On The Contrast Between Appearance And Reality

@Pythagorean,

jeeprs wrote:

So where does reason start then? If there is no reason in the Universe, outside your and my imagination, then what gave rise to it?

Einstein had the ability to discern the existence of entities for which experimental verification could not be provided for half a century after he made them. He made them sitting in a patent office in Switzerland, looking at the trains arriving and leaving under the clock tower, with a pencil and paper.

Freaky, eh?

But if you really examine things you'll realize that you don't seek reason with common everyday animate objects; you seek cause. Causes usually suffice for most people, I think, when people are not involved.

In most cases, it is usually when someone ponders the 'first cause' that they assume there has to be a reason - as in some sort of sentient being (anthropomorphizing of God) which is capable of choosing to create the universe.

@Scottydamion,

Scottydamion;135017 wrote:

That is why I used genes as an argument, because it is much harder to pinpoint why hip size is the same since it causes problems at birth. One only has to assume that current hip size has been sufficient for survival, and that is certainly an easy argument, since we are still around as a species.

Perhaps our brains were finally at the limit of hip size, and started evolving in other ways? Or did cultural evolution make genetic evolution obsolete on this point?

@Scottydamion,

Scottydamion;135028 wrote:

I am sorry, but I am not sure what you're saying...

Could you elaborate on "law were related to organism"?

If the 'natural laws', that kenneth says are the cause of human evolution, are related to organism, and human minds are held to be organic, then we have a theory about how the mind can come to know of those 'natural laws'. Because the human mind would be posited as existing within an universal order that is related to it.

However, if the natural laws are not related to mind and are of the nature of an objective physical object, then how is it possible for the mind as physical object to come to have knowledge of the natural laws? What is the link between the posited objective physical law and the material mind such that the material mind posesses knowledge of the objective law?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;135043 wrote:

But if you really examine things you'll realize that you don't seek reason with common everyday animate objects; you seek cause. Causes usually suffice for most people, I think, when people are not involved.

In most cases, it is usually when someone ponders the 'first cause' that they assume there has to be a reason - as in some sort of sentient being (anthropomorphizing of God) which is capable of choosing to create the universe.

I think Kant tackles this. He speculates that causality is a human projection, and that the argument from first-cause is an abuse of pure reason. Is causality a human projection? It's so useful that nature seems to accord with it. Perhaps causality is an evolved transcendental projection, which would be encouraged by the survival advantages of an animal that imagine the consequences of possible actions.

---------- Post added 03-02-2010 at 09:47 PM ----------

Pythagorean;135049 wrote:

However, if the natural laws are not related to mind and are of the nature of an objective physical object, then how is it possible for the mind as physical object to come to have knowledge of the natural laws? What is the link between the posited objective physical law and the material mind such that the material mind posesses knowledge of the objective law?

What if causality is both transcendental and natural? It's not an absurd idea, is it?

@Scottydamion,

Scottydamion;135028 wrote:

Personification much?

Did I say god was a person? or interested in human morality or even human survival?
I hinted that one could rationally specualte that there was rational intelligence behind the universe. That one could with reason speculate that nature was not blind, indifferent and without purpose. You may think our ability to percieve the laws of the universe and the fact that those laws can be mathematically represented is just a fortuitous accident but that notion has little more scientific or factual basis than the opposite view. To see purpose is no larger a metaphysical assumption and philosophical speculation than to deny the possiblity of purpose. They both assume more than man can know or science can prove.

@Pythagorean,

Scottydamion;135040 wrote:

I have never heard Einstein speak on evolutionary biology or psychology. Even Einstein was human.

The question is, rather, do we believe that evolutionary biology is sufficiently elaborated to account for the abilities of (for example) an Albert Einstein? We are considering whether evolutionary theory really accounts for the nature of H Sapiens. It might do that, but there is a lot to consider in saying it. Many people are just assuming that it does, but to say it does really means that you can explain an Einstein in terms of a Darwin. Or does it? You see, many people, including many reading this right now, are pretty convinced that the naturalistic explanation of life implies that life 'just developed' as distinct from, developed by divine command, or developed for some final purpose. So to that extent, Darwinian theory has kind of swept aside eveything that came before it. So to ask these questions again - is it as Kennethamy says, 'a regression'? Does it mean, if you ask this question, that you're a Creationist (boo hiss). And how do you account for man's imagination, in terms of adaptive necessity? These are big questions, but I think I have part of an answer.....

@Pythagorean,

Pythagorean;135049 wrote:

However, if the natural laws are not related to mind and are of the nature of an objective physical object,

What assumptions are being made only by this phrase?

@prothero,

prothero;135054 wrote:

Did I say god was a person? or interested in human morality or even human survival?
I hinted that one could rationally specualte that there was rational intelligence behind the universe. That one could with reason speculate that nature was not blind, indifferent and without purpose. You may think our ability to percieve the laws of the universe and the fact that those laws can be mathematically represented is just a fortuitous accident but that notion has little more scientific or factual basis than the opposite view. To see purpose is no larger a metaphysical assumption and philosophical speculation than to deny the possiblity of purpose. They both assume more than man can know or science can prove.

No you said nothing of god, you personified the universe.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;135057 wrote:

What assumptions are being made only by this phrase?

That 'natural laws' exist. That human evolution is not a random event. That there exists a connection between the 'natural laws' and the existence of human minds. That human minds (e.g. kenneth's mind) can know that natural laws are the cause of human evolution.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;135055 wrote:

The question is, rather, do we believe that evolutionary biology is sufficiently elaborated to account for the abilities of (for example) an Albert Einstein? We are considering whether evolutionary theory really accounts for the nature of H Sapiens. It might do that, but there is a lot to consider in saying it. Many people are just assuming that it does, but to say it does really means that you can explain an Einstein in terms of a Darwin. Or does it? You see, many people, including many reading this right now, are pretty convinced that the naturalistic explanation of life implies that life 'just developed' as distinct from, developed by divine command, or developed for some final purpose. So to that extent, Darwinian theory has kind of swept aside eveything that came before it. So to ask these questions again - is it as Kennethamy says, 'a regression'? Does it mean, if you ask this question, that you're a Creationist (boo hiss). And how do you account for man's imagination, in terms of adaptive necessity? These are big questions, but I think I have part of an answer.....

Yes but going on a lack of evidence or negative evidene is no way to form a view... I would much rather admit to the gaps in evolutionary biology than admit that my view stands on a lack of evidence or negative evidence. It is when these ideas go beyond their evidence that I feel the need to comment. If someone is speculating that is one thing, but if someone thinks they hold knowledge beyond good evidence I want to hear their reasons, especially if they are using a "god of the gaps" approach.

@Pythagorean,

but we could ask, how could the massive capacity for abstract thought, which is our distinctive attribute, directly contribute to our surival, and what, in the environment, called it forth?

---------- Post added 03-03-2010 at 01:58 PM ----------

Incidentally, with more than 90% of the mass of the universe unnaccounted for, 'the gaps', it would seem to me, suddenly got a whole lot bigger....(***disregard***, red herring alert...)

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;135065 wrote:

but we could ask, how could the massive capacity for abstract thought, which is our distinctive attribute, directly contribute to our surival, and what, in the environment, called it forth?

Maybe the theory of evolution will inform us. If not, either we won't know, or maybe, we'll come up with some other theory. Why, have you some explanation?

@prothero,

prothero;135054 wrote:

To see purpose is no larger a metaphysical assumption and philosophical speculation than to deny the possiblity of purpose. They both assume more than man can know or science can prove.

I think you are right here. It's beyond our current natural science, and possibly beyond natural science entirely....

---------- Post added 03-02-2010 at 10:03 PM ----------

jeeprs;135065 wrote:

but we could ask, how could the massive capacity for abstract thought, which is our distinctive attribute, directly contribute to our surival, and what, in the environment, called it forth?

I think the first question is answerable. Tool making, hunting patterns, social rituals that focused solidarity.

The second question is more difficult.

@Pythagorean,

Pythagorean;135049 wrote:

If the 'natural laws', that kenneth says are the cause of human evolution, are related to organism, and human minds are held to be organic, then we have a theory about how the mind can come to know of those 'natural laws'. Because the human mind would be posited as existing within an universal order that is related to it.

However, if the natural laws are not related to mind and are of the nature of an objective physical object, then how is it possible for the mind as physical object to come to have knowledge of the natural laws? What is the link between the posited objective physical law and the material mind such that the material mind posesses knowledge of the objective law?

I would rephrase it that the natural laws allow for evolution. Since we are built up from particles that obey natural laws, I see a connection between the organic and these natural laws. By extension I see a relation between the human mind and these natural laws.

So it is coming down to the above in your view? Whether or not natural laws are related to the mind, and whether or not natural laws are of the nature of an objective physical object?

@Pythagorean,

are the laws all basically physical? Are they describable in terms of the movements of bodies?

---------- Post added 03-03-2010 at 02:13 PM ----------

OK here's a scenario for the evolutionary development of abstract thought. Imagine one of your ancient ancestors sitting by a campfire in the grasslands when a sabre-tooth lioness bursts into view. Instinct and adrenaline cut in, and he flees. Of course, do this would require nothing more than the brain recognizing the smells, sounds, and above all images reaching it as "lion!" and going into flight response.

And in this, he would be doing the same as any other critter.

Later, however, your great grandad does something no other critter can do: he remembers the lion and imagines a different course of action. What if, he thinks, he had picked up a burning branch from the fire and waved it in the lion's face? He imagines the various possibilities and decides the most likely is that the lion will retreat.

Next time a lion shows up, this is what he does. And not only does he survive, but by doing so, he becomes a Dominant Male, and all the women in the area are suddenly at his beck and call. And thereafter, he and his kind prospers.

It must have been something like this.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;135065 wrote:

but we could ask, how could the massive capacity for abstract thought, which is our distinctive attribute, directly contribute to our surival, and what, in the environment, called it forth?

The ability to adapt to different environments would seem very useful. I would think this ability would tie in to the ability to abstract properties of things around us. If instead of seeing a deer as food you see a deer as clothing, food, tools, etc... your ability to separate the warmth of its fur, the hardness of its bones, from the food that was all your body required would seem very useful indeed.

Nothing had to call it forth, there is often this idea that positive changes can only be the result of pressure. Mutations occur whether or not we need them to, and the majority of these that are passed on are neutral, so there is no reason for something to "call forth" change.

I can make useful examples, but I am no evolutionary biologist. To track the progression from instinctive thought to learning is something I could only really guess at. I am certain it would be useful to learn from a parent what not to eat, but I could not tell you how this change came about, I am not sure anyone currently could even track down all of the genes associated with the brain.

I am operating from an Ockham's razor approach. I see no need to add a "cause" until evidence of one is found. If I am wrong concerning evidence that is another story, but that is the whole issue isn't it? What different people accept as justification?

@Scottydamion,

Scottydamion;135076 wrote:

So it is coming down to the above in your view? Whether or not natural laws are related to the mind, and whether or not natural laws are of the nature of an objective physical object?

The question stems from kenneth's position that human evolution is a product of the 'laws of nature'.

kenneth refuses to discuss it and began to attack my use of reason. His position is literally irrational.

I'm not sure if rational discussion is possible here.

@Pythagorean,

Bear with us pythagorean, a little longer.....

---------- Post added 03-03-2010 at 02:29 PM ----------

Well I suggest that the 'ability to engage in abstract thought' actually provides us with the means to perceive something of crucial importance about the world, which is not disclosed to any other kind of creature. It is like a supreme organising principle, which seems deeply embedded in the very fabric of the cosmos, and by which we can disover things which no amount of mere sensory experience would reveal. It is an immaterial reality. Now what would it be?

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;135094 wrote:

Bear with us pythagorean, a little longer.....

---------- Post added 03-03-2010 at 02:29 PM ----------

Well I suggest that the 'ability to engage in abstract thought' actually provides us with the means to perceive something of crucial importance about the world, which is not disclosed to any other kind of creature. It is like a supreme organising principle, which seems deeply embedded in the very fabric of the cosmos, and by which we can disover things which no amount of mere sensory experience would reveal. It is an immaterial reality. Now what would it be?

Oh, you were capturing my heart until you said immaterial, lol. It is not necessarily an immaterial reality, and it is not necessarily a material one. However, I run off of the assumption that it is material, because I do not feel I have been given good reason to think there is an immaterial reality... what is a good reason for thinking this?

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;135094 wrote:

Bear with us pythagorean, a little longer.....

It was the first time in my life I was ever attacked for the use of reason. ..and on a philosophy forum!!

Philosophy Forum

On The Contrast Between Appearance And Reality

Quick Links

My Account

able2know