Metaphysics is a self delusional anadyne

[ruby sparks]

So the meaning of life is certainly part of metaphysics.

Is it though? Certainly? Who says so?

I suspect that the word 'metaphysical' can be used for almost anything 'philosophical'.

Aristotle said so. And he coined the term. Yes, and spiritual and whatever isn't covered by science and naturalism.

Now you've just confused me. Aristotle's original meaning is more or less redundant. And if you want to include non-naturalist spirituality, it's arguably only adding to the problems with using the word nowadays in that case.

- - - Updated - - -

But they keep coming back, because it works. That's hard to accept if we're supposed to be rational beings.

Wouldn't that be an example of being rational?

I do agree with you that we are not the supposedly rational beings we often think we are. It is arguably a cornerstone or a foundation stone for modern philosophy (and much ancient philosophy) that we are. It's almost an axiom. Undeserved, as you say. Possibly even delusional. At the very least awry. And undermined by science, especially psychology.

Isn't it only idiots who think they are rational beings? No, it's not an example of being rational. If you were rational you'd just stop eating cake, stop smoking, stop drinking, stop coveting things you can't have, chose to be fun at parties. These people have realised that they're not rational, have accepted it, and using methods to fool their emotionally driven inner pilot to do rational things.

We have a capacity for rational thought. That's not the same thing as reason controlling our lives. The foundation for philosophy is that you enjoy thinking about stuff. If philosophy didn't trigger joy you wouldn't be doing it. People good at philosophy aren't necessarily smarter than people who aren't. I think the big kick from philosophy is that it gains you entry into sophisticated middle-class social groups from which you'd otherwise be barred. It's to massage your ego and vanity. But if you don't aspire for that or didn't care you wouldn't bother. That's a purely emotional goal.

Hm. I specifically meant that those going back to it because it works as being an example of them at least being (more) rational ('because it works' being more of a pragmatic, reasoned thing, less of an emotional or aesthetic response).

Otherwise I agree with a lot of what you say. Some of it goes too far, as usual, talking about the foundation for philosophy being about 'purely emotional' goals for instance.

Anyhows, I thought it was genes that controlled us?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Now you've just confused me. Aristotle's original meaning is more or less redundant. And if you want to include non-naturalist spirituality, it's arguably only adding to the problems with using the word nowadays in that case.

That's certainly news to me. What muddies the water are all the magical snake-oil salesmen trying to get away with weak logic by shrouding it in mystical language. Bullshit is bullshit regardless of how funny hat they're wearing. Aristotelian logic applies as much to metaphysics as it does to nature

I thought it was genes that controlled us?

This is how they do it. The reason why cake can be almost irresistible is because it contains things that are rare in nature. Lots and lots of dense calories. Since genes evolve slowly they haven't kept up with our modern world awash with cake.

 

[ruby sparks]

Now you've just confused me. Aristotle's original meaning is more or less redundant. And if you want to include non-naturalist spirituality, it's arguably only adding to the problems with using the word nowadays in that case.

That's certainly news to me. What muddies the water are all the magical snake-oil salesmen trying to get away with weak logic by shrouding it in mystical language. Bullshit is bullshit regardless of how funny hat their wearing. Aristotelian logic applies as much to metaphysics as it does to nature

It is of limited value citing someone's usage of a word in ancient history. We are not talking about ancient history. We are talking about relevance and usage now.

As for the rest, I don't understand. You appeared to suggest that metaphysics could inform us on non-naturalist spirituality (presumably in the present, not thousands of years ago).

I thought it was genes that controlled us?

This is how they do it.

Ok. In a nutshell, genes do not control us. It's a fact. Nor is philosophy purely driven by emotion. In both cases the causality is partial and mixed. Unless you say that all thinking is emotion. You could perhaps make a case for that, but it wouldn't be very useful.

If you could cut out the absolutes and false dichotomies........

 

[DrZoidberg]

It is of limited value citing someone's usage of a word in ancient history. We are not talking about ancient history. We are talking about relevance and usage now.

Alfred North Whithead defined contemporary philosophy as a series of footnotes to Plato. You are wrong. Just plain wrong. All philosophical history has been critiques of the guys before them. Unless you know Greek philosophy really well then contemporary philosophy will seem like... well... Greek to you.

As for the rest, I don't understand. You appeared to suggest that metaphysics could inform us on non-naturalist spirituality (presumably in the present, not thousands of years ago).

Yes. But also naturalist spirituality. Any spirituality. Even a skeptics secular spirituality. Metaphysics is just all that stuff that isn't science. Morality for instance.

I thought it was genes that controlled us?

This is how they do it.

Ok. In a nutshell, genes do not control us. It's a fact.

Then you are factually incorrect. It's also beyond question. It's such a fundamental and easily verifiable claim. You exist. Your parents genes managed to steer your parents to procreate. The genes that failed to do it died out. For whatever reason our genes have programmed our consciousness with the illusion of free will, agency and control. But that's an establish scientific fact.

I'd argue that the only reason it's even up for debate is because of our Christian heritage and strong belief in free will, carried by Descartes into the secular world. It's never made sense though.

Nor is philosophy purely driven by emotion. In both cases the causality is partial and mixed. Unless you say that all thinking is emotion. You could perhaps make a case for that, but it wouldn't be very useful.

If you could cut out the absolutes and false dichotomies........

I haven't claimed philosophy is purely.. or even partly driven by emotion. Of course it's driven by reason. Almost entirely. But the reason we like to philosophise is driven by emotion. That's two different things. Some thinking is emotional, and some is rational. But it's your emotions that will dictate what you think about. And your emotions that will dictate what you will do in life. Regardless of what your reason tells you that you should be doing. Have you never been disappointed in yourself for doing something stupid?

 

[ruby sparks]

Alfred North Whithead defined contemporary philosophy as a series of footnotes to Plato. You are wrong. Just plain wrong. All philosophical history has been critiques of the guys before them. Unless you know Greek philosophy really well then contemporary philosophy will seem like... well... Greek to you.

Is that referring to modern questions about the meaning of life specifically being metaphysics (citation please) or just being philosophy?

Yes. But also naturalist spirituality. Any spirituality.

Right. Except you said not already covered by naturalism.

Metaphysics is just all that stuff that isn't science. Morality for instance.

Now morality is supposed to be metaphysics? Is there anything that isn't?

See my remarks about the relevance and usefulness of the word nowadays. It's so vague and confusing and so replaced by various others that it's next to redundant, except for philosophers, who apparently can't let go of it, and even then they can't agree among themselves what it refers to and what it doesn't. That says a lot about the discipline. It's virtually an example of why so much 'pure' philosophy is nowadays expendable, except as a pastime or commentary on other fields. You for example seem to apply 'metaphysics' to almost anything 'philosophical' and refer back thousands of years to ancient times of woo.

Then you are factually incorrect. It's also beyond question. It's such a fundamental and easily verifiable claim. You exist. Your parents genes managed to steer your parents to procreate. The genes that failed to do it died out. For whatever reason our genes have programmed our consciousness with the illusion of free will, agency and control. But that's an establish scientific fact.

That if anything would only point to the influence of genes on us, not that we are controlled or progammed by them as we live our lives, which clearly is not the case.

 

[untermensche]

If one believes they have free will by some magic they do.

I wrote that sentence and this freely. I could have written another but I freely chose not to.

I dismiss all these people who claim to know how the mind effects the brain with the flick of my wrist. They do not have a clue how the mind operates. They don't know what it is.

They say stuff like "brain activity" as if there is but one activity going on.

If mind is brain activity which specific activity is it?

If we know what activity it is why can't we reproduce it?

All we do is mimic external features of the human with technology. And the way the technology works is nothing like a brain.

We are nowhere near creating a mind. Despite the claims of those making money off the stuff.

But so this is not some huge derail.

I dispute the notion that free choices cannot be made with the mind. I dispute it freely. Nothing forces me. I could support it but I don't believe it. I believe what I believe freely. For some, especially those trapped in religion, that is not true. If you believe some story based on no evidence from an authority you likely will be deluded. And neuroscience presently in terms of the mind is a bunch of stories and not even the knowledge of what the mind is. There is no evidence of the mind and how it behaves anywhere. The mind in every experiment is subjective reports.

This is far from something settled.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Not really. It's well supported by research. We've capable of rational thought, but rational thought is not going to propel you to do things. Unless you attach that rational belief to some sort of emotionally nurturing pay-off, you're not going to do it. We can manipulate ourselves, which I guess is having the rational faculties in control, in a way. But it's more like emotional meta-motivation. If we don't somehow find a way to hook it into our emotions then you're rational eureka moment was wasted. Anybody who's tried being on a diet, knows how that works.

Yes. Rationality is a powerful tool but it's rather boring in itself and a hard job. We need to have an emotional motivation to support us if we're ever to work hard on rational things. No emotions means no work and therefore no achievements. And to some extent, you can sort of cynically tweak your own emotional life to fit that objective. So, yes again, there's some degree of mixing the two processes in support of each other.
EB

I actually don't think so at all. Successful people have figured out how to manipulate themselves emotionally into wanting to do rational things. But it requires a lot of work, and is fraught with potholes. Successful people do a lot of "spiritual work" and are all over the New Agey various workshops and whatnot. A lot of them realize that the stuff that the teachers are saying is mostly bullshit. But they keep coming back, because it works. That's hard to accept if we're supposed to be rational beings.

That may be so without invalidating my point. It just means the people you're talking about don't know how to go about it, if they don't. I'm also talking from my own experience although I would grant you my case isn't necessarily representative. So, possibly I'm a special case but what I do seems actually so straightforwardly simple that I doubt that. Obviously, most people haven't a clue otherwise they would presumably be more proactive and probably more successful than they are. The people you're talking about may just be part of those who don't know how to do it. And such a basic step as fantasising about you're future successes is effective. And everybody can do that, surely. It won't work only if you can't find anything emotionally rewarding in the fantasised situation. So, that would be a sad case of a lack of imagination or a lack of emotional levers. It sure won't work for people who don't like anything in life. It probably also won't work for people who wallow in their fantasies, like a drug. I grant you that doing that sort of thing may seem a bit childish and put you off but you can do it knowingly, taking your fantasies with a pinch of salt. At some point, it will just look like legitimately considering your future options in life. Do I really want to get the Nobel prize for physics? That sort of thing. Maybe you also need to suspend disbelief, like when reading a novel.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

Is that referring to modern questions about meaning being metaphysics (citation please) or just philosophy?

What am I supposed to be citing? Here's an article explaining the Whitehead quote

https://www.philosophersmag.com/index.php/footnotes-to-plato/57-introducing-footnotes-to-plato

Right. Except you said not already covered by naturalism.

Yes. Science.

Metaphysics is just all that stuff that isn't science. Morality for instance.

Now morality is supposed to be metaphysics? Is there anything that isn't?

Yes, science. Or what Aristotle called physics.

You don't have to take my word for it. These are among the most fundamental and well defined topics in philosophy.

See my remarks about the relevance and usefulness of the word nowadays. It's so vague and so replaced by various others that it's next to redundant, except for philosophers, who apparently can't let go of it.

I think it's useful. It's an umbrella term for everything that isn't science. I actually use it a lot in discussions.

That if anything would only point to the influence of genes on us, not that we are controlled or progammed by them as we live our lives, which clearly is not the case.

I'd argue that's wishful thinking. I also think it's an absurd claim. Why would nature do that? Our genes are ultimately self serving. If you are correct there must have been a point where genes surrendered control to something else and that improved fitness (gene spreading). That shouldn't be particularly convincing to anyone.

Genes are a blunt instrument. In us it relies on higher organisms to be able to think quicker than what simpler organisms would allow. You are confusing that adaptability with you being in control. Your mind is your gene's slave and it thinks what your genes allows it to think. There's no power there to be found.

Middle-management has no real power. But it might just think it does. If its deluded enough.

 

[Speakpigeon]

But they keep coming back, because it works. That's hard to accept if we're supposed to be rational beings.

Wouldn't that be an example of being rational?

I do agree with you that we are not the supposedly rational beings we often think we are. It is arguably a cornerstone or a foundation stone for modern philosophy (and much ancient philosophy) that we are. It's almost an axiom. Undeserved, as you say. Possibly even delusional. At the very least awry. And undermined by science, especially psychology.

I think there's a simple answer to that. Emotions are indeed more basic than rationality yet rationality is effective so that we need to have emotional motivations to do rational things. So, we are rational beings in that we are the most rational beings in God's creation, but our rationality is mostly like our perceptions, we use it to achieve our desires, like we use a tool, especially if we've been trained to develop it, which seems largely a cultural process. Rationality is also rooted in our sense of logic, and in that sense it is really fundamental. However, rationality suggests formal elaboration, not just intuitions, be they logical intuitions. So, it really depends on how you think of rationality. More basic than emotions may be information, and using information, at whatever level, is necessarily a logical operation if it is to be operationally effective. So, in that sense, we're more rational than emotional. And think of our big brain, which seems like specifically meant to do rational processes, only affected, from the outside so to speak, by emotional inputs. Maybe it's just a very complex and subtle balancing act between two necessary processes. So, maybe not so simple after all.
EB

 

[4321lynx]

I dispute the notion that free choices cannot be made with the mind. I dispute it freely. Nothing forces me. I could support it but I don't believe it. I believe what I believe freely. For some, especially those trapped in religion, that is not true. If you believe some story based on no evidence from an authority you likely will be deluded.

And you are so self-deluded that you do not see the irony of your "free" belief in being correct about this, and about all other things on these fora, a belief that seems to be a religion with you.

 

[ruby sparks]

What am I supposed to be citing?

Support for the idea that the meaning of life (for example) is metaphysics and not some other 'branch' (I use the word loosely) of philosophy.

Which that article doesn't cover.

Yes. Science.

Yes science what? First you said there was a spirituality that was metaphysical that was beyond science and naturalism, and now I don't know what you're saying.

Yes, science.

Science is not metaphysics? How come? Everything else apparently is.

As ever, that is too simple.

You don't have to take my word for it. These are among the most fundamental and well defined topics in philosophy.

Even a moment's googling a recognised philosophy encyclopedia shows that it is not well defined at all. The opening line at the Stanford entry on metaphysics is "It is not easy to say what metaphysics is."

I think it's useful. It's an umbrella term for everything that isn't science. I actually use it a lot in discussions.

Metaphysics is a useful word for anything that isn't science? That's the first time I've heard that one. What about epistemology for starters? But hey, you use it as you like. Everyone else does. That's vague terms for you.

I'd argue that's wishful thinking. I also think it's an absurd claim. Why would nature do that?

Ok. It's just incorrect to say that we are controlled or progammed by our genes. But by all means keep peddling the idea that it isn't. Just don't ask a genetic scientist nowadays. I can put my daughter on if you like. She has a masters in genetics.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I could have written another but I freely chose not to.

That's a vacuous claim since you can't prove you could have done differently. The question isn't whether we truly have free will but exactly what kind of free will we do have. Go back to my posts in any of the long threads we did on the subject. You're post is just a derail. Again.
EB

 

[untermensche]

I could have written another but I freely chose not to.

That's a vacuous claim since you can't prove you could have done differently. The question isn't whether we truly have free will but exactly what kind of free will we do have. Go back to my posts in any of the long threads we did on the subject. You're post is just a derail. Again.
EB

I will now willfully write something different.

My robot brain forces this.

I have no control.

Help me.

- - - Updated - - -

I dispute the notion that free choices cannot be made with the mind. I dispute it freely. Nothing forces me. I could support it but I don't believe it. I believe what I believe freely. For some, especially those trapped in religion, that is not true. If you believe some story based on no evidence from an authority you likely will be deluded.

And you are so self-deluded that you do not see the irony of your "free" belief in being correct about this, and about all other things on these fora, a belief that seems to be a religion with you.

Did you freely come to this conclusion?

 

[WAB]

Dr. Z, et al,

Since when does metaphysics cover all the branches of philosophy? Since when does morality fall under the branch of metaphysics? I had learned that the branch called ethics covered questions of morality, just as epistemology covers questions of how we (can) know things - and hence logic would actually be a subcategory of epistemology?*

*ETA: A quick search tells me logic is sometimes considered a sixth category. That's new to me.

Here are (were) the five main branches of philosophy as I learned them many a year ago - not online but in books:

Metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and esthetics. Other more specified studies would fall somewhere under one of those categories, like ontology, axiology, etc.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Ok. It's just incorrect to say that we are controlled or progammed by our genes. But by all means keep peddling the idea that it isn't. Just don't ask a genetic scientist nowadays. I can put my daughter on if you like. She has a masters in genetics.

The last bit seems a clear example faulting your initial claim. Seems clear you've been effectively programmed by your genes to shamelessly push your own daughter up front. Daughter, as you well know, likely shares those genes. Just saying.
EB

 

[Grendel]

Grendel, when you look at the world around you, that is to say...the evidence of your senses,
do you think you perceive a clear picture of a fuzzy reality? Or a fuzzy picture of a clear reality?

I'm just a normal human, I see the world just like everyone else. The evidence of my senses tells me that I live in a thing called space and movement within it is dictated by time. It appears to be continuous.

I don't know what you mean by fuzzy?

 

[Grendel]

I'm also a compositional nihilist, but it's not really saying much. It's like saying, whatever it is that created the world is God, so therefore God exists. Ok, fine. But you've said nothing.

No ... recognising, that the Universe is a composition of 'primal elements' that bond only in motion and that motion is regulated by the laws of probability, and that each primal is independent of all other primal elements .. is NOTHING like saying 'the world is god so therefore god exists?'

The Universe is discrete, not continuous. This means that the micro (small world) is responsible for producing the macro (large world) .. and by implication the large-world cannot be turned and bent to describe the small-world. We cannot ask 'why'. 'Why' is a non-question, because the small-world obeys the laws of probability and is defined by chance and necessity. We can only ask 'How' ...

QM explains 'How', and compositional nihilism is the only concept we have for QM.

 

[Grendel]

I will prove it if you define your idea of proof?

That won't be necessary. Just try your best and everybody here will judge on the face of it.

Stanford University: Quantum Mechanics
First published Wed Nov 29, 2000; substantive revision Sat Feb 7, 2015

Quantum mechanics is, at least at first glance and at least in part, a mathematical machine for predicting the behaviors of microscopic particles — or, at least, of the measuring instruments we use to explore those behaviors — and in that capacity, it is spectacularly successful: in terms of power and precision, head and shoulders above any theory we have ever had.

Mathematically, the theory is well understood; we know what its parts are, how they are put together, and why, in the mechanical sense (i.e., in a sense that can be answered by describing the internal grinding of gear against gear), the whole thing performs the way it does, how the information that gets fed in at one end is converted into what comes out the other.

The question of what kind of a world it describes, however, is controversial; there is very little agreement, among physicists and among philosophers, about what the world is like according to quantum mechanics.

Minimally interpreted, the theory describes a set of facts about the way the microscopic world impinges on the macroscopic one, how it affects our measuring instruments, described in everyday language or the language of classical mechanics. Disagreement centers on the question of what a microscopic world, which affects our apparatuses in the prescribed manner, is, or even could be, like intrinsically; or how those apparatuses could themselves be built out of microscopic parts of the sort the theory describes.

That is what an interpretation of the theory would provide: a proper account of what the world is like according to quantum mechanics, intrinsically and from the bottom up.

The problem with giving a QM interpretation, not just a comforting, homey sort of interpretation, (i.e., not just an interpretation according to which the world isn't too different from the familiar world of common sense) is that we are unable to give any interpretation at all. Compositional Nihilism does give an interpretation.

Quantum Mechanics and the Universe it describes is proven. That's all the proof needed. There is no doubt that the small-world produces the big-world, and there is no doubt that the small-world is governed by the laws of probability that make no recognition of the large-world we see around us.

 

[Grendel]

If you don't know your own thinking, fair enough, there's nothing I can do for you. Just go see some doctor.

I'd leave the personal outta this if I was you. Anymore an you can have the thread and this forum to yourself. Kiss.

The argument is that it's good enough to know your own thinking and when you know your own thinking then you are thinking and therefore you are. As Descartes was careful to explain, what you know you are in this juncture is just the thinking itself. Beyond your own thinking, you may have things like Guinness and Turtle soup that I agree in effect you know nothing about in themselves. All you have that you know are your ideas of them, ideas which are just a bit of thinking.

I'm sorry. I don't agree with Descartes, he just speaks Kant. I don't accept Qualia because things are not the way things seem at all. We are biological beings and we physically react, act, and interact in a physical material world. Just like ants and ant-lions and deep sea snapper, we act objectively.

What's wrong with you is that you seem to want to argue (without ever doing it) that we know there's a physical world and that that's all there is. You certainly don't know that.

There is only a physical world. There is only a physical Universe. There are only two things that exist, Matter and Motion. These two are interchangeable, because they are conserved.

The physical/material Universe we live in can no longer be described, or even discussed, or even mentioned, by any philosophy. Philosophy has stagnated in Classical Physics (Einstein-ian Physics.) Philosophy has failed. This is unarguable, or if you disagree, like an ostrich, you stick your head in the sand and deny QM.

A NEW philosophy is needed! One that can address the physical world we live in.

Here's a good start ..... and here is a PDF

And here is the complete explanation of the problem and the solution in a single sentence. Compositional Nihilism.

Taking science metaphysically seriously, means that metaphysicians/philosophers must abandon the picture of the world as composed of self-subsistent individual objects, and the paradigm of causation as the collision of such objects.

​

 

[Lion IRC]

Grendel, when you look at the world around you, that is to say...the evidence of your senses,
do you think you perceive a clear picture of a fuzzy reality? Or a fuzzy picture of a clear reality?

I'm just a normal human, I see the world just like everyone else. The evidence of my senses tells me that I live in a thing called space and movement within it is dictated by time. It appears to be continuous.

I don't know what you mean by fuzzy?

LOL
Do you know what the word "clear" means?