The bait & switch on discussions of materialism

[Wildswanderer]

The universe isn't chaotic, it is very orderly

Yes that's the point. It could not have formed in an orderly fashion by itself.

 

[Wildswanderer]

There are apatheists like me that don't believe purpose can be ascribed by anyone but the user. If someone creates a straw to drink with but I decide to only use them to blow paint on a canvas than the purpose ascribed by a creator makes no difference to me, it's not the purpose I choose. And if the creator told me I'm only allowed to use it for drinking I would tell said creator to **** off.

Hilarious. You could not do any such thing in a determined universe, obviously.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Hilarious. You could not do any such thing in a determined universe, obviously.

I'm not a hard determinist, nor do I believe purpose requires or rejects determinism. Nor do I believe theism offers a plausible argument against determinism. Nor do I believe that theism's argument for purpose is anything more than an easily discarded argument from authority.

Do you invest 1/10th the thought into an argument like you invest 1/10th the energy?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Nor do I believe that theism's argument for purpose is anything more than an easily discarded argument from authority.

Then you don't understand the argument.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Then you don't understand the argument.

Wow, what a convincing rebuttal. I'm impressed. That must've taken a lot out of you.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Nor do I believe that theism's argument for purpose is anything more than an easily discarded argument from authority.

Then you don't understand the argument.

Wow, what a convincing rebuttal. I'm impressed. That must've taken a lot out of you.

You either get it or you don't. Sometimes further argument is a waste of time.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Then you don't understand the argument.

You either get it or you don't. Sometimes further argument is a waste of time.

I often find that people who say 'don't cast pearls before swine' do so because they suspect there's a few jewelers around who can tell they've only got pearl shaped plastic on offer.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I often find that people who say 'don't cast pearls before swine' do so because they suspect there's a few jewelers around who can tell they've only got pearl shaped plastic on offer.

Whatever helps you feel better about yourself.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Whatever helps you feel better about yourself.

Ditto.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Then you don't understand the argument.

You either get it or you don't. Sometimes further argument is a waste of time.

You're not making an argument. You just assert it to be the case. Over and over.

 

[PureX]

I'd say that those things that have some kind of measurable, or otherwise objectively detectable, manifestation are things that I would label as "existing".

Does a story "exist"? Or does it only exist when it's being conveyed by spoken words, or when it's written down in ink on paper? If the story exists, do the characters in the story exist? And if they don't exist, what of history? Does history not exist?

What does it mean to say something is "objectively detectable"? An idea in the human brain is objectively detectable even though the idea is not an object, but a cognitive phenomenon. So, does cognitive phenomena exist? Yet cognition is clearly subjective. So how can it be considered existentially objective?

I don't need to "assume" that trees exist. I'm looking at one right now in front of my office.

But the act of looking (seeing) IS 'assuming'. It's your brain organizing and labeling and assessing the visual stimuli it's receiving according to the various ways it's been taught to do this by past experience. When you were born you were born into a sea of undifferentiated phenomenal stimuli: lights, sounds, smells, tastes, touch, ... and for years you were learning how to differentiate them, and label them, and assess them for potential danger, or positive value. Such that now it's automatic. All these labels and assessments have become what you call "reality", now.

But do they define "existence"? Or do they just define existence, for you. What is the relationship between reality and existence? Because I think this is what's being constantly overlooked in this kind of discussion.

My buddy also witnessed first hand how very existing trees are, when he smashed into one with his car.

Sure. He has learned to distinguish, label, and evaluate that sea of phenomenal stimuli that he was born into the same as you have. So his conception of reality is now somewhat similar to yours. But what does any of this have to do with the parameters of existence? How do we begin to address that question?

That makes no sense to me.

No idea what you mean by that.

That's nonsensical.

That's because you are not distinguishing between reality as you perceive and conceive it, and existence, which surpasses your perception and conception. You're not distinguishing between your idea of a thing and the thing your idea now designates as existing as such.

Obviously ideas exist. But they exist as thoughts only. They don't have objective existence in the outside world.

What is the "outside" world? What is the "inside" world? How do you tell one from another? What do these have to do with existence?

btw: I think you are being a bit confusing with the word "idea". Isn't "concept" a better term for what you are talking about?

Concepts are collections of interrelated ideas used to understand more complex and sophisticated phenomena. I was just trying to keep it simple by referring to a single idea.

Again, I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

Physicality is just a sea of phenomenal 'gibberish' without the metaphysicality of human cognition. This is why I am not a materialist. Materials are just the stuff that great artists make great art from. The materials are necessary, yes, but it's the art that actually matters.

 

[PureX]

I think this is the real issue you have. You're conflating 'purpose' with 'laws' and 'order' when these are all independent concepts.

Laws exist to establish and maintain order. So that order IS the purpose. To claim that these are all separate, unrelated phenomena is false. They are intrinsically related by their intent to achieve a goal.

Order comes from disorder every time a low information, form and potential energy water droplet freezes into highly ordered high potential energy high information crystalline ice chip or snowflake. Every time simple compressive energy on carbon forms diamonds. Every time salt mud flats dry into tesselations, and every time mutations or infections add onto gene sequences.

Order comes from disorder only by the imposition of law (limitation). So the question we are being begged to ask, always, is what is the source and purpose of the laws being imposed? We might logically surmise that the purpose would be the results achieved, but this still doesn't reveal the source, nor an intention, if one exists. So we are left with these "begged" questions, and no answers.

Laws, again, are not some thing that exists and causes other things to do something.

In fact, that's ALL they exist to do. To control the behavior of whatever they govern.

Laws don't describe a cause, they describe an effect, and the effect is relational to the object were describing, not some third party power.

This is false. Laws determine the order occurring within disorder ... if such order is occurring. There are no "objects" without order. There is only disorder. "Objects" are "order". And they exist by the imposition of law(s) on disorder.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes that's the point. It could not have formed in an orderly fashion by itself.

Why not?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Why not?

What we see in nature is the opposite.
The entropy of the universe increases in all natural processes. Any closed system, will always move away from order and towards disorder, so is the universe a closed system? Is more energy being somehow introduced into it? We are told that matter and energy, once they exist, are neither created nor destroyed, but they simply switch forms. Everything is degrading, not going the other direction. Order cant just spring from chaos. Life can't come from non life. It defies science.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What we see in nature is the opposite.
The entropy of the universe increases in all natural processes. Any closed system, will always move away from order and towards disorder, so is the universe a closed system? Is more energy being somehow introduced into it? We are told that matter and energy, once they exist, are neither created nor destroyed, but they simply switch forms. Everything is degrading, not going the other direction. Order cant just spring from chaos. Life can't come from non life. It defies science.

You think that an increase in entropy means "order" can't happen? Why?

 

[Wildswanderer]

You think that an increase in entropy means "order" can't happen? Why?

It means order can't form itself. It can't happen because it's the opposite of ewe see happening. What we see is order coming only from previously designed entities.

This programming has been passed on from the parent organisms, but it had to arise from an intelligent mind originally, since natural processes can not write programs.

 

[Heyo]

Yes that's the point. It could not have formed in an orderly fashion by itself.

The point is that the universe was orderly from the beginning. So even if the creation of the universe was a miracle, it was the last and only. Everything from then on is just natural, no need and no evidence for any magic beyond the Big Bang.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

What we see in nature is the opposite.
The entropy of the universe increases in all natural processes. Any closed system, will always move away from order and towards disorder, so is the universe a closed system? Is more energy being somehow introduced into it? We are told that matter and energy, once they exist, are neither created nor destroyed, but they simply switch forms. Everything is degrading, not going the other direction. Order cant just spring from chaos. Life can't come from non life. It defies science.

I just gave lots of examples of order coming from disorder, because nowhere in thermodynamics does say that energy, even a closed system, dissipates evenly. But does so like waves on a pond. Entropy wells and swells, with energy, heat, information et all gathering in areas and then dissipating. New stars are even still forming in our galaxy where gravity and the eruption of other stars has brought heat there.

And the same is true of resources and energy in general on Earth.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which doesn't change anything.

Well, it changes your silly arguments....

In your world view, things working in certain ways means there's unalterable laws governing them. Otherwise you have just confessed that magic is a real possibility.

Funny how you just acknowledged that your worldview has to allow for magic to occur.

Funny indeed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nice deflection. In a purposeless universe you can't know that what your mind tells you is what really is. You are just a flesh machine doing what it has to.

Doesn't follow.