TPF : Metaphysical versus Anti-Metaphysical

[Gnomon]

Meta-Physical versus Anti-Metaphysical Agendas

I've recently experienced counter-productive dialogues with posters who seem to have an anti-metaphysics agenda. When a thread discussion begins to touch on non-physical topics, such as Mental Models and Subjective Qualia, they will insist on hard empirical evidence before they will even talk about such non-things. The implicit assumption seems to be that Physics is the final authority on the Real World*1. And anything non-physical is un-real, hence un-important. This animus against mental noumena is probably not a case of philosophical Solipsism, but may be a symptom of the dogmatic belief system known as Scientism*2, or its philosophical counterpart Positivism*3. It regards objective Science*4 as the sole source of Truth about Reality, and all else as subjective opinions, or worse, as religious doctrine to be accepted on Faith.

Defenders of the Scientism "faith" are quick to question the intelligence, education, & motives of those who dare to openly discuss such taboo topics as Metaphysics & Mental States, without giving due obeisance to the canon scriptures of "Science", envisioned as a centralized authoritative institution. For them. Metaphysics*5 is defined as "Idealism" or "irrational religious doctrine", and "non-physical" is labelled as "literal non-sense". That true/false hostility to intangibles is probably due to the intrinsic monistic Materialism of modern science. On a Science forum such an exclusive attitude might be appropriate. But, on a Philosophy forum what else can we talk about, except the non-physical, intangible, non-specific, universal, abstract, concepts that Aristotle addressed in the treatise now known as The Metaphysics? His Physics is clearly out-dated, but his MetaPhysics is still discussed and debated 25 centuries later.

It may be reasonable to view Mother Nature as the final authority on Reality. And the current paradigm of physical Science is our best model of Nature, to date. But, few scientists would be so arrogant as to deny that there are aspects of the real world that are not amenable to empirical evidence. Historically, Enlightenment Science challenged the authority of Mother Church on physical facts, but has since made little progress on non-physical questions, such as those addressed by the so-called "soft" sciences of Psychology, Sociology, & Political Science. Those non-empirical fields study, not material physical Nature, but mental human Culture, and are essentially forms of Philosophy with statistical models, and inherent margins of error.

Critical analysis of truth claims is the primary tool of Philosophy. But due to the subjectivity of its subject-matter, such critiques are necessarily subject to negotiation between opposing views. So, a respectful zero-sum, win-win strategy is obligatory, in order to avoid unproductive Us-vs-Them flame wars. Differences of opinion can be constructive, if both sides are treated as equals, and not unfairly denigrated as mentally deficient, or scientifically unorthodox. But, if the absolute Truth is reserved for one side, a dialogue can turn into cyber-bullying. Especially, if one party is less-than-certain about his position.

A typical attitude of antagonistic posters is this : "Since ‘metaphysical’ realities have no discernible impact on anything whatsoever, it’s completely unimportant whether they ‘exist’ or not. " (Quora) So a pertinent question for this forum is why do we waste so much verbiage on "inconsequential" topics? Along with "God", "Metaphysics" has been triumphantly pronounced dead, for centuries. But unlike un-dead zombies, questions about non-physical aspects of the world continue to seek-out tasty brains & tender minds. Utilitarian Science has no practical use for abstract concepts, except for such embarrassing notions as Virtual Particles and nonphysical non-dimensional quantities, like ratios and constants.

My practical question for this thread, is why do Anti-Metaphysics Trolls, waste their valuable on-line time, trying to defeat something that they assume to be already dead, and although perhaps a ghostly nuisance, cannot by their definition, make any difference in the Real world? Metaphysical speculators are merely harmless drudges . . . No?

NUMBERED NOTES :
*1. Probably few posters on this forum would seriously doubt that the Scientific Method is the best source of useful information on the mechanical processes of the physical world. No Flat-Earthers here. However, those methods have not proven to be very effective in discovering how & why the human brain creates imaginary models (beliefs) of its physical & cultural environment. Such mental models are obviously useful for the evolutionary mandate of survival in a dog-eat-dog world. But only homo sapiens has developed the ability to communicate their subjective models to fellow humans, via conventional conceptual language. However, the limitations of verbal communication of subjective feelings eventually made non-empirical philosophical methods of analysis necessary. Philosophy is concerned, not with physical Mechanics, but with Metaphysical Logic.

*2. Scientism : As a form of dogma: "In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

*3. Positivism : a philosophical system that holds that every rationally justifiable assertion can be scientifically verified or is capable of logical or mathematical proof, and that therefore rejects metaphysics and theism. ___Oxford Dictionary

*4. Scientific objectivity is a property of various aspects of science. It expresses the idea that scientific claims, methods, results—and scientists themselves—are not, or should not be, influenced by particular perspectives, value judgments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors. Objectivity is often considered to be an ideal for scientific inquiry, a good reason for valuing scientific knowledge, and the basis of the authority of science in society. . . . The ideal of objectivity has been criticized repeatedly in philosophy of science, questioning both its desirability and its attainability.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... jectivity/

*5. Personally, I define "Metaphysics" as the kind of topics discussed by Aristotle in the second volume of his treatise on Nature. It was not concerned with tangible physical objects, but with inangible abstract subjects, such as generalities and universals. He didn't give it a special name, but that volume later came to be labelled by Catholic Scholastics as " the meta-physics", meaning simply "after the physics volume". Unfortunately, that name came to be understood as referring to super-natural or religious subjects.

*6. Non-Physical Phenomena :
"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence."
― Nikola Tesla

FORUM TROLLS LURK UNDER THREAD TOPICS, NOT UNDER BRIDGES
https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/30ba8179 ... f0f62245d8

[Gnomon]

So - you’re trolling the trolls? — Wayfarer

Ha! My questions above are not intended to mock the trolls, but to open a two-way dialog on, what I take to be the purpose of Philosophy : to study Human Culture in all its manifestations. The "soft" sciences scrutinize narrow segments of Humanity, but Philosophy can take a more holistic, and interdisciplinary, perspective. That encyclopedic worldview includes the physical phenomena of the world, but leaves the narrowly-focused investigations to specialists.

As I see it, Philosophy is for Generalists. By contrast, the Trolls don't trust speculative generalizations or intuitive exploration. I understand their wariness, but I don't think censorship of artistic imagination is called for. I don't have to adopt the specific beliefs of Spiritualism, for instance, in order to appreciate its significance to humanity's exploration of the world. I'm merely trying to remove the stain of sectarian Theology from the study of eclectic Metaphysics.

"Today, science-minded people understand that the dead do not speak to us, . . . . Nonetheless, we can still appreciate the beauty produced by artists who hold these beliefs."
___psychologist Stuart Vyse, Skeptical Inquirer vol46, issue2

PS___The science-defending Trolls erroneously assume that, if I take some metaphysical speculations seriously, I must have gone over to the "dark side" of Anti-Science. In the 1950s, commie-hunter Joe McCarthy savagely attacked, atomic scientist Robert Oppenheimer, because, in his youth, he had been attracted to the Utopian dream of Communism. However, Oppie later realized that the dream had become a nightmare in practice. So he publicly apologized, saying, "most of what I believed then now seems complete nonsense". But his persecutor believed that "once a commie, always a commie", or at best a "fellow traveler". Likewise, the anti-metaphyics Trolls, seem to believe that any dabbling in non-science is a sin, to be punished & expurgated, lest it contaminate the purity of Physics. So, I'm merely resisting the dogma-defending Inquisition.

[Gnomon]

Perhaps you project, sir. There are approximately 450 to 500 million nonbelievers worldwide, including both positive and negative atheists, or roughly 7 per cent of the global population. The 'black tide' is very much still in, as always.. . . .
Genuine speculation is less annoying and perhaps less common than hawking the next flavor of informagical kool-aid. — lll


Hi 3, I don't know you, and you don't know anything about me. Yet, since I use taboo terms, like "metaphysics" & "holism", apparently you have jumped to the conclusion that I'm some kind of religious wacko-nut. So FYI, I profess no religion, practice no rituals, and don't believe in magic. So, you can count me among the rising ranks of "non-believers". But I remain an open-minded Agnostic, not a "negative" Atheist. You could say that, philosophically, I'm a William James "melioristic skeptic". Pleased to meet you!

[Gnomon]

2. We, Anti-Metaphysics Trolls, don't want to defeat something that's dead. We want to stop the proliferation of other people believing that something dead is something alive.
You asked a question and I answered your question. That's all. Run with it. — god must be atheist

Yes. That's why I refer to that anti-heretical attitude as Scientism. It's an absolute Either/Or, Win/Lose, Self/Other, My-way-or-the-highway worldview. It violates Aristotle's definition of Virtue in terms of Moderation. "The Art of Balance in an Age of Extremes”. Authoritarian Trolls have been trying to stop the proliferation of diverse views for millennia*1. For example Fascism & Communism are opposing views on how best to govern a populace of "stupid" people. Likewise, orthodox Scientism (love of dogma) is an opposing force to heterodox Philosophy (love of wisdom), competing for the minds of smart people.

Fortunately, many of the smartest scientists are brave enough to forgo the impenetrable shield of Scientism. They may not accept specific metaphysical beliefs, but they are broad-minded enough to accept that the scientific method does not apply to non-physical reality. In exchanges with Scientism defenders, I sometimes refer to Einstein as a Philosopher*2, and they interpret that as an aspersion on his scientific credentials. Which suggests to me that Scientism deprecates the philosophical methods worked-out by the ancient Greeks, in part as an alternative to religious dogma.

My intent in this thread is not to convert adherents of bi-valent (true/false) Scientism to multi-valent Philosophy, but merely to keep the doors of dialog open, so we don't resolve our differences with the Nuclear Option, or burning-at-the-stake, to totally annihilate the heresies of Metaphysics.


*1. "stop the proliferation" : The Catholic Society for Propagation of Faith, was established to "stop the proliferation" of unorthodox Protestant beliefs.

Aristotle considered moderation a moral virtue and Plato, in “The Republic”, described moderation as the harmony between reason, spirit, and desire.
https://www.headspace.com/articles/mode ... red-virtue

The main difference between science and scientism is that science is the study of nature and behaviour of natural things and knowledge obtained through them while scientism is the view that only science can render truth about the world and reality.
https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-differen ... scientism/

Einstein's own philosophy of science is an original synthesis of elements drawn from sources as diverse as neo-Kantianism, conventionalism, and logical empiricism, its distinctive feature being its novel blending of realism with a holist, underdeterminationist form of conventionalism.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eins ... ilscience/

Philosophers do not aim to discover the laws of nature. That’s a job for scientists. . . . .The philosopher’s aim is not to help scientists do their job. Instead, the philosopher’s aim is to better understand the job that scientists are doing
https://aeon.co/essays/natural-laws-can ... ket-newtab

In logic, the semantic principle (or law) of bivalence states that every declarative sentence expressing a proposition (of a theory under inspection) has exactly one truth value, either true or false. A logic satisfying this principle is called a two-valued logic or bivalent logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_bivalence

*2. When Einstein imagined himself riding on a light beam, he was doing a philosophical thought experiment, instead of a scientific empirical dissection. Philosophers analyze ideas, while Scientists dissect objects.

Einstein's Fallacy of Non-Physical Yet Physical Space
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ical_Space

[Gnomon]

In my view metaphysics does just that, it interrogates what you consider the basic structures of reality. They become hard to articulate and therefore cause irritation when you force someone to. — Tobias

Nobody said Metaphysics is easy. What Anti-Metaphysicians object to is not rational Philosophy, but irrational Faith. Unfortunately, they don't see the distinction. All the more reason to keep chipping away at the "irritation". Besides, the Trolls are not forced to engage in Metaphysical dialogs. They are like Quixotic Crusaders looking for windmill dragons to slay. :joke:

[Gnomon]

This confusing mix is made even more complicated by your idiosyncratic understanding of what metaphysics; or as you put it, meta-physics; is. Even I, who am sympathetic to discussions of the subject, find your approach difficult to defend. — T Clark

My idiosyncratic definition of "metaphysics" was established by Aristotle. But the Antis "conventional" definition was established by Catholic Theologians. I'm merely trying to dissociate Metaphysics (the mental aspects of the world) from that prejudice. I've tried various alternative terms, but the Antis see through the subterfuge, and attack their conventional foe, instead of my unconventional redefinition. It's based on Quantum & Information Theories that are also contentious. Se la vie.

[Gnomon]

This confusing mix is made even more complicated by your idiosyncratic understanding of what metaphysics; or as you put it, meta-physics; is. Even I, who am sympathetic to discussions of the subject, find your approach difficult to defend. — T Clark

I understand your confusion. My Enformationism worldview is indeed idiosyncratic. It doesn't fit neatly into traditional philosophical niches of Physics or Metaphysics. Instead, it conceptually bridges the philosophical gap between scientific Materialism and religious Spiritualism.

The ubiquitous role of Information seems to be an emergent idea that is ahead of its time. That's partly due to the dominant-but-narrow definition of "Information" as presented by Shannon. But it's an idea being explored by a handful of scientists & philosophers on the cutting-edge of human understanding. Of course, I'm just a minor player in the emerging new paradigm of information-based reality. But everything I say on this forum is grounded in the notion that shape-shifting (causal & substantial) Information is the essence of both Matter and Mind.

You seem to find my "approach difficult to defend". How would you characterize that approach ? Does it seem confrontational, or adversarial? That's ironic, because all my life I've been a mild-mannered Caspar Milquetoast character, who kept his mouth shut when others were debating. But, now in my sunset years, I have gained more confidence in my own opinions; especially since I developed my own personal philosophical/scientific worldview. That mask of confidence might come across as aggressive or ego-centric. But, my Ukrainian defense is mostly a reflection of the aggressive attacks I get from those opposed to whatever-it-is they imagine I'm postulating. On a religious forum, I would expect a similar negative response.

Another weak aspect of my "approach" is that I have no formal training in Philosophical methods of argumentation. So my lack of sophisticated technique results in a crude seat-of-the-pants approach to the give & take of dialog. Consequently, I may seem like a bull-in-a-china-shop. But, my motivation is merely to advance an inclusive perspective that could eventually change the world's worldview toward a more moderate position, somewhere between the ideological poles that currently divide us. Yet, since moderation is often mistaken for weakness, a firm stand is necessary to avoid being blown-away by the Trolls on both sides.

idiosyncratic : distinctive. peculiar, quirky

Philosophical : relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.

[Gnomon]

I’m generally sympathetic to your motives, although I have to say, critical of your methods. — Wayfarer

You are not the only one critical of my methods. (see reply to TClark above). I seem to have inadvertently stumbled into a hornet's nest, getting stung from both sides of the Physical-vs-Meta divide. How would you characterize my methods, and what would you recommend to refine them?

PS___If nothing else comes from this thread, we will at least learn to avoid those posters with tender toes that get stepped-on by Metaphysical dancers. Ouch! :gasp:

[Gnomon]

Einstein's Fallacy of Non-Physical Yet Physical Space
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ical_Space — Gnomon
Just filing this away. — ZzzoneiroCosm

The article is a scientific analysis of just one among many paradoxes that arose from Einstein's revolutionary classical-paradigm-challenging worldview. But my interest is more philosophical and focused on the emergent Information-centric understanding of reality. I may write a blog post on this topic when I get time.

PS___I don't consider Albert's redefinition of Space to be a "Fallacy". but merely an apparent Paradox. that is hard to reconcile with our inherited & intuitive worldviews.

[Gnomon]

I didn't say your position is confusing, I said it is difficult to defend. — T Clark

I understand that my BothAnd-ism worldview doesn't fit neatly into a traditional Scientism Either/Or pigeonhole, or even the traditional philosophical niches of Ethics, Epistemology and Metaphysics. Yet, I'm not so much trying to defend my "idiosyncratic" personal philosophy, as to defend a besieged moderate position in a polarized world. In this thread, the poles seem to be Physics vs Metaphysics. When I naively started posting on TPF, I assumed that Metaphysical topics would not be controversial. But I soon found that, in the binary worldview of anti-metaphysical "Trolls", Meta-Physics is interpreted as traitorous "anti-science".

Ironically, my unorthodox thesis originated from a seemingly paradoxical comment by a Quantum physicist, to the effect that : "on the quantum scale there's nothing but abstract Information". With that in mind, I studied Information & Systems theories, and concluded that mental Information is just as "physical" as immaterial Energy. By that I mean, it's not material -- there's no tangible substance to it -- but it has measurable effects on matter. So, in that sense, Information is the kind of Qualia that Aristotle discussed in his Metaphysics, and that Spinoza called the "universal substance" of the world.

Therefore, my middle-of-the-road position may be sympathetic with some mind-based Eastern philosophies (not religions), but it is still compatible with (post-Quantum) Western matter-based science. Unfortunately, from the polarized perspective of Scientism, "East is East and West is West", period. So, I'm fighting an uphill battle to change that binary & exclusive attitude.

Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat;
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!
___ Rudyard Kipling

Philosophers often use the term ‘qualia’ (singular ‘quale’) to refer to the introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives. In this broad sense of the term, it is difficult to deny that there are qualia. Disagreement typically centers on which mental states have qualia, whether qualia are intrinsic qualities of their bearers, and how qualia relate to the physical world both inside and outside the head. The status of qualia is hotly debated in philosophy largely because it is central to a proper understanding of the nature of consciousness. Qualia are at the very heart of the mind-body problem.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

Information :
* Claude Shannon quantified Information not as useful ideas, but as a mathematical ratio between meaningful order (1) and meaningless disorder (0); between know-ledge (1) and ignorance (0). So, that meaningful mind-stuff exists in the limbo-land of statistics, producing effects on reality while having no sensory physical properties. We know it exists ideally, only by detecting its effects in the real world.
* For humans, Information has the semantic quality of aboutness , that we interpret as meaning. In computer science though, Information is treated as meaningless, which makes its mathematical value more certain. It becomes meaningful only when a sentient Self interprets it as such.
* When spelled with an “I”, Information is a noun, referring to data & things. When spelled with an “E”, Enformation is a verb, referring to energy and processes.
BothAnd Blog Glossary

BothAnd-ism :
An inclusive philosophical perspective that values both Subjective and Objective information; both Feelings and Facts; both Mysteries and Matters-of-fact; both Animal and Human nature.
* It’s a cosmo-centric view-point rather than an ego-centric, or tribal, or national, or creed-centered standpoint.