, and as long as the evidence and explanations based on said definition(s) correspond. Persons can challenge a definition, of course, but by defining one's terms this allows a better discussion or debate to take place. It seems too many discussions are spent arguing about definitions and never really about the topic. Persons who don't understand the need to define or the concept of working from a stated definition, whether they agree or disagree to any extent, should be asked not to post in the topic until they find a way to understand. EvC member RAZD has made quite a gallant effort to define terms in various topics only to have a dummy come along, who does not understand what I just wrote, and cripple the reason-for-being of the debate. 300 posts come and go because of a moron or two who do not get it.
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.
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.
I have generally agreed up to this point and I do agree that "judgements don't change reality". 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.
I disagree with Bertvan when he argued that both views are subjective based on fallible judgements. His argument seems to be a plea for Materialists "to be fair" and admit that their view is just as subjective as his, and to allow their enemies a safe harbour in science. Of course this will never happen. While Materialists will admit that their views are subjective on a philosophical basis, they, like I just pointed out, believe firmly that they are objective corresponding to objective reality. Materialists have every reason in the world to prevent "heretics a place and voice in science". Especially Dembski type voices, like Bertvan, who is attempting to claim Agnosticism while arguing that reality was produced by, and reflects, intelligence. Materialists are bothered greatly by this particular position because it is their phony position in reverse.
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.
Ray
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : See text; edit plainly acknowledged and explained
Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Modulous, posted 02-28-2008 5:53 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Modulous, posted 02-29-2008 6:44 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 38 of 38 (458554)
02-29-2008 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Modulous
02-29-2008 6:44 PM


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.
Acknowledged.
Looks like I was the one who was doing most of the misunderstanding.
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?
No, I said nothing against the fact of philosophical discussion. I made a correction in my post after sleep typing a very bad error. The edit in CAPS corrects the preceding sentence, which I chose not to delete. My real position is that the two major perceptions of reality are NOT subjective. Bertvan was arguing that they are. I can prove that both Creationism and Materialism are objective views of reality (believe it or not, and, of course, you will not believe it until you read my paper).
Wow, your paper not only refutes evolution but also provides an epistemological revolution? I'll continue my long wait to read it.
Like I said: I look forward to your reaction.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Modulous, posted 02-29-2008 6:44 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