The order of things... [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

Quaalude

06-23-2005, 04:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Natural Sciences: How the world (universe) works

Mathematics: Tool kit for the above.

Philosophy: Thinking about thinking - an attempt to understand why the above works or appears to work, or perhaps does not work, or its limitations.

The notion to place things in a simple hierarchy is sometimes misplaced in my opinion.

Things are more like a web, interconnected as a whole but separable into parts, but to understand it fully takes all the various strings.

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. This whole ordering of things thing is pretty silly and a bit nonsensical. Especially this particular order with philosophy out front (assuming that the ">" is to be interpreted as "greater than"). It says more about the person making the assertion than about anything else. Personally, I think that any modern philosopher with any kind of clue must immerse himself in the current research in the fields of Cognitive Science (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cognitive-science/)/Neuroscience (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/neuroscience/) and Quantum Mechanics (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/) - especially CogSci.

-Travas

daryn

06-23-2005, 10:19 AM

<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />
<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />
chem and bio are just subsets of physics really, so ranking them above physics is just laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just want to make sure (you didnt misread): you dont think I did right? You're just making a comment, yes?

[/ QUOTE ]

correct

daryn

06-23-2005, 10:20 AM

<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />
Haven't you ever heard the following:

Philosphy is mostly psychology, psychology is mostly biology, biology is mostly chemistry, chemistry is mostly physics, and physics is mostly math.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agreed with you up until math. math isn't really anything. it's just a language. they are called "natural sciences" for a reason, but there's nothing natural at all about math.

Rev. Good Will

06-23-2005, 10:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Philosophy > Mathematics > Physics > Chemistry > Biology

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really think you can rank these and put one over the other, all serve one purpose or another.

SpearsBritney

06-23-2005, 10:43 AM

Maybe I read this wrong, but I got the impression he was ranking them based on importance/relevance to himself, not as truths.

gumpzilla

06-23-2005, 11:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Philosophy > Mathematics > Physics > Chemistry > Biology

[/ QUOTE ]

This kind of stupid hierarchical ordering seemed very appealing to me when I was 16. I suspect you'll grow out of it, too.

Just think of how silly it would look to have (for example) a set theorist/logician get up in a materials science researcher's face shouting "What? I'm fundamental, bitch! You triflin'!" and that gives you a pretty accurate impression how I feel about this.

goofball

06-23-2005, 11:35 AM

well, i agree with you that math and philosophy don't belogn in the rankings listed by the OP.

The saying I posted is partially tongue in cheek. I took plenty of philosophy, psychology, math, and more than plenty of physics in college. Philosphy is frequently more closely related to math(logic) than psych. I hate biology and I like psych, and I hate chem and love physics.

The physics is mostly math is the most accurate (i don't really know about the bio/chem one) that I know of. Of course physics isn't all math, to claim so would be nonsense. But ANY physics major knows that, not only are physics classes filled with the odious chore known as math, but you usually have to take several courses called "mathematical physics" or some such, that are essentially surveys of advanced math.

On a completely unrelated point, I'm reminded of my two favorite quotes about physics:

In science there is only physics, all the rest is stamp colecting.
-Ernest Rutherford

Physics is like sex: it may yield some practical result, but that's not why we do it.

CallMeIshmael

06-23-2005, 12:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
(assuming that the ">" is to be interpreted as "greater than")

[/ QUOTE ]

You can also learn a lot from somebody by seeing what they are willing to assume.

Ask questions if you dont know

CallMeIshmael

06-23-2005, 01:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This kind of stupid hierarchical ordering seemed very appealing to me when I was 16. I suspect you'll grow out of it, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, it probabably should have looked more like:

Philosophy -> Mathematics -> Physics -> Chemistry -> Biology

[ QUOTE ]
Just think of how silly it would look to have (for example) a set theorist/logician get up in a materials science researcher's face shouting "What? I'm fundamental, bitch! You triflin'!" and that gives you a pretty accurate impression how I feel about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never claimed anything like that would/should happen.

gumpzilla

06-23-2005, 01:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]

FWIW, it probabably should have looked more like:

Philosophy -> Mathematics -> Physics -> Chemistry -> Biology

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you going for here, then? Historical order of development? Logical priority, which many people frequently use to justify claims of greatness? That's all well and good, but saying that deductive processes grew out of philosophy isn't going to help anybody move from On Liberty to string theory.

Here's another reflection on the order of things:

Walking -> Running -> Jumping -> Basketball

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Just think of how silly it would look to have (for example) a set theorist/logician get up in a materials science researcher's face shouting "What? I'm fundamental, bitch! You triflin'!" and that gives you a pretty accurate impression how I feel about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never claimed anything like that would/should happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, man.

CallMeIshmael

06-23-2005, 01:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What are you going for here, then? Historical order of development? Logical priority, which many people frequently use to justify claims of greatness? That's all well and good, but saying that deductive processes grew out of philosophy isn't going to help anybody move from On Liberty to string theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Logical priority.

[ QUOTE ]
Just think of how silly it would look to have (for example) a set theorist/logician get up in a materials science researcher's face shouting "What? I'm fundamental, bitch! You triflin'!" and that gives you a pretty accurate impression how I feel about this.
[ QUOTE ]
I never claimed anything like that would/should happen. [ QUOTE ]

Oh, man.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry for the oddball reply, but I felt the example was so unrelated to the matter at hand that it was justified.

Saying that one discipline is logically above another is VERY VERY VERY VERY different than saying that one is 'better' than another.

Quaalude

06-23-2005, 01:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(assuming that the ">" is to be interpreted as "greater than")

[/ QUOTE ]

You can also learn a lot from somebody by seeing what they are willing to assume.

Ask questions if you dont know

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually had no idea what you meant until I read this:

[ QUOTE ]

Philosophy is not scientific in nature.

Doesnt mean it isnt > Math, however.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which also didn't make a lot of sense, but "greater than" seemed like a reasonable logical deduction. So, dare I ask, just what the hell did your original assertion mean, anyway?

-Travas

CallMeIshmael

06-23-2005, 01:23 PM

Logical priority.

Quaalude

06-23-2005, 01:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Logical priority.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, still silly.

-Travas

gumpzilla

06-23-2005, 01:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Saying that one discipline is logically above another is VERY VERY VERY VERY different than saying that one is 'better' than another.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no reason to post a list like this unless you either believe that it does imply that one is better than the other or you just want to annoy people by leading them to believe that you think that.

Patrick del Poker Grande

06-23-2005, 02:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Saying that one discipline is logically above another is VERY VERY VERY VERY different than saying that one is 'better' than another.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no reason to post a list like this unless you either believe that it does imply that one is better than the other or you just want to annoy people by leading them to believe that you think that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Simma don naw. You're getting way too riled up over this. Nowhere does it say one is better than the other. Just because some field of science encompasess another (or doesn't) doesn't make either one better or worse.

We're all winners here. Play nice.

CallMeIshmael

06-23-2005, 02:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Logical priority.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, still silly.

-Travas

[/ QUOTE ]

You must explain yourself further.

The statement that, say, "chemistry is a logical subset of physics" seems to have validity. In that, the existence of chemistry is dependent on the existence of physics, while the converse is not true.

CallMeIshmael

06-23-2005, 02:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
There's no reason to post a list like this unless you either believe that it does imply that one is better than the other or you just want to annoy people by leading them to believe that you think that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, perhaps you cant think of any reasons, but I can.

The main reason being the statement:

"It seems logical to claim that, for example, biology is a subset of chemistry. In that, biology, is a study of certain chemical processes. BUT, it is quite debatable where you put Mathematics/Philosophy in this discussion, if at all."

EDIT: because I put phyiscs intead of math

CallMeIshmael

06-23-2005, 02:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Nowhere does it say one is better than the other. Just because some field of science encompasess another (or doesn't) doesn't make either one better or worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

gumpzilla

06-23-2005, 02:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Well, perhaps you cant think of any reasons, but I can.

The main reason being the statement:

"It seems logical to claim that, for example, biology is a subset of chemistry. In that, biology, is a study of certain chemical processes. BUT, it is quite debatable where you put Mathematics/Philosophy in this discussion, if at all."

[/ QUOTE ]

If that were your intent, then why not ask the question openly from the getgo?

CallMeIshmael

06-23-2005, 02:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, perhaps you cant think of any reasons, but I can.

The main reason being the statement:

"It seems logical to claim that, for example, biology is a subset of chemistry. In that, biology, is a study of certain chemical processes. BUT, it is quite debatable where you put Mathematics/Philosophy in this discussion, if at all."

[/ QUOTE ]

If that were your intent, then why not ask the question openly from the getgo?

[/ QUOTE ]

Essentially, because I feel the thread would be more fun if I made a nebulous one line OP.

I'd rather see how others interpret the statement (which, Im sure you can agree, is more likely to lead to interesting subthreads) than simply state the purpose.

gumpzilla

06-23-2005, 02:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Essentially, because I feel the thread would be more fun if I made a nebulous one line OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is pretty much what I figured, and is why I think my previous post wasn't really off the mark at all.

CallMeIshmael

06-23-2005, 02:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Which is pretty much what I figured, and is why I think my previous post wasn't really off the mark at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Being curious as to how people will interpret a statement DOES NOT EQUAL trying to annoy them. And its not even close.

I never had 'annoy' in my intent at all with this post.

Quaalude

06-23-2005, 02:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Logical priority.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, still silly.

-Travas

[/ QUOTE ]

You must explain yourself further.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I don't, actually. But whatever.

[ QUOTE ]

The statement that, say, "chemistry is a logical subset of physics" seems to have validity. In that, the existence of chemistry is dependent on the existence of physics, while the converse is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "Physics -> Chemistry -> Biology" part is obvious, and the other two, as Zeno and others have pointed out, don't belong in the list - apples and oranges, ya know. So, yeah, still silly.

-Travas

gumpzilla

06-23-2005, 02:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Being curious as to how people will interpret a statement DOES NOT EQUAL trying to annoy them. And its not even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

However, being incredibly vague with what your post means, and then when people make what is by far the most natural assumption, given the nature of the content and the ubiquitous use of the ">" symbol around here, saying essentially "Who said that's what I meant?" is pretty annoying, as is the use of "and it's not even close."

CallMeIshmael

06-23-2005, 02:44 PM

Then stop opening my threads if you find them annoying.

CallMeIshmael

06-23-2005, 02:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The "Physics -> Chemistry -> Biology" part is obvious, and the other two, as Zeno and others have pointed out, don't belong in the list - apples and oranges, ya know. So, yeah, still silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think physics can exist without mathematics?

AthenianStranger

06-23-2005, 02:47 PM

Where's politics? Religion? Metaphysics?

I like 'putting everything under philosophy,' but what does it really mean? If there are any philosophers today (I contend that there are none), they aren't specializing in mathematics, biology, etc... you have to say what you mean. In what sense is philosophy greater? I say because it is itself the study of learning, the discovery of being in the general sense, while all other studies are specifics...

There was a time when "science" and "philosophy" sort of meant the same thing... before the Dark Times... before the

CallMeIshmael

06-23-2005, 02:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Where's politics? Religion? Metaphysics?

I like 'putting everything under philosophy,' but what does it really mean? If there are any philosophers today (I contend that there are none), they aren't specializing in mathematics, biology, etc... you have to say what you mean. In what sense is philosophy greater? I say because it is itself the study of learning, the discovery of being in the general sense, while all other studies are specifics...

There was a time when "science" and "philosophy" sort of meant the same thing... before the Dark Times... before the

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you a gimmick account?

I like your posting, btw.

daryn

06-23-2005, 03:00 PM

<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />
<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />
The "Physics -> Chemistry -> Biology" part is obvious, and the other two, as Zeno and others have pointed out, don't belong in the list - apples and oranges, ya know. So, yeah, still silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think physics can exist without mathematics?

[/ QUOTE ]

of course it can

CallMeIshmael

06-23-2005, 03:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
given the nature of the content and the ubiquitous use of the ">" symbol around here

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to nitpick: ">" means "greater than" NOT "better than"

When I made the OP, I was implying that the disciplines tend to be subsets (ie. smaller than) those that are on its left.

I see now, that some might assume that ">" means 'better than.' This was not my intent. It was a mistake, and I would make those symbols "->", if I were to repost it now.

CallMeIshmael

06-23-2005, 03:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think physics can exist without mathematics?

[/ QUOTE ]

of course it can

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, if you say physics can exist without math, then you can contend that biology can exist without chemistry.

Is it your opinion that physics is not a subset of math, in the way that biology is a subset of chemistry.

Quaalude

06-23-2005, 03:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The "Physics -> Chemistry -> Biology" part is obvious, and the other two, as Zeno and others have pointed out, don't belong in the list - apples and oranges, ya know. So, yeah, still silly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think physics can exist without mathematics?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think philosohy can exist without a brain (biology) to do the bullsh!ting?

daryn

06-23-2005, 03:09 PM

<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />
<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />
<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />
Do you really think physics can exist without mathematics?

[/ QUOTE ]

of course it can

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, if you say physics can exist without math, then you can contend that biology can exist without chemistry.

Is it your opinion that physics is not a subset of math, in the way that biology is a subset of chemistry.

[/ QUOTE ]

physics is most certainly not a subset of math. if you think it is you are wrong.

gumpzilla

06-23-2005, 03:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]

IMO, if you say physics can exist without math, then you can contend that biology can exist without chemistry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which, of course, it can. You can study biological behavior with no knowledge of the underlying chemistry. Mendel is an excellent example of this.

[ QUOTE ]

Is it your opinion that physics is not a subset of math, in the way that biology is a subset of chemistry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Physics isn't really a subset of math. You won't find Coulomb's Law anywhere in math, it's an outside observation that appears to fit the facts. Mathematics is an excellent tool for constructing physical theories, but you can certainly study the way the world works with minimal familiarity with mathematics, e.g. Faraday.

And as for your ">" nitpick, yes, obviously it means "greater than." But when you're using it in a context where there's no natural order on the objects you're describing - and there isn't on the words philosophy, mathematics, etc. - there's not really a sensible interpretation of it other than "better than," which is how 95% of 2+2 uses it. Note also that greater is generally synonymous with better in common English usage.

CallMeIshmael

06-23-2005, 03:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think philosohy can exist without a brain (biology) to do the bullsh!ting?

[/ QUOTE ]

I knew somebody was going to go down this line of thought...

Biology: NOUN:

The science of life and of living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution. It includes botany and zoology and all their subdivisions.
The life processes or characteristic phenomena of a group or category of living organisms: the biology of viruses.
The plant and animal life of a specific area or region.

Science: NOUN:

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
Science Christian Science.

You're confusing what biology is, and what it is the study of.

You cant say: You need biology to have philosophy. Because, biology ISNT (among other things) the brain, it is the STUDY of the brain et al.

CallMeIshmael

06-23-2005, 03:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Which, of course, it can. You can study biological behavior with no knowledge of the underlying chemistry. Mendel is an excellent example of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
And as for your ">" nitpick, yes, obviously it means "greater than." But when you're using it in a context where there's no natural order on the objects you're describing - and there isn't on the words philosophy, mathematics, etc. - there's not really a sensible interpretation of it other than "better than," which is how 95% of 2+2 uses it. Note also that greater is generally synonymous with better in common English usage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I agree that that usage is common around here.

I was simply defending myself against the claim that I was trying to annoy. My intent was to have the ">" mean more along the lines of a subet than "better than." But, I can most certainly see how that can be confusing.

Again, the point of this thread was 100% NOT to annoy. I assure you that this was the case. The OP here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2663583&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1), however, was intended to annoy and open discussion in equal parts. (which should prove that Im not above admitting when I was trying to annoy).

Also, finally, in any post in this thread, when I had the attitude that you descibed earlier as having bothered you, I feel I was meeting tone with tone.

CallMeIshmael

06-23-2005, 03:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think physics can exist without mathematics?

[/ QUOTE ]

of course it can

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, if you say physics can exist without math, then you can contend that biology can exist without chemistry.

Is it your opinion that physics is not a subset of math, in the way that biology is a subset of chemistry.

[/ QUOTE ]

physics is most certainly not a subset of math. if you think it is you are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if, one day, a unified theory is able to deduce every single physical observation into only a few mathematical equations?

That is, everything that there is, is the 'answer' to a math problem that we can propose, and there are NO unexplainable phenomena.

Is physics a subset then?

(I like where this is going)

gumpzilla

06-23-2005, 03:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Also, finally, in any post in this thread, when I had the attitude that you descibed earlier as having bothered you, I feel I was meeting tone with tone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough.

Another thing that I'd like to point out is that it's in my opinion a little silly (I'm not responding to you in particular on this one, but a variety of people in the thread) to regard biology and chemistry as being mere extensions of physics. I think people who think in this way don't realize just how little physics is capable of doing when you talk about any truly large scale problems. Statistical mechanics is pretty spiffy, but start getting into non-equilibrium processes and you have a hairy mess. Biophysics is having a hard enough time trying to figure out how individual proteins do their thing; trying to figure out how a genotype will be expressed from first principles of physics is beyond unrealistic. You need some level of abstraction to make the whole thing workable.

The study of sufficiently complicated systems is going to be very far removed from whatever the primitive roots may be, and it's important to remember this.

CallMeIshmael

06-23-2005, 03:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Which, of course, it can. You can study biological behavior with no knowledge of the underlying chemistry. Mendel is an excellent example of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting to note, however, is that biology can never be complete without chemistry. That is, Mendel's observations can never be explained without the gene. And, as soon as wel look at the gene, we are moving closer and closer to chemistry.

CallMeIshmael

06-23-2005, 03:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Another thing that I'd like to point out is that it's in my opinion a little silly (I'm not responding to you in particular on this one, but a variety of people in the thread) to regard biology and chemistry as being mere extensions of physics. I think people who think in this way don't realize just how little physics is capable of doing when you talk about any truly large scale problems. Statistical mechanics is pretty spiffy, but start getting into non-equilibrium processes and you have a hairy mess. Biophysics is having a hard enough time trying to figure out how individual proteins do their thing; trying to figure out how a genotype will be expressed from first principles of physics is beyond unrealistic. You need some level of abstraction to make the whole thing workable.

The study of sufficiently complicated systems is going to be very far removed from whatever the primitive roots may be, and it's important to remember this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%.

BUT... keep in mind that, IF one day, we are somehow able to completely deduce every law of phyics to mathematics. That is, we can mathematically explain and predict every phenomna, then chemistry is also 'solved,' since, when I say we can predict every phenomena, it includes every chemical reaction. Once chemistry is solved, then even the most intricate biological systems are solved. And when this happens, things like world hunger are history /images/graemlins/grin.gif

FWIW, Im not saying solving the world at the quantum level is possible. Im just saying, IF it occured, it follows that chemistry/biology are also solved.

I think a great argument against the OP, is that: when you 'solve' math, physics is not necessarily solved.

daryn

06-23-2005, 03:38 PM

<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />
<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />
<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />
<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />
<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />
Do you really think physics can exist without mathematics?

[/ QUOTE ]

of course it can

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, if you say physics can exist without math, then you can contend that biology can exist without chemistry.

Is it your opinion that physics is not a subset of math, in the way that biology is a subset of chemistry.

[/ QUOTE ]

physics is most certainly not a subset of math. if you think it is you are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if, one day, a unified theory is able to deduce every single physical observation into only a few mathematical equations?

That is, everything that there is, is the 'answer' to a math problem that we can propose, and there are NO unexplainable phenomena.

Is physics a subset then?

(I like where this is going)

[/ QUOTE ]

is physics a subset then? no. again.. no. time after time NO NO NO NO NO

you don't need math for physics.

gumpzilla

06-23-2005, 03:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]

That is, we can mathematically explain and predict every phenomna . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

The distance between explanation and prediction is vast. I'll go out on a limb and say that what you are talking about is literally impossible. There are way too many phenomena that become chaotic (in the technical sense of extremely sensitive dependence on initial conditions) once you start looking at many-body systems of even modest size; billiard-ball collisions, for example. You can't measure the state of the world exactly, and no matter how close you get, the exponential divergence of systems with minorly different initial conditions means you're eventually going to end up with predictions that bear no resemblance to reality. So this kind of program is unrealistic.

CallMeIshmael

06-23-2005, 03:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'll go out on a limb and say that what you are talking about is literally impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll go out on a limb and say I agree /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

AthenianStranger

06-23-2005, 05:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll go out on a limb and say that what you are talking about is literally impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll go out on a limb and say I agree /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea. We're going to need a sturdy limb.

AthenianStranger

06-23-2005, 05:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Are you a gimmick account?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what that means, so no. I've been reading for a long time, working on my game. I just found this particular forum, however.

CallMeIshmael

06-23-2005, 05:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what that means, so no. I've been reading for a long time, working on my game. I just found this particular forum, however.

[/ QUOTE ]

A gimmick account, occurs when a 'regular' account holder opts to make a second (or more) account.

I thought you might be a regular account, who has opted to take the AthenianStranger account as an alias. You should post more, imo.

Quaalude

06-23-2005, 06:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]

You're confusing what biology is, and what it is the study of.

You cant say: You need biology to have philosophy. Because, biology ISNT (among other things) the brain, it is the STUDY of the brain et al.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was using deinition 2 of biology - "The life processes or characteristic phenomena of a group or category of living organisms." - as abstract thought is a characteristic phenomena of humans, and is required for things like math and philosophy. If you had clearly stated what you meant in the first place, this confusion may have been avoided.

We are looking at the universe from different perspectives. You're essentially trying to put human knowledge into a heirarchical structure, whereas I'm looking at it more from a progression of time sort of perspective. That is, if the Big Bang theory bears any resemblance to reality, first there is physics, then the universe cools enough for chemistry to occur, and then chemical processes give rise to biology. Then biology eventually spits out humans, who think abstractly and come up with things like mathematics, philosophy, art, poker, etc.

Since the physical processes of the universe exist independently of human thought - phylosophy and mathematics, from my perspective, do not belong in with "Physics -> Chemistry -> Biology."

Now that I think about it, it is also evident that you're not even using the definition of biology that you quoted. You said:

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, if you say physics can exist without math, then you can contend that biology can exist without chemistry.

[/ QUOTE ]

If biology is "the science of life and of living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution." then biology can easily exist without chemistry. Chemistry is certainly extremely useful, but it is not absolutely neccessary to simply study biology.

CallMeIshmael

06-23-2005, 07:07 PM

This:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMO, if you say physics can exist without math, then you can contend that biology can exist without chemistry.

[/ QUOTE ]

If biology is "the science of life and of living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution." then biology can easily exist without chemistry. Chemistry is certainly extremely useful, but it is not absolutely neccessary to simply study biology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is leading me to believe you've completely missed the point. (I realize the way I used the ">" in OP was semi confusing)

Read the dialogue I had with gumpzilla to get a better idea of what's going on.

drudman

06-23-2005, 09:59 PM

"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe." -- Galileo

There you have that.

The way to go about it is to say, okay, biology is a particular science, but all of the biological processes that we study are really just chemical processes. But chemical processes are all really just physical processes. But that's where it ends. Physics is physics, it's as elementary as you go.

Math is an arbitrary language. We append and expand it ad hoc as is necessary. It is merely a collection of analytic truths. From analytic truths, only further analytic truths may be derived, and so the field does not produce any actual "discoveries" per se, rather it sufficiently illuminates truths that allow us to understand synthetic truths.

The only legitimate task of philosophy is to elucidate the meaning of language. Any other purported philosophical activity (moral, aesthetic, existential, etc.) is not literally meaningful.

CallMeIshmael

06-23-2005, 10:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe." -- Galileo

There you have that.

The way to go about it is to say, okay, biology is a particular science, but all of the biological processes that we study are really just chemical processes. But chemical processes are all really just physical processes. But that's where it ends. Physics is physics, it's as elementary as you go.

Math is an arbitrary language. We append and expand it ad hoc as is necessary. It is merely a collection of analytic truths. From analytic truths, only further analytic truths may be derived, and so the field does not produce any actual "discoveries" per se, rather it sufficiently illuminates truths that allow us to understand synthetic truths.

The only legitimate task of philosophy is to elucidate the meaning of language. Any other purported philosophical activity (moral, aesthetic, existential, etc.) is not literally meaningful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post.

CallMeIshmael

06-23-2005, 11:41 PM

Crap... I just opened this thing in threaded, and saw that I quoted the wrong thing... I meant to quote this, in my other post:

[ QUOTE ]
I was using deinition 2 of biology - "The life processes or characteristic phenomena of a group or category of living organisms." - as abstract thought is a characteristic phenomena of humans, and is required for things like math and philosophy. If you had clearly stated what you meant in the first place, this confusion may have been avoided.

[/ QUOTE ]

Quaalude

06-23-2005, 11:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Is leading me to believe you've completely missed the point. (I realize the way I used the ">" in OP was semi confusing)

Read the dialogue I had with gumpzilla to get a better idea of what's going on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did read it, but it became nonsensical. I get the whole "greater than" thing, which was what I actually assumed you meant in an early post, but you didn't like my assumption and you then said it meant "logical priority," and most recently you said it meant "subset." Since "subset" is the last thing you said, I'll go with that one. If you're going to go with set operations, then "intersection" is the term that should be used here. Mathematics and physics, for instance, certainly intersect, but in no way is one a subset of the other. Philosophy, mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology all intersect, but I don't think any of them could be said to be a subset of any other.

But, that wasn't the truely nonsensical part.

[ QUOTE ]

BUT... keep in mind that, IF one day, we are somehow able to completely deduce every law of phyics to mathematics. That is, we can mathematically explain and predict every phenomna, then chemistry is also 'solved,' since, when I say we can predict every phenomena, it includes every chemical reaction. Once chemistry is solved, then even the most intricate biological systems are solved. And when this happens, things like world hunger are history

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if we develop a Theory of Everything (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything), that, like gumpzilla said, says little about predicting anything. The fundamental nature of the universe is unpredictability. (http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/ttimberlake/qchaos/qchaos.html) Because of this it is impossible to "mathematically explain and predict every phenomna." Once you assume an impossible thing, anything that follows from that is meaningless. I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at by saying "solved" in this context. It just doesn't make sense to me. There is also some weird comment about world hunger in there. I don't see what that has to do with anything. There is plenty of food in the world right now. The problem is distribution, not biology.

CallMeIshmael

06-23-2005, 11:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I get the whole "greater than" thing, which was what I actually assumed you meant in an early post

[/ QUOTE ]

In your first post you used the term "ordering" to describe what I was doing. Ordering, to me, implies one is "better than".

When I was talking to Gumpzilla, he was thinking I was going with greater than = better than. Which I was not.

Chemistry > Biology implies that Biology can be completely and totally described through chemistry. "Subset" and "logical priority" mean the same thing in this context, imo.

[ QUOTE ]
Even if we develop a Theory of Everything (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything), that, like gumpzilla said, says little about predicting anything. The fundamental nature of the universe is unpredictability. (http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/ttimberlake/qchaos/qchaos.html) Because of this it is impossible to "mathematically explain and predict every phenomna."

[/ QUOTE ]

Im well aware that what I described is impossible. (and that was made clear in a later post).

The point was that (though impossible) complete knowledge of all physical processes would lead to complete understanding of both chemistry, and, therefore, biology.

I dont think this is that hard to understand, and pretty much everyone else seems to agree.

Perhaps reading Drudman's post will help you understand, as it was well written.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at by saying "solved" in this context.

[/ QUOTE ]

Complete knowledge. That is: everything that there is to know about (science x) is known.

[ QUOTE ]

There is also some weird comment about world hunger in there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Complete and total understanding of all physical processes would lead to many many many great things for the world. One of them is ending world hunger. This, also, shouldnt be that hard to see.

Quaalude

06-24-2005, 04:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Chemistry > Biology implies that Biology can be completely and totally described through chemistry. "Subset" and "logical priority" mean the same thing in this context, imo.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, so the migratory pattern of the Arctic Tern and the propensity of humans to wear jewelry can be completely and totally described through chemistry? I'd like to see that.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even if we develop a Theory of Everything (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything), that, like gumpzilla said, says little about predicting anything. The fundamental nature of the universe is unpredictability. (http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/ttimberlake/qchaos/qchaos.html) Because of this it is impossible to "mathematically explain and predict every phenomna."

[/ QUOTE ]

Im well aware that what I described is impossible. (and that was made clear in a later post).

[/ QUOTE ]

I am aware that you are aware of this.

[ QUOTE ]
The point was that (though impossible) complete knowledge of all physical processes would lead to complete understanding of both chemistry, and, therefore, biology.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that assuming bullsh!t leads to more bullsh!t. Basically what you're saying is that if something happened that is impossible, then everything would be different. Gee, wow, great. Pardon me if I think that this is dumb.

[ QUOTE ]

I dont think this is that hard to understand, and pretty much everyone else seems to agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Pretty much everyone else" agreed and I missed it? Huh. Ain't that sumpthin'.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps reading Drudman's post will help you understand, as it was well written.

[/ QUOTE ]
I read it. Didn't care for it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not even sure what you're trying to get at by saying "solved" in this context.

[/ QUOTE ]

Complete knowledge. That is: everything that there is to know about (science x) is known.

[ QUOTE ]

There is also some weird comment about world hunger in there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Complete and total understanding of all physical processes would lead to many many many great things for the world. One of them is ending world hunger. This, also, shouldnt be that hard to see.

[/ QUOTE ]

Complete and total understanding of everything would change things? Wow! That's pretty amazing. I never woulda thunk it. Perhaps you could write your congressman and get him to pass a resolution requiring that the universe be completely understandable. Do ya have any more nuggets of fantasy-world wisdom over there?

daryn

06-24-2005, 09:16 AM

so do you now agree that there can be physics without math?

drudman writes g00t

CallMeIshmael

06-24-2005, 01:04 PM

CallMeIshmael

06-24-2005, 01:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
so do you now agree that there can be physics without math?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, fwiw, I pulled the openener out of a book I saw at the library. I dont necessarily believe it. I just wanted to talk about it.

[ QUOTE ]
drudman writes g00t

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. He and AthenianStranger are two of the best writers I've seen on here.

I wish they posted more. (Maybe even on, get this, POKER!)

(Though I stand by my: Drudman needs to get laid more comment /images/graemlins/tongue.gif)

daryn

06-24-2005, 01:43 PM

<blockquote>In risposta di:<hr />
I dont necessarily believe it. I just wanted to talk about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

whatever, i'm ASKING YOU, that's all. it seemed like you disagreed.

CallMeIshmael

06-24-2005, 02:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
whatever, i'm ASKING YOU, that's all. it seemed like you disagreed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Physics can exist without mathematics.

Math just helps us in our understanding.

drudman

06-24-2005, 02:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so the migratory pattern of the Arctic Tern and the propensity of humans to wear jewelry can be completely and totally described through chemistry? I'd like to see that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, this seems very obvious. To understand the migratory patterns of the Arctic Tern, one must study the biology of the bird's brain, the ecology of its habitats, etc. These all concern biological processes, which are all chemical processes, which are all physical processes...

To understand why humans wear jewelry, you would have to do anthropological, cultural and sociological studies, all of which deal with a variety of things, mostly ecological and psychological, which are really just biological processes, which are really just chemical processes, which are really just physical processes...

CallMeIshmael

06-24-2005, 02:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, this seems very obvious. To understand the migratory patterns of the Arctic Tern, one must study the biology of the bird's brain, the ecology of its habitats, etc. These all concern biological processes, which are all chemical processes, which are all physical processes...

To understand why humans wear jewelry, you would have to do anthropological, cultural and sociological studies, all of which deal with a variety of things, mostly ecological and psychological, which are really just biological processes, which are really just chemical processes, which are really just physical processes...

[/ QUOTE ]

Mine (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2714557&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=&vc=1) was better.

gumpzilla

06-24-2005, 02:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
These all concern biological processes, which are all chemical processes, which are all physical processes...

[/ QUOTE ]

Is anybody arguing this? What I think Quaalude was saying was essentially, "Good luck trying to actually explain that migratory behavior from a purely physical standpoint." Completely describing something in terms of physical processes is not feasible.

Prevaricator

06-24-2005, 03:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Reductionism > Philosophy > Mathematics > Physics > Chemistry > Biology

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

CallMeIshmael

06-24-2005, 04:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reductionism > Philosophy > Mathematics > Physics > Chemistry > Biology

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

HAHAHAH

Also... is the title of this thread secret UMass code for "Please post within"?

drudman

06-24-2005, 04:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These all concern biological processes, which are all chemical processes, which are all physical processes...

[/ QUOTE ]

Is anybody arguing this? What I think Quaalude was saying was essentially, "Good luck trying to actually explain that migratory behavior from a purely physical standpoint." Completely describing something in terms of physical processes is not feasible.

[/ QUOTE ]

It certainly isn't feasible, but it is essentially what we do whenever we make an empirical proposition.

Think about it this way: I ask, "why do you wear a gold chain?" You might respond in a variety of ways. Perhaps you like to display wealth. Perhaps you just like the way gold looks. But I press further. I ask, "but why do you like to display wealth?" Perhaps the answer to this question deals with a set of values you have.

I am not content to stop here though, I ask you again, "why do you have these values?" Your answer now might be that your parents were poor growing up, but gained economic success later in life, prompting them to proudly display their wealth; you learned to do this from them.

If I were to press you further and further to elucidate your answers, we would perhaps have to consider, "why do humans value wealth?", and "what mental processes causes these values to arise?" I think you can see where I'm going.

I propose that any line of questioning like this will eventually make its way to physics. Of course, when I ask you why you wear a gold chain, you don't immediately answer with an appeal to basic physical laws.

This, in essence, is what I believe OP was implying; that all of our academic disciplines are linked hierarchically to physics in some way. I agree with him.

drudman

06-24-2005, 04:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reductionism > Philosophy > Mathematics > Physics > Chemistry > Biology

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm afraid I don't know what "FYP" means, Daniel.

CallMeIshmael

06-24-2005, 04:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm afraid I don't know what "FYP" means, Daniel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fixed your post.

gumpzilla

06-24-2005, 04:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]

It certainly isn't feasible, but it is essentially what we do whenever we make an empirical proposition.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't think that it is. To say that behaviors have their root in physical processes, which is essentially what you're claiming (and which nobody is arguing), is a far cry from being able to explain those behaviors from first principles solely in terms of the physical processes. The top down vs. bottom up approaches are quite different.

AthenianStranger

06-24-2005, 04:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
...I think Quaalude was saying was essentially, "Good luck trying to actually explain that migratory behavior from a purely physical standpoint." Completely describing something in terms of physical processes is not feasible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there are a couple of terms that are relevant to this discussion that have not been used. One is 'the whole,' and the other is 'meaning.' Now, when I look at say, a human being, what is the science or art that allows me to understand 'the whole' of the human being? Is it physics? Some would say "someday we will know all of the physical processes that make up the human body and mind, blah, blah, blah." Even then, I say, looking at these physical things will not give us knowledge of the whole of a human being. Such a physical account will not have meaning. So, it is not physics that gives us knowledge of a human being. It is not mathematics, it is not biology. Perhaps it is psychology, sociology, or philosophy. (I say it is the art of politics-- considered as philosophy.)

As we expand out beyond a human being, to the world, the universe, to Being itself, the science or art to understand the whole has to be philosophy. When I give an account of everything, it has to be a philosophical account. Physical or astronomical accounts will be of particulars, will name particles and processes, but will not consider the whole. Nor will those accounts be teleological; thus they will not satisfy our questions about the universe.

That is not to say that such sciences are inferior. They just take less into their scope. The sciences of physics and biology involve a lot of knowledge and facts. However, in naming things they are participating in a philosophic activity (I hold wit Wittgenstein and whoever said it on the board that the study of language is the only thing left for philosophy-- to some degree-- our wonder about the world remains no matter how much science discovers). So in some sense philosophy is primary for us, and scientific studies are derivative. However, in another sense scientific studies are more fundamental than philosophy, that is, if the first things are fire, water, earth, and air, or the table of elements, or whatever sub-particles we've discovered.

Maybe we should be asking not what is the most basic or primary or most important study for us, but rather, what is the most primary thing in the universe? Again, it comes down to Theism v. Atheism, Being v. Substance, Free-Will v. Necessity. Is there something prior to matter? And I think we will discover that there is no answer to these questions. Both the thesis and the antithesis are correct.

AthenianStranger

06-24-2005, 04:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If I were to press you further and further to elucidate your answers, we would perhaps have to consider, "why do humans value wealth?", and "what mental processes causes these values to arise?" I think you can see where I'm going.

I propose that any line of questioning like this will eventually make its way to physics. Of course, when I ask you why you wear a gold chain, you don't immediately answer with an appeal to basic physical laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is meant to sound like an obvious and simple logical reduction. However, it seems ridiculous to me that one would ask, "What mental processes cause humans to have values?" Whhhat? Wouldn't it make it make more sense to ask instead, "Well, what exactly are values?" In this way we would get to a discussion on the nature of the good, clearly a more relevant topic for gold-chain wearing than physics, and just as fundamental.

You have this grand lacuna between values and physics, and you're not going to cross it with just the word 'processes.' Sorry.

drudman

06-24-2005, 05:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It certainly isn't feasible, but it is essentially what we do whenever we make an empirical proposition.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't think that it is. To say that behaviors have their root in physical processes, which is essentially what you're claiming (and which nobody is arguing), is a far cry from being able to explain those behaviors from first principles solely in terms of the physical processes. The top down vs. bottom up approaches are quite different.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand why you think there is a problem. You agree that behaviors are rooted in physical processes. But you don't think that they can be explained in terms of them? Please elaborate.

What I'm saying is that all of our empirical propositions, if we WERE to go from the top down, end up at physics. But there are not any "first principles" at the bottom rung. In fact, there may be an infinite regress of questions to answer. But what is at the bottom is what we call "physics". Typically religion and metaphysics provide the answers for the questions that physics cannot explain. The bottom rung has gotten lower and lower, driving religion and metaphysics further and further. But if there is in fact an infinite regress (I think there is), then those pseudosciences will always exist.

gumpzilla

06-24-2005, 05:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I understand why you think there is a problem. You agree that behaviors are rooted in physical processes. But you don't think that they can be explained in terms of them? Please elaborate.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I mentioned elsewhere, we cannot measure the state of the world precisely enough to make long-term predictions.

But, let's suppose we could. I now invite you to take the state of the universe at 9 a.m. EDT and determine what I had for lunch, starting from quantum mechanics.

drudman

06-24-2005, 05:11 PM

I really think you are making too many assumptions about what my implications are.

I do not believe that we can predict the future using fundamental quantum physics, or fundamental anything (as it stands).

I am saying that if we take any empirical proposition, it invokes many other empirical propositions, and if you trace the invocation as far as you can, it would go through (in the case of the gold chain) psychology, biology, chemistry, and finally physics.

drudman

06-24-2005, 05:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I were to press you further and further to elucidate your answers, we would perhaps have to consider, "why do humans value wealth?", and "what mental processes causes these values to arise?" I think you can see where I'm going.

I propose that any line of questioning like this will eventually make its way to physics. Of course, when I ask you why you wear a gold chain, you don't immediately answer with an appeal to basic physical laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is meant to sound like an obvious and simple logical reduction. However, it seems ridiculous to me that one would ask, "What mental processes cause humans to have values?" Whhhat? Wouldn't it make it make more sense to ask instead, "Well, what exactly are values?" In this way we would get to a discussion on the nature of the good, clearly a more relevant topic for gold-chain wearing than physics, and just as fundamental.

You have this grand lacuna between values and physics, and you're not going to cross it with just the word 'processes.' Sorry.

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer to the question "what are values" is purely philosophical, and of the type that is an actual productive function of what we call philosophy. However, once we agree on a definition of values, we then probe further down the empirical chain.

Prevaricator

06-24-2005, 05:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reductionism > Philosophy > Mathematics > Physics > Chemistry > Biology

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm afraid I don't know what "FYP" means, Daniel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Daniel? wtf dave

Prevaricator

06-24-2005, 05:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reductionism > Philosophy > Mathematics > Physics > Chemistry > Biology

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

HAHAHAH

Also... is the title of this thread secret UMass code for "Please post within"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well Rudman and I are both philosophy majors and daryn graduated w a physics degree.

I don't have the time to read everyone's arguments right now though, but I'll probably start posting in this forum a lot.

AthenianStranger

06-24-2005, 05:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The answer to the question "what are values" is purely philosophical, and of the type that is an actual productive function of what we call philosophy. However, once we agree on a definition of values, we then probe further down the empirical chain.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it is a purely philosophical question, how are you going to use the definition to aid in your empirical researches? Also, you're assuming that the answer to "What are values?" is merely a definition. That's the scientist in you, and not the philosopher talking. If you do give the name "values" to certain neuro-chemical brain functions (whatever the hell that means, but surely there is a physical correlate to psychological phenomena), then you are not using the word as your conversant intended. Remember, he told you something about wearing the chain because of his parents' values. What the hell does physics have to do with that? The physico-chemical explanation is just not meaningful here at all.

drudman

06-24-2005, 11:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The answer to the question "what are values" is purely philosophical, and of the type that is an actual productive function of what we call philosophy. However, once we agree on a definition of values, we then probe further down the empirical chain.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it is a purely philosophical question, how are you going to use the definition to aid in your empirical researches? Also, you're assuming that the answer to "What are values?" is merely a definition. That's the scientist in you, and not the philosopher talking. If you do give the name "values" to certain neuro-chemical brain functions (whatever the hell that means, but surely there is a physical correlate to psychological phenomena), then you are not using the word as your conversant intended. Remember, he told you something about wearing the chain because of his parents' values. What the hell does physics have to do with that? The physico-chemical explanation is just not meaningful here at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer to "what are values" has no effect on our empirical pursuit. It is merely necessary to answer it in order to ensure that it is clear what our empirical pursuits are in regard to. The answer to that question is simply a definition.

There are mental phenomena that are caused by specific brain states. We seek to establish which of these the symbol/word "value" stands for - what it is we are talking about when we say the word "values". It is what the conversant actually says.

The conversant perhaps did not intend to say that, he may have used the word "values" as if they were an abstraction, independant of the physical brain. He would err to do so. This pseudo-definiton of values is not literally meaningful.

And so while we use the word "values", it is easy to be decieved into thinking that we may be talking about some kind of metaphysical mental entities, or perhaps some type of universal truths (or whatever). In reality, we are actually talking about brain states. Which are explained down the bio/chemico/physical ladder.

drudman

06-24-2005, 11:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Reductionism > Philosophy > Mathematics > Physics > Chemistry > Biology

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm afraid I don't know what "FYP" means, Daniel.

[/ QUOTE ]

Daniel? wtf dave

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry Randall. I forgot Daniel was TheBruiser.

AthenianStranger

06-25-2005, 03:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]

There are mental phenomena that are caused by specific brain states. We seek to establish which of these the symbol/word "value" stands for - what it is we are talking about when we say the word "values". It is what the conversant actually says.

[/ QUOTE ]

So every word like 'values,' or say 'feeling good,' or 'nostalgic,' or whatever, refers to a brain-state? Even though we have only a very minimal idea what those brain states are or what they look like? That is what I mean when I say, "what you say amuses me because it is quite dumb"? I am referring to some brain-state and not the feeling itself as I experience it? That is ridiculous. Try interacting in the world with this assertion as your touchstone.

[ QUOTE ]
The conversant perhaps did not intend to say that, he may have used the word "values" as if they were an abstraction, independant of the physical brain. He would err to do so. This pseudo-definiton of values is not literally meaningful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh. So what he should do is refer to some empirical data that doesn't exist except in theory, instead of a "pseudo-definition." Tell me, what does "literally meaningful" mean? Didn't you really mean, "physically meaningful"? Because I don't think you will find a dictionary that will give "a brain state" as a definition for "values." That would be a really crappy dictionary. It doesn't say "a brain state" because that isn't a definition, and it doesn't mean anything. It's like defining say, a keyboard, as 'an object in the world.' Well no-[censored] it's an object, but what kind is it? What does it do? What is it for?

Huh, so that's why I wear gold chains. Brain states. It makes so much sense now.

drudman

06-25-2005, 10:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

There are mental phenomena that are caused by specific brain states. We seek to establish which of these the symbol/word "value" stands for - what it is we are talking about when we say the word "values". It is what the conversant actually says.

[/ QUOTE ]

So every word like 'values,' or say 'feeling good,' or 'nostalgic,' or whatever, refers to a brain-state? Even though we have only a very minimal idea what those brain states are or what they look like? That is what I mean when I say, "what you say amuses me because it is quite dumb"? I am referring to some brain-state and not the feeling itself as I experience it? That is ridiculous. Try interacting in the world with this assertion as your touchstone.

[ QUOTE ]
The conversant perhaps did not intend to say that, he may have used the word "values" as if they were an abstraction, independant of the physical brain. He would err to do so. This pseudo-definiton of values is not literally meaningful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh. So what he should do is refer to some empirical data that doesn't exist except in theory, instead of a "pseudo-definition." Tell me, what does "literally meaningful" mean? Didn't you really mean, "physically meaningful"? Because I don't think you will find a dictionary that will give "a brain state" as a definition for "values." That would be a really crappy dictionary. It doesn't say "a brain state" because that isn't a definition, and it doesn't mean anything. It's like defining say, a keyboard, as 'an object in the world.' Well no-[censored] it's an object, but what kind is it? What does it do? What is it for?

Huh, so that's why I wear gold chains. Brain states. It makes so much sense now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know why you find it so difficult to believe that everything you think is the result of the way your brain is.

Literally meaningful means just that - propositions about metaphysical constructs are neither true nor false. They are incapable of having truth value. They are literally meaningless. The words in the sentence do not form an actual proposition.

Triumph36

06-25-2005, 11:39 AM

It's not difficult to believe, it's just a far emptier concept than most metaphysical considerations. AthenianStranger is not claiming that he doesn't believe it, he's saying try to act in the world believing that brain-states are what you are interacting with, rather than desires, emotions, fears, etc.

Brain-states are exactly how we do NOT interact with the world around us, they are divorced from both language and choice, and are consequently without content.

Cerril

06-25-2005, 03:21 PM

I'd change those > signs to -> to avoid confusion. Obviously philosophy isn't 'greater than' the sciences, it just is a required foundation.

It's interesting how many people tend to marginalize philosophy, but I think a lot of that can be blamed on how it's approached even by philosophy departments.

No one thinks it's odd that combinatorics is a concentration within math, or any other concentration within any of the physical sciences. A molecular biologist isn't criticized for not being a taxonomist (well maybe by the taxonomists, but they don't count).

Yet philosophy, which is essentially a concentration on methodology, gets a lot of criticism. Because it's so broad and because method focuses a lot more on speaking and writing than 'doing' it gets the 'BA' designation

CallMeIshmael

06-25-2005, 03:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'd change those > signs to -> to avoid confusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL... yes. I actually made that retraction somehwere in the thread. I meant "->" rather than ">"

Also, nice post.

drudman

06-26-2005, 01:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It's not difficult to believe, it's just a far emptier concept than most metaphysical considerations. AthenianStranger is not claiming that he doesn't believe it, he's saying try to act in the world believing that brain-states are what you are interacting with, rather than desires, emotions, fears, etc.

Brain-states are exactly how we do NOT interact with the world around us, they are divorced from both language and choice, and are consequently without content.

[/ QUOTE ]

He can claim that if he likes. I at no point said anything about how we should act. We commit no error in behaving without constantly considering the ultimate physical nature of things. However, we commit a most grievous error when that separation becomes so vast that we begin to deny that physical nature, and begin to assign abstract metaphysical constructs in their place.

All in all, and I think this is my closing paragraph in this thread, OP simply wished to discuss the logical progression of scientific disciplines. I made some comments about what exactly he meant by that. Any extraneous implications or beliefs that have been extracted from my words by others have been erroneous, and I do not hold them.

Cheers!