This prominent scientist says life is meaningless… and he’s serious |314|

malf said:
It's worth remembering that Skeptiko member, and psi researcher, Johann appears inclined towards a naturalist view. That is that psi will have a mechanism based in nature.
Click to expand...

I also think this is possible.

Psi opens an acceptance of immaterialism, it doesn't prove it outright just by existing.
 
malf said:
It's worth remembering that Skeptiko member, and psi researcher, Johann appears inclined towards a naturalist view. That is that psi will have a mechanism based in nature.
Click to expand...

I dont know who Johann is; but if psi is a real phenomenon it will have a natural mechanism
 
David Eire said:
I dont know who Johann is; but if psi is a real phenomenon it will have a natural mechanism
Click to expand...
Seems obvious, but I'm not expecting everyone to agree with this "we are all naturalists" approach. (And no, tim, it doesn't mean we all have to take our clothes off :) )
 
Depends on what people mean by naturalism.

Methodological Naturalism, Liberal Naturalism, Materialist Naturalism.....seems the only contradictory one would be Theological Naturalism?
 
Sciborg_S_Patel said:
Depends on what people mean by naturalism.

Methodological Naturalism, Liberal Naturalism, Materialist Naturalism.....seems the only contradictory one would be Theological Naturalism?
Click to expand...
If there is a mechanism for everything, based in nature, sounds like it is within the remit of methodological naturalism (which is after all, a strategy rather than a philosophical position).
 
What I mean by natural is not what Sean means. I dont mean the reduced version of orthodox physicalist naturalism
For instance, if there is life (or conscious continuation) after the death of the physical body, that is natural
If the testimony of NDEers is of a real afterlife realm or realms, then that is natural
All that exists is natural
 
malf said:
If there is a mechanism for everything, based in nature, sounds like it is within the remit of methodological naturalism (which is after all, a strategy rather than a philosophical position).
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by the term "mechanism" in this context? Or "nature" to be honest...

David Eire said:
What I mean by natural is not what Sean means. I dont mean the reduced version of orthodox physicalist naturalism
For instance, if there is life (or conscious continuation) after the death of the physical body, that is natural
If the testimony of NDEers is of a real afterlife realm or realms, then that is natural
All that exists is natural
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think this what makes the distinction between natural and supernatural so very blurry.
 
David Eire said:
What I mean by natural is not what Sean means. I dont mean the reduced version of orthodox physicalist naturalism
For instance, if there is life (or conscious continuation) after the death of the physical body, that is natural
If the testimony of NDEers is of a real afterlife realm or realms, then that is natural
All that exists is natural
Click to expand...
Yet I suspect that if Sean (and his ilk) were pressed on this he would be open to anything that could be tested under methodological naturalism... For example, I'm sure a strong result in AWARE would have made plenty of folk suck a thoughtful tooth.

However, an approach such as "but I know that meaning and love feels real when I look at my wife and kids" will not persuade anybody, and can be easily countered, IMO.
 
David Eire said:
What does supernatural mean for you?
Click to expand...

Guess it really depends on what we mean by natural.

I think Nature is largely regular, though I would agree with Kripal & Streiber that it contains the super natural meaning that there are exceptions to the expected regularities by these are not violations of "laws" which I'd think of as "habits" anyway.

What ensures the regularities we observe? Whitehead's Monism where every entity contains a subjective & objective pole? Animism with a host of tutelary spirits/angels? No idea, though guessing is an enjoyable past time.
 
billw said:
Yup, they are a high level fleeting epiphenomena, no matter how you slice it.

Cheers,
Bill
Click to expand...

I give him credit for not trying to get around the Is-Ought problem with some hand-waving or commissions of the Naturalistic Fallacy.

Really the Is-Ought problem guts the idea of naturalist ethics just as Euthyphro's Dilemma guts the idea of morality stemming from Divine Authority.
 
malf said:
Yet I suspect that if Sean (and his ilk) were pressed on this he would be open to anything that could be tested under methodological naturalism... For example, I'm sure a strong result in AWARE would have made plenty of folk suck a thoughtful tooth.

However, an approach such as "but I know that meaning and love feels real when I look at my wife and kids" will not persuade anybody, and can be easily countered, IMO.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree with what you say here
 
Sciborg_S_Patel said:
Guess it really depends on what we mean by natural.

I think Nature is largely regular, though I would agree with Kripal & Streiber that it contains the super natural meaning that there are exceptions to the expected regularities by these are not violations of "laws" which I'd think of as "habits" anyway.

What ensures the regularities we observe? Whitehead's Monism where every entity contains a subjective & objective pole? Animism with a host of tutelary spirits/angels? No idea, though guessing is an enjoyable past time.
Click to expand...

What ensures the regularities we observe?
In my opinion the regularities are emergent properties of the stuff the universe is made of
There is no need of anything else ensuring the regularities
 
He believes the way he does for one simple reason, "there's no such things as ghost."

As for the meaning of life, well there isn't any. People often confuse meaning with purpose and your life has a purposes, it just doesn't have any meaning. In the end, everything that you will create will eventually turn to dust and not just what physically you create, but even ideals you start. But that doesn't mean that your life, right here, right now doesn't have a purposes and that is something that if you find out, will provide the meaning that you are looking for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top