Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not quite. It deals with a more recent development and one which is probably more valuable to atheism even than Hawking's universe from nothing (which it turns out is not quite nothing).
"One will thus be surprised to read the book and discover that it is about 40% philosophy. Hawking summarizes the history of philosophical thought about mind and epistemology. He discusses positions in philosophy of science such as realism and anti-realism, and spends several chapters laying out a new-ish philosophical position on the nature of science called “model-dependent realism.”
It is about how science can now approach those areas which were once considered the preserve of philosophy (including religion) because the questions of reality or not, emotions, ideas, volition and right and wrong were considered too abstruse and intangible for science to deal with.
Two recent developments were the realisation that free will is an illusion: there are factors behind everything we do, though we are generally not aware of them. Understanding reactions down to molecular level makes us realise what the choice - process is.
The second is DNA encoding which helps us to understand love, hate, xenophobia, desire, community and even art, from a practical, evolutionary, point of view, without, of course, falling into the trap that the 'spiritual' mongers do, trying to drag everyone else with them - that understanding the science behind emotion does not make it vanish. It merely helps us to avoid being controlled by our evolved impulses.
What's this to do with Philosophy and Hawking? This realisation that science no only is entitled to go into the realms of philosophy and religion, but has the methods to do so.
Your avowed lack of expertise in things philosophical is mitigating, Arequipa . . . as philosophy is neither a common skill set nor to be expected from those participating in such a forum as this. Nevertheless . . . your certainty in defense of the illogic and mereological ignorance (and nihilism) routinely espoused by the materialsts and their so-called neutral default is aggravating in the extreme. (Google mereological) Still . . . this is a general public venue and not a rigorous philosophical one. I remain hopeful that at least those scientifically trained will present their case with sufficient rigor to provide an educational opportunity for them. Understanding the philosophical implications of their work is not a strong point with scientists or mathematicians either.
I certainly hope so too as the persistent presentation of non - science and illogic of a level that even a layman such as I can see being perpetrated has long gone beyond a joke.
I certainly hope so too as the persistent presentation of non - science and illogic of a level that even a layman such as I can see being perpetrated has long gone beyond a joke.
If you truly could see it . . . you would realize the necessity to abandon your position entirely . . . but you do not. This is why you did not understand Plantinga, Matrix or me. Here is an excerpt explaining what we tried to explain in simplified form . . . but which you have neither the ability nor the inclination to even try to think about deeply enough to grasp. I have no illusion that this kind of presentation will succeed any more likely than the ones Matrix, I and Plantinga tried.
"For proponents of materialism, who hold its core commitment that 3rd-person material properties are all that exist, and that intrinsic (mental) qualities are (somehow) an illusion, mereological nihilism is the only conclusion -- as only material simples could exist. This leads not only to epistemic nihilism -- since all notions of logic, causality, relation and space require the existence of complex co-representations -- but to the reclassification of every instance in which the materialist asserted complexity -- and indeed anything other than atomic material simples -- existed in the 'objective' world, as nothing more than fallacious reification.
Put simply, within the context of materialism, there can only be material simples, and all projection of so--called 'illusory' subjective notions (like complexity/multiplicity and by extension everything else) onto 'objective physical reality' would constitute reification, which would bar them from being used in any explanatory role. Indeed, like the proverbial ouroboros swallowing its own tail, ontological materialism, as a consequence of the epistemic nihillism that follows from its necessary implication of mereological nihillism, would consume the basis by which we inferred it, eliminating even the act of its own negation, leaving absolutely nothing."
To save you google time:
reification:
the conversion of an abstract concept into something concrete; a viewing of the abstract as concrete or real.
nihilism:
a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth
classical mereology:
is the theory of parthood relations: of the relations of part to whole and the relations of part to part within a whole. Its roots can be traced back to the early days of philosophy, beginning with the Presocratic atomists
mereological nihilism: (also called compositional nihilism, or rarely simply nihilism)
is the position that objects with proper parts do not exist (not only objects in space, but also objects existing in time do not have any temporal parts), and only basic building blocks without parts exist. Or, more succinctly, "nothing is a proper part of anything." material simples:
I am afraid I am going to have to tell you that I see no point in responding to your posts although I think you are a very smart guy and no doubt with a lot of certificates, but the basic failure to understand or accept that materialism is the logical default and a cosmic consciousness still has too much supposition to be accepted as anything more than an unproven possible alternative is bedevilling any communication.
Matrix and Plantinga and apparently you are turning the rules of logic on their heads and trying to make it materialism which has to make a case. It logicaly does not, which does not suit the theist - driven arguments of Plantinga, Matrix and yourself.
It's a pity because we culd certainly agree to differ over this but you and Matrix and Plantinga are evidently using this argument as a way of shoehorning 'sortagod' under the Lab. door and then using personal god - feelings to make the leap of faith to Biblegod, though in your case it is a very personal take, as I recall, mixed up with all sorts of nonsense about the carnal man.
It's not because we disagree or even your intellectual snobby tone (pasting me definitions as if I couldn't look them up myself) that makes me terminate the discussion, but because it really is getting no-where.
If you truly could see it . . . you would realize the necessity to abandon your position entirely . . . but you do not. This is why you did not understand Plantinga, Matrix or me. Here is an excerpt explaining what we tried to explain in simplified form . . . but which you have neither the ability nor the inclination to even try to think about deeply enough to grasp. I have no illusion that this kind of presentation will succeed any more likely than the ones Matrix, I and Plantinga tried.
"For proponents of materialism, who hold its core commitment that 3rd-person material properties are all that exist, and that intrinsic (mental) qualities are (somehow) an illusion, mereological nihilism is the only conclusion -- as only material simples could exist. This leads not only to epistemic nihilism -- since all notions of logic, causality, relation and space require the existence of complex co-representations -- but to the reclassification of every instance in which the materialist asserted complexity -- and indeed anything other than atomic material simples -- existed in the 'objective' world, as nothing more than fallacious reification.
Put simply, within the context of materialism, there can only be material simples, and all projection of so--called 'illusory' subjective notions (like complexity/multiplicity and by extension everything else) onto 'objective physical reality' would constitute reification, which would bar them from being used in any explanatory role. Indeed, like the proverbial ouroboros swallowing its own tail, ontological materialism, as a consequence of the epistemic nihillism that follows from its necessary implication of mereological nihillism, would consume the basis by which we inferred it, eliminating even the act of its own negation, leaving absolutely nothing."
To save you google time:
reification:
the conversion of an abstract concept into something concrete; a viewing of the abstract as concrete or real.
nihilism:
a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth
classical mereology:
is the theory of parthood relations: of the relations of part to whole and the relations of part to part within a whole. Its roots can be traced back to the early days of philosophy, beginning with the Presocratic atomists
mereological nihilism: (also called compositional nihilism, or rarely simply nihilism)
is the position that objects with proper parts do not exist (not only objects in space, but also objects existing in time do not have any temporal parts), and only basic building blocks without parts exist. Or, more succinctly, "nothing is a proper part of anything." material simples:
the smallest objects that have no parts
I would respond, but I'm certain my post would be removed as off-topic, (even though your post is clearly off-topic and will be allowed to remain.)
If you truly could see it . . . you would realize the necessity to abandon your position entirely . . . but you do not. This is why you did not understand Plantinga, Matrix or me. Here is an excerpt explaining what we tried to explain in simplified form . . . but which you have neither the ability nor the inclination to even try to think about deeply enough to grasp. I have no illusion that this kind of presentation will succeed any more likely than the ones Matrix, I and Plantinga tried.
There is a difference between an ability to talk in terms of science and philosophy, and actually being able to think in terms of science and philosophy. You seem to have a shotgun approach - throwing words and concepts in a wide-scatter pattern, hoping that something will hit your mark. But your mark is an illusion. You want to convince us that you need theism to explain the world, but the fact is that we don't.
The closest we come to needing theism is that we need to posit some form of qualitative subjectivity as fundamental. The point of the "hard problem" is to show that qualia cannot emerge from something that is completely non-qualitative. Most philosophers, and most of the scientists who understand philosophy, accept this need for something fundamentally qualitative. But your commitment to theism blinds you to the realization that the fundamental elements of reality (which can be both essentially 3rd-person and have an essentially subjective aspect via the intrinsic holism of quantum theory) can explain the emergence of intelligence and consciousness (and even "purpose") without the prior assumption that there is already an intelligent, conscious, purposeful god to explain everything.
Until you take the time and effort to actually understand how emergence works in this case, your commitment to theism will continue to have an empty ring.
There is a difference between an ability to talk in terms of science and philosophy, and actually being able to think in terms of science and philosophy. You seem to have a shotgun approach - throwing words and concepts in a wide-scatter pattern, hoping that something will hit your mark. But your mark is an illusion. You want to convince us that you need theism to explain the world, but the fact is that we don't.
As Mystic will happily agree, I am in no way the philosopher he is. I did not engage in such long-winded mental gymnastics in my particular areas of interest, no matter how broad-based they might be. My training is purely empirically based, though widely so, and in areas he similarly has literally no expertise in. I've applied simple logic to my own philosophical interpretations since then, out in the real world, observing things real all around me. These observations he hand-wavingly dismisses, as though I somehow "missed all the good stuff!"
I don't claim to advise him on the greater universal theories he insists exist, nor should he advise me on, let's say, slope stability, DNA mapping, laser-stimulated X-ray fluorescence datings, or the like.
Nonetheless, I do see in his writings the same basic flaw you all see; that he consistently makes a quantum leap from the clearly observable, which he correctly notes we all make, to some "therefore..." conclusion about an existing theistic entity. This is the jump to warp drive that just doesn't cut it, frankly.
As Gaylenwoff so eloquently puts it, and to a loud and mutual applause:
"You want to convince us that you need theism to explain the world, but the fact is that we don't."
I had put it far less elegantly recently when I asked Mystic why we need such an explanation? Not sure he ever answered, or if so, in simpleton terms I could "get"... I'm so stupit! But again, what about those of us who have found inner satisfaction with not necessarily assuming we know the answer to everything, particularly as to the means of our creation? Especially when the evidence all around us in the universe supports our empirical and evidence-driven conclusions, all absent some improbable super-entity who, oddly, also made scads of conflicting mistakes here on Earth.
Seems his only fall-back position, which of course no-one can argue, is that he's had a personal experience with his God, which his own philosophical super-training should be yelling in his ear is entirely subjective and personal, since, in fact, most hominids on this planet have NOT had such interaction.
Especially, I'll add, those who ardently do not believe in God, (i.e.: are not susceptible to the power in perception and hopeful conclusion) while ghost and devil worshippers seem to see them all the time.
Hmmm... Just what conclusion should we come to, Mystic old chum? You'll tell us, I'm sure.
I would respond, but I'm certain my post would be removed as off-topic, (even though your post is clearly off-topic and will be allowed to remain.)
It is directly relevant to Hawking being critiqued by a philosopher for trying to use scientific rationales (inherently self-defeating philosophically) as the basis to suggest theism is not necessary. My post is directly relevant to that topic.
There is a difference between an ability to talk in terms of science and philosophy, and actually being able to think in terms of science and philosophy. You seem to have a shotgun approach - throwing words and concepts in a wide-scatter pattern, hoping that something will hit your mark. But your mark is an illusion. You want to convince us that you need theism to explain the world, but the fact is that we don't.
Nice dodge. Of course we don't need theism to EXPLAIN the functioning of the world because you and yours relegate the Source of that ability to explain to limbo and are comfortable with that.
Quote:
The closest we come to needing theism is that we need to posit some form of qualitative subjectivity as fundamental. The point of the "hard problem" is to show that qualia cannot emerge from something that is completely non-qualitative. Most philosophers, and most of the scientists who understand philosophy, accept this need for something fundamentally qualitative. But your commitment to theism blinds you to the realization that the fundamental elements of reality (which can be both essentially 3rd-person and have an essentially subjective aspect via the intrinsic holism of quantum theory) can explain the emergence of intelligence and consciousness (and even "purpose") without the prior assumption that there is already an intelligent, conscious, purposeful god to explain everything.
Until you take the time and effort to actually understand how emergence works in this case, your commitment to theism will continue to have an empty ring.
Your love for the euphemisms of "emergence" and "self-organizing" are symptomatic of your attachment to our ARTIFICIAL mathematical rubric (created in our minds with OUR flawed rules and quantitative discretizing of reality).Emergence and self-organization are simply OBSERVATIONS . . . NOT explanations. Our math has utility in aiding prediction of our observations . . . but not explaining them. There is a quantum difference between modeling discretized observations using math rules and what reality is ACTUALLY doing. We can model human decision-making and preferences mathematically . . . but it is absurd to think we use math models to establish our preferences.
As Mystic will happily agree, I am in no way the philosopher he is. I did not engage in such long-winded mental gymnastics in my particular areas of interest, no matter how broad-based they might be. My training is purely empirically based, though widely so, and in areas he similarly has literally no expertise in. I've applied simple logic to my own philosophical interpretations since then, out in the real world, observing things real all around me. These observations he hand-wavingly dismisses, as though I somehow "missed all the good stuff!"
I don't claim to advise him on the greater universal theories he insists exist, nor should he advise me on, let's say, slope stability, DNA mapping, laser-stimulated X-ray fluorescence datings, or the like.
Nonetheless, I do see in his writings the same basic flaw you all see; that he consistently makes a quantum leap from the clearly observable, which he correctly notes we all make, to some "therefore..." conclusion about an existing theistic entity. This is the jump to warp drive that just doesn't cut it, frankly.
As Gaylenwoff so eloquently puts it, and to a loud and mutual applause:
"You want to convince us that you need theism to explain the world, but the fact is that we don't."
I had put it far less elegantly recently when I asked Mystic why we need such an explanation? Not sure he ever answered, or if so, in simpleton terms I could "get"... I'm so stupit! But again, what about those of us who have found inner satisfaction with not necessarily assuming we know the answer to everything, particularly as to the means of our creation? Especially when the evidence all around us in the universe supports our empirical and evidence-driven conclusions, all absent some improbable super-entity who, oddly, also made scads of conflicting mistakes here on Earth.
Seems his only fall-back position, which of course no-one can argue, is that he's had a personal experience with his God, which his own philosophical super-training should be yelling in his ear is entirely subjective and personal, since, in fact, most hominids on this planet have NOT had such interaction.
Especially, I'll add, those who ardently do not believe in God, (i.e.: are not susceptible to the power in perception and hopeful conclusion) while ghost and devil worshippers seem to see them all the time.
Hmmm... Just what conclusion should we come to, Mystic old chum? You'll tell us, I'm sure.
Ah . . . my good friend rifleman . . . your self-deprecation is unnecessary. As GldnRule has observed you are one of the more informed and articulate atheists on the forum in your areas of expertise (even without a doctorate). The issues Hawking intended to address stray into the areas where science has little to say because of its premises (brute facts exempt from validation). His proficiency and ingrained thought processes endemic to the use of mathematical "explanations" of observations cause him to equate the mathematical with the actual . . . a major philosophical mistake. You have a similar empirical focus and bias using the same premises as "given in the inner consciousness" (taken for granted and needing no explanation). We agree about the empricial, rfileman . . . it is the premises (brute facts) that we disagree about (and which I do have additional subjective information about) . . . but I also have logical and philosophical support for as well. Do not feel you need to understand the latter . . . since you are comfortable with the "ignorance" (we don't know) inherent in the brute facts you are willing to accept and live with. Peace.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
