The First Principles of D. Shropshire?

S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#1
I'm curious about the philosophical underpinnings of D. Shropshire's paradigm.

Let's start with these quotes from the Neurons to Nirvana thread:

OHHH, you mean like this philosophical definition maybe; ''Philosophical materialism (physicalism) is the metaphysical view that there is only one substance in the universe and that substance is physical or material. Materialists believe that spiritual substance does not exist. Paranormal, supernatural, or occult phenomena are either delusions or reducible to natural forces."

By THAT definition I'm not a materialist, because I don't believe that there is only ONE substance in the universe. I believe there are about 114 or so, and I have really good reasons for it, not an irrational or dogmatic belief.
Yes, I believe that our existence if part of the natural world, and I believe in time. I shouldn't say I believe in it, I guess I should say I accept the evidence that proves it. Tactile, no problem, well described in biology and other fields, and various things going on like 'mental constrainsts', placebo effects etc. I don't have to explain origins, there is no shame in admitting you don't know something; maybe you feel ashamed, I don't, and neither do scientists. Causation/co-relation, not specific enough.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#2
Another quote:

Still sounds just as flakey upper or lower. Anyway I don't accept any of the 8 million + gods posited by man, so it doesn't matter. But if you did a street survey of regular people and asked them about ''God as ground of Being'', they'll probably think you're a hare krishna or some other religious fanatic.
Being being capitalized is a reference to the philosophy of Heidegger.

Ground is partially a reference to Symbol Grounding, but is more about terminating the infinite regress that comes up in Agrippa's Trilemma.

Using a street survey to determine what's "flakey", by which I assume you mean things justified in being subject to a priori dismissal, seems like a commission of the previously discussed appeal to popularity fallacy.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#6
Oh, you mentioned you were a philosopher operating from first principles.

What are those first principles? Thanks!
 
#7
Sure, it's like instead of starting form some underlying assumption or proposition, one thinks it thru with no previous dogma, foundational principles, etc.

So if I were checking out some guys claim that there was a psychic dog or parrot, I wouldn't assume that it was true, or could not be true.
If some other guy claimed that he talked to the Holy Ghost(as some guy on this forum did)(I wonder if YOU believe it?)) I would go about the question with an open mind, and study the evidence. If there turned out to be strong evidence, then I'd go for it, if no evidence, then I wouldn't.
How does all that differ from how you operate?
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#8
Sure, it's like instead of starting form some underlying assumption or proposition, one thinks it thru with no previous dogma, foundational principles, etc.

So if I were checking out some guys claim that there was a psychic dog or parrot, I wouldn't assume that it was true, or could not be true.
If some other guy claimed that he talked to the Holy Ghost(as some guy on this forum did)(I wonder if YOU believe it?)) I would go about the question with an open mind, and study the evidence. If there turned out to be strong evidence, then I'd go for it, if no evidence, then I wouldn't.
How does all that differ from how you operate?
I go by Robert Anton Wilson's Maybe Logic.

So I don't worry as much about what's irrational or woo. I'm also more of a Neutral Monist, or maybe a "soft" materialist. My ego isn't bound to a paradigm.

"The agnostic principle refuses total belief or total denial and regards models as tools to be used only and always where appropriate and replaced (by other models) only and always where not appropriate. It does not regard any models, or any class of models, as more "profound" than any other models, but asks only how a model serves, or fails to serve, those who use it. The agnostic principle is intended here in a broad "humanistic" or "existential" sense, and is not intended to be narrowly technical or philosophical only."

-R.A.Wilson, The New Inquisition

"This is the self-image of modern humanity: of the Right Man in particular, but also of masses of ordinary men and women who have internalized the Fundamentalist Materialist3 metaphor and made it the New Idol.

Footnote 3. Wilson thinks of “matter” as a metaphor. He defines a “liberal materialist” as “one who holds that materialism is a ‘relative best bet’ among competing philosophies, or the most plausible model around, whereas the fundamentalist materialist—either out of ignorance or philosophy or out of sheer bravado or out of blind faith—proclaims that materialism is the One True Philosophy and that anyone with doubts or hesitations about it is insane, perverse, or a deliberate fraud. This One True Philosophy is the modern form of the One True Church of the dark ages. The Fundamentalist Materialist is the modern Idolator; he has made an image of the world, and now he kneels and worships it.”

-Notes on RAW's Being a Creative Agnostic
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#9
Anecdotes to not have the level of evidence. Let's say every tibetan buddist claims to believe in tulpas. What that huge number of people convince all those other buddists who don't believe in them? I don't think so. Then, would all the hindus in the world take it as evidence and thus change their minds?
Would all the jews, and christians take those anecdotes as evidence? I don't think so.
Anecdotes are used all the time as evidence though, even by skeptics. (See the altercation between PZ Myers and Michael Shermer)

If I was curious about tulpas, I might try to manifest one. But I'm willing to accept it's possible without worrying too much about it.
 
#10
Wait, I'm confused. If you're stating that first principles implies that you are divorced from bias, then that's a tall claim. You're first going to have to prove to us that you are divorced from cognitive bias.
 
#12
Anecdotes are used all the time as evidence though, even by skeptics. (See the altercation between PZ Myers and Michael Shermer)

If I was curious about tulpas, I might try to manifest one. But I'm willing to accept it's possible without worrying too much about it.
I guess I'm more like ALL THOSE other buddists, who don't go for it, and all those hindus who don't either, and all those christrians who don't either. But if I do see overwhelming evidence, then no problem.
I didn't see that altercation, but I don't believe that those guys would believe the guy who says he talked to jesus in a NDE, or the one who says he met/talked to a ghost, or the ones about the Tulpas, or the old maids who said they were kidnapped and held as sex slaves by ETs.
 
#13
I go by Robert Anton Wilson's Maybe Logic.

So I don't worry as much about what's irrational or woo. I'm also more of a Neutral Monist, or maybe a "soft" materialist. My ego isn't bound to a paradigm.

"The agnostic principle refuses total belief or total denial and regards models as tools to be used only and always where appropriate and replaced (by other models) only and always where not appropriate. It does not regard any models, or any class of models, as more "profound" than any other models, but asks only how a model serves, or fails to serve, those who use it. The agnostic principle is intended here in a broad "humanistic" or "existential" sense, and is not intended to be narrowly technical or philosophical only."

-R.A.Wilson, The New Inquisition

"This is the self-image of modern humanity: of the Right Man in particular, but also of masses of ordinary men and women who have internalized the Fundamentalist Materialist3 metaphor and made it the New Idol.

Footnote 3. Wilson thinks of “matter” as a metaphor. He defines a “liberal materialist” as “one who holds that materialism is a ‘relative best bet’ among competing philosophies, or the most plausible model around, whereas the fundamentalist materialist—either out of ignorance or philosophy or out of sheer bravado or out of blind faith—proclaims that materialism is the One True Philosophy and that anyone with doubts or hesitations about it is insane, perverse, or a deliberate fraud. This One True Philosophy is the modern form of the One True Church of the dark ages. The Fundamentalist Materialist is the modern Idolator; he has made an image of the world, and now he kneels and worships it.”

-Notes on RAW's Being a Creative Agnostic
I don't agree with Wilson, in that I think the natural world is more profound than any make-believe ones.

I don't agree with him either that 'matter is a metaphor; and could prove to him that some matter does exist and has an effect on him.
You don't have to have any idols or worship anything. In this experiment would you say I am worshiping anything; Wilson and I are together and he says that matter is just a metaphor. He is blindfolded and I tell him I have two bricks, one make of styrofoam, and the other lead, and I'll drop one, or both on his foot.
After the test, do you think he will say they were just metaphorical bricks, or would he actually be able to tell, which was which, without even seeing them?
 
#14
Sure, I admit I'm biased......in favor of reality, reason, empiricism. So if somebody proves that say, Tulpas really exist, I'll go for it.
That's still not providing evidence that you are divorced from irrationality, or other biases that lead people to believe things that aren't true.

Human beings are full of all sorts of cognitive biases. Those biases lead us to believe things like Jesus dying for our sins, the world is flat, etc.

However, if you want us to take seriously the claim that you approach all claims with pure objectivity you're going to have to prove to us how you've become exempt from these biases.
 
#15
That's still not providing evidence that you are divorced from irrationality, or other biases that lead people to believe things that aren't true.

Human beings are full of all sorts of cognitive biases. Those biases lead us to believe things like Jesus dying for our sins, the world is flat, etc.

However, if you want us to take seriously the claim that you approach all claims with pure objectivity you're going to have to prove to us how you've become exempt from these biases.
All you would have to do is point out some like me believing jesus died for our sins, or whatever. I can't think of any examples, but if you seem any, point them out. I've told you that I make an effort to think from first principles, rather than by myths, dogmas, etc.
My bias in favor of the natural world is rational, not irrational. It's empirically based.
 
#16
All you would have to do is point out some like me believing jesus died for our sins, or whatever. I can't think of any examples, but if you seem any, point them out. I've told you that I make an effort to think from first principles, rather than by myths, dogmas, etc.
My bias in favor of the natural world is rational, not irrational. It's empirically based.
And I'm once again going to have to prove that you reached that conclusion rationally, and divorced from bias. I understand that you ' make and effort to think from first principles ', but that does not mean that that effort is not in vain. For instance, you claim that
My bias in favor of the natural world is rational, not irrational. It's empirically based.
, but do you have anything in the way to back up that this claim is true?
 
#17
Yes, and you could have missed all the examples. I stated that my view is rational and empirical because the example I gave of the periodic table of elements have been PROVEN already.
I even suggested an test for one guy to prove that the element Ar is not just a model, or methaphor , but something that will certainly kill him if we extract the air from his lungs and substitute if for Ar. Indeed, all we would have to do is remove the air, and he'll die. Air is real, not a metaphor.
Another was my rational belief that the sun will rise tomorrow based on the fact that it always has, every other morning too, thus it's a rational belief, not dogmatic, or pretend, or whatever.
Another example is when I heard some astronomers predict there would be an elclipse of the moon. I was young and didn't trust them on that so I waited and watched to see if it would happen; and it did. Other people all over confirmed it, photos were taken, nobody denied it. But I was open to it not being true at first.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#18
Thank you being big enough to admit, again, that there is no proof of anything paranormal. I'm so open-minded though, that just as soon as somebody proves there is something there, I'll go for it. Up to now, what devotees are calling proof is bogus.
But you're acting as if the binary position is the only option. As Robert Anton Wilson says, no matter what position you take on reality it's a gamble.

Are you assuming matter produces conscious awareness? As Sam Harris, one of the Horseman of the New Atheist movement, points out emergence of consciousness from nonconscious matter makes no sense at all. The neuroscientists Francisco Valera and Christof Koch both have suggested the qualia of experience are as fundamental as matter and energy.

Given the alternatives to materialism, we have the possibility that Idealism/Neutral Monism/Panpsychism are true. All those possibilities allow for paranormal phenomenon.

As such, it seems completely rational to accept that the evidence that currently exists

I mean what do you say about the evidence that suggests conscious observation influences reality at the quantum level? Look at certain results discussed here & here+here and interpretations of QM noted here, here & here.
 
#19
Yes, and you could have missed all the examples. I stated that my view is rational and empirical because the example I gave of the periodic table of elements have been PROVEN already.
I even suggested an test for one guy to prove that the element Ar is not just a model, or methaphor , but something that will certainly kill him if we extract the air from his lungs and substitute if for Ar. Indeed, all we would have to do is remove the air, and he'll die. Air is real, not a metaphor.
Another was my rational belief that the sun will rise tomorrow based on the fact that it always has, every other morning too, thus it's a rational belief, not dogmatic, or pretend, or whatever.
Another example is when I heard some astronomers predict there would be an elclipse of the moon. I was young and didn't trust them on that so I waited and watched to see if it would happen; and it did. Other people all over confirmed it, photos were taken, nobody denied it. But I was open to it not being true at first.
That does not constitute evidence that you approached those conclusions with pure objectivity. I asked you to prove your objectivity, not to state where you believe you are correct. In fact, you stated that you approached all subjects with empiricism, but you have me anecdotes as evidence. All this while you claimed earlier that anecdotes were not evidence.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#20
I don't agree with Wilson, in that I think the natural world is more profound than any make-believe ones.

I don't agree with him either that 'matter is a metaphor; and could prove to him that some matter does exist and has an effect on him.
You don't have to have any idols or worship anything. In this experiment would you say I am worshiping anything; Wilson and I are together and he says that matter is just a metaphor. He is blindfolded and I tell him I have two bricks, one make of styrofoam, and the other lead, and I'll drop one, or both on his foot.
After the test, do you think he will say they were just metaphorical bricks, or would he actually be able to tell, which was which, without even seeing them?
That's the same refutation Johnson gave to Berkeley. I don't think it's a valid refutation. The firmament is in question, not the upper level causal relationships. It's not like Idealists think bullets won't kill them.
 
Top