4 ms·

"those predictions have either been falsified or contradict generally accepted scientific principles." ... Well our current flavour of Science is effectively m

"those predictions have either been falsified or contradict generally accepted scientific principles." ... Well our current flavour of Science is effectively materialist and it starts effectively with the assumption that 'the universe is made up of a bunch of laws' as we try to discover them. It postulates a priori a specific metaphysical position that immediately negates anything else ... so it's going to be impossible to test what has been ruled out as an assumption. The first order problem that materialism brings us is the inherent nihilism in the 'we are just a random bag of particles problem' - i.e. taken to it's extreme, not only is there no 'supernatural' - there is effectively not even 'intelligence' or 'life' or possibly 'consciousness'. Just the appearance of those things. So logic, reason and science, i.e. tools which we 'the observers' developed to facilitate our understanding of ourselves, has come to negate our very existence? Or is it more likely we are caught up in our own bad thinking? It's funny that we ignore the biggest problem staring us the mirror: 'what are we' / 'what is life' - in lieu of somewhat more tangible things like 'Dark Matter' as we stare off into space, because the 'what are we' problem does not fit well into our materialist equations. In fact, speculation about 'life' may undermine just a little bit the very premise of science, in a much worse way than string theory (assuming it ends up really being actually wrong) ever will. The headline is a little click-baitey, and Gleisers comments I don't think are much more insightful than a decent HN comment ... but I think the underlying problem is the straight jacket that materialism has imposed upon many of our best thinkers. The argument he presents is essentially that of someone at an intellectual dead-end, as materialism seems to be on this issue. Emergence [1] and Bio-Centrism [2] may offer us some hints at how to rethink our perspectives to accommodate for the very nature of life itself, the expression of which I think is what inspires our spiritual inquisition. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence [2] http://www.robertlanza.com/biocentrism-how-life-and-consciousness-are-the-keys-to-understanding-the-true-nature-of-the-universe/ http://www.robertlanza.com/biocentrism-how-life-and-consciou...

mindcrime 8y ago
That's a fair point, but where do we cross the line from "science" to metaphysics and epistemology? I admit, I do come at science from a somewhat materialistic viewpoint, and Popperian viewpoint... but that's mainly because I don't see any other approach being as valid as a way to establish knowledge about our world. That said, I'm open to being convinced of something else...
visarga 8y ago
> The first order problem that materialism brings us is the inherent nihilism in the 'we are just a random bag of particles problem' We are just a random bag of particles with self replicating power and the end result of billions of years of competitive self replication under limited resources (evolution). We survived entropy for long by learning to sense, make use of and adapt to the changing environment. Our fundamental internal purpose is to exist and to make more of ourselves (just another way of saying 'to exist'). We're agents learning to sense and act in a way that would maximise our future rewards, reward types which have been selected by evolution to serve self replication. I don't see nihilism in this position, maybe there is a lack of appreciation in your position for the physical self replicator, the actual source of life. > not only is there no 'supernatural' - there is effectively not even 'intelligence' or 'life' or possibly 'consciousness'. Just the appearance of those things. There is, we have the ability to learn to sense and act based on our rich environment and complex brains. Our emotions encode our current rewards and the prediction of future rewards. We learn the value function and the policy function that would allow us to continue to exist and self replicate. They form what we call 'consciousness' and 'intelligence'.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "We are just a random bag of particles with self replicating power" ", maybe there is a lack of appreciation in your position for the physical self replicator, the actual source of life" Maybe you've misunderstood my statement. Only from the materialist metaphysical perspective we are 'self replicating bags of atoms'. Materialism essentially starts out with that premise, i.e. that the universe is particles that behave according to specific rules we will eventually discover. It's a premise, not a fact. The materialist premise is exceedingly useful for many things, but in it's extreme, it's ridiculously stupid as it denies what we accept as a very rational fact: that we are alive. In other words - because we can't explain life with physics, doesn't mean life doesn't exist, it means that physics is probably the wrong tool for the job. The mental trap of materialism is strong, sometimes we get caught in it like a Chinese finger trap: it's deeply nihilist to propose that we, as a life forms, don't even exist, and that the words we write, the thoughts we have, essentially don't exist, or are at most only the result of random interactions. It's also exceedingly hypocritical to live life with purpose or expression, and then somehow to have some strange belief that it is utterly random and meaningless. I think it's actually totally irrational and illogical.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

mindcrime 8y ago

That's a fair point, but where do we cross the line from "science" to metaphysics and epistemology? I admit, I do come at science from a somewhat materialistic viewpoint, and Popperian viewpoint... but that's mainly because I don't see any other approach being as valid as a way to establish knowledge about our world. That said, I'm open to being convinced of something else...

visarga 8y ago

> The first order problem that materialism brings us is the inherent nihilism in the 'we are just a random bag of particles problem' We are just a random bag of particles with self replicating power and the end result of billions of years of competitive self replication under limited resources (evolution). We survived entropy for long by learning to sense, make use of and adapt to the changing environment. Our fundamental internal purpose is to exist and to make more of ourselves (just another way of saying 'to exist'). We're agents learning to sense and act in a way that would maximise our future rewards, reward types which have been selected by evolution to serve self replication. I don't see nihilism in this position, maybe there is a lack of appreciation in your position for the physical self replicator, the actual source of life. > not only is there no 'supernatural' - there is effectively not even 'intelligence' or 'life' or possibly 'consciousness'. Just the appearance of those things. There is, we have the ability to learn to sense and act based on our rich environment and complex brains. Our emotions encode our current rewards and the prediction of future rewards. We learn the value function and the policy function that would allow us to continue to exist and self replicate. They form what we call 'consciousness' and 'intelligence'.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
"We are just a random bag of particles with self replicating power" ", maybe there is a lack of appreciation in your position for the physical self replicator, the actual source of life" Maybe you've misunderstood my statement. Only from the materialist metaphysical perspective we are 'self replicating bags of atoms'. Materialism essentially starts out with that premise, i.e. that the universe is particles that behave according to specific rules we will eventually discover. It's a premise, not a fact. The materialist premise is exceedingly useful for many things, but in it's extreme, it's ridiculously stupid as it denies what we accept as a very rational fact: that we are alive. In other words - because we can't explain life with physics, doesn't mean life doesn't exist, it means that physics is probably the wrong tool for the job. The mental trap of materialism is strong, sometimes we get caught in it like a Chinese finger trap: it's deeply nihilist to propose that we, as a life forms, don't even exist, and that the words we write, the thoughts we have, essentially don't exist, or are at most only the result of random interactions. It's also exceedingly hypocritical to live life with purpose or expression, and then somehow to have some strange belief that it is utterly random and meaningless. I think it's actually totally irrational and illogical.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]