If you took your philsophy seriously you would engage me in a converstation when I critsized one of your videos. But since you said to go make my own in so many words. I am not going to listen to your cheap version of philosophy any more.
@alaudun2 I took your criticism to be on my presentation, not on the substance of what I said. If you have a substantive objection, please state it clearly, and I will try to address it. If it is about how I state my ideas, then if you can say them in a better way, please do. Peace, Dennis
This one you have to improve this on. All those gigantic figures make you loose the meaning of what you are saying. You need to to simply what you are saying. As they used to say when I was in school, you need to reduce it to the lowest common denomenator.
@alaudun2 Feel free to take any parts you like and use them to produce an improved video -- or just make a new one from scratch. I look forward to seeing the improved version. Peace, Dennis
@dfpolis Skierkowa, you were talking to him 6 months ago. What I wrote is a line from the movie Mother with Albert Brooks, and Debbie Reynolds. The mom gets a new T.V. and tells the installers, "It has too much green", "It just hasn't had a chance to warm up", they go back and forth and then she says, "If I don't like it I'm going to be giving you a call", "Oh Boy, I'll be looking forward to that!". I've been reading your book, it's like everybody's book and whey they're wrong! lol
A study of improvising musicians or a jam secession might help review this idea. There is an anomaly of meta physical things going on in even a simple blues jam. There is a determined pattern a 145. But within that pattern people can literally communicate without talking. I can have moments of foreknowledge so strong about what someone is going to do, not because of a predetermined practice, but a I just "felt" it situation. Is this an example of (multi)mind and (multi)body connections?
@MereChristianLogic I do think that we can be aware of what others are thinking and planning. Part of this may be physical, reflecting past experience and/or body language, but there is solid scientific data (and tons of experiential episodes) showing we can read other people's minds. Peace, Dennis
@dfpolis You know where they're all coming from because they're all like the same person. "There is no evidence of a god's existence". This one is my favorite from people who actually watched #15, "He jumps to the conclusion 'god diddit' without providing any premises". Yeah, I can see you read all the comments!
There are lots of different arguments this one proves God's existence. < That's classic!
But you can ignore all of my other comments if you can give me a satisfactory answer to this question: what testable predictions are produced by your theory of intentionality?
@Skierkowa My theory is our intentions are able to control our body, not by a direct force, but by acting in their proper, intentional, theater of operations. They act to modify other intentional realities, specifically the laws of nature approximated by physics. I. e., they perturb the general laws. If so, our intentions can perturb physical processes. This is verified by the experiments on random number generators whose meta-analyses I discussed. Cont'd.
@Skierkowa Cont. Another prediction is that if the laws of nature are intentional, they ought to produce results showing signs of intelligence. They do, as I showed this in my paper on mind in evolution (xianphil.org/Intent_evol.htm), and in my videos on evolution. Specifically, Aristotle made three falsifiable claims for teleology (refs. in my paper) & all are verified by evolutionary biology. This answers all the objections raised in connection with the mind-body problem. Peace, Dennis
@dfpolis "Results showing signs of intelligence" is too poorly defined to be useful. We are each free to disagree with the other on what constitutes a reliable sign of intelligence. Can you be more specific? I'll take a closer look at your number generator point later, but I don't have time right now. I will read your paper, as well, if I have time.
Why would naturalists be domgatic, anyhow? Scientists come from the gen pop, not a special island where they are bred and raised by atheist acolytes. Most people are raised to be religious. So where, then, would this naturalistic dogma come from? They certainly aren't bringing it to college from their parents, who are in most cases religious.
and why do you assert it is a priori? Naturalism isn't an axiom. Speaking for myself, I consider myself a naturalist...continued
@Skierkowa continued...because I have found all arguments in favor of the supernatural to be profoundly wanting, including the Christianity in which I was raised. Believe me when I say that when I became a naturalist, it was very reluctantly.
And even still, I say with no trace of guile that I will change my mind as soon as I see a good reason to do so. In fact, I very frequently change my mind, although this is usually at the "frontier" of my understanding.
@Skierkowa "Supernatural" is a biased term. God is essential to the operation of nature. How is that supernatural? The term covertly decouples reality. Awareness is natural, but "naturalists" insist my intentional subsystem, an aspect of my nature, is "supernatural." That is Orwellian, a biased vocabulary & a sign of irrationality. I suspect you misunderstood Christianity, but we can discuss that off-line. If you are open look at my videos #9-#15 on the laws of nature & God. Peace, Dennis
@Skierkowa I don't pretend to read people's minds. I have only behavior to work from. Naturalists have irrational behavior. They fail to see that diverse problems require diverse methods. Many people apply what they know to all problems, even when inappropriate. Naturalism holds that all reality is like that studied in physics (my field) & so its methods can solve all problems. This is not given in experience, and so is an a priori assumption. We empiricists examine experience instead.
@dfpolis I would prefer to say that all sciences are REDUCIBLE to physics, rather than that "reality" is "like" physics, although it would be more accurate to say science is reducible to mathematics. Also, empiricism is not an alternative to naturalism. I, for one, am both.
On a related note, for me, naturalism--like atheism--is not a positive assertion, but a measured negation of other assertions.
@Skierkowa I used to believe all science could be reduced to physics when I was in high school and starting college. Then I found out that not even chemistry could be strictly deduced from physics. The processes are too complex to work out. Instead, physics gives us useful approximations. There is no evidence for more than that, even in natural science. I BELIEVE the dynamics are those in physics, but really we don't KNOW. Chaos theory tells us we can't know in many cases. Cont'd
@Skierkowa Cont'd. Science is not reducible to math. You can start with as much abstract math as you like, & never know what describes reality & what doesn't. That is why physics is experimental and not deductive. Math is only applicable to the quantitative aspects of reality. How do you quantify my knowing I'm writing this? Naturalism Posits a priori criteria excluding possible realities. Don't be fooled, that is as anti-empirical as you can get. Both N and A are proven false. Peace, Dennis
@dfpolis I can't quantify it in practice, but that doesn't mean I couldn't quantify it in principle. Now, I can admit that it's POSSIBLE that thoughts MIGHT be unquantifiable, but there are no clearly defined and supported mechanisms by which that might be true, that we know of.
Every time the opportunity has arisen to test the link between physics and chemistry, it has stood. For example, even properties like the shine of metals can be explained in terms of electron orbitals. cont'd...
@Skierkowa ...cont'd With a vast body of evidence supporting the link, and none opposing it, it is reasonable to act and reason as if the link is solid.
In order for me to take seriously the notion that physics DOESN'T translate directly into chemistry, you would at LEAST have to conceive a notion of reality that would postulate that with greater explanatory power over observed phenomena.
@Skierkowa My belief is a commitment to act as though I knew it was true. Still I do not KNOW it is true. I only choose to believe it. You can mix up knowledge & belief if you wish, but I prefer to be careful in accessing the status of my commitments, & not confuse the two. I'm not trying to get you to believe chemistry has new dynamics, only be open to the logical possibility that it might. There might be multi-body forces in chemistry. There are in the nucleus. I am saying be open. Peace, DP
@Skierkowa To apply math we need discrete or continuous quantity. Now, you might be able to count my intentions, but to apply physical methods, you need continuous quantity. That means what you quantify has to be indefinitely divisible. As intentions are not extended & do not have parts outside of parts (e.g. right & left halves) they are not continuously quantifiable. As they are not, they cannot be deduced from the equations of motion, which deal with continuous quantities.
@Skierkowa cont'd I said I believe chemistry obeys physics, but we do not know it, because many calculations are to complex to execute. I believe it because, as you say, the checks we can do have worked. But, a theory being viable is not the same as it's being known to be true. Reducibility means that we CAN do the calculations & come to the same answers chemists get by doing only physics, & never needing to do chemistry - belief is not enough unless you are satisfied with faith. Peace, Dennis
@Skierkowa I think you need to ask our naturalist friends that. When I know the facts, I state them. I don't pretend not to know what I know. When I am uncertain, I either say so, or keep quiet. Humility is being truthful. I take no credit for my intelligence. It is a gift of God, not my doing. But it would be false humility to say I don't really know when I do. Peace, Dennis
@dfpolis Then I assume you disagree with Socrates that true wisdom starts with admitting you know nothing? I have never heard anyone even attempt a refutation of that principle, much less have I felt that one succeeded.
Also, we're not talking about facts. We are talking about higher-order claims that are properly classified as theories. The results of the double slit experiment constitute facts, But the Copenhagen Interpretation and Everett's Many Worlds are theories.
@Skierkowa True wisdom can't start with a lie, however appealing. False modesty is as bad as false inflation of claims. Wisdom starts with an unquenchable love for truth. We must admit we know some things about reality while being ignorant of most. You don't need to know everything to know some things with certitude. Descartes refuted it. He knew, with absolute certitude, that he existed. We know that things can't be and not be at the same time in the same way. We agree on fact & theory in QM.
@dfpolis Descartes only claimed to know of his own existence, but assumed nothing of about the nature of it. This is one thing, not "some things." Also, this is not false modesty. I am not, strictly speaking, a scientist, but I have worked very closely with them throughout my professional life.
But at any rate, what I am talking about is just an inescapable artifact of how science is "done" in the real world: we can't be too sure of ourselves, because wildly counter-intuitive ideas...cont'd
@Skierkowa cont'd... often turn out to present the most elegant explanations of observed phenomena.
Also, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You keep accusing naturalists of being dogmatic, but that simply isn't how real scientists approach their views.
Naturalism is a working hypothesis. When you say that scientists treat it like a "faith," that only convinces me that, however educated or intelligent, you have no real understanding of the culture of professional science..cont'd
@Skierkowa I don't believe that anyone who has spent significant time in the lab--without an axe to grind or chip on their shoulder before they even got to grad school--could honestly come to see the majority of the scientific community as "dogmatic."
No one who says that can appreciate the rigor with which professional researchers attack their own beloved theories when probing for weakness. It's institutional. You just don't understand the people you are criticizing.
@Skierkowa I've not claimed that the majority of scientists are dogmatic on science. Yet Kuhn showed, historically, many have been. Many are also dogmatic on their faith in naturalism. I recall backing a prominent biologist into a logical corner on God's existence. He face was red with anger & he was sputtering, but he had no rational response. Yes, most scientists are rigorous in their work, but they can be dogmatic on foundations. History proves this. I've experienced both. Peace, Dennis
@Skierkowa I know no wildly counter intuitive ideas required by science, but that depends on how good your intuition is. I do agree that accepted hypotheses can be over turned, & so are not equal to truths known by experience & deduction. They are the basis of human knowledge. If they were unreliable, science would be impossible. So they are far more fundamental than hypotheses. Naturalism is proven false, but worse it is not seen as a hypothesis, but as a criterion of truth. Sad. Peace, Dennis
@Skierkowa I think it suffers from trying to project the data onto a particle model. If you discard the notion of particles, which never existed in reality anyway (they were a (Newtonian construct), then most of the difficulties disappear. I plan to do a video on this and show how simple it all is. Peace, Dennis
@dfpolis I don't see how that answers my question. For one thing, you don't seem to be proposing anything novel, there, and for another thing, that idea IS counter-intuitive! The idea of our universe not "really" containing particles (although it would be better, I think, to say that we just misunderstood the NATURE of particles) is the very DEFINITION of counter-intuitive.
@Skierkowa You asked if I think QM is counter-intuitive. I said I don't, & hinted why. If you ever looked at the ocean, the idea of interacting waves is part of your experience & intuition. Continuous media are more intuitive than particles, which have never been observed. They are a construct fusing the ideas of mass & abstract points. Quantum field theory has a locality postulate requiring continuous fields. I don't claim to have novel physics, just a more consistent interpretation. Peace, DP
@Skierkowa Descartes clearly claimed that he existed as a thinking being. He later noted that he also had and extended body. Thus, you are confused. You are trying to defend the thesis that we know nothing. So, one point of knowledge all I need establish to rebut you. The problem is that you take science as a paradigm for all knowledge. It is not. Science began because there were already known facts to be explained. Some explanations can be deduced. Others are hypothetical & need checking.
@Skierkowa I knew this before I found Dr. Polis' answer: I have showed that human committed intentions and the laws of nature are 2 species in a common genus. If you think they not say why. If they are then there is more than analogy here. There is a generic identity. Peace, Dennis
You're ostriches and teenagers are not intentional acts and all natural laws, you're making the fallacy of appealing to all 2-legged creatures using a silly and unrelated example of teenage ostriches. 8)
@shizzleman8 You're misunderstanding my argument. Its rhetorical force is rooted in formal propositional logic. No offense intended, but "the fallacy of appealing to all 2-legged creatures using a silly and unrelated example of teenage ostriches" is not a formal fallacy.
If you have demonstrated a relationship between intention and natural laws using evidence, that would be a separate argument. This does not in any way vindicate dfpolis's argument,which is a gross formal fallacy.
@Skierkowa You have no argument you're "just saying" Dennis Polis Ph.D in Theoretical Physics is making a mistake. He's not you are. We've pointed this out to you now THREE TIMES! Some fool gave you a compliment and now you're making an argument from pigheadedness on what I'm doing! You started with a conclusion that you're right about something and that you have "evidence", and a 70 yr. old respected Philosopher and Physicist is incorrect about something. YOU'RE WRONG, GET IT? YOU'RE WRONG
@Skierkowa He's proved that it's not an undistributed middle because he's shown that human committed intentions and the laws of nature ARE 2 SPECIES IN A COMMON GENUS. If you think they are not SAY WHY. If they are then there is more than analogy here. THERE IS A GENERIC IDENTITY. You're a 28 yr. old going on 15! I've never seen this man make a mistake in 8 months answering in real time people who object to his science that are immeasureably more billiant than you! Give it a rest.
@Skierkowa He answered your question to the one who gave you praise for it. Look at the comments and the time, he didn't need to answer your assumption twice did he? In your mind you think you're winning, but it took me to point this SIMPLE FACT out to you. You're straining out gnats and swallowing camels. PAY ATTENTION, stop presuming to be a lecturer and listen to the lecturer. If your pie hole is opening and closing you're not learning anything and you're probably wrong, shut it and learn.
@shizzleman8 Can't you believe what you believe without making judgments about other people's intelligence? You have no idea what my background and education are. I don't think he addressed what I said at all, but I don't think he's an idiot because of that.
I believe what logic and evidence tell me. Dennis's arguments are not persuasive to me, but I may be wrong. Why do you appeal to his "authority," though, when the majority of physicists disagree with him? Do their degrees not count?
@Skierkowa According to Dean Radin Ph.d the leading researcher in random number generation as outlined here by DOCTOR Polis 65% of ALL SCIENTISTS accept the reality of the supernatural. You believe what logic and evidence tell you but you don't even know what the majority of scientists (physicists included) believe about what Dr. Polis is making abundantly clear. Set aside your prejudice and read the book on meta-analysis then watch this video again afterwards. Who knows this material better?
@shizzleman8 Even if Dr. Polis is correct that natural laws are intentional, the specific argument he uses in this video is a fallacy. Maybe he has other, better arguments, as well, but that's beside the point. I pointed out a flaw in reasoning; I didn't commit myself to attacking a worldview.
That being said, the fact that 65% a scientists (a much smaller percentage than of Gen. Pop., by the way,) have supernatural beliefs does not mean they treat those beliefs as scientific.
@Skierkowa CONTINUED... If a person is raised Christian and then becomes a scientist, they usually don't abandon their beliefs, but that does not mean that person's Christianity just became a scientific theory.
Radin, on the other hand, is putting forward his metaphysical belief system as a scientific hypothesis. Most scientists explicitly reject this approach, and consider it pseudoscience, even if they do have private supernatural views.
@Skierkowa I would say that a 14-16 sigma effect counts as extraordinary. The level for confirmation of the Higgs boson is 5 as I recall. Still, calling a claim "extraordinary" is completely subjective. Most people know that our minds control our voluntary acts. In logic, changing the rules is the fallacy of special pleading. Of course, naturalists must exempt themselves from the normal rules of objective evidence and logical consistency to maintain their faith. Peace, Dennis
@dfpolis If I wanted to, Doctor, I could accuse you of being beholden to pseudoscience, and imagine all sorts of explanations for it, but I don't. This is because the more I learn about science, the more humble I become. My understanding from numerous minds greater than my own is that this trend continues even into golden years of long, brilliant scientific careers.
Your hyperbole is not in keeping with that. A scientist says "I disagree," not "You are wrong."
@Skierkowa On what objective basis, as opposed to the naturalist faith, could one say that conclusions backed by more than 1000 experiments are pseudo science? Did I say "you are wrong"? No, I just gave you the facts. Peace, Dennis
@dfpolis Of course you did. You just referred to naturalism as a "faith." If you don't understand how that sort of hyperbole is out of place, then we truly see the world in incompatible ways.
Even if you think you can PROVE that naturalism is a faith, as a scientist, you still ought not to be so bold. I believe I can "prove" that homeopathy is bull, but I don't make snide references to the "faith" of it's users, because I know that even people who agree would not take me seriously..CONTINUED
@Skierkowa CONTINUED...This isn't because such an attitude is "impolite," or other aesthetic concerns, but because it is utterly incompatible with the rigor demanded by the scientific method.
Also, how are these conclusions "backed by more than 1000 experiments?" I don't see room here even for one testable hypothesis, much less 1000 or more positive results. I'd really like to see you explain this point more fully.
@Skierkowa The scientific method is precisely that naturalism violates. That method is a posteriori. Naturalism is a priori. Of course, the scientific method is not the only method. If it were all data would be hypothetical. Instead data are cold facts deduced from observations. That is how I know, not hypothesize, that naturalism is a faith -- because it is a commitment (to a restricted reality) not justified by evidence. A scientific mindset is open. Naturalism is closed. Cont'd.
@Skierkowa I explained in my video. The meta-analyses I cited examined over 1000 controlled experiments in which the variable controlled for was the presence or absence of the intention to control a random physical process. The result was significant to 16 standard deviations. This is far larger than the 5 sigma standard being applied to show the reality of the Higgs boson. You can read the meta-analyses I cited for more details. Peace, Dennis
@Skierkowa Naturalism claims it's scientific, but is an a priori belief. That is no hyperbole, just a truth. Science is empirical. Naturalism is a priori & anti-empirical. We do have very different world views. I think we must examine reality & see what it tells us. Naturalists believe we can limit it before examining it. This is not a hypothesis, but an observation. If you disagree, tell me why. A position is not a faith because it is right or wrong, but because it lacks evidence. Continued
@dfpolis You must be making a reference to something other than the term "sigma effect" as I understand it. For one thing, the Higgs Boson is a particle, not a compound, solution, or suspension. For another, it is, to my knowledge, still theoretical. I don't understand how a test of apparent viscosity could be conducted, even in principle, on the Higgs boson. Furthermore, I don't understand what relevance viscosity tests could have on statements about the intentionality of natural constants.
@Skierkowa 1 sigma means 1standard deviation. The size of a standard deviation is set by the variance in the data. 16 sigma means the difference between the averages in the cases with & without intentional control is 16 times the likely error. Thus, we have 2 very well separated peaks in the data. The idea is that if the averages are not well separated, they could be due to chance fluctuations. The odds I cite in the video are those for getting the result by chance & are nearly 0. Peace, Dennis
@Skierkowa If evidence was a rottweiler and snuck up behind you and took a big wet bite out of your lilly white ass you wouldn't recognize it as such. You make dozens of fatal mistakes in your writing. Just like my Dad, the U.S. Admiral before me, I only sleep a few hours a night, less than 1/2 the amount you do. If you add those years onto the 50 I've been alive you'd quickly realize that for me this is tantamount to you arguing with a 4 year old. Look at what the Dr. wrote to me about you!!
@Skierkowa The argument is "aboutness" is the defining mark of intentionality. Brentano argued this, & it is accepted by most philosophers. Since the laws of nature meet the definition of intentionality, they are intentional. So, the proper analogy is: An equilateral triangle is triangle with three equal sides. This is a triangle with 3 equal sides. This is an equilateral triangle. I also showed that human commitments & the laws of nature are 2 species in the same genus. Peace, Dennis
@dfpolis Perhaps there was no undistributed middle, if I understand you correctly, but I remain unconvinced. Since the natural laws are, in fact, human descriptions of observed phenomena, it seems impossible to me that we could asses the intentionality of the phenomena themselves.
Until we understand WHY the "Laws" work the way they do, how can we separate them from our very human thoughts ABOUT them?
Also, this is as much as to say that consistency equals consciousness. Do you believe that?
@Skierkowa The laws of physics are human descriptions. The laws of nature have operated at least since the big bang. If they didn't, the evolution of the cosmos & life would have no reason. Our descriptions aren't the reason. The laws we try to describe are. How do we separate anything from our thought? Because many experiences are caused by the part of reality we call "nature." To be conscious is to be aware, not consistent. Reality is self-consistent. We can be inconsistent. Peace, DP
You finally got through to me on the file drawer effect. I'm getting it, I really am, 6 or 7 months ago I didn't even know what a random number generator was, today the light came on in regard to the more than 1,000 peer reviewed articles that Dr. Radin refered to when he was asked on Oprah. The athesists are missing the meta-analysis, and thinking that one study was done that contradicts all the studies you're making us aware of. Everything you're explaining is mystical & accurate.
@dfpolis Per chance I just read Dean Radin Ph.D short bio yesterday. His classifed military research has mostly been declassified now. He writes that the opinions written about it are equally as incorrect as correct. He aslo wrote about the con artist psychics who used to have all the infomercials. I enjoy his sense of humor also. Recently I've seen 3 Dr. Craig debates, (Harris, Krauss, and Slezak). He's the only one who responds to others propositions while his are consistently ignored! 8)
@dfpolis You do a much better job with real time objections on everything under the sun then even Dr. Craig, I think you may have missed your calling. I much would have preferred a debate between you and Victor Stenger for example. I couldn't believe my ears when Dr. Krauss during his debate with Dr. Craig became a hostile witness and said that we as humans are hardwired to believe. Better to have just kept him off the witness stand.
I've been practicing and learning Tiny Dancer, THANKS!!
@dfpolis I think I pounced on @Skierkowa a bit heavy, I try to be patient, it's just that when I first started using youtube everyone and their brother brought up logical fallacies to the point you couldn't make a point, and no one was even identifying the fallacies, or using them in the correct way. Argument to authority is what stare decisis is based on, points and authorities, case law. My Dad had a J.D. and taught me the law every day. Heck, I needed it, still do. We all want recoginition.
@shizzleman8 His point was the result of confusing a definition with a universal affirmative proposition. If I were not busy, I would have answered him when he posted his misunderstanding. Peace, Dennis
There seems to be a problem in your perception of the laws of nature. The laws exist as the limits of what can happen; the limitations of the physical world. They aren't about anything. For example, the law of conservation of energy isn't about conserving energy. The man made explanation is about it. Energy just doesn't get created or destroyed. It's not like energy was created and destroyed prior to the founding of this law.
@xlanciferionx You are confusing descriptions & described. The "laws of physics" are approximate descriptions of aspects of nature. They exist in our minds describing a reality, "laws of nature." The laws of nature operated before we evolved, causing cosmic & biological evolution. They have no material parts, but they guide the processes they are about, as our intentions guide the behavior they are about. Even naturalists like Dennett & Dawkins see their intentional nature. Peace, DP
@xlanciferionx Writing of "founding this law" refers to a description. I am discussing the laws operating in nature. If they did not exist, we could not discover them, the laws of physics would be fictions, and the evolution of life and the universe would be unexplained. Dawkins' Selfish Gene shows how genes act in a way indistinguishable from selfish intent. Dennett's Intentional Stance outlines how natural processes fit the same template of intent as humans. Peace, DP
As am I. Our descriptions of how things are fit quite well, but the "laws" don't exist. Those are merely our descriptions of how things are. We merely categorize them to understand them. Anthropomorphizing the world around us is quite common for humans. We've done it for millennia. However, it's not an accurate way to describe the world.
"Dawkins"
Still not an endorsement of "intentionality" of the laws of nature. If so, explain.
@xlanciferionx If the laws do not exist, then their descriptions are fictions. Is that your position? I am not anthropomorphizing. God is not like us. No term can be univocally predicated of God and humans. I did not say that Dawkins said the laws of nature are intentional. He is not a very deep thinking. What he shows is that nature acts in accord with the paradigm of intentionality, as does Dennett. Actions inform us of the nature of things. So, acting intentionally shows intent. Peace, DP
No. The laws don't exist. Things just are. Our descriptions are accurate portrayals of what we observe, but since we cannot grasp things on that level, we must use abstract concepts to interpret our observations.
"God is not like us"
Is there a god? If so, what evidence is there?
"I did not say..."
I must have mistaken, "Even naturalists like Dennett & Dawkins see their intentional nature."
One would assume that the one being referred to would state such.
@xlanciferionx It would be foolish to say we understand the laws of nature as God does. Still, since we discover the laws of physics in nature, they operate and so exist prior to being found. If they did not, our descriptions would be SciFi, not science. Our concepts ARE abstractions - they only grasp part of the reality. I gave a proof of God's existence in video #15. "Intentional" can refer to mind or a product of mind. I don't understand the last sentence. Peace, DP
Sorry. I'll clarify it. I had assumed that your referring to Dennett and Dawkins having "seen intention" in the laws of nature was a statement that they endorsed the idea that there is intention in the laws of nature. The way you had presented the idea seemed as though this was what they had seen, and admitted so themselves.
@xlanciferionx I am asserting that they say the factors entering into my analysis are real. Not that they believe the laws of nature are products of Mind. They say nature acts "as though" it were intentional. The point is what I see in nature is seen by others not holding there is Mind behind nature. So, what I see, - the data entering the analysis - is not a projection of my beliefs into reality, but something admitted by opponents. Peace, DP
"They say nature acts "as though" it were intentional."
Again, it comes down to the ball. Does it roll because that's what it's intentions are, or is that just the result of the circumstances surrounding the ball? Is it going against its own intentions by not rolling?
"not a projection of my beliefs into reality"
I fail to see how that is anything but the case here.
@xlanciferionx You are confused. I am not saying balls have intentions. If I throw a ball it goes where I intent, not where IT intends. So, you are attacking a point I am not making. I have showed that human committed intentions and the laws of nature are 2 species in a common genus. If you think they not say why. If they are then there is more than analogy here. There is a generic identity. Peace, Dennis
Nor is my example an attack upon intention. You said nature acts as though it were intentional. A ball rolling down a hill acts as though it were intentional, even if the person that put it there intended otherwise. The issue is that the illusion of intentionality does not equate to intentionality. Sure, gravity, the force itself, is acting upon the ball, but the laws of gravity are merely our descriptions of gravity's operation.
@xlanciferionx I said that Dennett & Dawkins affirm that nature acts in a way that seems intentional. They give no sound argument for why nature is other than it seems. The ball rolling seems intentional because it is acting under the guidance of intentional laws - my original point. Not every prima facie appearance is accurate, but, empiricism requires us to accept them until we have reason not to. The reason offered vs teleology is that mechanisms explain things. Cont'd.
@xlanciferionx Cont. But, that is no argument at all. Mechanism explains how watches work, but that is not an argument against them being the product of human intent, or having purposes. Indeed, given an end, it cannot be effected without adequate means or mechanisms. Thus not only are adequate mechanisms compatible with ends, they are required by them. Naturalists have no viable argument against intentionality. Calling it an illusion is special pleading and a pure faith statement. Peace, Dennis
If I put a ball on a hill, does it roll down it because it intends to do so, or does it just do so? Would you say that the ball has intent? If so, explain.
@xlanciferionx Dawkins says genes act as though driven by selfish intent. We know the inner reality of things by their actions. As genes have no minds, the operative intent can't come from them, but must be imposed from without. In The Intentional Stance, Dennett shows that many things act with apparent intent. Thermostats reflect the intent of engineers, markets of investors and nature of God. The ball acts by intentional laws of natue, i.e. God's intent, not its own. Peace, DP.
"Dawkins says genes act as though driven by selfish intent"
The key words, here, are "as though." That could hardly be said to be a statement that shows that genes act with intent. A ball acts *as though* its intent is to roll. Yet, when left alone, the ball doesn't roll. Is the ball defying God, by not following God's intention of the ball's rolling?
Dennett's Intentional Stance fails at the level of "Nature's Laws." After all, this would mean that gravity could refuse to work, should it not feel like it, or momentum could decide to completely reverse how it works, all on a whim. These things are all within keeping with Dennett's Intentional Stance. If I'm wrong, please explain.
@xlanciferionx You are confusing intentionality with free will. They are quite different. Many philosophers admit intentions exist, while denying free will does. Again, clocks show intent, but have no free will. I am not saying that the laws have a mind of their own any more than this sentence has a mind of its own. Intentions are the product of mind, not the mind itself. Peace, DP
Intentions are the product of mind. You said so. If there is no mind, then there is no intent, since there can be no intentions. If the laws have a mind, show it. If not, then how can they possibly have intentions, thereby having intent?
@xlanciferionx The laws do not have a mind, they are the product of mind. Just as my words do not have a mind, but are the product of my mind. It is easy to show that The laws depend on a being that maintains them in operation, and through them the universe. (#15). Since the laws of nature and human commitments have the same essential nature, they are both intentional. As our commitments come from our mind, so must the laws of nature come from a mind in the being holding them in operation. Peace
@xlanciferionx "confusing descriptions & described" Of course our descriptions are intentional because they are human products. But, the laws they describe is also intentional because they are as much about the processes they effect as our commitments to act are about the behavior they effect. The sign of aboutness is a relation to what the putative intention is about. "The laws do not exist." To exist is to be able to act. The laws act in 2 clear ways: They control time development (cont)
No. They're simply how things are. The laws have been categorized by us, for us. Without categorizing them, we'd fail to be able to effectively communicate our observances to others.
"sign of aboutness"
That's just my point. They aren't "about" anything, much like you or I aren't "about" anything.
"To exist is to be able to act."
Then, rocks do not exist. Rocks are incapable of acting. Would you say that they do not exist?
@xlanciferionx If you saw that there is no explanation for how things are, you have abandoned the scientific approach to reality. I showed why laws are intentional. If you disagree show how I failed. But the laws are about things. The law of gravity is about how masses are attracted. Conservation of charge is about how charges remain unchanged. Rocks act in many ways: attracting other masses gravitationally, scattering light, resisting compression. Anything that interACTS, acts. Peace, Dennis
I never said there wasn't an explanation for how things are, just that we categorized them for lack of ability to understand them as a whole.
"I showed why laws are intentional"
No. You showed that our descriptions of the laws are about something. You showed that intentional acts are about something. Then, you used "about something" as a connection, without really addressing how the laws act with intent.
@xlanciferionx No, I was not discussing our descriptions, but the laws operative in nature. I showed that those laws are about the ends they strive to effect, just as human intentions are about the ends they strive to effect. I showed that both are the basis in reality for logical propagators, and so in the same genus. The laws act with intent in the same way we do. They are present dispositions to future state effected by incremental steps. Peace, Dennis
@xlanciferionx (Cont'd) & they act to inform us they exist. Naturalists say that the laws of physics only describe what happens, but they assume that they act normatively when they use them to argue against free will and miracles. We can only know what can act to inform us. (Information is the reduction of possibility. To instantiate a possibility is to act.) If the laws did not act to inform us, we would have no knowledge of their existence. See The Intentional Stance & The Selfish Gene.
Not really. Time is merely a measure of change. The rate of change is merely how it is.
"they act to inform us they exist"
How does a law act? Please, explain that one.
"to instantiate..."
Essentially, what you're saying is that we know our abstract concepts are real because another abstract concept of ours is the confirmation of their existence. Is this correct?
"If the laws did not act..."
They don't exist. They're our interpretations of reality.
@xlanciferionx You reject the scientific worldview. Noting just happens. Everything has a concurrent explanation. The law of gravity acts to produce a force on masses. Conservation laws act to prevent various forms of logically possible change. I am not saying abstractions are physical causes, but that they result from reality acting to inform us. The laws of physics are our "interpretations" of reality. The laws of nature were active in nature before we evolved or science is dead. Peace, DP
I've already addressed The Intentional Stance a month ago.
"The Selfish Gene"
This, too, has been addressed numerous times. The whole "as though" argument fails since it isn't a definitive "because" argument. For example: They act as though they have a mind. They act because they have a mind. Two entirely different scenarios. Without proof of the "mind" behind the action, there is no reason to assume it exists.
@xlanciferionx Then you recall that Dennett holds that nature acts in a way we call intentional. As intentionaloty is a human concept, whatever properly evokes it is an instance of intentionality. I am not arguing causes in saying how things fall into natural kinds. The first step in science is to classify phenomena. Then we apply the rule that similar phenomena have similar causes. Parsimony requires us not to multiply causes without reason as you suggest. Peace, Dennis
My conception of the ideal gas law may be “about” the behaviour of (an idealised) gas; but the principle of statistical mechanics that: PV=NkT, is something which consists in nature independently of my, or any other beings, conception of it. It is thus misleading to claim that natural laws are intentional because they are about the things they help predict and explain.
@wisdominnature7 The video makes no claims about the human concepts I call the laws of physics (e.g.PV=nRT). It discusses the laws controlling processes IN nature, which I call the laws of nature, & which you agree exist independently of being known. Thus, your criticism is misdirected. The laws of nature are about natural operations just as committed intentions are about human operations. They are also logical propagators in the sense that they are a basis in reality for predictions. Peace, DP
You claim laws of nature are intentional because they are ‘about’ what they govern. However, this is equivocal regarding the meaning of the term “about”; the relation ‘X is about Y’, were X is a law or principle of nature and Y the set of regularities it is employed to explain, is not the same as that wherein X is a mental state, such as a belief, and Y a physical state, such as ‘the butter being in the fridge’. Laws of nature need not possess the mental property of intentionality.
@wisdominnature7 My claim rests on 3 arguments: (1) aboutness, (2) membership in the genus of logical propagators, & (3) their being seen as intentional by opponents like Dawkins & Dennett. Your argument shows only that we come to know intentionality in different ways, not equivocation. We may know it via first person experience, or as a third person observer. Observers have no direct knowledge of mental states, but infer them from objective relations. Inferring is not equivocating. Peace, DP
Either laws of nature are “intentional” or they are not; you have yet to demonstrate that they are (on Brentano’s conception of 'intentionality' as the 'mark of the mental’)
@wisdominnature7 I've shown they're about the future states they lead to just as human committed human intentions are about the goals they lead to. Naturalists claim to want more correspondence between mental & physical processes, yet when it is shown them, they object it does not meet their prejudices. Your criterion requires us to see the laws from a first person perspective. Not being God, we can only have the third person perspective we always have with others' mental states. Peace, DP
You haven’t shown it; you’ve just used an equivocation to imply it: i.e. intentionality is ‘aboutness’, laws of nature are ‘about’ future states; therefore laws of nature are intentional.
The shortcomings in this argument have nothing to do with prejudice, at least not mine, but rather with a lack of commitment to unambiguously saying what you mean. Many would hold that laws of nature are not about things in the same sense that mental states are, you need to address their concerns.
@wisdominnature7 You need to ask yourself how we judge that the directed acts of another person, who has not voiced their intentions, are determined to be intentional. It is not by starting, as you seem to demand, with a knowledge of their mental state. Rather, we see if their behavior reflects a consistent time-development directed to a final state or goal. This approach is not mine alone, but is used by eliminative materialists, e.g Dennett, to explain the idea of intentions. Peace, DP
2. Eliminative materialists deny the very existence of intentionality; whilst Dennett, who is a teleofunctionalist, only conserves it as a weakly emergent property localised to use in a highly specialised methodological stance undertaken in an entirely naturalistic ontology.
Sorry, you may have been a perfectly competent physicist, but your understanding of philosophy is all over the place :(
@wisdominnature7 I know Dennett's Intentional Stance. My point is he uses external criteria to define intentionality, as do theory-theorists. You seem to hold the intentionality discussed by theory-theorists is not that experienced as a mental state. I hold they are two projections of the same reality: The same intention can be both experienced as a mental state by the agent, & posited by external observers as a means of prediction. Disagreeing is not misunderstanding. Peace, DP
1. Naturalists, like me, don’t demand psychological research start with knowledge of our own mental states; indeed, it is anti-naturalists who typically propose immediate conscious experience as an alternative foundation for knowledge…
@wisdominnature7 I am well aware that naturalists methodologically reject all data on subjectivity. That is why my approach, which is open to ALL data, is far superior. I do not claim introspective data is an alternative to objective data, but that both are projections, dimensionally diminished maps, of the same reality, viz., the mind. An adequate model must integrate all the data. Rejecting data on an a priori basis is a rampant for on anti-empiricism. Peace, DP
Another problem with meta-analyses you don't mention is that in some cases it only takes a handful of poorly controlled experiments to be included to 'poison the well'. Not only that, it is sometimes hard enough to validate the methodology of a single experiment let alone an analysis involving, as one you quote here, 515 seperate studies!
However, this isn't really my problem with psychokenisis.....
...my real problem is that it is just too good to be true. Just like allied assertions of telepathic ability, how can something so incredibly potentially advantageous be so underdeveloped after 500 million years of multi-cellular evolution? That just seems so implausible to me that it raises the evidential bar very very high indeed.
I also didn't quite understand your jump from these results to 'altering the laws of nature' which disregarded any explanations that may ....
@noelplum99 "Laws of nature" is equivocal. It can mean what physics says, or what is going on in nature. We know they are not the same. Physics says we should have a random process. Nature says, not quite, it depends on intent. That is an experimental fact. I put data above theory. The laws of nature respond to intent. The laws of physics do not. So, what leap am I making? I'm saying whatever actually controls nature IS the law of nature. As this changes with intent, intent modifies the laws.
@noelplum99 Simple: Feedback. Any effective control process uses feedback as an essential element. Running open-loop is a poor control strategy. A .0001 effect does not provide a lot of feedback. Look at how long it takes a baby to learn to control its body given continual feedback during waking hours. Some children are not even potty trained till 3, 4, or 5 and bed wet till 7-10. It takes a very long time to be really good at sports. Stenger set the bar at p=.0001. z=4.1 to 18 is way beyond.
I really don't understand how this feedback argumnts ties in. I framed an evolutionary argument why i feel it would evolve and evolve soon and often (like physical manipulation has, audible forms of manipulation has etc) and i fail to see how feedback is any kind of defence. Sure it takes a human baby a few years to walk and control its body but i have to tell you dennis, nothing you mention here does not precisely emphasise my point by being commonplace throughout nature.
@noelplum99 Re feedback: We connect mental states we are aware of with behavior by feedback. A baby wants to grab a bottle. His hand goes one way. That is not the right mental state, so try another. Eventually it finds the sequence of intents that will get the bottle in its mouth. Then they become a hard wired subroutine that can be called by a single intent. If our PK intent results in no observable change, we don't know if we are doing it right. I do not see that evolution is involved.
Well, a lot of evolved characteristics have clearly happened with the encumbent organims blissfully unaware of what is happening. So even if our willpower produces a bias that we are blissfully unaware of that does not preclude it from being evolutionarily advantageous nor of providing a selection advantage which is tue first step up the ramp. In other words, we do not need to know we are doing it right, evolution will simply select those who are on our behalf.
@noelplum99 I thought you were asking why we haven't learned to exercise direct and manifest intentional control over nature. The answer is feedback. I think, with Plantinga, that evolution has no traction in selecting a veridical intellect, and therefore can't explain the intentional subsystem. But, if it did, that would not support your objection. The small effect size might only mean are in the early stages of evolving intentional control of other objects. Peace, DP
My answer to that would be that in each and every way we express control over our environment the intentional level, in the way you describe, has followed aeons after the unintentional/mechanistic, whatever term you prefer. I mean i think i understand your arguments in this video and the last and that you are not proposing anything 'spooky' here whereby there is some level of physics denied to anything other than an organism with intentionality.... so i have to ask:
Why isn't a significant portion of the abundant and varied life on earth taking advantage of the same physics the intentional subsystem is taking advantage of as is the case in everything else? - doing a quick search on my phone here i see your mr radin is quoted as predicting we will be opening our garage doors in the future in this way.... i just think if Radin can see the advantages how can evolution have missed such a trick?
@noelplum99 As I said in #15, I see the laws of nature as coming from intentionality, and not vice versa. The laws are intents. So, you have to be able to originate intent to perturb a law. How do you get an intentional subsystem? Well, if you are Searle, you say it is an emergent property. If you are Aquinas, you say God gives them by a special creation. I can't see any empirical way to differentiate these positions. Can you? If you grant God exists, I am not sure there is any difference.
Well I haven't seen all your series (so many many things to watch and see in life, Dennis) but given this slant of yours on the laws of nature why are we jumping back into those murky depths rather than sticking with the underlying physics. Whatever the physics involved, magnetism, electricity, electromagnetic radiation, pressure waves, direct physical contact, whatever, organisms were using and exploiting these phenomena before developing any kind of intentional subsystem.....
... and i still can't quite fathom why you maintain this would have to be some kind of exception. the only grounds I could imagine would be if you proposed this was some kind of phenomenon based on a mechanism of interaction that simply doesn't exist in the physics of the universe sans intentionality.
"I can't see any empirical way to differentiate these positions. Can you?"
Maybe not. An interesting question and i would be dumb to commit without further thought......
...one thing i will say is that it does make me want to invest that time further into going through your videos with a view to developing an opinion on questions such as that (the only initial thought is if we can EVER differentiate between a naturalistic explanation and special creation sufficient to rule out special creation, because how ever compelling our explanation is it does not preclude this alternative)
@noelplum99 I am trying to keep faith out of the philosophy. It motivates my questions, but I try not to overstep the data and reason. My objective is to build a model that incorporates the data and is open to further elaboration. Peace, DP.
Actually i appreciate the bounds in which you are working and it is a fine line. I am almost tempted in every post to ask why you do not apply your philosophy of 'data above all' to catholic doctrine and dogma ...... but, hey, i am trying to keep the conversation on the straight and narrow too!
@noelplum99 Faith is not knowledge, but commitment. The question is "is this worthy of my commitment?", not "can I make a rational case?" If it contradicts what i know for a fact, then it is not worthy of my commitment. Peace, DP
@noelplum99 The data says control runs are random and live runs show a shift that stands up to years of confirmation. Data rules! I am integrating it with physics. I am not saying intent "pushes" as a physical force. It works in the intentional theater of ops, not the physical theater. The "universal" laws are intentional. Our commitments are too, and so one intention perturbs another. The result is a law that works like any law, but not universally. That is what the data say. Peace, DP
@noelplum99 Physics is hypothetical: falsifiable hypotheses with verified ranges of application. Each has experimentally mapped limits. Newtonian physics does not apply to quantum scales or relativistic energies. In PK we are finding yet another experimental limit to the hypothesis of universality of the laws of physics. The actual laws of nature are how nature really behaves, not how physics thinks it will. Yes, physics explains a lot of biol. But it rightly excludes subjectivity (#12). Peace
Your use of 'laws of nature' confuses me. At once you say the laws of nature 'as coming from intentionality' (which i presumed you meant the intentionality you see sourced in the brain and not the 'hypothetical laws of physics') and 'how nature really behaves'.
I don't think these two statements are even remotely consistent, in fact they seem almost determinedly confusing.
@noelplum99 In #12 I examine the laws. They meet Brentano's criterion of intentionality and are like human intentions in being logical propagators. This is independent of any theism. (In #15 the source of the laws is God. So, they are God's general intentions for matter.) Our choices are also intentions & can modify the general laws as one intent modifying another. Does that help? Peace, DP
@noelplum99 If you read the meta-analysis articles, as I have, you will see that authors are very careful about assessing methodological quality. They have shown that while quality has increased through the years there has not been a corresponding change in effect size. The 2003 study compares pre- and post-1987 data and finds the differences are statistically insignificant. A skeptical 2006 study threw out 2/3 of the experiments and still found a small but significant effect.
Well, you have me at a disadvantage having not read the study. It sounds interesting, though, and i should like to check it out and other analyses of it (i am assuming the studies were not universally accepted as readily as you have, hence i should lie to judge for myself the criticisms that may have been levelled) if you can link up the titles and journals involved.
@noelplum99 Google: Radin & Nelson (1989) “Evidence of Consciousness-Related Anomalies...” Found of Phys, 19, 1499-514. Radin & Ferrari (1991) “Effects of Consciousness on the Fall of Dice ...,” J of Sci Explor 5:1, 61-83. Nelson (2003) “Meta-analysis of mind-matter interaction experiments: 1959-2000.” In Jonas & Crawford, Healing, Intention and Energy Medicine. Against: Bösch. Steinkamp & Boller (2006) “Examining Psychokinesis ...,” Psych Bull, 132:4, 497-523 See reply by Radin et. al. Peace
@noelplum99 No problem. All but Bösch are free on line. It has only an abstract. You can however read the discussion on line, and it shows that Bösch ignored proof that his hypothesis of a constant effect size per bit had been falsified by a massive experiment in a paper he included in his study.
Not many seem to be following these videos but I am enjoying them.
I just wondered why you limit it to human intentions? I presume you discard the intentions of other primates even when they appear to display them but I wonder on what grounds?
If you took your philsophy seriously you would engage me in a converstation when I critsized one of your videos. But since you said to go make my own in so many words. I am not going to listen to your cheap version of philosophy any more.
alaudun2 3 days ago
@alaudun2 I took your criticism to be on my presentation, not on the substance of what I said. If you have a substantive objection, please state it clearly, and I will try to address it. If it is about how I state my ideas, then if you can say them in a better way, please do. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 3 days ago
This one you have to improve this on. All those gigantic figures make you loose the meaning of what you are saying. You need to to simply what you are saying. As they used to say when I was in school, you need to reduce it to the lowest common denomenator.
alaudun2 4 days ago
@alaudun2 Feel free to take any parts you like and use them to produce an improved video -- or just make a new one from scratch. I look forward to seeing the improved version. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 4 days ago
He's going to read your paper when he has time, I bet you're looking forward to that call.
shizzleman8 1 week ago
@shizzleman8 He who?
dfpolis 1 week ago
@dfpolis Skierkowa, you were talking to him 6 months ago. What I wrote is a line from the movie Mother with Albert Brooks, and Debbie Reynolds. The mom gets a new T.V. and tells the installers, "It has too much green", "It just hasn't had a chance to warm up", they go back and forth and then she says, "If I don't like it I'm going to be giving you a call", "Oh Boy, I'll be looking forward to that!". I've been reading your book, it's like everybody's book and whey they're wrong! lol
shizzleman8 1 week ago
A study of improvising musicians or a jam secession might help review this idea. There is an anomaly of meta physical things going on in even a simple blues jam. There is a determined pattern a 145. But within that pattern people can literally communicate without talking. I can have moments of foreknowledge so strong about what someone is going to do, not because of a predetermined practice, but a I just "felt" it situation. Is this an example of (multi)mind and (multi)body connections?
MereChristianLogic 2 months ago in playlist More videos from dfpolis
@MereChristianLogic I do think that we can be aware of what others are thinking and planning. Part of this may be physical, reflecting past experience and/or body language, but there is solid scientific data (and tons of experiential episodes) showing we can read other people's minds. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 2 months ago
@dfpolis You know where they're all coming from because they're all like the same person. "There is no evidence of a god's existence". This one is my favorite from people who actually watched #15, "He jumps to the conclusion 'god diddit' without providing any premises". Yeah, I can see you read all the comments!
There are lots of different arguments this one proves God's existence. < That's classic!
shizzleman8 4 months ago
@shizzleman8 :) Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 4 months ago
But you can ignore all of my other comments if you can give me a satisfactory answer to this question: what testable predictions are produced by your theory of intentionality?
Skierkowa 6 months ago
@Skierkowa My theory is our intentions are able to control our body, not by a direct force, but by acting in their proper, intentional, theater of operations. They act to modify other intentional realities, specifically the laws of nature approximated by physics. I. e., they perturb the general laws. If so, our intentions can perturb physical processes. This is verified by the experiments on random number generators whose meta-analyses I discussed. Cont'd.
dfpolis 6 months ago
@Skierkowa Cont. Another prediction is that if the laws of nature are intentional, they ought to produce results showing signs of intelligence. They do, as I showed this in my paper on mind in evolution (xianphil.org/Intent_evol.htm), and in my videos on evolution. Specifically, Aristotle made three falsifiable claims for teleology (refs. in my paper) & all are verified by evolutionary biology. This answers all the objections raised in connection with the mind-body problem. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 6 months ago
@dfpolis "Results showing signs of intelligence" is too poorly defined to be useful. We are each free to disagree with the other on what constitutes a reliable sign of intelligence. Can you be more specific? I'll take a closer look at your number generator point later, but I don't have time right now. I will read your paper, as well, if I have time.
Skierkowa 6 months ago
@Skierkowa I referred you to my paper and videos for specifics because there is too much to repeat in 500 character snippets. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 6 months ago
Why would naturalists be domgatic, anyhow? Scientists come from the gen pop, not a special island where they are bred and raised by atheist acolytes. Most people are raised to be religious. So where, then, would this naturalistic dogma come from? They certainly aren't bringing it to college from their parents, who are in most cases religious.
and why do you assert it is a priori? Naturalism isn't an axiom. Speaking for myself, I consider myself a naturalist...continued
Skierkowa 6 months ago
@Skierkowa continued...because I have found all arguments in favor of the supernatural to be profoundly wanting, including the Christianity in which I was raised. Believe me when I say that when I became a naturalist, it was very reluctantly.
And even still, I say with no trace of guile that I will change my mind as soon as I see a good reason to do so. In fact, I very frequently change my mind, although this is usually at the "frontier" of my understanding.
Skierkowa 6 months ago
@Skierkowa "Supernatural" is a biased term. God is essential to the operation of nature. How is that supernatural? The term covertly decouples reality. Awareness is natural, but "naturalists" insist my intentional subsystem, an aspect of my nature, is "supernatural." That is Orwellian, a biased vocabulary & a sign of irrationality. I suspect you misunderstood Christianity, but we can discuss that off-line. If you are open look at my videos #9-#15 on the laws of nature & God. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 6 months ago
@Skierkowa I don't pretend to read people's minds. I have only behavior to work from. Naturalists have irrational behavior. They fail to see that diverse problems require diverse methods. Many people apply what they know to all problems, even when inappropriate. Naturalism holds that all reality is like that studied in physics (my field) & so its methods can solve all problems. This is not given in experience, and so is an a priori assumption. We empiricists examine experience instead.
dfpolis 6 months ago
@dfpolis I would prefer to say that all sciences are REDUCIBLE to physics, rather than that "reality" is "like" physics, although it would be more accurate to say science is reducible to mathematics. Also, empiricism is not an alternative to naturalism. I, for one, am both.
On a related note, for me, naturalism--like atheism--is not a positive assertion, but a measured negation of other assertions.
Skierkowa 6 months ago
@Skierkowa I used to believe all science could be reduced to physics when I was in high school and starting college. Then I found out that not even chemistry could be strictly deduced from physics. The processes are too complex to work out. Instead, physics gives us useful approximations. There is no evidence for more than that, even in natural science. I BELIEVE the dynamics are those in physics, but really we don't KNOW. Chaos theory tells us we can't know in many cases. Cont'd
dfpolis 6 months ago
@Skierkowa Cont'd. Science is not reducible to math. You can start with as much abstract math as you like, & never know what describes reality & what doesn't. That is why physics is experimental and not deductive. Math is only applicable to the quantitative aspects of reality. How do you quantify my knowing I'm writing this? Naturalism Posits a priori criteria excluding possible realities. Don't be fooled, that is as anti-empirical as you can get. Both N and A are proven false. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 6 months ago
@dfpolis I can't quantify it in practice, but that doesn't mean I couldn't quantify it in principle. Now, I can admit that it's POSSIBLE that thoughts MIGHT be unquantifiable, but there are no clearly defined and supported mechanisms by which that might be true, that we know of.
Every time the opportunity has arisen to test the link between physics and chemistry, it has stood. For example, even properties like the shine of metals can be explained in terms of electron orbitals. cont'd...
Skierkowa 6 months ago
@Skierkowa ...cont'd With a vast body of evidence supporting the link, and none opposing it, it is reasonable to act and reason as if the link is solid.
In order for me to take seriously the notion that physics DOESN'T translate directly into chemistry, you would at LEAST have to conceive a notion of reality that would postulate that with greater explanatory power over observed phenomena.
Skierkowa 6 months ago
@Skierkowa My belief is a commitment to act as though I knew it was true. Still I do not KNOW it is true. I only choose to believe it. You can mix up knowledge & belief if you wish, but I prefer to be careful in accessing the status of my commitments, & not confuse the two. I'm not trying to get you to believe chemistry has new dynamics, only be open to the logical possibility that it might. There might be multi-body forces in chemistry. There are in the nucleus. I am saying be open. Peace, DP
dfpolis 6 months ago
@Skierkowa To apply math we need discrete or continuous quantity. Now, you might be able to count my intentions, but to apply physical methods, you need continuous quantity. That means what you quantify has to be indefinitely divisible. As intentions are not extended & do not have parts outside of parts (e.g. right & left halves) they are not continuously quantifiable. As they are not, they cannot be deduced from the equations of motion, which deal with continuous quantities.
dfpolis 6 months ago
@Skierkowa cont'd I said I believe chemistry obeys physics, but we do not know it, because many calculations are to complex to execute. I believe it because, as you say, the checks we can do have worked. But, a theory being viable is not the same as it's being known to be true. Reducibility means that we CAN do the calculations & come to the same answers chemists get by doing only physics, & never needing to do chemistry - belief is not enough unless you are satisfied with faith. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 6 months ago
Wow,reading the Doc's comments is like reading a dictionary,really cool till you get a headache lol
iwanttocrashmybike 6 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike My apologies. I wish I could offer you some cyber aspirin. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 6 months ago
@dfpolis lol Classic.
Some Curry Powder might work better=-)
iwanttocrashmybike 6 months ago
@iwanttocrashmybike Love curry! Peace DP
dfpolis 6 months ago
Your point about laws of nature commits the Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle.
P1: All Intentional acts are "about something"
P2: All Natural laws are "about something"
C: All Natural Laws are intentional .
This does not follow, because the idea of being "about something" is not distributed. Observe this counter example from William Brittain:
All ostriches are 2-legged.
All teenagers are 2-legged.
Therefore, all teenagers are ostriches.
Skierkowa 7 months ago
@Skierkowa
THANK YOU! His argument seemed so odd, and I couldn't quite place my finger on it. This clarified it for me.
xlanciferionx 7 months ago
@xlanciferionx Glad to help! I'm flattered, in fact!
Skierkowa 7 months ago
@xlanciferionx Sadly, Skierkowa does not know a definition when he sees one. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 6 months ago
@dfpolis Where is the humble language, the caveats which distinguish the speech of a true scientist? This is just patronizing.
Skierkowa 6 months ago
@Skierkowa I think you need to ask our naturalist friends that. When I know the facts, I state them. I don't pretend not to know what I know. When I am uncertain, I either say so, or keep quiet. Humility is being truthful. I take no credit for my intelligence. It is a gift of God, not my doing. But it would be false humility to say I don't really know when I do. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 6 months ago
@dfpolis Then I assume you disagree with Socrates that true wisdom starts with admitting you know nothing? I have never heard anyone even attempt a refutation of that principle, much less have I felt that one succeeded.
Also, we're not talking about facts. We are talking about higher-order claims that are properly classified as theories. The results of the double slit experiment constitute facts, But the Copenhagen Interpretation and Everett's Many Worlds are theories.
Skierkowa 6 months ago
@Skierkowa True wisdom can't start with a lie, however appealing. False modesty is as bad as false inflation of claims. Wisdom starts with an unquenchable love for truth. We must admit we know some things about reality while being ignorant of most. You don't need to know everything to know some things with certitude. Descartes refuted it. He knew, with absolute certitude, that he existed. We know that things can't be and not be at the same time in the same way. We agree on fact & theory in QM.
dfpolis 6 months ago
@dfpolis Descartes only claimed to know of his own existence, but assumed nothing of about the nature of it. This is one thing, not "some things." Also, this is not false modesty. I am not, strictly speaking, a scientist, but I have worked very closely with them throughout my professional life.
But at any rate, what I am talking about is just an inescapable artifact of how science is "done" in the real world: we can't be too sure of ourselves, because wildly counter-intuitive ideas...cont'd
Skierkowa 6 months ago
@Skierkowa cont'd... often turn out to present the most elegant explanations of observed phenomena.
Also, you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. You keep accusing naturalists of being dogmatic, but that simply isn't how real scientists approach their views.
Naturalism is a working hypothesis. When you say that scientists treat it like a "faith," that only convinces me that, however educated or intelligent, you have no real understanding of the culture of professional science..cont'd
Skierkowa 6 months ago
@Skierkowa I don't believe that anyone who has spent significant time in the lab--without an axe to grind or chip on their shoulder before they even got to grad school--could honestly come to see the majority of the scientific community as "dogmatic."
No one who says that can appreciate the rigor with which professional researchers attack their own beloved theories when probing for weakness. It's institutional. You just don't understand the people you are criticizing.
Skierkowa 6 months ago
@Skierkowa I've not claimed that the majority of scientists are dogmatic on science. Yet Kuhn showed, historically, many have been. Many are also dogmatic on their faith in naturalism. I recall backing a prominent biologist into a logical corner on God's existence. He face was red with anger & he was sputtering, but he had no rational response. Yes, most scientists are rigorous in their work, but they can be dogmatic on foundations. History proves this. I've experienced both. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 6 months ago
@Skierkowa I know no wildly counter intuitive ideas required by science, but that depends on how good your intuition is. I do agree that accepted hypotheses can be over turned, & so are not equal to truths known by experience & deduction. They are the basis of human knowledge. If they were unreliable, science would be impossible. So they are far more fundamental than hypotheses. Naturalism is proven false, but worse it is not seen as a hypothesis, but as a criterion of truth. Sad. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 6 months ago
@dfpolis You don't think QM is counter-intuitive?
Skierkowa 6 months ago
@Skierkowa I think it suffers from trying to project the data onto a particle model. If you discard the notion of particles, which never existed in reality anyway (they were a (Newtonian construct), then most of the difficulties disappear. I plan to do a video on this and show how simple it all is. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 6 months ago
@dfpolis I don't see how that answers my question. For one thing, you don't seem to be proposing anything novel, there, and for another thing, that idea IS counter-intuitive! The idea of our universe not "really" containing particles (although it would be better, I think, to say that we just misunderstood the NATURE of particles) is the very DEFINITION of counter-intuitive.
Skierkowa 6 months ago
@Skierkowa You asked if I think QM is counter-intuitive. I said I don't, & hinted why. If you ever looked at the ocean, the idea of interacting waves is part of your experience & intuition. Continuous media are more intuitive than particles, which have never been observed. They are a construct fusing the ideas of mass & abstract points. Quantum field theory has a locality postulate requiring continuous fields. I don't claim to have novel physics, just a more consistent interpretation. Peace, DP
dfpolis 6 months ago
@Skierkowa Descartes clearly claimed that he existed as a thinking being. He later noted that he also had and extended body. Thus, you are confused. You are trying to defend the thesis that we know nothing. So, one point of knowledge all I need establish to rebut you. The problem is that you take science as a paradigm for all knowledge. It is not. Science began because there were already known facts to be explained. Some explanations can be deduced. Others are hypothetical & need checking.
dfpolis 6 months ago
@Skierkowa I knew this before I found Dr. Polis' answer: I have showed that human committed intentions and the laws of nature are 2 species in a common genus. If you think they not say why. If they are then there is more than analogy here. There is a generic identity. Peace, Dennis
You're ostriches and teenagers are not intentional acts and all natural laws, you're making the fallacy of appealing to all 2-legged creatures using a silly and unrelated example of teenage ostriches. 8)
shizzleman8 6 months ago
@shizzleman8 You're misunderstanding my argument. Its rhetorical force is rooted in formal propositional logic. No offense intended, but "the fallacy of appealing to all 2-legged creatures using a silly and unrelated example of teenage ostriches" is not a formal fallacy.
If you have demonstrated a relationship between intention and natural laws using evidence, that would be a separate argument. This does not in any way vindicate dfpolis's argument,which is a gross formal fallacy.
Skierkowa 6 months ago
@Skierkowa You have no argument you're "just saying" Dennis Polis Ph.D in Theoretical Physics is making a mistake. He's not you are. We've pointed this out to you now THREE TIMES! Some fool gave you a compliment and now you're making an argument from pigheadedness on what I'm doing! You started with a conclusion that you're right about something and that you have "evidence", and a 70 yr. old respected Philosopher and Physicist is incorrect about something. YOU'RE WRONG, GET IT? YOU'RE WRONG
shizzleman8 6 months ago
@Skierkowa He's proved that it's not an undistributed middle because he's shown that human committed intentions and the laws of nature ARE 2 SPECIES IN A COMMON GENUS. If you think they are not SAY WHY. If they are then there is more than analogy here. THERE IS A GENERIC IDENTITY. You're a 28 yr. old going on 15! I've never seen this man make a mistake in 8 months answering in real time people who object to his science that are immeasureably more billiant than you! Give it a rest.
shizzleman8 6 months ago
@Skierkowa He answered your question to the one who gave you praise for it. Look at the comments and the time, he didn't need to answer your assumption twice did he? In your mind you think you're winning, but it took me to point this SIMPLE FACT out to you. You're straining out gnats and swallowing camels. PAY ATTENTION, stop presuming to be a lecturer and listen to the lecturer. If your pie hole is opening and closing you're not learning anything and you're probably wrong, shut it and learn.
shizzleman8 6 months ago
@shizzleman8 Can't you believe what you believe without making judgments about other people's intelligence? You have no idea what my background and education are. I don't think he addressed what I said at all, but I don't think he's an idiot because of that.
I believe what logic and evidence tell me. Dennis's arguments are not persuasive to me, but I may be wrong. Why do you appeal to his "authority," though, when the majority of physicists disagree with him? Do their degrees not count?
Skierkowa 6 months ago
@Skierkowa According to Dean Radin Ph.d the leading researcher in random number generation as outlined here by DOCTOR Polis 65% of ALL SCIENTISTS accept the reality of the supernatural. You believe what logic and evidence tell you but you don't even know what the majority of scientists (physicists included) believe about what Dr. Polis is making abundantly clear. Set aside your prejudice and read the book on meta-analysis then watch this video again afterwards. Who knows this material better?
shizzleman8 6 months ago
@shizzleman8 Even if Dr. Polis is correct that natural laws are intentional, the specific argument he uses in this video is a fallacy. Maybe he has other, better arguments, as well, but that's beside the point. I pointed out a flaw in reasoning; I didn't commit myself to attacking a worldview.
That being said, the fact that 65% a scientists (a much smaller percentage than of Gen. Pop., by the way,) have supernatural beliefs does not mean they treat those beliefs as scientific.
CONTINUED...
Skierkowa 6 months ago
@Skierkowa CONTINUED... If a person is raised Christian and then becomes a scientist, they usually don't abandon their beliefs, but that does not mean that person's Christianity just became a scientific theory.
Radin, on the other hand, is putting forward his metaphysical belief system as a scientific hypothesis. Most scientists explicitly reject this approach, and consider it pseudoscience, even if they do have private supernatural views.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Skierkowa 6 months ago
@Skierkowa I would say that a 14-16 sigma effect counts as extraordinary. The level for confirmation of the Higgs boson is 5 as I recall. Still, calling a claim "extraordinary" is completely subjective. Most people know that our minds control our voluntary acts. In logic, changing the rules is the fallacy of special pleading. Of course, naturalists must exempt themselves from the normal rules of objective evidence and logical consistency to maintain their faith. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 6 months ago
@dfpolis If I wanted to, Doctor, I could accuse you of being beholden to pseudoscience, and imagine all sorts of explanations for it, but I don't. This is because the more I learn about science, the more humble I become. My understanding from numerous minds greater than my own is that this trend continues even into golden years of long, brilliant scientific careers.
Your hyperbole is not in keeping with that. A scientist says "I disagree," not "You are wrong."
Skierkowa 6 months ago
@Skierkowa On what objective basis, as opposed to the naturalist faith, could one say that conclusions backed by more than 1000 experiments are pseudo science? Did I say "you are wrong"? No, I just gave you the facts. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 6 months ago
@dfpolis Of course you did. You just referred to naturalism as a "faith." If you don't understand how that sort of hyperbole is out of place, then we truly see the world in incompatible ways.
Even if you think you can PROVE that naturalism is a faith, as a scientist, you still ought not to be so bold. I believe I can "prove" that homeopathy is bull, but I don't make snide references to the "faith" of it's users, because I know that even people who agree would not take me seriously..CONTINUED
Skierkowa 6 months ago
@Skierkowa CONTINUED...This isn't because such an attitude is "impolite," or other aesthetic concerns, but because it is utterly incompatible with the rigor demanded by the scientific method.
Also, how are these conclusions "backed by more than 1000 experiments?" I don't see room here even for one testable hypothesis, much less 1000 or more positive results. I'd really like to see you explain this point more fully.
Skierkowa 6 months ago
@Skierkowa The scientific method is precisely that naturalism violates. That method is a posteriori. Naturalism is a priori. Of course, the scientific method is not the only method. If it were all data would be hypothetical. Instead data are cold facts deduced from observations. That is how I know, not hypothesize, that naturalism is a faith -- because it is a commitment (to a restricted reality) not justified by evidence. A scientific mindset is open. Naturalism is closed. Cont'd.
dfpolis 6 months ago
@Skierkowa I explained in my video. The meta-analyses I cited examined over 1000 controlled experiments in which the variable controlled for was the presence or absence of the intention to control a random physical process. The result was significant to 16 standard deviations. This is far larger than the 5 sigma standard being applied to show the reality of the Higgs boson. You can read the meta-analyses I cited for more details. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 6 months ago
@Skierkowa Naturalism claims it's scientific, but is an a priori belief. That is no hyperbole, just a truth. Science is empirical. Naturalism is a priori & anti-empirical. We do have very different world views. I think we must examine reality & see what it tells us. Naturalists believe we can limit it before examining it. This is not a hypothesis, but an observation. If you disagree, tell me why. A position is not a faith because it is right or wrong, but because it lacks evidence. Continued
dfpolis 6 months ago
@dfpolis You must be making a reference to something other than the term "sigma effect" as I understand it. For one thing, the Higgs Boson is a particle, not a compound, solution, or suspension. For another, it is, to my knowledge, still theoretical. I don't understand how a test of apparent viscosity could be conducted, even in principle, on the Higgs boson. Furthermore, I don't understand what relevance viscosity tests could have on statements about the intentionality of natural constants.
Skierkowa 6 months ago
@Skierkowa 1 sigma means 1standard deviation. The size of a standard deviation is set by the variance in the data. 16 sigma means the difference between the averages in the cases with & without intentional control is 16 times the likely error. Thus, we have 2 very well separated peaks in the data. The idea is that if the averages are not well separated, they could be due to chance fluctuations. The odds I cite in the video are those for getting the result by chance & are nearly 0. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 6 months ago
@Skierkowa If evidence was a rottweiler and snuck up behind you and took a big wet bite out of your lilly white ass you wouldn't recognize it as such. You make dozens of fatal mistakes in your writing. Just like my Dad, the U.S. Admiral before me, I only sleep a few hours a night, less than 1/2 the amount you do. If you add those years onto the 50 I've been alive you'd quickly realize that for me this is tantamount to you arguing with a 4 year old. Look at what the Dr. wrote to me about you!!
shizzleman8 6 months ago
@Skierkowa The argument is "aboutness" is the defining mark of intentionality. Brentano argued this, & it is accepted by most philosophers. Since the laws of nature meet the definition of intentionality, they are intentional. So, the proper analogy is: An equilateral triangle is triangle with three equal sides. This is a triangle with 3 equal sides. This is an equilateral triangle. I also showed that human commitments & the laws of nature are 2 species in the same genus. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 6 months ago
@dfpolis Perhaps there was no undistributed middle, if I understand you correctly, but I remain unconvinced. Since the natural laws are, in fact, human descriptions of observed phenomena, it seems impossible to me that we could asses the intentionality of the phenomena themselves.
Until we understand WHY the "Laws" work the way they do, how can we separate them from our very human thoughts ABOUT them?
Also, this is as much as to say that consistency equals consciousness. Do you believe that?
Skierkowa 6 months ago
@Skierkowa The laws of physics are human descriptions. The laws of nature have operated at least since the big bang. If they didn't, the evolution of the cosmos & life would have no reason. Our descriptions aren't the reason. The laws we try to describe are. How do we separate anything from our thought? Because many experiences are caused by the part of reality we call "nature." To be conscious is to be aware, not consistent. Reality is self-consistent. We can be inconsistent. Peace, DP
dfpolis 6 months ago
You finally got through to me on the file drawer effect. I'm getting it, I really am, 6 or 7 months ago I didn't even know what a random number generator was, today the light came on in regard to the more than 1,000 peer reviewed articles that Dr. Radin refered to when he was asked on Oprah. The athesists are missing the meta-analysis, and thinking that one study was done that contradicts all the studies you're making us aware of. Everything you're explaining is mystical & accurate.
Peace.
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@shizzleman8 Thanks. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 6 months ago
@dfpolis Per chance I just read Dean Radin Ph.D short bio yesterday. His classifed military research has mostly been declassified now. He writes that the opinions written about it are equally as incorrect as correct. He aslo wrote about the con artist psychics who used to have all the infomercials. I enjoy his sense of humor also. Recently I've seen 3 Dr. Craig debates, (Harris, Krauss, and Slezak). He's the only one who responds to others propositions while his are consistently ignored! 8)
shizzleman8 6 months ago
@shizzleman8 That is typical, naturalists can't deal with many arguments head on, so they try to slip around them. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 6 months ago
@dfpolis You do a much better job with real time objections on everything under the sun then even Dr. Craig, I think you may have missed your calling. I much would have preferred a debate between you and Victor Stenger for example. I couldn't believe my ears when Dr. Krauss during his debate with Dr. Craig became a hostile witness and said that we as humans are hardwired to believe. Better to have just kept him off the witness stand.
I've been practicing and learning Tiny Dancer, THANKS!!
shizzleman8 6 months ago
@dfpolis I think I pounced on @Skierkowa a bit heavy, I try to be patient, it's just that when I first started using youtube everyone and their brother brought up logical fallacies to the point you couldn't make a point, and no one was even identifying the fallacies, or using them in the correct way. Argument to authority is what stare decisis is based on, points and authorities, case law. My Dad had a J.D. and taught me the law every day. Heck, I needed it, still do. We all want recoginition.
shizzleman8 6 months ago
@shizzleman8 His point was the result of confusing a definition with a universal affirmative proposition. If I were not busy, I would have answered him when he posted his misunderstanding. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 6 months ago
There seems to be a problem in your perception of the laws of nature. The laws exist as the limits of what can happen; the limitations of the physical world. They aren't about anything. For example, the law of conservation of energy isn't about conserving energy. The man made explanation is about it. Energy just doesn't get created or destroyed. It's not like energy was created and destroyed prior to the founding of this law.
xlanciferionx 9 months ago
@xlanciferionx You are confusing descriptions & described. The "laws of physics" are approximate descriptions of aspects of nature. They exist in our minds describing a reality, "laws of nature." The laws of nature operated before we evolved, causing cosmic & biological evolution. They have no material parts, but they guide the processes they are about, as our intentions guide the behavior they are about. Even naturalists like Dennett & Dawkins see their intentional nature. Peace, DP
dfpolis 9 months ago
@dfpolis
"You are confusing descriptions & described"
How so? Be specific.
"exist in our minds..."
Agreed. Although, this is something that can be construed from my post.
"they guide the processes they are about"
The laws do not exist. How can they guide anything?
"Even naturalists like Dennett & Dawkins..."
Care to quote them on that? I'd like to see that one for myself.
xlanciferionx 9 months ago
@xlanciferionx Writing of "founding this law" refers to a description. I am discussing the laws operating in nature. If they did not exist, we could not discover them, the laws of physics would be fictions, and the evolution of life and the universe would be unexplained. Dawkins' Selfish Gene shows how genes act in a way indistinguishable from selfish intent. Dennett's Intentional Stance outlines how natural processes fit the same template of intent as humans. Peace, DP
dfpolis 9 months ago
@dfpolis
"I am discussing the laws..."
As am I. Our descriptions of how things are fit quite well, but the "laws" don't exist. Those are merely our descriptions of how things are. We merely categorize them to understand them. Anthropomorphizing the world around us is quite common for humans. We've done it for millennia. However, it's not an accurate way to describe the world.
"Dawkins"
Still not an endorsement of "intentionality" of the laws of nature. If so, explain.
xlanciferionx 9 months ago
@xlanciferionx If the laws do not exist, then their descriptions are fictions. Is that your position? I am not anthropomorphizing. God is not like us. No term can be univocally predicated of God and humans. I did not say that Dawkins said the laws of nature are intentional. He is not a very deep thinking. What he shows is that nature acts in accord with the paradigm of intentionality, as does Dennett. Actions inform us of the nature of things. So, acting intentionally shows intent. Peace, DP
dfpolis 9 months ago
@dfpolis
"Is that your position?"
No. The laws don't exist. Things just are. Our descriptions are accurate portrayals of what we observe, but since we cannot grasp things on that level, we must use abstract concepts to interpret our observations.
"God is not like us"
Is there a god? If so, what evidence is there?
"I did not say..."
I must have mistaken, "Even naturalists like Dennett & Dawkins see their intentional nature."
One would assume that the one being referred to would state such.
xlanciferionx 9 months ago
@xlanciferionx It would be foolish to say we understand the laws of nature as God does. Still, since we discover the laws of physics in nature, they operate and so exist prior to being found. If they did not, our descriptions would be SciFi, not science. Our concepts ARE abstractions - they only grasp part of the reality. I gave a proof of God's existence in video #15. "Intentional" can refer to mind or a product of mind. I don't understand the last sentence. Peace, DP
dfpolis 9 months ago
@dfpolis
"It would be foolish...video #15"
I'll address that at video 15.
"don't understand the last sentence"
Sorry. I'll clarify it. I had assumed that your referring to Dennett and Dawkins having "seen intention" in the laws of nature was a statement that they endorsed the idea that there is intention in the laws of nature. The way you had presented the idea seemed as though this was what they had seen, and admitted so themselves.
xlanciferionx 7 months ago
@xlanciferionx I am asserting that they say the factors entering into my analysis are real. Not that they believe the laws of nature are products of Mind. They say nature acts "as though" it were intentional. The point is what I see in nature is seen by others not holding there is Mind behind nature. So, what I see, - the data entering the analysis - is not a projection of my beliefs into reality, but something admitted by opponents. Peace, DP
dfpolis 7 months ago
@dfpolis
"They say nature acts "as though" it were intentional."
Again, it comes down to the ball. Does it roll because that's what it's intentions are, or is that just the result of the circumstances surrounding the ball? Is it going against its own intentions by not rolling?
"not a projection of my beliefs into reality"
I fail to see how that is anything but the case here.
xlanciferionx 7 months ago
@xlanciferionx You are confused. I am not saying balls have intentions. If I throw a ball it goes where I intent, not where IT intends. So, you are attacking a point I am not making. I have showed that human committed intentions and the laws of nature are 2 species in a common genus. If you think they not say why. If they are then there is more than analogy here. There is a generic identity. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 6 months ago
@dfpolis
"I am not saying..."
Nor is my example an attack upon intention. You said nature acts as though it were intentional. A ball rolling down a hill acts as though it were intentional, even if the person that put it there intended otherwise. The issue is that the illusion of intentionality does not equate to intentionality. Sure, gravity, the force itself, is acting upon the ball, but the laws of gravity are merely our descriptions of gravity's operation.
xlanciferionx 6 months ago
@xlanciferionx I said that Dennett & Dawkins affirm that nature acts in a way that seems intentional. They give no sound argument for why nature is other than it seems. The ball rolling seems intentional because it is acting under the guidance of intentional laws - my original point. Not every prima facie appearance is accurate, but, empiricism requires us to accept them until we have reason not to. The reason offered vs teleology is that mechanisms explain things. Cont'd.
dfpolis 6 months ago
@xlanciferionx Cont. But, that is no argument at all. Mechanism explains how watches work, but that is not an argument against them being the product of human intent, or having purposes. Indeed, given an end, it cannot be effected without adequate means or mechanisms. Thus not only are adequate mechanisms compatible with ends, they are required by them. Naturalists have no viable argument against intentionality. Calling it an illusion is special pleading and a pure faith statement. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 6 months ago
@dfpolis
"What he shows..."
How so?
"as does Dennett."
Again, I'll repeat. How so?
"Actions inform us of the nature of things"
If I put a ball on a hill, does it roll down it because it intends to do so, or does it just do so? Would you say that the ball has intent? If so, explain.
xlanciferionx 9 months ago
@xlanciferionx Dawkins says genes act as though driven by selfish intent. We know the inner reality of things by their actions. As genes have no minds, the operative intent can't come from them, but must be imposed from without. In The Intentional Stance, Dennett shows that many things act with apparent intent. Thermostats reflect the intent of engineers, markets of investors and nature of God. The ball acts by intentional laws of natue, i.e. God's intent, not its own. Peace, DP.
dfpolis 9 months ago
@dfpolis
"Dawkins says genes act as though driven by selfish intent"
The key words, here, are "as though." That could hardly be said to be a statement that shows that genes act with intent. A ball acts *as though* its intent is to roll. Yet, when left alone, the ball doesn't roll. Is the ball defying God, by not following God's intention of the ball's rolling?
"Dennett shows...Thermostats...markets..."
Those have demonstrable people behind them.
"nature of God"
Quote him on that, please.
xlanciferionx 7 months ago
@xlanciferionx THIS IS YOU? OMG, I've created a monster! I have to stop sending retards to people they have no hope of understanding.
You worked in the financial industry MY ROSY PINK ASS!
shizzleman8 7 months ago
@dfpolis
"Dennett's Intentional Stance"
Dennett's Intentional Stance fails at the level of "Nature's Laws." After all, this would mean that gravity could refuse to work, should it not feel like it, or momentum could decide to completely reverse how it works, all on a whim. These things are all within keeping with Dennett's Intentional Stance. If I'm wrong, please explain.
xlanciferionx 9 months ago
@xlanciferionx You are confusing intentionality with free will. They are quite different. Many philosophers admit intentions exist, while denying free will does. Again, clocks show intent, but have no free will. I am not saying that the laws have a mind of their own any more than this sentence has a mind of its own. Intentions are the product of mind, not the mind itself. Peace, DP
dfpolis 9 months ago
@dfpolis
"confusing intentionality with free will"
Intentions are the product of mind. You said so. If there is no mind, then there is no intent, since there can be no intentions. If the laws have a mind, show it. If not, then how can they possibly have intentions, thereby having intent?
xlanciferionx 9 months ago
@xlanciferionx The laws do not have a mind, they are the product of mind. Just as my words do not have a mind, but are the product of my mind. It is easy to show that The laws depend on a being that maintains them in operation, and through them the universe. (#15). Since the laws of nature and human commitments have the same essential nature, they are both intentional. As our commitments come from our mind, so must the laws of nature come from a mind in the being holding them in operation. Peace
dfpolis 9 months ago
@xlanciferionx "confusing descriptions & described" Of course our descriptions are intentional because they are human products. But, the laws they describe is also intentional because they are as much about the processes they effect as our commitments to act are about the behavior they effect. The sign of aboutness is a relation to what the putative intention is about. "The laws do not exist." To exist is to be able to act. The laws act in 2 clear ways: They control time development (cont)
dfpolis 7 months ago
@dfpolis
"the laws they describe is also intentional..."
No. They're simply how things are. The laws have been categorized by us, for us. Without categorizing them, we'd fail to be able to effectively communicate our observances to others.
"sign of aboutness"
That's just my point. They aren't "about" anything, much like you or I aren't "about" anything.
"To exist is to be able to act."
Then, rocks do not exist. Rocks are incapable of acting. Would you say that they do not exist?
xlanciferionx 7 months ago
@xlanciferionx If you saw that there is no explanation for how things are, you have abandoned the scientific approach to reality. I showed why laws are intentional. If you disagree show how I failed. But the laws are about things. The law of gravity is about how masses are attracted. Conservation of charge is about how charges remain unchanged. Rocks act in many ways: attracting other masses gravitationally, scattering light, resisting compression. Anything that interACTS, acts. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 6 months ago
@dfpolis
"If you saw...no explanation..."
I never said there wasn't an explanation for how things are, just that we categorized them for lack of ability to understand them as a whole.
"I showed why laws are intentional"
No. You showed that our descriptions of the laws are about something. You showed that intentional acts are about something. Then, you used "about something" as a connection, without really addressing how the laws act with intent.
xlanciferionx 6 months ago
@xlanciferionx No, I was not discussing our descriptions, but the laws operative in nature. I showed that those laws are about the ends they strive to effect, just as human intentions are about the ends they strive to effect. I showed that both are the basis in reality for logical propagators, and so in the same genus. The laws act with intent in the same way we do. They are present dispositions to future state effected by incremental steps. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 6 months ago
@xlanciferionx (Cont'd) & they act to inform us they exist. Naturalists say that the laws of physics only describe what happens, but they assume that they act normatively when they use them to argue against free will and miracles. We can only know what can act to inform us. (Information is the reduction of possibility. To instantiate a possibility is to act.) If the laws did not act to inform us, we would have no knowledge of their existence. See The Intentional Stance & The Selfish Gene.
dfpolis 7 months ago
@dfpolis
"they control time development"
Not really. Time is merely a measure of change. The rate of change is merely how it is.
"they act to inform us they exist"
How does a law act? Please, explain that one.
"to instantiate..."
Essentially, what you're saying is that we know our abstract concepts are real because another abstract concept of ours is the confirmation of their existence. Is this correct?
"If the laws did not act..."
They don't exist. They're our interpretations of reality.
xlanciferionx 7 months ago
@xlanciferionx You reject the scientific worldview. Noting just happens. Everything has a concurrent explanation. The law of gravity acts to produce a force on masses. Conservation laws act to prevent various forms of logically possible change. I am not saying abstractions are physical causes, but that they result from reality acting to inform us. The laws of physics are our "interpretations" of reality. The laws of nature were active in nature before we evolved or science is dead. Peace, DP
dfpolis 6 months ago
@dfpolis
"See The Intentional Stance & The Selfish Gene"
I've already addressed The Intentional Stance a month ago.
"The Selfish Gene"
This, too, has been addressed numerous times. The whole "as though" argument fails since it isn't a definitive "because" argument. For example: They act as though they have a mind. They act because they have a mind. Two entirely different scenarios. Without proof of the "mind" behind the action, there is no reason to assume it exists.
xlanciferionx 7 months ago
@xlanciferionx Then you recall that Dennett holds that nature acts in a way we call intentional. As intentionaloty is a human concept, whatever properly evokes it is an instance of intentionality. I am not arguing causes in saying how things fall into natural kinds. The first step in science is to classify phenomena. Then we apply the rule that similar phenomena have similar causes. Parsimony requires us not to multiply causes without reason as you suggest. Peace, Dennis
dfpolis 6 months ago
My conception of the ideal gas law may be “about” the behaviour of (an idealised) gas; but the principle of statistical mechanics that: PV=NkT, is something which consists in nature independently of my, or any other beings, conception of it. It is thus misleading to claim that natural laws are intentional because they are about the things they help predict and explain.
wisdominnature7 9 months ago
@wisdominnature7 The video makes no claims about the human concepts I call the laws of physics (e.g.PV=nRT). It discusses the laws controlling processes IN nature, which I call the laws of nature, & which you agree exist independently of being known. Thus, your criticism is misdirected. The laws of nature are about natural operations just as committed intentions are about human operations. They are also logical propagators in the sense that they are a basis in reality for predictions. Peace, DP
dfpolis 9 months ago
Comment removed
wisdominnature7 9 months ago
@dfpolis
You claim laws of nature are intentional because they are ‘about’ what they govern. However, this is equivocal regarding the meaning of the term “about”; the relation ‘X is about Y’, were X is a law or principle of nature and Y the set of regularities it is employed to explain, is not the same as that wherein X is a mental state, such as a belief, and Y a physical state, such as ‘the butter being in the fridge’. Laws of nature need not possess the mental property of intentionality.
wisdominnature7 9 months ago
@wisdominnature7 My claim rests on 3 arguments: (1) aboutness, (2) membership in the genus of logical propagators, & (3) their being seen as intentional by opponents like Dawkins & Dennett. Your argument shows only that we come to know intentionality in different ways, not equivocation. We may know it via first person experience, or as a third person observer. Observers have no direct knowledge of mental states, but infer them from objective relations. Inferring is not equivocating. Peace, DP
dfpolis 9 months ago
@dfpolis
Either laws of nature are “intentional” or they are not; you have yet to demonstrate that they are (on Brentano’s conception of 'intentionality' as the 'mark of the mental’)
wisdominnature7 9 months ago
@wisdominnature7 I've shown they're about the future states they lead to just as human committed human intentions are about the goals they lead to. Naturalists claim to want more correspondence between mental & physical processes, yet when it is shown them, they object it does not meet their prejudices. Your criterion requires us to see the laws from a first person perspective. Not being God, we can only have the third person perspective we always have with others' mental states. Peace, DP
dfpolis 9 months ago
@dfpolis
You haven’t shown it; you’ve just used an equivocation to imply it: i.e. intentionality is ‘aboutness’, laws of nature are ‘about’ future states; therefore laws of nature are intentional.
The shortcomings in this argument have nothing to do with prejudice, at least not mine, but rather with a lack of commitment to unambiguously saying what you mean. Many would hold that laws of nature are not about things in the same sense that mental states are, you need to address their concerns.
wisdominnature7 9 months ago
@wisdominnature7 You need to ask yourself how we judge that the directed acts of another person, who has not voiced their intentions, are determined to be intentional. It is not by starting, as you seem to demand, with a knowledge of their mental state. Rather, we see if their behavior reflects a consistent time-development directed to a final state or goal. This approach is not mine alone, but is used by eliminative materialists, e.g Dennett, to explain the idea of intentions. Peace, DP
dfpolis 9 months ago
Comment removed
wisdominnature7 9 months ago
@dfpolis
2. Eliminative materialists deny the very existence of intentionality; whilst Dennett, who is a teleofunctionalist, only conserves it as a weakly emergent property localised to use in a highly specialised methodological stance undertaken in an entirely naturalistic ontology.
Sorry, you may have been a perfectly competent physicist, but your understanding of philosophy is all over the place :(
wisdominnature7 9 months ago
@wisdominnature7 I know Dennett's Intentional Stance. My point is he uses external criteria to define intentionality, as do theory-theorists. You seem to hold the intentionality discussed by theory-theorists is not that experienced as a mental state. I hold they are two projections of the same reality: The same intention can be both experienced as a mental state by the agent, & posited by external observers as a means of prediction. Disagreeing is not misunderstanding. Peace, DP
dfpolis 9 months ago
@dfpolis
1. Naturalists, like me, don’t demand psychological research start with knowledge of our own mental states; indeed, it is anti-naturalists who typically propose immediate conscious experience as an alternative foundation for knowledge…
wisdominnature7 9 months ago
@wisdominnature7 I am well aware that naturalists methodologically reject all data on subjectivity. That is why my approach, which is open to ALL data, is far superior. I do not claim introspective data is an alternative to objective data, but that both are projections, dimensionally diminished maps, of the same reality, viz., the mind. An adequate model must integrate all the data. Rejecting data on an a priori basis is a rampant for on anti-empiricism. Peace, DP
dfpolis 9 months ago
@pauli9363 TY I will look. Peace DP
dfpolis 11 months ago
Another problem with meta-analyses you don't mention is that in some cases it only takes a handful of poorly controlled experiments to be included to 'poison the well'. Not only that, it is sometimes hard enough to validate the methodology of a single experiment let alone an analysis involving, as one you quote here, 515 seperate studies!
However, this isn't really my problem with psychokenisis.....
noelplum99 11 months ago
@noelplum99
...my real problem is that it is just too good to be true. Just like allied assertions of telepathic ability, how can something so incredibly potentially advantageous be so underdeveloped after 500 million years of multi-cellular evolution? That just seems so implausible to me that it raises the evidential bar very very high indeed.
I also didn't quite understand your jump from these results to 'altering the laws of nature' which disregarded any explanations that may ....
noelplum99 11 months ago
@noelplum99
...work within the laws of nature without even presenting them for summary dismissal.
All in all though, a lot of good food for thought.
noelplum99 11 months ago
@noelplum99 "Laws of nature" is equivocal. It can mean what physics says, or what is going on in nature. We know they are not the same. Physics says we should have a random process. Nature says, not quite, it depends on intent. That is an experimental fact. I put data above theory. The laws of nature respond to intent. The laws of physics do not. So, what leap am I making? I'm saying whatever actually controls nature IS the law of nature. As this changes with intent, intent modifies the laws.
dfpolis 11 months ago
@noelplum99 Simple: Feedback. Any effective control process uses feedback as an essential element. Running open-loop is a poor control strategy. A .0001 effect does not provide a lot of feedback. Look at how long it takes a baby to learn to control its body given continual feedback during waking hours. Some children are not even potty trained till 3, 4, or 5 and bed wet till 7-10. It takes a very long time to be really good at sports. Stenger set the bar at p=.0001. z=4.1 to 18 is way beyond.
dfpolis 11 months ago
@dfpolis
I really don't understand how this feedback argumnts ties in. I framed an evolutionary argument why i feel it would evolve and evolve soon and often (like physical manipulation has, audible forms of manipulation has etc) and i fail to see how feedback is any kind of defence. Sure it takes a human baby a few years to walk and control its body but i have to tell you dennis, nothing you mention here does not precisely emphasise my point by being commonplace throughout nature.
noelplum99 11 months ago
@noelplum99 Re feedback: We connect mental states we are aware of with behavior by feedback. A baby wants to grab a bottle. His hand goes one way. That is not the right mental state, so try another. Eventually it finds the sequence of intents that will get the bottle in its mouth. Then they become a hard wired subroutine that can be called by a single intent. If our PK intent results in no observable change, we don't know if we are doing it right. I do not see that evolution is involved.
dfpolis 11 months ago
@dfpolis
Well, a lot of evolved characteristics have clearly happened with the encumbent organims blissfully unaware of what is happening. So even if our willpower produces a bias that we are blissfully unaware of that does not preclude it from being evolutionarily advantageous nor of providing a selection advantage which is tue first step up the ramp. In other words, we do not need to know we are doing it right, evolution will simply select those who are on our behalf.
noelplum99 11 months ago
@noelplum99 I thought you were asking why we haven't learned to exercise direct and manifest intentional control over nature. The answer is feedback. I think, with Plantinga, that evolution has no traction in selecting a veridical intellect, and therefore can't explain the intentional subsystem. But, if it did, that would not support your objection. The small effect size might only mean are in the early stages of evolving intentional control of other objects. Peace, DP
dfpolis 11 months ago
@dfpolis
My answer to that would be that in each and every way we express control over our environment the intentional level, in the way you describe, has followed aeons after the unintentional/mechanistic, whatever term you prefer. I mean i think i understand your arguments in this video and the last and that you are not proposing anything 'spooky' here whereby there is some level of physics denied to anything other than an organism with intentionality.... so i have to ask:
noelplum99 11 months ago
@noelplum99
Why isn't a significant portion of the abundant and varied life on earth taking advantage of the same physics the intentional subsystem is taking advantage of as is the case in everything else? - doing a quick search on my phone here i see your mr radin is quoted as predicting we will be opening our garage doors in the future in this way.... i just think if Radin can see the advantages how can evolution have missed such a trick?
noelplum99 11 months ago
@noelplum99 As I said in #15, I see the laws of nature as coming from intentionality, and not vice versa. The laws are intents. So, you have to be able to originate intent to perturb a law. How do you get an intentional subsystem? Well, if you are Searle, you say it is an emergent property. If you are Aquinas, you say God gives them by a special creation. I can't see any empirical way to differentiate these positions. Can you? If you grant God exists, I am not sure there is any difference.
dfpolis 11 months ago
@dfpolis
Well I haven't seen all your series (so many many things to watch and see in life, Dennis) but given this slant of yours on the laws of nature why are we jumping back into those murky depths rather than sticking with the underlying physics. Whatever the physics involved, magnetism, electricity, electromagnetic radiation, pressure waves, direct physical contact, whatever, organisms were using and exploiting these phenomena before developing any kind of intentional subsystem.....
noelplum99 11 months ago
@noelplum99
... and i still can't quite fathom why you maintain this would have to be some kind of exception. the only grounds I could imagine would be if you proposed this was some kind of phenomenon based on a mechanism of interaction that simply doesn't exist in the physics of the universe sans intentionality.
"I can't see any empirical way to differentiate these positions. Can you?"
Maybe not. An interesting question and i would be dumb to commit without further thought......
noelplum99 11 months ago
@noelplum99
...one thing i will say is that it does make me want to invest that time further into going through your videos with a view to developing an opinion on questions such as that (the only initial thought is if we can EVER differentiate between a naturalistic explanation and special creation sufficient to rule out special creation, because how ever compelling our explanation is it does not preclude this alternative)
noelplum99 11 months ago
@noelplum99 I am trying to keep faith out of the philosophy. It motivates my questions, but I try not to overstep the data and reason. My objective is to build a model that incorporates the data and is open to further elaboration. Peace, DP.
dfpolis 11 months ago
@dfpolis
Actually i appreciate the bounds in which you are working and it is a fine line. I am almost tempted in every post to ask why you do not apply your philosophy of 'data above all' to catholic doctrine and dogma ...... but, hey, i am trying to keep the conversation on the straight and narrow too!
noelplum99 11 months ago
@noelplum99 Faith is not knowledge, but commitment. The question is "is this worthy of my commitment?", not "can I make a rational case?" If it contradicts what i know for a fact, then it is not worthy of my commitment. Peace, DP
dfpolis 11 months ago
@noelplum99 The data says control runs are random and live runs show a shift that stands up to years of confirmation. Data rules! I am integrating it with physics. I am not saying intent "pushes" as a physical force. It works in the intentional theater of ops, not the physical theater. The "universal" laws are intentional. Our commitments are too, and so one intention perturbs another. The result is a law that works like any law, but not universally. That is what the data say. Peace, DP
dfpolis 11 months ago
@noelplum99 Physics is hypothetical: falsifiable hypotheses with verified ranges of application. Each has experimentally mapped limits. Newtonian physics does not apply to quantum scales or relativistic energies. In PK we are finding yet another experimental limit to the hypothesis of universality of the laws of physics. The actual laws of nature are how nature really behaves, not how physics thinks it will. Yes, physics explains a lot of biol. But it rightly excludes subjectivity (#12). Peace
dfpolis 11 months ago
@dfpolis
Your use of 'laws of nature' confuses me. At once you say the laws of nature 'as coming from intentionality' (which i presumed you meant the intentionality you see sourced in the brain and not the 'hypothetical laws of physics') and 'how nature really behaves'.
I don't think these two statements are even remotely consistent, in fact they seem almost determinedly confusing.
noelplum99 11 months ago
@noelplum99 In #12 I examine the laws. They meet Brentano's criterion of intentionality and are like human intentions in being logical propagators. This is independent of any theism. (In #15 the source of the laws is God. So, they are God's general intentions for matter.) Our choices are also intentions & can modify the general laws as one intent modifying another. Does that help? Peace, DP
dfpolis 11 months ago
@noelplum99 If you read the meta-analysis articles, as I have, you will see that authors are very careful about assessing methodological quality. They have shown that while quality has increased through the years there has not been a corresponding change in effect size. The 2003 study compares pre- and post-1987 data and finds the differences are statistically insignificant. A skeptical 2006 study threw out 2/3 of the experiments and still found a small but significant effect.
dfpolis 11 months ago
@dfpolis
Well, you have me at a disadvantage having not read the study. It sounds interesting, though, and i should like to check it out and other analyses of it (i am assuming the studies were not universally accepted as readily as you have, hence i should lie to judge for myself the criticisms that may have been levelled) if you can link up the titles and journals involved.
noelplum99 11 months ago
@noelplum99 Google: Radin & Nelson (1989) “Evidence of Consciousness-Related Anomalies...” Found of Phys, 19, 1499-514. Radin & Ferrari (1991) “Effects of Consciousness on the Fall of Dice ...,” J of Sci Explor 5:1, 61-83. Nelson (2003) “Meta-analysis of mind-matter interaction experiments: 1959-2000.” In Jonas & Crawford, Healing, Intention and Energy Medicine. Against: Bösch. Steinkamp & Boller (2006) “Examining Psychokinesis ...,” Psych Bull, 132:4, 497-523 See reply by Radin et. al. Peace
dfpolis 11 months ago
@dfpolis
Very kind of you Dennis and once again i appreciate your thoroughness.
noelplum99 11 months ago
@noelplum99 No problem. All but Bösch are free on line. It has only an abstract. You can however read the discussion on line, and it shows that Bösch ignored proof that his hypothesis of a constant effect size per bit had been falsified by a massive experiment in a paper he included in his study.
dfpolis 11 months ago
Not many seem to be following these videos but I am enjoying them.
I just wondered why you limit it to human intentions? I presume you discard the intentions of other primates even when they appear to display them but I wonder on what grounds?
noelplum99 11 months ago