Kevin's Watch

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:We are not certain yet what Zarathustra means when he says "supernatural". He could mean "magic", God or other deities, ghosts, or anything outside the possibility or explanation of physics at this time. Of course, black holes exist outside our ability to fully explain them via physics at this time but we certainly don't consider those to be "supernatural".

Does anyone here work a Sudoku puzzle then at some point later go back, erase it, and work it again? Does anyone do the same crossword puzzle more than once? Is playing a video game through the second, third, or eighth time as satisfying as it was the first time? No? Do you know why not? It is because you already know all the answers even though you might try to forget that you know. Knowing all the answers can be a little boring so won't knowing everything there is to know about the universe be boring? Why shouldn't there be room for things in the universe that simply defy logic and mathematical certainty?

Well, I'm not worried about learning all there is to know, and becoming bored. Heh. But "Why shouldn't there be room..." isn't evidence that the situation is the way you are claiming it is. Whether or not we are capable of learning all there is to know about the universe has nothing to do with whether or not we'd be bored after having done so. As Q learned, eh?

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

Does anyone here work a Sudoku puzzle then at some point later go back, erase it, and work it again? Does anyone do the same crossword puzzle more than once? Is playing a video game through the second, third, or eighth time as satisfying as it was the first time? No? Do you know why not? It is because you already know all the answers even though you might try to forget that you know. Knowing all the answers can be a little boring so won't knowing everything there is to know about the universe be boring? Why shouldn't there be room for things in the universe that simply defy logic and mathematical certainty?

That ignores "why" we do those things to begin with. It does not mean that knowledge and expectation will make all activities boring. How often have you gazed at the night sky and been awefilled at the immensity of the universe? How often are we touched by a sunset, the changing colors of leaves, the reflection of light off of ice-encased trees, how often do we long for the touch of a human hand? All these activities, as well as others, including sports activities and exercise, can be accomplished again and again and still remain meaningful, even if we know the end result or have done them over and over again. Hell, I know people who can watch the same movie over and over and over again and derive the same satisfaction of it.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:I didn't say it was evidence; instead, I was only asking a question.

Don't go based off Q, though. Scriptwriters for television shows typically know less than we do here and they are thus not valid sources of information or character development.

Ah. Well, I don't think it's a matter of "should" or "shouldn't". It's a matter of "is" or "isn't". And we simply don't know. I'd say a rationalist wouldn't claim to have absolute knowledge about whether or not everything about the universe can be known. Maybe it can, and maybe it can't. Fortunately, the wonder you're talking about is safe, because, obviously, even if we can, we won't in our lifetime.

Orlion wrote:How often are we touched by a sunset, the changing colors of leaves, the reflection of light off of ice-encased trees, how often do we long for the touch of a human hand? All these activities, as well as others, including sports activities and exercise, can be accomplished again and again and still remain meaningful, even if we know the end result or have done them over and over again.

Why are those things meaningful, though? To call them "meaningful" means that we are ascribing an emotional value to inanimate objects/scenarios like sunsets. Sunsets, of course, are merely random patterns of photons striking the cells in our retina, so why should that take on any particular meaning? Evolutionarily speaking, we do not need sunsets to live, evidenced by the fact that people who were born blind do not die because they do not experience sunsets. If we are to accept the mutually exclusive nature of the duality of Science or Superstition, then logic tells us that ascribing meaning to sunsets makes no sense whatsover as they are not required for our survival; hence, any emotional response to a sunset is not Scientific and must therefore be Superstition. Superstition, as we have been told, is harmful so we may conclude that emotional responses to sunsets are harmful. I could make a similar case for sporting events and movies but not for human touch--other studies have been done before that show that a complete lack of human contact does indeed cause harm and therefore is necessary for a normal existence.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:If we are to accept the mutually exclusive nature of the duality of Science or Superstition, then logic tells us that ascribing meaning to sunsets makes no sense whatsover as they are not required for our survival; hence, any emotional response to a sunset is not Scientific and must therefore be Superstition.

Some of the pleasure you take is scientific, it's your body enjoying making Vitamin D (good for bones etc.). Any pleasure you take from the aesthetic elements of the sunset (which may also improve your health) is obviously the placebo effect

Meaning is always where these discussions get interesting. As human beings, why is meaning so important to us? And it is also usually around meaning that the differences between various worldviews become clear.

u.

ussusimiel wrote:Some of the pleasure you take is scientific, it's your body enjoying making Vitamin D (good for bones etc.). Any pleasure you take from the aesthetic elements of the sunset (which may also improve your health) is obviously the placebo effect

Clearly, I derive some enjoyment from pursuing lines of thought even if I may not necessarily agree with or believe in them. Sometimes, you have to follow paths of reasoning you believe to be false in order to find some more truth.

The very title of this thread, though, presumes not only that Science is the sole domain of reason and that all other thought is Unreason. but that the two must be in some sort of conflict. Why is there a clash? Why do the two have to be irreconcilable? General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics apparently contradict one another and do not apply at the other's scale but clearly there is some common ground allowing the two to coexist or we wouldn't be here.

As I noted, that which is called "Unreason" in the title is merely anything which cannot be explained yet.

I don't know why, but the title of this thread keeps reminding me of the book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance."

Delving deeper: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirsig%27s_metaphysics_of_Quality

Quality

"Quality," or "value," as described by Pirsig, cannot be defined because it empirically precedes any intellectual construction of it, namely due to the fact that quality (as Pirsig explicitly defines it) exists always as a perceptual experience before it is ever thought of descriptively or academically. Quality is the "knife-edge" of experience, found only in the present, known or at least potentially accessible to us all. (Plato's Phaedrus, 258d). Equating it with the Tao, Pirsig postulates that Quality is the fundamental force in the universe stimulating everything from atoms to animals to evolve and incorporate ever greater levels of Quality. According to the MOQ, everything (including ideas, and matter) is a product and a result of Quality.

Static quality patterns and Dynamic Quality

The MOQ maintains that Quality itself is undefinable (Tao), but to better understand it, Pirsig breaks Quality down into two forms: static quality patterns (patterned) and Dynamic Quality (unpatterned). The four patterns of static value as well as Dynamic Quality account exhaustively for all of reality. As the initial (cutting edge) Dynamic Quality becomes habituated, it turns into static patterns (viz. data, expectations). It is important to note that Pirsig is not proposing a duality: Quality is one, yet manifests itself differently. Rather than dualism, this manifestation of Quality in terms of Dynamic and static aspects represents a dialectical monism.

Dynamic Quality

Dynamic Quality cannot be defined. It can only be understood intellectually through the use of analogy. It can be described as the force of change in the universe; when an aspect of Quality becomes habitual or customary, it becomes static. Pirsig calls Dynamic Quality "the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality" because it can be recognized before it can be conceptualised. This is why the Dynamic beauty of a piece of music can be recognized before a static analysis explaining why the music is beautiful can be constructed.

Static quality patterns

Pirsig defines static quality as everything which can be defined. Everything found in a dictionary, for instance, is static quality. These static forms, if they have enough good or bad quality, are given names and are interchanged with other people, building the base of knowledge for a culture. So some cultures divide between things other cultures perceive as equal (Pirsig gave as example the sounds of the Indian syllables "dha" and "da," which are absolutely equal to western ears), and some cultures haven't any words for a specific meaning at all (the exact meaning of the German word "verklemmt" cannot be translated into English). Pirsig further divides static quality into inorganic, biological, social, and intellectual patterns, in ascending order of morality.

• Inorganic patterns: non-living things
• Biological patterns: living things
• Social patterns: behaviours, habits, rituals, institutions.
• Intellectual patterns: ideas

Pirsig describes evolution as the moral progression of these patterns of value. For example, a biological pattern overcoming an inorganic pattern (e.g. bird flight which overcomes gravity) is a moral thing because a biological pattern is a higher form of evolution. Likewise, an intellectual pattern of value overcoming a social one (e.g. Civil Rights) is a moral development because intellect is a higher form of evolution than society. Therefore, decisions about one's conduct during any given day can be made using the Metaphysics of Quality.

Interesting.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

Orlion wrote:How often are we touched by a sunset, the changing colors of leaves, the reflection of light off of ice-encased trees, how often do we long for the touch of a human hand? All these activities, as well as others, including sports activities and exercise, can be accomplished again and again and still remain meaningful, even if we know the end result or have done them over and over again.

Why are those things meaningful, though? To call them "meaningful" means that we are ascribing an emotional value to inanimate objects/scenarios like sunsets. Sunsets, of course, are merely random patterns of photons striking the cells in our retina, so why should that take on any particular meaning? Evolutionarily speaking, we do not need sunsets to live, evidenced by the fact that people who were born blind do not die because they do not experience sunsets. If we are to accept the mutually exclusive nature of the duality of Science or Superstition, then logic tells us that ascribing meaning to sunsets makes no sense whatsover as they are not required for our survival; hence, any emotional response to a sunset is not Scientific and must therefore be Superstition. Superstition, as we have been told, is harmful so we may conclude that emotional responses to sunsets are harmful. I could make a similar case for sporting events and movies but not for human touch--other studies have been done before that show that a complete lack of human contact does indeed cause harm and therefore is necessary for a normal existence.

Does Unreason = Superstition? If Z is right, and chiropractic is a sham (as opposed to it simply not having been proven legitimate via scientific studies), then do those of us who say it is legitimate believe a superstition? Meaning, I guess, that the placebo effect is superstition?

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:We are not certain yet what Zarathustra means when he says "supernatural".

Anything which is beyond any possible scientific or naturalistic explanation (even sciences which we don't currently have). Anything beyond the natural world.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:He could mean "magic", God or other deities, ghosts, or anything outside the possibility or explanation of physics at this time.

Yes, except I'd change the last part to "any time."

ussusimiel wrote: I believe in the 'supernatural' yet most of the things on the list do not apply to me.

I don't think that the list is inevitable, and certainly not for every single person who believes in the supernatural. It's just a list of possible dangers. But the stuff outside the list I'd say applies to anyone who believes in the supernatural. I do indeed think it is escapist and life-denying, if it's belief in something beyond this universe (or beyond other parallel natural universes with their own sets of natural laws). If it's belief in something which exists in this universe, and yet the belief contains the epistemological position that it is fundamentally beyond any possible naturalistic explanation, what can this belief be based on besides dogma or superstition? How could anyone possibly assert that a phenomenon lies beyond possible natural explanation before we've even checked every single possible naturalistic explanation? (Which, honestly, may be an impossible or infinite endeavor)

ussusimiel wrote:(I do not question the value of science and reason only their 'all-encompassing' claims.)

Claims like what? I think science has earned the right to make claims on a vast scope of issues. Science as we know it (rigorous, peer-reviewed, experimental) is only a couple centuries old, and its theories can already explain this existence on a scale from the tiniest scrap of matter to the edges of the space/time, to an almost unimaginable degree of accuracy. That's an amazing accomplishment for some lifeforms that were swinging on trees not too long ago. And our knowledge is accelerating.

In fact, the history of science can be viewed as successfully conquering the competing supernatural worldview. Claims of supernatural phenomenon have consistently yielded to naturalistic explanations. I don't know a single supernatural phenomenon that has been proven to exist.

ussusimiel wrote: The 'supernatural', as I see, it is nothing of the sort. In my experience it is a wholly life-affirming element that enables a greater level of human intimacy and amazingly expands the potential of what it means to be human.

I guess I'd need some examples. I don't see how how life can be affirmed when one is denying the basis of its reality, what makes it real. If one is making a reality claim about something that cannot be demonstrated or proven to exist (or beyond the possibility of some future demonstrable proof), then one is diminishing the meaning of the term "reality" by including within it things which are indistinguishable from fictions. If there is no demonstrable way to distinguish your purported entity or phenomenon with one I can make up, and yet you still insist that it be called "real," then you're insisting that real/unreal no longer have any meaning. If we can promote unreal things into the state of reality, what's to stop us from demoting real things to the state of unreality? I could just as easily use this strategy to deny your humanity as you could to claim it expands what it means to be human. This is the basis for dehumanization, what makes it possible, by allowing ourselves to blur the line between real/unreal.

Fist and Faith wrote: I'd say a rationalist wouldn't claim to have absolute knowledge about whether or not everything about the universe can be known.

Thank you Fist. You took the words out of my mouth.

I'm not saying there isn't room for stuff we'll never understand. I'm saying there is no way to know whether or not we will be able to understand everything.

If everything has a cause, then discerning that cause makes understanding possible. If we're not talking about a time limit, I see no reason we couldn't understand it all.

Not saying we will, but wouldn't say we can't with any degree of certainty.

Funny though...I'd guess that what Z calls "life denying" is what people who believe in it may call "life affirming."

--A

Zarathustra wrote:

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:We are not certain yet what Zarathustra means when he says "supernatural".

Anything which is beyond any possible scientific or naturalistic explanation (even sciences which we don't currently have). Anything beyond the natural world.

That's my understanding of the word, too. I've heard Christians say that God is unknowable. If we were to find/discover/discern what some might think is God, others would say it is not, and it can't be. God is, and will always be, outside of any form of detection.

Orlion wrote:

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:

Does anyone here work a Sudoku puzzle then at some point later go back, erase it, and work it again? Does anyone do the same crossword puzzle more than once? Is playing a video game through the second, third, or eighth time as satisfying as it was the first time? No? Do you know why not? It is because you already know all the answers even though you might try to forget that you know. Knowing all the answers can be a little boring so won't knowing everything there is to know about the universe be boring? Why shouldn't there be room for things in the universe that simply defy logic and mathematical certainty?

That ignores "why" we do those things to begin with. It does not mean that knowledge and expectation will make all activities boring. How often have you gazed at the night sky and been awefilled at the immensity of the universe? How often are we touched by a sunset, the changing colors of leaves, the reflection of light off of ice-encased trees, how often do we long for the touch of a human hand? All these activities, as well as others, including sports activities and exercise, can be accomplished again and again and still remain meaningful, even if we know the end result or have done them over and over again. Hell, I know people who can watch the same movie over and over and over again and derive the same satisfaction of it.

Excellent points. I think knowledge expands wonder. When we look up at the sun and realize it's a thermonuclear furnace, essentially the same as all the stars in the heavens, I think our sense of wonder is magnified a millionfold over those who looked up at this same spectacle and saw a god and "holes" in the outermost celestial sphere. Ignorance diminishes wonder, connectedness, and appreciation. It severs us from reality by putting up a conceptual barrier of myth and fiction that limits our penetration into what we are observing. Knowledge does just the opposite.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
Why are those things meaningful, though? To call them "meaningful" means that we are ascribing an emotional value to inanimate objects/scenarios like sunsets. Sunsets, of course, are merely random patterns of photons striking the cells in our retina, so why should that take on any particular meaning? Evolutionarily speaking, we do not need sunsets to live, evidenced by the fact that people who were born blind do not die because they do not experience sunsets. If we are to accept the mutually exclusive nature of the duality of Science or Superstition, then logic tells us that ascribing meaning to sunsets makes no sense whatsover as they are not required for our survival; hence, any emotional response to a sunset is not Scientific and must therefore be Superstition. Superstition, as we have been told, is harmful so we may conclude that emotional responses to sunsets are harmful. I could make a similar case for sporting events and movies but not for human touch--other studies have been done before that show that a complete lack of human contact does indeed cause harm and therefore is necessary for a normal existence.

I'd say this is yet another danger of belief in supernatural: partitioning science and reason in such a way that emotion, meaning, and connectedness must be excluded from it. I think that the people who say that scientific worldviews make reality "too small" (e.g. by denying things outside of scientific worldview) are actually the ones committing this mistake of shrinkage, by interpreting science "too small."

For instance, I disagree that recognizing the grandeur of a sunset is insignificant to survival. I'd wager that thousands of years of fearing the dark--precisely for predator/prey survival reasons--is locked deep within our appreciation of sunsets. Mankind's recognition of time, especially temporal transitions and their significance to his survival, is one of the things that has made us such powerful predators and "survival machines." The sweet-sadness of a passing day, symbolic of our own limited time, hones our awareness to what's important ... an awareness that other animals don't have and can't appreciate precisely because they are not aware of their mortality.

Avatar wrote: Funny though...I'd guess that what Z calls "life denying" is what people who believe in it may call "life affirming."

Which is exactly why Nietzsche said that we must take back morality from the theists, because they have twisted vices into virtues. Morality is upside-down. Something can't be life affirming if it affirms a fiction or things that go beyond life. Placing the ultimate meaning of life beyond this world or beyond the grave is death-affirming. [Someone around here seems to have a signature about all this ... ]

Perhaps it's not more death-affirming than the butterfly is to the caterpillar. Or than the bird is to the egg. That doesn't address the lack of scientific evidence for an afterlife, of course. It only deals with the moral issue. It is death-affirming to you, because you believe death is the end of existence. (At least I assume you do. I do.) But those who do not might see life and afterlife as one continuous journey, in which the phrase is more appropriately "afterlife-affirming".

Fist and Faith wrote:Perhaps it's not more death-affirming than the butterfly is to the caterpillar. Or than the bird is to the egg. That doesn't address the lack of scientific evidence for an afterlife, of course. It only deals with the moral issue. It is death-affirming to you, because you believe death is the end of existence. (At least I assume you do. I do.) But those who do not might see life and afterlife as one continuous journey, in which the phrase is more appropriately "afterlife-affirming".

But if there is no afterlife, then people who hold this view structure the meaning of their lives around a fiction which has its entire meaning within a time that is actually death and nonexistence. I could, for instance, imagine that I'll go to the Land or to Middle Earth after I die, and based an entire moral system on tenets I derive from this belief, none of which would affirm anything other than a fiction. The comfort and "connectedness" that one derives from holding such beliefs is an illusion.

To take an extreme example, I could believe I'll get 72 virgins in the afterlife for blowing up the Twin Towers. The terrorists also think their view is "life-affirming." As I said, it's an extreme example. But it still exists within this very same continuum. It's beliefs in man-made fictions which make such actions possible.

Yup. I quite agree. I'm just saying it's tough luck. Many people think God's existence must be disproven, not proven. They already believe, for reasons that cannot be invalidated - to them. Some of them will even hold very strongly to the scientific method in all other areas. They may even accomplish great advancements in our understanding of the universe. I've mentioned Francis Collins and Gregor Mendel before. The fact that you and I cannot understand how they can insist on the scientific method in all other aspects of life, but abandon it in what might be the most important - worldview - does not matter one iota to them. Their faith is solid, and their view of life as whatever each believed it to be, and death as nothing but a transition, is absolute. Nietzsche, you, and I don't mean squat. Heh.

Well, I'm certainly not trying to invalidate anyone's beliefs. God and the supernatural can't be disproved in general (though they can in specific cases where they're used to explain things that actually have natural causes).

However, I believe a methodological naturalism (i.e. the pragmatic assumption that a given phenomenon can be explained by natural causes) leads to an ontological naturalism (i.e. only natural phenomena and causes exist). It's kind of an Occam's Razor approach to metaphysics: once you admit the possibility of something which isn't given in experience and can't be demonstrated in principle, you open the door to an infinite number of such admissions. If empirical demonstrability isn't the criteria for existence in general, then literally anything can be said to exist, and we'd never have any basis for the denial of any existence claims, no matter how silly. [I believe this is the conceptual force behind the Flying Spaghetti Monster analogy.]

So while existence of god can't be disproved, the fact that the FSM sits in this same category doesn't bode well for that particular point.

As for Mendel or Collins holding spiritual beliefs as scientists (you could easily throw Newton in there, too), I'm not entirely averse to holding contradictory worldviews simultaneously, as long as doing so enhances rather than detracts from either worldview. For instance, quantum mechanics and general relativity cannot at this point be reconciled, yet this fact doesn't diminish the power of either one.

I would, however, like to hear how they think their contradictory positions don't detract from or diminish each other. Maybe they don't cross the methodological/ontological divide as I've done above. One could certainly make an argument for that.

Don Exnihilote wrote:I don't know why, but the title of this thread keeps reminding me of the book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance."

Maybe because I'm a big fan of that book. (Are you psychic? )

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:The very title of this thread, though, presumes not only that Science is the sole domain of reason and that all other thought is Unreason. but that the two must be in some sort of conflict. Why is there a clash? Why do the two have to be irreconcilable? General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics apparently contradict one another and do not apply at the other's scale but clearly there is some common ground allowing the two to coexist or we wouldn't be here.

I chose the title mainly to reflect my own personal perception about the defensiveness of science in relation to other ways of knowing. I am always a bit surprised at the passion and, might I suggest, irrational energy of someone like Richard Dawkins in his proselytising for science. I am surprised because I think that the position of science in contemporary society is clear and solid. It is rightly the pre-eminent source of knowledge due to its powerful ability to describe, control and predict the physical universe. Since this is the case, then why this defensiveness. Science doesn't need to be defended. Its own value defends itself.

In the case of something like Creationism (and other powerful religious forces) making a solid case for science is obviously necessary, but in the case of something like chiropractic or homeopathy why not just trust people to decide for themselves. If something is obviously ineffective they will not continue with it. (It's ironic that I am using free market principles to bolster my position. I wonder if this some subtle ruse to convert me )

The point, for me, is that the defensiveness (of Dawkins for example) hints at insecurity. For me that insecurity lies in the (implicit) claim that eventually all things about life can be known by science. Remove that claim and you remove the insecurity. There is also, from my perspective as a sociologist, a refusal to look at science as the human activity that it is, and the inevitable human consequences that implies in terms of power, influence, status, etc.

Zarathustra wrote:

ussusimiel wrote:I believe in the 'supernatural' yet most of the things on the list do not apply to me.

I don't think that the list is inevitable, and certainly not for every single person who believes in the supernatural.

I enjoyed your response to my earlier post, Z. I'll address it generally rather than specifically because I think the differences boil down to large ones rather than small ones.

I agree with your conclusion that if there is no afterlife (or beforelife ) then imagining one is an illusion and a colossal waste of energy. However, a couple of points arise here. One is very practical: some people, for whatever reason, find bare existence unbearable and rather than face it they would prefer to kill themselves (and do). (To paraphrase Freud, too much reality can be bad for you.) Now a survival-of-the-fittest attitude might say 'good riddance', we're the stronger for it. However, a more compassionate view might hold that, in such a case, a bit of illusion is no bad thing. (Jung once told an alcoholic client that to be cured he needed to have a spiritual experience (which indirectly led to the formation of the AA).)

The other is more contentious: if existence just happens to hold realities that it is not possible to prove exist, then the more accurate image of reality is one that allows for that (weak argument, I know, but bear with me ). In my case, my experience (and the experience of others) has led me to believe that I have a spirit that comes from another place. I feel that I have to accept this. If I denied or dismissed my experiences I would then occupy what, for me, would feel like an inauthentic place.

And I am more comfortable with a world that includes the idea of a spirit not simply because it gives me a strong sense of continued existence, but also because it makes a lot of human experience (past and present) understandable. There are a whole range of things that I do not now have to deny as existing (ghosts, ESP, psychics (like Don ) etc.) and there are many stories and experiences that sane people tell me that I do not have to dismiss as delusion or wishful thinking.

u.

How do we always end up talking about religion?

I agree with u. -- Z's definition of "supernatural" is too narrow. Or maybe "supernatural" is the wrong word, or has the wrong connotation.

I am well aware that people used to ascribe to God lots of stuff that we now have rational explanations for, and I know that many of our remaining "inexplicable" things will eventually receive rational explanations. But that doesn't preclude the possibility that there are things out there that will never be explained rationally because no rational explanation exists. Sort of a "natural-but-inexplicable" category, if that makes sense. Stuff like knowing a loved one has died before anyone tells you -- it's not a repeatable event so it can't be scientifically tested, but enough people have said that it's happened to them that the phenomenon is at least plausible.

I also think, Z, that you've made a pretty big leap by equating "supernatural" with the Christian God. I agree with you that religion, mine included, is largely a codification of myth -- in the academic sense of the term, not the popular sense. But it's certainly possible to think about the natural-but-inexplicable without bringing a religious belief system into the discussion.

Also, just as an aside, I don't get anything out of watching a beautiful sunset other than, "Ooh, pretty colors!" and "Time to think about sleep." There's nothing inherently end-of-life-related in it. But maybe I'm not thinking deeply enough about it. Maybe I'm just tired.