Pragmatism Morphed into a Reasoning System

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Then I disagree with him too, on this particular issue. Actually, science is the proof that he is wrong. Reason has obviously unveiled facts about reality. The physical-laws are facts, are they not?

The minor quibble here is that no, physical laws are not 'facts'. They are abstracted from facts (namely, the results of experiments). The major quibble is that you aren't really proving that he's wrong, because science is not pure deductive reasoning. There is the inductive element I mentioned.

Actually, scientific-reason has unveiled facts about the order within our sensations. I argue that an extension of reasoning can unveil the source of these sensations. What possible reason insists that reason cannot discuss the causality of sensation?

The fact that we know nothing about it, for starters.

Usually, I present an argument-of-reason that leads to the Mind-hypothesis. I'm clearly hoping to debate my argument from a point-of-reason alone. Hence, I agree with LWS upon this point. But invariably, I am told that "matter created the brain" and "matter created life" and "the universe needs no cause beyond matter itself", etc.. I.e., I am refuted via assertion.

That's not exactly how it goes with your threads. The counter usually comes in the form of a one-two punch:

1. The logical errors in your argument are pointed out.
2. An alternative is presented.

Once it is demonstrated that your argument is invalid (and it always is), then that does in fact make room for an alternative explanation. If the alternative is also consistent with what we know, then it is also plausible.

The question is then: Which one is more plausible, and why?

And when I ask for a clear explanation of how these processes unfolded, none is given - because there is none to give.

How do you know?

As for myself, I can only talk about physics with any kind of authority. I know very little about cognitive science (but I am trying). What I object to are your unprovable assertions such as this one...

You know yourself that science can account for any fundamental philosophical-enquiry.

I assume you mean "cannot account for..."

In which case, I say, "No, I don't know that, and neither do you." You really do shoot yourself in the foot by making these kinds of claims, because they are unprovable. You don't know what science can or cannot accomplish given the time to do it. This is just as unprovable as your claim that AI scientists will never make a machine that can think like a human. You simply do not know, and neither does anyone else!

And so how can these assertions have any merit in discrediting things which I have argued? They cannot have any philosophical merit.

See above. If an alternative is plausible, then your idea cannot be taken to be "The Answer".

Try presenting an argument of your own. I can promise you that I will try to refute that argument directly. I will analyse each statement you make, and look for errors of reason within those statements (if there are any).

I will post my argument in favor of LW Sleeth's idea in my next post in this thread. Happily, it is right on topic.

That's exactly what DT Strain's post ammounted to, in the other thread. He simply asserted his own premise - ignoring my argument - and then proceeded to explain why his premise was correct. Even though everyone knows that there is no reasonable-argument for proving that matter creates thought.

I still think you do not understand the nature of a deductive proof. If someone can forward an alternative explanation, using the same premises, then your argument does not prove anything. DT Strain did that, and that is sufficient to overturn your claim that "all is Mind, and I can prove it".

If you would change that to, "It is possible that all is Mind", I think most people would agree with you.

At the end of the day, DT Strain's post amounted to a defense of an asserted-premise which is non-provable. It was a prime-example of what LWS himself is talking about.

But you do the exact same thing! And what is worse, you have no evidence to back up your arguments. There is no way in which this idea of yours "works", because it has no bearing on anything that we observe. This all comes back to do with the inefficacy of "pure reason" when it comes to reality.

And that is what LW Sleeth was talking about.

 

[FZ+]

*sign*

Forget it LG. You obviously cannot contemplate the idea of self-reflection and acceptance of fallibility. Maybe you'll learn it eventually. When you are so locked into your beliefs, trying to reason with you, even simply raising the possibility of an alternative, is futile.

 

[quantumdude]

Here is my argument supporting my position that pure reasoning can only reveal things about abstract forms, and not about reality.

From FZ's topic The limits of reason

First, the prescriptive laws of reasoning (aka logic) cannot be proven "right" within the system of logic itself.
Second, all arguments rely on unproven axioms (aka assumptions).


All systems of logic can be put into one of two categories:

1. Deductive
2. Inductive

I explained all this in detail in my Logic Notes thread, but let me give a rundown here.

Deductive Logic
An argument is deductive if its premises necessarily imply[/color] its conclusions. With a mandate to construct such a system of logic, one is led directly to a formal structural language that strongly resembles mathematics. It contains rules for types of inferences that can always be trusted. This should not be misunderstood to mean that deductive logic can be used to derive absolute truths about reality. In fact, deductive logic is completely silent in this regard. It should be understood as follows:

I may not know whether the premises are correct, but I do know for certain that: If the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.[/color]

That conditional statement expresses the only idea of which we can be confident using only deductive logic. Deductive logic does not contain a procedure for testing the truth or falsity of propositions (except for some propositions about deductive logic, of course).

Inductive Logic
An argument that is not deductively valid is inductive. The premises of an inductive argument provide only partial support for its conclusion, and as such the conclusions of inductive arguments are accepted only tentatively. This may prompt one to ask, "Why bother with inductive logic?" Good question. The answer is that it is impossible to reason about anything that cannot be known a priori without inductive logic. So, the price we pay for inductive reasoning may be the lack of absolute support for the conclusion, but the benefit is that we obtain the ability to say something meaningful about reality.[/color] In other words, inductive logic provides a means to judge the truth or falsity of propositions, but only in a probable (as opposed to absolute) sense.

The discipline of implementing these two kinds of reasoning to learn about reality is called science.

Continuing:

If truths about reality are destinations, then deductive reasoning is the car that gets you from one to the other. The initial post of the thread boils down to: How far can that car get us?

Is there some limit to the understanding that logic alone can provide? I have answered that question emphatically in the affirmative, on the following grounds:

We have two kinds of logic: deductive and inductive.

The former is concerned with arguments whose premises give absolute support[/color] to their conclusions. The problem is that it gives no decision procedure for determining the truth or falsity of propositions with absolute certainty (actually, it's damn near completely silent on the issue).

The latter is concerned with arguments whose premises give probable support[/color] to their conclusions. The advantage is that this logic does indeed either lend support to, or outright falsifies, the conclusions that are brought under its analysis.

Since those are the only two kinds of logic at our disposal, I state that absolute truths about reality (known absolutely!) are beyond the capacity of human logic.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Joint Response

I decided to respond to you three (Tom, FZ and LG) all in the same post because it helped me make a few points I wanted to make.

Originally posted by Tom
We have two kinds of logic: deductive and inductive.

The former is concerned with arguments whose premises give absolute support[/color] to their conclusions. . . . The latter is concerned with arguments whose premises give probable support[/color] to their conclusions. . . . Since those are the only two kinds of logic at our disposal, I state that absolute truths about reality (known absolutely!) are beyond the capacity of human logic.

Nicely reasoned. That is exactly the conclusion philosophers came to after two millennia of rationalistic speculation. It reminds me of a friend I had who was always dreaming big dreams, but doing little to realize them. In his dreams he was always on the verge of success, and so when friends tried to warn him he was headed for trouble, he would answer with some part of his perfect dream. He got away with that until the day reality came down on him so hard he finally woke up. Similarly, with pure rationality there is no meaningful test of what one reasons because like a fox watching the henhouse, the only test is the idea’s own internal logic.

The great thing about pragmatism is that it assumes there is a reality (which let’s say is all that exists, or potentially can exist), that it works in very specific ways (i.e., there’s nothing arbitrary about reality), and therefore a perfect test of one’s theories is to find ways to apply the theory. If a theory is in line with the rules of reality, it will work on some level. How well it works indicates how in line with reality it is. If only part of it works, then it needs adjustment, and so on. That feedback from reality, to me, is the most powerful teacher that could possibly exist because reality is the truth waiting right there for us to discover.

Now, the most impassioned debates here seem to be about the nature of reality, primarily between those who say material reality is probably all there is, and those who say there is at least “something more” which is probably immaterial. Although the main theme of this thread is about reason, I also was hoping better debates might happen between those two groups by suggesting reasoning standards both sides could agree to.

I have something else I want to say about your first post in this thread, but I am going to save it for my response to FZ.

Originally posted by FZ+
But there is also absolutely no evidence for any alternative, which puts chemogenesis as a imperfect, but only workable hypothesis. At least, unlike the other possibilities, we can investigate it. And it is perfectly reasonable, according to the available evidence. Though that of course does not imply it is true.

I am glad you said that because it is the example I need to demonstrate the bias that stems from believing something too strongly.

In Tom’s first post here he asked if when applying the pragmatic reasoning concept I was proposing, it might not be a good idea to test a theory by “. . . looking for instances in which it fails.” I still don’t think that should be the primary approach (in philosophy at least), but I think he is right too. The way I would do it is, after all the ways an idea is shown to work, then look for how it fails to work (of course, some ideas are so bad they only fail to work, so you can just jump right to that).

Okay, you say chemogenesis is “perfectly reasonable according to available evidence,” but really it isn’t and I think if you weren’t over-committed to a materialistic explanation for life you already would have seen that.

There is a major problem for the materialist theory there which I can’t believe isn’t noticed. The problem is that chemistry cannot be shown to spontaneously exhibit, on its own, the kind of functional and organizational system building that is present in even the simplest life form. The inferential leap from amino acids spontaneously forming and such to the sort of consistent self-organizing change needed to reach life is HUGE.

You say “there is also absolutely no evidence for any alternative,” but not only is that not a good enough reason to assume chemogenesis, that missing organizing force actually is evidence of a type. Say you were a detective investigating a report of vandalism to a house. You go there and find it is covered in mustard. There are no people around, no mustard jars, no evidence of any kind that the mustard came from somewhere else. Would you conclude that the house is oozing mustard on its own? Isn’t the lack of a means for getting that mustard there really evidence it must be somewhere else because houses are never known to ooze mustard?

Similarly, how can materialists conclude that chemistry does it alone when they can’t duplicate the kind of self-organization necessary for life? How do you build other materialist theories, such as purely physical explanations of consciousness, on top of a theory which has such a colossal evidence gap in it? Where at least is the doubt of the materialist explanation (for chemogenesis), and the openness to another variety of force present in life that would explain such self-organization?

I say the way materialists casually roll past the spontaneous self-organizing problem is a symptom of blind faith; they so are “blinded” by their belief in materialism they cannot see just how significant the chemogenesis issue is. In terms of the theme of this thread, it doesn’t matter how successful a discipline is in other areas, it doesn’t mean they get to circumvent the standards of evidence and proof for their pet theories.

I have a little more to say about this which I will do while answering LG.

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Then I disagree with him too, on this particular issue. Actually, science is the proof that he is wrong. Reason has obviously unveiled facts about reality. The physical-laws are facts, are they not?
Actually, scientific-reason has unveiled facts about the order within our sensations. I argue that an extension of reasoning can unveil the source of these sensations. What possible reason insists that reason cannot discuss the causality of sensation?

I think you are mixing together ideas that need to be considered separately to make sense. Using Tom’s explanation of logic types, you are mixing deductive and inductive logic together and then talking about them as though they are the same. The word “proof” in science represents a deductive process that culminates in observation (experience). When reason has helped lead researchers to setting up the correct experiment that proves something, that often was helped along by induction. Induction cannot prove something that needs to be experienced, it can only posit the reasonability of searching for certain verifying experiences.

When you claim your mind hypothesis cannot be disproved, all you are really saying is that we have no way to test it by way of experience. The same thing is true of say, Zeus . . . that is, we cannot experience him either but there is no reason to be certain of a theory that believes in him because he can’t be disproved.

Then you argue for the efficacy of “extension of reasoning.” But what are you extending reason from? This is exactly the problem with rationalism sans experience, your house is built on an uncertain foundation. It’s the same criticism of the materialist notion of building consciousness theories on top of a non-existent foundation of chemogenesis. Don’t you think you first better establish that your foundation is correct before you start building a bunch of theoretical rooms on it? If so, how do you create a foundation?

This is where I think you need to come up to speed because if you study the history of success with philosophical ideas, it is dominated by those which could be demonstrated they “work.” The working philosophies have so outdistanced all that old rationalistic stuff that many thinkers today believe classic philosophizing is dead. For something to be said to work, one has to be able to witness it working. This then, is the standard for proof -- that you link your claims to experience.

Are we who think there is something more to reality than physics left without recourse to proof? When it comes to objective proof, it appears we are; that does not mean there isn’t inner or subjective experience which reveals the “something more” to reality. It just means the only witness to that is to be the subject himself.

If there is “something more” to reality than physics, are we left without a means to challenge materialist claims that physics and mechanics is it? Not at all. If you have faith that “something more” is necessary to explain how at least life and consciousness “work,” then the materialist argument is going to have problems, and that is where you focus your attention (i.e., on exposing the problems). And it doesn’t mean you can’t have your theory, it only means you have to stop trying to rationally “prove” it. Let the facts or lack of facts naturally lend support to your concept.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
When you claim your mind hypothesis cannot be disproved, all you are really saying is that we have no way to test it by way of experience.

No I'm not. I'm saying that it cannot be disproven by logic, since my logic matches known laws of science. In other words, you've already tested my hypothesis, because it matches all-known laws - which have already been tested.
My arguments are founded upon laws and reason. Via the direct-experience of sensation. When you say that there is no way to test it by way of experience, you ignore the fact that my argument is founded upon the experiences we are all having now. I have not based my arguments upon anything but experience. And that's a fact.

The same thing is true of say, Zeus . . . that is, we cannot experience him either but there is no reason to be certain of a theory that believes in him because he can’t be disproved.

Firstly, can Zeus explain his own origin? I.e., can the philosophy "of Zeus" explain *everything*, rationally? If it cannot, then Zeus is of God. Not God himself.
The point is obvious. Reason can rip-apart specific concepts, until those concepts have explained everything, including themselves.
And when these concepts cannot explain such things, then these concepts are all but worthless.
You have reason to invalidate crackpot-theories. And yet you sit there saying you cannot disprove it because you cannot experience it. That's incorrect LWS.

Then you argue for the efficacy of “extension of reasoning.” But what are you extending reason from?

From itself. Reason is a system which seeks to define the relative-world in relation to absolute-scales of existence. Reason stretches towards absolute-concepts. The mind unquestionably-knows about absolute-concepts of existence.
Hence, there is no reason whatsoever why an argument founded upon reason, cannot take us to the absolute-source of existence.
You cannot discard this notion by repeating that you've had no experience of such things, and so cannot disprove them. Because you have the essence of all knowledge to disprove of such thoughts. You have reason itself. And if you are going to be sincere unto your own earlier thoughts, then you should listen to what I'm trying to say to you. You are a materialist LWS. To what degree, I do not know. But I do know that logic does not allow for a bias towards experience as the basis of all knowledge. Logic was/is the true source of all knowledge. The sensations don't know a thing about themselves.
You cannot abandon reason to a bias. You've said so yourself.

Don’t you think you first better establish that your foundation is correct before you start building a bunch of theoretical rooms on it? If so, how do you create a foundation?

By logic, from sensation.
The sensations are the only thing which we can confirm exists, within 'awareness'.

The working philosophies have so outdistanced all that old rationalistic stuff that many thinkers today believe classic philosophizing is dead.

Well my philosophy 'works' too. It explains everything (because it embraces science), and it also has profound repercussions for humanity. I'm not stupid. I'm aware that most of you are aware of this. My philosophy is almost impossible to believe, even if you see the sense in it. For look at the conclusion! How can we believe that?!
How can there be 'a God'?!
Catch 22. You can't fight emotion with reason. It'll drive you crazy, in the long-run. Not unless you can get the emotion to recognise its own folly, and allow the reason to take over.

For something to be said to work, one has to be able to witness it working.
This then, is the standard for proof -- that you link your claims to experience.

Do scientific-laws accurately depict the order inherent within our sensations? Of course they do. Therefore, it is an absolute-fact that the physical-laws are reflective of sensed-experience. You cannot argue that the physical-laws are wrong, and that our sensations are telling us something else. For reason would beg to differ - since reason unveiled those laws, from those sensations.

Are we who think there is something more to reality than physics left without recourse to proof?

Evidently so.
Mother-reason weeps, I say.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
No I'm not. I'm saying that it cannot be disproven by logic,

So what? Materialism cannot be disproved by logic either. For that matter, neither can the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, or invisible fairies dancing around your head.

since my logic matches known laws of science. In other words, you've already tested my hypothesis, because it matches all-known laws - which have already been tested.

My arguments are founded upon laws and reason. Via the direct-experience of sensation. When you say that there is no way to test it by way of experience, you ignore the fact that my argument is founded upon the experiences we are all having now. I have not based my arguments upon anything but experience. And that's a fact.

No, it is not.

I've had quite enough of this nonsense. It has been explained to you over and over that your ideas do not "match" the laws of science, and that tests of scientific laws are not confirmations of your ideas.

Firstly, can Zeus explain his own origin? I.e., can the philosophy "of Zeus" explain *everything*, rationally? If it cannot, then Zeus is of God. Not God himself.

"The Mind" cannot explain its own origin either, and neither can it explain everything rationally.

In fact, it cannot explain anything rationally.

The point is obvious. Reason can rip-apart specific concepts, until those concepts have explained everything, including themselves.
And when these concepts cannot explain such things, then these concepts are all but worthless.

No. Reason cannot test premises; only observation can do that. That is the whole point of this thread.

You have reason to invalidate crackpot-theories. And yet you sit there saying you cannot disprove it because you cannot experience it. That's incorrect LWS.

No, he is right. Reason can only tell you if a crackpot theory is internally inconsistent. It cannot tell you if the premises or conclusion are wrong.

Only observation can do that.

From itself. Reason is a system which seeks to define the relative-world in relation to absolute-scales of existence. Reason stretches towards absolute-concepts. The mind unquestionably-knows about absolute-concepts of existence.

No, reason has nothing to do with existence.

The laws of logic are prescriptive laws pertaining to inferences. It has only to do with form, and very little to do with the content of statements.

Hence, there is no reason whatsoever why an argument founded upon reason, cannot take us to the absolute-source of existence.
You cannot discard this notion by repeating that you've had no experience of such things, and so cannot disprove them. Because you have the essence of all knowledge to disprove of such thoughts. You have reason itself. And if you are going to be sincere unto your own earlier thoughts, then you should listen to what I'm trying to say to you.

Given that you are wrong about what reason is, this is totally off base.

LW Sleeth correctly observed something about you. He said that you are mixing up notions of inductive and deductive logic into some kind of "superlogic". Specifically, to your mind it seems that logic has the certainty of deductive validity not only for inferrential forms, but also for testing of premises[/color], and that is false.

This "superlogic" does not exist except as a figment of your imagination, just like "The Mind". If you come up with a third one, then your religion can have its own Trinity.

You are a materialist LWS. To what degree, I do not know. But I do know that logic does not allow for a bias towards experience as the basis of all knowledge.

"Logic" doesn't have anything at all to say on the matter. In fact, if all we use is logic, we have the opposite problem: any and everything you can imagine becomes a candidate for a theory of reality.

That is another main point of this thread.

Logic was/is the true source of all knowledge.

Wrong: Logic does not supply knowledge at all.

Well my philosophy 'works' too. It explains everything (because it embraces science), and it also has profound repercussions for humanity.

This is false. Your ideas contradict science in that you must twist scientific theories around to suit your biased conclusion. We have explained this to you many, many times.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
So what? Materialism cannot be disproved by logic either.

True logic cannot take you to a materialistic-position. We both know that a "leap-of-faith" is required to state that there is an existence beyond sensation. As such, logic cannot advocate any such stance. And I did in fact produce an argument to challenge the notion of external-reality. Reason can challenge any concept.

For that matter, neither can the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, or invisible fairies dancing around your head.

It takes blind-faith to believe in all of the above. For reason simply cannot accept such concepts as being true. Upon what possible basis could it? But this is the philosophy forum Tom. Not the religion forum.

No, it is not.

I've had quite enough of this nonsense. It has been explained to you over and over that your ideas do not "match" the laws of science, and that tests of scientific laws are not confirmations of your ideas.

Is my mind-hypothesis compatible with the base indeterminancy of QM? Is my mind-hypothesis compatible with 'relativity'? Is my mind-hypothesis compatible with other known laws? Does my mind-hypothesis challenge the equations of any known laws?

"The Mind" cannot explain its own origin either, and neither can it explain everything rationally.

Existence is fundamentally eternal. It's very easy to prove this. Something cannot come from absolute-zilch. Therefore, something has always existed.
"The Mind" has no origin. And it has no end.

In fact, it cannot explain anything rationally.

Such as?

No. Reason cannot test premises; only observation can do that. That is the whole point of this thread.

The whole point of the thread is to assert that only sensations can confirm that a process of reasoning is correct? Then what price mathematics, with her 'zeroes' and 'infinities'? Can you show me a tangible-sensation whereby I can see such things for myself?
Reason is apart from sensation. And it makes sense of it. It also makes sense of concepts which exist beyond sensation.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
You have reason to invalidate crackpot-theories. And yet you sit there saying you cannot disprove it because you cannot experience it. That's incorrect LWS.

I still think you haven't understood the idea of proof.

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Reason is a system which seeks to define the relative-world in relation to absolute-scales of existence. Reason stretches towards absolute-concepts.

Some reason does, but some reason reaches toward garbage. It almost sounds like you consider reason just short of divinity. Like Papal infallibility, you seem to believe reason can never fail. Reason is only a mental discipline.

Originally posted by Lifegazer
The mind unquestionably-knows about absolute-concepts of existence.
Hence, there is no reason whatsoever why an argument founded upon reason, cannot take us to the absolute-source of existence

.

That is too much . . . look at what thought is! It is an abstraction that is not even as an accurate a representation of reality as a TV image is. How is it going to take one to the absolute source? It is just like those people who argue endlessly about what is the proper religious "beliefs." In the end, how much power does a belief have? With belief alone, one can't believe oneself into anything except delusion. Sure, combined with a plan, and then action, a belief can be motivating, but to say it can be so powerful as to get one into heaven or send one to hell ignores the nature of belief.

Similarly, you are imparting to thought power it doesn't exhibit. If thought had that power, we wouldn't need our bodies or appliances or construction machinery . . . we could just will it all to happen without a physical medium.

Originally posted by Lifegazer
You cannot discard this notion by repeating that you've had no experience of such things, and so cannot disprove them. Because you have the essence of all knowledge to disprove of such thoughts. You have reason itself.[/I]

.

First of all, I am not trying to discard your notion of Mind. I am saying that so far you haven't done what it takes to prove it. Secondly, I think you already know that experience is the basis of knowing.

For example, if you were going to have heart surgery done, who would be your first choice? A surgeon with lots of successes under his/her belt, or a great theoritician who has never operated? When you are hungry, will a concept of food satisfy your hunger or do you need the experience of food?

Experience is where you find reality, mind is where you work out what experiences to pursue.

Originally posted by Lifegazer
And if you are going to be sincere unto your own earlier thoughts, then you should listen to what I'm trying to say to you. You are a materialist LWS. To what degree, I do not know. But I do know that logic does not allow for a bias towards experience as the basis of all knowledge. Logic was/is the true source of all knowledge. The sensations don't know a thing about themselves. You cannot abandon reason to a bias. You've said so yourself.[/I]

.

That's cold man, calling me a materialist.

LG, you don't understand me at all. I am a materialist when it comes to reasoning about material issues. I am also a husband when my wife gets home in a few minutes, a son when my mom calls, a friend when I get together with them, a racquetball player in the tournament that's coming up, a meditator tomorrow morning at first light . . .

You have everything all mushed together. Why can't you keep your faith and experience of God in its own realm? Why try to mix it with rules that have nothing to do with that? I can't see how they are compatible.

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Mother-reason weeps, I say.

Yes, because you are trying to turn your mother into a goddess rather than loving her for what she is.

 

[FZ+]

I am glad you said that because it is the example I need to demonstrate the bias that stems from believing something too strongly.

In Tom’s first post here he asked if when applying the pragmatic reasoning concept I was proposing, it might not be a good idea to test a theory by “. . . looking for instances in which it fails.” I still don’t think that should be the primary approach (in philosophy at least), but I think he is right too. The way I would do it is, after all the ways an idea is shown to work, then look for how it fails to work (of course, some ideas are so bad they only fail to work, so you can just jump right to that).

Okay, you say chemogenesis is “perfectly reasonable according to available evidence,” but really it isn’t and I think if you weren’t over-committed to a materialistic explanation for life you already would have seen that.

There is a major problem for the materialist theory there which I can’t believe isn’t noticed. The problem is that chemistry cannot be shown to spontaneously exhibit, on its own, the kind of functional and organizational system building that is present in even the simplest life form. The inferential leap from amino acids spontaneously forming and such to the sort of consistent self-organizing change needed to reach life is HUGE.

You say “there is also absolutely no evidence for any alternative,” but not only is that not a good enough reason to assume chemogenesis, that missing organizing force actually is evidence of a type. Say you were a detective investigating a report of vandalism to a house. You go there and find it is covered in mustard. There are no people around, no mustard jars, no evidence of any kind that the mustard came from somewhere else. Would you conclude that the house is oozing mustard on its own? Isn’t the lack of a means for getting that mustard there really evidence it must be somewhere else because houses are never known to ooze mustard?

Similarly, how can materialists conclude that chemistry does it alone when they can’t duplicate the kind of self-organization necessary for life? How do you build other materialist theories, such as purely physical explanations of consciousness, on top of a theory which has such a colossal evidence gap in it? Where at least is the doubt of the materialist explanation (for chemogenesis), and the openness to another variety of force present in life that would explain such self-organization?

I say the way materialists casually roll past the spontaneous self-organizing problem is a symptom of blind faith; they so are “blinded” by their belief in materialism they cannot see just how significant the chemogenesis issue is. In terms of the theme of this thread, it doesn’t matter how successful a discipline is in other areas, it doesn’t mean they get to circumvent the standards of evidence and proof for their pet theories.

Kinda off topic... but I disagree. Then again, it could be my "bias" talking..
(a) I believe that there is nothing special about life, and there is further nothing special about our form of life. I do this because the evidence I have seen suggests this. Because I cannot see a real border between life and non-life in reality, I feel that the decision of life or not is purely subjective. Ie. we consider life special because we are alive. We are the genesis of the life concept.
(b) Spontaneous self-organisation into equilibriums is observed throughout chemistry. Notice for example the way prions can rearrange other proteins around them to cause harmonisation. And how computers can program themselves in the right conditions. I have heard of a mathematical proof that ALL systems where each component can change it's behaviour based on the others eventually reach self-organisation - this is used to explain things like flocks of birds, and fire flies, which form without an unifying system. This is not on the scale of life, but it can and does occur. We have shown that such self organisation occurs.
(c) A belief in the possibility of chemogenesis is justified. Everything has a possibility - unless there is an expressed reason that there is no possibility. There is a possibility that God exists. That material laws are just lucky chance. Investigations into life has thus far revealed nothing other than chemistry. It is reasonable to use this extrapolation, but given lack of data without too much confidence.
(d) It is not a proof for chemogenesis, but this theory's superiority to others is that it can be rationalised to at least some degree. It is possible to do work on chemogenesis to disprove it, to improve the theory and our understanding of the processes involved. However, other theories do not allow this. You cannot investigate God. Hence, chemogenesis exists as a working hypothesis, even if this line of investigation forms a disproof by contradiction. Like prove root 2 is irrational - to begin with the assumption it is irrational leads nowhere - you begin by assuming what you can tests, and see if you are forced into the other option.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by FZ+
. . . I cannot see a real border between life and non-life in reality, I feel that the decision of life or not is purely subjective. Ie. we consider life special because we are alive. We are the genesis of the life concept.

Possibly so.

Originally posted by FZ+
Spontaneous self-organisation into equilibriums is observed throughout chemistry. Notice for example the way prions can rearrange other proteins around them to cause harmonisation. And how computers can program themselves in the right conditions. I have heard of a mathematical proof that ALL systems where each component can change it's behaviour based on the others eventually reach self-organisation - this is used to explain things like flocks of birds, and fire flies, which form without an unifying system. This is not on the scale of life, but it can and does occur. We have shown that such self organisation occurs.

I will do my best to keep what I say within the bounds of this thread. My challenge was that the theory of chemogenesis does not "work" sufficiently to justify the confidence with which it is preached by the scientific community. Doing so therefore violates the pragmatic rule of reason.

I bet you anything if you were to consider the above rational you gave for explaining the self-organization of life with the same sceptism you ran your "Debunkathon" over in the pseudoscience section, you'd find it just as full of holes as I do. You have in actuality offered very little evidence of spontaneous chemical organization (and you can't use computer programs or bird flocks as examples because they are either humanly created or are already living -- you need to show chemistry doing it from scratch).

Have you ever read how a skilled creationist will try to reconcile biblical accounts with scientific discoveries? They link up the Bible with something here and there, and then conclude the Bible had it right all along. Meanwhile the gaps between the coincidences far outweigh what they have. That is what your examples amount to. What you show is the potential for chemistry to be made to undergo organizational growth, but you don't show it can do it by itself.

All purely physical (i.e., outside the influence of life or consciousness) spontaneous organization just goes on for a few steps in repetitive patterns, while life’s organization has been essentially perpetual and highly creative. Citing as significant the spontaneous formation of organic molecules, such as amino acids or the development of proteinoid microspheres fails to take into account that chemical complexity is an essential part of life, and that life most likely developed out of Earth’s chemistry, so we should expect elementary bio-stuff to result in the right conditions.

This is where your reasoning turns false because you don't address the actual objection to finding chemogenesis "perfectly reasonable." The potential for merely spontaneously forming organic molecules etc. is not the issue. The issue is full chemogenesis that spontaneously begins with perpetual development; and not just perpetual development, but of systems; and not just any system but functioning systems; and not just any functionality but hierarchally arranged functionality; and not just any hierarchally arranged functionality, but one which develops in support of the overall organization; and finally, not just any organization but one which metabolizes, reproduces and evolves.

That is the kind of organization even the lowest life form exhibits, and thus far the observed potentials of chemistry to spontaneously act fall vastly short of that level of self-organization. And this is exactly what I mean by being blinded by one's commitment to some philosophy, because it is so difficult for someone who wants to believe their philosophy to even see such a glaring problem their theory.

Originally posted by FZ+
A belief in the possibility of chemogenesis is justified. Everything has a possibility - unless there is an expressed reason that there is no possibility. There is a possibility that God exists. That material laws are just lucky chance. Investigations into life has thus far revealed nothing other than chemistry. It is reasonable to use this extrapolation, but given lack of data without too much confidence. . . . It is not a proof for chemogenesis, but this theory's superiority to others is that it can be rationalised to at least some degree. It is possible to do work on chemogenesis to disprove it, to improve the theory and our understanding of the processes involved. However, other theories do not allow this. You cannot investigate God. Hence, chemogenesis exists as a working hypothesis, even if this line of investigation forms a disproof by contradiction. Like prove root 2 is irrational - to begin with the assumption it is irrational leads nowhere - you begin by assuming what you can tests, and see if you are forced into the other option.

Possibly you just indicated part of your reason for holding so tightly to your philosophy. Who said anything about God?

I am perfectly willing to accept chemistry as capable of self-organizing itself into life if you can show me chemistry's potential for that. I believe another principle is involved only because there are no examples of chemistry behaving that way by itself . . . but that principle doesn't have to be God! What do I care what the principle is, I just want the truth. But something unusual is going on there, why can't you see it?

If one is committed to materialism or theism, or anything really other than the truth, then one's theories have to exclude the chance for a competing theory to be correct. This leads to ignoring or "dismissing" contradictory evidence and ideas, glossing over problems that really need to be solved in order to have full confidence in a theory, and then reasoning with that compromised mess until it leads to the conclusion one wants.

This is precisely why I suggested the pragmatic reasoning concept.

 

[quantumdude]

True logic cannot take you to a materialistic-position.

You aren't paying attention: I am telling you that "true logic" cannot take you to any position!

Here is some "true logic":

p-->q
~q
_____
~p

Now, did that take you to any "position"? No?

Me either.

We both know that a "leap-of-faith" is required to state that there is an existence beyond sensation.

Well then you shoot your own argument in the foot, because you yourself argue for such an existence. You call it "The Mind".

The fact of the matter is, using only logic + awareness of my own sensations, I can only get to solipsism without making use of an inductive argument (namely, the argument that concludes that there are other minds besides mine).

As such, logic cannot advocate any such stance. And I did in fact produce an argument to challenge the notion of external-reality.

All of your arguments are invalid, and we have explained why in great detail.

Reason can challenge any concept.

Again, you seem to be referring to that "superlogic" that doesn't exist.

It takes blind-faith to believe in all of the above. For reason simply cannot accept such concepts as being true. Upon what possible basis could it? But this is the philosophy forum Tom. Not the religion forum.

Exactly! So it is time for you to start philosophizing, and stop preaching. You consistently use the invalid arguments of appeal to ignorance "The Mind cannot be disproven, therefore The Mind exists" and appeal to incredulity ("I cannot accept that a material world exists, therefore the material world does not exist").

That is the basis of all religions, including your own.

Is my mind-hypothesis compatible with the base indeterminancy of QM? Is my mind-hypothesis compatible with 'relativity'? Is my mind-hypothesis compatible with other known laws? Does my mind-hypothesis challenge the equations of any known laws?

Blah, blah blah.

Ahrkon and I have both explained to you that compatibility is not the same as logical entailment.

As usual, you just keep ignoring it.

Existence is fundamentally eternal. It's very easy to prove this. Something cannot come from absolute-zilch. Therefore, something has always existed.
"The Mind" has no origin. And it has no end.

I agree with the first sentence, but not with the last.

I hate to break it to you, but "The Mind" has only existed since you made it up, and it will cease to exist once you drop this foolishness.

Tom: In fact, it (edit: The Mind) cannot explain anything rationally.

LG: Such as?

When I say "anything", I mean "anything". Your Mind hypothesis does not offer any explanation for anything that we observe. In fact, no a priori argument does that.

The whole point of the thread is to assert that only sensations can confirm that a process of reasoning is correct?

You aren't even trying to see LW Sleeth's point, which is too bad because it's a good one.

OK, maybe this will get it through to you. In one deft stroke, I am going to use pragmatism and show the whole forum how it does not necessarily exclude anything nonmaterial. Ready? Here goes:

I, Tom challenge you, Lifegazer to present the decision procedure by which you determine the truth value of any given premise. Note that I am not asking you to present your ideas on reality, but on logic. It would be best if you would lay it out in much the same way as I did in my thread, Logic Notes. Then, we can all use it to determine the truth value of statements that are known to be true, such as "Some apples have red skins".[/color]

If you can't do that, then it is time for you to concede that "absolute truth" about reality is unattainable by any existing logic, and that observation is needed to get anywhere with it.

 

[FZ+]

I will do my best to keep what I say within the bounds of this thread. My challenge was that the theory of chemogenesis does not "work" sufficiently to justify the confidence with which it is preached by the scientific community. Doing so therefore violates the pragmatic rule of reason.

But you see, the subjectivity inevitable come in when you define your "sufficiently". How well does a theory has to work? How well does a theory in development has to work? IMHO, and that is very humble, sufficient in science means better than other theories. If we have another scientific theory (Defined by Popper as one which is falsifiable), then chemogenesis would be compared to it and may well fail. But as of now, it's the best we have got. Back in the 18th century, should we have dumped Newton, because Relativity may replace it?

I bet you anything if you were to consider the above rational you gave for explaining the self-organization of life with the same sceptism you ran your "Debunkathon" over in the pseudoscience section, you'd find it just as full of holes as I do. You have in actuality offered very little evidence of spontaneous chemical organization (and you can't use computer programs or bird flocks as examples because they are either humanly created or are already living -- you need to show chemistry doing it from scratch).

But notice in Debunkathon, than was a focus on finding alternative approaches. Skepticism is fruitless without such alternatives. (Besides, the computer program I mean are done with genetic programming, and hence are not really created by man, chemical crystal self-organisation are certainly not alive, firefly investigation is based on them as being astonishingly stupid, there is a certain chemical reaction that does generate rythmic pulses of colour etc etc... Look for a book called "Sync: The emerging science of spontaneous order", by Steven Strogatz. It goes on more about this.)
There lies my key objection to your system, which I just now made up on the spot and is kinda a bit of a devil's adocate. Who decides the pragmatism? Who decides sufficient proof? With such uncertainty, it seems that anyone can use it to suggest the strength of their theory. What is to safeguard pragmatism becoming morphed into a flexible system of self-excusing?

Have you ever read how a skilled creationist will try to reconcile biblical accounts with scientific discoveries? They link up the Bible with something here and there, and then conclude the Bible had it right all along. Meanwhile the gaps between the coincidences far outweigh what they have. That is what your examples amount to. What you show is the potential for chemistry to be made to undergo organizational growth, but you don't show it can do it by itself.

But you cannot prove the impossibility of their creationism, can you? You can demonstrate the inconsistency of their arguments... until you get bored of it... But you cannot firming say - God cannot make life. Or whatever. The change about chemogenesis is the capacity for further development. The bible is already written - chemogenesis is not. Give it time before you burn the book! BTW, the book is called spontaneous order, because it does so by itself.

All purely physical (i.e., outside the influence of life or consciousness) spontaneous organization just goes on for a few steps in repetitive patterns, while life’s organization has been essentially perpetual and highly creative. Citing as significant the spontaneous formation of organic molecules, such as amino acids or the development of proteinoid microspheres fails to take into account that chemical complexity is an essential part of life, and that life most likely developed out of Earth’s chemistry, so we should expect elementary bio-stuff to result in the right conditions.

This is where your reasoning turns false because you don't address the actual objection to finding chemogenesis "perfectly reasonable." The potential for merely spontaneously forming organic molecules etc. is not the issue. The issue is full chemogenesis that spontaneously begins with perpetual development; and not just perpetual development, but of systems; and not just any system but functioning systems; and not just any functionality but hierarchally arranged functionality; and not just any hierarchally arranged functionality, but one which develops in support of the overall organization; and finally, not just any organization but one which metabolizes, reproduces and evolves.

But notice one difference between the computer models, that make chemogenesis more likely in real life - the fact the real environment changes! Creativity emerges out of unexpected factors! If we left life in a static environment, free from influences, then it too stagnates. Remove the physical prompts to change, the entrance of mutations etc, and what do we have? A highly repetitive series of binary fissions, resulting in bacteria... and more bacteria... and more bacteria... Early life was very boring...

You see, whenever a creationist looks at natural selection, they ask - isn't it just the same old thing recirculating? How can we get development? How do we get these systems? This is because of the direct input of originality from the environment and from physicality - this is what they forget. Life isn't creative - it feeds on the creativity, the potential wells of the world around it. Is that glaringly obvious?

Possibly you just indicated part of your reason for holding so tightly to your philosophy. Who said anything about God?

Second objection to system follows: contravenes classic law of debate the argument, not the arguer. If you make the presumption of the other's "corruption", you lay yourself open to big bias, and blind yourself to rational discussion. I raised God, because I thought it was the only open alternative. But if it was anything else, it still falls to the same problems - it isn't testable, and hence is not scientific, and hence cannot be shown one way or the other. Of course, if you have one that is, don't hide it from me! As yet, ironically enough, chemogenesis is the only scientific theory, because it is the only one we can prove FALSE. It's the only path we can make progress on, even if it is proving it false.

If one is committed to materialism or theism, or anything really other than the truth, then one's theories have to exclude the chance for a competing theory to be correct. This leads to ignoring or "dismissing" contradictory evidence and ideas, glossing over problems that really need to be solved in order to have full confidence in a theory, and then reasoning with that compromised mess until it leads to the conclusion one wants.

But chemogenesis doesn't exclude the chance for any alternatives. Because the other alternatives aren't even on the same playing fields. A material theory can never affect one that is based on spirituality, or any other non-material concepts. You see, we don't gloss over the contradictory evidence, because we don't have a lot of evidence at all yet. Chemogenesis is a young science, and one that seems from the progress made to hold promise. As to the problems, the fact is, they are still being solved. For the time being, the fact it still remain the only theory we can solve, that we can check for problems, that we do not know everything in, that still contains unknowns, makes it one to have confidence in, at least in it's possibility. Because right now, we don't actually have a choice. It's a crime of desperation. Give me some leniency!

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
Well then you shoot your own argument in the foot, because you yourself argue for such an existence. You call it "The Mind".

The Mind does not exist beyond sensation, any more than the mind exists beyond its own thoughts or its own feelings. This is just a misunderstanding of my philosophy on your part.

You consistently use the invalid arguments of appeal to ignorance "The Mind cannot be disproven, therefore The Mind exists"

The Mind is proven by direct experience. The existence we experience is one of mindful-attributes. Sensation; reason; emotion; imagination; will. Abstract existence.

and appeal to incredulity ("I cannot accept that a material world exists, therefore the material world does not exist").

Rather: there is no reason to prove that an external-reality exists. Therefore, being a reasonable-being, I cannot simply "believe" that an external-reality exists... any more than I can simply believe in 'santas'.

Ahrkon and I have both explained to you that compatibility is not the same as logical entailment.

Do you know of any other hypothesis which makes-sense of the duality of classical-physics and QM? Do you know of any other hypothesis which makes-sense of the individuality of space-time experience?
You scoff at my hypothesis, yet it is highly significant that my hypothesis is compatible with science.

When I say "anything", I mean "anything". Your Mind hypothesis does not offer any explanation for anything that we observe. In fact, no a priori argument does that.

My argument proceeds from direct experience - not assumption. And since it can explain the apparent duality of existence, I say that it explains quite a lot.

You aren't even trying to see LW Sleeth's point, which is too bad because it's a good one.

LWS is not practising what he is preaching. He believes that reason cannot be confirmed without sensationed-verification. In that case, we need to abolish mathematics, for starters.

OK, maybe this will get it through to you. In one deft stroke, I am going to use pragmatism and show the whole forum how it does not necessarily exclude anything nonmaterial. Ready? Here goes:

I, Tom challenge you, Lifegazer to present the decision procedure by which you determine the truth value of any given premise. Note that I am not asking you to present your ideas on reality, but on logic. It would be best if you would lay it out in much the same way as I did in my thread, Logic Notes. Then, we can all use it to determine the truth value of statements that are known to be true, such as "Some apples have red skins".[/color]

I'll respond to this later. I

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
There lies my key objection to your system, which I just now made up on the spot and is kinda a bit of a devil's adocate. Who decides the pragmatism? Who decides sufficient proof? With such uncertainty, it seems that anyone can use it to suggest the strength of their theory. What is to safeguard pragmatism becoming morphed into a flexible system of self-excusing?

FZ,

You are right in that this pragmatic approach involves some subjectivity. But surely science already does this sort of thing now? If science doesn't have a rigid process that helps it move from statements like "nature could be doing this" into statements like "nature IS doing this", then no wonder we have so many people with opposing views claiming their views are the Truth. I think LWSleeth is proposing a rigid method that involves less subjectivity then what is currently being used; in these forums for sure.

Because right now, we don't actually have a choice. It's a crime of desperation. Give me some leniency!

At the risk of putting words in LWSleeth's keyboard, let me say that I don't think LWSleeth is saying that his method of pragmatism should be used to completely write a theory off and eliminate it's research efforts. I think the main point is that this method should be used to determine what can be considered "confident knowledge". It can tell us whether we should be confident enough to sign on to physics forums and talk about a theory as if it's true. Which happens here all the time.

So, I don't think LWSleeth's point is to take away leniency from you in researching this new theory. But you don't have leniency when it comes to preaching this theory as the truth. It seems you agree with this with regard to Chemogenesis as you said there was a lot of progress to be made. Perhaps you can help remind people like DT Strain of this when they are preaching it as gospel.

And to interject my own opinion here, science cannot claim to be searching for truth when it's scope is only on what is falsifiable. THE TRUTH MAY NOT BE FALSIFIBLE. Overall I think the mustard example was one of the best I've heard. It may be true that the only thing we are capable of doing is to research how mustard leaks from the house. But that doesn't mean that's the way it happened. So should we be going around and claiming that it is the way it happened simply because our only other alternative is to say "I don't know"? There's nothing wrong with this phrase. I say this phrase all the time. Because it's usually true. And truth is what I'm interested in.
I would much rather someone say this phrase then to pretend their best guess is truth.

 

[FZ+]

You are right in that this pragmatic approach involves some subjectivity. But surely science already does this sort of thing now? If science doesn't have a rigid process that helps it move from statements like "nature could be doing this" into statements like "nature IS doing this", then no wonder we have so many people with opposing views claiming their views are the Truth. I think LWSleeth is proposing a rigid method that involves less subjectivity then what is currently being used; in these forums for sure.

I am just raising the possibility of a dark side to this... And the possibility that this pragmatic approach may not be so different from what we do already anyway...

At the risk of putting words in LWSleeth's keyboard, let me say that I don't think LWSleeth is saying that his method of pragmatism should be used to completely write a theory off and eliminate it's research efforts. I think the main point is that this method should be used to determine what can be considered "confident knowledge". It can tell us whether we should be confident enough to sign on to physics forums and talk about a theory as if it's true. Which happens here all the time.
So, I don't think LWSleeth's point is to take away leniency from you in researching this new theory. But you don't have leniency when it comes to preaching this theory as the truth. It seems you agree with this with regard to Chemogenesis as you said there was a lot of progress to be made. Perhaps you can help remind people like DT Strain of this when they are preaching it as gospel.

*cue self righteous ranting*
The point is that the possibility of chemogenesis at present cannot be denied - I didn't make a statement on probability. I didn't say chemogenesis has to be true, but rather it can be true. To say as a statement that chemogenesis cannot be true is a statement in itself, and one that claims more absolute (and hence unreasonable) knowledge that a statement of possibility. Rather, I am not preaching this theory. I am saying - yes, there are problems, yes there are things that need to be solved, but as far as we see, this theory has promise. It has possibility. Denial cannot, in my humble opinion be justified. Though I disagree profoundly with creationists, I cannot go so far as to say creationism is impossible. In a statement of "can", the acceptance has to be made that anything "can". It's a matter of "does". Lack of data, instead of contrary data, cannot be a DISPROOF for a theory.

And to interject my own opinion here, science cannot claim to be searching for truth when it's scope is only on what is falsifiable. THE TRUTH MAY NOT BE FALSIFIBLE. Overall I think the mustard example was one of the best I've heard. It may be true that the only thing we are capable of doing is to research how mustard leaks from the house. But that doesn't mean that's the way it happened. So should we be going around and claiming that it is the way it happened simply because our only other alternative is to say "I don't know"? There's nothing wrong with this phrase. I say this phrase all the time. Because it's usually true. And truth is what I'm interested in.

Well, what do you know? I disagree!
The fact is that science is about the search for truth. Science accepts that truth may not be reachable. What is truth really? If we have something that is true, how do we know that? This is where science is the key. Science works by eliminating untruths, and creating understanding. IMHO, there is no other way. Let's say that the truth is that God exists. How can we tell? We can't. We really can't. The result is that science can be really the only process searching for the truth, as opposed to guessing at the truth. It's the only route to progress. Science is about progress. And falsifiability, testability is the road to progress. Science isn't about Truth - it's about looking for the truer, and throwing out the untruth. You may be interested in the Truth, but you will never reach it. Especially if it is not falsifiable. No one claims there best guess is the truth - rather it is apparently more true than the others.
"I don't know" is never an answer. It is only the beginning of a road. If "I don't know" was an answer, then there is no reason for life, for knowledge. Apathy is the enemy of the search for truth.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
I am just raising the possibility of a dark side to this... And the possibility that this pragmatic approach may not be so different from what we do already anyway...

Perhaps. But I think it has a lot more structure than what most people here do. Maybe this idea just needs some further definition?

The point is that the possibility of chemogenesis at present cannot be denied - I didn't make a statement on probability. I didn't say chemogenesis has to be true, but rather it can be true.

I agree with all you're saying. But there are people who post in this forum who do not concede the "problems" that you mention. It is simply "truth" to them. I think this attitude is what has motivated LWSleeth.

The fact is that science is about the search for truth. Science accepts that truth may not be reachable. What is truth really? If we have something that is true, how do we know that? This is where science is the key. Science works by eliminating untruths, and creating understanding. IMHO, there is no other way. Let's say that the truth is that God exists. How can we tell? We can't. We really can't. The result is that science can be really the only process searching for the truth, as opposed to guessing at the truth. It's the only route to progress. Science is about progress. And falsifiability, testability is the road to progress. Science isn't about Truth - it's about looking for the truer, and throwing out the untruth. You may be interested in the Truth, but you will never reach it. Especially if it is not falsifiable. No one claims there best guess is the truth - rather it is apparently more true than the others.
"I don't know" is never an answer. It is only the beginning of a road. If "I don't know" was an answer, then there is no reason for life, for knowledge. Apathy is the enemy of the search for truth. [/B]

I understand everything you've written and can agree with it for the most part. But I still have trouble with a discipline that admits it cannot have complete knowledge but yet won't acknowledge where that lack of knowledge resides. If all we're going to do is accept our best guess as truth then how do we reconcile that with the idea that we cannot have complete knowledge? For if a falsifiable best guess is all we need, then surely we can have a "truth" for everything. I realize that you said "truer" and not "true" but others here HAVE taken this attitude. It's good to see that you aren't.
I'm not arguing for apathy. I'm arguing for proper representation of what we know and what we don't know.

Actually, I don't think you and I disagree at all. But there are people here who will not acknowledge the "problems" of their pet theories or, if they do acknowledge them, will not acknowledge that those problems could lead to a better theory. It is these people that should be put in check. But I agree the research should continue. Let's just be honest about how good our best theory is. And for me, if 2% confidence is all we can claim, then "I don't know" is the best answer. At least until more knowledge is gained.

 

[FZ+]

I agree, but the problem is you can't really quantify things like that. The question "What percentage of everything do we know?" is nonsensical, because we happen not to know how much there really is to know - or whether there is an infinite amount to be known. You see, since we don't have the knowledge, we can't really always point out where the lack of knowledge lies - just that it is in there "somewhere"...

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
OK, maybe this will get it through to you. In one deft stroke, I am going to use pragmatism and show the whole forum how it does not necessarily exclude anything nonmaterial. Ready? Here goes:

I, Tom challenge you, Lifegazer to present the decision procedure by which you determine the truth value of any given premise. Note that I am not asking you to present your ideas on reality, but on logic. It would be best if you would lay it out in much the same way as I did in my thread, Logic Notes. Then, we can all use it to determine the truth value of statements that are known to be true, such as "Some apples have red skins".[/color]

If you can't do that, then it is time for you to concede that "absolute truth" about reality is unattainable by any existing logic, and that observation is needed to get anywhere with it.

I prefer to do it in my own style, if you don't mind?
Anyway, I flow better when I'm not constrained by method.

"Lifegazer to present the decision procedure by which you determine the truth value of any given premise."[/color]
... is the challenge.

Existence is experienced through sensation, and understood via the reasoning of those sensations.
... Is what I would class as an absolute-truth. For how can it really be faulted? Everybody knows what I mean, and everybody has the exact same experience. I do not need to prove this premise, any more than you need to prove your own existence to yourself. And yes, the true identity of existence has not been proven by the premise alone. But it is a sound-premise upon which to build a philosophical-argument.

An external-reality does exist.
... Is what I call a challengeable-premise, for obvious reasons. Nobody has direct-experience of this premise, and there is no logical-argument to even prove that this is logically-acceptable. In short, the reader of the premise has to believe that the premise is true, in order to follow the conclusions of that premise.

Hence, the truth value of any given premise, is in the absoluteness of that premise. I.e., there is no reasonable basis upon which to refute the premise - since it is pointless to reason against the absoluteness of experience, when the absoluteness of experience is the foundation of known-existence.
This is why I think that scientific-Laws are sound premises for an argument. They mirror the behavioural-order of our sensations. We all share the same laws of sensationed-behaviour. Therefore, there is an absoluteness about the physical-laws. A singularness.

If reason emanates from the self, and reason is founded upon direct self-experience, then there are some absolutes which can be declared about this sensationed-Existence.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
The Mind does not exist beyond sensation, any more than the mind exists beyond its own thoughts or its own feelings. This is just a misunderstanding of my philosophy on your part.

No, I understand your religion just fine. This point that I made really is part of why it is so incoherent. You say on the one hand that there is no way to prove that an external reality outside of one's mind, and then you claim the existence of some "Super Mind", which is definitely outside of one's mind.

Surely you see the contradiction there.

The Mind is proven by direct experience. The existence we experience is one of mindful-attributes. Sensation; reason; emotion; imagination; will. Abstract existence.

Sure, my mind is proven by direct experience. As for "The Mind", that is not.

Rather: there is no reason to prove that an external-reality exists. Therefore, being a reasonable-being, I cannot simply "believe" that an external-reality exists... any more than I can simply believe in 'santas'.

Sorry, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say on the one hand that there is no external reality (and thus be a solipsist) and then claim that there is a god (and thus be a theist). Those two notions directly contradict each other.

Do you know of any other hypothesis which makes-sense of the duality of classical-physics and QM? Do you know of any other hypothesis which makes-sense of the individuality of space-time experience?
You scoff at my hypothesis, yet it is highly significant that my hypothesis is compatible with science.

Again: Blah, blah, blah.

It has been explained to you repeatedly that:

1. Your hypothesis does not explain any of those things.
2. It is completely insignificant that your hypothesis is compatible with science. Any nonfalsifiable hypothesis is compatible with science.

My argument proceeds from direct experience - not assumption. And since it can explain the apparent duality of existence, I say that it explains quite a lot.

You are wrong on both counts. First, your argument makes plenty of assumptions. All one has to do is insert the missing logical links to see them. One of your assumptions is that a mind can exist without a brain, for example. Second, your argument does not explain anything observed in nature. I don't know why we have to keep repeating that to you.

LWS is not practising what he is preaching. He believes that reason cannot be confirmed without sensationed-verification. In that case, we need to abolish mathematics, for starters.

You are so confused.

The whole point of this exercise is that pure logic can only be used on abstract objects, and not on the concrete objects of reality. This is because only abstract objects can be known a priori. The objects of mathematics are abstract objects, and so pure logic is fine to give mathematical proofs. Proofs about the objects of reality, that cannot be known a priori, must include evidence.

All of this has been discussed in detail in this very thread, and you seem to have ignored all of it.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Existence is experienced through sensation, and understood via the reasoning of those sensations.
... Is what I would class as an absolute-truth. For how can it really be faulted? Everybody knows what I mean, and everybody has the exact same experience. I do not need to prove this premise, any more than you need to prove your own existence to yourself. And yes, the true identity of existence has not been proven by the premise alone. But it is a sound-premise upon which to build a philosophical-argument.

OK, but I am noting that you aren't offering a proof of this.

An external-reality does exist.
... Is what I call a challengeable-premise, for obvious reasons. Nobody has direct-experience of this premise, and there is no logical-argument to even prove that this is logically-acceptable. In short, the reader of the premise has to believe that the premise is true, in order to follow the conclusions of that premise.

OK, I agree that this cannot be proven with deductive logic alone. That leaves us stuck with solipsism, without making an inductive leap, namely the leap to "other minds".

Hence, the truth value of any given premise, is in the absoluteness of that premise. I.e., there is no reasonable basis upon which to refute the premise - since it is pointless to reason against the absoluteness of experience, when the absoluteness of experience is the foundation of known-existence.

This is where you hit a brick wall. This is nothing more than the argument from ignorance that you are so fond of. It says, "X has never been proven/disproven, therefore X is false/true."

That is invalid reasoning, and it has been explained to you repeatedly.

This does not qualify as a deductive decision procedure for establishing the truth of a premise.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Tom
OK, but I am noting that you aren't offering a proof of this.

Like I said, the premise is universally-experienced. The proof resides within the direct-experience and universality of it. I have nothing to prove, any more than you need to prove to yourself that you exist.

OK, I agree that this cannot be proven with deductive logic alone. That leaves us stuck with solipsism, without making an inductive leap, namely the leap to "other minds".

This is another aspect of my philosophy which you don't understand. I do not advocate that there are "other minds". I advocate that there is One Mind ~lost~ in countless relative-perceptions of existence, and unbounded by timely-constraint.

Lg:- "Hence, the truth value of any given premise, is in the absoluteness of that premise. I.e., there is no reasonable basis upon which to refute the premise - since it is pointless to reason against the absoluteness of experience, when the absoluteness of experience is the foundation of known-existence."

This is where you hit a brick wall. This is nothing more than the argument from ignorance that you are so fond of. It says, "X has never been proven/disproven, therefore X is false/true."

Actually, known-existence is dependent upon the self-awareness (through self-sensation) of existence + the ability to comprehend what is being sensed. It is rationally-impossible to disprove the aforementioned premise and the premise is a necessity for having knowledge of existence. It's as timeless a premise as you're ever likely to see.

This does not qualify as a deductive decision procedure for establishing the truth of a premise.

I cannot agree, since you have given me no reason to agree - in relation to my prior post.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
This is another aspect of my philosophy which you don't understand. I do not advocate that there are "other minds". I advocate that there is One Mind ~lost~ in countless relative-perceptions of existence, and unbounded by timely-constraint.

No, I understand it. I just understand that it is nonsense. You do not really know of any mind beyond your own. Whether you choose to make an inductive leap to "other minds" or "One Mind", you make a leap all the same.

edit--Correction: In making the leap to "other minds", you make an inductive generalization based on observed behavior of other bodies. In making the leap to "One Mind", there is no induction because there is no evidence. It is truly pure faith.

Actually, known-existence is dependent upon the self-awareness (through self-sensation) of existence + the ability to comprehend what is being sensed. It is rationally-impossible to disprove the aforementioned premise and the premise is a necessity for having knowledge of existence. It's as timeless a premise as you're ever likely to see.

The only "absolute" I'm willing to give you here is the subjective proof I have that my own mind exists. One cannot prove with pure logic that anything other than the self exists. Observations have to be made, and inductive generalizations have to be made from them. Yes, I know for certain that I am thinking, but that cannot be used to logically derive any truth about objective reality.

At least, I have not been presented with any deductive decision procedure that allows me to do that objectively. That's what you're supposed to be providing here.

You seem to be saying here that "any given premise" about reality can be determined true or false simply on the basis of the absoluteness of existence. I imagine that you are led to this mistake by a prior mistake, namely by your irrational assumption that human minds are equipped with absolute knowledge of the workings of nature, which is patently false.

I cannot agree, since you have given me no reason to agree - in relation to my prior post.

It really is quite irrelevant that you disagree. Deductive logic is not a matter of opinion. It is as rigorous and well-defined as mathematics. That is why I asked you to follow a systematic style like in my Logic Notes (or any logic textbook), because that is what is called for here.

The fact is, your decision procedure boils down to argument from ignorance, which is not valid. Valid argument schema used with true premises always lead to true conclusions. The schema for the variant of the argument from ignorance that you are using is, as I said many times before:

X has never been disproven, therefore X is true.

Let's examine the validity of this schema.

Argument 1:
It has never been disproven that the core of Pluto is solid gold, therefore the core of Pluto is solid gold.

Argument 2:
It has never been disproven that the core of Pluto is solid silver, therefore the core of Pluto is solid silver.

Conclusions 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive, so they cannot both be true--but the premises of both arguments are true!. Therefore, the argument schema itself is invalid[/color].

So, it is not enough to say that a statement is true if there is no disproof of it, and I repeat: What you presented does not qualify as a deductive decision procedure for assigning truth values to premises.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by FZ+
But you see, the subjectivity inevitable come in when you define your "sufficiently". How well does a theory has to work? How well does a theory in development has to work? IMHO, and that is very humble, sufficient in science means better than other theories. If we have another scientific theory (Defined by Popper as one which is falsifiable), then chemogenesis would be compared to it and may well fail. But as of now, it's the best we have got. Back in the 18th century, should we have dumped Newton, because Relativity may replace it?

That was a pretty good post FZ (even if it's wrong ) which I, the only person more humble than you, am about to demonstrate.

First, what Fliption said is my main objection. When I see a TV special on evolution begin with the phrase "life most likely began in the chemical soup of Earth's early ocean when the right chemical/physical conditions spontaneously self-organized themselves into the first living system" . . . THAT is where I have a problem. It is the "most likely" which is not justified by the evidence.

Just because you claim it is the best evidence you have doesn't mean you can ignore a critical flaw in a theory; and I don't think it is even accurate to say it’s the best theory, but rather it is the best theory materialists have. In my (humble) opinion it is every bit as hole-ly as creationism in this respect.

Chemogenesis is based on an a priori assumption that existence is material -- that is what makes someone say the only possible explanation for the life phenomenon must be material. If one doesn't proceed on that assumption, I say one would be more conservative in suggesting chemogenesis than most materialists are.

Originally posted by FZ+
Second objection to system follows: contravenes classic law of debate the argument, not the arguer. If you make the presumption of the other's "corruption", you lay yourself open to big bias, and blind yourself to rational discussion. I raised God, because I thought it was the only open alternative. But if it was anything else, it still falls to the same problems - it isn't testable, and hence is not scientific, and hence cannot be shown one way or the other. Of course, if you have one that is, don't hide it from me! As yet, ironically enough, chemogenesis is the only scientific theory, because it is the only one we can prove FALSE. It's the only path we can make progress on, even if it is proving it false.

My observation isn’t an ad hominem argument, it is derived from analyzing the evidence supporting the chemogenesis hypothesis and then observing how much scientism advocates express confidence in it. What other reason would explain their exaggerated certainty if not from already assuming only a material explanation is possible for the origin of life?

By the way, you don’t know whether you can prove chemogenesis false yet. If it can never be demonstrated, there is still is the possibility the right combination of conditions that causes it just have never been recreated. As of now, it is a theory that is not very testable because no one is making real progress on it. There’s been nothing very significant since the decades-old Urey and Miller demonstration, and even then all that did was show that the potential for life’s chemistry is present on Earth.

You say, “For the time being, the fact it still remain the only theory we can solve, that we can check for problems . . . [and that] makes it one to have confidence in.” Well, you haven’t shown it can be solved, and the biggest problem of all with it scientism proponents seem in denial about, so I cannot see a realistic basis for your confidence.

Originally posted by FZ+
. . . the fact the real environment changes! Creativity emerges out of unexpected factors! If we left life in a static environment, free from influences, then it too stagnates. Remove the physical prompts to change, the entrance of mutations etc, and what do we have? A highly repetitive series of binary fissions, resulting in bacteria... and more bacteria... and more bacteria... Early life was very boring . . . How can we get development? How do we get these systems? This is because of the direct input of originality from the environment and from physicality - this is what they forget. Life isn't creative - it feeds on the creativity, the potential wells of the world around it. Is that glaringly obvious?

You've avoided addressing the real flaw in the chemogenesis theory with the sort of argument chemogenesis proponents use all the time. The argument is one where you move on into life processes, show how extensively life is embedded in materiality, and then conclude it is strong evidence that life is materially generated.

I do not dispute the role of the environment in shaping life forms' character. But that molding by natural selection is taking place on something, something even as simple as prokaryote life, which has a potential far different from ordinary matter.

Then you pointed to the ability of matter to self-organize saying, “. . . chemical crystal self-organization are certainly not alive . . . a certain chemical reaction that does generate rhythmic pulses of colour etc etc . . . the book is called spontaneous order, because it does so by itself.”

I’ve agreed matter can self-organize, but we both know it can only do it for a few steps. If you think crystal self-organization is a proper example, and it is the environment that transforms the few steps of normal self-organizing matter into perpetual system-building matter, then let’s put a bunch of crystals in any environment you choose, change it anyway you like, and let’s see if you get those crystals to move past repetitive change and start evolving.

In other words, show the minimum necessary to indicate an evolutive change principle present in the potentials of matter. If you can’t even establish how something so basic "works," then how can reason convince you to be confident in chemogenesis?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
LWS is not practising what he is preaching. He believes that reason cannot be confirmed without sensationed-verification. In that case, we need to abolish mathematics, for starters.

I don't think that is a fair assessment of me, although I am pretty sure why you think so, and I don’t think you know what I am preaching yet.

Anyway, your mathematics example is a good one since that actually is something which you can verify is true without requiring observation. That’s because mathematics, like logic, is proven by rules internal to the system. So when you are done with doing math, you can test it by its own rules.

The problem for knowing arises when you want apply a system of proof for something which lies outside yourself. In your mind you can imagine, calculate, predict and apply perfect logic while you reason about it, but how do you know if you are reasoning with the correct information? The “rules” of the thing you are investigating are internal to it, not you, so while you can be certain of the rules of reason (since they are internal to you), you cannot be certain of the rules of the “thing.”

Hence we add experience to the formula, and what do we get? We get an avenue for the rules of the “thing” to enter into our own internal system. Now reason can really do its thing with an external. How do we know we can trust this approach? Answering that question is what I’ve suggested as a standard for philosophical discussion, which is we see if a proposed idea “works” in some way. When it comes to experience plus reason, we can see in empiricism at least it has worked very well indeed. What that tells us is that experience plus reason matches with reality in some respect precisely because it does work.

I also am going to take a bit of an inferential leap from this idea and say that the incredible qualitative change that took place once experience was added to reasoning suggests the role of experience in knowing may be absolute, and that includes subjects like God or the Mind. That is, if one hasn’t experienced them, then one knows nothing about them (one could, of course, become an expert on what others who claim experience have to say, but that isn’t personally knowing the subject itself).

I said to you awhile back that this is where you need to “get up to speed.” I said that because the system of reason you advocate was practiced for many centuries, and most of that intellectualizing is now rotting in a big heap of uselessness. It’s not that maybe some of it wasn’t on target; it’s just that without any way to test ideas, the speculation is endless! And lots of it really was crap too. But if you have to show your idea’s efficacy for it to be considered, then you can weed out all the garbage and get down to thinking about ideas with promise.

And then, I still say, for true seekers of knowledge, thinking is just to help one figure out where to look for experience. So, for instance, if you are interested in genuinely knowing the Mind rather than just thinking about it, you will find a way to have a direct experience.

 

[wuliheron]

For a thread supposidly devoted to pragmatism this is getting about as abstruse as they come. Ya'll are so busy debating Chemogenesis pragmatism seems about as distant as it can get. Why not debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and then talk about how this is related to pragmatism. I think you might have a better chance or reconciling your differences. Just a thought. :0)

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by wuliheron
For a thread supposidly devoted to pragmatism this is getting about as abstruse as they come. Ya'll are so busy debating Chemogenesis pragmatism seems about as distant as it can get. Why not debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin and then talk about how this is related to pragmatism. I think you might have a better chance or reconciling your differences. Just a thought. :0)

It may not be apparent, but the subject of chemogenesis is related to this thread because I claim it is an example of something that violates the pragmatic reasoning standard. Personally I find too much theorizing without discussing real-life examples to be too mental, so I am okay with a thread wandering a bit as long as things don't get too far off topic. However, I have decided to start another thread to focus on evolution.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by FZ+
I agree, but the problem is you can't really quantify things like that. The question "What percentage of everything do we know?" is nonsensical, because we happen not to know how much there really is to know - or whether there is an infinite amount to be known. You see, since we don't have the knowledge, we can't really always point out where the lack of knowledge lies - just that it is in there "somewhere"...

I agree. But I thnink this is exactly why we need a process like what LWSleeth is describing. Any method you choose will be subjective but some standard is better than none.

 

[FZ+]

Continued in Chemogenesis thread in Other Sciences.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Anyway, your mathematics example is a good one since that actually is something which you can verify is true without requiring observation.

Exactly.

That’s because mathematics, like logic, is proven by rules internal to the system.

But what does this mean? Does it imply that the system is 'subjective'? Of course not. The mathematics system is rationally-sound. And reason is not founded upon a set of systems. Rather, reason is the foundation for the definition of systems. Reason precedes all reasoning. Reason defines herself.
I'm really struggling to see the point of making such a remark. Does it seek to nullify the absoluteness of reason? How ironic, when reason swings between absolute-concepts and relative-definitions.

So when you are done with doing math, you can test it by its own rules.

Reason knows what she's doing. If this wasn't so, then math would not make sense; and physics would be a waste of time. There is an absoluteness about reason, which is the foundation of all philosophy. The kind of absoluteness-ness which created math itself.
... Okay, people often disagree about lots of issues. But this isn't a proof that reason is not absolute in herself. It's just a proof that we regularly abuse reason in the construction of an argument. I.e., it is the effects of reason which have been relative, rather than the cause - reason herself.

The problem for knowing arises when you want apply a system of proof for something which lies outside yourself. In your mind you can imagine, calculate, predict and apply perfect logic while you reason about it, but how do you know if you are reasoning with the correct information?

Scientific-Law is an accurate depiction of our perceptions. Mathematics is a sound-system of numerical linguistics. And reason is absolute in herself.
Like I said in an earlier post: You can trust all knowledge which is universal. Clearly, the ~knowledge~ that there is an external-reality is challengeable. Thus... untrustworthy. But you will have a hard time challenging my hypothesis with reason. Which means that you cannot challenge my reason for the hypothesis. Which means that my reason is universal. LOL

It is clear to me that we are at loggerheads on only a few significant points. I doubt that either of us will ever exchange positions. But the convo is good. Cheers.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
True logic cannot take you to a materialistic-position. We both know that a "leap-of-faith" is required to state that there is an existence beyond sensation. As such, logic cannot advocate any such stance. And I did in fact produce an argument to challenge the notion of external-reality. Reason can challenge any concept.

It takes blind-faith to believe in all of the above. For reason simply cannot accept such concepts as being true. Upon what possible basis could it? But this is the philosophy forum Tom. Not the religion forum.

Let us use some logic then, while I sit on a chair in front of my PC. I percieve of a chair, it's the one I am sitting on. I can feel the metal and non-metal parts, and see it, hear it (when "rolling" the chair), etc.
We been there many times, and all you had to say is that we only know about the chair because of the "impressions" our senses give us to our minds. But now let me ask a very ordinary question. Where do I sit on? Well ordinary people, using ordinary logic, tell they sit on a chair.
They don't sit on an "impression" of the chair, they don't sit on something that does not exist outside of their own mind, they sit on something that is truly indendend of their mind, and really existing.

Now, all those people who claim to sit on a chair, and claim, using their full capacity of logic and reason, that there really is a chair, apart from their internal representations of such a chair, of which they are of course aware, all those people in the mind of LG are either liars, or are unreasonable, because they "assume" something, that isn't really there, or can't be proven.

But this is just the start of the doctrine of which we all know where it ends. It ends in us having to believe that apart from any observation or experiment whatsoever, there exists a "supermind", and we have to accept this articial construct of thought for real, or we are all called philosophical charlatans. If not worse!