Topic...Naturalism and the Scientific Outlook....Ok...discuss.

[stem cell]

I was listening to this podcast today and thought it would be a good
topic to discuss. I would like to get personal thoughts on this from
Orn. and Aaron. I hope this link goes through. Just FYI. More
information on this can be found at www.naturalism.org.


www.pointofinquiry.org/john_shook_naturalism_and_the_scientific_outlook/

stemcell

[stem cell]

That link will take you to the Point of Inquiry pocast shows. There
are episode titles there to choose from and the episode in question
with Shook is 28th down from the podcast titled "The 12th annual CFI
Houdini Seance".

stemcell

[ornamentalmind]

IF you mean the mp3 from here:
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/the_12th_annual_cfi_houdini_seance/

I'll try to listen to it and respond. Overall, I consider the things
implied by the article there to be based in superstition, a form of
ignorance.

> > stemcell- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

stem, assuming that this is what you wanted me to listen to:

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/mp3_stream/myWimpy.html

I listened to as much as I could and skipped to the end to see the
conclusion.

Thoughts: I had forgotten how, in my youth, I was fascinated with Erik
Weisz. I now even remember studying most written about his attempts at
such communication, prior and after death. In a way, my current
skepticism is in part based on his work. Oh, I have learned in
different contexts how cruel it is to play with people who hold such
beliefs, so I seldom engage in such activity.

Anyway, over the decades, not only have I reached the same conclusion
(no communication of this kind is possible between the dead and the
living) but I’ve added a strong intuition for the same result.

All of this is the case even though almost ever culture has stories
and myths about this type of communication.

I don’t know what else there is to discuss.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[stem cell]

Thanks for the thoughts (and the time you spent looking in to this)
However, I wanted to get your thoughts on naturalism...as discussed in
the podcast with John Shook. I am just getting in to the literature.
The link I provided on www.naturalism.org is a new find so when I
heard of the podcast on Point of Inquiry my interest peaked.

I would like to address some points you made.

Orn. said >>> Oh, I have learned in

different contexts how cruel it is to play with people who hold such
beliefs, so I seldom engage in such activity. <<<

With this I totally agree. I tend to shy away from "taking away one's
faith", which most believers "believe" a nontheist skeptic is out to
do. To each thier own. I tend to think that methodological natualism
is the best tool humans can use for an objective explaination of
what's out there. The reason being...because it works.

[ornamentalmind]

OK stem, I think I have listened to the correct one now.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/mp3_stream/myWimpy.html

Your directions were fine, I just had a brain fart!

I took a lot of notes yet am not sure I wish to combine them now.

In general, I see naturalism as a presented in this audio as
skepticism light. Yet, not the type of skepticism that over the
millennia has sought the transcendental. More the brand that rejects
any possibility of the divine. In fact, it appears to start out with
axioms that result in or even say that the transcendental is
impossible.

A few quick observations gleaned from the audio:
1. Naturalism sees science as being the scientific method and this is
enough.
I find this teleological proclamation to be just that, a conclusion
wrapped up in the assumption.

2. Naturalism claims to be able to know everything that we NEED TO
KNOW!
The caps are mine. Again, rather than a pure search, it is yet another
relativistic view and, in this case one that is bounded by the
subjective notion of ‘need to know’, rather than anything objective.

3. Naturalism wishes to tear down the wall between naturalism and
supernaturalism.
Well, this is the lip service given at least. In fact, their comment
about "the data decides for or against theories in the long run (a
progressive cumulation)" precisely denies their demand for experience
being included in the three ways of naturalism
experience
reason
science

4. Now this hodgepodge of a philosophy makes the bizarre statement
“Nature exists based on common sense.” This is fine, IF it is given as
an axiom to start out with. Otherwise, it again appears to be a bit of
a teleological notion. And, the waffling on who has the ‘burden of
proof’, naturalism or supernaturalism and the assumptions that
transcendentalism is ‘outmoded’, to me, is almost laughable. This is
followed by some sort of testing of ‘moral knowledge’.

5. Quote about naturalism from the mp3: “You can derive a PRACTICAL
KIND OF MORALITY from naturalism.” – The caps are mine again. While I
have nothing against a practical approach to being as such nor as an
aspect of that which is known, in no way is it the center piece for an
epistemology let alone an ontology. In this case, what appears to be a
pseudotheology results in “enough meaning” rather than no meaning!
Again, clearly a philosophy based on relativism.

6. Next is the assumption that there is no cosmic mother, father etc.
and to hold this bit of faith near and dear is a sign of self
responsibility. A true amalgamation of ethics, theology and
philosophy.

Well, as you can see through my generally hyperbolic exuberance, I
have some rather strong thoughts about the topic. I’m sure that when/
if I read the website provided I’ll have more to spew.

So, again, I sense that one who follows naturalism, rather than
burning at the stake those with god beliefs as most atheists are want
to do, they would take them out behind the shed and shoot them…after a
short attempt at reeducation.

On Nov 4, 4:16 pm, stem cell <mperi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Thanks for the thoughts (and the time you spent looking in to this)
> However, I wanted to get your thoughts on naturalism...as discussed in
> the podcast with John Shook.  I am just getting in to the literature.

> The link I provided onwww.naturalism.orgis a new find so when I

[stem cell]

Thanks for your thoughts. (and again, the time you put to
this...:-)) I am about to sit down and eat and watch the election
coverage. I will get back to this tomorrow...also...I can't think
straight cause I am so tired. Thanks again Orn.

stemcell

On Nov 4, 7:58 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> OK stem, I think I have listened to the correct one now.http://www.centerforinquiry.net/mp3_stream/myWimpy.html

> > The link I provided onwww.naturalism.orgisa new find so when I

[ornamentalmind]

my pleasure! and, i'll discuss it doing less of a hatchet job later
with you too! :-)

> > > The link I provided onwww.naturalism.orgisanew find so when I

[BBDD]

This is a bit retarded. Of course there is communication between the
living and the dead. You, for example, are incapable of free thought,
which makes you entirely an instrument for communicating with others,
including the dead. What forms that communication takes, whether it be
book, inspirational, or other, depends entirely on one's mind set.

http://niggerwise.com

[BBDD]

This one is a bit silly, too. None of you have drawn a single
conclusion about myself that is not Palinist (ignorant, reactionary,
superstitious, and based in absurd faith).

http://niggerwise.com

On Nov 4, 6:16 pm, stem cell <mperi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Thanks for the thoughts (and the time you spent looking in to this)
> However, I wanted to get your thoughts on naturalism...as discussed in
> the podcast with John Shook.  I am just getting in to the literature.

> The link I provided onwww.naturalism.orgis a new find so when I

[BBDD]

This one, on the other hand is just down right stupid. The notion that
transcendence is external comes from the Western approach to teaching
philosophy. Philosophy is not taught in the West (other than in very
rare post grad schools). What is taught as philosophy here is
"dialectics". Dialectics are merely the rules for discussing Eastern
philosophies. They are fundamentally flawed in not seeing the true
nature of transcendence. Transcendence is a group of internal mind
states. It is NOT ABOUT GOD. It is about a consciousness referred to
as God in only a specific instance. Dali had a method of quick
transcendence used before he would begin to create. Mental
transcendence is common in many fields that demand exaggerated
attention. Escher is another "transcendent" artist. Unlike Salvador,
his transcendence is the natural result of the exaggerated attention
required by etching. There are four fundamental method of
transcendence. They are entirely scientific. While some reach these
transcendent states of consciousness and attribute them to Divine
beings that is not the majority of those who experience them. This
error is understandable. Archetypes like those cataloged by Jung are
often, but not necessarily, encountered. Free thought does NOT result
in the conclusion that those encounters are with the Divine. But TRUE
free thought embraces transcendent states.

http://niggerwise.com

On Nov 4, 7:58 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> OK stem, I think I have listened to the correct one now.http://www.centerforinquiry.net/mp3_stream/myWimpy.html

> > The link I provided onwww.naturalism.orgisa new find so when I

[BBDD]

Naturalism is a view WITHIN a topic. Only the very ignorant see it as
a proper view outside the topic it addresses. This is a common layman
tendency in just about anything being addressed. When we look at the
cause end of this universe it is addressed through natural science
only to the boundaries of natural. To fully understand the universe
and its origin it is necessary to go a step further. One must address
pre physics. What caused first movement when there was nothing to
move? There is an answer accepted in physics but it is a formulation
before the nature of physics as we understand it. Hypothetical? True.
But hypothesis is absolutely essential to physics.

http://niggerwise.com

On Nov 4, 2:17 pm, stem cell <mperi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

[BBDD]

How far does experience, reason, and (science???? I can only assume
you mean scientific method) get us without the CONJECTURE necessary to
devise new methods of observation???? Einstein valued most what you
value not at all.

On Nov 4, 7:58 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> OK stem, I think I have listened to the correct one now.http://www.centerforinquiry.net/mp3_stream/myWimpy.html

> > The link I provided onwww.naturalism.orgisa new find so when I

[CrossBow]

Stem,

 

this passage seem tailored to my perspective at this time and the rest of it is looking spot on as well.  Much to think about:)  A friend introduced me to the existentialist/determinist question and this is....thoughtful...

 

Responsibility and morality: From a naturalistic perspective, behavior arises out of the interaction between individuals and their environment, not from a freely willing self that produces behavior independently of causal connections (see above). Therefore individuals don't bear ultimate originative responsibility for their actions, in the sense of being their first cause. Given the circumstances both inside and outside the body, they couldn't have done other than what they did. Nevertheless, we must still hold individuals responsible, in the sense of applying rewards and sanctions, so that their behavior stays more or less within the range of what we deem acceptable. This is, partially, how people learn to act ethically. Naturalism doesn't undermine the need or possibility of responsibility and morality, but it places them within the world as understood by science. However, naturalism does call into question the basis for retributive attitudes, namely the idea that individuals could have done otherwise in the situation in which their behavior arose and so deeply deserve punishment.

[Taylor]

<<However, naturalism does call into question the basis for
retributive attitudes, namely the idea
that individuals could have done otherwise in the situation in which
their behavior arose and so deeply deserve punishment. >>

No, it doesn't. The idea of punishment doesn't require any moral
agent. If you are a punisher, you are part of the natural world that
the organism deals with and it will adjust its behavior to avoid the
punishment. If the punishment is swift, assured and unpleasant, the
organism cannot do otherwise.

The idea of punishment being "deserved" is irrelevant. The only thing
that's important is that it exists..

[CrossBow]

Printed the whole spiel out on the home page, but on further investigation, found a name that makes me uneasy...Ekhart Tolle.  So, I am dancing around it with a suspicious eye.

 

http://www.naturalism.org/spiritua.htm

[stem cell]

CB, Yes, I saw that when I looked in to the "Spirituality" link on
the front page. The book by Price that we just finished in the book
club called TOP SECRET talked about that type of mysticism. I did not
read all of it, Price, but I do recall in skimming that he mentioned
Ekhart Tolle. Anyway, I will look at that article and see if I can
come up with some info. from Naturalism.org about that topic and
Tolle.

Taylor said >>> However, naturalism does call into question the basis

for
retributive attitudes, namely the idea
that individuals could have done otherwise in the situation in which
their behavior arose and so deeply deserve punishment. >>

No, it doesn't. <<<

Yes it does..."call into question the basis"

"*Responsibility and morality:* From a naturalistic perspective,

behavior
arises out of the interaction between individuals and their
environment, not
from a freely willing self that produces behavior independently of
causal
connections (see above). Therefore individuals don't bear ultimate
originative
responsibility for their actions, in the sense of being their first
cause.
Given the circumstances both inside and outside the body, they
couldn't have
done other than what they did. Nevertheless, we must still hold
individuals
responsible, in the sense of applying rewards and sanctions, so that
their
behavior stays more or less within the range of what we deem
acceptable.
This is, partially, how people learn to act ethically. Naturalism
doesn't
undermine the need or possibility of responsibility and morality, but
it

places them within the world as understood by science. However,

naturalism
does call into question the basis for retributive attitudes, namely
the idea
that individuals could have done otherwise in the situation in which
their
behavior arose and so deeply deserve punishment. "

stemcell

> > that's important is that it exists..- Hide quoted text -

[stem cell]

CrossBow,

Here is an excerpt from the "Spirituality" link on Natualism.org page
about Tolle and his "system" of discovering "certainty".

"From a naturalistic standpoint that takes human experience as a
necessarily fallible guide to reality, Tolle’s claim of certainty is
extraordinary and implausible. There’s no doubt that mystical or
meditative states can involve the experience of overwhelming
certainty, but whether or not they accurately reflect the world
outside the head is another question altogether. This question can
only be answered by checking to see whether there’s something in the
world that corresponds to our strongly held conviction about it. This
involves exactly what Tolle says isn’t necessary for certainty:
external evidence or proof. Tolle of course interprets his experience
in the light of the Perennial Philosophy handed down by generations of
mystics and sages, but this philosophy is just that which claims that
properly trained subjective experience is a reliable guide to reality.
Each successive generation of mystics, the latest of which Tolle is a
member, reiterates the claim, but that doesn’t help to make it
plausible. "

www.naturalism.org/tolle.htm

I think Robert Price was making the same case in his book TOP SECRET.

stemcell

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[CrossBow]

Thanks for the clarification, Stem. 

 

I was distracted and did not look deep enough and it is a review instead of support.  A relief;) 

[Taylor]

<<Yes it does..."call into question the basis" >>

Still "no". This idea of "deserving punishment" is alien to me. I
ask, "for what purpose?"

[CrossBow]

OH, right... is it saying that punishment for some behaviors should be considered relative to the environment that affected the criminal when we consider punishment like the death penalty? That we can't help ourselves in some situations? Sometimes I can agree with that.  I think pheremones have a strong influence on fidelity!  Most won't like it or consider it because it may be seen to undermine accountability....

 

<<<naturalism does call into question the basis for retributive attitudes, namely the idea that individuals could have done otherwise in the situation in which their behavior arose and so deeply deserve punishment.>>>

[stem cell]

Ok. Let's flesh this out. I might be mistaken. (and thank you for
your thoughts) I do think that the naturalist account regarding
punishment does call into account the historic/common (vengence) basis
for punishment that is prevalent in society. I am like you, I do not
understand "deserving". But I think what is being said is that the
"purpose" for such punishment, denial of rewards, scolding, etc. is
for us to live in a civil society. Actions by purely natural beings
should not be based on "free will"/dualism/god figure and thus no
retributive (vengence/"deserving") punishments. Those who decide to
break the laws of a civil society should still be held responsible for
their actions...actions that are not derived from some supernatural
genesis.

Now, I am not arguing the soundness of such a thought. This is just
my take on what is being said about punishment in a natualistic
framwork.

So, I think to answer "for what purpose" is that behavior is
conditioned (by rewards and punishments) so we can live in a civil
society. By conditioned I do not mean manipulated by some mad
scientist or rogue underworld gov. How else can we live together?

I am sure Jason might have something to say on this, too.

[CrossBow]

Yes, I need help on this subject and need to think or swim:)

[stem cell]

CB said >>> Most won't like it or consider it because it

may be seen to undermine accountability....<<<

WELL PUT.

On Nov 5, 1:37 pm, CrossBow <crossbow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OH, right... is it saying that punishment for some behaviors should be
> considered relative to the environment that affected the criminal when we
> consider punishment like the death penalty? That we can't help ourselves in
> some situations? Sometimes I can agree with that.  I think pheremones have a
> strong influence on fidelity!  Most won't like it or consider it because it
> may be seen to undermine accountability....
>

> *<<<naturalism does call into question the basis for retributive attitudes,

> namely the idea that individuals could have done otherwise in the situation
> in which their behavior arose and so deeply deserve punishment.>>>

> *

>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Taylor <tayg...@boundvortex.com> wrote:
>
> > <<Yes it does..."call into question the basis" >>
>
> > Still "no".  This idea of "deserving punishment" is alien to me.  I

> > ask, "for what purpose?"- Hide quoted text -

[stem cell]

Orn. said >>>In fact, it appears to start out with

axioms that result in or even say that the transcendental is
impossible. <<<

Yes, I think that is their point. That it is true that we are natural
beings and do not have a supernatural "thing" controling out
thoughts. Let me copy and paste what I did for CB in a post above as
a possible example.

>>>In response to CB <<<<

Here is an excerpt from the "Spirituality" link on Natualism.org page
about Tolle and his "system" of discovering "certainty".


"From a naturalistic standpoint that takes human experience as a
necessarily fallible guide to reality, Tolle’s claim of certainty is
extraordinary and implausible. There’s no doubt that mystical or
meditative states can involve the experience of overwhelming
certainty, but whether or not they accurately reflect the world
outside the head is another question altogether. This question can
only be answered by checking to see whether there’s something in the
world that corresponds to our strongly held conviction about it. This
involves exactly what Tolle says isn’t necessary for certainty:
external evidence or proof. Tolle of course interprets his experience
in the light of the Perennial Philosophy handed down by generations
of
mystics and sages, but this philosophy is just that which claims that
properly trained subjective experience is a reliable guide to
reality.
Each successive generation of mystics, the latest of which Tolle is a
member, reiterates the claim, but that doesn’t help to make it
plausible. "


www.naturalism.org/tolle.htm


I think Robert Price was making the same case in his book TOP SECRET.
"

stemcell

On Nov 4, 7:58 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> OK stem, I think I have listened to the correct one now.http://www.centerforinquiry.net/mp3_stream/myWimpy.html

> > The link I provided onwww.naturalism.orgisa new find so when I

[Watson, Markham]

Know anybody unhappy about Obama's election that The Commercial Appeal
could interview? If so, could you give that person's contact info to
Blake Fontenay, one of our Viewpoint columnists, who can be reached at
font...@commercialappeal.com or 529-2386? I'd appreciate it.

I swear -- this is my last request for today, and probably for this
month or more.

[BBDD]

No, this is twisted from the REAL view. Individuals can and do choose.
There is no doubt about that. However or choices are NATRURALLY
limited. Collectively, our environment in the moment is determined by
the environment as it existed in the moment before. Still, if all are
hungry it still reduces to a percentage of those having the means to
do something about it and a smaller percentage having motivation to do
so. The contributing factors to means and motivation are limitless
enough to produce choice... but choice comes after meeting the
challenge. This follows chaos theory. With enough infinite
possibility, encapsulated order is inevitable in chaos. With enough
variation in environment, and enough individuals, encapsulated choice
is inevitable. Did every criminal have a choice. No. Not everyone. Can
we make choices that give such individuals more choice. Most
certainly.

http://niggerwise.com

On Nov 5, 1:37 pm, CrossBow <crossbow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> OH, right... is it saying that punishment for some behaviors should be
> considered relative to the environment that affected the criminal when we
> consider punishment like the death penalty? That we can't help ourselves in
> some situations? Sometimes I can agree with that.  I think pheremones have a
> strong influence on fidelity!  Most won't like it or consider it because it
> may be seen to undermine accountability....
>

> *<<<naturalism does call into question the basis for retributive attitudes,

> namely the idea that individuals could have done otherwise in the situation
> in which their behavior arose and so deeply deserve punishment.>>>

> *

>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Taylor <tayg...@boundvortex.com> wrote:
>
> > <<Yes it does..."call into question the basis" >>
>
> > Still "no".  This idea of "deserving punishment" is alien to me.  I

> > ask, "for what purpose?"- Hide quoted text -

[Taylor]

<<is it saying that punishment for some behaviors should be
considered relative to the environment that affected the criminal when
we
consider punishment like the death penalty? That we can't help
ourselves in
some situations? >>

Possibly. One of the arguments against the death penalty for, say,
murder, is that murder is usually a crime of passion. In other words,
they don't think. Historically, the data did not support the idea
that the death penalty reduced the amount of murder.

If that's true, why execute a criminal?

But I think the question is more relevant to accidental crimes. If I
get drunk and run over a 10-year-old, why is my penalty so much
harsher than if I was merely weaving down the road and got pulled over
by a cop? In both cases, the crime is the same, driving under the
influence.

I would argue that the penalty needs to be whatever is required to
stop the behavior and no more. The penalty attached to unintended
consequences is unlikely to be a deterrent because the unintended
consequences are...unintended. I don't intend to run over anyone, so
why should I be concerned about the penalty associated with that
behavior?

Probably the underlying reason is that we feel that the perpetrator
"deserves" a harsher sentence.

[Taylor]

<<naturalist account regarding punishment does call into account the
historic/common (vengence) basis for punishment that is prevalent in
society.>>

Agreed. But I do think there are a number of reasons for punishment:

1) Train the person not to behave that way (spanking, prison)
2) *Prevent* the person from behaving that way (prison, amputation,
death)
3) Make society feel better (retribution)
4) Make the victim feel better (retribution)
5) God says so. (morality, guilt, sin, evil)

I'm ok with 1 and 2, but I don't feel good about 3, 4 and 5.
Naturalism is compatible with 1-4, but not 5.

[BBDD]

No, murder is NOT most often a crime of passion. Such is called
manslaughter. There are cold blooded murderers who need to be put
down, not as punishment... but because those who are a certain way are
far more dangerous than a rabid animal. I have known such individuals.
I knew Bobby B. and Squeaky. Lived across the street from them.
Squeaky needed therapy. Lots of it. Endless therapy. Bobby B. and
Charles Manson just needed to be put down. Charlie couldn't help being
the way he is. Neither could Bobby. Still they needed to be put down,
not as punishment, but because it is the most humane thing to do for
them and their potential victims. These people don't just kill. They
kill slow and enjoy every minute of it. They poison all of society
within their proximity whether you know they are their or not. When
they lived on Alamo Square, it was called the Little Alamo or Murder
Square. Without them being responsible directly for any of them there
was more than a murder a week in that one block park. We instinctively
kill those like Charlie and Bobby. In their particular cases they
still live but are dead to society.

http://niggerwise.com

[CrossBow]

<<We instinctively kill those like Charlie and Bobby>>

 

I smell some truth and evolutionary probability here...though it's not pretty.

 

[stem cell]

CB, if you get time, check out this link found on Naturalism.org.

"Punishment: Since the retributive justification for punishment is
based largely on the notion that behavior is originated by a causally
autonomous self, the motive to impose such punishment may diminish
once it is seen that such a self does not exist. In particular,
support may drop for punitive measures such as the death penalty or
prison sentences without rehabilitative amenities. More attention
will be paid to the conditions which create crime, and to approaches
that redeem offenders instead of further brutalizing them. See the
Criminal Justice page."


www.naturalism.org/conseque.htm

Taylor said >>> Agreed. But I do think there are a number of reasons

for punishment:


1) Train the person not to behave that way (spanking, prison)
2) *Prevent* the person from behaving that way (prison, amputation,
death)
3) Make society feel better (retribution)
4) Make the victim feel better (retribution)
5) God says so. (morality, guilt, sin, evil)


I'm ok with 1 and 2, but I don't feel good about 3, 4 and 5.
Naturalism is compatible with 1-4, but not 5. <<<

Great. Understanding. :-)

On Nov 5, 3:23 pm, CrossBow <crossbow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <<We instinctively kill those like Charlie and Bobby>>
>
> I smell some truth and evolutionary probability here...though it's not
> pretty.
>

> [?]

>  B60.gif
> < 1KViewDownload- Hide quoted text -

[CrossBow]

On it tomorrow - sounds like good food for prison reform!!!!

[BBDD]

Do you ever think for yourself? Or do you just parrot and "site"? WHAT
DO YOU THINK??? Only fools think prisons are retribution or
rehabilitation. They are a BIG GIANT RUG to sweep it under. What's
wrong with that?

http://niggerwise.com

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

“…I would argue that the penalty needs to be whatever is required to
stop the behavior and no more…” – Taylor

A few years back, Japan instituted a law that for the first conviction
of DUI, everyone had to lose their driver’s license. A couple of years
later and to the chagrin of the now burgeoning industry of new
chauffeurs, they rescinded the law.

[stem cell]

Orn. said >>>> Naturalism claims to be able to know everything that we

NEED TO
KNOW!
The caps are mine. Again, rather than a pure search, it is yet
another
relativistic view and, in this case one that is bounded by the
subjective notion of ‘need to know’, rather than anything objective.
<<<<

Does the theory OF Natualism claim to "know" everything or are they
making the claim that the things (most things) we thought were correct
are found to be either impossible or improbable given our current
scientific progress and knowledge?

> > > > > > stemcell- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

Stem, you are asking the wrong person. I am quite ignorant when it
comes to this version of 'naturalism'. What I THOUGHT they were saying
is that they approach ‘reality’ in a relative way… recognizing that
they will never know everything. Also, many beliefs are things they
wish to either not address or reject out right. As a result, I find
they seem to bow to the ‘god’ of practical ego. While this area
certainly should not be ignored, for ‘them’, it appears to be a
centerpiece of their belief system.
So, the result is accepting those things necessary to deal with in
everyday life…and anything else can be reduced to being either
unacceptable or a non-issue.

> > > The link I provided onwww.naturalism.orgisanew find so when I

[stem cell]

OK. Thanks. Right now I am having too much fun with bbdd to think
straight...tears of laughter are rolling. Remember when I said awhile
back in another post that I found nothring amusing when it comes to
ignorance...well...I was wrong....

> > > > The link I provided onwww.naturalism.orgisanewfind so when I

[Taylor]

<<Does the theory OF Natualism claim to "know" everything or are they
making the claim that the things (most things) we thought were correct
are found to be either impossible or improbable given our current
scientific progress and knowledge? >>

You will have to define what is meant by "know".

"Know" (to me) implies verification which is a naturalistic concept.

[stem cell]

I agree. To "know" is to have verification...IF one wants to relate
that knowledge to the outside world. However, a schitzo might "know"
there are bugs on their skin or that they have knowledge of
archeological evidence of a lost world. It is their knowledge. But
like I said, at that point it is just a subjective account hhof
"experience", "senses", whatever. So, I agree, "know" must have an
objective standard in order to relate it to the outside world and be
of any use. That is like you said, "verification". By the way,
"know" in the context in wihch I used that word came from Orn.

[stem cell]

Orn. why is "relative" bad?

stemcell

> > > > The link I provided onwww.naturalism.orgisanewfind so when I

[BBDD]

EXACTLY!!! It is version of naturalism. And a crackpot version at
that. Very few share this particular bazaar view of 'naturalism'.

http//niggerwise.com

> > > > The link I provided onwww.naturalism.orgisanewfind so when I

[stem cell]

Who asked you?

> > > > > The link I provided onwww.naturalism.orgisanewfindso when I

[BBDD]

stem cell's is the view of one who only experiences secondary
knowledge. One can "know" how to paint like a master. One can read how
to do so and "know" in a secondary way. Or one can truly KNOW, in
which case they CAN paint like a master. Secondary "knowledge" clings
to quotes; thus you have Christians constantly sighting scriptures
while being "knowing" of nothing. In truly KNOWING the evidence is in
results.

http://niggerwise.com

> > "Know" (to me) implies verification which is a naturalistic concept.- Hide quoted text -

[stem cell]

So. Are you going to answer any direct questions? If not, then we
will all asume that you are a fake and an insecure person with issues
of abandament and need to "look" good or you will fess up, be a man,
and answer direct questions. Which is it going to be? Fake or man?

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

“Orn. why is "relative" bad?” – Stem

Stem, relative is not bad nor is absolute. Blue is not bad nor is red.
The sun is not bad nor is the moon. Theism nor atheism is bad. They
just are.

So, in context, I’ll guess what you are asking. Correct me if I’m off
the mark, OK?

“Stem, you are asking the wrong person. I am quite ignorant when it

comes to this version of 'naturalism'. What I THOUGHT they were
saying is that they approach ‘reality’ in a relative way… recognizing
that they will never know everything. Also, many beliefs are things
they wish to either not address or reject out right. As a result, I
find they seem to bow to the ‘god’ of practical ego. While this area
certainly should not be ignored, for ‘them’, it appears to be a
centerpiece of their belief system. So, the result is accepting those
things necessary to deal with in everyday life…and anything else can

be reduced to being either unacceptable or a non-issue.” – orn

I only copy my entire post to assure my qualifiers are remembered. My
GUESS is that the author’s ontology is approached using an
epistemology that only recognizes what is known through the senses and
then only in a conventional (within the common memes of a given
society) way. Anything known through one’s senses will always be
relative/subjective. What I see as blue may not be your blue. What I
imagine when you say table most assuredly won’t match your ‘table’.
The same would be the case for ‘christian’, theist, atheist, beauty,
the moon, friend, house, hot, cold etc. Said in a slightly different
way, my experiences have been different from yours and everyone
else’s. So, any interpretation at all, any concepts, synthesis etc. of
what I see and/or think will be unique to me, thus subjective and
relative to my experiences and previous thoughts. In my previous post
I had pointed out that they appear to reject even exploring areas that
are not seen as something they “NEED TO KNOW”. Now, what exactly does
one need to know? I would guess that we could agree upon some things
but most likely there is absolutely no universal agreement upon what
this means. So, it’s meaning resides within the subjective thinking
and experiences of the author. What you may have picked up on in my
post was the suggestion that by limiting one’s ontology to such areas
and ignoring and/or rejecting others, one clearly can not be seen as
being a true explorer, philosopher. So, in this sense I do have a
critique of their rather limited and subjective point of view. It’s
not ‘wrong’, just limited.
As you know from some of my earlier posts, I address both the relative
and the absolute.

> > > > > The link I provided onwww.naturalism.orgisanewfindso when I

[Taylor]

<<To "know" is to have verification>>

That's why I see philosophical naturalism as the only non-
contradictory epistemology. Only natural forces exist, because non-
natural forces cannot be verified. If they could, they'd be natural
forces.

[stem cell]

Thanks Orn. I need to chew on that for a moment.

Talor, I get ya. However. let me see how you would handle these
questions. I am going to put on a different hat for this so go with
me here.

Tatlor said >>>Only natural forces exist, because non-natural forces
cannot be verified." <<<

Just because non-natural forces cannot be verified does not necesarily
mean non-existent. For instance, love. How would one objectivly
measure (verify) love? Here is another one inspired from Orn. in the
above response, the color blue. How can that be verified? It surely
exist. It might not be your blue but something exist. The color blue
exist irrespective of verification.

Another thing, I am a bit confused. (what's new) I don't see how
"philosophical" naturalism can be verified. Did you mean
methodlogical naturalism?

[ornamentalmind]

I was trying to find the George Carlin bit about how the term
'natural' is used and found it was taking too long. So, I hope you are
aware of his bit about natural, hearty, giant etc.

[stem cell]

My bad. You did not say that "philosophical" naturalism could be
verified. You just said it was non-contradictory. That is a slight
difference. You can "verify" contradictions as well as non-
crontradictions though.

> > forces.- Hide quoted text -

[Taylor]

<<Just because non-natural forces cannot be verified does not

necessarily
mean non-existent. >>

What does "exist" mean if it has no physical consequences? Does the
invisible pink unicorn exist? If you don't limit the word "exist" to
what can be verified, then "exist" can refer to anything you can
imagine and so becomes meaningless.

<<For instance, love. How would one objectively measure (verify)
love? >>

Love is an emotional state that could be detected inside an MRI by
seeing which sections of the brain were active. There are also
biochemical components to this emotion.

Love is also measurable via behavior. Parents sacrifice for their
children and husbands and wives sacrifice for each other.

Love clearly exists.

<<the color blue How can that be verified? It surely exist. It might

not be your blue but something exist. The color blue exist
irrespective of verification. >>

Blue is a specific frequency of electromagnetic radiation. Our
subjective impressions of this frequency rely on biochemical reactions
taking place within the eye when excited by this radiation.

Whether our subjective impressions of blue are the same or not is
pretty much irrelevant. How do we know our subjective impressions of
anything are the same? When you're cold, do you perhaps feel what I
do when I'm hot? This sort of thing isn't knowable yet. Perhaps it
will be, perhaps it won't. Perhaps the question is meaningless.

[ornamentalmind]

“…How do we know our subjective impressions of anything are the same?

When you're cold, do you perhaps feel what I do when I'm hot? This
sort of thing isn't knowable yet. Perhaps it will be, perhaps it

won't. Perhaps the question is meaningless.” – Tay

Exactly Taylor! This is why any view of reality that is based on
probability is subjective/ relative. And, even perhaps meaningless in
any ultimate sense.

[Taylor]

<<This is why any view of reality that is based on
probability is subjective/ relative. And, even perhaps meaningless in
any ultimate sense. >>

First, I have no idea what you said, as usual. This is the problem
with adopting any other philosophy than naturalism; it garbles the
reasoning process, since words have no well-defined meanings.

Second, you can't draw any conclusions from a position of ignorance.
If we don't know, we don't know. We can't say, "We don't know
therefore X is true." That's an argument from ignorance.

Even if our subjective worlds are different, they are still
***mappable*** from one to the other or else we could not
communicate. That indicates a stable underlying reality.

[stem cell]

Taylor, thanks for the thoughts. I am in favor of keeping a strick
maning on words. For instance, True means True...she is not a little
pregnant...it IS or it Isn't. Same for real. It can't be a little
real.

Ok. I will bite. Are you a gamblin' man Orn.?

Orn. said >>> This is why any view of reality that is based on
probability is subjective/ relative, <<<

I believe it was Russel who said something like this.

[ Drive your car into that wall at a speed equal to the probability
that you believe it is not there.]

That wall exist in EVERY reality (that we have in this universe), not
just in some "any view of reality". That wall can be verified. If
one chooses to ignore that wall, then one will end up cmoning to an
abrupt stop with possible physical injuries. There is no subjective/
relative view about it...well there could be...but the one who says it
is there will win every time in that arguement. It either IS or it IS
NOT. P or notP.

> > will be, perhaps it won't.  Perhaps the question is meaningless.- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

<<This is why any view of reality that is based on probability is
subjective/ relative. And, even perhaps meaningless in any ultimate

sense. >> - orn

“First, I have no idea what you said, as usual. This is the problem

with adopting any other philosophy than naturalism; it garbles the

reasoning process, since words have no well-defined meanings.” - Tay

It appears that you got exactly what I meant. Your own words support
exactly what I said.

“Second, you can't draw any conclusions from a position of ignorance.

If we don't know, we don't know. We can't say, "We don't know

therefore X is true." That's an argument from ignorance.” – Tay

Again, you get it exactly. In both cases, naturalism and your current
post, the main theme is agnosticism.

“Even if our subjective worlds are different, they are still

***mappable*** from one to the other or else we could not communicate.

That indicates a stable underlying reality.” – Tay

Yet again, juxtaposing this last notion with your first exactly makes
my point.

[ornamentalmind]

“…Ok. I will bite. Are you a gamblin' man Orn.?…” – stem

Stem, Russell nor Boole have anything to do with “…This is why any

view of reality that is based on probability is subjective/

relative…”.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: Bertrand,

Positive Analysis was founded in reaction to the concepts of Formal
Logic, being based upon abstract concepts that couldn’t be proven. So,
the result was a failure to produce positive evidence for those
propositions.

Now, consider the terms eternity, infinity, love and life.

In Russell’s own words: “A stupid man's report of what a clever man
says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what
he hears into something he can understand.”

“Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now
accepted was once eccentric.”

“I think we ought always to entertain our opinions with some measure
of doubt. I shouldn't wish people dogmatically to believe any
philosophy, not even mine.”

“In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question
mark on the things you have long taken for granted.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: Boole

His attempt at incorporating the empty set into our thinking, as
useful as it might be in limited applications, in no way fully replace
Aristotle.

A simple exercise is to imagine ‘nothing’. Were you able to do it?
Nothing is nothing.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Aaron]

Thank you for posting this, Stem Cell. I like the fact that John
Shook is careful to separate science from naturalism, insisting that
naturalism is based on science, not the other way around.

Science does not require belief in naturalism. Science doesn't even
require a belief in a rational, ordered universe. The core of science
is a (testable) assumption: theories constructed *as if* the universe
were rational are better at predicting and controlling what happens.

The fact that science does this so well is evidence for a more robust,
philosophical naturalism. Most scientists go ahead and draw that
practical conclusion, but it is not technically necessary.

Aaron