Philosophy Now Forum

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Apr 20, 2022 7:05 pm Yes, dualism/compatibalism because our minds are a metaphorical later built atop the physical one.

Ok, well physicalism is not a dualism. It's a monism.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 10:55 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Apr 21, 2022 8:46 pm But most of everything I know I had to learn, directly or more often, indirectly (books and other resources) from others. No one is able to discover everything for themselves in their short lifetime. But if I have to learn from others, how do I distinguish between actually learning form others and just gullible acceptance (ie faith and credulity such as religion and all superstitions)?

I have a very rigorous answer to that question for myself. Since you are a fellow skeptic, I'm curious about how you resolve that question.

My method to detect falsity tends to fall into two categories.
1) Is the idea susceptible to a "Copernican Turn", and
2) Is it even possible to be able to say a thing within the bounds of empirical knowledge.

So Copernicus, observing the sun going round the earth everyday, followed Aristarchus in asking, what would it look like if the sun were immobile and it was, instead that the earth itself that was moving. What would that mean? This massive insight was to eventually lead to a complete transformation of the understanding of the universe. Suddenly the stars had to be at unimaginable distances, rather than a sphere of pinpricks a few thousand miles away. In an almost literal sense he made the universe immense and humans very small.

IN many cases applying the turn can provide insights, and different ways of looking which can unpack the most fundamental assumptions.

For some reason humans seem obsessed with seeing purpose in the universe and this leads to interpreting evolved traits backwards. Even in practitioners who fully accept Darwin. Interpretations of evolved traits by naturalists persist in the myths of the creationists. This is a big topic. But we can talk more about it. Suffice it to say that the sort of language used tends to encourage a persistent notion of teleology, giving succour to creationists who can use the words against the Darwinists. You need to keep thinking about Darwin's "turn", which like Copernicus' turn looked backwardly at change.

So the second point is about the validity of the interpretation.
My current interest is concerning the Keto Diet and the role of fasting. I've been massively successful this year in losing over 30lbs in weight by reducing my eating to one meal a day (OMAD), at the same time reducing carbs and processed food. Clearly this success has helped me to validate the claims made about the benefits of fasting, but there are still areas where I maintain a healthy scepticism.
The proponents of fasting claim that in times where calorie intake is low the body goes into a "repair" state and restricts "growth". There are good hormonal indicators of this. But there is one aspect where their claims seem to me to be overwrought. That is the concept of AUTOPHAGY. This, "self eating" is said to be the tendency of the body systems to clean up old cells, and recycle the contents. My feeling is that they make too many certain claims for this, and I feel that is one area where I have to maintain a scepticism because it is NOT possible to be able to observe this in living tissue.
So when I talk about autophagy to people I always add a codicil that the claims might be greater than the evidence.

So that is a question I like to ask. How do you know? Or how could you ever know?

Thanks for taking the time to write all that. The points that I found most interesting were:

1. "IN many cases applying the [Copernican] turn can provide insights, and different ways of looking which can unpack the most fundamental assumptions."

Yes, I think so. Almost every important discovery has been made by those who refused to accept the commonly accepted or assumed explanations, insisting on evidence that could be examined and never accepting anything that did not fit the evidence or ignoring any evidence that didn't fit the explanation.

2. "For some reason humans seem obsessed with seeing purpose in the universe ... Even in practitioners who fully accept Darwin ... [their] language used tends to encourage a persistent notion of teleology."

I certainly agree that humans insist on seeing purpose in existence and that this teleological view infects everything from philosophy to science. It is the teleological aspects of evolutionary theory which is one reason I have such reservations about it. It is tacitly assumed that evolution has some kind of objective or purpose. "Survival," is almost always presented as the reason for evolution. If there is evolution, survival could be the consequence of evolution, but not the reason for it. Reality does not give a damn if anything, individual organisms or species, survive.

3. (About autophagy). "I feel that is one area where I have to maintain a scepticism because it is NOT possible to be able to observe this in living tissue."

I agree, without observable evidence, (or non-contradictory reason based on such evidence), nothing can be known to be true. I think this has become a big problem in medicine, along with the almost absurd ignorance of the fact, every human being is different.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 3:06 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 10:55 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Thu Apr 21, 2022 8:46 pm But most of everything I know I had to learn, directly or more often, indirectly (books and other resources) from others. No one is able to discover everything for themselves in their short lifetime. But if I have to learn from others, how do I distinguish between actually learning form others and just gullible acceptance (ie faith and credulity such as religion and all superstitions)?

I have a very rigorous answer to that question for myself. Since you are a fellow skeptic, I'm curious about how you resolve that question.

My method to detect falsity tends to fall into two categories.
1) Is the idea susceptible to a "Copernican Turn", and
2) Is it even possible to be able to say a thing within the bounds of empirical knowledge.

So Copernicus, observing the sun going round the earth everyday, followed Aristarchus in asking, what would it look like if the sun were immobile and it was, instead that the earth itself that was moving. What would that mean? This massive insight was to eventually lead to a complete transformation of the understanding of the universe. Suddenly the stars had to be at unimaginable distances, rather than a sphere of pinpricks a few thousand miles away. In an almost literal sense he made the universe immense and humans very small.

IN many cases applying the turn can provide insights, and different ways of looking which can unpack the most fundamental assumptions.

For some reason humans seem obsessed with seeing purpose in the universe and this leads to interpreting evolved traits backwards. Even in practitioners who fully accept Darwin. Interpretations of evolved traits by naturalists persist in the myths of the creationists. This is a big topic. But we can talk more about it. Suffice it to say that the sort of language used tends to encourage a persistent notion of teleology, giving succour to creationists who can use the words against the Darwinists. You need to keep thinking about Darwin's "turn", which like Copernicus' turn looked backwardly at change.

So the second point is about the validity of the interpretation.
My current interest is concerning the Keto Diet and the role of fasting. I've been massively successful this year in losing over 30lbs in weight by reducing my eating to one meal a day (OMAD), at the same time reducing carbs and processed food. Clearly this success has helped me to validate the claims made about the benefits of fasting, but there are still areas where I maintain a healthy scepticism.
The proponents of fasting claim that in times where calorie intake is low the body goes into a "repair" state and restricts "growth". There are good hormonal indicators of this. But there is one aspect where their claims seem to me to be overwrought. That is the concept of AUTOPHAGY. This, "self eating" is said to be the tendency of the body systems to clean up old cells, and recycle the contents. My feeling is that they make too many certain claims for this, and I feel that is one area where I have to maintain a scepticism because it is NOT possible to be able to observe this in living tissue.
So when I talk about autophagy to people I always add a codicil that the claims might be greater than the evidence.

So that is a question I like to ask. How do you know? Or how could you ever know?

Thanks for taking the time to write all that. The points that I found most interesting were:

1. "IN many cases applying the [Copernican] turn can provide insights, and different ways of looking which can unpack the most fundamental assumptions."

Yes, I think so. Almost every important discovery has been made by those who refused to accept the commonly accepted or assumed explanations, insisting on evidence that could be examined and never accepting anything that did not fit the evidence or ignoring any evidence that didn't fit the explanation.

2. "For some reason humans seem obsessed with seeing purpose in the universe ... Even in practitioners who fully accept Darwin ... [their] language used tends to encourage a persistent notion of teleology."

I certainly agree that humans insist on seeing purpose in existence and that this teleological view infects everything from philosophy to science. It is the teleological aspects of evolutionary theory which is one reason I have such reservations about it. It is tacitly assumed that evolution has some kind of objective or purpose. "Survival," is almost always presented as the reason for evolution. If there is evolution, survival could be the consequence of evolution, but not the reason for it. Reality does not give a damn if anything, individual organisms or species, survive.

This one is particularly odd, because when pressed they agree with what Darwin said, and accept that evolution is an EFFECT and not a cause. The "Turn" is challenging the idea that evolution is a cause. What happens is that evolution is what happen when there is differential change leaving behind species that are a better "fit". Yet even Darwin himself could not completely remove all teleology from his language.

3. (About autophagy). "I feel that is one area where I have to maintain a scepticism because it is NOT possible to be able to observe this in living tissue."

I agree, without observable evidence, (or non-contradictory reason based on such evidence), nothing can be known to be true. I think this has become a big problem in medicine, along with the almost absurd ignorance of the fact, every human being is different.

It is interesting that autophagy can be assumed by what is left behind after fasting on a purely macro level. So, after rapid weight loss with fasting the surrounding tissues seem to go too, avoiding the flappy belly skin you get with conventional dieting. SO the theory looks good, but they tend to assert that it also happens elsewhere that cannot be observed like replacement of old immune cells. There may be more to it than I know, but I've no seen any supporting evidence for the theory.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 4:39 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Apr 22, 2022 3:06 pm 2. "For some reason humans seem obsessed with seeing purpose in the universe ... Even in practitioners who fully accept Darwin ... [their] language used tends to encourage a persistent notion of teleology."

I certainly agree that humans insist on seeing purpose in existence and that this teleological view infects everything from philosophy to science. It is the teleological aspects of evolutionary theory which is one reason I have such reservations about it. It is tacitly assumed that evolution has some kind of objective or purpose. "Survival," is almost always presented as the reason for evolution. If there is evolution, survival could be the consequence of evolution, but not the reason for it. Reality does not give a damn if anything, individual organisms or species, survive.

This one is particularly odd, because when pressed they agree with what Darwin said, and accept that evolution is an EFFECT and not a cause. The "Turn" is challenging the idea that evolution is a cause. What happens is that evolution is what happen when there is differential change leaving behind species that are a better "fit". Yet even Darwin himself could not completely remove all teleology from his language.

Perhaps the idea behind it all is the question: "why is there life at all?" There is nothing about the physical world that would suggest life and it is certainly possible to imagine a physical universe without life.

See how easy it is to fall into that trap? You and I may not, but the temptation to ask, "why," is anything what it is, rather than something else (why is there something rather than nothing?) is very strong and always leads to the assumption everything must have some mystical cause it is contingent on.

But there is a question about life, just as there is about the physical. Not why there is life, but what it is, what it's nature is. Just as it is necessary to study the nature of all other physical things to understand what they are and what their attributes are, it is necessary to study the nature of life to understand what its attributes are.

While you think all those attributes of life can be explained in terms of all the other attributes of physical entities, I believe the attributes of life are additional attributes of physical entities beyond the mere physical ones. But I think we agree, that life, like all actual existents, does not require any explanation of why it is, whatever its actual nature is.

Living organisms certainly have attributes that are unique among all other physical enitities, and even if they can be, it seems very difficult to explain those attributes as merely extensions of the other physical attributes.

For example: The autonomy of organisms whose behavior, unlike all other physical entities, is determined by the organisms own nature, not influences external to it. An organisms existence as the kind of entity it is depends on its own behavior and if that behavior ceases it ceases to exist as the kind of existent it is. Most organisms produce more of the kind of entities they are but no mere physical entity does.

For me, perhaps the most significant thing about living organisms that makes them different from all mere physical entities is that there is something at stake for a living organism. Its existence depends on its behavior and ability to do what is required to sustain itself. It is in relationship to living organisms that the concept of teleology begins. Nothing can matter to any mere physical entity, not even whether it continues to exist or not. But things do matter to a living organism, it's very existence depends on them.

Now it doesn't matter if you believe all these attributes of living organisms can somehow be explained in terms of the mere physical attributes, so long as we can agree they are unique to living organisms, whatever their explanation is, and there is no requirement to answer, "why is there life?" any more than there is a requirement to answer the question, '"why is there existence?"

Perhaps you can think of my view that the life attributes are additional attributes of some physical entities to the mere physical attributes as my, "Copernican Turn." I observe properties and behaviors of some things that cannot be satisfactorily explained in terms of physical attributes alone, but I cannot deny the attributes of living organisms are what they are, and there is nothing about physical attributes that logically forbids any others.