Re: Faith and Science (was comm.)

Posted by Russ Abbott on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Re-comm-was-Re-FW-Re-Emergence-Seminar-BritishEmergence-tp3654051p3671055.html

And by the way, when I say one can't help but have an opinion about the color of the sky I'm really saying that one can't help but have an opinion about one's experience of seeing the sky.  Certainly one can ask whether it even makes sense to say that the sky has a color, and if so how would one measure it, etc. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying that one can hardly help but have an opinion about having experienced the sky having a blue color when one looks at it. I don't know whether that clarifies things or not.

-- Russ

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

Glen, You and Nick (and I) actually agree that thought is not necessary for us to eat, walk, etc. We do it whether or not we think that we do it. It seems to me that you are supposing that Nick (and I) are saying something different. We're not.  What I'm saying (and what I imagine Nick is saying) is that once one starts to think about it, it makes no sense to deny reality, not that our thought is necessary for reality.

Furthermore, I would add (and I don't know what Nick thinks about this), that we are thiking beings and that we almost can't help ourselves from thinking.  Consequently (in my view), we can't honestly say that we have no opinion about reality. We can hardly help ourselves. It's part of human nature to look around, observe, and conclude. That's one way in which we are different from pond scum. So since (again in my view) one can't help but have an opinion about reality (at least once someone poses the question), it makes no sense to me to then deny it -- or even to deny having an opinion. We just aren't built that way. Admittedly that's a somewhat different question, and it's possible that we can not have an opinion about issues like that. But I doubt it. It's like looking at the sky (with no clouds) and denying that one has an opinion about its color. It's hard for me to believe that one can do that. But as I said, perhaps it's possible.

-- Russ A

On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 9:22 AM, glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 09/17/2009 10:06 PM:
> How can you even write to me without presupposing my existence.

Because that is what we _do_.  We talk to each other.  And we've been
talking to each other long _before_ we ever had the biologically based
ability to _presuppose_ your existence.

Thought is a consequence of action, not vice versa.  I don't have to
presuppose _anything_ in order to eat or walk or write to you.  This
whole paradigm you and other "realists" push about how important
_thinking_ is to life is just nonsense.  Thought is not required for
life.  And as such, I do not require a belief in the existence of
reality in order to live, which includes making a living, drinking beer,
yapping with yahoos on mailing lists, etc.

Thus spake Nicholas Thompson circa 09/17/2009 08:32 PM:
> But it seems to me that every attack on realism I ever read presumes
> a reality, including those I have been reading here.

The problem you have, here, is that nobody is _attacking_ realism.  You
believe in it?  Fine.  Believe in it.  I certainly don't care.  You
believe in whatever you want to believe in.  It doesn't matter.  We'll
all keep DOING what we DO regardless of what you believe.  What we
believe is irrelevant.  It's what we DO that matters.*

And that's the point.

As for me, personally, I laid out my apathy towards the fictional
concept of the existence of an external reality because RussA ASKED us
to lay it out.  He then goes on to claim he has trouble believing my
answer ... as if I have some reason to lie or as if I'm too stupid to
know myself ... or as if it matters whether he believes me. [grin]
Who's attacking what, here?  I'm certainly not attacking realism.  If it
makes you happy and allows you to DO what you DO, then fine.  Believe in
it.  Believe in a flying spaghetti monster for all I care.  (I also
fully support my mom's conviction to Catholicism.)  What matters is that
you continue to ACT ... to DO.  It doesn't matter what you believe.

> As Holt points out, you have to start somewhere and the simplest
> least contorted beginning is to assume realism.

No.  The _simplest_ least contorted beginning is to accept the
observations that life lives regardless of belief.  No intention need be
imputed.  Pond scum swims around.  Do we have to impute that they
believe in the existence of external reality in order to swim around?
Ha!  Of course not.

You'll probably, like so many others, claim that we're so very different
from pond scum.  But when pressed, you won't be able to clarify
precisely and accurately the mechanisms that make us so very different.
(You may even invoke the useless term "emergence" in the process. ;-)
You can bluster and preach about how we're different just like the
way my mom believes dogs don't have souls; but in the end, we're not
different.  We swim around, eat, mate, and e-mail each other because
we're _alive_, not because we believe in flying spaghetti monsters.


* This is true in science as well as law.  We don't make scientific
discoveries based on what we believe; we make them based on what we DO.
 We don't throw people in jail for what they believe; we throw them in
jail based on what they DO.

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org