Your metaphysical beliefs are a defense against existential anxiety - thought experiment

[modernPrimitive2]

no it is not circular.
1) What would the difference be?

Yes it is circular I'm afraid. In my example the difference would be that the fundamental substance of reality would be of "mind stuff" where belief orders the "mind stuff" into a perceived reality rather than the materialist idea of a "solid" material reality independent of mind.

2) what evidens do you have of this supreme being?

Ehm, this was a thought experiment. The idea is not that I'm proposing reality is really made of "mind stuff" but rather attempting to show a circular reasoning by way of a thought experiment and the idea is to engage with it as a form of "negative proof". I take it you are not familiar with the idea of a Socratic dialectic? The point is to actually engage in some rational thinking rather than simply reciting dogma.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

Fundamentally this is a thought experiment - one which people on the forum seem unwilling to engage with. Instead I see a lot of rational engagement around metaphysical beliefs, which is psychologically rather interesting to say the least.

I don't understanding the argument that materialism is another form of avoidance. Materialism is the belief in that which is knowable, whereas theism is the belief in that which is unknowable.

If anything, anybody calling themselves a 'materialist' are likely the exact opposite of what you propose, they are interested in uncovering the world around them so they better understand it. They most certainly aren't hiding from anything.

How is matter "knowable"? Because it can be sensed by our sensory apparatus? Because it can be measured? The fact is that we have absolutely no idea about a supposed "objective reality out there" because our cognitive apparatus is entirely subjectively involved in the practice of empiricism. It's a catch 22 - we can't separate ourselves from our observations, so how do we determine what is a property of cognition and an outside "objective reality"? In fact, the whole idea of empiricism was on pretty shaky ground until it was rescued by the philosophy of Immanuel Kant (Transcendental Idealism) in the 1800s. His whole idea leveraged off the fact that space and time were properties of "cognition" rather than of an outside "objective reality" (what Kant referred to as the Noumenal). So is space-time something "out there" is it a cognitive function of the human mind? If you can actually answer that then please provide a proof.

 

[Juma]

In my example the difference would be that the fundamental substance of reality would be of "mind stuff" where belief orders the "mind stuff" into a perceived reality rather than the materialist idea of a "solid" material reality independent of mind.

And how is that a real difference? If the difference isnt detectable in any way then there is no difference.

Thought experiments must start from and follow empirical facts. Otherwise they become meaningless.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

And how is that a real difference? If the difference isnt detectable in any way then there is no difference.

So prior to the Large Hadron Collider the Higgs Boson didn't exist?

Thought experiments must start from and follow empirical facts. Otherwise they become meaningless.

What exactly are empirical facts then? Are quarks indeed the smallest unit of matter, the primordial stuff of which reality is made? There's no evidence for that, we've merely identified some patterns and behaviours at a quantum scale and call that "quarks". Where's the actual "matter"?

You see here is the fundamental problem: People form this idea of a "solid matter" - it's fundamental to our psychic development and our survival in this world and so this intuitive idea formed at the Newtonian scale becomes innate and informs all our interpretation of empirical facts. So we expect to find some "solidity" at the quantum scale but find none and are completely flummoxed (as Bohr pointed out). You can't say that reality is made of some primordial smallest unit of matter or whether it's made of the "mind stuff" of a supreme being or whether the quarks we have detected are simply patterns in a virtual reality. That is why materialism, just like idealism is a metaphysical position - so don't confuse either of these with empiricism.

The idea (or realization) that matter is fundamentally "unstable" in some sense is a fundamentally anxious position for most people because it challenges that innate Newtonian "solidity".

 

[Juma]

So prior to the Large Hadron Collider the Higgs Boson didn't exist?

Thought experiments must start from and follow empirical facts. Otherwise they become meaningless.

What exactly are empirical facts then? Are quarks indeed the smallest unit of matter, the primordial stuff of which reality is made? There's no evidence for that, we've merely identified some patterns and behaviours at a quantum scale and call that "quarks". Where's the actual "matter"?

You see here is the fundamental problem: People form this idea of a "solid matter" - it's fundamental to our psychic development and our survival in this world and so this intuitive idea formed at the Newtonian scale becomes innate and informs all our interpretation of empirical facts. So we expect to find some "solidity" at the quantum scale but find none and are completely flummoxed (as Bohr pointed out). You can't say that reality is made of some primordial smallest unit of matter or whether it's made of the "mind stuff" of a supreme being or whether the quarks we have detected are simply patterns in a virtual reality. That is why materialism, just like idealism is a metaphysical position - so don't confuse either of these with empiricism.

The idea (or realization) that matter is fundamentally "unstable" in some sense is a fundamentally anxious position for most people because it challenges that innate Newtonian "solidity".

You bring a lot of discussions here.

1) the question is wether your "mindstuff" theory is testable, not just now but ever.
The Higgs Boson has always been testable but we simply havent got the means to perform the test until now.

2) empirical facts are (in principle) testable statements about the world.

3) the solidity of matter is a description how matter behaves on our (macroscopic) scale.
No physics scientist looks for what matter "realy consist of". Not even Bohr. They map the STRUCTURE of matter.

4) materialism is not some nutter theory of that "matter is really solid if you really look deep inside". Materialism is the viewpoint that there is nothing more that space and matter. This is not a metaphysical position.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

You bring a lot of discussions here.

1) the question is wether your "mindstuff" theory is testable, not just now but ever.

LOL. You don't get off that easily. You see I'm not proposing that reality is made of "mind stuff" nor am I proposing it's made of "matter". I'm not proposing anything. Rather I'm using this as a dialectic to demonstrate what you aren't seeing about materialism - that it's a metaphysical proposition, that it's a statement about what reality is beyond what is demonstrable or testable.

3) the solidity of matter is a description how matter behaves on our (macroscopic) scale.
No physics scientist looks for what matter "realy consist of". Not even Bohr. They map the STRUCTURE of matter.

4) materialism is not some nutter theory of that "matter is really solid if you really look deep inside". Materialism is the viewpoint that there is nothing more that space and matter. This is not a metaphysical position.

Of course it's metaphysical. To demonstrate this simply answer the following: Is Space-time a property of an objective reality "out there" or is it an emergent property of human cognition in relation to an "something out there"? How could you or anyone else possibly know the difference?

 

[rousseau]

Fundamentally this is a thought experiment - one which people on the forum seem unwilling to engage with. Instead I see a lot of rational engagement around metaphysical beliefs, which is psychologically rather interesting to say the least.

I don't understanding the argument that materialism is another form of avoidance. Materialism is the belief in that which is knowable, whereas theism is the belief in that which is unknowable.

If anything, anybody calling themselves a 'materialist' are likely the exact opposite of what you propose, they are interested in uncovering the world around them so they better understand it. They most certainly aren't hiding from anything.

How is matter "knowable"? Because it can be sensed by our sensory apparatus? Because it can be measured? The fact is that we have absolutely no idea about a supposed "objective reality out there" because our cognitive apparatus is entirely subjectively involved in the practice of empiricism. It's a catch 22 - we can't separate ourselves from our observations, so how do we determine what is a property of cognition and an outside "objective reality"? In fact, the whole idea of empiricism was on pretty shaky ground until it was rescued by the philosophy of Immanuel Kant (Transcendental Idealism) in the 1800s. His whole idea leveraged off the fact that space and time were properties of "cognition" rather than of an outside "objective reality" (what Kant referred to as the Noumenal). So is space-time something "out there" is it a cognitive function of the human mind? If you can actually answer that then please provide a proof.

Yes, this. I can't pretend to know what various philosophers have said about the epistemology of objective reality, but I do know that as human beings we have basically one apparatus that allows us to objectively manipulate our environment: the scientific method.

Via that process we've defined laws and theories that allow us to accurately predict the behaviour of the universe, at least as we see it.

Maybe there is some philosopher out there who has called the universe theoretically unknowable, but as human beings we've put objects into space, we've build intricate machines, we've created the internet. And all of this has been made possible by learning verifiable properties about the universe.

As someone who defines himself as a materialist, myself, this is the only way I know of understanding the world around me: what do humans at least think they know about the world via science?

FWIW, very broad theories like thermodynamics, evolutionary theory, energy conservation, and so on, have given me an extremely good ability to predict the behaviour of people around me, and likely even the progression of history. And that's why I find science relevant. The converse, belief in the metaphysical, has no meaning or relevance any way you slice it outside of being psychologically satisfying for the ignorant.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

The whole thread seems to have been derailed into an argument about metaphysical materialism so I've started a new thread for that over here in the hopes that I don't have to continually repeat myself:

http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?8123-Why-materialism-is-a-metaphysical-position

The OP is not an attack on any particular metaphysical position. Materialism seems to have come to the fore, but theism, Idealism and other positions are equally valid "fodder" for the thought experiment (okay, it's more of a "psychological experiment"). I find it extremely significant that the OP, which was an invitation to this psychological experiment has sort of derailed into a rational debate. That in itself from a psychological perspective may well be a form of suppression or repression, a defense mechanism to avoid the anxious position of questioning one's belief system. I'm not opposed to continued rational discussion about this either but nobody has even taken up the invitation and provided any sort of experimental result so far.

If we consider ourselves skeptics and we are all fans of empiricism then why the hell not?

 

[abaddon]

Beliefs obligate me to self-doubt. If I adopted materialism as true, there's no point at which I can just put the question “but is it really true?” aside, so it’s not a comfort.

Also beliefs obligate me socially. If I believe x is definitely true then I need to take a stand on this issue and this other as well. Because if my beliefs are true then there are other, false beliefs doing a lot of damage and something needs to be done. And now I have a lot of rules to obey… ugh. So on the one hand there’s the concern “What if my beliefs are wrong?” and if I somewhat solve that then there’s the concern “What shall I do with these beliefs?” But, I figure I’m pretty weird this way. I know theists go to church and say “Amen!” to a lot of things they feel are undoubtedly true and then return to being hedonist consumerist me-and-my-wants-are-central-in-the-universe assholes (the exact opposite of what their religion asks of them) the instant they leave the church; but they have that background of feeling certain and that’s a comfort. I wouldn’t be able to walk out and forget the message and take nothing but the smugness with me.

Lately I became interested in lucid dreaming and walk around asking “Am I dreaming?” in hopes a dreaming self will pick up the habit. But you’re supposed to really mean it when you walk around asking it, or you won’t really wonder if it’s true should you ask the question in a dream. So a side-effect is to seriously consider the nature of reality and how “mental” it is. And so sometimes I entertain “idealism” among other things. It’s thrilling, like riding a roller coaster. Is that existential anxiety? Cuz I’m not real sure why anyone feels ‘anxious’ rather than either bored or thrilled or puzzled or inspired or other when entertaining possibilities.

 

[abaddon]

The OP is not an attack on any particular metaphysical position.

They cannot see their position as metaphysical. When you say their position or beliefs are metaphysical, their brains register you as saying they believe in unscientific woo, in mysticism. So even when you reassure them you're not attacking their position you're still seen as attacking their position anyway, and they always will so long as you use the words "philosophical" and "metaphysical". Because they view philosophy as pure speculation (as "just talk") and view themselves as having surpassed philosophy into something less speculative ("empirical facts"); and much of their experience of pure speculation is what theists do with it so therefore it's all that much more suspect.

 

[modernPrimitive2]

Beliefs obligate me to self-doubt. If I adopted materialism as true, there's no point at which I can just put the question “but is it really true?” aside, so it’s not a comfort.

That's interesting. My experience is otherwise. It's like a de-conversion experience which in some sense is usually experienced with some trauma. "Oh that actually makes sense but if that's true then X is not true"...followed by some anxiety (or in some cases depression). At least this is typically how I have experienced it myself. Bear in mind though that I think there are levels to the consciousness of a belief. For example, I would say that most Christians, the variety you point out in your church experience are fundamentally at an unconscious level deeply materialistic. The conscious position is in the Freudian sense "compensatory", but since a lot of people don't like Freud much these days you could say that the Lacanian "Real" inverts the "symbolic register", or in layman's speak, the actual reality of their behaviour contradicts their spoken, conscious position.

My experience is that the more unconscious the position, the deeper the trauma or more exaggerated the resultant anxiety / depression. Ideologically I aspire to hold no belief or very little, but the reality is that there are many often contradictory beliefs that live in my own psychology. Rationally I steer towards some kind of philosophical idealism but the more unconscious position for me is materialism, which when questioned produces anxiety. The idea that reality is less stable that I think it is concerns some deep instinctive part of my psyche. The possibility that I am merely the "idea" of a "supreme primordial being" is comforting in one sense because it removes the need for assuming any responsibility but depressing in another sense. In fact my experience of Samadhi led to a depression around the very core of my identity. Perhaps I am an odd example but I would suspect that other people also contain contradictions within their psyches. In fact my example above of the unconscious reality of the typical Christian position suggests it.

They cannot see their position as metaphysical. When you say their position or beliefs are metaphysical, their brains register you as saying they believe in unscientific woo, in mysticism. So even when you reassure them you're not attacking their position you're still seen as attacking their position anyway, and they always will so long as you use the words "philosophical" and "metaphysical". Because they view philosophy as pure speculation (as "just talk") and view themselves as having surpassed philosophy into something less speculative ("empirical facts"); and much of their experience of pure speculation is what theists do with it so therefore it's all that much more suspect.

I have hopefully dealt with that here: (I even made some pretty pictures to explain it)

http://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?8123-Why-materialism-is-a-metaphysical-position

 

[DoubleDutchy]

Of course it's metaphysical. To demonstrate this simply answer the following: Is Space-time a property of an objective reality "out there" or is it an emergent property of human cognition in relation to an "something out there"? How could you or anyone else possibly know the difference?

Kant as far as I got him (he does not make an easy reading) states that the idea's of time and space are a prerequisite of any perception. They are not themselves perceptions but tools of the perceiving system (us that is). Because of this we don't have and cannot have any doubts about geometric truths; as soon as we have recognized them they are apodicticly true. This (rather elegant) idea i.m.h.o was falsified by the theory (and subsequent verification) of relativity, which made us discover new properties of space (or more correctly of spacetime) which contradicted the formely accepted ones. Apodictic turned out to be not apodictic after all. This doesn't fit.

 

[untermensche]

What if my belief is not true?

My beliefs are that "truth" is another word for "evidence".

What if this is not true?

What if evidence does not represent "truth"?

Then "truth" is impossible to know.

With what besides evidence would one find "truth"?

 

[Speakpigeon]

What if my belief is not true?

My beliefs are that "truth" is another word for "evidence".

What if this is not true?

What if evidence does not represent "truth"?

Then "truth" is impossible to know.

With what besides evidence would one find "truth"?

By "true" I mean the attribute I give to statements that I believe match in some way what I happen to believe is reality. If I think that there's an Eiffel Tower in and only in Paris then I will take the statement "The Eiffel Tower is in Paris" to be true (I will attribute the value "true" to it). Obviously I may be be wrong about the Eiffel Tower being in Paris or there being something like an Eiffel tower at all (although I saw it less than 3 hours ago but from a distance with some foggy sludge in between). So I may be wrong about any particular statement being true, and by extension about my corresponding beliefs being true but I can't be wrong about what I mean by "true". Other people, I don't know. Other people tend to be confused and inarticulate. i don't even know what you may mean by "What if evidence does not represent "truth"?" Evidence does not represent anything. It is evidence that something else is the case. You accept or refuse evidence or what is presented as evidence. It is you belief in the evidence as pointing to something being the case which may be wrong (or "untrue"). You seem to be confusing the question of what we mean by "truth" and whether there are truths.
EB

 

[untermensche]

My beliefs are that "truth" is another word for "evidence".

What if this is not true?

What if evidence does not represent "truth"?

Then "truth" is impossible to know.

With what besides evidence would one find "truth"?

By "true" I mean the attribute I give to statements that I believe match in some way what I happen to believe is reality. If I think that there's an Eiffel Tower in and only in Paris then I will take the statement "The Eiffel Tower is in Paris" to be true (I will attribute the value "true" to it). Obviously I may be be wrong about the Eiffel Tower being in Paris or there being something like an Eiffel tower at all (although I saw it less than 3 hours ago but from a distance with some foggy sludge in between). So I may be wrong about any particular statement being true, and by extension about my corresponding beliefs being true but I can't be wrong about what I mean by "true". Other people, I don't know. Other people tend to be confused and inarticulate. i don't even know what you may mean by "What if evidence does not represent "truth"?" Evidence does not represent anything. It is evidence that something else is the case. You accept or refuse evidence or what is presented as evidence. It is you belief in the evidence as pointing to something being the case which may be wrong (or "untrue"). You seem to be confusing the question of what we mean by "truth" and whether there are truths.
EB

The way you know there is an Eiffel Tower is when there is some evidence of one.

And what could it possibly mean that the evidence is not "true"? Conclusions made from evidence can be faulty but the evidence can be nothing else.

 

[fromderinside]

"... what could it possibly mean that the evidence is not "true"? ...."

er, someone is in denial.

 

[untermensche]

"... what could it possibly mean that the evidence is not "true"? ...."

er, someone is in denial.

Conclusions from evidence can always be questioned.

But the evidence itself cannot.

The evidence can be true and the conclusions drawn from it can be nonsense.

 

[fromderinside]

Unless we are talking protons evidence is different every time it taken and even then its different in the long term.

 

[migrant]

Surely our 'evidence' will always be incomplete?
For example, for me to have evidence that Spain is the best country in the world, would I not need complete knowledge of all the other countries, as well as of Spain?
Personally I don't think we can say anything is true, because we don't know everything.
Why are we looking for truth when our senses are so limited?
Our 'Truth' is no better than Don Quixote's.

 

[bilby]

Surely our 'evidence' will always be incomplete?
For example, for me to have evidence that Spain is the best country in the world, would I not need complete knowledge of all the other countries, as well as of Spain?
Personally I don't think we can say anything is true, because we don't know everything.
Why are we looking for truth when our senses are so limited?
Our 'Truth' is no better than Don Quixote's.

You are right. The best country in the world is Australia. But until you come here, you could be forgiven for thinking that Spain is better.

But despite your gross error, I shall do you the favour of advising that you watch out for giants disguised as windmills.

They can be sneaky bastards.