"I refute it thus!"

[Monketey Ghost]

Reading the "immaterial hypothesis" of George Berkeley. His philosophy has disturbed me.

Esse est percipi , to be is to be perceived... substance is an assumption of man, and all the cars and paintings and trees and flowers we think we see are fictions of the mind.

This notion aggravated Boswell, who kicked a large rock repeatedly, saying, "I refute it thus!", unwittingly supporting the argument.

Berkeley postulated that all our mind-images are placed there for us by the "eternal perceiver", God. God is the source of all experience. We can't directly experience a "real" world.

I am shaken by this. For my world to make sense, I must believe in the physical reality of things around me.

Although this has probably been discussed on this forum before, I wish to open the question to debate. Is physical matter an assumption we believe as a logical necessity?

[Martin]

Have we met? You seem...familiar, somehow.

[The One called Neo]

Originally posted by No Answers
Reading the "immaterial hypothesis" of George Berkeley. His philosophy has disturbed me.

Esse est percipi , to be is to be perceived... substance is an assumption of man, and all the cars and paintings and trees and flowers we think we see are fictions of the mind.

This notion aggravated Boswell, who kicked a large rock repeatedly, saying, "I refute it thus!", unwittingly supporting the argument.

Berkeley postulated that all our mind-images are placed there for us by the "eternal perceiver", God. God is the source of all experience. We can't directly experience a "real" world.

I am shaken by this. For my world to make sense, I must believe in the physical reality of things around me.

Although this has probably been discussed on this forum before, I wish to open the question to debate. Is physical matter an assumption we believe as a logical necessity? [/B]

God conceives the world rather than perceives ie the world is a conception in God's mind. Saying God perceives the world implies that the world exists separately from God.

And yes, I think the "physical world" in the sense of a self-subsistant reality existing in abstration from any minds (including God's), is a superflous hypothesis.

[c4ts]

UCE is back under the name "No Answers"?

[Dancing David]

At the risk of drawing the ire of the immaterialists, I have to say that reality does exist. As this is the philosphy forum I can't say that I can prove reality exists, but it does exist.

It existed before mind, it will exist after mind. I have yet to hear anything that even remotely approaches mind without matter. the only examples of mind we can point to are encased in matter.

Peace

[The One called Neo]

Originally posted by Dancing David
At the risk of drawing the ire of the immaterialists, I have to say that reality does exist. As this is the philosphy forum I can't say that I can prove reality exists, but it does exist.

It existed before mind, it will exist after mind. I have yet to hear anything that even remotely approaches mind without matter. the only examples of mind we can point to are encased in matter.

Peace

Reality exists even for immaterialists. And the external world exists. They just believe that minds are primary and that which we term the "material world" is ultimately an attribute of mind or minds.

[Dancing David]

I understand that Neo, I may believe that rocks are endowed with spirit but that doesn't mean I can prove they have a mind. In the same way I have yet to have anyone present an argument for how mind can exist without matter. I am open to suggestions.

Peace

[Azathoth]

Perhaps it is not a logical necessity to believe in physical reality, but it is certainly pragmatic.

Immaterialism is a possibility, but I don't waste any time considering it as anything more than a theoretical joke. Yes, our perceptions could be:

transmitted directly by God
transmitted by capricious demons
transmitted by electrodes in your brain, which is floating in a vat
transmitted by a subsystem of 'the Matrix'

None of these is disprovable, but I don't lose any sleep over them, either.

[Monketey Ghost]

Berkeley wrote that "To say things exist when no mind perceives them, is perfectly unintelligible"

And with God as the conceiver , then, things don't simply flicker in and out of existence whenever we look at or turn away from them. They are rooted in God-mind, and fed into our brains when needed?

I have never studied philosophy extensively, always considered it humbug. Now I am opening my mind to this sort of game, and have discovered that among the bits I can understand there are genuine concepts which are shaking me to my roots. It bothers me that I can't dimiss the possibility that immaterialism may be as viable as materialism, which I have lived with uncritically for my entire life. Some things I need to accept , safe as milk.

[synaesthesia]

Yet the world is mostly a vast cold place, not the warm, oscillating, moist and lush conditions required for the evolution of minds.

[whitefork]

Berkeley was offended by John Locke's notion that there is a substance with no sensible qualities (color, etc) that underlies/causes our sensations. ("repugnant to reason is the phrase", I believe). You can't by definition perceive Lockean substance, since it has no sensible qualities, only extension.

Even materialists of the Stimpean class will probably reject such a substance.

Kicking the stone is not a refutation of Berkeley, since that which is perceived in the kicking is not the substance, but its sensible qualities.

[Yahzi]

No Answers For Trolls
Ah... time to bring out the patented Yahzi Baseball Bat test (TM).

Step 1. Obtain a baseball bat.
Step 2. Strike yourself in the head.
Step 3. Repeat step 2 until all doubts about the reality of physical existance are driven out.

It is not logically necessary to believe in physical reality; it is physically necessary. Your brain is constructed in such a way that it cannot doubt the existance of reality. Application of a baseball bat will solve the problem... one way or another.

which I have lived with uncritically for my entire life
Hi, troll. Which troll are you? Wait, don't answer that... I don't really care.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Yahzi
No Answers For Trolls
Ah... time to bring out the patented Yahzi Baseball Bat test (TM).

Step 1. Obtain a baseball bat.
Step 2. Strike yourself in the head.
Step 3. Repeat step 2 until all doubts about the reality of physical existance are driven outAn axe would be both quicker and more effective.

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by Yahzi
No Answers For Trolls
Ah... time to bring out the patented Yahzi Baseball Bat test (TM).

Step 1. Obtain a baseball bat.
Step 2. Strike yourself in the head.
Step 3. Repeat step 2 until all doubts about the reality of physical existance are driven out.

It is not logically necessary to believe in physical reality; it is physically necessary. Your brain is constructed in such a way that it cannot doubt the existance of reality. Application of a baseball bat will solve the problem... one way or another.


Hi, troll. Which troll are you? Wait, don't answer that... I don't really care.

On the chance that you are mistaken about the idea that I'm simply trying to gain attention of any sort (trolling), isn't this a rather unnecessarily rude response? Thank you for the well-thought-out dismissal of both myself and the idea. A fine welcome to this forum for someone who is open to learning.

Hitting myself in the head with a bat would not disprove the notion of immaterialism. "I refute it thus."

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by No Answers
Hitting myself in the head with a bat would not disprove the notion of immaterialism. "I refute it thus."

The thing you have to understand about realism is that it is fundamentally both an emprical hypothesis and a philosophical stance.

The underlying intuition of anti-realism, be it of Berkley's variety or Van Fraassen's, is that we have some sort of special priviliged knowledge about our mental life that is somehow foundational, that our access to the world is somehow hobbled in comparison to it.

But when we examine what we know of humans, and what we know of how they relate to the world, such a discontinuity is simply extraneous and erroniously urges us to ignore fundmamental problems of self-access in human beings and other biological organisms.

Anti-realism is Realism with the artificial suspension of some sort of infallible censure. Like other forms of infallibility, it seems that it cannot keep reality out, merely withold an ideosyncratic stamp of approval. It is the irrelevant edict of an epistemological pope sitting within his cartesian theater.

Regards,
Synaesthesia


"We are at home with this simple image: what is dark and unknown stretches out before the monolithic front line of science while what has been acquired and understood constitutes its rear. But it really makes no difference whether the unknown lies in the lap of nature or, instead, is buried among the pages of worthless manuscripts read by no one; because an idea that has not etered the bloodstream of science, and does not circulate seminall in it, in practice, does not exist for us." -Stanislaw Lem

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by synaesthesia
[B]

Anti-realism is Realism with the artificial suspension of some sort of infallible censure. Like other forms of infallibility, it seems that it cannot keep reality out, merely withold an ideosyncratic stamp of approval. It is the irrelevant edict of an epistemological pope sitting within his cartesian theater.



THANK you. Although I had to read almost everything you wrote twice and review your words slowly to obtain meaning from them!

I know it's easy enough to say, "I don't believe it to be correct", and I don't believe it. But the fact that I can't say it's incorrect with certainty fascinates me. It reminds me that the decisions I've made about things may not be the right ones. At the very least my comfort zones may need some redefining.

and thank you to all who gave useful, intelligent responses.

[Dancing David]

Dear No Answers:

Please do not take offense at yahzi's post, unless he tells you to take it personaly. there is a long running argument on this forum between the materialists and the immaterialists, perhaps some of that angst splashed out on you.

Welcome to the board! (Please read the threads containing the name Jedi Knight for some masterful flameing)

Peace

[hgc]

Originally posted by synaesthesia


The thing you have to understand about realism is that it is fundamentally both an emprical hypothesis and a philosophical stance.

The underlying intuition of anti-realism, be it of Berkley's variety or Van Fraassen's, is that we have some sort of special priviliged knowledge about our mental life that is somehow foundational, that our access to the world is somehow hobbled in comparison to it.

But when we examine what we know of humans, and what we know of how they relate to the world, such a discontinuity is simply extraneous and erroniously urges us to ignore fundmamental problems of self-access in human beings and other biological organisms.

Anti-realism is Realism with the artificial suspension of some sort of infallible censure. Like other forms of infallibility, it seems that it cannot keep reality out, merely withold an ideosyncratic stamp of approval. It is the irrelevant edict of an epistemological pope sitting within his cartesian theater.

Regards,
Synaesthesia


"We are at home with this simple image: what is dark and unknown stretches out before the monolithic front line of science while what has been acquired and understood constitutes its rear. But it really makes no difference whether the unknown lies in the lap of nature or, instead, is buried among the pages of worthless manuscripts read by no one; because an idea that has not etered the bloodstream of science, and does not circulate seminall in it, in practice, does not exist for us." -Stanislaw Lem
Wow. That is one of the most concisely stated and interesting things I have ever read in this forum.

synaesthesia, please tell me the exact source of the Lem quote. I am a big fan, but I cannot place it.

[Peskanov]

If I am not wrong, syns quote come from "His Master's Voice", one of Lem´s masterpieces...I think the whole book is a "quote" mine :)
Am I wrong, syn?

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by No Answers
Although this has probably been discussed on this forum before, I wish to open the question to debate. Is physical matter an assumption we believe as a logical necessity?

I wouldn't want to be standing in the middle of a perceptual highway in the path of a perceptual 18 wheeler to test the theory.
I had a perceptual kidney stone and that little piece of perceptual calcium silicate hurt like hell.

[stamenflicker]

A fine welcome to this forum for someone who is open to learning.

No Answers,

Yahzi hates a good debate as evidenced by a) the size of his ignore list; b) the type of responses he offers. Don't let him run you off.

Here's a poem to help you understand materialism:

Rationalists, wearing square hats,
Think, in square rooms,
Looking at the floor,
Looking at the ceiling.
They confine themselves
To right-angled triangles.
If they tried rhomboids,
Cones, waving lines, ellipses-
As, for example, the ellipse of the half-moon-
Rationalists would wear sombreros.


Peace,

David

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Those Stanislaws sure can cut a good quote:

If a man who cannot count finds a four-leaf clover,
is he entitled to happiness?

---Stanislaw Lec

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No Answers, this thread on Materialism should keep you busy for days:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16168

~~ Paul

[c4ts]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
A fine welcome to this forum for someone who is open to learning.

No Answers,

Yahzi hates a good debate as evidenced by a) the size of his ignore list; b) the type of responses he offers. Don't let him run you off.

Here's a poem to help you understand materialism:

Rationalists, wearing square hats,
Think, in square rooms,
Looking at the floor,
Looking at the ceiling.
They confine themselves
To right-angled triangles.
If they tried rhomboids,
Cones, waving lines, ellipses-
As, for example, the ellipse of the half-moon-
Rationalists would wear sombreros.


Peace,

David

And here's a poem to help you understand Ian:

Immaterialists, wearing little hats
Think, in square circles,
Looking at the floor,
Looking at the floorboards,
Breaking down the floorboards,
Looking for the floor.
They confine themselves
To nowhere land.
If they tried rhomboids,
Cones, waving lines, ellipses-
As, for example, the ellipse of the half-moon-
Immaterialists would wear slightly bigger hats.

[DialecticMaterialist]

:chuckles and applauds: Thank you for that c4ts. :)

[asthmatic camel]

Splendid response c4ts, hats off to you.

[Monketey Ghost]

Some of these replies are brilliant!

Here's an amusing limerick attributed to Ronald Knox:

There was a young man who said, "God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there's no one about in the Quad"

and the reply:

"Dear sir,
Your astonishment's odd
I am always about in the Quad
And that's why the tree
Continues to be,
Since observed by yours faithfully, God."


As I said, I don't believe the physical world is illusory, but immaterialism is a new thing to me, and it's fun (and frustrating) to think about.

Thank you, Paul, for the link. My brain is too poor a tool for this!

[stamenflicker]

C4,

An excellent rebuttal! However I'm not sure exactly how anything about immaterialism is even remotely confining since they very much do try on the different hats, lest they join the infamous "Darwin awards" and fall off a cliff in denial of gravity.

The difference quite simply is that they recoginze sensation of any type as merely "a hat" or a "a room" as opposed to the end all be all of presence.

I.E. the immaterialist knows he's changing hats, the rationalist / materialist assumes they're all the same hat, and that is the only hat to be worn.

Flick

[Monketey Ghost]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
C4,

I.E. the immaterialist knows he's changing hats, the rationalist / materialist assumes they're all the same hat, and that is the only hat to be worn.

Flick

Is the materialist position assumption, or is it hope, or is it both? I take it for granted that my hat will work as a hat should, but is it true hat? (I'm trying so very hard to follow this discussion, may I ask that we hold off on metaphors until I'm up to speed? Working through the link Paul provided)

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by stamenflicker

I.E. the immaterialist knows he's changing hats, the rationalist / materialist assumes they're all the same hat, and that is the only hat to be worn.



Read "Images of Science: essays on realism" and come back here and tell me again that Realists do not play as many language games (wear as many hats) as cleverly as the best of the anti-realists.

I think that Realism retains it's decisive edge because it needs commit itself to no schizophrenice acceptence and rejection of justified truth.

[stamenflicker]

Syn,

Where can I find the article?

Flick

[metacristi]

No answers

Is physical matter an assumption we believe as a logical necessity?


Not at all.It is a mere logical possibility.However science is pragmatic,refering (focusing entirely in fact) at what we perceive (using also our measurement devices).We perceive matter but we do not perceive God,the Matrix,and so on.So that there is no point,from science's point of view,to postulate additionally the existence of God,as Berkeley defined it,to explain the observed facts given that the materialistic approach 'works' for all our practical purposes (at least so far).I do not think this is wrong in itself,in my acception the goal of science is to find the simplest possible description (or explanation) of observed facts 'working' for all our practical purposes.Even if idealism were true this wouldn't lower the value of science for us.What I find wrong is the assumption that idealism is inferior (proved by the successes of science) and therefore it is not rational to support such a hypothesis or to believe in it.This happens very often especially because (too) many believe that science always give us certitudes.Or this inference does not follow.Not even if we would accept the fact that matter exist objectively.Indeed the majority of the scientific,succesfull,theories are simple models and nothing more.
Idealism is an extreme case,it cannot be rejected or made 'objectively' less probable,that's why scientists have been forced to add [it's rejection] as an axiom at the core of the axioms of science.


However,to cool down the idealist enthusiasts too,from the fact that we cannot have direct experience of the outside reality and the fact that we cannot reject idealism does not follow that idealism is correct.In fact we simply do not know.All we can do is to have a rational stance,either believing or disbelieving,after carefully examinig all available evidence logical and empirical.Whatever the truth one fact remain sure:so far science has 'worked' well for all our practical purposes,our capacity to describe nature is compatible with both...

[Yahzi]

No Answers
which I have lived with uncritically for my entire life
Perhaps you are not a troll. But your comments seem suspiciously like someone with an agenda, pretending to be neutral so that they can gain some percieved credibility.

The fact that you have lived uncritically merely demonstrates your naivete. It is not especially interesting in a philosophical sense.

But the fact that I can't say it's incorrect with certainty fascinates me.
It is your understanding of "certainity" that is naive. Many fledgling philosophy students get hung up on the fact that nothing is certain: that quantam physics allows for the possiblity of a pile of gravel suddenly springing into the air and spelling out "Eat at Moe's!" But then you realize that the probablity of such an even is pragmatically equivlant to "never," and that although nothing can ever be certain, it can be more certain than you have universes to fool around with, and so it turns out not to be an important distinction. At some level, the difference between certainity and near certaintity ceases to matter.

This problem is one that is not generally recognized: humans in general are terrible with scale. I find it quite common that people do not actually have a grasp for what a "billion" is, or even a "million." We tend to work in units down to about 1%, and stop counting after that. Our intuition is good for 2 orders of magnitude. But the real world has vastly more scale than that. A classic example is the difficulty people have accepting that consciousness can stem from "mere matter," while ignoring the unimaginable complexity exhibited by that "mere" matter.

Also, people who trash the certaintity of knowledge almost always turn out to be against the possiblity of any knowledge that will disprove their pet fantasy. It's not that they are against knowledge, just that they are against having to prove their case.

isn't this a rather unnecessarily rude response?
Rude responses are my job. For polite responses, see Synthesia.

Hitting myself in the head with a bat would not disprove the notion of immaterialism.
Ah, but it would. You have not given my experiement enough consideration.

As you damage your brain by striking it, you lose "higher" functions. At some point you lose the ability to even concieve of anti-materialism. However, you are still at that point capable of percieving and reacting to pain. Hence you stop swinging the bat.

What this shows us is that your response to reality underlies your conception of anti-reality. One is primary to the other: one cannot exist without the other existing first. This neatly disposes the idea that thought is primary: if it were, then striking yourself with a bat should make reality go away, as your mind loses touch with the brain and the material world. Instead, your brain remains, and your mind goes away.

Or, as Synth put it: "Like other forms of infallibility, it seems that it cannot keep reality out, merely withold an ideosyncratic stamp of approval." I like my version because it uses smaller words. Words that I can hope to actually spell correctly.


Synthesia
Have your read "The Cyberiad: Fables for a Cybernetic Age?" I think that is my absolute favorite Lem.

And kudos to George Clooney for making "Solaris!"

[The One called Neo]

Originally posted by Yahzi
[B]No Answers For Trolls
Ah... time to bring out the patented Yahzi Baseball Bat test (TM).

Step 1. Obtain a baseball bat.
Step 2. Strike yourself in the head.
Step 3. Repeat step 2 until all doubts about the reality of physical existance are driven out.

It is not logically necessary to believe in physical reality; it is physically necessary. Your brain is constructed in such a way that it cannot doubt the existance of reality. Application of a baseball bat will solve the problem... one way or another.



Hitting yourself with a baseball bat is just further qualia. No need to invoke a mysterious material reality.




Hi, troll. Which troll are you? Wait, don't answer that... I don't really care.

I assure you he is neither my sock puppet nor Interesting Ian's sock puppet.

[Monketey Ghost]

I'm not anyone's sock puppet.

And Yahzi, thank you for the meat of your explanation of the idea we're discussing, but you can shove your pompous speculations up your ass.

[The One called Neo]

Originally posted by synaesthesia
[B]

The thing you have to understand about realism is that it is fundamentally both an emprical hypothesis and a philosophical stance.


What do you mean by realism? That the scientific description of reality depicts a literal state of affairs? If so you are mistaken in supposing that immaterialists cannot subscribe to realism.



The underlying intuition of anti-realism, be it of Berkley's variety or Van Fraassen's,



Was Berkeley an anti realist? He was ambigious on this point in both the principles and dialogues. However, have you read his last published work "Siris"? He seems to have quite definitely adhered to the existence of a microscopic reality in that work. Of course he quite definitely held that something like gravitational force does not literally exist.

[Dancing David]

I guess I am slow or something , so please be patient.

Why is it That Material Reality is a fiction? I like to speculate with the best but I still don't get it. So in the version for the learning challenged could I have a summation of why reality as percieved by materialists is a fiction.

I agree that science does not answer all questions but it is a great tool for predicting outcomes of events. Most of the argument seems to be based on the assumption that you can't prove something is consious.

Thank You.

I believe that the notion of the self is a fiction, there is no you there is no me, there are bodies, thought, emotions, perceptions and patterns of behavior but no selfs.

Peace

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Yahzi
No Answers

Perhaps you are not a troll. But your comments seem suspiciously like someone with an agenda, pretending to be neutral so that they can gain some percieved credibility.

The fact that you have lived uncritically merely demonstrates your naivete. It is not especially interesting in a philosophical sense.


It is your understanding of "certainity" that is naive. Many fledgling philosophy students get hung up on the fact that nothing is certain: that quantam physics allows for the possiblity of a pile of gravel suddenly springing into the air and spelling out "Eat at Moe's!" But then you realize that the probablity of such an even is pragmatically equivlant to "never," and that although nothing can ever be certain, it can be more certain than you have universes to fool around with, and so it turns out not to be an important distinction. At some level, the difference between certainity and near certaintity ceases to matter.

This problem is one that is not generally recognized: humans in general are terrible with scale. I find it quite common that people do not actually have a grasp for what a "billion" is, or even a "million." We tend to work in units down to about 1%, and stop counting after that. Our intuition is good for 2 orders of magnitude. But the real world has vastly more scale than that. A classic example is the difficulty people have accepting that consciousness can stem from "mere matter," while ignoring the unimaginable complexity exhibited by that "mere" matter.

Also, people who trash the certaintity of knowledge almost always turn out to be against the possiblity of any knowledge that will disprove their pet fantasy. It's not that they are against knowledge, just that they are against having to prove their case.


Rude responses are my job. For polite responses, see Synthesia.




Ah, but it would. You have not given my experiement enough consideration.

As you damage your brain by striking it, you lose "higher" functions. At some point you lose the ability to even concieve of anti-materialism. However, you are still at that point capable of percieving and reacting to pain. Hence you stop swinging the bat.

What this shows us is that your response to reality underlies your conception of anti-reality. One is primary to the other: one cannot exist without the other existing first. This neatly disposes the idea that thought is primary: if it were, then striking yourself with a bat should make reality go away, as your mind loses touch with the brain and the material world. Instead, your brain remains, and your mind goes away.

Or, as Synth put it: "Like other forms of infallibility, it seems that it cannot keep reality out, merely withold an ideosyncratic stamp of approval." I like my version because it uses smaller words. Words that I can hope to actually spell correctly.


Synthesia



And kudos to George Clooney for making "Solaris!"
The reason the anti-materialists hate you is not because you are pompous or condescending (which, of course, you are), but rather because your arguments point out in such a glaring manner the fundamental ridiculousness of their position. I know, if had any emotional investment in a spiritual mind or thinking soul or something, I would feel truly assinine reading the baseball bat thing. Coming face to face with your own willful stupidity is a difficult thing for most people. Fortunately for myself, I crossed that bridge a long time ago and now find an odd sort of comfort in my own dimwittedness.
Have your read "The Cyberiad: Fables for a Cybernetic Age?" I think that is my absolute favorite Lem.

[Interesting Ian]

No Answers,

Here is a good introdction to idealism http://www.maxpages.com/markphilosophy/Idealism_Page

Berkeleys philosophy is called "subjective idealism".

[metacristi]

Yahzi


Also, people who trash the certaintity of knowledge almost always turn out to be against the possiblity of any knowledge that will disprove their pet fantasy. It's not that they are against knowledge, just that they are against having to prove their case.


I am one of those people you attacked [without substantial support] who are not at all sure that science always gives us certitudes...Where did you derived that?I am never against the possibility that knowledge could disprove some of my beliefs,still I have nothing to prove to others.
Let science find the truth (be it still fallible) freely and do not invoke 'evidence beyond all reasonable doubt' that idealism or dualism are false when in fact,for any unbiased scientist,there is not such compelling data yet...apart from the atheists who always rush to claim 'certitudes'.For me this is only a dishonest maneouver to 'seize' science for the 'cause' of atheism.

[edit to add]Instead of requiring proof or evidence from the part of idealist or dualists who do not make positive claims,materialists should first prove their own case with evidence beyond all reasonable doubts.The actual 'explanations' are mere tentative hypotheses.

In fact there is plenty of reason [more than sufficient to back the anti-realist position logically] to not believe that science gives us always certitudes,the most important being that science is fallible.We should have 'explored' the whole universe [at both macroscopical and microscopical scale] or at least to have a succesfull 'theory of everything' in order 'to eliminate the impossible' [eliminate idealism or dualism] to use one of your favorite phrases.Unfortunately for atheists not even in the case of consciousness can we claim that we have already eliminated 'the impossible'.Dennet's flamboyant style and the reductionism he advocates could not 'wipe out' dualism.Why do atheists believe that Dennet is right 'beyond all reasonable doubt'?I see no serious reason.The 'carthesian theatre' problem and in fact all the experiments he invoke can be explained alternatively (see Stapp) even by openly quasi-dualist approaches (Eccles-Popper approach-Eccles being a Nobel Prize neurologist-or Penrose-Hameroff).Why do you think that so many,unbiased,scientists still try to 'unlock' the 'secrets' of the mind?I assure you that not because of the reasons you gave...even if they might have their own beliefs that does not mean they are not honest and want to 'seize' science.
Striking yourself in the head with a bat neither boost the chances of materialism of being true nor lower the validity of idealism.At most it can make you look ridiculous as happend once with Johnson...

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by The One called Neo
Was Berkeley an anti realist? He was ambigious on this point in both the principles and dialogues. However, have you read his last published work "Siris"? He seems to have quite definitely adhered to the existence of a microscopic reality in that work. Of course he quite definitely held that something like gravitational force does not literally exist.

Van Fraasen's anti-realism involves witholding a commitment to the truth of theories that are empirically adequate. I believe that Barkeley had a similarly minimalistic anti-realism.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by No Answers
I'm not anyone's sock puppet.

And Yahzi, thank you for the meat of your explanation of the idea we're discussing, but you can shove your pompous speculations up your ass.
See, that wasn't so hard!

Now that you have the proper attitude, follow it up by actually addressing the meat of my explanations.

:)

[Yahzi]

metacristi

I am one of those people you attacked [without substantial support] who are not at all sure that science always gives us certitudes...

I said "almost all." I'm prepared to accept your word on which category you belong in.


Let science find the truth (be it still fallible) freely and do not invoke 'evidence beyond all reasonable doubt' that idealism or dualism are false when in fact,for any unbiased scientist,there is not such compelling data yet...apart from the atheists who always rush to claim 'certitudes'.For me this is only a dishonest maneouver to 'seize' science for the 'cause' of atheism.

The problem with this is that the 'certitude' atheists seize upon is merely the same certitude with which we assert that Invisible Pink Unicorns do not exist. If you are prepared to believe in God, then you must be prepared to believe in IPUs with the same certitude.


Instead of requiring proof or evidence from the part of idealist or dualists who do not make positive claims,materialists should first prove their own case with evidence beyond all reasonable doubts.

Um no. It is the anti-materialist who is making the claim that needs proof. Materialists aren't making a claim. More precisly, materialists aren't making a new claim. We all accept the truth of materialism for the vast majority of our experiences. I know we do because we are wired that way and can't help it. So even the AM crowd accepts materialism (like when being struck with a bat). It is the AM crowd that then goes on to assert there is something beyond mere materialism, so it is they that are making the claim.

That is what my bat test is supposed to show: that we cannot help but operate as if materialism were true under certain circumstances. Now if AMs could show that we cannot help but operate as if it were not true under certain circumstances, then we would have a dilemma. But they can't, so we don't.


In fact there is plenty of reason [more than sufficient to back the anti-realist position logically] to not believe that science gives us always certitudes,

The inability of science to provide certitudes does not mean science is flawed. Rather, it means that the concept of certitude is flawed.

Has it ever occurred to you that certitude just might not be physically possible? That like invisible unicorns, it just might not exist at all in the real world? Perhaps science's inability to find it reflects not science's failings but its simple non-existance.

In a quantam world, probability is all you get. But don't despair: despite the quantam probability that invisible unicorns could exist, they don't exist often enough or long enough to matter. Just like all those virtual particles that are popping into existance and non-existance all around you right now.


Why do you think that so many,unbiased,scientists still try to 'unlock' the 'secrets' of the mind?

If they are honest researchers, it is because the mind is one of the last two unexplored frontiers (the other being nano-scale machinery), and the more interesting of the two.

If they think they are going to uncover secret powers, however, then they are just juvenile nut-cases wasting other people's money. No shortage of that kind of behaviour in this world.


Striking yourself in the head with a bat neither boost the chances of materialism of being true nor lower the validity of idealism.At most it can make you look ridiculous as happend once with Johnson...
Except that we hold up Johnson as the very epitome of non-ridiculousness. Kicking that rock was what made Berkley look ridiculous.

All argument aside, it is interesting that the two camps assign ridicule so differently. To me, Johnson made Berkley look the fool in one easy sentence: yet many people seem to think Johnson was the fool.

The charge seems to rest on the idea that Johnson did not understand Berkley, and that kicking the rock provided nothing but more qualia. But I think Johnson did understand Berkley, and I think he meant exactly the same thing I mean by my baseball bat test. I think he meant that materialism is simply primary, and all anti-materialist claims must exist by denying the obvious. Again, what Synth said.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Yes, to be is to be perceived; but the whole dilemma about what the nature of reality is -- is it material? is it mental? is meaningless. The correct answer is that it doesn't matter, it cannot matter, and in fact any such metaphysical statement is meaningless.

Physicalism simply asserts that we can construct predictive models based on our perceptions, which models will in turn allow us to predict future perceptions. What matters is that anything predictable is predictable through our perceptions. Knowledge is ability to predict the future, and predictions of the future are based on our prior sensory experiences.

It's all just a web of sensory data and functions fitted to the observed data distributions. The metaphysical nature of reality never enters the question.

The only meaningful difference between materialism and idealism is whether mind causes matter or vice-versa; but this is an empirical question, and the answer is pretty conclusive -- matter comes before mind.

[The One called Neo]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Yes, to be is to be perceived;



Materialists do not believe this.



but the whole dilemma about what the nature of reality is -- is it material? is it mental? is meaningless.



Or it could be the case that logical positivism is meaningless.



The correct answer is that it doesn't matter, it cannot matter, and in fact any such metaphysical statement is meaningless.



Unsubstantiated assertion.



Physicalism simply asserts that we can construct predictive models based on our perceptions, which models will in turn allow us to predict future perceptions.



No it doesn't. That's science. I might as well say idealism asserts exactly the same thing :rolleyes:



The only meaningful difference between materialism and idealism is whether mind causes matter or vice-versa; but this is an empirical question,



I beg to differ. It is a philosophical question. If matter exists in abstraction from our perceptions, then explain what it is like.



and the answer is pretty conclusive -- matter comes before mind.

No matter in principle could be known without mind.

[metacristi]

Victor

The only meaningful difference between materialism and idealism is whether mind causes matter or vice-versa; but this is an empirical question, and the answer is pretty conclusive -- matter comes before mind.


If we see things from the perspective given by the pragmatic view of the scientific method this seems obvious,as far as science can tell,being the most natural approach.We believe that matter comes before mind based on science and on the scientific method but in the context given by the apriori negation of idealism.That's why,even if the approach that 'matter comes before mind' seems to 'work' for all our practical purposes,we are not entitled to claim that matter comes before mind in ABSOLUTE.

The reality is that idealism is on equal foot with usual materialism,they are indistinguishable ontologically.All the known facts are compatible with Berkeley's idealism too.The weakness of Berkeley's argumentation is that we cannot basically have an idea of the minds (represented by spirits in his argumentation) or of God.This corroborated with the fact that simple materialism has 'worked' for all our practical purposes so far made idealism superfluous epistemologically.
But I am not at all sure that idealism is false ontologically,we do not have the right to (safely) discard it...

[metacristi]

Yahzi

If you are prepared to believe in God, then you must be prepared to believe in IPUs with the same certitude.


There is no necessary connection between them,every such hypothesis must be examined based on its own merits.Or God hypothesis and IPU are in different 'leagues'...
Below is my argument that 'IPU hypothesis' is not in the same league with 'God (merely defined as the creator of the universe) hypothesis.I've chosen to disbelieve the 'IPU' hypothesis but I found God hypothesis much more reasonable,anyway enough to base a rational belief.

Why disbelieve?
First I have no evidence for IPU,secondly there is no observed phenomenon which to be explained at least theoretically,on equal foot with the best existing explanation,as being an effect produced by IPU's and thirdly no known objective data point out that IPU are possible to exist.
If all these criterions are met I usually choose to not believe.If one is missing I could choose to be an agnostic or even a believer,depending on the definition given and of the (preferably) first hand subjective evidence.

If I had,additionally,subjective evidence [as I said,preferably personal encounters;even if not entirely clear] regarding the existence of let's say 'zvdrtgfdre' ( defined as 'race of aliens') I might very well choose to believe (but of course this happens only if I find my personal experience as being compelling enough).

The third criterion might sometimes be irrelevant (depending of course of the definition of the newly entities posited as exsting).This is exactly the case of 'God [defined merely as the creator of the universe] hypothesis'.Due to the fact that God hypothesis is on equal foot with naturalistic explanations in enough many ontological questions (the problem of idealism included),being also entirely compatible with our previous capacity to understand nature using science,it is entirely justified to believe in God of course without claiming anything in exterior,simply believe.For example when examining the scientific evidence that universe has a beginning one of the first questions that pop-up is 'why should the laws of nature remain basically the same over long periods of time?' might be enough for many to prefer 'God hypothesis'.Indeed the speculative hypotheses of science or simply 'we do not know yet' are no better than 'God hypothesis'.

Sure this does not give the believer the right to claim of having proof and so on,the reality is that we do not know,but such existing evidence is enough to base a,strictly personal,rational,belief irrespective of the positions that other people might choose.

[metacristi]

Has it ever occurred to you that certitude just might not be physically possible? That like invisible unicorns, it just might not exist at all in the real world? Perhaps science's inability to find it reflects not science's failings but its simple non-existance.


Yahzi,the problem it's not about certitudes,it's about having 'arguments beyond all reasonable doubt',I've never required certitudes.For example in the case of consciousness if we could somehow build a cyborg,anyway at least an equivalent of the human brain,with the technology based on boolean algebra,whose characteristics to make him indistinguishable from a human being I would consider this as an evidence 'beyond all reasonable doubt' that consciousness is a computable process.This do not mean at all certitudes (I remember here only the hot debate regarding zombies).Dualism would be still a possibility but it would be made 'objectively' less probable (in the light of all known data) its role in the problem of consciousness.Of course this wouldn't mean that dualism is false but only that there is sufficient reason to consider the computational materialistic approach as being 'scientific truth' (still fallible however-there is no reason to think otherwise).

[thaiboxerken]

LOL. The idea that the material world is depend on the mind is just stupid. There are always lots of people sleeping in the world, just think of how nasty the world would be if the dreams started coming true? Also, if there are only 2 people in a room... who's mind wins the favor of reality? Do you levitate when you're alone?

:rolleyes:

[Yahzi]

metacristi
First, I have no evidence for IPU
You have no evidence for God. Your second and third points are really just the same as your first: they are all about evidence.

secondly, there is no observed phenomenon which to be explained at least theoretically,on equal foot with the best existing explanation,as being an effect produced by IPU's
There is no observed phenommenon which God is a theorectically equal explanation for. First off, God is not an explanation at all - saying "God did it" tells you nothing. Second, all known phenomona can be explained by recourse to the material world. I realize you think there is something magical about qualia, but the fact that they can be produced by drugs and magnetic fields tells us that they are perfectly ordinary material phenomona, however interesting. Third, the only reason that God is taken as an explanation for anything is because someone said so. Well, I say that my IPUs cause rain by trampling on the clouds; thus, every time it rains I have evidence of my IPUs. This is exactly how god-evidence works: a phenomona is observed, someone asserts god did it, and forever after it is counted as evidence of god. This is nonsense.

thirdly, no known objective data point out that IPU are possible to exist.
No known objective data point out that gods are possible to exist. Hence the concept of faith - believe without evidence.

If all these criterions are met I usually choose to not believe.
All these criterion (really, the one criterion of lack of evidence) are met by the god hypothesis. Yet you choose to believe that one over IPUs.

Surely you must admit that one notable difference between the god theory and the IPU theory is how it makes you feel. Given that you have an emotional reaction to one theory, and do not have a reaction to the other theory, are you absolutely certain that it is not mere emotion influencing your decision?

Indeed the speculative hypotheses of science or simply 'we do not know yet' are no better than 'God hypothesis'.
And therefore, logically, the obverse must be true: the 'God hypothesis' is no better than 'we do not know yet.' You have just asserted that the god hypothesis is indistinguishable from no hypothesis at all! How can an explanation that does not differ from no explanation be an explanation?

Then you go to argue that since we don't know, people can believe whatever they want. This is false. If we don't know, we are not rationally entitled to believe anything. Either you know, or you don't: you can't not know and yet still assert to know.

it's about having 'arguments beyond all reasonable doubt'
The baseball bat test is an argument beyond all reasonable doubt. The fact that damage to our brains causes damage to our minds proves that mind is an effect of brain. Most schizophrenics have brain abnormalities that can be found with a careful MRI scan: if mind controlled brain, then talk therapy that cured schizophrenia would result in these abnormalities going away. But that is not how it works. Instead, chemicals that correct the abnormalities make the schizophrenia go away.

This invokes the fundamental law of causalty. At what point is room left for reasonable doubt?

[Loki]

Reading through this thread, I started preparing a response - then I came across Victor's post, so I'll just say "Yes, what he said!".

Does human consciousness arise from meat brains?
Do we have a 'non-material' mental self?
Are we 'Minds in a jar'?

All compatible with observed reality, none proven true (o false). So, it doesn't really matter!

Oh, and I agree with Syn (I think) - why does Berkeley (and Ian) raise perception of your innner thoughts to a higher truth elvel than perception of your body?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Loki
Reading through this thread, I started preparing a response - then I came across Victor's post, so I'll just say [b]"Yes, what he said!".

Does human consciousness arise from meat brains?
Do we have a 'non-material' mental self?
Are we 'Minds in a jar'?

All compatible with observed reality, none proven true (o false). So, it doesn't really matter!



Yeah none of it matters. At least if you have no interest in the ultimate nature of reality. Let's just live out our lives and never think about anything shall we?



Oh, and I agree with Syn (I think) - why does Berkeley (and Ian) raise perception of your innner thoughts to a higher truth elvel than perception of your body?

[/quote]

What have I said which gives rise to your statement here?

[Loki]

Ian,

Let's just live out our lives and never think about anything shall we?
Simple attempt to twist the meaning, but obviously not what was said.

Yeah none of it matters. At least if you have no interest in the ultimate nature of reality.
So tell me what difference it makes? What 'advantage' does to person who accepts idealism as true have over a materialist? Better job prospects? (A career opening as a medium perhaps?)

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Loki
...- why does Berkeley (and Ian) raise perception of your innner thoughts to a higher truth elvel than perception of your body?
*I Think* is an absolute data point for me.

When science demonstrates the A-tom is a Physical reality rather than the height of ephemerality, I would reconsider my stance of Idealism.

[PixyMisa]

The flip side to Yahzi's Bat - which shows that matter affects mind - could be called Izhay's Bet - which shows that mind does not affect matter.

For proof beyond all reasonable doubt, consider Las Vegas. Billions of bets placed every year, with millions of minds desperately trying to affect the results.

And the results turn out to be perfectly consistent with statistics and materialism. No evidence of any influence whatsoever. In any direction.

Everyone in the world tries to influence the Universe with their thoughts. It simply does not work. The obverse, however, happens constantly. Case in point: people die.


Now, it is possible to construct a consistent metaphysics on an informational basis, which holds that the fundamental nature of the Universe is information processing. It can even be worthwhile; for example, some QM theories may be easier to deal with on such a basis. However, such a metaphysics must give rise to the same laws of physics as materialism or be wrong. (Or better yet, falsifiable.) Indeed, such a metaphysics must produce results identical in every observable way to materialism.

[The One called Neo]

Originally posted by synaesthesia


Van Fraasen's anti-realism involves witholding a commitment to the truth of theories that are empirically adequate. I believe that Barkeley had a similarly minimalistic anti-realism.

You believe incorrectly. As I say he was ambigious on this point in the Principles, but I would argue he quite clearly embraced scientific realism in the Siris.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by synaesthesia


Anti-realism is Realism with the artificial suspension of some sort of infallible censure. Like other forms of infallibility, it seems that it cannot keep reality out, merely withold an ideosyncratic stamp of approval.



Good! Another nomination here for BillHoyt's illogic prize! :D

[metacristi]

Yahzi


Well, I say that my IPUs cause rain by trampling on the clouds; thus, every time it rains I have evidence of my IPUs. This is exactly how god-evidence works: a phenomona is observed, someone asserts god did it, and forever after it is counted as evidence of god. This is nonsense.


Unfortunately there is compelling scientific data proving beyond all reasonable doubt that your theory is very unlikely 'objectively'.
There is no such data for the universe as a whole,in fact we know nothing about the 'moment' of Big Bang itself.God hypothesis (as I defined God) is on equal foot with naturalistic approaches.Scientists themselves cannot make an 'objective' difference.If I remember well in an article which appeared last year in Discover Magazine even Alan Guth (the author of the 'multiverse' hypothesis) made the interesting remark that the observed reality in our universe is fully compatible with the hypothesis that it was created by conscious beings.Deal with reality,when applied at ontological questions naturalism is on equal foot with 'God hypothesis' (God defined as the creator of the universe).


You have no evidence for God. Your second and third points are really just the same as your first: they are all about evidence.


Depends what you mean by 'evidence'.But probably you mean scientific,intersubjective,knowledge.I'm afraid there is no such knowledge regarding the appearance of the Universe,the actual reality being compatible with more causes.

All we have are some equally valid,competing,even incompatible,hypotheses.One of them being
'God hypothesis'.Can you give me a rational way to make the difference between them even epistemically speaking?I'm afraid not.All you can do is 'naturalism worked well so far'.So what?Tradition is never sufficient reason.Naturalism is itself a simple conjecture in spite of 'confirming' it everyday.

One has the right to prefer one of these equally valid hypotheses,even on ground of simple subjective preference,not to mention the situation when they have additional subjective evidence...Indeed belief does not mean that I am sure God does exist but only that,in the light of all data available and in my own,subjective,system of values (yes the problem of belief/disbelief is a subjective choice,still) 'God hypothesis' is more probable.But,as I continuously pointed out in many of my previous posts on this forum,I believe especially because I have personal evidence which,I consider,subjectively indeed,make 'God hypothesis' more probable.I have nothing to prove to others since I do not make any objective claims in exterior.Indeed it's one to want to discuss the philosophical and logical implications of such a stance and totally another thing to make positive claims or to proselytize...


All these criterion (really, the one criterion of lack of evidence) are met by the god hypothesis. Yet you choose to believe that one over IPUs.


I've explained you why I consider God hypothesis as being in a different league.Give me a sufficient reason,based on observed reality,which to make the difference between God hypothesis and any naturalist hypothesis other than tradition (in the problem of the beginning of the universe).As I've pointed out tradition is never a sufficient reason.



Surely you must admit that one notable difference between the god theory and the IPU theory is how it makes you feel. Given that you have an emotional reaction to one theory, and do not have a reaction to the other theory, are you absolutely certain that it is not mere emotion influencing your decision?


No,I have additionally subjective evidence favorizing (in my own system of values) God hypothesis.I simply believe without having certitudes and especially without making epistemical or ontological claims (that God surely exists).


And therefore, logically, the obverse must be true: the 'God hypothesis' is no better than 'we do not know yet.' You have just asserted that the god hypothesis is indistinguishable from no hypothesis at all! How can an explanation that does not differ from no explanation be an explanation?

Then you go to argue that since we don't know, people can believe whatever they want. This is false. If we don't know, we are not rationally entitled to believe anything. Either you know, or you don't: you can't not know and yet still assert to know.


We are entitled to have preferences among equally valid hypotheses.Having no preference is equally accepted.No position really have the edge in such cases.For example I believe in 'hidden variables' hypothesis,meaning that in my subjective system of values they are more probable to be true (based on some subjective evidence).There is no need for you to have the same preference,you are free to disbelieve the 'hidden variables' hypothesis.Both stances are equally acceptable logically.



he baseball bat test is an argument beyond all reasonable doubt. The fact that damage to our brains causes damage to our minds proves that mind is an effect of brain. Most schizophrenics have brain abnormalities that can be found with a careful MRI scan: if mind controlled brain, then talk therapy that cured schizophrenia would result in these abnormalities going away. But that is not how it works. Instead, chemicals that correct the abnormalities make the schizophrenia go away.

This invokes the fundamental law of causalty. At what point is room left for reasonable doubt?


There is plenty of room for dualist,alternative,approaches.Physical brain could be seen for example as a sort of 'coprocessor' which interacts faintly,at quantum level,with the 'processor' situated at a 'different level' more or less as in Eccles' proposal.Consciousness is the sum of those two parts,the coprocessor being 'specialized' for the interactions with the material world,the 'processor' realizing the unity of the self we observe and probably more.No need however for a 'cartesian theatre' and no violation of the law of conservation of energy appears.It's enough to base a rational skepticism against the claim that materialism is true beyond all reasonable doubt.


Unfortunately only when we will have a much more detailed,'working',description of the dynamics of the brain,a 'holistic' view,will we be entitled to claim having arguments beyond all reasonable doubt.Even if we had the proof that all mental states correlate with physical states (anyway this is far from being achieved now) this would,simply,be not enough.Another chance is to emulate a human mind using technology.Till then the materialistic approach is still a conjecture.There is no good reason to think otherwise.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by metacristi
One has the right to prefer one of these equally valid hypotheses,even on ground of simple subjective preference,not to mention the situation when they have additional subjective evidence.The thing is, the equally valid hypothesis is the null hypothesis. In other words, you are claiming the existence of a God that has no observable effects whatsoever. How is this different from a God that simply doesn't exist?I've explained you why I consider God hypothesis as being in a different league.Give me a sufficient reason,based on observed reality,which to make the difference between God hypothesis and any naturalist hypothesis other than tradition (in the problem of the beginning of the universe).As I've pointed out tradition is never a sufficient reason.The God hypothesis is not useful.There is plenty of room for dualist,alternative,approaches.Physical brain could be seen for example as a sort of 'coprocessor' which interacts faintly,at quantum level,with the 'processor' situated at a 'different level' more or less as in Eccles' proposal.Consciousness is the sum of those two parts,the coprocessor being 'specialized' for the interactions with the material world,the 'processor' realizing the unity of the self we observe and probably more.No need however for a 'cartesian theatre' and no violation of the law of conservation of energy appears.It's enough to base a rational skepticism against the claim that materialism is true beyond all reasonable doubt.Quantum effects involve the material universe. If they involved some mystical non-physical universe, the results would be different, measurably so. Or if the results were the same, no interaction could be said to be taking place. So there would be no connection between the consciousness and the brain. This is always a problem with dualism.

[metacristi]

Pixy,I make no claims,look more carefully.I only make a constatation that we cannot make an 'objective' difference between God hypothesis and naturalism when applied at ontological questions.If you can do that please tell us all.
From all I know the reality is that we do not know 'objectively' whether God does exist or not.However,as I've argued,belief in God is a rational choice.Especially if someone has subjective evidence.As rational as disbelief.Anyway you are not supposed to believe.You must make your own choice.In case you have not realized yet belief/disbelief is,still,a subjective choice.

Your struggle to 'prove' me that disbelief in God is 'superior',which implies 'It's wrong to believe,you should disbelieve too if you are a rational person',only remember me the term 'proselytizing'-without having real arguments.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by metacristi
Pixy,I make no claims,look more carefully.I only make a constatation that we cannot make an 'objective' difference between God hypothesis and naturalism when applied at ontological questions.If you can do that please tell us all.Since it is inherently unknowable (though some ontological theories are either incoherent or falsifiable), we cannot decide which is true. However, we can choose based on utility. Materialism is useful. An ontological God is not.From all I know the reality is that we do not know 'objectively' whether God does exist or not.However,as I've argued,belief in God is a rational choice.But not a useful one.

[synaesthesia]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Since it is inherently unknowable (though some ontological theories are either incoherent or falsifiable), we cannot decide which is true. However, we can choose based on utility. Materialism is useful.

Could you help a poor amateur philosopher who's given up on metaphysics? Please explain to me the difference between the very-useful-if-we-act-and-think-as-though-it-were-true and the true.

(I keep forgetting somehow. :))

[thaiboxerken]

From all I know the reality is that we do not know 'objectively' whether God does exist or not.However,as I've argued,belief in God is a rational choice.

You can argue it all you want, but god-belief is still irrational.

[metacristi]

Originally postd by PixyMisa

Since it is inherently unknowable (though some ontological theories are either incoherent or falsifiable), we cannot decide which is true. However, we can choose based on utility. Materialism is useful. An ontological God is not.



There are big problems with the 'utility theory of truth' in general,you must be aware that what we seek to find is truth.Or usefulness does not imply truth.The fact that a theory is useful does not imply it is also true.
In our case,no matter what axiomatic system we accept (having God as an extra axiom or without it),science still 'works' for all our current practical purposes.The existence of a God (unkonwn to us,'objectively',at least now) is perfectly compatible with our previous and actual capacity to describe (or explain) nature using science.Both axiomatic systems are on equal foot in what truth is concerned in spite of the fact that one of them is more complex and additionally,for the moment,it is less fruitful.Epistemically (establishing how we acquire knowledge 'working' for all our practical purposes and also it's validity) God does not play a fruitful role indeed however this does not entitle us to draw the conclusion that God hypothesis is 'inferior' or false.An ontological God is an equally valid candidate at truth...There is no sufficient reason,for the moment at least,to believe that the simpler theory,more fruitful for the moment,is more probable to be true.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by synaesthesia
Could you help a poor amateur philosopher who's given up on metaphysics? Please explain to me the difference between the very-useful-if-we-act-and-think-as-though-it-were-true and the true.

(I keep forgetting somehow. :))I think truth comes in stripes as well as plaids. Something like that, anyway.