The Democrat Party Hates America

[FlashDangerpants]

That's not close to true: falsehoods are always worse than reality. Consider engineering: does it matter whether or not the bridge can hold your weight, or only whether or not you think it can?

If I understand Will correctly I do not think he refers to the type knowledge that determines what is true and accurate in engineering as being aesthetically subjective.

He's really just been trying to teach IC the concept of underdetermination for the last couple of years. It's just that IC cannot, or at least he cannot learn from people he feels superior to, which might be everyone, it certainly includes you too.

You can learn it pretty well in 10 minutes via Youtube. It's not very difficult to understand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX9vVKeoA8Q

You always have to make everything so pretentious.

[Immanuel Can]

I was seeking an example to illustrate subjective beliefs that are speculative, and yet resonate with men because, somehow and on some level they illustrate truths.

Take for example Macbeth’s encounter with the Weird Sisters on the heath. The story illustrates an imagined event, and yet Macbeth’s fate — being driven by powers that seem to operate in our shared world and the terrible outcomes that resulted from his “choices” — reveals to a discerning man something about “reality” that is extra-scientific.

The “fact” of enticing and seductive powers that can seduce and capture men and lead them into extreme levels of crime and “sin” is not a science-verifiable realm.

Well, you've got mixed claims there.

To say, "A man met some women" is an empirical claim. (It's true-false.)
To say, "These women were witches" is a narrative claim. (True about the story; but to the extent it is about fiction, not about reality.)
To say, "What these women instructed him to do was a crime" is a judicial claim. (It's about the state of our laws.)
To say, "He sinned" is a moral and theological claim. (It requires prior belief in a world that is moral and has an Authority for that morality in it.)
To say, "It's a powerful story" is an aesthetic claim. (It's subjective: others are free to disagree, and no means of arbitration can legitimately be invoked.)

If I am not mistaken Will says that he cannot verify whether or not these “supernatural” forces exist or not. And in his view belief in them is ultimately determined by aesthetics.

I guess we'll see if he backs your summary of what you consider his position to be.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Well, you've got mixed claims there.

First, the actual debated terms of the argument you are having with Will is never sufficiently clarified. And — I find this puzzling — you don’t seem to clarify what it is that you wish to communicate.

Some people live in a world of perception and of interpretation not unlike that which Shakespeare presents in Macbeth. Such “belief” is still very much operative.

I think that Will, and Flash-in-the-pan, and many others (who write here), live in a world where such perception-interpretation is not possible for them. So Will can say “I cannot ultimately say if such powers (i.e. Gods or God’s opponent) actually exist or not”.

And if someone does believe that such powers exist, and their existence and what they portend for man is ultimate, Will says it it a question of “aesthetic choices”.

(I differ from him and find the term “aesthetic” to be insufficient for the question being conversed).

Then, he goes on to say that wild scientific speculative theories (multiverses etc) are in a similar category. That is, man’s imagination at work similar to an artist’s creations.

You argue for a specific, supernatural reality which determines man’s life and fate in the most absolute and final sense. Like you, I share this ultimate metaphysical perspective as one that expresses my ultimate view about what is important.

You wish to assert that there are forces and “realities” that are not knowable through tangible, physics definitions. Will seems to say “I am agnostic but if someone does believe such stuff it because of an aesthetic choice.

But as always it has to do with incompatible epistemes. Or epistemes that are based in different knowledge (and perception) bases.

[Immanuel Can]

I find this puzzling — you don’t seem to clarify what it is that you wish to communicate.

I'm mystified that you are mystified. It seems to me that you shouldn't be. But I'll hear out your explanation.

Some people live in a world of perception and of interpretation

Nobody does. The world's not like that. They may be self-deluded into imagining that perception or interpretation actually changes reality, but that's a conceit so stupid only a Postmodernist would buy it.

Will can say “I cannot ultimately say if such powers (i.e. Gods or God’s opponent) actually exist or not”.

That's not even on point. We're talking about the sorts of non-physical phenomena that nobody can really deny exist -- they can try, but when they do, they instantly be come self-contradictory. And self-contradiction is the best indicator of irrationality.

So, for example, there can be no arguments in favour of things like Determinism or Materialism. Why? Because both insist that "arguments," which are cognitive phenomena, cannot be the initiator of anything. Both have to insist that all mental phenomena are "epiphenomena," or mere illusions that somehow "supervene" or "emerge" accidentally. And thus, they have to insist both are unrelated to any causes of the state of reality.

But if an argument has no ability to change anything, and if reality is determined apart from volition, then there can be no expectation of arguments having any weight. There also can be no belief that one argument is better than another, since they're all equally impotent. Nor can the arguer claim that his argument is "more rational" or that it is incumbent upon anybody to believe it -- for if consistent, he must also believe that ALL arguments are nothing but illusory epiphenomena, and not real; and rationality changes nothing.

You argue for a specific, supernatural reality

No. Right now, all I'm arguing is that the following sorts of phenomena cannot be explained by worldviews like Materialism or Determinism: mind, volition, morals, consciousness, duty, teleology, purpose, intellection, rights, justice, argumentation...they're all mental phenomena, but strictly secular mental phenomena, so to speak. And so far, I've made no plea at all for the supernatural in this exchange. All these phenomena are very natural, indeed inevitable for all human beings.

I trust this disconfuses you. Leave what you call "the supernatural" outside the door, for the minute. Let's just deal with the sorts of phenomena that even an Atheist like Thomas Nagel agrees have to be recognized as existing.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I said:

Some people live in a world of perception and of interpretation

Your response was:

Nobody does. The world's not like that. They may be self-deluded into imagining that perception or interpretation actually changes reality, but that's a conceit so stupid only a Postmodernist would buy it.

Are you intentionally being difficult? But why?

Some people believe superstitions. And they believe that observing a superstition will get them some result or other.

They may indeed be self-deluded when they believe something of this nature — let’s take the example of tossing salt over one’s shoulder (believed to blind the devil so he cannot perform some mischief).

And yes, in this example (and dozens of others I might mention) they do believe that what they believe can affect the world (that their “perception or interpretation actually changes reality” is how you put it.)

When I say “live in a world” I mean their conceived world, the world if you wish of their ‘metaphysical dream’.

My understanding of you is that you do not conceive of yourself as living in, or through, a metaphysical dream. Rather you see your Christian metaphysics and supernaturalism as “Reality”. You see your “system of belief” not as a potential mapping of the world, but as an absolute picture.

Any view that is not your view — because it is the correct view, the realest description of reality that can be — is “deluded” to use your term.

I am uncertain if the people you converse with understand the Viewpoint that you operate from. You are describing Reality to them (when you profess your views) and you know, beyond all doubt, that your view is correct and accurate.

You also manage — not an easy feat! — to re-associate your Christian metaphysical picture with the scientific picture. There is no conflict between them.

Yet there certainly is for the likes of Wilbur and Flash-in-the-pan, and most who write and perform here.

[Immanuel Can]

I said:

Some people live in a world of perception and of interpretation

Your response was:

Nobody does. The world's not like that. They may be self-deluded into imagining that perception or interpretation actually changes reality, but that's a conceit so stupid only a Postmodernist would buy it.

Are you intentionally being difficult?

No. Just stating the obvious. It shouldn't need to be said, but apparently...

My understanding of you is that you do not conceive of yourself as living in, or through, a metaphysical dream.

Let me explain something. When you're debating a topic, you have to start with things all parties agree on, and work toward what they don't. Thus, secular non-physical realities are what are under discussion here.

If you've got anything useful to say about the existence of non-physical realities, such as consciousness, rationality, self, personhood, intellection, morality, teleology, and concepts like justice, truth and rightness, etc., I'm all ears. But the present discussion does not invoke the supernatural questions at the moment. It's enough for us to figure out what to do with the purely natural non-physical realities. Let's work from there.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If you Google 'theories of the universe', Gus, you will be presented with a list of things like Braneworld, multiverse, simulation, holographic and more. These maybe elaborate fantasies, but they are taken seriously by serious scientists.
That different scientists choose to explore different hypotheses is down to their particular idiosyncrasies. They choose them for fundamentally the same character of reasoning that one chooses what music to listen to.

It does not seem quite right to call them “fantasies” but rather as conceivable possibilities based on some of the known science-facts which bend the mind and, not long ago, were inconceivable possibilities.

I do not have to Google any of those terms since I am and everyone is already familiar with the general outline of those speculations. Actual physics gets weirder and weirder and this “does a number” on one’s conception of what really the manifest world, and life here, actually is.

Once, science-realism ridiculed religious and mythical pictures. Then actual physics began to uncover verities more strange and outrageous facts. The mind naturally turns and extends those facts into vaster speculations.

Though your progress is like a sloth galloping through cold honey still, Wilbur, you seem to be making interesting intellectual progress.

:::waves hand in mystical gesture:::

Receive my Blessings, m’boy!

[Alexis Jacobi]

If you've got anything useful to say about the existence of non-physical realities, such as consciousness, rationality, self, personhood, intellection, morality, teleology, and concepts like justice, truth and rightness, etc., I'm all ears. But the present discussion does not invoke the supernatural questions at the moment. It's enough for us to figure out what to do with the purely natural non-physical realities. Let's work from there.

That’s your neurosis, IC, and your weird slipperiness. I cut through that shite and try to get to the core. The supernatural questions are the backdrop to every concern you have. Every one.

But if you enjoy (what looks like vain) games, well, keep on with it.

[Immanuel Can]

If you've got anything useful to say about the existence of non-physical realities, such as consciousness, rationality, self, personhood, intellection, morality, teleology, and concepts like justice, truth and rightness, etc., I'm all ears. But the present discussion does not invoke the supernatural questions at the moment. It's enough for us to figure out what to do with the purely natural non-physical realities. Let's work from there.

That’s your neurosis, IC...

No, those are just the facts, AJ. To be on topic, be on topic.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I understand the topic more comprehensively.

Voilà: a comprehensive statement.

That’s your neurosis, IC, and your weird slipperiness. I cut through that shite and try to get to the core. The supernatural questions are the backdrop to every concern you have. Every one.

Clarity helps.

[Immanuel Can]

I understand the topic more comprehensively.

Well, Will B. has not broached that secondary topic, nor have I. So you'll have to hold your bladder until we get there, if we do.

[Will Bouwman]

Idealism does not explain material data; it dismisses all that by relegating it to the realm of "ideas." In that sense, like all mono-theories, it simply deals with data anomalies by denying they are real.

Don't be silly. Nobody denies that there are phenomena that appear material and others that appear mental, it's just that materialists and idealists attempt to explain the same phenomena in different contexts. My own view is that materialists have a harder time explaining mental phenomena than vice versa, but I don't insist it can't be done.

[Will Bouwman]

If you Google 'theories of the universe', Gus, you will be presented with a list of things like Braneworld, multiverse, simulation, holographic and more. These maybe elaborate fantasies, but they are taken seriously by serious scientists.
That different scientists choose to explore different hypotheses is down to their particular idiosyncrasies. They choose them for fundamentally the same character of reasoning that one chooses what music to listen to.

It does not seem quite right to call them “fantasies”...

Hunches, guesses, even fantasies, have always been essential to scientific practice.

...but rather as conceivable possibilities based on some of the known science-facts...

Congratulations, that's exactly what they are.

[Immanuel Can]

Nobody denies that there are phenomena that appear material and others that appear mental,...

Sorry to point it out, but you've just restated the difference. "Appear" is the amphibolous word here. Idealists insist they only "appear" so, and Materialists insist that "appearance" is merely false. They're not "explaining the same phenomena," because one insists the phenomena in question are part of the data, and the other insists they simply aren't. That's a big difference.

My own view is that materialists have a harder time explaining mental phenomena than vice versa, but I don't insist it can't be done.

You don't have to "insist." You can find it out, very easily.

If Materialists can explain mental phenomena without trying to explain them away instead, then it can be done. If they cannot, then at least for the present, you know they cannot: and you also know that, at present, there exists no argument suggestive that they ever can -- therefore any hope that they one day will is purely speculative, purely wishful, and depends on the magical appearance of data that, at present, simply do not exist.

That's a pretty good reason not to be impressed with Materialism's "explanations" of non-physical phenomena.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I understand the topic more comprehensively.

Well, Will B. has not broached that secondary topic, nor have I. So you'll have to hold your bladder until we get there, if we do.

It is a “secondary topic” according to your arbitrary decision. I think you set up and play these debate-games even though you know you will never — and have never — made headway. Why you do this is anyone’s guess. Maybe you don’t even know.