Lecture 1086: Almost there.....

So far I have argued that materialism /physicalism is nowadays the most reasonable ontological explanation of our reality. This brings us to the epistemological question: how do we know

     

The materialist has always grounded knowledge in the empirical study of reality. However, hand in hand with developments in science, the scientific method has undergone profound refinement and elucidation. 

   

In particular, higher and higher critical standards have been set for the acceptance of theories, and many theories are only ever held with some degree of tentativeness.

    

The connection between the scientific method and materialism and physicalism is complex. On the one hand, much about science as it is now done, 

  

especially in biology and chemistry, presupposes physicalism and the origins of modern science lie in the repudiation of immaterial essences and forms. 

   

On the other hand, as I said in the previous lecture, physicalism is a falsifiable theory, and in virtue of this falsifiability physicalism claims legitimacy as a theory about reality. 

   

In principle, science could disprove physicalism. However,  the physicalist outlook is so deeply embedded in the  practice of theoretical physics, 

   

that if the point were  reached where it was felt necessary to postulate the  existence of a mental or spiritual entity to provide an explanation of some phenomenon, 

   

science would have reached a stage in its development so revolutionary, demanding such a profound change in perspective, 

   

that everything would be up for question, including the fundamental epistemological outlook established in the seventeenth century.  

    

This leaves us with the observation that there is probably a fundamental division amongst people with regard to the question of whether or not reality has a spiritual dimension.

   

A vast majority of people all over the world subscribe to the belief in some god or other spiritual entity, that is part of and can influence their existence and well-being.

   

The physicalist has only the physical world and as a tool to master it his rationality, which offers him the narrative of his human condition. 

  

All other narratives about the human condition are products of the human mind. No matter, no mind, no mind, no narrative......

     

So, our most important tool to preserve our survival is our rationality. In the final lecture of this project, I'll elaborate on the concept of rationality. 

  

Again, a word easily used, but loaded with questions.....

   

Thank you for your attention again....

   

Feel free to throw in your remarks and questions now.......

    

Main Sources:

MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995

http://www.iep.utm.edu/

 http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.htm

R.G. Brown/J. Layman, "Materialism", Routledge (2019)

TABLE OF CONTENT -----------------------------------------------------------------  

  1 - 100 Philosophers                         9 May 2009  Start of

  2 - 25+ Women Philosophers                       10 May 2009  this blog

  3 - 25 Adventures in Thinking                       10 May 2009

  4 - Modern Theories of Ethics                       29 Oct  2009

  5 - The Ideal State                                               24 Febr 2010   /   234

  6 - The Mystery of the Brain                                  3 Sept 2010   /   266

  7 - The Utopia of the Free Market                       16 Febr 2012    /   383

  8. - The Aftermath of Neo-liberalism                      5 Sept 2012   /   413

  9. - The Art Not to Be an Egoist                             6 Nov  2012   /   426                        

10  - Non-Western Philosophy                               29 May 2013    /   477

11  -  Why Science is Right                                      2 Sept 2014   /   534      

12  - A Philosopher looks at Atheism                        1 Jan  2015   /   557

13  - EVIL, a philosophical investigation                 17 Apr  2015   /   580                

14  - Existentialism and Free Will                             2 Sept 2015   /   586         

15 - Spinoza                                                             2 Sept 2016   /   615

16 - The Meaning of Life                                        13 Febr 2017   /   637

17 - In Search of  my Self                                        6 Sept 2017   /   670

18 - The 20th Century Revisited                              3 Apr  2018    /   706

19 - The Pessimist                                                  11 Jan 2020    /   819

20 - The Optimist                                                     9 Febr 2020   /   824

21 - Awakening from a Neoliberal Dream                8 Oct  2020   /   872

22 - A World Full of Patterns                                    1 Apr 2021    /   912

23 - The Concept of Freedom                                  8 Jan 2022    /   965

24 - Materialism                                                      7 Sept 2022   /  1011

The Discussion

  

[13:28] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): Thank you Herman

[13:29] Lukkie Sands: So it is just us, human beings and our rationality on this planet?

[13:29] herman Bergson: I'd say, yes indeed Lukkie....just us and our brain...

[13:30] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): I think as far as we know now Lukkie

[13:30] Max Chatnoir: I have a sort of hypothesis about humans and religion.  We are primates, closely related to chimpanzees.  Chimpanzees have dominant males and the dominant males have buddies who share somewhat in that dominance.  I think of the idea of God as an ultimate dominant male to which other powerful males might take importance from claiming to represent him.

[13:30] Lukkie Sands: You think of extraterrestrials Beertje?

[13:31] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): we never know in the future we will think different

[13:31] Max Chatnoir: Yes, other intelligent life forms would be very interesting.

[13:31] herman Bergson: That is a classic point of view, Max

[13:32] herman Bergson: In the Middle Ages and later kings derived their power from God.

[13:32] herman Bergson: What kind of difference do you expect Beertje?

[13:32] Lukkie Sands: Yes, what difference?

[13:32] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): that lies in the future I suppose

[13:33] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): there is so much that we don't know about

[13:34] herman Bergson: True, but yet there is also a lot we know about and from that we can extrapolate a lot with respect to what a future could bring

[13:35] herman Bergson: So your remark is only suggestive and speculative....

[13:35] Max Chatnoir: There are some intelligent life forms here on earth that we don't really understand very well and can't even communicate well enough with to ask about how they think about things.

[13:35] Max Chatnoir: Dolphins.  Octopuses.

[13:35] herman Bergson: YEs Max...

[13:36] herman Bergson: It is not intelligent vs not-intelligent....

[13:36] herman Bergson: there is a huge grey area between these two extremes

[13:37] herman Bergson: You could say that we were in that grey area for centuries....and then something happened in our genes....a mutation?...Who knows

[13:37] herman Bergson: and the spark of consciousness was lightened

[13:38] herman Bergson: And from an evolutionary point of view in a way it was a disaster

[13:39] Max Chatnoir: Did we just become conscious as humans or did we start to develop means of communication that weren't just language, like writing.

[13:39] bergfrau Apfelbaum: maybe the other life form is even more intelligent and knows that we are not "allowed" to mate, otherwise the universe will collapse in on itself. wherever ?

[13:39] herman Bergson: because, homo habilis, in the middle of the foodchain became homo sapiens and moved up to the first place....

[13:40] herman Bergson: How consciousness developed we only can deduce/guess from archeological findings

[13:41] herman Bergson: beginning with the use of tools, then the discovery and control of fire and so on

[13:41] Max Chatnoir: Homo sapiens almost didn't make it.  We went through some kind of severe population reduction about 900K years ago.

[13:42] herman Bergson: But he made it yet...

[13:42] Max Chatnoir: Lucky us!

[13:43] Max Chatnoir: Or maybe one of the other hominid branches would have become dominant.

[13:43] herman Bergson: Bergie, other lifeforms have no 'knowledge', they don't know...they respond on instinct to their environment in general

[13:44] herman Bergson: There are many books about how the Neanderthals disappeared from this planet

[13:44] bergfrau Apfelbaum: how do you know?

[13:45] herman Bergson: Well...we'll end up in a debate about the definition of knowledge, I fear, Bergie....

[13:46] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ok :-)

[13:46] Max Chatnoir: Bergie, what did you mean "not allowed to mate."   Do you mean not allowed to mate with other life forms, or not allowed to mate with our own life form?

[13:46] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): I think those books are only suggestive and speculative..., no one really knows for sure

[13:47] herman Bergson: And who is it that allows of forbids it?

[13:47] herman Bergson: true Beertje.....extrapolations of what we know...

[13:48] herman Bergson: But still guess work

[13:48] bergfrau Apfelbaum: with the other form of life, i meant . but it was just something like thinking out loud

[13:50] bergfrau Apfelbaum: cheers :-) tea with rum

[13:50] Max Chatnoir: We carry some of the Neanderthal genes.  But they were also from here.

[13:50] herman Bergson: Indeed Max

[13:50] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): some have the brains of a Neandertal

[13:51] herman Bergson: Well...final conclusion for me is that all we have is ourselves and our rationality. With that we have make our future.

[13:51] herman Bergson: No one else will help us with that.

[13:51] Max Chatnoir: They had big brains.  If they had survived they might be pretty interesting.

[13:51] Max Chatnoir: Neanderthals.

[13:51] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): ツ

[13:53] herman Bergson: Interesting indeed, but if you suggest that there is a relation between the size of the brain and how smart the organism is....that is questionable

[13:54] Max Chatnoir: But it's not impossible that a sufficiently aggressive species, which we certainly are, could have killed of a more intelligent species.

[13:55] Max Chatnoir: But I don't know how Neanderthal intelligence could have been measured.

[13:55] herman Bergson: True, but based on what I have read and heard this was not the case in relation to the Neanderthals

[13:56] herman Bergson: but I forgot all those details about this issue :-)

[13:56] herman Bergson: If it were true homo sapiens had a good start beginning with a genocide.....

[13:57] Max Chatnoir: But none of what we have read was written by Neanderthals.  History is written by the winners, right?

[13:57] herman Bergson: YEs but that is not what I refer to. I refer to archeological findings and conclusions.

[13:57] Lecturehall: 2023-09-28  [22:57]  b3n4dryl Resident

[13:58] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): maybe the Neanderthals had a better memory than we have..we often have no active memory

[13:58] herman Bergson: I agree Beertje: I have no active memory of Neanderthals :-))

[13:59] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): hello b3n4dryl

[13:59] Max Chatnoir: Maybe they had such good memories that they didn't have to write stuff down.  :-)

[13:59] b3n4dryl: good afternoon yall :)

[13:59] herman Bergson: ohh there you are R2B2 :-))

[14:01] herman Bergson: Well, I guess : HORA EST :-))

[14:01] Max Chatnoir: Oh, my goodness.  Time flies.

[14:01] herman Bergson: Next Tuesday our last lecture on this theme....then we'll figure out what Rationality means.

[14:02] herman Bergson: Indeed Max.

[14:02] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): happens in a good lecture

[14:03] herman Bergson: We didn't waste our time, indeed.

[14:03] herman Bergson: So...thank you all again...

[14:04] herman Bergson: Class dismissed....

    

    

 

Lecture 1085: Recapitulating.....

 The physicalist is the materialist who has learned the lessons of twentieth-century physics. The most basic teaching of both relativity and quantum physics is that our intuitions are of no help in the scientific quest to understand the fundamental nature of matter. 

  

The world, as conceived by modern physics, both in its vastness, as described by astrophysics and cosmology, and in its minuteness, as revealed by the quantum mechanical Standard Model of particle physics, 

    

is so strange, so immensely complex, and difficult to grasp, that speculations based on ordinary ideas can contribute nothing to the painstaking practice of science. 

  

In the face of the extraordinary progress in the human understanding of reality, as expressed in modern physical sciences and manifested in the technological fruits of that science, 

  

the physicalist also acknowledges that the ultimate nature of reality remains something of a closed book, to scientists as well as everyone else. 

   

 We argued that not only do we not know what the fundamental ‘level’ of reality is like, we do not even have good grounds for believing there is a fundamental level at all. 

   

We know that reality in itself, separate from human science and observation, is not in levels, it just is what it is. The idea of levels arises when we realize that we can study reality at different scales, and this may or may not be a process that goes on indefinitely. 

  

Materialism claims there are no gods and demons, ghosts and ghouls, spirits and fairies. It does acknowledge the existence of psychological phenomena, most obviously the sensations, thoughts, feelings, and volitions of our own human experience. 

    

However, it recognizes all psychological phenomena as supervenient on, that means, wholly dependent for their existence on a non-psychological base. 

  

That is to say, physicalism predicts that physics will not hypothesize the existence of spiritual or psychological phenomena for the purpose of explaining psychological phenomena. 

   

This puts physicalism as an ontological theory in a special position. Contrary to any religion and many other theories about the reality we live in, can, as I said in the previous lecture, be refuted.

    

For a long time, Higgs particles were just a hypothesis, an assumption, that they should exist. Using the scientific method physicist kept searching for them and eventually could prove their existence.

   

Now, suppose physics postulates the existence of an entity with psychological properties in order to account for psychological phenomena,

      

that hypothesis would be incompatible with physicalism, but if it proved successful and became adopted as out best physics, then physicalism would be refuted.

   

The underlying assumption here is that rationality and the scientific method are the most reliable way to arrive at true statements about reality, contrary to all other kinds of claims regarding methods of knowledge acquisition, like revelations, intuitions, quoting verses from books, and so on.

    

Thank you for your attention again.....

    

If you have any questions or remarks, feel free....the floor is yours...

   

Main Sources:

MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995

http://www.iep.utm.edu/

 http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.htm

R.G. Brown/J. Layman, "Materialism", Routledge (2019)

TABLE OF CONTENT -----------------------------------------------------------------  

  1 - 100 Philosophers                         9 May 2009  Start of

  2 - 25+ Women Philosophers                       10 May 2009  this blog

  3 - 25 Adventures in Thinking                       10 May 2009

  4 - Modern Theories of Ethics                       29 Oct  2009

  5 - The Ideal State                                               24 Febr 2010   /   234

  6 - The Mystery of the Brain                                  3 Sept 2010   /   266

  7 - The Utopia of the Free Market                       16 Febr 2012    /   383

  8. - The Aftermath of Neo-liberalism                      5 Sept 2012   /   413

  9. - The Art Not to Be an Egoist                             6 Nov  2012   /   426                        

10  - Non-Western Philosophy                               29 May 2013    /   477

11  -  Why Science is Right                                      2 Sept 2014   /   534      

12  - A Philosopher looks at Atheism                        1 Jan  2015   /   557

13  - EVIL, a philosophical investigation                 17 Apr  2015   /   580                

14  - Existentialism and Free Will                             2 Sept 2015   /   586         

15 - Spinoza                                                             2 Sept 2016   /   615

16 - The Meaning of Life                                        13 Febr 2017   /   637

17 - In Search of  my Self                                        6 Sept 2017   /   670

18 - The 20th Century Revisited                              3 Apr  2018    /   706

19 - The Pessimist                                                  11 Jan 2020    /   819

20 - The Optimist                                                     9 Febr 2020   /   824

21 - Awakening from a Neoliberal Dream                8 Oct  2020   /   872

22 - A World Full of Patterns                                    1 Apr 2021    /   912

23 - The Concept of Freedom                                  8 Jan 2022    /   965

24 - Materialism                                                      7 Sept 2022   /  1011

The Discussion

 

[13:14] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): Thank you Herman

[13:14] If you have any questions or remarks, feel free....the floor is yours...

[13:14]    

[13:16] Max Chatnoir: So if consciousness is something NOT material, then would it be some kind of force like gravity?  But even if it were wouldn't it be linked to physical things?  I think gravity is (but I'm not a physicist).

[13:17] herman Bergson: To begin with.....

[13:17] herman Bergson: What consciousness really is, we don't know

[13:17] herman Bergson: How it emerges from the brain, we don't know

[13:17] herman Bergson: Besides that....

[13:18] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): there must be ore than emerge from the brain..as I said a brain in a jar has no consciousness

[13:18] herman Bergson: to call consciousness  some kind of force is already quite a thing

[13:19] herman Bergson: Yes Beertje

[13:19] herman Bergson: But as I said in a previous lecture....

[13:19] herman Bergson: some relate consciousness to the brain, others to the whole nervous system and others again to the whole body.

[13:20] herman Bergson: I know I am aware, but consciousness is just a word.....

[13:20] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): is consciousness alive?

[13:20] herman Bergson: Words have meaning and reference

[13:21] herman Bergson: If you say that consciousness is alive you already have defined consciousness as some corporal entity, or at least a material entity

[13:21] herman Bergson: only cells are alive, according to our observations

[13:22] herman Bergson: so to wonder is consciousness alive impies that you wonder what kind of cells could it be

[13:22] Max Chatnoir: I haven't considered it as being something like that before, and I'd rather not, but I can suspend disbelief temporarilily for purposes of discussion.

[13:23] herman Bergson: Let's get back to meaning and reference....that might clarify the complexity here

[13:23] Max Chatnoir: I think consciousness is a function of neural interactivity.  Is there ANY evidence of consciousness outside of living beings?

[13:24] herman Bergson: not that I know of :-) for that must be ghosts

[13:24] bergfrau Apfelbaum: maybe it is simply an interaction between the body and the environment?

[13:24] herman Bergson: In a way it is Bergie

[13:25] Max Chatnoir: And if it is truly nonphysical, how could you possibly measure it?

[13:25] herman Bergson: A word has a meaning and a reference.....

[13:26] herman Bergson: the word tree MEANS some plant of a certain shape....

[13:26] herman Bergson: when I go outside I can point at some object and say...look, THAT is a tree....the reference of the word tree

[13:26] Max Chatnoir: Yes, I think it starts as an interaction between the body and environmental stimuli (including stimuli from elsewhere in the body).

[13:27] herman Bergson: So, we are used the assume in everyday life that every word has a reference,,  next to a meaning.....

[13:27] bergfrau Apfelbaum: and memories and feelings

[13:28] herman Bergson: But that is not the case....we have a lot of words that have no reference

[13:28] Max Chatnoir: But some references are not real, like unicorns.

[13:28] bergfrau Apfelbaum: yay

[13:28] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): it refers to our fantasy

[13:28] herman Bergson: the word Martian has a meaning....someone from Mars, but it has no reference because there do not exist real people on Mars

[13:29] herman Bergson: And this problem occurs too with the word consciousness....

[13:29] herman Bergson: We know what it means, we can look it up in the dictionary....

[13:29] herman Bergson: but WHAT is the reference...????

[13:30] Max Chatnoir: I think the reference is the experience of and reaction to the environment.

[13:30] herman Bergson: calling it a "", is saying something  like it is an emergent property of the central nervous system

[13:30] Max Chatnoir: Is seeing a tree part of consciousness?

[13:31] Max Chatnoir: Or does that take identifying it as a tree?

[13:31] herman Bergson: Sensations are constituing elements of consciousness, I'd say

[13:32] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): consciousness has more element?

[13:32] herman Bergson: A child may have a sensation of a tree but isn't able to say what it sees...so we say...that is a tree L0(

[13:32] Max Chatnoir: And does memory, which is an aspect of consciousness, reproduce those sensations?

[13:32] bergfrau Apfelbaum: You have to know that it is a tree. from mom or dad

[13:32] herman Bergson: I am inclined to think so Beertje....

[13:32] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): can you explane that to me?

[13:33] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): please?

[13:33] herman Bergson: Consciousness is a kind of class concept...it refers to a whole collection of elements

[13:33] Max Chatnoir: So part of consciousness is interaction with other beings, like mom and dad.

[13:33] herman Bergson: Like the word school

[13:33] herman Bergson: in fact there isnt such a single object named school

[13:34] herman Bergson: it is a collection of classes, rooms a boulding, furniture , teachers etc

[13:34] Max Chatnoir: ...or philosophy....

[13:34] herman Bergson: yes...there is not such a THING called philosophy that you can point out in a crowd of other entities

[13:35] Max Chatnoir: It's another interactive process.

[13:35] Max Chatnoir: like school.

[13:36] herman Bergson: The function of philosophy here is to point at the fact that we shouldn't use words that easily.

[13:37] herman Bergson: It says for instance....check the meaning and check the reference of a word

[13:37] herman Bergson: That makes you aware of the fact that you are inclined to see something as a single object or entity, tho it isn't

[13:38] Max Chatnoir: So the meaning of a word might cover several different references?

[13:38] herman Bergson: It may refer to a class of objects

[13:39] Max Chatnoir: And the boundary between the word for onereference and another might be a little fuzzy.

[13:39] herman Bergson: That is why people have different  ideas about references

[13:40] herman Bergson: What falls inside the class it refers to and what falls outside

[13:40] Max Chatnoir: There is a school class that meets in my church.  So is the building a school or a church?

[13:41] herman Bergson: there you go...:-)

[13:41] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): i think it's just a building

[13:41] herman Bergson: No....

[13:41] herman Bergson: it is also a community that comes together in the building

[13:42] herman Bergson: it is also a collection of rituals

[13:42] herman Bergson: Here yoy see the differences among people...what fallsinside and what outside the meaning and reference of the word "Church"

[13:43] Max Chatnoir: So it's the community that makes it one thing or another.  And probably also for buildings that only house classes.

[13:43] Max Chatnoir: It's not the building that makes it a school, although you may identify it as a school building.

[13:43] herman Bergson: Actually MAx should have said...in the churchbuilding people gather for servecis and sometime gather for taking a class

[13:44] Max Chatnoir: So we're back to interactivity.

[13:44] herman Bergson: the word church building has a clear meaning and unique reference....no debate possible about that

[13:46] herman Bergson: It looks attractive to see consciousness as the interactivity between organism and environment, but then you exclude a large part of what we use to see as manifestations of consciousness.....that is...thoughts, wishes, desires , emotions, etc

[13:47] Max Chatnoir: I wonder if any of that can occur without some kind of previous experience?

[13:47] herman Bergson: When I am consciously thinking about mathematical problems, it has no relation to any environment....pure abstraction only

[13:47] Max Chatnoir: But where did you experience your first math problem?

[13:48] herman Bergson: That is a huge subject, Max...they have written books about it, a lot :-)

[13:49] bergfrau Apfelbaum: i don't think so, Max. First you have to learn something, experience something, touch it in order to gain an awareness of it

[13:49] herman Bergson: just google on "What is the origin of mathematics"and you'll have a lot of fun :-)

[13:50] herman Bergson: Ahh Bergie here we go into the direction of Immanuel Kant....

[13:50] Max Chatnoir: I was just wondering about that.

[13:50] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): your first bottle of milk, can I drink all that??your first diper..is it large enough???

[13:50] herman Bergson: The a priori concepts

[13:50] Max Chatnoir: Is math a form of language?

[13:50] Max Chatnoir: to help you define experience?

[13:50] herman Bergson: It has the same characteristics yes

[13:51] herman Bergson: Some math can be related to experiences, but other parts are pure abstraction

[13:52] herman Bergson smiles

[13:52] Max Chatnoir: Like Beertje said -- will the shoe fit?

[13:53] herman Bergson: I think we have cooked our brains quite well today :-)

[13:53] Max Chatnoir: Yes, mine feels pretty cooked!

[13:53] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): mine too:))

[13:53] herman Bergson: So, time to take a time out till Thursday :-)

[13:53] bergfrau Apfelbaum: mine too!

[13:54] herman Bergson: Thank you for the good discourse and exchanges....

[13:54] bergfrau Apfelbaum: thank you herman and class!! it was interesting like alwa<ys

[13:54] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): time tolet it rest till Thursday

[13:54] Max Chatnoir: Thanks, Herman and everybody!

[13:54] herman Bergson: Class dismissed....:-)

[13:54] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): Thank you Herman

[13:54] bergfrau Apfelbaum: yay