Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by wegs, Aug 26, 2016.
Belief is theory, and with science it can always come true. Outlining objective metaphysical truths.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
No belief is belief, or faith:
A scientific theory is based on observational and experimental data, and may change as observational and experimental data improves, or may not.
So is a faith.
Sure, it can or may change...or it may not.
No, faith is more like devotion without any evidence to support it.
You mean this definition?:
"Division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology."
Furthermore, we are not taking layman's notion but, given that this is the philosophy forum, the term as understood within philosophy. To consider it as synonymous with "subjective" is to utterly misunderstand the point.
Sure, it includes the study of what is subjective, whether subjective things exist as experienced or not, but that is not the same as saying that if something is subjective then it is metaphysical.
Once again you misunderstand.
Life on other planets IS capable of being perceived by the senses. We just have to go there and observe them.
Metaphysics, even using your definition, is about those things that are not just beyond our current capability of sensing but are absolutely beyond them, irrespective of technological ability.
Life on other planets is NOT a metaphysical question but purely one of science and technical capability.
The nature of cause and effect, for example, IS metaphysical because it is impossible to observe it any other way than we do. We can not take a view from outside cause and effect to observe and study it.
Do you not see the difference.
Else you'll be thinking that whether or not I'm wearing a hat is metaphysical to you?
But then it wouldn't be to me, would it? And thus you're proposing that the metaphysical itself (I.e. What we consider as metaphysical or not) is a matter of subjectivity, as well as being synonymous with subjectivity. Hmmm, a tangled web of nonsense you do seem to create.
If something is felt, if there is a physical experience, then the matter is entirely physical.
If it is not perceptible to any of your sense then why would you think it exists in the first place? Perhaps you are working back from what you do see, trying to establish "why?" you perceive what you do.
At some point, as you keep asking "why?" you will get to a point that science can not even start to answer, and that is where metaphysics takes over.
The lack of technical or current ability does not itself take one into the realms of the metaphysical.
But yes, matters of existence are metaphysical issues: ontology is an area of metaphysics - the nature of existence.
But this does not mean that things that exist subjectively are therefore metaphysical, as you suggest.
It does not mean that things that exist outside our current ability to perceive them are metaphysical.
Please, just read a simple guide to metaphysics before you post again on the matter.
Say I imagine, someday, building a house on the lake. The house I am imagining, will use traditional building materials which can be bought at any local home center. The house will be small and simple and can be constructed by any skilled carpenter using basic tools any carpenter would already own. Is this house real or imaginary? It is within the realm of possibility, since there are no parameters used which cannot be met or seen once constructed. However, it is not yet something anyone can see with their external senses. It is a real possibility that exists in my imagination; metaphysical.
If you keep coming back to that same location on the lake, year after year, expecting to see my house, but it is never there, do we just need more time or even better eyes to make it appear? Or maybe we are looking at the wrong lake? Say after ten years, a house is built on that location, does it follow that it is the one I originally imagined? This is how theory relates to reality. Theory starts in the mind, and will be formulated in ways that can be totally within the realm of possibility. But often once we find the house, it may not be the exact same house.
Subjectivity is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Opinions can be personal, but personal opinions are often collective in nature; liberalism and conservatism. A group of people, at the UFO Convention, can all imagine visitors from other planets based on similar beliefs. Say the case made by the speaker at the convention, was very strong causing nearly externe to feel that UFO's exist. Now we have belief and feelings. After the UFO convention, each person goes home to their group of friends, none of which believe in UFO's. Now the group opinion of the convention, appears like a subjective personal opinion held by that now friend. That person still feels the conviction that was induced by the speaker at the convention. I can sense that he believes what he believes even if I don't agree. However, he unable to eloquently state the position the speaker used to induce his conviction, so he can induce that in me. Instead he tires to half argue based on the emotional state behind his belief.
Say I claim that chocolate is a better flavor than vanilla. I can find thousands of people who will agree with me. To these birds of a feather, this is an objective fact, since it goes beyond a personal opinion to thousands of data points. This is more data than a decaying proton which is called objective.
What all these examples have in common, which is objective (even if called subjective) is there are certain internal chemical and electrochemical environments of the brain, that creates the feeling of arousal and conviction. If you sincerely believe anything, it will induce a very similar neural chemical background in the brain. As an analogy, a lie detector will monitor changes in the body based on whether the person deviates away from a baseline neural environment, altering the body via feedback changes. This baseline is often connected to tangible sensory induced data; objective truth.
I can feel the same internal neural environment of conviction, whether I think about life on other planets, how water is needed for life, or whether I think about how chocolate is good. There are not a lot of feelings. The brain recycles certain feelings, and uses these for a wide range of situations. This allows what we call subjectivity.
In the case of imagining building the house, it is possible to get the same internal chemical buzz imagining or seeing the house in reality. Often imagining generates even more chemical and electrochemical excitement, to help inspire us to action. Because it is not yet real, it creates a potential in the brain. This adds to the potential. Michelangelo would see the final sculpture in the rock, even before it was carved. After it was done the same feeling was there. The metaphysical becomes reality.
I don't look at subjectivity, as the opposite of objective due to the hardware affect, which is objective. With practice one can differentiate its language.
Wellwisher, metaphysics does not simply mean: not physical, or beyond the physical. It is a branch of philosophy that asks questions that science can not answer, and upon assumptions of which science may even be based.
You are consistently confusing it with some naive concept of it being simply a matter of subjectivity, or non-physicality. It is not.
Take your mental image of a house, for example. This mental image is not metaphysical. It is simply non-physical with regard the building materials of the house, but physical with regard the neurons and chemicals that give rise to it.
There are certainly aspects of it that have a metaphysical bent, such as what is the nature of the existence of a mental image, and how does it differ to the nature of existence of the actual cabin etc.
But that does not make the mental image metaphysical.
I could have the same metaphysical discussion about an actual car... And how the nature of its existence differs to that of a house. Is the physical car now somehow metaphysical?
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy. No object, whether physical or mental (not withstanding the physical nature of the mental) is of itself philosophical.
"Metaphysical" means "relating to metaphysics". It is not some description of things "beyond the physical".
Just as a cup of tea is physical it is not, in and of itself, physics. Your usage of the term is akin to stating that the cup of tea is physics. Or that it is ontological, or a book is epistemological etc.
Aspects of mental images can be discussed from a metaphysical point of view, but they are not, in and of themselves, metaphysical.
But then I ask myself, is there really any point in me trying to explain this to you, as you will ignore it and continue with your misconceptions and misuse of the terms.
Only if you in yourself let it be that way in whatever bigotry, or ignorance you may have
Pot kettle, black? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
After reading some of your pathetic replies in the "Unbelievers are superstitious and unrepentant" thread, it's obvious it's your bigotry and stupidity that needs to be questioned, and as illustrated by the following knowledgeable reply to your nonsense in that thread....
Again, faith is most certainly as I said, a devotion to a cause, without any evidence.
That may grate with you, but so be it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And plain deception.
Yes, I agree, you most certainly are deceiving yourself.
I am defining metaphysics in terms of both the first and the transcending principles of reality.
Mid 16th century: representing medieval Latin metaphysic (neuter plural), based on Greek ta meta ta phusika the things after the Physics, referring to the sequence of Aristotle's works: the title came to denote the branch of study treated in the books, later interpreted as meaning ‘the science of things transcending what is physical or natural’.
Mind or consciousness transcends what is physical or natural. There is no consensus theory for consciousness, even though it is there for all of us to see. Each of us has consciousness with us at all time, yet few know what it is. The reason is, the best data is inside and not outside. That is the first principle of consciousness; software and not hardware. You cannot see software based on standard output devices, since there are many way to program and get the same output. All search engines can search but not all use the same code.
Our understanding of space, time, etc., and other first principles begins within the mind. Before you can build the house on the lake, you need to plan the house in the mind. If it stays in the planning stages of the mind, it is stuck at the level of first principles. Once it is built, it becomes real and physical. But this is not the end, since the house, will continue to change, over the years, based on further transcendent planning; to add a small deck.
I also used the small house as an analogy to the theory of life being elsewhere in the universe. We have not yet found, life. Life, elsewhere in the universe, is still at the level of first principles. The house is all planned with a wide range of sciences, but not yet built as tangible reality; no hard data yet. If and when we do find life, it may not be what we expected. Once again, new theory will appear, based on what data we have, transcending what is physical; extrapolation, to beyond what we can prove. Now we will look to find this new data.
And down right evil.
It's a rather archaic Then make sure you understand those definitions and use them in what you write.
No it doesn't. The mind is very much physical, and absolutely natural. The physical includes the neurons, electrons, chemicals, and interactions thereof.
The lack of consensus does not make it metaphysical. Lest you want to call gravity metaphysical???
Doesn't make it metaphysical.
"Best data"? Doesn't make it metaphysical.
Doesn't make it metaphysical, even per your own definition.
That doesn't make the house in the mind metaphysical. It merely makes it a mental image. Mental image does not equate to metaphysical.
The lack of discovery does not make it metaphysical. Was America metaphysical before anyone discovered it?
No, it's not. The search for life by us may not have been fruitful thus far but I assure you that if life exists elsewhere then that life is not at "first principles". Whether or not life exists is not up to us. It is rather up to that life and whether it actually exists. All we can do is search for it. And that search is not metaphysical.
Does not make it metaphysical.
Doesn't make it metaphysical.
I'm fairly sure that whatever we discover will be very physical. It will not "transcend what is physical". It will simply be perhaps not as expeceted. This does not make it metaphysical.
None of which makes it metaphysical.
Separate names with a comma.