Stirring the Pot, 3: What about the so-called Laws of Thought/First Principles of Right Reason?

F/N: I have upgraded the just above to a full UD headlined post, with addition of illustrations etc, here. Comments are redirected here, the main thread of discussion. KFkairosfocus

March 22, 2013

March

03

Mar

22

22

2013

02:28 AM

2

02

28

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

G2: I see your @ 45: Can we just accept that UncommonDescent is a philosopy/theology site ? Im still waiting for the big advances in ID. Neat little dismissive rhetorical shot, nuh, it's all over. Not so fast. If we are to reason accurately and soundly, we have to have the first principles of right reason set straight. Where, as it turns out, there is a big problem of the evolutionary materialism-inclined and indoctrinated rejecting, evading or trying to self-servingly redefine such principles, which has come out here at UD [after literally years of back-forth exchanges on pivotal scientific issues raised by ID, such as the significance of FSCO/I as was originally raised by Orgel and Wicken in the 1970's . . . your strawman dismissal fails . . . ] as a consequence of trying to figure out why we have had such intractable exchanges. It was particularly seen that quantum theory was put forth as undermining the principles of distinct identity, non-contradiction/non confusion and the excluded middle state. That ended up in a new WAC with a unique extension that gives more details, linked in the opening paragraph of the OP. (It would have been helpful for you to have read the OP before trying a dismissive sniping rhetorical shot). Let me therefore clip the opening remarks in the OP:

In our day, it is common to see the so-called Laws of Thought or First Principles of Right Reason challenged or dismissed. As a rule, design thinkers strongly tend to reject this common trend, including when it is claimed to be anchored in quantum theory. Going beyond, here at UD it is common to see design thinkers saying that rejection of the laws of thought is tantamount to rejection of rationality, and is a key source of endless going in evasive rhetorical circles and refusal to come to grips with the most patent facts; often bogging down attempted discussions of ID issues. The debate has hotted up over the past several days, and so it is back on the front burner . . .

I suggest to you, that matters of general logic emerge as important in times of scientific crisis, as well as matters where logic and epistemology of science overlap. On that last, it seems that there is a lurking problem of understanding the nature of inductive reasoning and the status of inductive knowledge claims, especially in a context where abductive reasoning as an expression of induction, is pivotal. Notice, a crucial step in design thought (and in wider science), is the principle of inference on empirically tested reliable sign. The Wiki article on Shoemaker-Levy 9 is helpful in this regard (and in clarifying how that which is real and objective, corrects our initial impressions and concepts):

Observers hoped that the impacts would give them a first glimpse of Jupiter beneath the cloud tops, as lower material was exposed by the comet fragments punching through the upper atmosphere. Spectroscopic studies revealed absorption lines in the Jovian spectrum due to diatomic sulfur (S2) and carbon disulfide (CS2), the first detection of either in Jupiter, and only the second detection of S2 in any astronomical object. Other molecules detected included ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S). The amount of sulfur implied by the quantities of these compounds was much greater than the amount that would be expected in a small cometary nucleus, showing that material from within Jupiter was being revealed. Oxygen-bearing molecules such as sulfur dioxide were not detected, to the surprise of astronomers.[19] As well as these molecules, emission from heavy atoms such as iron, magnesium and silicon was detected, with abundances consistent with what would be found in a cometary nucleus. While substantial water was detected spectroscopically, it was not as much as predicted beforehand, meaning that either the water layer thought to exist below the clouds was thinner than predicted, or that the cometary fragments did not penetrate deeply enough.[20] The relatively low levels of water were later confirmed by Galileo's atmospheric probe, which explored Jupiter's atmosphere directly.

Notice, there were characterisations and models of the chemistry of Jupiter's atmosphere. These come from models on planetary formation, and also from evaluations of spectroscopic studies -- lines, bands etc that per Quantum results, serve as signs that tell us about molecular species, and from intensities we may make estimates of concentrations. Such studies were used to infer to the then not directly observed state of certain features of the Jovian atmosphere. That is, we have certain traces and in this cases emanations (IR, Visible, UV spectra) that come from an object of interest. We have an empirically grounded theory of spectroscopy, that allows us to infer that certain causes reliably give off certain effects that can serve as signs of the action of those causes. Actually, that was so even before Quantum Physics explained the details of the spectra on fundamental investigations. For instance, it was known that particular elements give off particular spectral lines, and subtracting away those accounted for, some fresh unaccounted for lines were seen in the Sun's spectrum. That is how a new element, helium -- named after the Sun -- was discovered before it was observed here on Earth. Afterwards, there was a direct probe of Jupiter which was able to more directly observe the state. All of this pivots on the ability to identify distinct objects, phenomena and states of affairs. Scientists invariably use the first principles of right reasoning in scientific investigations, as foundational to the reasoning processes involved. So, scientific investigations in principle cannot undermine such, without reduction to absurdity. This is not unique, it is so with all reasoned thought. The first principles are truly foundational and undeniably true. How does all of this tie into the scientific advances made by design thinkers, and to how they are being received or rejected by the evolutionary materialism-dominated schools of thought, their publicists and the more popular level adherents and advocates who hang around in blogs etc? First, the design inference is a reasoned exercise in inductive logic. As such, it will pivot on willingness to consistently follow canons of right reason, including the three laws of thought already highlighted and a fourth principle -- that of sufficient reason (with the corollary, the principle of causality) that I like to put in the terms discussed by Schopenhauer:

FIRST PRINCIPLES OF RIGHT REASON: --- OLD BUSINESS --- 1: LOI: A distinct thing, A, is what it is 2: LNC: A distinct thing, A, cannot at once be and not-be 3: LEM: A distinct thing, A, is or it is not, but not both or neither --- NEW BUSINESS --- FPRR, # 4 (per Schopenhauer): PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON (PSR): "Of everything [--> e.g., A] that is, it can be found why it is." [Manuscript Remains, Vol. 4]

Sounds almost trivial, doesn't it. It isn't. This means that when we see an object, phenomenon or state of affairs, we may properly ask: why is this so. Thence, we come to the point that many things have a beginning or may cease to be and are thus seen to be dependent on external factors, which we call causes. Indeed, taking the example of a fire, we see that if any one or more of heat, fuel, oxidiser and chain reaction are missing or interfered with a fire cannot start or will cease. (That is how fire fighters work.) That is, we see on/off switch enabling causal factors. These stipulate a cluster of necessary conditions for a fire to come to be, all must be "on" or the fire is not possible or sustainable. Such extends to bigger things, including red balls, Jupiter, the Sun and solar system, the observed cosmos, and cell-based life in it. That which begins or may cease to be, is contingent on enabling on/off causal factors, i.e it is an effect and is caused. That's the corollary to the principle of sufficient reason. Let's highlight it:

4a, Corr to PSR: PRINCIPLE OF CAUSALITY: That which begins or may cease to be, is contingent on enabling on/off causal factors, i.e. it is an effect and is caused.

As a further corollary, it is evident that for there to be an effect there must be a sufficient, adequate cluster of causal factors, including at least all the on/off enabling factors. Causal adequacy and sufficiency are pivotal to understanding the nature of phenomena, objects and states of affairs. Let us highlight:

4b, Corr to PSR: PRINCIPLE OF REQUIRED ADEQUACY OF CAUSE FOR AN EFFECT TO OCCUR: for there to be an effect there must be a sufficient, adequate cluster of causal factors, including at least all the on/off enabling factors.

But, a subtler point lurks. What of the possibility of entities that do not have enabling on/off factors? (That is, that are not contingent beings?) We have arrived at the possibility of necessary beings, beings that have no external dependence on enabling factors, and as such would not have a beginning, and cannot cease from being. These would exist in all possible worlds, including the actual one we inhabit. For instance, the truth asserted in "2 + 3 = 5" is such a necessary being. So also, we now see two modes of being (and imply a mode of non-being). There are contingent beings, necessary beings, and impossible beings. An example of the last would be a square circle, which is a contradiction in terms and inherently cannot exist. Let's highlight:

5: POSSIBILITY/ACTUALITY OF NECESSARY BEINGS: A serious candidate to be a necessary being will be credibly non-contingent, and will be either impossible or possible. If impossible, there is a reason why it cannot be; and if possible, there is at least one possible world in which it would be actual, but as such a serious candidate would be in all possible worlds if it is in any possible world (think about why) if not impossible, if possible then actual.

Yes, this is the much-despised philosophy in action, and it has implications for both theologies and anti-theologies. Yes, this is the often derided and dismissed philosophy, but it is about how logic is at the root of any serious discussion, including those in science. Yes, this is the often impatiently brushed aside philosophy, but it has direct implications for our scientific discussion of origins and causes of origins, relevant to origin of the cosmos, origin of cell-based life in it, and of body plans, including our own. In short, it is not something we may wisely and safely ignore. And, ignorance of it may well lead us to think and stubbornly, irrationally cling to foolish things about important topics. As one immediate application, our observed cosmos, credibly had a beginning and shows ever so many signs of being contingent and fine tuned in ways that support cell based life. That points to an underlying necessary being at the root of that cosmic reality that is causally sufficient and powerful enough to create such a cosmos -- even in the face of multiverse speculations. (The comfortable days of being able to appeal to the Steady State theory as showing that it was possible that the observed cosmos as a whole is that necessary being are long gone.) In terms of origin of cell based life and body plans, these four principles of right reason point to the significance of functionally specific complex organisation and associated information [FSCO/I] as an apt description of a phenomenon found in the living cell and in complex body plans, as a trace that comes from the origin of same, and so they point to the need for a causally adequate explanation for same. Lest some be tempted to brush such aside as a figment of the imagination of a particularly idiotic ID -- yes, we know the childish schoolyard taunts that are ever so common in hostile or outright hate sites -- supporter, let me cite from the IOSE course that so many wish to brush aside as nonsense, on what three key origins research figures who are by no means to be seen as ID movement members or Creationists in any material sense of the term have had to say across the 1970's and into the early 1980's, i.e. immediately antecedent to and obviously enabling factors for the rise of the modern design theory from the mid 80's on:

The observation-based principle that complex, functionally specific information/ organisation is arguably a reliable marker of intelligence and the related point that we can therefore use this concept to scientifically study intelligent causes will play a crucial role . . . For, routinely, we observe that such functionally specific complex information and related organisation come-- directly [[drawing a complex circuit diagram by hand] or indirectly [[a computer generated speech (or, perhaps: talking in one's sleep)] -- from intelligence. In a classic 1979 comment, well known origin of life theorist J S Wicken wrote:

‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random,’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms [[i.e. “simple” force laws acting on objects starting from arbitrary and common- place initial conditions] and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an [[originally . . . ] external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content . . . Organization, then, is functional complexity and carries information. It is non-random by design or by selection, rather than by the a priori necessity of crystallographic ‘order.’ [[“The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 77 (April 1979): p. 353, of pp. 349-65. (Emphases and notes added. Nb: “originally” is added to highlight that for self-replicating systems, the blue print can be built-in.)]

The idea-roots of the term "functionally specific complex information" [FSCI] are plain: "Organization, then, is functional[[ly specific] complexity and carries information." [--> Wicken, patently, is not an ID thinker nor a Creationist, FYI; nor is he a no-account bloggist who can be dismissed without further thought. So much for the figment of the imagination rhetoric we have seen in recent days, without the decency to retract such when corrected.] Similarly, as early as 1973, Leslie Orgel, reflecting on Origin of Life, noted:

. . . In brief, living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity. [[The Origins of Life (John Wiley, 1973), p. 189.]

[--> again we see the trichotomy of basic causes, across mechanical necessity giving rise to order, randomness or chance and by implication the ART-ificial act of explicit intelligent design and/or selection] Thus, the concept of complex specified information -- especially in the form functionally specific complex organisation and associated information [FSCO/I] -- is NOT a creation of design thinkers like William Dembski. Instead, it comes from the natural progress and conceptual challenges faced by origin of life researchers, by the end of the 1970's. Indeed, by 1982, the famous, Nobel-equivalent prize winning Astrophysicist (and life-long agnostic) Sir Fred Hoyle, went on quite plain public record in an Omni Lecture:

Once we see that life is cosmic it is sensible to suppose that intelligence is cosmic. Now problems of order, such as the sequences of amino acids in the chains which constitute the enzymes and other proteins, are precisely the problems that become easy once a directed intelligence enters the picture, as was recognised long ago by James Clerk Maxwell in his invention of what is known in physics as the Maxwell demon. The difference between an intelligent ordering, whether of words, fruit boxes, amino acids, or the Rubik cube, and merely random shufflings can be fantastically large, even as large as a number that would fill the whole volume of Shakespeare’s plays with its zeros. So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true.” [[Evolution from Space (The Omni Lecture[ --> Jan 12th 1982]), Enslow Publishers, 1982, pg. 28.]

So, we first see that by the turn of the 1980's, scientists concerned with origin of life and related cosmology recognised that the information-rich organisation of life forms was distinct from simple order and required accurate description and appropriate explanation. To meet those challenges, they identified something special about living forms, CSI and/or FSCO/I. As they did so, they noted that the associated "wiring diagram" based functionality is information-rich, and traces to what Hoyle already was willing to call "intelligent design," and Wicken termed "design or selection." By this last, of course, Wicken plainly hoped to include natural selection. But the key challenge soon surfaces: what happens if the space to be searched and selected from is so large that islands of functional organisation are hopelessly isolated relative to blind search resources? [--> Since there is an astonishing attempt to dismiss the concept of such islands of co-ordinated function in configuration spaces, kindly cf. here] For, under such "infinite monkey" circumstances, searches based on random walks from arbitrary initial configurations will be maximally unlikely to find such isolated islands of function. As the crowd-source Wikipedia summarises (in testimony against its ideological interest compelled by the known facts):

The text of Hamlet contains approximately 130,000 letters. Thus there is a probability of one in 3.4 × 10^183,946 to get the text right at the first trial. The average number of letters that needs to be typed until the text appears is also 3.4 × 10^183,946, or including punctuation, 4.4 × 10^360,783. Even if the observable universe were filled with monkeys typing from now until the heat death of the universe, their total probability to produce a single instance of Hamlet would still be less than one in 10^183,800. As Kittel and Kroemer put it, “The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event…”, and the statement that the monkeys must eventually succeed “gives a misleading conclusion about very, very large numbers.” This is from their textbook on thermodynamics, the field whose statistical foundations motivated the first known expositions of typing monkeys.[3]

So, once we are dealing with something that is functionally specific and sufficiently complex, trial-and error, blind selection on a random walk is increasingly implausible as an explanation, compared to the routinely observed source of such complex, functional organisation: design. Indeed, beyond a certain point, the odds of trial and error on a random walk succeeding fall to a "practical" zero . . .

In short, these derided or dismissed philosophical questions lie close to the heart of why it is that design theory results and advancing of the state of science are too often being stoutly resisted by those who should welcome them and carry them further forward. Perhaps, the time has come to think again, G2? KFkairosfocus

March 22, 2013

March

03

Mar

22

22

2013

01:40 AM

1

01

40

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Bruce:

Excuse me, I am free to do whatever I like. You might not like it, but that ain’t my problem.

Excuse me, but you are not free to misrepresent the facts--or to invent your own definition of the Law of Identity-- or to reduce it to a function of language--try though you might. Whether you like it or not, that principle is tied to ontological reality. As Aristotle puts it, "It is impossible that the same thing belong and not belong to the same thing at the same time and in the same respect." You will notice that he is writing about the things we talk about, not what we say about the things we talk about. In other words, he is not referring to language; he is referring to things in themselves. You may not like to face the truth, but that is your problem, not mine.StephenB

March 21, 2013

March

03

Mar

21

21

2013

11:44 PM

11

11

44

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

KF, re #37:

I would be very cautious of such a claim, or the too sharp dichotomising between appearance and reality, the latter being deemed beyond intelligible description, as the very assertion implies a claim to understand somewhat about that which is held to be beyond understanding.

What I assert is that Reality cannot be described by the use of language. I never said it could not be known. In fact, I said the exact opposite (see #35).Bruce David

March 21, 2013

March

03

Mar

21

21

2013

11:02 PM

11

11

02

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Stephen, re #43:

The laws of right reason are embedded in language and apply to the concepts which we call objects or things. No, they are not. What you are describing are not the laws of reason as articulated by Aristotle and understood by Western philosophers for over two thousand years. You are free to accept or reject those laws and clearly you reject them, but you are not free to redefine them in an attempt to have it both ways.

Excuse me, I am free to do whatever I like. You might not like it, but that ain't my problem. But in any case, I disagree with your assessment. I have not redefined the laws, nor do I reject them; I have merely articulated my view of the domain in which it makes sense to ask if they hold, and the domain in which it does not. The disagreement between us is not about the nature of the laws, it is about the nature of reality. What I call the "concepts which we call objects or things" you believe have an existence independent of our minds. I make no such assumption.Bruce David

March 21, 2013

March

03

Mar

21

21

2013

10:54 PM

10

10

54

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

tgpeeler, re #38:

The epistemological question is still HOW DO WE KNOW?

I agree. After that we part company. I regard the history of Western Philosophy as a 2000 year long demonstration of the impotence of reason to discover truth, which is to say, to know anything. No, we need another way to know. The mystics see directly into the nature of reality. I'll go with that. re #39: The Reality that lies behind the world of appearances is far, far from trivial. You are knocking down a straw man here.Bruce David

March 21, 2013

March

03

Mar

21

21

2013

10:35 PM

10

10

35

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

WJM, re #36:

Box, the problem Bruce David is facing is that he has no way to act as if the things he experiences are anything but “real” in the common, traditional sense of the word.

In the first place even if what you say were true, it would not be a problem. I live in "The world of appearances". This world has its rules (principles of physics, etc.) which I am bound by if I wish to continue abiding here and not be summarily ejected to the place where people having an NDE experience go. I have made no claim regarding the degree to which I have control over the content of my experience here on planet earth. That said, however, I do live my life differently than I did when I was a materialist and believed that I was at the mercy of material forces beyond my control. I believe that it is possible for our intentions to have profound influences on the physical. I am not yet at a place where I believe that I can step in front of a train and survive, but I do believe that such a thing is possible. Jesus was not the only evolved being in the history of the planet to have performed miracles. As an example in my own life, I believe that it is possible for me to have conscious control over the placebo effect, and thus directly influence my health through intention, and I live my life based on that belief.Bruce David

March 21, 2013

March

03

Mar

21

21

2013

10:24 PM

10

10

24

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

G-2 @ 45 This is something materialist Darwinists don't understand. In order to "do" science, one must not only accumulate evidence, one must also rationally evaluate it. This means making axiomatic assumptions about how the universe is and reasoning from there. We assume that things are what they are as our starting point. This is undeniable to anyone with a functioning brain. You assume that matter and energy are all that exist. Anybody with a functioning brain can see this is false on the face of it. You are incapable of doing good science because your philosophy sucks. Get it? I have always found it extremely amusing that the materialists claim on the one hand that matter and energy are all that exist and on the other hand they try to explain the material universe by means of abstract laws expressed in the abstract language of mathematics. Hmmmm. Yeah, that sounds really rational to me. The philosophy has to be settled before the science can be argued.tgpeeler

March 21, 2013

March

03

Mar

21

21

2013

10:14 PM

10

10

14

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Box, re 34:

Is Jupiter just a mental construct; does Jupiter only exist in your mind? Are the pictures of Jupiter a creation of your mind? Did you create internet, this forum and ‘my’ questions?

I'll try to be clear here. Everything I know of the "external world" comes through my senses, which in the aggregate constitute my experience. My experience is entirely of the mind (where "mind" is taken to mean the sum total of the objects of consciousness---sense impressions, thoughts, emotions, memories, intentions, fantasies, dreams, etc.). Objects such as Jupiter or KF's red ball are concepts my mind constructs in order to make sense of and deal effectively with experience. Is there a "real" Jupiter out there that corresponds in some way to the collection of sense impressions according to which I create the concept? Most people think that there is, I admit, but I see no need to make such an assumption, which saves my metaphysics from a basically insoluble problem, namely how is it that mind and matter can have any causal effect on each other. So I claim that I created my own concept of the planet Jupiter. I make no such claim with regard to the sensory inputs upon which I base such a concept. Likewise with the Internet. I take responsibility for my concept of what the Internet is, but I do not claim to have created the experiences upon which that concept is based. And by the way, I am not a solipsist. I accept your existence as well, with the caveat that you are not your physical body at all.Bruce David

March 21, 2013

March

03

Mar

21

21

2013

10:01 PM

10

10

01

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

correction " Definitely out of YOUR league",,,bornagain77

March 21, 2013

March

03

Mar

21

21

2013

07:39 PM

7

07

39

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

"Can we just accept that UncommonDescent is a philosopy/theology site ?" Well, as a Darwinist you ought to feel right at home. Definitely out of league, but right at home none-the-less!bornagain77

March 21, 2013

March

03

Mar

21

21

2013

07:39 PM

7

07

39

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

And the point of this OP is ? Can we just accept that UncommonDescent is a philosopy/theology site ? Im still waiting for the big advances in ID.Graham2

March 21, 2013

March

03

Mar

21

21

2013

07:19 PM

7

07

19

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Tom Peeler for President. :)Upright BiPed

March 21, 2013

March

03

Mar

21

21

2013

05:14 PM

5

05

14

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Bruce:

The laws of right reason are embedded in language and apply to the concepts which we call objects or things.

No, they are not. What you are describing are not the laws of reason as articulated by Aristotle and understood by Western philosophers for over two thousand years. You are free to accept or reject those laws and clearly you reject them, but you are not free to redefine them in an attempt to have it both ways. You are, no doubt, rational by your own standards, but you are not rational by reason's standards, which are non-negotiable. The whole point of reason rules is to forbid us from defining rationality in a self-serving way. Any attempt to reframe them is, in itself, an irrational act, making rational discourse impossible.StephenB

March 21, 2013

March

03

Mar

21

21

2013

05:07 PM

5

05

07

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

@tgpeeler Maybe you are right and there is no such thing as 'more real'. My thoughts are certainly not settled on these issues. Let's say that you, a person, exist in a different way than say a rock. Could one could argue that you are more real than a rock, on an ontological scale? Possibly you can sustain your own existence, while a rock cannot. Am I making sense here? If you can accept the possibility of different grades / kinds of existence, you may accept the possibility that a spiritual world is more real than a material world.Box

March 21, 2013

March

03

Mar

21

21

2013

04:01 PM

4

04

01

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Box, real is real. How is something "more" real? Law of Identity applies here, I contend. Our after death reality will be different, to be sure, but it will not be any "more" real than this one is right now. We may be more in touch with it. We may "see" it more clearly. But the idea of "more" real seems to me incoherent.tgpeeler

March 21, 2013

March

03

Mar

21

21

2013

03:06 PM

3

03

06

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

WJM & Bruce David I’m open to the idea that there is a ‘true reality’ out there; NDE reports come to mind. In fact I do hope – very much so - that we will all enter a spiritual reality after death. A spiritual reality which is ‘more real’ and more our true home than this ‘valley of tears’. If this is what Bruce David is talking about, no problem here. But I don’t think that the solipsistic concept is coherent.Box

March 21, 2013

March

03

Mar

21

21

2013

02:58 PM

2

02

58

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

BD re 35 (as I break my own rule) "But if the Sufis are right, and the physical universe in which we live our lives is “the world of appearances”, then it isn’t real, it is rather the appearance of reality. Reality is what stands behind the appearance. But is that reality leptons and quarks, or is it, as the mystics would have it, something ineffable, which can be known but not spoken." This is trivially true. Reality is different than our perception of it (although our perception of it is also part of it) just as truth is different from the reality to which it corresponds. This is supposed to be "deep?" Of course there is reality behind appearances, otherwise there would be no appearances. But to go from that to there is no reality, only the appearance of it, or that if there is a reality we can only know the appearance of it, is irrational in the extreme. The mystics are into madness, not reality. Just think of the statements you made above. The self-contradictions are obvious.tgpeeler

March 21, 2013

March

03

Mar

21

21

2013

02:49 PM

2

02

49

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

The mystics are permanently and hopelessly confused. It is impossible to "get behind" or transcend (go beyond) thought. Are they thinking that they are thinking that they are thinking... ad nauseum? Of course not. They are THINKING. This is the STARTING point for all knowledge. Descartes got this right but he erred in that he started with the mind rather than with reality, i.e. existence. The way it really goes is: I exist therefore I think (the Law of Causality) AND I think, therefore I know that I exist. This ties ontology and epistemology together in an unbreakable way. They are the two sides of the same metaphysical coin. And what are the contents of our thoughts? Why they are sense experiences, to be sure, converted to mental objects by means of language. One of the great errors that Kant made was to declare that our mind had "categories" and that our minds imposed these categories on our sense experiences. Therefore, he wrongly concluded that we cannot know the thing as it is (ding an sich) we can only know the thing as it appears to us (ding fur mich). But that is not what is happening. We are born with the capacity for rational thought, i.e. the capacity to use language to convert sense experience to mental objects in accordance with the First Principle of all existence and thought - The Law of Identity - (Being is Being) and it's immediate inferences; the Law of Noncontradiction, the Law of Excluded Middle, and the Law of Causality, so that we can, by means of rational thought, connect to reality. These principles precede our existence and our awareness of them but they are not known to us a priori. We know nothing a priori. What is in our minds is first in our senses but that is not all that is in our minds. We can do metaphysics. It's called "thought." So to deny that we can do metaphysics, as Kant did, is doing metaphysics. Therefore, our mind doesn't get between us and reality, our mind IS THE WAY in which we experience and connect to reality. This is an egregious error on Kant's part and that he failed to see the self-refuting nature of his thought has always been a matter of curiosity for me. I'm hardly a Kant expert but he stepped into a deep logical hole from which he could not escape by claiming this. The epistemological question is still HOW DO WE KNOW? I suggest that each individual begin with what he knows to a certainty. That I exist. And that I am I. We cannot not know that a thing is what it is and our first and certain knowledge of that begins with our own awareness of our existence. Thus the Law of Identity is the basis for all rational thought. The good news is that it begins with what is necessarily true and it provides by immediate inference the other laws of rational thought. It is interesting to note that we begin with ontology/existence and are aware of this by epistemology/thought. See Exodus 3:14 I AM WHO I AM. And John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word (the Logos - the Greek word to describe the life of the mind) and the Word was with God and the Word was God. And John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (Jesus). And John 8:24 and 8:58 where Jesus stated "I am." Here again, we have existence and identity (I AM WHO I AM) and the way we know of this, the Logos (by means of rational thought). Another tightly wound package of Ontology/Epistemology. We are created in the image of God so it's interesting that we would follow the same model of existence/thought. There is much more to be said and I hope to say it in a paper soon. I would also note that it is irrational to argue rationality with someone who rejects the principles of rational thought. It's astonishing to me how blind irrationality can be. It reminds me of my favorite line from "The Fellowship of the Ring" when Gandalf said to Saruman: "when did Saruman the wise abandon reason for madness?" When we abandon reason, or rational thought, madness is all that's left.tgpeeler

March 21, 2013

March

03

Mar

21

21

2013

02:38 PM

2

02

38

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

BD: Pardon, I said no such thing as that the physical world we share exhausts reality, or that appearance equals reality; though appearance often reflects reality. It is a part of it, and it seems leptons, baryons etc are as real as red balls and planets in it. It is also real that 2 + 3 = 5. Beyond that I would suggest that while we may not comprehend all of reality, and while such understandings as we have are partly error-prone, that does not entail the utter incomprehensibility of reality. I would be very cautious of such a claim, or the too sharp dichotomising between appearance and reality, the latter being deemed beyond intelligible description, as the very assertion implies a claim to understand somewhat about that which is held to be beyond understanding. I suggest rather, that our understanding is partial, imperfect and error prone, but that does not entail that it is hopelessly delusional or the like. KFkairosfocus

March 21, 2013

March

03

Mar

21

21

2013

02:26 PM

2

02

26

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Is Jupiter just a mental construct; does Jupiter only exist in your mind? Are the pictures of Jupiter a creation of your mind? Did you create internet, this forum and ‘my’ questions?

Box, the problem Bruce David is facing is that he has no way to act as if the things he experiences are anything but "real" in the common, traditional sense of the word. Note that he is attempting communication - with whom? through what? - as if he expects you to not only exist as he conceives, but also for you to conceptually interpret the assumed exterior reality of internet transmissions the way that he intends them. Sure, this might all be in his mind. Or, everything ouside of his mind could be completely different than his mind arranges. But though such mental contortions and flights are interesting, you simply cannot act in the world as if those ideas are valid. You do not stand in the path of an oncoming train and assure yourself that it might not really exist. So, while pondering such things might be amusing, if one cannot even live as if such things are true, and cannot even argue and debate as if such things are true; indeed, if even the concept "it is true that reality is not like what we think" is itself an inscrutable transmission that we only interpret as our minds reinvent, then what Bruce David is offering is nothing more than solipsistic sophistry.William J Murray

March 21, 2013

March

03

Mar

21

21

2013

02:21 PM

2

02

21

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

KF, re #33 From the first line of the Wikipedia quote:

Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear...

But if the Sufis are right, and the physical universe in which we live our lives is "the world of appearances", then it isn't real, it is rather the appearance of reality. Reality is what stands behind the appearance. But is that reality leptons and quarks, or is it, as the mystics would have it, something ineffable, which can be known but not spoken. I throw my lot in with the mystics.Bruce David

March 21, 2013

March

03

Mar

21

21

2013

02:11 PM

2

02

11

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Bruce David (31): “My view is considerably different. Jupiter to me is a mental construct, formed by my mind based on pictures I have seen and descriptions I have read. In fact, all physical objects, even KF’s red ball, are concepts constructed on the basis of myriad sense impressions, all of which exist or existed in my mind.”

Is Jupiter just a mental construct; does Jupiter only exist in your mind? Are the pictures of Jupiter a creation of your mind? Did you create internet, this forum and ‘my’ questions?Box

March 21, 2013

March

03

Mar

21

21

2013

01:55 PM

1

01

55

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

F/N: I have added an image of Jupiter as an example, the ultimate "red ball" -- but one -- in the solar system. That brings up the philosophical question as to what is "real." To which, the answer is, that which is as opposed to that which is not. We may have concepts or perceptions of or experiences with what is real, that may be more or less partly accurate and are usually also partly inaccurate. But, that which is real stands above what we may think is real, and often can correct such. (Planets, for instance were once seen as wandering stars -- hence "planetos" for wanderer. Then, they were seen as orbiting our world, then we came to understand that our home world was one of the planets orbiting the sun, as investigations more and more corrected our impressions and concepts.) If we are reduced to thinking that something like that gas giant planet we call Jupiter is equal to the cluster of our concepts about it, we are in trouble. For, to err is all too human. KF PS: It is worth the while to snip Wiki's introduction to its article on Reality:

Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.[1] In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still more broad definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist. Philosophers, mathematicians, and other ancient and modern thinkers, such as Aristotle, Plato, Frege, Wittgenstein, and Russell, have made a distinction between thought corresponding to reality, coherent abstractions (thoughts of things that are imaginable but not real), and that which cannot even be rationally thought. By contrast existence is often restricted solely to that which has physical existence or has a direct basis in it in the way that thoughts do in the brain. Reality is often contrasted with what is imaginary, delusional, (only) in the mind, dreams, what is abstract, what is false, or what is fictional. The truth refers to what is real, while falsity refers to what is not. Fictions are considered not real.

kairosfocus

March 21, 2013

March

03

Mar

21

21

2013

01:09 PM

1

01

09

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

BD, re #20

Kant was no fool. I am sure that if he thought there was any merit to a criticism such as yours and KF’s, he could easily have fixed it by simply adding the phrase, “other than that we can know nothing of its nature.” He evidently saw no need to do so, and rightly so.

You are very trusting. I'm sure no scientist or philosopher has *ever* reached a potentially problematic conclusion and done one or more of the following: - Tried to ignore it entirely, hoping no one would notice. - Tried to brush past it quickly, hoping no one would dwell on it. - Hoped that his own authority would carry the argument past the problem. (Possibly the hope being acted on above on Kant's behalf?) - Tried to bluff his/her way straight through the issue. - Simply missed the problem entirely. Alternatively, are you saying that philosophers have made no progress since Kant? Or that no subsequent examination of his analyses could possibly have uncovered a problem? Why should that be so? (I see now that BD says he's not a Kantian after all. So never mind.)EDTA

March 21, 2013

March

03

Mar

21

21

2013

11:36 AM

11

11

36

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Stephen, The problem here is that we have quite different ideas of what constitutes reality. You said in #16, "Can the planet that we call Jupiter (which is part of the real world) exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way." From this, I conclude that you believe that physical objects are part of "the real world", or reality. My view is considerably different. Jupiter to me is a mental construct, formed by my mind based on pictures I have seen and descriptions I have read. In fact, all physical objects, even KF's red ball, are concepts constructed on the basis of myriad sense impressions, all of which exist or existed in my mind. The laws of right reason, of which you are so fond, apply to these concepts, these "objects" we have created in our minds to organize and manage our sensory experience. The Sufis say that the physical world is "the world of appearances" and not reality. Reality to them, as to all mystics, is ineffable and cannot be described in words. It can be talked about, but the use of language to describe Reality always falls short. The laws of right reason are embedded in language and apply to the concepts which we call objects or things. To ask whether they apply to Reality, which lies behind the world of appearances and is beyond the ability of language to address, is to ask a question which cannot be answered.Bruce David

March 21, 2013

March

03

Mar

21

21

2013

09:39 AM

9

09

39

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

KF: Ok, I am not a Kantian, and I am not really interested in defending his position, although I am sure that a Kantian would be capable of countering the points made by you and others above. Clearly, the subject is subtle and deep. My comment was expressing the fact that I found your one line dismissal rather cavalier and did not give the subject anywhere near the depth of treatment that it deserves. You have since remedied that. I am satisfied.Bruce David

March 21, 2013

March

03

Mar

21

21

2013

09:04 AM

9

09

04

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

ES: Pardon, but Kant, when all is said and done has been one of the greats of philosophy. I am pointing to a point of concern that has long been raised, but in truth, similar concerns can probably be found in the work of just about any merely finite, fallible, morally struggling/fallen and tempted to be ill-willed philosopher of note you care to name. Indeed, I remember a long time ago hearing it said that when serious fallacies are being identified, often the examples come from the works of great thinkers, showing just how hard it is to consistently think soundly. This reminds me of the strategy used by many computer chess programs: catching and exploiting errors. KFkairosfocus

March 21, 2013

March

03

Mar

21

21

2013

05:47 AM

5

05

47

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Bruce:

Wow, you have dispensed with Kant, one of the greatest thinkers in Western philosophy, with a quick one-liner. Very impressive.

That Kant is considered one of the greatest thinkers in Western philosophy is proof that Western philosophy has gone horribly wrong.EvilSnack

March 21, 2013

March

03

Mar

21

21

2013

05:10 AM

5

05

10

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

OT: Anthony Jack, Why Don't Psychopaths Believe in Dualism? - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRGWe-61zOk&list=UUmmObUi8Fq9g1Zcuzqbt0_g LOL per: “A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions — understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots — wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath.” Andrew Ferguson – The Weekly Standard – March 2013bornagain77

March 21, 2013

March

03

Mar

21

21

2013

04:13 AM

4

04

13

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link