tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post1832401195280889328..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Curate’s Egg: Alex Rosenberg and the meaning of lifeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-11233029816199554972012-06-28T10:45:11.981-04:002012-06-28T10:45:11.981-04:00PPS. You might think; who cares if there is or is ...PPS. You might think; who cares if there is or is not a void around it all, its just a void. It is crucial for a sensible understanding of the universe. Apart from avoiding the problem of "nothing" into which our universe is expanding, you will realize that Einstein's is a completely enclosed universe and Spacetime is continuous. Any view from within it is a relative view, and logically there can only be views from points within it. <br /><br />Without a void from which to see the mechanical interface of gravitation causing the perspectives, from the outside as it were (or even the Whole Shebang as plotted 3-D coordinates over time instead of the expanding rubber surface we are dished up by modelers of Gen Relativity) we are deprived of those interfaces and must accept the continuity of relativity. Modelling in any time or space frame within a void of 3-D + Times provides a setting for sensible analysis (even though in reality all measurements are relative to the observer).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-67743161202082024272012-06-28T10:21:05.366-04:002012-06-28T10:21:05.366-04:00PS. Three of them are very much alive, and Newton&...PS. Three of them are very much alive, and Newton's ideas are dead, but I hypothesize that Newton can be reconciled with Einstein. The putative expanding Spacetime, which is a 3-D + Time arrangement of its own internal unified composition, can exist in a void of 3-D + Time offering no measurable resistance. Interestingly, this neat coexistence exactly matches the coexistence of Darwin and Kant in my hypothesis.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-68588553498615198142012-06-28T09:59:46.580-04:002012-06-28T09:59:46.580-04:00Thanks for the historical overview, always good to...Thanks for the historical overview, always good to learn things as I tend to confine myself to facts from the encyclopedia and my own trust in logic, rather than identities. What a wonderful history it is, with fine characters, and some villains. <br /><br />My four modern pillars and paradigms are Newton (the absolute view in physics, from the absolute void, with preferences open for cosmological systems under God); Kant (the relative view in biology, from the entity itself confined to that perspective ); Darwin (the absolute view in biology, from reproduction, with preferences open to adaptation under Nature); and Einstein (the relative view in physics, from the mass itself confined to that perspective).<br /><br />It is interesting and perhaps understandable if you understand history that the Englishmen come from a nation open to invasion over centuries and requiring practicality, thus practical but limited discoverers taking the absolute view. The Germans are from an enclosed claustrophobic hub from which a relative view has often emanated. <br /><br />It is also interesting that the distinction between absolute and relative is total, iron clad, in the case of these four identities. They might even be THE fundamental divisions of existence. Let me propose that history, also, provides a means of slicing up the essentials of existence if we know how to read it and the identities involved.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612283941807324298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-63211295725054172602012-05-03T21:44:31.169-04:002012-05-03T21:44:31.169-04:00Correctly identified, science implies the applicat...<i>Correctly identified, science implies the application of evidence and logic in order to infer a conclusion.</i><br /><br />When did experimental and empirical science *prove* logic and order and drawing such inferences are a valid proceeding? <br /><br /><i>“the conviction that the methods of science are the only reliable ways to secure knowledge of anything;" </i> <br /><br />How did *science* study the various methods available and decide SCIENTIFICALLY that the current 'scientific' methods are "the only reliable ways". Upon what criteria did it base that conclusion? <br /><br />ANSWER: Rosenberg is scientifically intelligent, and philosophically (i.e., as basic wisdom about how to think well) an idiot. YOU CAN'T do science without pre-scientific foundations that speak about how to think well, and that pre-scientific foundation CAN'T be provided by scientific proof because it's what provides us with the confidence that things like empirical validation are worthwhile. If you can't trust empirical validation, you can't get around to doing science, and you can't use science to tell you why trusting empirical validation is worthwhile. <br /><br />What's worse is people reading Rosenberg, who ADMITS this self-oxymoronic aspect of his thesis, and still take his thesis seriously.Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-58138503364335620662012-04-28T19:09:15.184-04:002012-04-28T19:09:15.184-04:00Michael,
here is what I think of Objectivist epis...Michael,<br /><br />here is what I think of Objectivist epistemology:<br /><br />http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2010/11/about-objectivism-part-ii-epistemology.html<br /><br />Not much, as you can see. And there is no such thing as a "fallacy of the stolen concept" outside of Ayn Rand lingo.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-20684534999362279172012-04-28T08:27:04.035-04:002012-04-28T08:27:04.035-04:00To assert that you possess historical evidence of ...To assert that you possess historical evidence of the limitation of science is to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept. Correctly identified, science implies the application of evidence and logic in order to infer a conclusion. There is no “beyond science” because there is nothing beyond existence, i.e. evidentiary matter. Read “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology” for more details.Michael Alessihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06847342494439494645noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-35395846300168634692012-04-24T12:57:59.205-04:002012-04-24T12:57:59.205-04:00Agreed. Well-stated.Agreed. Well-stated.Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-59440672122739165272012-04-24T12:56:56.533-04:002012-04-24T12:56:56.533-04:00I don't think it makes much sense to claim tha...I don't think it makes much sense to claim that objective phenomena exist independently of all subjectivity.Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-65797662494612212592012-04-23T23:18:56.500-04:002012-04-23T23:18:56.500-04:00Massimo puts it much better, from his recent post:...Massimo puts it much better, from his recent post: <br /><br />"I don’t think it makes much sense to claim that higher level objects do not “really” exist just because their lower level nature is different. Imagine a biologist who said that ecosystems don’t “really” exist because living organisms are actually made up of cells. Yes, they are, but there are emergent properties (*) and interactions that make it impossible to understand ecosystems as a function of cell structure, and any serious ecologist better acknowledge that and get down to work. Similarly, above-fundamental levels objects are not illusions or a metaphysical afterthought, they are just as much part of reality as the mathematical structures inherent in string theory or loop quantum gravity."Aaron Shurehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00837439765332783167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-89797483684493916162012-04-23T23:01:48.452-04:002012-04-23T23:01:48.452-04:00I like this review a lot. An author who is willing...I like this review a lot. An author who is willing to overtly weave himself into his writing seems more trustworthy to me. Accounting for your predilections is much safer than pretending you don't have them.Aaron Shurehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00837439765332783167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-91423525281729329952012-04-23T22:55:55.141-04:002012-04-23T22:55:55.141-04:00RickK, your qualifier "at a quantum level&quo...RickK, your qualifier "at a quantum level" is critical. Until QM can account for even the chemical properties of water, then I'm not going to give it much time in my life. It seems to make as much sense as looking for your keys with a microscope.Aaron Shurehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00837439765332783167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-31711618788500970892012-04-23T13:57:31.829-04:002012-04-23T13:57:31.829-04:00Much better.Much better.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-17598562706950043722012-04-23T13:16:45.059-04:002012-04-23T13:16:45.059-04:00"The characters of brain states and of phenom..."<i><b>The characters of brain states and of phenomenal states appear too different to be completely reducible to each other</b>. I suspect the relationship is more complex than traditionally envisioned. For now, it is best to keep an open mind on this matter and to concentrate on identifying the correlates of consciousness in the brain</i>." <br /><br />(source: pg. 19, "<a rel="nofollow">The Quest for Consciousness: A Neurological Approach</a>" by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christof_Koch" rel="nofollow">Christof Koch</a>)Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-77937957022015172632012-04-23T12:20:09.743-04:002012-04-23T12:20:09.743-04:00One more reason not to take Harris seriously.One more reason not to take Harris seriously.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-21718830980053946962012-04-23T12:02:56.927-04:002012-04-23T12:02:56.927-04:00"While there is much to be said against a nai..."<i>While there is much to be said against a naive conception of a soul that is independent of the brain, the place of consciousness in the natural world is very much an open question. The idea that brains produce consciousness is little more than an <b>article of faith</b> among scientists at present, and there are many reasons to believe that the methods of science will be insufficient to either prove or disprove it</i>."<br /><br />(source: pg. 208, "<a rel="nofollow">The End of Faith</a>" by Sam Harris)Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-71345112320755275182012-04-23T11:50:07.812-04:002012-04-23T11:50:07.812-04:00"When your only tool is a hammer, everything ..."When your only tool is a hammer, everything begins to looks like a nail." - American sayingAlastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-52836114617733635152012-04-23T10:48:52.426-04:002012-04-23T10:48:52.426-04:00...the best hypothesis is that the conscious mind ...<i>...the best hypothesis is that the conscious mind is the most complicated biological phenomena ever studied. It is precious and beautiful and is part of the natural fabric of the universe. There is no longer any need for bewilderment, befuddlement, or mysterianism from Buddhism or any other great spiritual tradition in the face of the overwhelming evidence that all experience takes place in our embodied nervous systems in the world, the natural world, the only world there is.</i> - Owen Flanaganmufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-11488813668191365232012-04-23T10:39:54.544-04:002012-04-23T10:39:54.544-04:00"The concepts which now prove to be fundament..."<i>The concepts which now prove to be fundamental to our understanding of nature...seem to my mind to be structures of pure thought...the universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine</i>." - Sir James JeansAlastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-47074031911596113762012-04-23T09:19:59.444-04:002012-04-23T09:19:59.444-04:00Nah, we just disagree that there is a contradictio...Nah, we just disagree that there is a contradiction. <br /><br />For example, I also said in that same previous discussion that "I'm agnostic about such matters" - meaning metaphysics (including the Buddhist kind).<br /><br />But I'll grant you this much: Were I more committed to the Buddhist concepts of impermanence and not-self, I might agree that the machine metaphor for nature (as a whole) is even more imperfect than I stated above, insofar I don't tend to think first and foremost of machines as being "in flux." Instead, I think of fluids - first and foremost, water. <br /><br />That said, while organisms are composed mostly of water, I do not (as far as I can recall) experience organisms as water, but rather as entities distinct from water (presumably because of all the tissue that gives them form). Thus, an organism metaphor for nature (as a whole) does not click for me (nor, apparently, for most physical scientists).mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-36950227320466711092012-04-23T01:17:55.307-04:002012-04-23T01:17:55.307-04:00mufi,
You're simply upset because I called yo...mufi,<br /><br />You're simply upset because I called you out on your contradictory stance.Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-42681929991806548182012-04-22T22:54:02.285-04:002012-04-22T22:54:02.285-04:00Whenever this topic comes up, I think of that famo...Whenever this topic comes up, I think of that famous Richard Feynman quote: "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." Yet, how often do we run into folks claiming that it supports their worldview?mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-48954847931521180252012-04-22T22:04:23.142-04:002012-04-22T22:04:23.142-04:00Some say it's the confirmation of anticipation...Some say it's the confirmation of anticipation that collapses the wave function, but it's still a guess.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07573847127040276949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-22313097278490336672012-04-22T21:20:56.210-04:002012-04-22T21:20:56.210-04:00Paisley: Thanks for taking my comment out of conte...Paisley: Thanks for taking my comment out of context (from <a href="http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2012/04/on-fundamentalist-reductionism.html?showComment=1334883858373#c6323558940144049491" rel="nofollow">here</a> re: my reflection on the Buddhist concept of impermanence) - not that it contradicts anything I've said in this thread, as far as I can tell.<br /><br />If, as I strongly suspect, your belief that "consciousness collapses the wave function" is driven by a prior religious/philosophical commitment (e.g. to mind-body dualism or idealistic monism), then it a fool's errand (even for someone who is a lot more knowledgeable of physics and the history & philosophy thereof than I am) to attempt to change your mind - especially in a forum like this one.mufihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01818949854678769391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-55913407934424402612012-04-22T20:25:07.437-04:002012-04-22T20:25:07.437-04:00RickK: "Alastair, help me understand how the ...RickK: "<i>Alastair, help me understand how the debate over whether the universe is deterministic or probabilistic (at a quantum level) has any bearing on questions of meaning. I can't follow your connection there</i>."<br /><br />It has to do with "final causation" (teleology).Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-45930418538877030532012-04-22T20:13:45.022-04:002012-04-22T20:13:45.022-04:00Mufi,
I don't know why you're crying foul...Mufi,<br /><br />I don't know why you're crying foul. We have you on record stating...<br /><br />"<i>In any case, I think the best (or most charitable) interpretation here is that every "thing" (including our selves) is in flux, or that no "thing" is indefinitely stable (particularly our selves), <b>such that the practice of describing fundamental reality in terms of processes is apt</b> - indeed, plausible (which, according to Flanagan, is also "<b>why A.N. Whitehead at the dawn of elementary particle physics endorsed 'process philosophy'"</b>).</i>"<br /><br />Whithead himself referred to his philosophy as the "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_organism" rel="nofollow">philosophy of organism</a>." <br /><br />The bottom line is that the "many worlds" interpretation is a metaphysical interpretation (not a scientific explanation). So, it really doesn't matter how many physicists believe in it. And since we are doing metaphysics here, then I would argue that "consciousness collapses the wave function" is a far more parsimonious metaphysical explanation. Hitherto, you have provided me with nothing that would lead me to believe otherwise.Alastair F. Paisleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15732723685886383829noreply@blogger.com