• 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

manofknowledge said:
I didn't intend it as an argument. I only pointed out that many great scientific advances were dismissed initially.
Click to expand...
I've only dismissed ontological reductionism, I haven't rejected any particular scientific theory.
 
TrueScotsman said:
I've only dismissed ontological reductionism, I haven't rejected any particular scientific theory.
Click to expand...

So, you are making a metaphysical statement without support then.
 
RAMOSS said:
So, you are making a metaphysical statement without support then.
Click to expand...
Read the OP. You don't understand my position at all it seems. Do you even understand what this thread is about?

I'm sick of nothing but laziness when ever I actually try to bring up something interesting here.
 
TrueScotsman said:
What I have said does not count out theories such as a mutliverse or string theory. I think these would be expansions in our understanding of the natural world, not any evidence of a kind of mystical reality.
Click to expand...

Would you say quantum entanglement is mystical or real?
 
manofknowledge said:
Would you say quantum entanglement is mystical or real?
Click to expand...
I would say theoretical, but if real then it would be a physical event at the quantum level involving two or more particles. There are all kinds of things people refer to as "quantum" that I would label as mystical, this is common from "woo" teachers.

I don't find these to be particularly interesting questions. Did you read the OP? My views are stated there.
 
TrueScotsman said:
I would say theoretical, but if real then it would be a physical event at the quantum level involving two or more particles. There are all kinds of things people refer to as "quantum" that I would label as mystical, this is common from "woo" teachers.

I don't find these to be particularly interesting questions. Did you read the OP? My views are stated there.
Click to expand...

OK. I'll stop. I read your OP and I happen to feel it is narrow minded.
 
manofknowledge said:
OK. I'll stop. I read your OP and I happen to feel it is narrow minded.
Click to expand...
How come you're unable to articulate a response, how is it narrow minded? How am I to appreciate that you even comprehended what I wrote with such a vacuous and subjective reply.

Like I said, anytime something interesting begins to be discussed people run for the hills. Laziness!
 
TrueScotsman said:
Read the OP. You don't understand my position at all it seems. Do you even understand what this thread is about?

I'm sick of nothing but laziness when ever I actually try to bring up something interesting here.
Click to expand...

Rejecting ontological reductionism is indeed a metaphysical opinion, and nothing else.
 
RAMOSS said:
Rejecting ontological reductionism is indeed a metaphysical opinion, and nothing else.
Click to expand...
Read the OP you lazy bum. I make an argument, which you have utterly failed to address. Want to defend reductionism? Bring it, if not then I've grown tired of your non-contribution to this thread.
 
TrueScotsman said:
Read the OP you lazy bum. I make an argument, which you have utterly failed to address. Want to defend reductionism? Bring it, if not then I've grown tired of your non-contribution to this thread.
Click to expand...

Even emergence can be broken down to the interactions between individual components.
 
RAMOSS said:
Even emergence can be broken down to the interactions between individual components.
Click to expand...
Duh, I never said it was anything more than the interactions between component parts. Emergence just means that when those component parts complete the complex structure, novel functions and properties can be observed which are not possessed by the component parts.

When are you going to read the OP?

The level of discussion on this forum has me this close to deleting my account. Sick of this BS, trolls have pushed out anyone sincerely looking for discourse.
 
TrueScotsman said:
Duh, I never said it was anything more than the interactions between component parts. Emergence just means that when those component parts complete the complex structure, novel functions and properties can be observed which are not possessed by the component parts.

When are you going to read the OP?

The level of discussion on this forum has me this close to deleting my account. Sick of this BS, trolls have pushed out anyone sincerely looking for discourse.
Click to expand...

They won't delete your account, but you can leave. However, if you make your concepts clear, perhaps it is you, not the people who you are talking to.
 
RAMOSS said:
They won't delete your account, but you can leave. However, if you make your concepts clear, perhaps it is you, not the people who you are talking to.
Click to expand...
There is no evidence you have even read the OP, troll. One person has demonstrated the OP, ONE! The problem is not me, its troll like you, who can't for their life say anything substantial that is on topic to the actual remarks made. If anything is unclear, I am more than willing to clarify. You're purpose is obvious, and it is killing actual discussion.
 
TrueScotsman said:
Duh, I never said it was anything more than the interactions between component parts. Emergence just means that when those component parts complete the complex structure, novel functions and properties can be observed which are not possessed by the component parts.

When are you going to read the OP?

The level of discussion on this forum has me this close to deleting my account. Sick of this BS, trolls have pushed out anyone sincerely looking for discourse.
Click to expand...

You have some serious anger issues...
 
Elvira said:
You have some serious anger issues...
Click to expand...
I can always count on you when you contribute to my threads, that it will certainly not be on topic. I'll let you know when I want a cultist's feedback.
 
TrueScotsman said:
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. ....
Click to expand...

Please help me out. You appear to identify yourself as an Atheistic Naturalist, then you flesh out as best you can an overview of concepts related to and germane to Atheist v. Theist discussions.

You touch on Reductionism, Physicalism v. Idealism/Dualism debates on the reality of consciousness, the concept of Emergence, ontology, metaphysics, Platonism, organic chemistry, geology, biology, psychology, human culture, human behavior and the dynamic evolutionary interaction of forces that thrust humans into the wheel of life and adapting to civilization!

In the Real World, has your Naturalistic approach to reality as described in your OP gained traction with other like-minded thinkers? Based on this thread, it has not gained traction in our DP World.

Feel some Love! Keep thinking. Keep believing. Peace to you and yours!

You differentiate your views from Daniel Dennett, the renowned Cognitive Scientist.
 
TrueScotsman said:
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.
Click to expand...

My position is, I think similar to yours but without the big words.

So when I get the question of how life started I can use the TED talk on the line between life and not life. Martin Hanczyc: The line between life and not-life | TED Talk

When you want to discuss intelligence or self awareness I can talk about how close a computer is coming to be that.

If they want to talk about what caused the universe to start I can show that it is at least 12.5 billion years old by linking to the deep field image from Hubble. YouTube

The reason I can only go to 12.5 billion years is that I can only explain the stuff that is obvious. Beyond that I take the word of the physicists and they go to 13.8 billion years but the actual start event is "nobody knows".
 
Trippy Trekker said:
Please help me out. You appear to identify yourself as an Atheistic Naturalist, then you flesh out as best you can an overview of concepts related to and germane to Atheist v. Theist discussions.

You touch on Reductionism, Physicalism v. Idealism/Dualism debates on the reality of consciousness, the concept of Emergence, ontology, metaphysics, Platonism, organic chemistry, geology, biology, psychology, human culture, human behavior and the dynamic evolutionary interaction of forces that thrust humans into the wheel of life and adapting to civilization!

In the Real World, has your Naturalistic approach to reality as described in your OP gained traction with other like-minded thinkers? Based on this thread, it has not gained traction in our DP World.

Feel some Love! Keep thinking. Keep believing. Peace to you and yours!

You differentiate your views from Daniel Dennett, the renowned Cognitive Scientist.
Click to expand...

Yes, the naturalistic view is what has informed and been the bedrock of the enlightenment. It is generally done without the big words though.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Yes, the naturalistic view is what has informed and been the bedrock of the enlightenment. It is generally done without the big words though.
Click to expand...

TrueScotsman's writing style reminded me of our former forum Mod Zyphlin. If TrueScotsman had stuck around, I might have helped him reconstruct his lazy OP word-salad into something more easily comprehended. He appears to have fled the forum.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
TrueScotsman's writing style reminded me of our former forum Mod Zyphlin. If TrueScotsman had stuck around, I might have helped him reconstruct his lazy OP word-salad into something more easily comprehended. He appears to have fled the forum.
Click to expand...

I think naturalism is best summed up as the bleeding obvious.

Or at least obvious once you have the evidence to support it. Like thermodynamics being supported by the fact that planes fly.
 
Tim the plumber said:
I think naturalism is best summed up as the bleeding obvious.

Or at least obvious once you have the evidence to support it. Like thermodynamics being supported by the fact that planes fly.
Click to expand...

Naturalism makes sense to me; you and I seem to align on this topic. TrueScotsman waffled with words and concepts in an attempt to communicate. He became frustrated with responses. His views and mine on social topics tended to align; yours and mine, not so much.

Peace to you good chap! Wishing you a jolly good English day! We have a hot moist one brewing today in my Florida town.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
Naturalism makes sense to me; you and I seem to align on this topic. TrueScotsman waffled with words and concepts in an attempt to communicate. He became frustrated with responses. His views and mine on social topics tended to align; yours and mine, not so much.

Peace to you good chap! Wishing you a jolly good English day! We have a hot moist one brewing today in my Florida town.
Click to expand...

OK, and thanks.

It is interesting to look at our paths to understanding or believing what we believe.

Which ideas do we disagree with and can we explore how we each got there? Epistemology, if you will. (How we got to believe what we do)
 
It's nice to see people posting without using a thesaurus.
 
Naturalism isviewing the world by what your senses can detect - which may requires technological assistance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom