Naturalist Inconsistencies

Thanks for your reply. This is not neccessarily so. The pond in my example is a system of its own. The boy plus the pond belong to a greater system of the world and the world belongs to a greater system of the universe and the universe belongs to...?The supernatural does seem to be defined by more than just "outside the system of nature" because outside one system of nature will lie another system of nature unless there is a new quality. I guess true free-will and conscious desire are automatically implied by supernatural. Unless the universe like the pond is sitting around waiting to be stirred by a greater system. How do you know the universe is the complete system and therefore closed? It seems more likely from a naturalist standpoing that the universe should open to an infinite of systems. I meant that it contained all natural causes and effects. Well, that always seems to be what happens because everyone would rather nit pick over definitions than discuss ideas so I am forced to search for more and more precise language to express my ideas. No, its a belief until you can tell me why the universe MUST be closed. It is obvious to me that one cannot be rational unless one is working to acheive some end goal. This is common sense, not equivocation. If we have no free-will, then they are one in the same. If it is not governed by rules, what is it governed by? According to Loudmouth's definition Rational means to have reason or understanding. Whether or not it could be any other way, the fact is that the entire process results in a search for truth. I sure don't. At least not for the point of this discussion. True free will would be supernatural therefore I assume that all naturalists do not believe in true free will. Alright, let's look it up from Dictionary.com The first definition implies power and free-will. To have or exercise the ability to reason you must desire and choose. Sane means to show sound judgement and act in a purposeful manner. Now you can't say I'm equivocating on "rational" any more. By saying that every natural interaction occurs for no purpose, you are saying it is irrational. No natural phenomenon can exercise the ability to reason or logically achieve a purpose. So then you will agree when I say naturalism is a belief not a rational conclusion. Okay, point taken, thanks for that clarification. Naturalism now seems even more of a belief and more irrational than I previously thought. Any idea that there is no consciousness that desires and wills the universe into existence is just as much of a belief as the theist's belief. Which is fine, but my mind just cannot comprehend such a vast process that is a search for the truth about itself. I don't. I actually had a big argument at one time on here that the fact that the law of cause and effect no longer applies means that natural laws cannot sustain a natural universe... but like this argument it quickly went on to quibbling over precise meanings of words.

quote:

---

This is not neccessarily so. The pond in my example is a system of its own

---

And the water in the pond came from? the plant-life in the pond (if there is any)grows because.......This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-08-2005 15:32 AM

Unless you're defining "system" in a radically ideosyncratic way, which I wouldn't put past you, yes, it's necessarily so. Yes, an open system. We're talking about closed systems. Assuming for the sake of argument that nothing but the pond interacts with the boy, then the smallest possible closed system that encapsulates the pond also includes the boy. The natural world, which it's most useful to define as the smallest possible closed system that includes everything in the universe. Under that definition the natural world contains everything outside of the universe that interacts with the universe, and nothing outside the universe that does not.That means that the supernatural can only be that outside the universe that does not interact with it. If you define the natural world as all that is natural, that's a pretty circular and useless definition, wouldn't you say? I don't know that the universe is, but I do know that the natural world is, because I defined it that way. The universe is real. The natural world is just a concept, like the borders of a country. Which is your way of saying "I have no explanation why this must be so, but I am adamant that it must be." Well, I don't play that way.Sorry, rational and purposeful are not the same. It's entirely possible to follow rules but have absolutely no purpose in doing so. Welcome to the world of philosophy, which is entirely an excercise in defining words. Now maybe you can see why I'm not too interested in it. Perhaps nothing. Perhaps things happen as though they appear to be governed by rules, but are actually not. Since we can never have any real idea how the universe is supposed to work, we'll never know. The search for truth is pointless, since the truth is forever inaccessable to us. (That's solipcism again.) The search for accurate models is the only search we have any hope of succeeding in. You're equivocating when you use the first or second definition to apply to the universe, when clearly only the third does. That's what it means to equivocate, because words have multiple meanings. When we say that humans think rationally, we mean definition 1 or 2. When we say that the universe appears rational, we mean definition 3, in that it appears to proceed according to rules. Says you, but I didn't see the word "purpose" in any of your definitions, and it's not a synonym for "rational." I don't in the least understand how you got that from what I said. Right, but that's not naturalism, or agnostic atheism. That's positive atheism, which you're right is a belief, not a reasonable conclusion.Naturalism and agnostic atheism are about what we can know, not what exists or does not exist. And what we can know is that there's absolutely no positive evidence for the existence of God, or that supernatural beings influence the universe. (Although I think I've pretty much proven that nothing supernatural can influence the universe and still be considered supernatural.) Only because you still don't seem to understand what it is.

I really don't see how it can be denied that our thoughts are our own if they are primarily the product of our minds. It's a bit like saying that your body isn't your own because you didn't choose it.And as I said the main problem with libertarian free will is philosophical and not founded in naturalism I don't know why making the "distinction" of "Philosphical Naturalist" - against something unspecified - could be of any relevance. The problem applies to non-Naturalist positions just as much as to Naturalist positions.Now in our last debate I managed to completely refute your arguments, so in that respect I am quite happy to see that pattern continue. I hope, however, this time you will not be reduced to obvious evasion and denial.And finally to correct your reading of my post I have stated that the theory of everything will not explain literally everything. Specifically there will be aspects of itself that it will not explain - but it will would explain all of our natural universe except for itself.

Ok so define 'Naturalism' as you see it. I'm an athiest but your post is the first time I have come across this phrase. I can guess what you mean but please clarify it for us.

When I was growing up in the 50's us lads were always on the lookout for "Naturalism" magazines.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hangdawg 13 Why is this a problem? Nothing exists as a seperate part of nature that can be unknown within the framework of that nature. Are you saying that naturalism,because of its inability to account for how nature came to be means that there is no explanation for it in principle?

I thought that too but was not going to 'lower' the tone

quote:

---

I would say that if free-will is not an illusion created solely by a vast number of computations in our brain, then it must be supernatural.

---

I would say that free-will is a human concept that may not exist in reality. They only conclusion I can come to with the evidence in hand is that "I don't know". "I don't know" is the base conclusion for all naturalist investigations. "God Did It" is the base conclusion for supernaturalist investigations. "I don't know" in my opinion is the only conclusion that can honestly be drawn if evidence is lacking.

quote:

---

If you say we have free-will, you are, in effect, saying we are distinguished from and purposefully altering the course of nature.

---

Humans are part of nature. Even outside of human experience, nature alters itself. Purpose, like free will, is a human concept that may not exist in reality. Do birds purposefully choose a mate, or is it a process that lacks forethought? We can't know unless we experience how a bird thinks. If other things in nature, outside of humans, can exhibit purpose then purpose is part of nature.

quote:

---

I am a theist and I'm not so sure that free-will is not an illusion. I really don't know. But if I were a naturalist I would be forced to believe that free-will is an illusion.

---

Free will is what we define it as. If I fell into an active volcano, would I have the free will to not burn? No. Does that mean I don't have free will? Of course not. Free will is a human concept, and so we can apply it how we see fit. On a sidenote, I am glad to see that you are able to say "I don't know". This type of attitude always makes for a better discussion.

quote:

---

A very carefully picked vocabulary, but I think it is missing some other qualifiers. A person who babbles 2+2=4 all day long like a broken record is having a rational thought by that definition, but we would probably say the person is irrational because they are not thinking these thoughts for any reason.

---

It is still a rational thought, is it not? And what if that person is saying the same phrase over and over for a reason (eg keeping alien mind control rays at bay)? We would conclude that it is irrational to repeat the same phrase over and over to prevent alien mind control, but how do we discern irrational from rational in this situation? By the consensus of human thought pertaining to the best model of reality.

quote:

---

To have reason we must desire to discover the truth or accomplish some goal.

---

Nope, we can stumble on the truth without ever meaning to. Children can memorize multiplication charts without ever understanding the concept of multiplication. Their only reason may be to make adults around them happy. They just want a candy bar for giving an answer that makes adults happy. Again, truth exists outside of human experience and thought. Rational thought is what corresponds to that separate entity.

quote:

---

I'll be sure to pass the word next time I hear a confession of faith and hope in the ToE.

---

Please do. I have no more faith in the ToE than a passenger in an airplane has faith in aerodynamics. When ample evidence is available there is no need for faith or hope. Faith is the belief in something in the absence of evidence. ToE does not fit into this category.

quote:

---

By the definition you gave: neurotransmitters do not have reason or understanding; therefore, they are irrational.

---

They do have reason and understanding if they give rise to reason and understanding. Remember that reason and understanding are human concepts, a model of how human thought corresponds to our percieved reality. You can not assign "reason and understanding" or "irrationality" to anything that does not result in thought. In the same way, you can not assign velocity to anything that is not moving.

quote:

---

I've never thought of [the Cassimir Effect] as a "First Cause" before. The question is, "is there a natural cause for this first cause". The term would imply that the answer is no. It seems to me that if you have energy existing as the result of no natural cause, then this must be a supernatural thing. You could say it needs no reason. It is because it is because it is, which I am not satisfied with.

---

The natural cause is the Cassimir Effect. Reality doesn't care if you are satisfied with this or not. If I am not satisfied with my bank account, does 1 million dollars suddenly appear in my bank account the next day? For the same reason, needing or wishing in the existence of the supernatural does not make it pop into existance.

Sorry, for ignoring you all. I'm back at school now. I might get a chance to reply to some posts later on, but maybe not. Thanks for your input.

The Casimir effect is not what you are describing. The Casimir effect is specifically the attraction of 2 planes, classically close parallel uncharged conducting plates or mirrors. The effect is caused by vacuum fluctuations but the Casimir effect is not synonymous with vacuum fluctuations, it is a mechanical effect of them.TTFN,WKThis message has been edited by Wounded King, 01-12-2005 19:03 AM

quote:

---

The Casimir effect is not what you are describing. The Casimir effect is specifically the attraction of 2 planes, classically close parallel uncharged conducting plates or mirrors. The effect is caused by vacuum fluctuations but the Casimir effect is not synonymous with vacuum fluctuations, it is a mechanical effect of them.

---

Thanks for the clarification. Do you know of a website that explains this topic, particularly one that is suited for physics noobs like myself?

Try the wikipedia article.TTFN,WK