What is Metaphysical Naturalism?

Discuss philosophical concepts and moral issues.
User avatar
BWE
Posts: 9653
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:54 pm
Location: one of the unnamed sidestreets of happiness

Post by BWE » Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:06 pm

[quote=""subsymbolic""]
BWE;678664 wrote:That it's impossible to make an argument for infinity from a finite position.
Either I don't understand what you are saying or isn't that precisely what Cantor did with his diagonalisation argument?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27 ... l_argument[/QUOTE]

That's an argument about a quality of formal language as it relates to infinity. My point is that you can't use an ontological position to make a defining statement about an infinite subject, or I guess, a topic that uses an infinite base.

From my pov, the AoC is better than b/t because the AoC involves no mechanism. It is as close to a kludge as an axiom can be, and yet, b/t is so weird specifically because of the AoC.

User avatar
subsymbolic
Posts: 13371
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: under the gnomon

Post by subsymbolic » Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:09 pm

[quote=""BWE""]
subsymbolic;678690 wrote:
BWE;678664 wrote:That it's impossible to make an argument for infinity from a finite position.
Either I don't understand what you are saying or isn't that precisely what Cantor did with his diagonalisation argument?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27 ... l_argument
That's an argument about a quality of formal language as it relates to infinity. My point is that you can't use an ontological position to make a defining statement about an infinite subject, or I guess, a topic that uses an infinite base.

From my pov, the AoC is better than b/t because the AoC involves no mechanism. It is as close to a kludge as an axiom can be, and yet, b/t is so weird specifically because of the AoC.[/QUOTE]

Ok, that makes sense. I agree, it all comes back to the axiom of choice.

User avatar
Grendel
Posts: 2326
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Bunya Mountains

Post by Grendel » Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:34 pm

[quote=""subsymbolic""]I was talking about B/T. Are you really arguing that because you think both are theorems then a disproof of one is a disproof of the other.

Because that’s clearly nonsense.[/quote]

I'm sorry. You're confused, in the nicest possible way of course. Bye.

:)

User avatar
subsymbolic
Posts: 13371
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: under the gnomon

Post by subsymbolic » Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:46 pm

[quote=""Grendel""]
subsymbolic;678684 wrote:I was talking about B/T. Are you really arguing that because you think both are theorems then a disproof of one is a disproof of the other.

Because that’s clearly nonsense.
I'm sorry. You're confused, in the nicest possible way of course. Bye.

:) [/QUOTE]

Of course I'm confused! I was talking about a theorem in pure maths and you somehow slid from that to a theorem in physics and carried on as if this was remotely relevant. That's a bit like taking a conversation about cats, pointing out that both cats and chairs have four legs and subsequently carrying on as if proving that chairs are not alive proved that cats are not alive.

Here's the move again:
BT is a theorem? So is the Special Theory of Relativity. Both ignore mass (matter in motion) Spacetime is a function of mass. You can't manipulate volume without accounting for mass. And yet that's what it does, manipulates space. The theory is simply plausible in a universe where energy has no cost. Special Relativity only applies to a special universe that contains zero mass, a universe where motion (energy) does not cost. A free lunch universe.

Given that. I don't see how the special theory of relativity can be considered supernatural. It doesn't break the laws of physics, given it's limitation. It manipulates volumetric space. It's neither a natural-physical-thing nor a super-natural-physical thing. It's just a theory and we use bits of it as yardstick all the time.

If such a universe was found perhaps then you could argue it's supernatural. I don't think you've proven anything at all.
It would be funny if you were not serious.

User avatar
Cheerful Charlie
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:12 am

Post by Cheerful Charlie » Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:50 pm

[quote=""subsymbolic""]
I think this debate has gone as far as it is going to go. It is getting repetitious.

In advance of working out what would stand as evidence, how would you do that?

The battle isn't between science and religion, it's between ignorance and reasoned understanding. You want to cheerlead for science, I suggest you learn some. You want to slag down philosophy or metaphysics, at least work out what it is you are slagging down.[/quote]

This is not about science. Science works and needs no justification. We all know that. I am not cheerleading for science, simply noting science has been fruitful and successful, where as belief in the supernatural has not. It is acceptable and necessary to ask those who claim that the supernatural exists why despite its failure to be demonstrated to exist or to explain anything why we should not declare it nonsense.

Theology, occultism, mysticism and bad metaphysics has never explained anything, nothing at all. Supernaturalism has not. I have no intention of bothering with trying to tell how supernaturalists can prove their hypothesis. It isn't my problem, any more than explaining how we could prove how fairies work magic to those who claim fairies exist but lack convincing evidence.

For myself, I have no patience with metaphysical woo, or burden shifting rhetoric.
Cheerful Charlie

plebian
Posts: 2838
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:34 pm
Location: America

Post by plebian » Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:05 pm

[quote=""Cheerful Charlie""]
subsymbolic;678711 wrote:
I think this debate has gone as far as it is going to go. It is getting repetitious.

In advance of working out what would stand as evidence, how would you do that?

The battle isn't between science and religion, it's between ignorance and reasoned understanding. You want to cheerlead for science, I suggest you learn some. You want to slag down philosophy or metaphysics, at least work out what it is you are slagging down.
This is not about science. Science works and needs no justification. We all know that. I am not cheerleading for science, simply noting science has been fruitful and successful, where as belief in the supernatural has not. It is acceptable and necessary to ask those who claim that the supernatural exists why despite its failure to be demonstrated to exist or to explain anything why we should not declare it nonsense.

Theology, occultism, mysticism and bad metaphysics has never explained anything, nothing at all. Supernaturalism has not. I have no intention of bothering with trying to tell how supernaturalists can prove their hypothesis. It isn't my problem, any more than explaining how we could prove how fairies work magic to those who claim fairies exist but lack convincing evidence.

For myself, I have no patience with metaphysical woo, or burden shifting rhetoric.[/QUOTE]

I think subsymbolic is saying that's not really a grounds for an ontology.

User avatar
subsymbolic
Posts: 13371
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: under the gnomon

Post by subsymbolic » Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:19 pm

This is not about science. Science works and needs no justification. We all know that.
If scientists took that attitude to science then science wouldn't work. That's precisely and exactly what I find so irritating - this is a religious attitude to science. A scientific attitude to science is constantly questioning everything and actively seeking both error and falsification, not this triumphant bollocks.
I am not cheerleading for science, simply noting science has been fruitful and successful, where as belief in the supernatural has not.
Well you are asserting that, certainly.
It is acceptable and necessary to ask those who claim that the supernatural exists why despite its failure to be demonstrated to exist or to explain anything why we should not declare it nonsense.


Sure, but like all those things in science that we have also failed to demonstrate to exist (often until we did) You know, like the Higgs Boson or atomic theory let alone the ether (or lack of it)... However, that again is missing the point. Using scientific criteria for success to judge religion is precisely as wrong headed as using Biblical criteria to judge science. What you need is criteria that do not beg the question. I'm not saying such criteria don't exist, merely that your approach is a religious one - declare you are right by your own criteria and then ram those fingers in your ears and keep repeating the mantra.
Theology, occultism, mysticism and bad metaphysics has never explained anything, nothing at all.
Bollocks, of course they have, just not always terribly well. Enjoy the song as it makes the point rather nicely:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cpcv-g9TEPI

but the fact is that rather a lot of what we do today, including in science, has these sort of religious roots and only a complete moron would throw the baby out with the bathwater. Meanwhile, please can you give me the criteria by which you decide what is 'bad' metaphysics without begging the question?

Supernaturalism has not. I have no intention of bothering with trying to tell how supernaturalists can prove their hypothesis. It isn't my problem, any more than explaining how we could prove how fairies work magic to those who claim fairies exist but lack convincing evidence.
Actually it is precisely your problem, as any metaphysical system that claims to be able to sort truth from non truth in a neutral manner really needs to have criteria for doing this sorting. However, as you demonstrated earlier you don't know the criteria by which scientists separate pseudo science from science.
For myself, I have no patience with metaphysical woo, or burden shifting rhetoric.
Really? because if that is the case you must spend rather a lot of time shouting at yourself in the mirror!
Last edited by subsymbolic on Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
subsymbolic
Posts: 13371
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: under the gnomon

Post by subsymbolic » Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:22 pm

[quote=""plebian""]
Cheerful Charlie;678719 wrote:
subsymbolic;678711 wrote:
I think this debate has gone as far as it is going to go. It is getting repetitious.

In advance of working out what would stand as evidence, how would you do that?

The battle isn't between science and religion, it's between ignorance and reasoned understanding. You want to cheerlead for science, I suggest you learn some. You want to slag down philosophy or metaphysics, at least work out what it is you are slagging down.
This is not about science. Science works and needs no justification. We all know that. I am not cheerleading for science, simply noting science has been fruitful and successful, where as belief in the supernatural has not. It is acceptable and necessary to ask those who claim that the supernatural exists why despite its failure to be demonstrated to exist or to explain anything why we should not declare it nonsense.

Theology, occultism, mysticism and bad metaphysics has never explained anything, nothing at all. Supernaturalism has not. I have no intention of bothering with trying to tell how supernaturalists can prove their hypothesis. It isn't my problem, any more than explaining how we could prove how fairies work magic to those who claim fairies exist but lack convincing evidence.

For myself, I have no patience with metaphysical woo, or burden shifting rhetoric.
I think subsymbolic is saying that's not really a grounds for an ontology.[/QUOTE]

It's barely grounds for a drunken chat up line.

User avatar
Cheerful Charlie
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:12 am

Post by Cheerful Charlie » Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:43 pm

[quote=""plebian""]
Cheerful Charlie;678719 wrote:
subsymbolic;678711 wrote:
I think this debate has gone as far as it is going to go. It is getting repetitious.

In advance of working out what would stand as evidence, how would you do that?

The battle isn't between science and religion, it's between ignorance and reasoned understanding. You want to cheerlead for science, I suggest you learn some. You want to slag down philosophy or metaphysics, at least work out what it is you are slagging down.
This is not about science. Science works and needs no justification. We all know that. I am not cheerleading for science, simply noting science has been fruitful and successful, where as belief in the supernatural has not. It is acceptable and necessary to ask those who claim that the supernatural exists why despite its failure to be demonstrated to exist or to explain anything why we should not declare it nonsense.

Theology, occultism, mysticism and bad metaphysics has never explained anything, nothing at all. Supernaturalism has not. I have no intention of bothering with trying to tell how supernaturalists can prove their hypothesis. It isn't my problem, any more than explaining how we could prove how fairies work magic to those who claim fairies exist but lack convincing evidence.

For myself, I have no patience with metaphysical woo, or burden shifting rhetoric.
I think subsymbolic is saying that's not really a grounds for an ontology.[/QUOTE]

Metaphysical nonsense does nothing, goes nowhere, is not worth wasting time on.
Supernatural as a hypothesis isn't even wrong. So as an ontology, does one abandon all of that or quit bothering with a failed approach to understanding anything?

The failure of metaphysical woo is grounds for metaphysical naturalism. Otherwise its like saying there is no reason to reject alchemy simply because alchemy has never achieved any of its stated goals. There comes a point where clinging to nonsense is simply pathetic.

Why should we give any attention to the idea of supernaturalism? Why shouldn't we abandon it like the claims of phologiston? How much intellectual failure is enough?

I hust don't understand the insistemce of nat admitting just how useless the ontology based on the idea of supernaturalism truly is.
Cheerful Charlie

plebian
Posts: 2838
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:34 pm
Location: America

Post by plebian » Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:20 am

[quote=""Cheerful Charlie""]
plebian;678721 wrote:
Cheerful Charlie;678719 wrote:
subsymbolic;678711 wrote:

In advance of working out what would stand as evidence, how would you do that?

The battle isn't between science and religion, it's between ignorance and reasoned understanding. You want to cheerlead for science, I suggest you learn some. You want to slag down philosophy or metaphysics, at least work out what it is you are slagging down.
This is not about science. Science works and needs no justification. We all know that. I am not cheerleading for science, simply noting science has been fruitful and successful, where as belief in the supernatural has not. It is acceptable and necessary to ask those who claim that the supernatural exists why despite its failure to be demonstrated to exist or to explain anything why we should not declare it nonsense.

Theology, occultism, mysticism and bad metaphysics has never explained anything, nothing at all. Supernaturalism has not. I have no intention of bothering with trying to tell how supernaturalists can prove their hypothesis. It isn't my problem, any more than explaining how we could prove how fairies work magic to those who claim fairies exist but lack convincing evidence.

For myself, I have no patience with metaphysical woo, or burden shifting rhetoric.
I think subsymbolic is saying that's not really a grounds for an ontology.
Metaphysical nonsense does nothing, goes nowhere, is not worth wasting time on.
Supernatural as a hypothesis isn't even wrong. So as an ontology, does one abandon all of that or quit bothering with a failed approach to understanding anything?

The failure of metaphysical woo is grounds for metaphysical naturalism. Otherwise its like saying there is no reason to reject alchemy simply because alchemy has never achieved any of its stated goals. There comes a point where clinging to nonsense is simply pathetic.

Why should we give any attention to the idea of supernaturalism? Why shouldn't we abandon it like the claims of phologiston? How much intellectual failure is enough?

I hust don't understand the insistemce of nat admitting just how useless the ontology based on the idea of supernaturalism truly is.[/QUOTE]

I think that you didn't understand the conversation in this thread. You are free to assume all those things and you still don't have enough to construct a metaphysics.

User avatar
Cheerful Charlie
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:12 am

Post by Cheerful Charlie » Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:36 am

[quote=""plebian""]
Cheerful Charlie;678725 wrote:
plebian;678721 wrote:
Cheerful Charlie;678719 wrote:
This is not about science. Science works and needs no justification. We all know that. I am not cheerleading for science, simply noting science has been fruitful and successful, where as belief in the supernatural has not. It is acceptable and necessary to ask those who claim that the supernatural exists why despite its failure to be demonstrated to exist or to explain anything why we should not declare it nonsense.

Theology, occultism, mysticism and bad metaphysics has never explained anything, nothing at all. Supernaturalism has not. I have no intention of bothering with trying to tell how supernaturalists can prove their hypothesis. It isn't my problem, any more than explaining how we could prove how fairies work magic to those who claim fairies exist but lack convincing evidence.

For myself, I have no patience with metaphysical woo, or burden shifting rhetoric.
I think subsymbolic is saying that's not really a grounds for an ontology.
Metaphysical nonsense does nothing, goes nowhere, is not worth wasting time on.
Supernatural as a hypothesis isn't even wrong. So as an ontology, does one abandon all of that or quit bothering with a failed approach to understanding anything?

The failure of metaphysical woo is grounds for metaphysical naturalism. Otherwise its like saying there is no reason to reject alchemy simply because alchemy has never achieved any of its stated goals. There comes a point where clinging to nonsense is simply pathetic.

Why should we give any attention to the idea of supernaturalism? Why shouldn't we abandon it like the claims of phologiston? How much intellectual failure is enough?

I hust don't understand the insistemce of nat admitting just how useless the ontology based on the idea of supernaturalism truly is.
I think that you didn't understand the conversation in this thread. You are free to assume all those things and you still don't have enough to construct a metaphysics.[/QUOTE]

I very much do understand it. The question was, what is metaphysical naturalism. the answer is, abandonment of questionable hypotheses like supernaturalism. The next question is why abandon such ideas? The answe is, they don't work, don't solve any problems, and are intellectually barren and have never been successful or useful.

What is the point of bothering with such a thing despite this centuries long history of intellectual ineffectiveness?

Yes, I do very much understand all of this. I have no need for woo mongering of any sort.
Cheerful Charlie

User avatar
BWE
Posts: 9653
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:54 pm
Location: one of the unnamed sidestreets of happiness

Post by BWE » Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:47 am

I like to monger a little woo now and then. It's highly underrated imo.

User avatar
BWE
Posts: 9653
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:54 pm
Location: one of the unnamed sidestreets of happiness

Post by BWE » Wed Oct 25, 2017 4:24 am

What's a little woo between friends? I mean, we all have a few nutty ideas.

User avatar
subsymbolic
Posts: 13371
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: under the gnomon

Post by subsymbolic » Wed Oct 25, 2017 7:28 am

Metaphysical nonsense does nothing, goes nowhere, is not worth wasting time on.
I'm sure that is true of metaphysical nonsense, but what about metaphysics?
Supernatural as a hypothesis isn't even wrong.
Yeah, I get that you can parrot the most fashionable phrases, but you haven't even responded to the worry earlier in the thread that there are a host of extremely respectable ideas in philosophy and pure mathematics (for a start) that would count as supernatural by your definition.
So as an ontology, does one abandon all of that or quit bothering with a failed approach to understanding anything?
This is just a false dichotomy, yet another logical fallacy that is literally worse than woo.
The failure of metaphysical woo is grounds for metaphysical naturalism.
Not until you can demonstrate that metaphysical naturalism excludes only woo and and that all metaphysical woo has failed (which given that you are using a boo word that is close to meaningless will be a task in itself).
Otherwise its like saying there is no reason to reject alchemy simply because alchemy has never achieved any of its stated goals.
But alchemy did achieve rather a lot of its goals, they just were not the same goals as chemistry.

Do you not understand the difference between reduction and elimination in science? Much of alchemy was proto chemistry and worked extremely well. That isn't what did for alchemy, at the time the major objections to alchemy were methodological rather than pragmatic.
There comes a point where clinging to nonsense is simply pathetic.
Yes, there certainly does. You are not a scientist or a philosopher and this sort of bullshit gives those who would reject reason plenty of ammunition.
Why should we give any attention to the idea of supernaturalism? Why shouldn't we abandon it like the claims of phologiston?
Because the two cases are not remotely similar outside of your head and you haven't got a remotely serviceable definition of supernaturalism.
How much intellectual failure is enough?
I don't know. I guess we'll see.
I hust don't understand the insistemce of nat admitting just how useless the ontology based on the idea of supernaturalism truly is.
Well, if you considered the arguments earlier in the thread about quite what counted as supernatural, that might help you. What you really want is for science and the scientific method to be the measure of everything and the fact is that while science is outstanding at what science is good at, it does have limits and areas where using the scientific method is simply the wrong approach.

To deny this and deny this by stating, by fiat, that anything that isn't science is woo or supernatural, is silly and makes you an easy target for smart theists. You want to bat for science, learn some science. You want to slag down philosophy to philosophers you better be quite good at philosophy.

And right.

User avatar
subsymbolic
Posts: 13371
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: under the gnomon

Post by subsymbolic » Wed Oct 25, 2017 7:38 am

I very much do understand it. The question was, what is metaphysical naturalism. the answer is, abandonment of questionable hypotheses like supernaturalism.
Do you really think that repudiation of 'questionable hypotheses like supernaturalism' is a definition that is fit for purpose? Because you are wrong. When you can explain how Banach Tarski isn't supernatural
The next question is why abandon such ideas? The answe is, they don't work, don't solve any problems, and are intellectually barren and have never been successful or useful.
But that simply isn't true. Even if we look directly to supernaturalism it demonstrably has been successful for literally millennia. Just not by your criteria and you need a way to prove that your criteria are the right ones that doesn't beg the question.
What is the point of bothering with such a thing despite this centuries long history of intellectual ineffectiveness?
What, like atomic theory?
Yes, I do very much understand all of this.
No, you demonstrably do not.
I have no need for woo mongering of any sort.
Really? so can you give me a metaphysically natural explanation of conscious experience? Or do you deny that you have conscious experience?

Because the fact is that you can't use the scientific method to get to grips with your personal conscious experience and so it must be regarded as supernatural by your definition (as must the long list I gave earlier).

User avatar
Cheerful Charlie
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:12 am

Post by Cheerful Charlie » Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:24 pm

[quote=""subsymbolic""]

But that simply isn't true. Even if we look directly to supernaturalism it demonstrably has been successful for literally millennia. Just not by your criteria and you need a way to prove that your criteria are the right ones that doesn't beg the question.
What is the point of bothering with such a thing despite this centuries long history of intellectual ineffectiveness?
What, like atomic theory?
[/quote]

Are you seriously suggesting that "atomic theory" rests on the concept of the existence of the supernatural? Really!?

The earliest Greek philosophers were naturalists. It was this naturalistic strain of thinking that has become science as we know it. The accumulative nonsense of speculation that does not work, does not work. If some people believed it long ago does not mean it is good and useful today. That does not excuse clinging to nonsense in this day and age.

Speculation =/= supernaturalism.

And of course a lot of old woo has been abandoned. Plato's forms, Aristotle's many mistakes, the Universe is not made of Earth, Wind, water and fire, the four humors theory of medicine. Witches and magic.

This started out as a question of what is metaphysical naturalism. It is the abandonment of the concept of the supernatural because that is not a useful idea in any way. Tarski's work on logic does not support supernaturalism or other similar bad ideas. The existence of say, magic and occultism.

Leucippus and Democritus speculated about atoms and turned out to be more right than wrong. But the fact that they were to an extent hypothesizing does not mean we have to accept all hypotheses of the past as successful or even meaningful. Real science means abandoning disproven or useless hypotheses, metaphysics then, by that metric obviously is not a good thing if metaphysics cannot abandon notably useless ideas like the existence of the supernatural. Which cannot be demonstrated to exist, doesn't lead to understanding anything and which is used to support bad ideas like bad theology.

So stop with the strawman nonsense, and your sneers at my understanding of science. Metaphysical naturalism is the concept that useless claims such as the existence of supernaturalism have outlived any possible utility and should be chucked into the dungheap of humanities bad ideas that just don't work.

Supernaturalism has no utility except as a lazy prop for bad theology. If you can prove otherwise, put your proof right here --->

Show us why supernaturalism is a good idea.
Cheerful Charlie

User avatar
subsymbolic
Posts: 13371
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: under the gnomon

Post by subsymbolic » Wed Oct 25, 2017 12:59 pm

Are you seriously suggesting that "atomic theory" rests on the concept of the existence of the supernatural? Really!?
No, funnily enough, I'm not. I'm suggesting that between being suggested by Democritus in 2500 years ago and finally being vindicated by Dalton in the 19th century, the theory lay fallow, dismissed and rejected.

Hence, when you said:
What is the point of bothering with such a thing despite this centuries long history of intellectual ineffectiveness?
My answer was the this is precisely what happened to atomic theory, among others.


The earliest Greek philosophers were naturalists. It was this naturalistic strain of thinking that has become science as we know it.
Just think what your definition of naturalism consists of and then tell me precisely which early Greek philosophers you think this is true of.
The accumulative nonsense of speculation that does not work, does not work. If some people believed it long ago does not mean it is good and useful today. That does not excuse clinging to nonsense in this day and age.

Speculation =/= supernaturalism.
I literally have no idea what you think you are doing here. Do you?
And of course a lot of old woo has been abandoned.
Oops.

Plato's forms,
Can be found doing very nicely in neurocomputational accounts of taste and smell for example.
Aristotle's many mistakes,
His 'practical syllogism is the very heart of folk psychology and specifically Dennett's account of intentionality.
the Universe is not made of Earth, Wind, water and fire, the four humors theory of medicine. Witches and magic.
Well that is a long list of Boo Woo, so you must be right.
This started out as a question of what is metaphysical naturalism. It is the abandonment of the concept of the supernatural because that is not a useful idea in any way.


Still waiting on a definition that excludes the examples given above.
Tarski's work on logic does not support supernaturalism or other similar bad ideas.
No, but the Banach Tarski paradox is, by your definition, supernatural.
The existence of say, magic and occultism.
Has sod all to do with B/T
Leucippus and Democritus speculated about atoms and turned out to be more right than wrong. But the fact that they were to an extent hypothesizing does not mean we have to accept all hypotheses of the past as successful or even meaningful. Real science means abandoning disproven or useless hypotheses, metaphysics then, by that metric obviously is not a good thing if metaphysics cannot abandon notably useless ideas like the existence of the supernatural. Which cannot be demonstrated to exist, doesn't lead to understanding anything and which is used to support bad ideas like bad theology.
You entirely misunderstood me. IN fact, you have done little else, because you are without doubt but hopelessly out of your depth.
So stop with the strawman nonsense,
Point out any straw man I have used please.

and your sneers at my understanding of science.
I'm not sneering I'm pointing out the self evident fact that you don't understand what science is or how it works. I wish you did.

Metaphysical naturalism is the concept that useless claims such as the existence of supernaturalism have outlived any possible utility and should be chucked into the dungheap of humanities bad ideas that just don't work.
No it isn't. That's just your opinion with the words metaphysical naturalism stuck in front of them.
Supernaturalism has no utility except as a lazy prop for bad theology. If you can prove otherwise, put your proof right here --->
Now, it's funny you should mention straw men. You have this entire thread; find a single point at which I argue in favour of supernaturalism beyond pointing out that your definition of naturalism puts some aspects of pure maths in the same category as a belief in God.
Show us why supernaturalism is a good idea.
Why? it's your attempt to put words in my mouth. Ironically.

Oh, and another way you are religious in your approach - you ignore the inconvenient.
Last edited by subsymbolic on Wed Oct 25, 2017 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Cheerful Charlie
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:12 am

Post by Cheerful Charlie » Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:36 pm

subsymbolic;678789 [quote wrote:Metaphysical naturalism is the concept that useless claims such as the existence of supernaturalism have outlived any possible utility and should be chucked into the dungheap of humanities bad ideas that just don't work.
No it isn't. That's just your opinion with the words metaphysical naturalism stuck in front of them.
Supernaturalism has no utility except as a lazy prop for bad theology. If you can prove otherwise, put your proof right here --->
.....
Show us why supernaturalism is a good idea.
Why? it's your attempt to put words in my mouth. Ironically.
.[/QUOTE]

Why does the idea of abandoning supernatural despite its utter uselessness as an idea set you off? Its very existence can't e proven. Its precise meaning cannot be defined. It leads to nothing worth knowing and is only used by thology to prop up a not very coherent set of ideas?

It is obvious that metaphysical naturalism has sound reasons to jettison that concept.

Yes, metaphysics touches on a lot of important subjects, like logic. Do you think I am jettisoning all metaphysics ala Positivism? If so it is you who are not understanding all of this. But bad ideas that crawl out of the metaphysical swamps need to be understood for what they are. Bad ideas that are useless.

I have no idea what you are doing with this. Where are the limits of abstract thought?
Why bother with ideas that do nothing good or useful?

What is the status of supernatural and what should it be? Why does the concept of abandoning a sterile bit of nonsense altogether bother you?

Are you suggesting that someday maybe, like atomism, supernaturalism might prove useful? Or just what are you thinking? You don't seem to have dealt with the main issue here. Abandoning supernaturalism as it is all around, a bad, sterile, useless concept. To be abandoned until its proponents come up with something other than mere assertion. Stick to the subject at hand.
Cheerful Charlie

plebian
Posts: 2838
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:34 pm
Location: America

Post by plebian » Wed Oct 25, 2017 7:37 pm

[quote=""Cheerful Charlie""]
subsymbolic;678789 wrote:
Metaphysical naturalism is the concept that useless claims such as the existence of supernaturalism have outlived any possible utility and should be chucked into the dungheap of humanities bad ideas that just don't work.
No it isn't. That's just your opinion with the words metaphysical naturalism stuck in front of them.
Supernaturalism has no utility except as a lazy prop for bad theology. If you can prove otherwise, put your proof right here --->
.....
Show us why supernaturalism is a good idea.
Why? it's your attempt to put words in my mouth. Ironically.
.
Why does the idea of abandoning supernatural despite its utter uselessness as an idea set you off? Its very existence can't e proven. Its precise meaning cannot be defined.
[/QUOTE]

This is the issue that cuts both ways If you can't define it, how can you eliminate it? If your definition eliminates conscious experience or mental models, is your definition useful?

User avatar
subsymbolic
Posts: 13371
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: under the gnomon

Post by subsymbolic » Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:14 pm

Why does the idea of abandoning supernatural despite its utter uselessness as an idea set you off?
It doesn't. At no point have I been 'set off' as you put it, by whatever it is that you dub 'supernaturalism'. A category so vague and ill defined as to be worse than useless.

That you are still banging on about it after I just challenged you to:
Me wrote:find a single point at which I argue in favour of supernaturalism beyond pointing out that your definition of naturalism puts some aspects of pure maths in the same category as a belief in God.
Without meeting that challenge, demonstrates either incompetence, intellectual dishonesty or both.
Its very existence can't e proven. Its precise meaning cannot be defined. It leads to nothing worth knowing and is only used by thology to prop up a not very coherent set of ideas?
Would this be a good time to point out that I have been consistently arguing against your conception of metaphysical naturalism and trying to rebut your fundamentalist attitudes.
It is obvious that metaphysical naturalism has sound reasons to jettison that concept.
Who knows, your definition at this point still includes a whole load of stuff that is neither religion nor stuff any sane person would want to jettison. You just keep focusing on one thing. Sort your definition of supernatural out so that it doesn't beg the question and yet also picks out all and only woo, then you are in business.
Yes, metaphysics touches on a lot of important subjects, like logic. Do you think I am jettisoning all metaphysics ala Positivism?
Nope. I've been very specific. Are you deliberately ignoring that or do you just not get it.
If so it is you who are not understanding all of this. But bad ideas that crawl out of the metaphysical swamps need to be understood for what they are. Bad ideas that are useless.
Yeah, however, picking out bad ideas is harder than you think.
I have no idea what you are doing with this. Where are the limits of abstract thought? Why bother with ideas that do nothing good or useful?
Because it's really hard to pick them out without begging the question and history shows that what appears to be useless at one point can be rather useful elsewhere.
What is the status of supernatural and what should it be?
That's your problem and your burden of proof not mine not mine. I gave my position on this in a couple of lines at the start of this thread.
Why does the concept of abandoning a sterile bit of nonsense altogether bother you?
It doesn't. what bothers me is doing it in the wrong way for the wrong reasons. You have made it clear that your motive is a hatred of religion from living in Texas.
Are you suggesting that someday maybe, like atomism, supernaturalism might prove useful?
No, that was a specific answer to a specific point. Go back and read it again.
Or just what are you thinking? You don't seem to have dealt with the main issue here.
Yes I have - post nineteen.
Abandoning supernaturalism as it is all around, a bad, sterile, useless concept. To be abandoned until its proponents come up with something other than mere assertion. Stick to the subject at hand.
And, as I keep pointing out, how do you decide what that is without begging the question?
Last edited by subsymbolic on Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
BWE
Posts: 9653
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 4:54 pm
Location: one of the unnamed sidestreets of happiness

Post by BWE » Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:32 pm

Without unsupported assertions, i.e. non-scientific hypotheses, progress would stagnate. There's a lot to be said for scientific research but creativity should not be bound to such a narrow range of thinking. Imo.

Anyway, I'm waiting for a definition of supernatural that meaningfully distinguishes pure maths and social theory from alchemy and witchcraft. For that matter, one that can place the attitude and approach of mystics in one or the other category.

There is a serious complication involving the ideas of purpose and intention that makes me unwilling to fully dismiss certain ways of approaching ideas rather than certain ideas that seem to be falsified.

User avatar
Cheerful Charlie
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:12 am

Post by Cheerful Charlie » Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:36 pm

[quote=""BWE""]Without unsupported assertions, i.e. non-scientific hypotheses, progress would stagnate. There's a lot to be said for scientific research but creativity should not be bound to such a narrow range of thinking. Imo.

Anyway, I'm waiting for a definition of supernatural that meaningfully distinguishes pure maths and social theory from alchemy and witchcraft. For that matter, one that can place the attitude and approach of mystics in one or the other category.

There is a serious complication involving the ideas of purpose and intention that makes me unwilling to fully dismiss certain ways of approaching ideas rather than certain ideas that seem to be falsified.[/quote]

There comes a time, where unsupported ideas that cannot be defined, much less demonstrated, need to be abandoned. Some ideas, like non-existent perfect gases serve a purpose as a start to demonstrate how gases work in the real world. Supernaturalism is not such a useful fiction. Magic is another concept that doesn't work and has outlived its usefulness. The time has come to abandon such things because they have proven not fruitful, useful, or true in any sense.

If that pisses people off, so be it. The proper way to deal with such concepts is to abandon them with the provisio that if anybody wants to argue for them, they will have to present evidence and a good reason to not throw that out as a failed hypothesis that has never done anything real world useful.

Why waste time with woo woo of this sort?
Cheerful Charlie

User avatar
Grendel
Posts: 2326
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Bunya Mountains

Post by Grendel » Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:54 pm

[quote=""Cheerful Charlie""]

If that pisses people off, so be it. The proper way to deal with such concepts is to abandon them with the provisio that if anybody wants to argue for them, they will have to present evidence and a good reason to not throw that out as a failed hypothesis that has never done anything real world useful.

Why waste time with woo woo of this sort?[/quote]

Nearly all of us were pre-programmed with mystical belief by our forebears at an age where we could not resist. It could be religion or any philosophy. But it helped that person explain the world to themselves, and to you. And it goes back a long long way.

Like child abuse the damage is forever. Not many people in later life doctor, lawyer, indian chief can ever fully abandon that indoctrination. I have no problem at all relating my 'higher conscious' to purely physical activity. That is, the mind is just matter and reacts to physical stimulation alone, there is no other stimulation.

Some people can never scour it totally. Their whole world view, their lifes purpose cannot be based on a false presumption. They build their world around their tiny god .. they believe/insist that consciousness rises above matter. There is no difference between me and a monkey, a pig, a demon .. I do not think better thoughts, I'm not more human than any animal

They (indoctrinated) see the world as composed of self-subsistent individual objects, and the paradigm of causation as the collision of such objects.

That's why woo-woo.

plebian
Posts: 2838
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:34 pm
Location: America

Post by plebian » Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:55 pm

[quote=""Cheerful Charlie""]
BWE;678816 wrote:Without unsupported assertions, i.e. non-scientific hypotheses, progress would stagnate. There's a lot to be said for scientific research but creativity should not be bound to such a narrow range of thinking. Imo.

Anyway, I'm waiting for a definition of supernatural that meaningfully distinguishes pure maths and social theory from alchemy and witchcraft. For that matter, one that can place the attitude and approach of mystics in one or the other category.

There is a serious complication involving the ideas of purpose and intention that makes me unwilling to fully dismiss certain ways of approaching ideas rather than certain ideas that seem to be falsified.
There comes a time, where unsupported ideas that cannot be defined, much less demonstrated, need to be abandoned. Some ideas, like non-existent perfect gases serve a purpose as a start to demonstrate how gases work in the real world. Supernaturalism is not such a useful fiction. Magic is another concept that doesn't work and has outlived its usefulness. The time has come to abandon such things because they have proven not fruitful, useful, or true in any sense.

If that pisses people off, so be it. The proper way to deal with such concepts is to abandon them with the provisio that if anybody wants to argue for them, they will have to present evidence and a good reason to not throw that out as a failed hypothesis that has never done anything real world useful.

Why waste time with woo woo of this sort?[/QUOTE]
what criteria would you use to abandon ideas?

User avatar
Grendel
Posts: 2326
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:40 am
Location: Bunya Mountains

Post by Grendel » Wed Oct 25, 2017 10:12 pm

The laws of physics? Am I right?

:)

Post Reply