Metaphysics and Empiricism
Bill,
First off, I don't know anybody in this forum - no one - who equates behavior (as in walking and talking) with C. It's disingenuous (which is clearly not your style) to say otherwise. Please leave this kind of analysis to minds that work that way.
Second off (?) let me give you my perspective on your very interestingly-put comment (BTW, I envy your ability to turn out these on-the-money phrases, which you do pretty often):
>>> ... the idea that what is objectively verifiable is coextensive with what is real is not a scientific fact, it's a metaphysical position. <<<
I don't see any inherent wall between metaphysical objects and physical objects. Objectively verifiable conclusions (perceptually visible and distinct - ie, uniquely identifiable) and 'real' objects (forms capable of being perceptually visible and distinct - ie, uniquely identifiable) are both perceivable (identifiable) and understandable (calculable) by a physical brain operating under the direction of the discovered and undiscovered laws of physics.
Here are the basic assumptions on which I base this unity of metaphysics and empiricism :
1) The Big Bang created/caused a
Universe of energy (energy and its forms are the sole substance of the
Universe);
2) Ideas exist in the Universe;
3) E=MC^2 defines a valid relationship between energy and matter.
Add 2 less lofty assumptions:
A) Brain circuitry obeys physical laws;
B) Thinking (the manipulation of ideas) is directly related to brain circuitry;
One final point, a definition from Merriam-Webster:
C) Logic - "The fundamental principles and the connection of circuit elements for arithmetical computation in a computer." In other words, logical circuits produce results indisinguishable from mathematical results.
The simple design created by joining these ideas: a single starting cause, with a uniform distribution of causality, with the substances this causality acts upon - energy, matter and velocity -mathematically/logically related to each other. In this context, random causality = unexplained causality. There are no random elements in a design using these assumptions (now there's an opening for you! <g>).
A more exacting design:
Energy and its forms are the sole substance of the Universe (1);
Ideas exist in the Universe, and are therefore composed of energy (1,2);
Energy is directly related to matter (3);
Energy and matter obey rules of structure and interaction we call physical laws (3);
Math and logic operations produce results indistinguishable from each other (C);
Thinking is the manipulation of ideas in a physical brain (A);
A physical brain obeys physical laws in its operation (B);
Ideas obey physical laws (2,3);
Every idea perceivable by a brain can be logically (and mathematically) manipulated (1,2,A,B,C).
If you add one more definition to the above - ie, ideas are perceivable divisions of the Universe - then metaphysics and empiricism study the same elements.
Naturally you can reject my assumptions and definitions, or my non-rigorous presentation of my conclusions. The point I am making - similar to our earlier conversation on C - is that the assumptions you use to think about the world determine the world you see. To me the presented assumptions are reasonably validated by facts, the definitions are representative of the objects they describe, and the conclusions reached by manipulating the assumptions and definitions don't violate any logical/mathematical laws.
And since this mindset covers a lot of ground (all that I can see, anyway) it's the one I prefer to use. Of course, if tomorrow new evidence comes in altering my assumptions or definitions, then my conclusions must change accordingly - and I will go wherever they take me, because I equate logical verifiability with inclusive design (a necessary criteria for truth).
This is in contrast to those people (of which you are not one) who design conclusions based on feel-good assumptions, hoping that someday someone smarter than them will find a direct verifiable connection between their assumptions (and - bygollybygosh - 'prove them right' !!! ). To me, these people are, well, playing dice with the Universe. <g>
Tony
> First off, I don't know anybody in this forum - no one - who equates behavior (as in walking and talking) with C.
Tony,
I can't speak for the denizens of the forum, but there certainly =are= people who equate behavior and consciousness. I'd go so far as to say that such a line of thought is the dominant theme in what passes for philosophy of mind these days. Anyone who accepts the Turing test as the criterion for consciousness in fact makes that very equation. And despite the fact that the crudest forms of behaviorism have been pretty much discarded, functionalism is merely a refinement of behaviorism and ultimately fails for the same reasons: it "explains" consciousness by redefining the word "consciousness" so that it means behavior.
I'm actually a little surprised at your assertion that "no one" espouses this view. Perhaps no one =here= has asserted it -- at least, not baldly -- but it's hardly a straw man of my construction.
> BTW, I envy your ability to turn out these on-the-money phrases, which you do pretty often
Actually, I've just got a very large team of monkeys with keyboards working here ... every so often ... you know <g>
> I don't see any inherent wall between metaphysical objects and physical objects.
I'm not sure what metaphysical "objects" are, except that I'm pretty sure you can't construct them in C++ <g>. My point was not about the reality of various kinds of objects, but rather about the fact that the decision to establish an epistemological criterion for what is real cannot possibly be the result of empirical observation. The idea that reality is constrained to what can be grasped via scientific method is a metaphysical belief, not an empirically grounded belief, because it can't be supported by any possible observation.
> energy and its forms are the sole substance of the Universe
This is the very proposition that is in question, so I'm certainly not going to simply stipulate it! Furthermore, I don't think the idea of "its forms" is very clear.
If energy and its forms are the sole substance of the universe, then what is the Mandelbrot set, for example? It does not consist of energy, and, since it does not consist of energy, it can't consist of the "forms" of energy either, since such forms would have to themselves be arrangements of energy.
> Add 2 less lofty assumptions: A) Brain circuitry obeys physical laws; B) Thinking (the manipulation of ideas) is directly related to brain circuitry;
The description of the brain as "circuitry" is a metaphor. I think a big part of your argument turns on the reification of this metaphor, and I think that's a weakness in the argument. Compounding this problem is the fact that your selected definition of "logic" is also a metaphor: literal logic has nothing to do with "the connection of circuit elements for arithmetical computation in a computer."
> If you add one more definition to the above - ie, ideas are perceivable divisions of the Universe - then metaphysics and empiricism study the same elements.
Yikes! Sorry, but I don't see at all how this is supposed to follow from your premises. Can you give me your definition of "metaphysics?" I think we may not be on the same page with respect to that.
> Naturally you can reject my assumptions and definitions
Thank you <g>.
> The point I am making - similar to our earlier conversation on C - is that the assumptions you use to think about the world determine the world you see.
The assumptions are the metaphysical underpinnings of understanding.
> To me the presented assumptions are reasonably validated by facts
Maybe they are. But the idea that reality is coextensive with what can be validated cannot possibly be itself validated by any facts. Rather, this idea is one of "the assumptions you use to think about the world." If assumptions were validated by facts, they wouldn't be assumptions.
> This is in contrast to those people (of which you are not one) who design conclusions based on feel-good assumptions
I agree completely about the absurdity of reverse-engineering one's worldview to support what one wants to believe. (Belief in "life after death" is a great example of this).
Let me close with a quotation from one of my favorite philosophers:
In formulating any philosophy, the first consideration must
always be: What can we know? That is, what can we be sure we
know, or sure that we know we knew it, if indeed it is at all
knowable. Or have we simply forgotten it and are too embarrassed
to say anything? ... By "knowable," incidentally, I do not mean
that which can be known by perception of the senses, or that
which can be grasped by the mind, but more that which can be
said to be Known or possess a Knownness or Knowability, or at
least something you can mention to a friend.
(Woody Allen, _My Philosophy_, 1966)
Bill
Bill,
Thanks for your honest response. We won't be solving the problems of the world together because we have one basic (and very likely irreconcilable) disagreement, but there are other points where I think we are just using different definitions.
>>> My point was not about the reality of various kinds of objects, but rather about the fact that the decision to establish an epistemological criterion for what is real cannot possibly be the result of empirical observation. The idea that reality is constrained to what can be grasped via scientific method is a metaphysical belief, not an empirically grounded belief, because it can't be supported by any possible observation. <<<
Empirical observation to me does not require test tubes. It requires verifiability - ie, reproducibility. A valid syllogism is enough proof for me - and to me is as 'empirically grounded' as the scientific method. The acid test for empiricism is reproducibility.
>>> [energy and its forms are the sole substance of the Universe] This is the very proposition that is in question, so I'm certainly not going to simply stipulate it! <<<
I didn't realize this was up for grabs. What are you replacing it with?
I suspect that on this subject we will have to agree to disagree. My mindset is wholly based on a Big Bang origin of the Universe. If a better supported origin theory comes along, I'll reconstruct using that. See? I'm flexible! <g>
BTW, not to be contentious, but (at the least) a Mandlebrot set and massless particles do have provable energy-based existences - in our brains! See my definition of metaphysical objects below.
>>> The description of the brain as "circuitry" is a metaphor. I think a big part of your argument turns on the reification of this metaphor, and I think that's a weakness in the argument. Compounding this problem is the fact that your selected definition of "logic" is also a metaphor: literal logic has nothing to do with "the connection of circuit elements for arithmetical computation in a computer." <<<
Circuits that emulate logical activity are functional equivalents of "literal logic". If that isn't a strong enough correlation for you, then again we must agree to disagree.
>>> Yikes! Sorry, but I don't see at all how this is supposed to follow from your premises. Can you give me your definition of "metaphysics?" I think we may not be on the same page with respect to that. <<<
Sorry, didn't mean to shock you! To me a metaphysical object is an idea (a form in the Universe capable of being perceptually visible and distinct - ie, uniquely identifiable). Note that an idea may not have a physical correlate - for example, the idea 'nothing'. But the idea 'nothing' exists in the Universe (it's in my head) and is accessible to me. So it is physical (in my head and processable by my physical brain) but does not refer to an external physical object. To me both types of ideas are metaphysical objects.
>>> But the idea that reality is coextensive with what can be validated cannot possibly be itself validated by any facts. Rather, this idea is one of "the assumptions you use to think about the world." <<<
You leave out that these are ***verifiable*** assumptions. They are directly supported by physical evidence. There is a chain of logic from the bottom to the top. The elements composing the chain directly influence and are influenced by the other elements in the chain. The ' facts' are the logical elements composing the chain.
Your statement harkens back to your rejection of energy and its forms as the sole substance of the Universe. Without that assumption I can't answer your question -' there is no there there'. With that assumption, I have already answered it - all objects flow from that original bang, are composed of related substances and interact with each other according to physical laws. Then of course they are capable of being ' validated' - proved to influence (and be influenced by) other divisions of the Universe - by logic and mathematics.
>>> If assumptions were validated by facts, they wouldn't be assumptions. <<<
This was kind of answered in the above response, but I want to mention the obvious - that something that nears certainty can be called an assumption just as something that nears zero probability can be called an assumption. In other words, some assumptions are more structurally sound than others.
>>> What can we know? That is, what can we be sure we know, or sure that we know we knew it, if indeed it is at all knowable.... but more that which can be said to be Known or possess a Knownness or Knowability .... <<<<
Last I heard Woody crossed one of Sinatra's women and lived to tell about it. So *** I *** sure ain't messin' with him. <g>
Thanks for the workout,
Tony