• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How One Naturalist Approaches Reality

TrueScotsman

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
1,816
Reaction score
1,034
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In most atheist versus theist debate, very few of the atheists actually present what it is they think on matters of Naturalism as I would agree there is not a particular position implied by simply being an atheist. I do however think it does people a disservice in that I think its important for religious people to see how people might think after they have a purely natural way of looking at the world. This I think results in people being educated on a variant of Naturalism, which is Reductionism that I think has been a stumbling block for some. This I think stems from the Physicalism versus Idealism/Dualism debate on the reality of consciousness. Does one have to become Daniel Dennett if they become an atheist, and think everything about consciousness is an illusion?

I don't think so, there have been advances in our understanding of complex systems and a concept which is called Emergence. In short, small dumb things can in number and structure of organization produce bigger smarter things that have properties that the individual component parts do not possess. This concept I think is absolutely key for getting stuck in this bipolar philosophical argument of our history, which attempts to have a unified ontology of the universe. I think that if explanatory reduction is insufficient, then why should we give preference ontological reduction? This to me opens up a much more interesting way of talking about how things are "real," a pluralistic universe which is not just physics, but a whole universe of evolution of matter has produced incredible diversity. Especially here on earth, where organic chemistry and geology combined to create biology, and biology the psychological, and the psychological the cultural. Yes, in my worldview culture and politics are "real" in the sense that they emerge out of the activities, ideologies, and institutions that human beings operate. They emerge out of human behavior, which makes it incredibly complex but not tangible or metaphysical in a kind of plutonian ideal. All these institutions and cultures had an evolution of their own, all out of a similar context found on being thrust into life in this world and having to adapt a civilization.
 
Culture is an abstract social object. Not essentially different than a table.
 
Culture is an abstract social object. Not essentially different than a table.
If the table is merely taken as the abstract cognitive artifact we use to refer to a flat surface with four legs. Yes, language never gets into the the thing in itself, language and culture evolved together to supply the metaphorical construct with which the communities life be made. When we talk more specifically about culture in the sense of of our higher institutions and beliefs, such as having a civilization with the rule of law and Democratic Republicanism, then I think these cultural cognitive artifacts function quite differently on a much more complex scale than a table.
 
If the table is merely taken as the abstract cognitive artifact we use to refer to a flat surface with four legs. Yes, language never gets into the the thing in itself, language and culture evolved together to supply the metaphorical construct with which the communities life be made. When we talk more specifically about culture in the sense of of our higher institutions and beliefs, such as having a civilization with the rule of law and Democratic Republicanism, then I think these cultural cognitive artifacts function quite differently on a much more complex scale than a table.

Tools.
 
Exactly what is your perspective, I accept the reality of abstract social objects, I use the language of cultural cognitive artifact though as I think it is more precise in not accepting a metaphysical reality for the abstraction. What is your view of ontology?
 
Exactly what is your perspective, I accept the reality of abstract social objects, I use the language of cultural cognitive artifact though as I think it is more precise in not accepting a metaphysical reality for the abstraction. What is your view of ontology?

A table and an abstract object, social or not, are both tools. Not essentially different. Neither is more real.
 
A table and an abstract object, social or not, are both tools. Not essentially different. Neither is more real.
Can you answer my question, otherwise I am moving on.
 
No one else has bothered with your sophomoric philosophical rambling.
Okay, it was a mistake choosing to talk to you again. Sorry, you're not able to keep up and speak intelligbly on the topic.
 
Okay, it was a mistake choosing to talk to you again. Sorry, you're not able to keep up and speak intelligbly on the topic.

That you believed you had the capacity to "move on" when you did not is anti ontological.
 
That you believed you had the capacity to "move on" when you did not is anti ontological.
You had a massive tantrum, and I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I should have known by your miniscule and vague response that you weren't interested in discussion. I won't make the mistake of responding to you again, have a nice life. :peace
 
You had a massive tantrum, and I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I should have known by your miniscule and vague response that you weren't interested in discussion. I won't make the mistake of responding to you again, have a nice life. :peace

No one likes your tea party anyway.
 
In most atheist versus theist debate, very few of the atheists actually present what it is they think on matters of Naturalism as I would agree there is not a particular position implied by simply being an atheist. I do however think it does people a disservice in that I think its important for religious people to see how people might think after they have a purely natural way of looking at the world. This I think results in people being educated on a variant of Naturalism, which is Reductionism that I think has been a stumbling block for some. This I think stems from the Physicalism versus Idealism/Dualism debate on the reality of consciousness. Does one have to become Daniel Dennett if they become an atheist, and think everything about consciousness is an illusion?

I don't think so, there have been advances in our understanding of complex systems and a concept which is called Emergence. In short, small dumb things can in number and structure of organization produce bigger smarter things that have properties that the individual component parts do not possess. This concept I think is absolutely key for getting stuck in this bipolar philosophical argument of our history, which attempts to have a unified ontology of the universe. I think that if explanatory reduction is insufficient, then why should we give preference ontological reduction? This to me opens up a much more interesting way of talking about how things are "real," a pluralistic universe which is not just physics, but a whole universe of evolution of matter has produced incredible diversity. Especially here on earth, where organic chemistry and geology combined to create biology, and biology the psychological, and the psychological the cultural. Yes, in my worldview culture and politics are "real" in the sense that they emerge out of the activities, ideologies, and institutions that human beings operate. They emerge out of human behavior, which makes it incredibly complex but not tangible or metaphysical in a kind of plutonian ideal. All these institutions and cultures had an evolution of their own, all out of a similar context found on being thrust into life in this world and having to adapt a civilization.
Did you mean Platonian?
 
Did you mean Platonian?
Plato had an idea of a theory of forms, that this world is in a sense but a shadow of an idealized concepts. When I say I believe concepts are real, it is because I think they emergent, not because they have some timeless and absolute metaphysical existence.
 
Plato had an idea of a theory of forms, that this world is in a sense but a shadow of an idealized concepts. When I say I believe concepts are real, it is because I think they emergent, not because they have some timeless and absolute metaphysical existence.

The Allegory of the Cave
 
In most atheist versus theist debate, very few of the atheists actually present what it is they think on matters of Naturalism as I would agree there is not a particular position implied by simply being an atheist. I do however think it does people a disservice in that I think its important for religious people to see how people might think after they have a purely natural way of looking at the world. This I think results in people being educated on a variant of Naturalism, which is Reductionism that I think has been a stumbling block for some. This I think stems from the Physicalism versus Idealism/Dualism debate on the reality of consciousness. Does one have to become Daniel Dennett if they become an atheist, and think everything about consciousness is an illusion?

I don't think so, there have been advances in our understanding of complex systems and a concept which is called Emergence. In short, small dumb things can in number and structure of organization produce bigger smarter things that have properties that the individual component parts do not possess. This concept I think is absolutely key for getting stuck in this bipolar philosophical argument of our history, which attempts to have a unified ontology of the universe. I think that if explanatory reduction is insufficient, then why should we give preference ontological reduction? This to me opens up a much more interesting way of talking about how things are "real," a pluralistic universe which is not just physics, but a whole universe of evolution of matter has produced incredible diversity. Especially here on earth, where organic chemistry and geology combined to create biology, and biology the psychological, and the psychological the cultural. Yes, in my worldview culture and politics are "real" in the sense that they emerge out of the activities, ideologies, and institutions that human beings operate. They emerge out of human behavior, which makes it incredibly complex but not tangible or metaphysical in a kind of plutonian ideal. All these institutions and cultures had an evolution of their own, all out of a similar context found on being thrust into life in this world and having to adapt a civilization.

I found this thought provoking, however to be honest I was multitasking as I read it.

I will try find time tomorrow to reread it and give it more thought.
 
I found this thought provoking, however to be honest I was multitasking as I read it.

I will try find time tomorrow to reread it and give it more thought.
Thanks, look forward to your feedback, especially any criticisms or additional questions you might have. I don't view this as some kind of finished dogma, but my best attempt at trying to understand reality.

If Emergence is a newer concept for you, this video does a good job introducing it. Some people abuse the term, but I don't mean it in any kind of metaphysical or spiritual way, its more of a way of talking about really complex scales of organization that we use language to kind of poetically describe reality.

 
Is reality at a quantum scale the same as at a cosmic scale? What role does perception play in understanding reality?
 
Back
Top Bottom