TPF : Argument from Reason -- Metaphysics

[Gnomon]

The Argument from Reason
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... -reason/p1

The argument from reason challenges the proposition that everything that exists, and in particular thought and reason, can be explained solely in terms of natural or physical processes. It is, therefore, an argument against materialist philosophy of mind. According to the argument, if such theories were true, our thoughts, and so also our reasoning, would be determined on the molecular level by neurochemistry, leaving no role for the free exercise of reason. — Wayfarer

On the TPF forum, this a no-win argument. Both Physicalists and Metaphysicalists typically agree on the details of physics, neuro-chemistry, and cosmology all the way back to the rationally-inferred Big Bang, but disagree on the metaphysical question of direction vs randomness.

So, the argument eventually boils down to A> a rational intentional Creation ( temporal Cosmos) vs B> accidental random Causation (timeless Chaos), dating back to the beginning of our little pocket of space-time. Each party, exercising Reason & Inference, can find evidence to support his conclusion, based on that original Axiomatic assumption. But they arrive at different rational conclusions : a world that makes sense to the rational mind vs a world that makes sense for the sensory body*1.

Ontological question : Is the universe a self-organizing self-learning Program*2, or a random sequence of accidents that over eons has stumbled upon a formula to cause a few constellations of atoms to imagine that they exist, simply because they can think. What do you think?


*1. Is the World Rational? :
Our preliminary hypothesis asserts that the world has a certain property owing to which it can be successfully investigated by us. We call it the hypothesis of the rationality of the world (or simply the rationality of the world).
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -77626-0_5

*2. The Conservation of Information :
I'd be surprised if materialist/physicalist/deterministic scientists would think in terms of "learning" in a law-limited "deterministic" system*1. However computer scientists, and Information theorists, do sometimes use such anthro-morphic terminology metaphorically*2. So, if the "laws of nature" are imagined as a computer program, the universe could conceivably learn, in the same sense that Artificial Intelligence does*3, by means of "non-deterministic algorithms"*4.

But AI is not natural, and currently requires a natural Programmer to establish the parameters of the system. Would a self-organizing, self-learning world also require the services of a preter-natural Programmer to bootstrap the system?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/816834

[Gnomon]

I'm not convinced we know what is random versus that which is not random. We detect patterns, as far as human cognition allows and we ascribe characteristics to those patterns - again in human terms. But words like 'random' or 'accidental' seem to have emotional connotations and function as tips of icebergs. — Tom Storm

I suppose you are referring to the problem of determining if a string of numbers is random. In judgments of randomness, there is always a degree of doubt. Statistical analysis is inherently limited to probabilities instead of certainties*1. But I was talking about Philosophy, not Mathematics. For philosophical purposes, we routinely make judgements about Necessity vs Chance. I don't know about animals, but human nature seems to have an innate sense of Order vs Disorder. And, of course, there may be emotional reactions in those faced with Orderly/Predictable vs Disorderly/Unpredictable situations.

But this is a calm reasonable intellectual philosophy forum --- no heretics in dungeons --- so what I'm talking about is the Logical Connotations of an Ontological question : " Is the universe a self-organizing self-learning Program, or a random sequence of accidents". If the universe is a series of accidents, going nowhere, then the project of Science is impossible*2. But, if there is at least some perceptible order within background randomness, the project of Philosophy --- to make sense of the world --- is reasonable*3. For now, you can ignore the "self-learning" interpretation of some observers. We can get into that later.

For this post, my question to you is this : do you think the universe is -- on the whole -- A> organized (lawful, predictable) or B> disorganized (lawless, unpredictable)? Are you able --- can you convince yourself --- to make such a philosophical generalization? Caution, your answer may have emotional implications. I'm not asking you to go on record though ; it's just you and me here. Are you afraid to make such a summary judgment of the historical patterns of evolutionary development over 14 billion years?


*1. "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" is a 1960 article by the physicist Eugene Wigner. In the paper, Wigner observes that a physical theory's mathematical structure often points the way to further advances in that theory and even to empirical predictions. ___Wikipedia

*2. Nature of Science :
Scientific Knowledge Assumes an Order and Consistency in Natural Systems. Science assumes that objects and events in natural systems occur in consistent patterns that are understandable through measurement and observation.
https://www.shapeoflife.org/nature-scie ... al-systems

*3. Laws of Nature :
Within metaphysics, there are two competing theories of Laws of Nature. On one account, the Regularity Theory, Laws of Nature are statements of the uniformities or regularities in the world; they are mere descriptions of the way the world is. On the other account, the Necessitarian Theory, Laws of Nature are the “principles” which govern the natural phenomena of the world. That is, the natural world “obeys” the Laws of Nature. This seemingly innocuous difference marks one of the most profound gulfs within contemporary philosophy, and has quite unexpected, and wide-ranging, implications.
https://iep.utm.edu/lawofnat/

[Gnomon]

I am dissappointed, but never surprised, to observe the routine deprecation of the faculty of reason. I think the classical notion of reason is rather non-PC, for various reasons, chief among them that it distinguishes humans from other species. — Wayfarer

I suppose, in order to avoid the historical slavery of political/religious Spiritualism (soul more important/essential than body, and ideals worth dying for), Materialism has gone to the opposite extreme : a mundane real body without a spooky ideal mind ; hence, free-range animals with guns & computers instead of teeth & claws.

However, my interest in philosophy/science is that it allows us to do what animals can't : to know thyself. A bit of introspection can make us both proud of human culture, and ashamed of its imperfections. We may be almost indistinguishable from animals in our biology, but human psychology allows us to use tools for leverage to move the world.

Yet, when ungoverned by Reason, those tools can turn us into blood-thirsty savages. "Guns don't kill people; People with guns, knives, tanks, missiles kill people". Often for irrational reasons : e.g. Putin's political dreams of a glorious ideal empire justify Ukrainocide. Aren't humans distinguished!

Does Materialism/Physicalism inherently turn us into secular humanists & pacifists? Is there a philosophical middle ground, where physical bodies & metaphysical minds can coexist?

Again, take a look at the chapter headings and abstracts (all available online) of Mind and the Cosmic Order, Charles Pinter. He has a compelling answer to at least part of this question. — Wayfarer

I just ordered a copy of the book from Amazon. It seems to address some of the common sticking points on this forum. I'm guessing that he leans toward a Platonic worldview, but I'll try to remain open-minded.

[Gnomon]

No, I was talking about how things seem to us as opposed to how they might really be. When we talk about order, it is based on our models of what order appears to be to us. — Tom Storm

Sounds like you are being evasive. Barring divine revelation, how else would we know anything about the world, except as they "seem to us" : via our senses & inferences? And how they seem is what our mental models tell us. Is your seemly model/map of the world orderly enough for us to understand it and discuss it, or disorderly enough to keep us forever in the dark about ultimate philosophical questions? As the OP inquired : do we humans possess " the ability to either genuinely apprehend truth, or to be rationally justified in making truth claims". It's not a trick question : do you find the world orderly enough for you to find your way around the local terrain, and to draw inferences about its wider patterns of Geology*1?

*1. Geology : "the science that deals with the earth's physical structure and substance, its history, and the processes that act on it".


My point is simple. How would we know? We seem to have discovered some regularities in our little patch. We can claim no such knowledge about the whole universe. I'm not even certain physics works the same across the universe - what's to say it isn't largely a function/invention of human cognition? — Tom Storm

Are you claiming complete ignorance about the world, or just "profound skepticism"? Is mathematics simply a child's game of counting fish? Or a science that allows us to guess about what happens next, and what happened before. Kant was skeptical about our ability to know what's what, but despite that handicap, he wrote thousands of words to instruct us about the positive & negative aspects of Epistemology.

On this forum, few of us claim to speak from absolute authority. We just share personal opinions/models, and that's how we expand & refine our "little patch" of reliable knowledge. By comparing our worldviews, we may learn what ideas are imaginary "inventions", and which are realistic enough to be reliable "knowledge".

Epistemological rationalism :
Humans will always find things arranged in certain patterns because it is they who have unwittingly so arranged them. Kant held, however, that these certainties were bought at a heavy price. Just because a priori insights are a reflection of the mind, they cannot be trusted as a reflection of the world outside the mind. Whether the rational order in which sensation is arranged—the order, for example, of time, space, and causality—represents an order holding among things-in-themselves (German Dinge-an-sich) cannot be known. Kant’s rationalism was thus the counterpart of a profound skepticism.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/ration ... #ref561225

[Gnomon]

↪wonderer1
Do animals have intentionality? They seem to from my perspective. What does this add to the discussion? — Tom Storm

What did you mean (intend) by that question?

Courts of Law often spend thousands of attorney hours in trying to prove or deny Intention --- after the fact. But during an action, the intent is fairly obvious to the human mind. We seem to have a talent for interpreting intentions, such as stalking behavior. For example, if we see a cheetah approaching an antelope, crouching slowly, hairs raised, ears forward & eyes fixed, it could be just playing, or it could be intent on murder. Likewise, Nature --- as a whole system --- seems to display intentional patterns of behavior, that can be rationalized into a purposive, meaningful, goal oriented, worldview. But proving it, after the fact, is arduous.

What does that ability to interpret behavior add to a discussion about Rationality? For humans the innate ability to recognize patterns can be enhanced by the addition of Rational analysis of the situation, as in the courtroom example. Reason allows humans to make fine distinctions that may not be apparent to an animal. If you point a gun at an antelope, it may not interpret your intentions as murderous. Artificial/cultural elements of the modern world require reason to enhance instinct. That may be why some exhausted thinkers idealize a return to a "state of nature" where arduous & fallible reasoning & argumentation is not required for survival.

The intention of the OP, seems to argue that rational humans are not mere instinctive animals. Hence more than just aggregations of atoms & tangles of neurons. It's that little extra immaterial essence --- je nais se quoi --- that distinguishes human nature from animal nature.

WHAT ARE THE ANIMAL'S INTENTIONS?
cheetah-stalking-prey-in-namibia-BWC7X7.jpg

↪Wayfarer

[Gnomon]

I'm not convinced we know what is random versus that which is not random. We detect patterns, as far as human cognition allows and we ascribe characteristics to those patterns - again in human terms. But words like 'random' or 'accidental' seem to have emotional connotations and function as tips of icebergs. — Tom Storm

Tom, your unwillingness to commit to at least a provisional position on the Random Chaos vs Rational Cosmos question is puzzling to me. Is it the "emotional connotations" that cause you to take a position of Profound Skepticism? If the world is all a "blooming buzzing confusion"*1, why bother to post on a philosophy forum? Doesn't a forum like this presuppose that we can eventually make sense of the complex patterns of Nature, and the even more confusing patterns of Culture? Do you think that Nature is "leaving no role for the free exercise of reason. — Wayfarer".

PS___Admittedly, sometimes forum threads, veering recklessly off-topic, seem to add to the original confusion that provokes the question. :joke:


In his book, The Principles of Psychology, William James defines the concept of 'blooming and buzzing confusion' to describe a baby's experience of the world as pure sensation that comes before any rationality. This experience becomes a reference to further interpretation of the coming sensations in life.
https://www.hamedkhosravi.com/A-Buzzing-Confusion-1

↪Wayfarer

[Gnomon]

Tom, your unwillingness to commit to at least a provisional position on the Random Chaos vs Rational Cosmos question is puzzling to me. — Gnomon
I think that's mostly a problem for you and may explain things. Also 'unwillingness' is not a good word, it implies an ought - I 'ought' to be able to, right? I would say 'inability' would be more appropriate. I hold tentative positions on some matters, and was just writing elsewhere above - — Tom Storm

Yes. Our different attitudes towards opinions "may explain things". You seem motivated to avoid dogmatic positions, while I'm interested in discovering moderate "provisional positions". And yet, you do occasionally express a brief succinct opinion on some specific topics. Maybe you only avoid a priori topics that cannot be definitively proven true or false.

Perhaps you think broad general questions --- "some matters", such as Random vs Rational Reality --- are more likely to be answered imperiously, and perhaps based on debatable religious or political postures, instead of hard scientific facts. I'm keenly aware of that danger, but I'm willing to take a chance on exchanging opinions on such fraught topics, on the outside chance that I might learn something philosophically important. Such as "why some opinion exchanges are more polarized than others".

PS___Regarding the "ought" (moral obligations) aspects of expressed opinions, some might hold that scientific views (beliefs, opinions) ought to be expressed in terms of Factual Particulars, while philosophical perspectives ought to be expressed in Generalities & Possibilities --- or not expressed at all. I've noticed that some posters on this philosophy forum seem to deliberately avoid voicing general or speculative opinions (philosophy ; rationalism), and to restrict their views to particular & empirical facts (science ; naturalism)*1 *2. And they can be rather dogmatic about defending what they see as a wall of separation between Fact (science) & Fiction (philosophy). In that case, perhaps they ought not to be posting on a wishy-washy philosophy forum at all.


*1. ↪Janus :
Science only deals with subjects insofar as they are material, or physical, if you like. It is only those kinds of inquiries that can be rigorously tested. Other kinds of ideas (like the synthetic generalizations I mentioned earlier) are what we (collectively) cannot imagine being otherwise. Then there things which are true as a matter of logic.
What category do you think the idea your OP consists in is based on?
↪Wayfarer :
Philosophy, I would hope. I think the lineage of the argument can plausibly be traced back to the Phaedo.

*2 Philosophy and Its Contrast with Science :
We’ll start with what has historically been the most dominant view of the nature of philosophy:[1] let’s call this view ‘rationalism.’[2] After looking at this traditional perspective, we’ll review a more recent view of what philosophy is or should be: ‘naturalism.’
https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2018/02/ ... h-science/

[Gnomon]

As someone somewhere on this forum once said, the answer to "How long would it take monkeys to compose the complete works of Shakespeare?" is about 300,000 years. That experiment has already been run. — Srap Tasmaner

Interesting! Do you have a link to that experiment? How many monkeys involved (n=?)? Does it assume that the monkeys bang away randomly, or have they been taught to type purposefully --- as they do when pounding nuts with rocks? Compared to feckless philosophy, unfettered Science gets results. Oh, did the experiment begin 300,000 years ago, or did they use a Black Hole to accelerate time? :joke:

FWIW, here's what Wiki has to say on the Infinite Monkey Theorem : a thought experiment.

Infinite monkey theorem :
The theorem can be generalized to state that any sequence of events which has a non-zero probability of happening will almost certainly eventually occur, given unlimited time. . . . .
Even if every proton in the observable universe (which is estimated at roughly 1080) were a monkey with a typewriter, typing from the Big Bang until the end of the universe (when protons might no longer exist), they would still need a far greater amount of time – more than three hundred and sixty thousand orders of magnitude longer – to have even a 1 in 10500 chance of success. To put it another way, for a one in a trillion chance of success, there would need to be 10360,641 observable universes made of protonic monkeys.[g] As Kittel and Kroemer put it in their textbook on thermodynamics, the field whose statistical foundations motivated the first known expositions of typing monkeys,[4] "The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event ...", and the statement that the monkeys must eventually succeed "gives a misleading conclusion about very, very large numbers."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem


A RATIONAL INTENTIONAL MONKEY times infinity

[Gnomon]

↪Wayfarer
Of course you will assume that information is physical ... — Wayfarer
For the *Quantum Woo Crew* ...
↪180 Proof


The Closer to Truth video asks "Is Information Fundamental?". And Seth Lloyd thinks it is. But, here's what The Information Philosopher says about that question :
"Seth Lloyd is quite correct that information ("bits") is physical ("its"). However, unlike things, which are concrete and material. Information is abstract and immaterial." *1 So, Information is "physical" in the same sense that Energy is physical & real : both are intangible causes that are detectable only in their effects*2. Abstractions are imaginary representations in minds.

Philosophically, you could say that the Atom of Energy is a Bit of Information. Otherwise, Energy has no measurable/quantifiable properties in itself, but only in its effects on Matter : Change, Causation. Therefore, Energy/Information is indeed "physical" and "real" in that it has effects on Material objects, even though it is not a material object/thing itself*4.

Energy is the Potential for change in Matter (e.g. motion). Information is the Potential for change in Minds (e.g. knowledge). Both are essential to knowable Reality, even though neither is a Material object. Instead, Matter is a tangible form of intangible Energy/Information : E=MC^2. Energy/Information is devoid of properties such as Mass & Velocity, but it is instead the Cause of such measurable properties*5. Energy is a Qualia (causation), but its effect/consequence is a Quanta (measurable difference).

180 seems to think that Energy/Information is "woo" simply because it it invisible & intangible, like a ghost. But most physicists believe that Energy is real, even though they have never seen a real particle of Potential (the ding an sich). Like a poltergeist, Energy/Information is knowable only when it causes a book to spontaneously fall off a shelf. To which we physicalists respond : "it was just Gravity", but what then, is gravity made of : graves, weights, heaviness?.


*1. Seth Lloyd : https://www.informationphilosopher.com/ ... sts/lloyd/

*2. Is energy real? From a physics perspective, is there actually energy? If it's not a thing, what is it, and how do we know it really exists?

It’s a very good question. Speaking as a physics teacher, too few students ask it, too few instructors answer it, and too few textbooks define the word “energy” (although all textbooks use this word a lot). Everybody just assumes we all know what “energy” means, but we don’t know. Furthermore, energy is the most fundamental physical concept of all, because the universe is made of quantized fields that are themselves made of energy. So everybody needs to know what “energy” means.

The problem appears to stem from the great physicist Richard Feynman, who seems to have thought energy was undefinable. He was wrong, but his thinking was very influential because he was, after all, Feynman.

Energy is a very specific entity. It is not a “thing.” It is, instead, a property of things. Let’s start with some definitions: A collection of physical objects is called a “physical system” or simply a “system”. When we say a system “has energy,” we mean that it has the capacity to do work. So, what does it mean to ”do work?” When you do work, you exert forces in order to alter the positions or velocities of objects. That is, work is the ability to change things by exerting forces to move objects around. Of course, all this can be defined and measured quantitively (which I won’t do here). The units are joules, or calories, or BTUs, or electron-volts. Thus, when we say that a ball flying through the air has “10 joules of energy,” we mean its speed gives it the ability to do 10 joules of work on some other system. This type of energy (energy due to motion) is called “kinetic energy.”

The bottom line: Yes, energy is quite real. It is the ability*3 to do work.
https://www.quora.com/Does-mental-energ ... -chemicals

*3. Ability : the physical or mental power or skill needed to do something.
Synonym : Potential : not yet real.
Potential generally refers to a currently unrealized ability. ___Wiki

*4. Why information is energy?
Energy is the relationship between information regimes. That is, energy is manifested, at any level, between structures, processes and systems of information in all of its forms, and all entities in this universe is composed of information.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... in-physics
Note --- A "relationship" is a mathematical Ratio or Proportion between related things or ideas.

*5. Physicalism typically involves a methodological commitment to the view that, whatever the final, accurate description of reality looks like, it will be set out in terms of physical entities:things with properties like mass and velocity.
https://iai.tv/articles/reality-is-not- ... -auid-2512
Note --- That "commitment" is a metaphysical belief based on a priori assumptions.

[Gnomon]

(And as to whether 'abstractions are causal', that is another question altogether. But the formative role of mathematical physics in science at least points in that direction.) — Wayfarer

As usual, we are treading in swampy terrain here, with pockets of philosophical quicksand all around. So, this post is likely to get your feet wet & squishy. ↪180 Proof will enjoy ROFLing and eye-rolling in bemused incredulity ; keeping his feet dry, by studiously avoiding the sodden speculations of theoretical Philosophy, in favor of the "hard" facts of empirical Science. Please pardon my excursion beyond the solid ground of objective Matter into the mucky bog of subjective Mind*1, on the leaky platform of a philosophy forum.

The vocabulary of dogmatic Materialism seems to exclude that which is behind the eyeballs*7 (ideal, abstract, private, subjective Representations/Meanings), and defines as "real" only that which lies on the objective (public) side of the lens, and labels the majority vote as Reality. Yet Kant --- echoing Plato --- noted that the observer actually knows only the internal ideal representation --- along with any personal biases --- not the external reality, or the ultimate ding an sich. But Materialists are not Kantians. So they naively believe that their abstract subjective image is the concrete objective thing; real enough for practical purposes.

On the other hand, some idealist Mathematicians (e.g. Tegmark) tend to think of their immaterial mental abstractions as somehow more real than the material embodiment of an essential logical structure of interrelationships. Tegmark's Mathworld is theoretical, while Dennett's Naturalistic world is empirical. Are you an Either/Or thinker? Do you define "Truth" as solely Real or only Ideal? For little ole me it's both : look to objective Reality for pragmatic (concrete) purposes, and to subjective Ideality for theoretical (abstract) reasons*4. Taken together, we may be able to get Closer To Truth.

Whereas Chemistry is mostly concerned with Matter (real malleable stuff), Physics is mainly focused on Energy (spooky invisible action)*3 . Hence, 21st century physicists no longer assume that reality is composed of hard material atoms. Instead, they imagine that the world is fundamentally an invisible Field of mathematical relationships (space-time nodes and meaningful links between them). In what sense is an abstract mathematical quantum field of Potential Energy Real*5? Quantum scientists find evidence that an invisible intangible nonlocal "cloud" of statistical possibilities can have tangible local actual effects*6. Is that real enough for your practical or theoretical purposes?


*1. Rejections of Idealism, often accuse Idealists of denying objective Reality, then metaphysically affirm the opposite. But that is an example of simplistic black vs white thinking, which defeats the purpose of Philosophy : to question assumptions, while avoiding dogmatism. I can't speak for Wayfarer, but the definitions in footnote *2 do not define my more complex integrated worldview, which is intended to combine the Objective (concrete) view of empirical science with the Subjective (abstract)*5 perspective of mind-probing philosophy, into a single holistic worldview. If you must label such a view, try inclusive portmanteau words like Re-dealism or I-realism, but please avoid the exclusive facile oppositions of Realism versus Idealism. :chin:


2. Within modern philosophy there are sometimes taken to be two fundamental conceptions of idealism :
a. something mental (the mind, spirit, reason, will) is the ultimate foundation of all reality, or even exhaustive of reality, and
b. although the existence of something independent of the mind is conceded, everything that we can know about this mind-independent “reality” is held to be so permeated by the creative, formative, or constructive activities of the mind (of some kind or other) that all claims to knowledge must be considered, in some sense, to be a form of self-knowledge.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/idealism/

*3. Is energy real or a concept? :
What is energy? Energy is one of the most basic concepts in physics, but also one of the hardest to define.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/phys ... is-energy/
Note --- Is "ability" a real thing? Is "work" a physical object? Is "causation" an observation or an inference?

*4. What is reality? :
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”
___Philip K. Dick
"Ideality is that which, when you stop reasoning, goes away."
___Gnomon

*5. What is the philosophy of abstract thought?
Abstract thinking is the ability to understand concepts that are real, such as freedom or vulnerability, but which are not directly tied to concrete physical objects and experiences. Abstract thinking is the ability to absorb information from our senses and make connections to the wider world.
https://www.healthline.com/health/abstract-thinking

*6. Does quantum physics disprove causality?
No, quantum physics does not disprove causality. On the contrary, our best working quantum theory to date, quantum field theory, quite properly respects causality both on the macroscopic and on the microscopic level.
https://www.quora.com/Does-quantum-phys ... -causality


*7 PHYSICAL OPTICS plus METAPHYSICAL INTERPRETATION (meaning)
See the little raindrop, full of images, in the head? Is it the pineal gland or the soul? How do you know?
braineye.jpg