Quote :

"So if someone creates mathematical proof of string theory, which is far more likely than time travel, would that not prove that matter exists at least in one dimension?"

No, it wouldn't. What it would describe is apparent forces and phenomenal interactions. Also, mathematics is a nice sketch of the outside world but don't overestimate its power. It's fascinating how math can model the outside world, but it's a model. What sort of mathematical evidence would suggest a real piece of matter versus the phenomenal object that might suggest to the materialist that it's matter?

Quote :

"Just because something is not observable does not mean it should not be included in science. If this was the case we could not include gravity as scientific, since there is no proof of its existence, only the force created by it which has been supported by an infinite amount of evidence. If science points to it in every way, then there is nothing wrong with calling it scientific."

Huh? Gravity is observable. Drop something. You are experiencing the phenomenon of Earth's gravity right now because you're not floating around.

Quote :

"On a side note (I am still trying to completely understand your theory, as I find it an interesting philosophical argument), are you saying that basically just as there is no physical "soul," only our interacting thoughts and actions which make up our perception of a soul, there is also no physical matter, only interactions and forces which create the perception of matter (and hence your problem with science including matter, as it would be analogous to including the soul)?"

Yeah that's about right. Apparent thoughts, apparent forces.

Quote :

"I'm afraid so. The way the university and government throws around money, nothing surprises me anymore. (no offense) So how does one go about getting a philosophy grant, especially when you're a computer science grad student (according to your profile)? And why is it going to take six months? Anyways, I wouldn't mind reading it again whenever you revise it next. Some examples mixed in would help."

I should really update that since I study philosophy now (as you might notice). Six months is the timeline for the grant, I just applied for it and got it. This argument here is a baby argument, I haven't expanded it yet in a specific direction just yet. I made the subject more uhm, social if that makes sense, so that it was more interesting to discuss on these forums. I'll be glad to send it to you when its done -- but papers can take a really long time to polish up and get ready for an academic journal. I didn't quite believe it myself before I got involved in philosophy, but its true. Especially when you have a million other things going on -- I just finished a paper I've been preparing since about September.

Quote :

"Plz define "phenomena". If there's no matter, how do we experience phenomena?"

An observable event, the world as we experience it. It's hard to imagine not having something CAUSING this phenomena because at the core, we believe something is CAUSING our thoughts. In order to maintain this believe in the unified ego, or soul, or whatever, we have to posit substance as well. It's even built into our grammar -- even thing needs a subject, a doer.

Quote :

"What agenda?"

Atheism, destruction of religion, refutation of specific metaphysical claims of religion, etc . . .

Quote :

"Don't waste your time talking about proving anything with any degree of certainty. There will always be a philosophical reason to second-guess any assertion ever made, which sometimes makes philosophy seem like a constant losing battle of... "Well, can you know for certain... can you demonstrate that?""

Yeah, thus David Hume.

Quote :

"I think science is simply a compilation of what is reasonable, reliable, and consistent. It has nothing to do with truth, because I don't think truth actually exists, it's more of a place-holder of sorts."

Hey this is where I stand as well.

Quote :

"I believe you ought to ask yourself at a certain point, are the questions that you are raising actually bringing you closer to a reasonable, reliable, and consistent belief, or are they making you abandon the core scientific values and forcing your thoughts into an endless regressionary rhetoric? At a certain point you have to make a decision, otherwise you will never really expand on any scientific method."

This is a good point, but the part that makes me nervous is that social norms can influence this to a great degree, under the guise of truth.

Quote :

"Probably because it sounds like "Dude" philosophy. As in, "Dude, what if matter doesn't exist?" "Dude, what if reality is all a dream?" "Dude, what if we're just smoke coming from God's bong?" (You get the idea.)"

I get the idea but this is a perception from ignorance. Even a few moments of inquiry on the internet would reveal the entire school of thought of idealism.

12/6/2006 12:55:27 PM

Quote :

"Six months is the timeline for the grant, I just applied for it and got it."

j/w where such things are listed and what they require to get one.

Quote :

"papers can take a really long time to polish up"

Yes, I believe it.

Quote :

"An observable event, the world as we experience it. It's hard to imagine not having something CAUSING this phenomena because at the core, we believe something is CAUSING our thoughts. In order to maintain this believe in the unified ego, or soul, or whatever, we have to posit substance as well. It's even built into our grammar -- even thing needs a subject, a doer."

It seems very practical to me. "My fingers are typing this sentence on my keyboard.", not "I am experiencing phenomena and apparent forces."

Quote :

"Atheism, destruction of religion, refutation of specific metaphysical claims of religion, etc . . ."

I'm afraid I can't take this seriously. I don't know of any major religion that's incompatible with the existence of atoms.

[Edited on December 6, 2006 at 1:50 PM. Reason : /]

12/6/2006 1:49:33 PM

Quote :

""My fingers are typing this sentence on my keyboard.", not "I am experiencing phenomena and apparent forces.""

There are necessary fallacies in belief of the ego, truth, reality, being, etc. Or at least that's what Nietzsche would argue, I'm inclined to agree.

Quote :

"I'm afraid I can't take this seriously. I don't know of any major religion that's incompatible with the existence of atoms."

I know of plenty that are incompatible with matter as the sole substance.

12/6/2006 1:54:40 PM

Quote :

"Or at least that's what Nietzsche would argue, I'm inclined to agree."

nietzsche also argued that philosophy is a pointless endeavor and that philosophers are worthless. i'm inclined to agree.

12/6/2006 2:18:28 PM

Quote :

"nietzsche also argued that philosophy is a pointless endeavor and that philosophers are worthless. i'm inclined to agree."

Hey wonderful, then allow me to show you the door.

Nietzsche was highly critical of the philosophers before him, but he obviously didn't think philosophy itself was a bad thing (seeing as how he engaged in it). He had an interesting take on philosophy though, being an outside observer in a professional sense (he was a classically trained philologist and didn't hold a university position in philosophy).

12/6/2006 2:21:50 PM

Quote :

"Nietzsche was highly critical of the philosophers before him, but he obviously didn't think philosophy itself was a bad thing (seeing as how he engaged in it)."

he actually said as much in an essay i read of his in high school. but you know -- make things up. that's cool.

12/6/2006 2:45:42 PM

sarijoul is right, i read the same essay. i'll dig it up if need be.

12/6/2006 2:48:36 PM

Sigh yes, dig it up please. I've read almost all of Nietzsche's works. I'll concede if a reasonable interpretation of the text lends itself to that fact, but I'll be interpreting it in the context of his period and his other writings, and not some preconceived prejudice I have against philosophers.

Do you remember what work it was published in? As far as regarding the philosopher itself (in his image) he says (in Twilight of the Idols) something to the tune of:

Aristotle claims that to live alone one must be a beast or a god. He leaves out the third case: one must be both, a philosopher. (paraphrased, I left my copy of Twilight in the car and I'm not kidding)

I mean, Schopenhauer also claims that philosophers are windbags (himself excluded, of course, along with Kant and Plato). This doesn't stop him from engaging in philosophy, and I think a reasonable interpretation of his claim is that he rejects other forms of philosophy than what he engages in. Lots of thinkers viewed themselves as being radically different/better/fundamentally different than the people before them.

[Edited on December 6, 2006 at 2:55 PM. Reason : .]

12/6/2006 2:53:54 PM

his essay implied that his even writing the essay that i was reading was pointless.

it has been nearly ten years since i've read this and i don't have a copy. ben^^ could help you more.

but it's fairly irrelevant to this point.

my point is: when do scientists make metaphysical claims as a primary claim in their work? and when/if it did happen, wouldn't it be fairly obvious to most that it's not "science." and even if it weren't obvious, what idiots take science to be "truth" anyway? i mean don't they go through life seeing scientific change after change. surely they must realize that change will occur in the future that is likely to shift any scientific thought held currently.

12/6/2006 2:59:11 PM

Quote :

"his essay implied that his even writing the essay that i was reading was pointless."

He makes a point that not even he should be regarded as an idol, in the sense that his values be used as an objective standard. I know that much. However, given the other works of his that I've read, I doubt he did all of that without a self-defined purpose. Pointless in an objective sense? Definitely. However, I'm supposed to simply trust the intepretation that you and a high school teacher placed on it?

Quote :

"my point is: when do scientists make metaphysical claims as a primary claim in their work? and when/if it did happen, wouldn't it be fairly obvious to most that it's not "science." and even if it weren't obvious, what idiots take science to be "truth" anyway? i mean don't they go through life seeing scientific change after change. "

Science as a force in society is misused, this is kind of my point. I don't like science being lined up with political or social agendas because it pollutes it and places it on a chopping block.

Quote :

"surely they must realize that change will occur in the future that is likely to shift any scientific thought held currently."

Pessimistic induction is a funny argument because it's subject to the same criticism it applies to science.

12/6/2006 3:02:52 PM

Quote :

"However, I'm supposed to simply trust the intepretation that you and a high school teacher placed on it?"

well. i didn't read with a high school teacher. it was a philosophy professor who was helping out with a program i was in in high school. but you know. keep assuming stuff.

Quote :

"Pessimistic induction is a funny argument because it's subject to the same criticism it applies to science."

hm?

12/6/2006 3:13:24 PM

Quote :

"well. i didn't read with a high school teacher. it was a philosophy professor who was helping out with a program i was in in high school. but you know. keep assuming stuff."

Alright I'm supposed to trust your interpretation with a philosophy professor? Seriously? Why not give me the actual passage so I can evaluate it rather than appeal to authority and then walk away with a false sense of victory?

First of all I don't even know who this philosophy professor is. Is he a scholar of Nietzsche? Is he an analytic tradition philosopher? What translation did he use? Does he study 19th century philosophy or logic?

I'm not trying to discredit what he's saying based on who he is, I'm just asking why I have a good reason to believe him. Supplying the passage and argument would be a great start.

Quote :

"hm?"

Well let's not tread on induction at all, actually -- it's a pretty deep problem, and I don't object to its use, but it'd be better suited for another thread.

12/6/2006 3:16:47 PM

Quote :

"There are necessary fallacies in belief of the ego, truth, reality, being, etc. Or at least that's what Nietzsche would argue, I'm inclined to agree."

Whatever. I'm going to stick with matter and causality.

Quote :

"I know of plenty that are incompatible with matter as the sole substance."

Sole substance, yes. A substance, no.

12/6/2006 4:00:25 PM

Quote :

"Alright I'm supposed to trust your interpretation with a philosophy professor? Seriously? Why not give me the actual passage so I can evaluate it rather than appeal to authority and then walk away with a false sense of victory? First of all I don't even know who this philosophy professor is. Is he a scholar of Nietzsche? Is he an analytic tradition philosopher? What translation did he use? Does he study 19th century philosophy or logic? I'm not trying to discredit what he's saying based on who he is, I'm just asking why I have a good reason to believe him. Supplying the passage and argument would be a great start."

first off: he is a woman.

secondly, i haven't read it in ten years and it was just a passing point. just as you name-dropped nietzsche as if that were enough to justify a position. that was the only reason i even brought it up to begin with.

12/6/2006 4:03:32 PM

Quote :

"secondly, i haven't read it in ten years and it was just a passing point. just as you name-dropped nietzsche as if that were enough to justify a position. that was the only reason i even brought it up to begin with."

Wrong. It's not enough to justify a position, I was simply citing somebody else. Appealing to authority is never appropriate. If you had simply pointed that out I could have demonstrated how I wasn't.

Quote :

"Whatever. I'm going to stick with matter and causality."

That's fine as long as you understand the inherent problems with both views. It's also fine if you realise that matter is a metaphysical thing and science cannot amass (bad pun alert) evidence for its actual existence.

Quote :

"Sole substance, yes. A substance, no."

Of course, and this is where you get the dualists.

12/6/2006 4:08:57 PM

Quote :

"That's fine as long as you understand the inherent problems with both views. It's also fine if you realise that matter is a metaphysical thing and science cannot amass (bad pun alert) evidence for its actual existence."

what does it matter if he doesn't?

oh yeah philosophers might get their collective panties in a wad.

[Edited on December 6, 2006 at 4:11 PM. Reason : .]

12/6/2006 4:10:48 PM

He could claim there're no problems at all with the notion of causality and endorse it, sure. But this would either be ignorant or intellectually dishonest.

12/6/2006 4:22:40 PM

[Edited on December 6, 2006 at 4:25 PM. Reason : nm]

12/6/2006 4:24:49 PM

I'll let you ponder if your chair and computer exist. I'll just use mine. Let me know when I can do something better.

12/6/2006 4:25:51 PM

They clearly exist, I'm using them. You don't think I'm arguing that they don't, do you?

12/6/2006 4:26:50 PM

what ARE you arguing?

(and i'd contend that you don't know that they exist. but it doesn't really matter in the end whether they exist or not.)

12/6/2006 4:28:48 PM

I don't know dammit. What are you saying, they exist but science can't prove anything about them?

12/6/2006 4:29:42 PM

Quote :

"(and i'd contend that you don't know that they exist. but it doesn't really matter in the end whether they exist or not.)"

They apparently exist. I'm not certain they exist, perhaps, but as far as I'm concerned this fact is apparent at the moment. This is my subjective truth.

Quote :

"I don't know dammit. What are you saying, they exist but science can't prove anything about them?"

Of course not. You're the one who's roping in the concept of matter with existence, not me. To refute matter is not to refute what's going on around you.

12/6/2006 4:30:50 PM

Stuff apparently exists for me too. I'm just going to leave it at that and not worry about whether they're subjects or phenomena or whatever.

12/6/2006 4:42:00 PM

Well by definition they're phenomena. The question is whether there's a thing in itself there. It's a question some people try to answer "scientifically" but there's no real way to do so.

12/6/2006 4:53:23 PM

This is really beginning to seem like some trolling.

Quote :

"It's also fine if you realise that matter is a metaphysical thing and science cannot amass (bad pun alert) evidence for its actual existence."

Quote :

"They clearly exist, I'm using them. You don't think I'm arguing that they don't, do you?"

Yes, you do appear to be arguing that they don't exist.

12/6/2006 4:55:14 PM

^^examples please.

[Edited on December 6, 2006 at 4:55 PM. Reason : .]

12/6/2006 4:55:27 PM

Quote :

"This is really beginning to seem like some trolling."

Skeptics throughout the ages have been considered trolls, I suppose. I'm not arguing for total skepticism though, just a reduction of our assumptions when considering the nature of things.

Quote :

"Yes, you do appear to be arguing that they don't exist."

I'm arguing for the existence of apparent reality, apparent forces, phenomena, but not some inaccessible thing behind it that's causing it (thus matter).

Quote :

"^^examples please."

examples of what?

12/6/2006 5:00:04 PM

Quote :

"It's a question some people try to answer "scientifically" but there's no real way to do so."

12/6/2006 5:02:21 PM

"Is there a thing-in-itself?"

12/6/2006 5:04:37 PM

is that supposed to be an example?

12/6/2006 5:08:06 PM

It is an example of a question that's purportedly answered by matter.

12/6/2006 5:09:13 PM

let me clarify: i'd like an example of someone trying to answer the question scientifically.

12/6/2006 5:10:52 PM

I mean anytime a scientist asserts there's matter, using the fact that he's a scientist as some sort of built-in justification.

12/6/2006 5:12:21 PM

example please

12/6/2006 5:14:08 PM

Actually hold up, I see where you're backing me.

I'm not asserting that real, constructive science consists of these claims. I'm asserting that people who use science to further their goals take science and make metaphysical projections from them.

Take a look at any "scientific" atheist and there's your example.

[Edited on December 6, 2006 at 5:16 PM. Reason : .]

12/6/2006 5:15:07 PM

no. you've been arguing against a hypothetical scientist this whole time. one which i've rarely (if ever) seen.

12/6/2006 5:15:52 PM

Rarely if ever seen? I don't think so, just look at the modern debate. Maybe you don't though, that's fine.

12/6/2006 5:17:08 PM

Quote :

"the modern debate"

?

12/6/2006 5:17:49 PM

People furthering the "atheist" agenda, the "Brights," etc. You haven't notice this getting bigger, or at least more well-covered?

12/6/2006 5:18:31 PM

nope. i disregard kooks in general. the only time i can think of people using this sort of justification is a really bad cable access show. "atheist hour" or something. but i would HARDLY call these people respected and in no way were they scientists.

[Edited on December 6, 2006 at 5:20 PM. Reason : if it were so prevalent, you'd think that you would have put some examples by now]

12/6/2006 5:19:58 PM

So where did I say actual scientists did this again? Stop strawmanning me. My objection has always been with people using science as a weapon for their metaphysical judgments. What about this is hard for you to understand so we can work on your comprehension? This sort of thing is getting fairly mainstream.

12/6/2006 5:22:37 PM

Quote :

"I mean anytime a scientist asserts there's matter, using the fact that he's a scientist as some sort of built-in justification."

12/6/2006 5:23:33 PM

You think materialism isn't a common assumption against scientists? You're not going to see a treatise or matter from most scientists nowadays, seeing as how this was addressed mostly in the 17th century and by philosopher/scientist hybrids.

12/6/2006 5:24:36 PM

so you're saying you don't have any examples?

^i'm saying maybe it's assumed, but not claimed as a hypothesis that can be tested

[Edited on December 6, 2006 at 5:25 PM. Reason : .]

12/6/2006 5:25:20 PM

What I'm saying is that you're asking me for examples of stuff that doesn't represent my view or what I'd like to show. In essence you're trying to lead me off track and defeat whatever new thing you try to get me to say because the original claim is too much for you to handle.

Materialism is a working assumption of science. Ask just about any scientist if they believe in matter. The problem comes when this logical-metaphysical postulate gets used in other arenas. Shit, even science could do without it.

12/6/2006 5:27:56 PM

well your whole arguments hinges on arguing against this practice. and you've yet to provide any examples of it.

12/6/2006 5:29:23 PM

My entire argument hinges on people using science to back up their metaphysics. What's hard about this to see? Science and atheism are being tied together in the public debate. Do you just not pay attention to it, or what?

I am trying to find an example for you that's not from a horribly biased source (some atheist journal, some christian journal, etc). You might have to wait a bit though because I have to get some food.

12/6/2006 5:32:55 PM

This argument is stupid as hell.


You can see matter, I guess we don't fully know it's true "composition" but I mean to argue it isn't real is useless. Regardless it has measureable effects.

12/6/2006 5:35:42 PM

sarijoul -- while foraging I thought about exactly what you're asking for. Why do you want me to find an article where a scientist claims there's matter? This is stupid. It's a working assumption of science. I can point out to you in the world literature however peoples' concerns when idealism was brought forward as an ontological theory (they were afraid it would throw out physics).

Quote :

"You can see matter"

You see a phenomenal object that you claim is matter.

Quote :

"I guess we don't fully know it's true "composition" but I mean to argue it isn't real is useless."

The phenomena are clear and well described in many senses.

Quote :

"Regardless it has measureable effects."

More phenomena.

Quote :

"This argument is stupid as hell."

No it isn't.

12/6/2006 5:59:29 PM