Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation
We have a very limited scope of knowledge. Everything we do know about our universe, we have learned through the scientific method. That which is outside our circle of knowledge, we seek to discover. We do not accept any new information about our universe into this circle of knowledge without sufficient evidence, and we only accept that evidence when instrumentation or multiple observers thoroughly corroborate it. In this manner, we seek to carefully and prudently expand the boundaries of our circle of understanding further into the great unknown. We accept that no matter how far we expand that boundary, there will always be much more to learn. Therefore we accept and make peace with the unknown, for it will always be with us.
2. Comment #62004 by BAEOZ on August 7, 2007 at 9:17 pm
3. Comment #62018 by njwong on August 8, 2007 at 12:31 am
4. Comment #62030 by bouwe on August 8, 2007 at 1:18 am
This, along with PZ Meyer's recent analysis of A.McGrath, are the two best things I've read on this site for a while. If our main (realistic) aim is to convince the fence-sitters, then (in my view) it is the battle with these slippery, misleading arguments which should be the focus of our attention.5. Comment #62033 by Diplo on August 8, 2007 at 1:31 am
6. Comment #62040 by stag on August 8, 2007 at 2:07 am
7. Comment #62042 by Jiten on August 8, 2007 at 2:26 am
8. Comment #62048 by infidel_michael on August 8, 2007 at 2:52 am
Stag:9. Comment #62051 by stag on August 8, 2007 at 3:04 am
10. Comment #62052 by posiedon on August 8, 2007 at 3:10 am
BAEOZ. It reminds me of the discussion I had with WeeFlea last week. The lying flea claimed knowledge of things he couldn't possibly know.
11. Comment #62055 by stag on August 8, 2007 at 3:19 am
Maybe, but nobody claims to have knowledge of the "only true way of composing a symphony", nobody tells you that if you don't like his symphony, you will suffer forever, etc.
12. Comment #62058 by infidel_michael on August 8, 2007 at 3:48 am
stag:13. Comment #62064 by phasmagigas on August 8, 2007 at 4:50 am
No amount of scientific understanding on how the brain interprets audio signals will ever replicate the actual experience of listening to Beethoven's 9th, for example. In a similar vein, analysing the chemical composition of a piece of fruit is not the same thing as actually tasting it.
14. Comment #62065 by stag on August 8, 2007 at 4:53 am
I don't believe that something is on this CD, because I don't hear anything when I play it. But there are people who say, that I'm kind of deaf, and there is actually a song.
15. Comment #62073 by Johnny O on August 8, 2007 at 5:20 am
Therefore we accept and make peace with the unknown, for it will always be with us.
For example, "apples are better than bananas" is clearly nonsense
16. Comment #62076 by Johnny O on August 8, 2007 at 5:26 am
I had a believer subject me to 'can you prove you love your wife?'
17. Comment #62110 by Robert Maynard on August 8, 2007 at 7:41 am
stag: The point is one of subjective vs. objective "knowledge"; gnosis vs. logos.I don't think it's a good idea to look to the ancient Greek philosophers for a modern understanding of experience and knowledge. It's not a valuable distinction, and I think it's a mistake to elevate subjective "knowledge" to a level anywhere near approaching "objective", or empirical, knowledge. I don't think subjective experience can accurately be called "knowledge" at all. Empiricism is so valuable precisely because it can produce unambiguous and unequivocal results which take huge dollops of subjective "knowledge" to dismiss.
No amount of scientific understanding on how the brain interprets audio signals will ever replicate the actual experience of listening to Beethoven's 9thLet me outline a situation: One's individual experience of listening to Beethoven's 9th symphony is an electrical affair, the audio signals triggering waves of activity, a symphony (if you will) of chain reactions, electricity crackling throughout the brain. It can stimulate sections dedicated to remembering the experience of previous listenings, for instance, stimulating sections related to a sense of melody and rhythm, perhaps remembered images of Beethoven portraits (tangential split-second thoughts of what it took to compose anything while completely deaf), thoughts of similar composers or compositions in the Romantic period, memories of specific passages one is eagerly anticipating and memories of how much time is to elapse before each passage arrives.
18. Comment #62111 by BicycleRepairMan on August 8, 2007 at 7:50 am
Looks like the metaphors have gone off the boil a bit here. So long as we all know the difference between Beethoven, Metallica, or "nothing", we stand a fairly good chance of reaching a consensus on the contents of the CD (which is close enough to "objectivity" for our purposes). However, if the discussion turns to the relative merits of Beethoven or Metallica, we have ourselves an altogether different type of discussion.
19. Comment #62117 by Bonzai on August 8, 2007 at 8:21 am
Studying experiences like this allows us to fully expose the gulf between knowledge and experience: Experience is deceit-prone, jerry-rigged artificial knowledge, full of ambiguities and inadequacies.
20. Comment #62119 by stag on August 8, 2007 at 8:31 am
21. Comment #62124 by Janus on August 8, 2007 at 8:57 am
22. Comment #62125 by Robert Maynard on August 8, 2007 at 8:58 am
Bonzai: What if the purpose is not to gain "knowledge"? I don't listen to music or watch movies or get high as a means to attain knowledge in any objective sense other to enjoy the experience.I will use your own words.
23. Comment #62127 by Bonzai on August 8, 2007 at 9:18 am
Robots are what you make them. If we understood more about how awe and passion works, yeah, actually - we could program robots to do science, and feel a sense of satisfaction when they did it well..
24. Comment #62130 by stag on August 8, 2007 at 9:39 am
But of course, no religion is composed entirely (or even mostly) of subjective beliefs. They all make claims about objective reality.
25. Comment #62138 by stag on August 8, 2007 at 9:56 am
Machines are what you make them. If we understood more about how awe and passion works, yeah, actually - we could program robots to do science, and even feel a sense of satisfaction when they did it well.
26. Comment #62140 by Robert Maynard on August 8, 2007 at 10:10 am
Bonzai: Even if we do know how passion is codified,--even in humans,-- that will not replace the experience of being in love, either with idea or with people. In the same way knowing how to build a TV wouldn't enable you to make great TV programs and reading electronics textbooks will not create the experience of watching your favourite show. To say otherwise is blatantly absurd.Urgh.. you are simply churning out non-sequiturs, my good man. You are not required to understand something for it to happen. To suggest as such, or to suggest that anyone thinks as such, is a contradiction of the whole idea of empiricism (which is in essence, observing things happening, in order to form an understanding of how it is happening).
27. Comment #62142 by Robert Maynard on August 8, 2007 at 10:16 am
stag: Again, programming a robot to do science, and knowing what its like to actually be a robot doing science are two different things. What is it like to be a bat?I can't understand this perverse emphasis you keep putting on the unique peculiarities of any subjective cognition.
28. Comment #62144 by tieInterceptor on August 8, 2007 at 10:22 am
29. Comment #62145 by stag on August 8, 2007 at 10:25 am
The very notion that I have suggested that understanding the mechanics of emotions is the same as actually experiencing them is ludicrous.
30. Comment #62147 by Kakashi_monkey on August 8, 2007 at 10:36 am
31. Comment #62149 by Robert Maynard on August 8, 2007 at 10:44 am
1) you assume all levels of "knowledge" is reducible to "scientific knowledge",--epistemology.I have already discussed subjective knowledge, and the only time I've explicitly said it isn't knowledge was while setting up an argument in which I tried to demonstrate that it isn't a way of "knowing" in a useful (ie. corroborated) sense.
2) You vastly underestimate the difficulties in applying the scientific method to most real life situations where ambiguities are really the way things are, not just because "our experience is ambiguous"
32. Comment #62150 by Robert Maynard on August 8, 2007 at 11:04 am
stag: So we agree then there is more to knowledge than that which can be dertermined by objective, empirical means?No. Arguing that two different things are not the same, as though I was arguing the opposite, is what I described as ludicrous. I would've gone on to describe it as "mind-explodingly idiotic" too, but I had a lot of other things to say.
33. Comment #62152 by epeeist on August 8, 2007 at 11:12 am
That's the reason why science is infalliable; we only accept what we know is true.
34. Comment #62155 by Jiten on August 8, 2007 at 11:56 am
Like Newton's theory of gravity you mean ;-)
35. Comment #62156 by Jiten on August 8, 2007 at 12:05 pm
36. Comment #62157 by epeeist on August 8, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Whoever said Newton's theory is no longer true?
37. Comment #62159 by Diplo on August 8, 2007 at 12:22 pm
There are different types of "knowledge", and the empirical method is not amenable to all of them. For example; scientific / engineering knowledge may enable you to construct a musical instrument, but they won't tell you much about composing a symphony.
38. Comment #62160 by Happy Hominid on August 8, 2007 at 12:28 pm
39. Comment #62165 by stag on August 8, 2007 at 1:15 pm
If nothing else, you will realize that we WILL have the answers and, like I think Robert said, We will know and already do in many cases.
What's the point of subjective vs objective reality in regards to Black Sun's article?
40. Comment #62166 by TheCelestialTeapot on August 8, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Stag:41. Comment #62167 by steve99 on August 8, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Dan Dennett refers to the proponents of "qualia" as "closeted dualists". Qualia is kind of a loaded term that refers to a number of things. It may mean a difference between the mind/brain or soul/body, or simply what you consider the specific taste of a fruit might be. However, if you take seriously our evolutionary past it becomes frankly inconceivable that a soul comes into play at any given point. Would a soul enter into the body in the early homonids? Earlier? It's kind of absurd.
42. Comment #62168 by Happy Hominid on August 8, 2007 at 2:01 pm
43. Comment #62169 by Robert Maynard on August 8, 2007 at 2:02 pm
stag: My issue was with the implication that the only knowledge worth having is that which can be empirically derived.It seems to be the only knowledge useful for understanding things. I didn't say it was not "worth" having subjective experiences, or that we should aspire to fashion our conscious experience to be as empirically aware as possible (and I don't think BlackSun was arguing this either). Indeed, one can't avoid subjective experiences, and shouldn't try to - they're part of our wiring (then again, who knows what the future holds). What I have tried to emphasise is their fragile value as actual, or useful, "knowledge", given our observational paradigm as big-brained bipedal mammals. Understanding what that kind of thing is naturally going to enjoy gives you a fairly good idea of why you feel or think certain things, and helps you take your personal ideas with a grain of salt.
44. Comment #62170 by TheCelestialTeapot on August 8, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Dismissive? Perhaps. One reason that I may be dismissive is that the notion of qualia simply isn't new. Descartes started this whole duality thing a long time ago with his cogito ergo sum and the rest. Most qualists, if indeed they can be called that, cannot even agree on a working definition of what qualia may be. Describe to me what an apple taste like, or what a symphony sounds like. My main point in the previous post is that oftentimes I see qualia as a last ditch effort to protect some mystical notion. Whether or not that was the point stag was trying to make I don't know, I merely wanted to bring that to light. And if you want to talk sensible then it seems to me that beginning with scientific testing and methodology is much more beneficial than beginning with the subjective experiences of individuals who by nature are prone to make perceptive errors in their own judgements. Among the proponents of qualia that I am familiar with, not one is pushing for a reductive materialist point of view, so to say that they would be in favor of a physical world explanation seems to me to be at odds with the other part of their position.45. Comment #62172 by TheCelestialTeapot on August 8, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I would also like to add a few things to this discussion because I think it is imperative to do so. I think that the best we can do would be to approach this problem pragmatically, and Robert has stated it in far better terms than I could formulate. Really we have to ask ourselves how well either my personal experiences or those of another individual will benefit the community of knowers. I think that everyone on this site is concerned with truth, and in particular objective truth. Pierce argues that "beliefs are a mode to action" and we cannot escape the fact that there exists an independent reality which operates despite whatever opinions we may hold in contention. There is a simple test to prove this statement and either you accept the opinion-free independent reality or you do not. If you hold the claim that somehow subjective knowledge trumps objective truth then prove it as such. It should be noted that we as humans certainly do not behave in that way, unless of course you buy into books such as "The Secret" or films such as "What the Bleep Do We Know?" both of which can be proven false or at the very least questionable. The way in which we act is much more important than that which we claim to believe. It is not my intention to be combative on the subject, but I would suggest that those arguing in favor of qualia do so with a clearly stated definition. As previously stated I think it's a loaded term and it means a variety of things to different people. I would also like to say that this has been one of the more provocative discussions I have seen on the site, and good work to all parties involved.46. Comment #62173 by BAEOZ on August 8, 2007 at 2:41 pm
One of the main points of science and philosophy should be to explain experience.
47. Comment #62175 by ? on August 8, 2007 at 2:43 pm
48. Comment #62176 by TheCelestialTeapot on August 8, 2007 at 2:44 pm
BAEOZ,49. Comment #62179 by roach on August 8, 2007 at 2:54 pm
The article implied that the only knowledge worth having is empirically derived? Strange but I didn't get that impression at all.50. Comment #62184 by BAEOZ on August 8, 2007 at 4:12 pm
I'll never get over your icon; he scares me every time.
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
1. Comment #62001 by Robert Maynard on August 7, 2007 at 8:54 pm
David Robertson, devolved, Bizarro Dawkins, your thoughts on this article would be appreciated.
Other Comments by Robert Maynard