Changing My Mind, Dawkins, and Objectivism

[gravvs]

Ofc, but then we have to first explain what the true nature of matter is, secondly, try to explain what true knowledge is. And what a fact is, in the discipline of epistemology, that is not very clear. Because the concept of a fact is theory-laden. What is a fact and how is it justified, and of more importance, how does true knowledge avoid the problem of relativism.

[gravvs]

If we try to understand the nature of matter we have turn to physics in order to try to understand what matter is. Matter is only what we percieve it to be, solid. But if you go beneth the level of microcosmos and enter the world of quantumphysics, what is solid is no longer that clear. So yet again, how can a

true solid substance produce thoughts, and where is the place of our human thougths.

[gravvs]

If it is in the brain, howcome we can not see other peoples thoughts. If it is only that easy to say that solid matter is the substance of all thoughts, why are we having problem to recreate thought out of matter? And what substance does thoughts have, solid

or mental/spiritual. If thoughts are produced by solid matter as we percieve it to be, how come we cant pinpoint it and say, "aha, there it is, our testobject is thinking of an ice cream".

[gravvs]

So far, scientist cant. But if our thoughts

are mental/spiritual, then how come it can react with solid matter as we percieve it? Gettier made examples of scenarios where you could have epistemological justified true beliefe, that is knowledge, without having to actually know anything. If facts are based on either that or induction/deduction. Then we need a new scientific criteria/theory or a fourth epistemological criteria to justify either a fact or a knowledge.

[gravvs]

If there is an external mind independent world out there. Then our perception cant grasp all the properties it can represent to our mind, about any object there is. We can only have a finite knowledge about external obejcts. But if we are really peirciving all there is in the universe, how come science cant explain consciousness, quantumreality, darkmatter or

darkenergy? After all, we could percieve everything right?

[gravvs]

Dont forget about the problem of the "Explanatory gap". The mystery of consciousness is yet to be solved. We still dont know what it is. Or how to reproduce it.

[gravvs]

We dont even have a solid framework in wich we can start to describe its functions and structure. All we have are loose descriptions and even a more vague theory, the cognitive paradigm. But yet we do not have an explanation of how a network of synapses can produce the subjective experience. Neither does Dawkins. He can promote memes as much as he wants, but that still doesnt explain how come we have the "illusion" of identity or the phenomenal subjective experience.

[gravvs]

The qualia so to speak. Modern science so far got Cognitive Neuroscience, to try to bridge the cognitive paradigm, wich explains our mental functions as memory, creativity, perception, and thinking in general, language included, with the more practical disciplin known as Neuroscience, wich trys to map our brain with mutlimilliondollar machines.

[gravvs]

But even that is not enough. If Feyerabend is even close to the truth then we are stuck with a dualistic explanantion of the mind/body problem. And all we can do is believe, in a spiritual way of our own consciousness, or in a scientific way. In wich both are an equally speculative way of thinking.

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

I disagree. In the realm of speculative thought, I agree we must keep our mind open to new evidence that might support or refute a scientific or spiritual view of consciousness. However, I think that the scales are leaning significantly toward a non-supernatural explanation of consciousness devoid of some entity that survives death. I do not think it is rational to assume both theories are equally worth our consideration when the Cartesian/religious view is not likely...

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

In speculative realms, my mind does not allow for me to wade in a potpourri pond filled with different conflicting views. I must choose one or the other, even if I may have a certain amount of cognitive dissonance. Evolution might be a good analogy. In its beginnings, the evidence was inconclusive. Now I think we can agree evolution is fact, and there is no room for doubt. Creationism is false. I think that a non-supernatural explanation of consciousness...

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

regarding preservation of consciousness in some incorporeal, ethereal form after death will eventually be disproved to the satisfaction of calling it a fact. If there is anything to be gained from study of philosophy of mind, it is that matter is required as a substrate for consciousness. We may argue about trivial matters, but only scientists in the extreme fringe argue otherwise. Majority opinion doesn't equal fact, but my examination of the evidence makes spirits and souls unlikely.

[plemke1]

Really good video I hope you see your way to understanding Objectivism. I am an objectivist and think some of the people can be hard on youtube but there is a reason for it. Along your lines of thought... Objectivism, although Ayn rand was awesome and prolific, is still in an infancy and people are currently writing new interesting material I suggest you read Objectivism the philosophy of Ayn Rand and Ayn Rand's Normative ethics they are both good grounding material for beginning objectivism.

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

Thanks for the recommendations. The initial exposure I had to Objectivism was unsettling. I still to this day find Ayn Rand to be an abrasive and unlikeable person, and I feel the same about some of her followers. Some of her ideas are interesting, but I think she goes to far. She sheds light on a problem but rather than advocating moderation, she advocates extreme views that are untenable. I hesitate to call myself an anythingist. Pick and choose is a better way.

[tomsan84]

I dont think I understand the question at the end, because objectivists form their thoughts to forthcoming (convincing) evidence. that is part of its definition. So, to not change your mind about reality when evidence is given thus creating a confrontation in once mindset and 'proven' reality one ceases to be an objectivist.

I am more interested in your objections against objectivism. I am not an expert on the subject and I find it easier to learn out of other people's 'road to enlightenment'

[horvay]

"politicians would call it flip flopping"

That is such a funny quote.

[ScientificDiscussion]

Funny. Dawkins example with the old professor stuck with me too. I heard him tell the story in one of his video-documentaries.

Nice vid.

[bakukenshin]

As a dedicated objectivist, I would say that if I were to find evidence that objectivism were wrong, then I would change my mind in an instant. The thing that has kept me an objectivist as long as it has is basically that I have never seen a reasoned argument against it that could stand on its own merits. Like evolution, its a system which makes things simpler to understand, not because it is intuitive or simple, but because things make more sense when you see how people are motivated.

[heyitspeter]

Given experimental error, *any* scientific theory could (theoretically) be proven false in any given experiment. If you were to follow your own advice and "change [your] mind in an instant" upon receiving any bit of 'factual' evidence to the contrary of a given theory, you would be forcing yourself to disown theories that are in actuality promising and potentially true. Read "Personal Knowledge" by Michael Polanyi, if your interested.

[heyitspeter]

If philosophy were to follow the "innocent until proven guilty" axiom you ascribe to, then devoutly religious folks would be able to use your argument equally well to "prove" God's existence. E.g., "you can't *prove* there is no God, therefore God exists." This is the argument you are making for objectivism (in your words: "The thing that has kept me an objectivist as long as it has is basically that I have never seen a reasoned argument against it that could stand on its own merits."

[bakukenshin]

There's always a wise-cracker isn't there? Ok. 1st of all, the question is "would I change my mind if there is proof that I'm wrong?" To which I say yes. Why? Because to ignore evidence which proves one wrong is to deny reality. I have seen no evidence which proves objectivism wrong. So, I still adhere to objectivism. This is not my REASON for believing in it in the 1st place. But it is why I have not been convinced to abandon the philosophy by any naysayers.

[bakukenshin]

And in further reply to heyitspeter, you really should pay attention to the video under discussion before jumping on people. The topic is not "Defend Objectivism." If you want that, I'll be glad to provide you my reasons, but I don't think it's appropriate to hijack this thread for that purpose.

[heyitspeter]

Hey. I was trying to respond to you, not the video. I don't know why it placed my comment where it did. Since I was responding directly to you, any digressions from the "topic at hand" (whatever that could possibly mean) can be safely chalked up to you. I'd be happy to discuss why you're wrong with you. I didn't mean to be confrontational with my original post, and I'm sorry if it seemed that way.

[bakukenshin]

Unfortunately your response completely ignored that I was responding to the video and not posting a justification for my belief system. I do not advocate an "innocent until proven guilty" scenario, nor did I ever claim to. If you can phrase a comment that actually has to do with something I said, then I'll be glad to debate. If not, then there is no point in me responding. Why? Because if you can't prove that you can actually comprehend text, then it is unlikely you could debate logically.

[heyitspeter]

Summer reading list for you:

1)"Against Method" by Paul Feyerabend

2)"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn

3)"Personal Knowledge" by Michael Polanyi

The first two got their PhDs in Physics, the third in Chemistry. If you don't think I'm capable enough to argue my points, I'm sure at least one of them will suffice. Good luck in your quest for knowledge. I'd start with a college education and move on from there.

[heyitspeter]

To avoid ambiguity: that was a response to "bakukenshin".

[bakukenshin]

Thanks for the references, I'll be glad to check them out. But I have to say again that you still haven't said what it is you disagree with me on. If you're still on that "innocent-guilty" trip, I already explained that has nothing to do with what I said. I do have a college education, thank you, which is why I can read a sequence of words and understand what they mean. I would recommend to you a basic course in logic, or at least English.

[heyitspeter]

Yeah, my bad I was being a bit of an ass. I've just had some (probably unfair) enmity for pro-science atheists as of late, and when I found out you were an "anti-theist" (a sect I hadn't heard of before) from you profile, I think I took it out on you. But I once was - for all intents and purposes - an atheist to. I was even pro-science, I suppose. I've just read too many of the right books in the Hist of Science and Phil proper to continue on that track, and I sometimes forget where I came from.

[heyitspeter]

excuse the typos...

[bakukenshin]

Apology accepted. No worries, eh? I understand that there's nothing like ideology to get people hot under the collar.

[heyitspeter]

Word. I'll be sure check out your blog when I get some free time!

[Mariborchan]

What you are talking about should be the core of anyone, who is interested in philosophy. Thx for the great video.

On a side note - I don't like Dawkins because he doesn't see what his vulgar militant materialism is bringing to the world. In no way do I consider him a good philosopher.

[PianoIsTheRemedy]

Granted about his militant views. I agree. While I find much of Dawkins' ideas very illuminating, I share your concern with his militancy and his political views. Just as I find some of Ayn Rand's opinions to be insightful, I find many of them to be false. I think we should take ideas independent from the author and put them to the test individually. You would not find me at a rally for Richard Dawkins' political opinions.

[Mjhavok]

"he doesn't see what his vulgar militant materialism is bringing to the world"

Please do tell what it is bringing to the world.

[Mariborchan]

Not everyone is a fundamentalist, a fanatic, a danger to society, stupid, ignorant, etc. Religion sometimes brings positive influence to a society. And many people take it extremely personal. Unfortunately Dawkins doesn't seem realize that. That's my biggest problem with this whole thing. I won't even go into his philosophical views..

[Mjhavok]

You clearly haven't read the God Delusion. As for his philosophical views. He is a scientist.

[Mariborchan]

Being a scientist doesn't define your philosophical views. Science doesn't give you ethics for example. And he is ethically repulsive to me. When you know, that you are popular, you should be careful what you write. I've read half of the God Delusion, but I've seen his documentaries, videos and read his articles. I liked him a year ago. I have moved on since then.

[Mjhavok]

What I meant was he isn't a philosopher he is a scientist. I have my own critiques of Dawkins.

What about his ethics do you find repulsive? I want specifics.

[CousinoMacul]

"Religion sometimes brings positive influence to a society. And many people take it extremely personal."

So what? Eugenics sometimes brings positive influence; martial law sometimes brings positive influence; slave labor sometimes bring positive influence; etc. Your argument is a non sequitor. Also, Dawkins is well aware of the positive influence religion can have; perhaps you should try reading The God Delusion.

[Mariborchan]

My argument is, that you can't just go around bashing people for believing in God. And that is happening because of this Atheist movement. Because I know how personal this is to many people.. and often you are achieving the exact opposite, instead of "showing how they are wrong" you are "showing them, how immoral atheists are for going around and insulting them". In the modern urban society 'Culture' in the sense that it once was is falling apart and that is why people are turning to religion.

[Mariborchan]

Even if a person, that is not really philosophically inclined, is 'deconverted' - if that individual is a troubled teenager, as it often is, it can have a very negative impact on him - he looses a community, he needs a replacement for everything his faith once offered him. Religion is much more than just a system of beliefs, to look at it that way is stupid. In the worst case scenario, he becomes a fatalist, thinking "we're just a bunch of atoms" and will loose his faith in "morality".

[Mariborchan]

Dawkins himself described his form of Atheism as 'Militant Atheism' and proclaimed a kind of war on Religion. You claim he's not a philosopher - than what buissness does he have going around spreading the theory of memetics? That certainly isn't a scientific proposal. He is saying what SHOULD be done, what is WRONG, that religion is BAD, and science can never tell us such things, it is by definition descriptive.