"Metaphysical" vs "Man-Made"


BaalChatzaf

Recommended Posts

Humans are physical beings, the end product of billions of years of physical evolution. Anything we do or make is the product of physical processes. Rand's distinction of the "metaphysical vs "the Man-made" explicitly sets Man apart from Nature. I believe that to be an error. We are natural beings and what we do is bounded by natural (physical) laws. Apple trees produce natural apples. Humans produce natural ideas. It is our nature to do so.

Everything about us from our sweat to our theorems is natural. We are not Gods.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

As I recall, you reject the idea of human volition along with the whole notion of mind or consciousness in general. (I'm not sure what you use to reject it, but that's kind of beside the point.) So it only makes sense that you would reject the distinction of the metaphysical and the man-made.

Not eactly a headline story, but congratulations on your consistency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

As I recall, you reject the idea of human volition along with the whole notion of mind or consciousness in general. (I'm not sure what you use to reject it, but that's kind of beside the point.) So it only makes sense that you would reject the distinction of the metaphysical and the man-made.

Not eactly a headline story, but congratulations on your consistency.

I don't reject volition. I volited myself to the key board to write this. I just think volition is a physical natural process. Every last little bit of me (and I suspect the same for you) is physical subject to physical laws. I am made of the same stuff as trees and rocks and my hydrogen atoms behave the same as the hydrogen atoms floating in outer space. I am a big old clumsy thing that is 70 percent water.

It is the duallist version of volition I have trouble with. I reject the notion that humans are not part of the same physical natural world as trees and rocks and dandelions.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that many people overlook this. It is dualism, and it's not useful.

I'm trying to understand how it is that "physical laws" exist, because, really, they don't. We extrapolate them from an observed consistency, but existence itself cannot be limited, for there would be nothing to limit it.

These "laws" are not rules of existence, but rather ways existence just happens to exist.

If we look at awareness as part of existence, what we get is a Universe observing itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that many people overlook this. It is dualism, and it's not useful.

I'm trying to understand how it is that "physical laws" exist, because, really, they don't. We extrapolate them from an observed consistency, but existence itself cannot be limited, for there would be nothing to limit it.

These "laws" are not rules of existence, but rather ways existence just happens to exist.

If we look at awareness as part of existence, what we get is a Universe observing itself.

That is very Saganesque. Right up there with "stuhr stuff" and "pale blue dot".

Physical "laws" (so-called) are the human race's very, very best guess as to how Nature works.

For a bunch of version 3.0 primates with 3 lb brains and few prospects of leaving the Solar System, we have not done all that badly guessing.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean to say that they aren't there, but that they aren't separate entities. The laws we interpret are not an answer to the question of "why", but simply pushing the question of "what" further.

If the same force that caused the Big Bang is what is allowing me to type right now, I think existence is inherently aware*. This explains "random" more as trial and error; an unguided force.

We have no idea what awareness is, because when we use the word, we are referring to the combination of awareness and memory. If you take memory out of the equation, we are left with something completely inconceivable.

We are partitions of existence with limited memory (subsuming knowledge), memory that gives our effort, our willpower, any guidance what-so-ever.

The force we call existence is everywhere at once, but it is unguided except through conscious beings (things with memory).

Maybe I'm just talking shit, but it seems to work as I imagine it.

edit:

Good and bad are relative. Without memory, there is no relation: this is why consciousness is so dependent on memory.

First there's randomness, then competition. From competition emerges good and bad (winners/losers).

Does that make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

As I recall, you reject the idea of human volition along with the whole notion of mind or consciousness in general. (I'm not sure what you use to reject it, but that's kind of beside the point.) So it only makes sense that you would reject the distinction of the metaphysical and the man-made.

Not eactly a headline story, but congratulations on your consistency.

I don't reject volition. I volited myself to the key board to write this. I just think volition is a physical natural process. Every last little bit of me (and I suspect the same for you) is physical subject to physical laws. I am made of the same stuff as trees and rocks and my hydrogen atoms behave the same as the hydrogen atoms floating in outer space. I am a big old clumsy thing that is 70 percent water.

It is the duallist version of volition I have trouble with. I reject the notion that humans are not part of the same physical natural world as trees and rocks and dandelions.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Okay, Bob. I have to ask. Physical laws generally follow the principle of causality--i.e., in the material world, the same cause leads to the same effect. So, if physical laws account for everything, how can there be a "first cause" in the sense of unfettered human choice?

Incidentally, this is not dualism. No one, least of all me, is claiming that reality has a dual nature. I am simply saying that science has not yet reached the stage where we can assert that the laws of physics and chemistry account for everything.

"Obviously we are not compelled to believe that reality is ultimately constituted by either matter or by consciousness. . .[We] can maintain that both matter and consciousness are manifestations of an underlying reality that is neither. . ."

Nathaniel Branden, Honoring the Self (p. 244)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, this is not dualism. No one, least of all me, is claiming that reality has a dual nature. I am simply saying that science has not yet reached the stage where we can assert that the laws of physics and chemistry account for everything.

That is true. Physics is currently 15 orders of magnitude from Rock Bottom assuming there is a Rock Bottom. However it is closer than anything else. Physics gives us the best information about the world we can get at. The physical sciences are the best things we do. Everything else by comparison is a crude approximation.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ba'al, I still can't get my head around this "congealed energy" concept. I've asked you before, What is energy without material?

It's like asking, What is gravity without objects?

The only way I can see energy creating physical matter is through opposing forces... A force in one direction, relative no other forces, is completely indeterminate. But a congealed force? - What does that even mean?

Energy at rest seems to be an oxymoron; is there a semi-simple explanation of this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ba'al, I still can't get my head around this "congealed energy" concept. I've asked you before, What is energy without material?

It's like asking, What is gravity without objects?

The only way I can see energy creating physical matter is through opposing forces... A force in one direction, relative no other forces, is completely indeterminate. But a congealed force? - What does that even mean?

Energy at rest seems to be an oxymoron; is there a semi-simple explanation of this?

Force is not a substance that can be fluid or congealed. Force is an action that one object (object or field) does on another.

Mass and Energy:

There are several views on these questions. For mass-energy equivalence or interchange see

http://171.67.193.20/entries/equivME/ (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Bottom line; energy becomes (or interchanges with) mass by a process that is not fully understood, but is describable in an accurate fashion. The Standard Model of Fields and Particle predicts with 12 decimal places accuracy. The current view on mass is that it is created by the Higgs field which is mediated by the Higgs Boson, which is still to be observed. In a very rough way mass is like a viscosity (this is an analogy, so do not take it literally) imparted to particles of a certain type by the Higgs field.

As for gravitation, that is the curvature of space-time produced by mass (according to the Relativistic View). Gravity is curvature. The Newtonian view is that masses exert a force on each other. Of course that made Newton unhappy because he could not find a cause for this and could not figure how bodies at a distance could exert forces on each other. To this day, no one knows why gravitation exists and what causes it. Newton says it is a force. Einstein says it is curvature of the space-time manifold produced by mass (somehow or other).

You are up against a problem. You are enmeshed in your common sense views of mass, energy and gravitation. Unfortunately the common sense notions are totally inadequate to explain the physics of these things. Only an abstract mathematical approach can do justice to the physical facts. None of which answers your questions. You are doomed with discomfort if mathematics cannot scratch your itch. The questions are being worked on by very smart people and one of these days we may even have answers. In the mean time, we make do with accurate predictions of outcomes of measurement and experiments and describe or explain what we see with mathematical abstractions. Sorry about that.

Forget common sense. It is not up to the task you have given it. Do the Math. Use the Force. Enjoy the technology that flows from them.

I gave up on trying to find The Cause Of It All. I am content with the accurate predictions of measured outcomes. I belong to the shut up and calculate school. And in the long run finding causes is futile. Once you think you have found The Cause, then you must ask, what Caused The Cause and you are in for an infinite regress. It is Turtles All The Way Down.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, doesn't it go: Observation > Common Sense > Trial and Error?

Obviously I haven't observed much / been made aware of much, so I guess I shouldn't try to apply common sense to something I am in the dark about...

...if common sense / reason is based in reality, but some levels of reality contradict others... Maybe common sense isn't the culprit, but rather assumptions.

Thanks for the info, by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, doesn't it go: Observation > Common Sense > Trial and Error?

In the subatomic realm "common sense" does not stand a chance. why? It is a matter of scale. The laws for the Very Very Small and Very Very Fast are not the same as the laws for the man-size and medium speed. And the more we bore down to a smaller scale the more we find that does not match our "common sense". That is the way it goes. Nature is under no obligation to make us comfortable with the laws of the man-size.

But trial and error is always and forever with us. Sisyphus is forever pushing the stone uphill and we are forever correcting our errors.

Look at the bright side of it. We always have a job to perform. Just like Sisyphus.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Metaphysics, or as Aristotle alluded to it, first philosophy, is the philosophy of being as such. What is, and what is not and what could be and what cannot be. The next question is how do we know what is and what it is. What is it? Τι είναι αυτό;Was Aristotle's favorite question

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Metaphysics: What is, Epistemology: How do you know, Ethics: So what?; this is how Branden summed up thes fields. The physical laws are the rules of nature observed in an ORDERLY and PREDICTABLE universe which govern that universe. Knowledge of these laws, or knowledge of anything is only possible in a universe in which things are what they are and do what they do. By discovering identities of objects(The Law of identity) and the behavior of these identities(The Law of Causality) man is able, through a volitional process of identifying and integrating his sensory data, to form concepts of a physical laws that explains, and will always explain the action of a certain entities under certain conditions. Now that man has conceptual knowledge of the behavior of an entity, i.e. that copper conducts electricity by means of electron displacement, which is a metaphysical absolute, or a physical law, he can and should use this knowledge for his purpose of creating a circuit which will provide his light bulb with power and henceforth supply him with light by virtue of which he is able to continue producing or taking pleasure in the appearance of his beautiful wife. The physical law that this man discovered through reason, the nature of the conductivity of copper, is a metaphysical absolute which existed in nature that was apprehended by a man's mind in a method appropriate to the knowledge desired by a being capable of aquiring this knowledge in a method appropriate to itself. The circuit is man-made but would be impossible without the existace of this law and a conciousness capable of grasping it and integrating it. What you are missing Baal is that A is A and that existance exists independent of conciousness and it also exists as SOMETHING. The things the we make are not a product of a physical process, but a MENTAL process. The universe is not chaotic, it is orderly and knowable by an objective conciousness, a conciousness in proper realtion to reality with knowledge of reality set as it's goal. If it is unknowable, how do you know? Existence is finite and everthing that is can be reduced to irreducable primaries called axioms. The reason quantum physics is so incomprehensible and at a stand still is because of shotty metaphysics. Heisenberg says that an electron can be in two place at once. This is in essence saying the something exists and does not exist at the same time. Even if scientists could create a device capable of detecting the smallest unit of matter that would still not change the fact that existence exists as something and that the universe operates by physical laws. If this were not true we would not be here discussing this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Baal is doing is directly attacking reality and man's ability to apprehend it. I won't stand for it. Not here. Reason is not trial and error, it is a methodical approach to the acquisition of knowledge, but it's not automatic. It's is volitional, therefore it is fallible, thus it requires relentless effort and scrupulous logic..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, doesn't it go: Observation > Common Sense > Trial and Error?

Obviously I haven't observed much / been made aware of much, so I guess I shouldn't try to apply common sense to something I am in the dark about...

...if common sense / reason is based in reality, but some levels of reality contradict others... Maybe common sense isn't the culprit, but rather assumptions.

Thanks for the info, by the way.

I think you true blue objectivists should enjoy this

"contradictions do not exist in reality. If you think you've reached a contradiction, check you premises. You'll usually find one of them is wrong"- Francisco d'Anconia Atlas Shrugged

I seriously wonder why some of you are here.

"Metaphysical vs. Man-Made" is my favorite subject in objectivism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Metaphysics: What is, Epistemology: How do you know, Ethics: So what?; this is how Branden summed up thes fields. The physical laws are the rules of nature observed in an ORDERLY and PREDICTABLE universe which govern that universe. Knowledge of these laws, or knowledge of anything is only possible in a universe in which things are what they are and do what they do. By discovering identities of objects(The Law of identity) and the behavior of these identities(The Law of Causality) man is able, through a volitional process of identifying and integrating his sensory data, to form concepts of a physical laws that explains, and will always explain the action of a certain entities under certain conditions. Now that man has conceptual knowledge of the behavior of an entity, i.e. that copper conducts electricity by means of electron displacement, which is a metaphysical absolute, or a physical law, he can and should use this knowledge for his purpose of creating a circuit which will provide his light bulb with power and henceforth supply him with light by virtue of which he is able to continue producing or taking pleasure in the appearance of his beautiful wife. The physical law that this man discovered through reason, the nature of the conductivity of copper, is a metaphysical absolute which existed in nature that was apprehended by a man's mind in a method appropriate to the knowledge desired by a being capable of aquiring this knowledge in a method appropriate to itself. The circuit is man-made but would be impossible without the existace of this law and a conciousness capable of grasping it and integrating it. What you are missing Baal is that A is A and that existance exists independent of conciousness and it also exists as SOMETHING. The things the we make are not a product of a physical process, but a MENTAL process. The universe is not chaotic, it is orderly and knowable by an objective conciousness, a conciousness in proper realtion to reality with knowledge of reality set as it's goal. If it is unknowable, how do you know? Existence is finite and everthing that is can be reduced to irreducable primaries called axioms. The reason quantum physics is so incomprehensible and at a stand still is because of shotty metaphysics. Heisenberg says that an electron can be in two place at once. This is in essence saying the something exists and does not exist at the same time. Even if scientists could create a device capable of detecting the smallest unit of matter that would still not change the fact that existence exists as something and that the universe operates by physical laws. If this were not true we would not be here discussing this.

We do not know this much about the universe, at least not yet. You are making the common mistake of putting the phillosophical cart in front of the scientific horse. Actually, the horse stands on the cart. Science and its methodology or a proper philosophy of science are quite congruent with Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology, reality and reason, and do not contradict them. Let's consider your statement "existence is finite." (I don't remember if Rand ever said this and don't much care if she did or didn't. (Her iconic statement is "existence exists.") Existence just is, A is A. Our knowledge of existence is finite, but that's just mental. Finiteness here is an inference that implies a yet to be observed and identified something likely never to be so observed and identified, also an inference.

Rand was one of the "Absolutely!" boys. There's a great virtue in that, but you are more absolutely than even she ever was. You remind me of me when I was your age in the summer of 1963 reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time in my sister's home in Flagstaff, Arizona in, ugh, a 99 cent paperback. You are, however, way, way ahead of the then me in your readings and understandings now. What you need to learn in the years to come is the tentativeness of knowledge and how to work with that intellectually. It is the only thing that will save you from burn out or, instead of that, dogmatism. In the meantime, enjoy Objectivism in all its facets.

--Brant

oh, hi!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Metaphysics: What is,

Why not simply call it "reality" then?

What Baal is doing is directly attacking reality and man's ability to apprehend it.

If you would please provide concrete examples from Ba'al's posts in which you think he is "directly attacking reality" (Baa'l of all people, now really! :D), point out alleged attacks and demonstrate. TIA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you true blue objectivists should enjoy this

"contradictions do not exist in reality. If you think you've reached a contradiction, check you premises. You'll usually find one of them is wrong"- Francisco d'Anconia Atlas Shrugged

I seriously wonder why some of you are here.

Excellent demonstration example. You have obviously come across a contradiction ("I seriously wonder why some of you are here") - therefore one of your premises must be wrong. Which is the wrong premise then? (Should be no problem for you to find out actually).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Baal is doing is directly attacking reality and man's ability to apprehend it. I won't stand for it. Not here. Reason is not trial and error, it is a methodical approach to the acquisition of knowledge, but it's not automatic. It's is volitional, therefore it is fallible, thus it requires relentless effort and scrupulous logic..

I am concrete bound and proud of it. I pay the most attention to facts. Why? Because facts are what IS.

I am genetically disposed to literal-mindedness (I have Aspberger's Syndrome) and reality, the Real Reality, completely physical is what I pay attention to the most. What I pay attention to the least is feelings and other subjective nonsense.

God and the Devil are in the Details. Everything else is nonsense or puttering about.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now