Transcendental Signifier Argument (reprize)
Please read thus whole essay. At the very least I think it either offers a good interesting way to present design arguments. Or it is a genius new argument atheists have not heard. It is meaningful it us not BS. But you have to read it all to understand it.
The argument
1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)
2. OP's summed up in TS
3. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind.
4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.
5. minds organize and communicate meaning
6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS
7. Concept of God unites TS with universal mind therefore offers best explanation
for a view that is Rational, Coherent, and Meaningful (RCM).
1-3
(1) Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)OP 's make sense of the universe and explain hierarchies of conceptualization: effects need causes, conclusions are mandated by premises, meaning in language is organized by rules of grammar. (RCM (rational, coherent, and meaningful) = Hierarchical order).This premise is rooted directly in observation, a coherent view of the universe requires OPs, and observation. That a rational and coherent view requires a principle that organizes reality according to some aspect of logic or math should be obvious. That's really no different than saying to really understand things we need a logical coherent view. At this point the skeptic might assume that the argument is a design argument or that it is saying that “laws imply a law giver.” Jerome E. Bickenbach and Jackqueline M. Davis tell us that the argument “laws require a law giver” is the fallacy of equivocation.[1] Right they are, since scientists don't mean the term “laws” in the sense that early modern scientists such as Newton and Boyle meant it. They really meant a divine command that the universe must behave in a certain way. The term “law” is a hold-over from a former age. “The laws of physics, and other scientifically discovered laws of nature are principles formulated by scientists (not prescribed by lawmakers) in order to describe regularities and patterns observed in the natural world...while there may be a God this is not shown by taking the existence of laws of nature as evidence.”[2] Whether or not physical laws are evidence of God remains to be seen, but this argument is neither design nor laws imply a law-giver. First, it's not a design argument to the extent that the inference is not drawn from design per se. Design works through either fitness, function, or the resemblance to things we know are designed. Since it does turn upon order there is overlap with design, especially the latter kind (resemblance to known design). Yet the point of inference is not taken from resemblance to known design but to the all pervasive nature of necessary to contingent orderSecondly, the argument is not based upon the assumption laws imply a law giver. That idea assumes that physical laws are a simple list of rules mandated by a God. That concept of God is based upon the Suzerain model. The argument does not assume a set of rules but a more organic relation. The point of inference does not turn upon a set but upon one central, simple, and elegant idea that frames and grounds the metaphysical hierarchy in a single all-encumpasing first principle. Since I don't assume that scientists speak of “laws of physics” in the same way we speak of “laws of traffic” or The U.S, Code Annotated, or Black's Law Dictionary, then there is no fallacy of equivocation. How I connect physical “law” to a prescriptive sense without reducing description to prescription will be dealt with in chapter four.Above I point to grammar as an example of a TS. The skeptic might argue that grammar is just cultural, that would be wrong. First of all it doesn't have to be innate to be an example. If language is just cultural constructs ideas might still be formed in their function from logical necessity (not the actual signifiers themselves but the concepts to which they point). An example would be the logical rule A cannot be non A. That is not arbitrary, but self evident. A thing cannot be other than itself. Thus the logical law marks the fact as a road map marks geography, but like a map the two might not always line up. In that case, if grammar is a purely cultural construct, its still an example of hierarchical conceptualization. Secondly, there is a lot of good evidence that generative grammar is genetic. Children of one month old can distinguish between different phonemes in a language, such as “b” and “p.” Researchers know this by reaction of the infant to the sound. A phoneme is a unit of sound in a word. Two such studies are one by Kuhl and one by Scott, et al.[3] More on this in a subsequent chapter.Western thought has always assumed Organizing principles that are summed up in a single first principle (an ἀρχή) which grounds any sort of meaning: the logos or the transcendental signified (TS). When I have made this argument skeptics have argued that there is nothing in science called an “organizing principle.” One opponent in particular who was a physicist was particularly exercised about my use of this term. While there is no formal term such that scientists speak of the “organizing principles” along side laws of physics or Newtonian laws, they speak of organizing principles all the time. A google search resulted in 320,000,000 results.[4] On every page of this search we see articles by cell biologists, cancer researchers, environmental biologists. Mathematicians, physicists, and so on. Yes there are also articles by crack pots, new age mystics, people with all kinds of ideas. There is even a book by a physicist who argues that the scientific thinking of the poet and dramatist Johann Wolfgang Goethe is valid in modern terms of quantum theory. He talked about organizing principles.[5] An Article in Nature entitled “Organizing principles” discusses a famous experiment in developmental biology: in 1924 carried out by Hilde Mangold, a Ph.D. student in the laboratory of Hans Spemann in Freiburg. “It provided the first unambiguous evidence that cell and tissue fate can be determined by signals received from other cells…This experiment therefore demonstrated the existence of an organizer that instructs both neuralization and dorsalization, and showed that cells can adopt their developmental fate according to their position when instructed by other cells.”[6]viM.J. Bissell et. al. Discuss malignancy in breast cancer. “A considerable body of evidence now shows that cell-cell and cell-extracellular matrix (ECM) interactions are essential organizing principles that help define the nature of the tissue context, and play a crucial role in regulating homeostasis and tissue specificity.”[7] All objects in nature are connected to other objects. This can be demonstrated easily enough, as William Graham makes clear in discussing “Natures Organizing Principles.”[8] He turns to ecosystems as an example. Fish in a school work by individually possessed set of common principles such that they act in unison without a leader. These are not evidences of God they are not a design argument. They merely serve to bring home the point there are organizing principles about. I know this general informal use of the term does not mean that the Ops I want to talk about exist. But it is clear there are plenty of structures that organize and guide the way things turn out we do not have an understanding of what organizes the OP. Yet modern science still seeks a logos or a TS that would bind them all together and unite them in one over arching principle.A skeptic could argue that there are self organizing structures in nature. The self organizing structure supposedly doesn't require an outside source to exist, that would defeat the principle of the necessity of organizing principles. Self organizing systems do exist, although they may not be truly self organizing. A self organizing system is one in which the organization is decentralized or distributed throughout the system. Examples include crystallization (snow flakes), swarms of bees or birds, or neural networks. There are two problems with trying to use self organizing against OP's. First, there are contradictions within the concept. self organizing is part of dynamic structures, but dynamic laws operate locally. They can't produce large structures (like a universe).[9] Moreover,Extending the familiar notion of algorithmic complexity into the context of dynamical systems, we obtain a notion of “dynamical complexity”. A simple theorem then shows that only objects of very low dynamical complexity can self organize, so that living organisms must be of low dynamical complexity. On the other hand, symmetry considerations suggest that living organisms are highly complex, relative to the dynamical laws, due to their large size and high degree of irregularity.[10]Secondly, the term itself (“self organizing”) is a misnomer. Systems are not organizing themselves, they are being organized by physical laws and properties. As the Johns article points out self organizing systems are limited by “dynamical laws,” thus the prior conditions under which the system emerged (physical laws) is a limit on the system. An example of physical laws limiting self organizing is entropy.[11] The Gershen and Heylighen article shows that according to the second law of thermodynamics entropy in an isolated system can only decrease, thus, “[self organizing] systems cannot be isolated: they require a constant input of matter or energy with low entropy, getting rid of the internally generated entropy through the output of heat('dissipation')..”[12] John Collier finds that, “Self-organization requires an entropy gradient that is external. But this need contain no further organization...”[13] He goes on to say that new “selves” can emerge within the system but as stated above it does depend upon external forces. The article deals with self organizing systems and questions of identity. He defines self organizing as “a process by which larger scale (macro) order is formed in a system through the promotion of fluctuations at a smaller (micro) scale via processes inherent in the system dynamics, modulated by interactions between the system and its surroundings..”[14] Apparently even his definition of the process defeats the argument that self organizing is indicative of some kind of emergence from true nothingness. Some of the questions he explores include:
1) What is the self that organizes ? 2) Why is it a self ? 3) What is it for a process to be inherent to the system dynamics ? 4) What does it mean for interactions with the surroundings to modulate rather than determine or control ? Maturana holds that there are no satisfactory answers to the first two of these questions, if for no other reason than that the self that supposedly organizes does not exist at the onset of organization. Self-organization appears to require a sort of lifting oneself by the bootstraps without having even boots at the beginning. Self-organization thus appears to be an oxymoron, or at least a misnomer. Autopoiesis is a self-producing process that presupposes an organized self (Maturana and Varela, 1992 : 43ff).[15]Collier finds that Maturana and Varele are wrong, Autopoiesis does not explain the process of self organizing. The “new self” that emerges is changed enough to deserve the name self organizing, but it is not a process whereby a self creates itself apart from external forces. Of course we need not think of God interacting with new entities as each new process comes up. Clearly there is a law-like regularity that must be set up in advance of the effects it produces. We explore that law-like regularity in chapter four (are laws of physics descriptive or prescriptive?). Suffice to say self organizing systems do not negate the necessity of a TSA skeptic who is a physicist pointed out to me that science doesn't recognize anything called an “organizing principle.” Yes it does, they just don't call it that. Sometimes they are called “laws of physics,” or “natural laws.” But the concept is not limited to laws. There is an organizing principle grounding and influencing anything organized. Alphabetical listings, political ideas against or for which the group needs to be organized, necessity and contingency, any principle which forms the basis for organizing something, but science recognizes this too. They are also called “causes.”
(2) OPs summed up in TS
Op's can be categorized and understood in relation to a few key principles that describe their relation to each other, such as mathematics, language, thought, culminating in one overarching first principle or ἀρχή (are-kay) that makes sense of it all. Just reason might be said to make sense of thought. TS's are first principes and they vie for status each one as the first principle (TSED).I've already discussed the logos of the Greeks and the use made of that concept in various ways. Kant's categories and abstract principles that regulate our understanding of everything, which corresponds to Ops to some extent or perhaps transcendental signifiers. I spoke of Paul Davies and his assertion that laws of physics have replaced God in the works of modern physicists, and in his own ideal along those lines as well. There's another aspects in which modern physics sees a TS. In principle this concept of a single elegant idea that explains everything is what science has been working toward for years. John Horgan says of Steven Weinberg, “In his 1993 book Dreams of a Final Theory, he extolled particle physics as the culmination of 'the ancient search for those principles that cannot be explained in terms of deeper principles.' He predicted that 'the convergence of explanations down to simpler and simpler principles will eventually come to an end in a final theory.'”[17] A skeptic might question the scientific veracity or the idea of a single principle that reveals explanations built into the logical structure of nature. Yet in Dreams of a Final Theory, Weinberg tells us, “this is what our science is about: the discovery of explanations built into the logical structure of nature.”[18] David Deutsch a quantum physicist at Oxford produced a constructor theory that is a framework that unites all physical theories and eliminates the impossible in hopes of finding the basic principle that explains it all.[19] The concept of uniting theories and the meta law are organizing principles. The meta-law is a transcendental signifier, so where is the TS? That's the reality in the real world that these theories point to. The physicists are talking about things like gravity. The ideas in their minds that point to the TS are impersonal forces of nature; that single structure might well point to God and the physicists would have no way of knowing it or ruling it out. We have a couple of ways. One of them is to follow the logic of the argument. Clearly the premises are not ruled out by physics.I have used TS and OP in a seemingly interchangeable way and this may lead one to ask “which is it?” TS is a form of OP. I usually use OP in speaking of ideas that are known to be either naturalistic, or if constructed, the notion of something no one disputes. The latter might be bigotry (most people agree it exists), or that of freedom. The former might be a more easily demonstrated idea such as cause and effect. TS is more theoretical and might be metaphysical such as justice, or the absolute soul, God, or the Buddha mind. TS is an organizing principle but I tend to use the term of more theoretical ideas, or ideas not as easily demonstrated to which some may or may not give ascent. If there is an actual TS, it organizes the organizers, the OP's. The TS tends to be the next wrung up in the metaphysical hierarchy; yet since TS organizes it is an OP.The TS is necessary and cannot be abandoned. Even attempts to abandon it result in the adoption of new Transcendental signifiers that refer to to the perennial concept of the ultimate first principle. One example of this replacement theory is that of Derrida trying to break down ethics, the attempt leads to the establishment of a new TS for ethical paradigm, i.e., “differance.”[20] The goal of difference as the answer to hierarchy and becomes the new principle around which the ethical paradigm is structured. An example of imposing a new OP in science would be the paradigm shift. An example of imposing a new TS is the atheist abolishing God talk from her vocabulary and putting science in its place. Or Marx with the same motivation makes ideology his version of God or the TSED, the top of the metaphysical hierarchy.Finally, TS as a term stands for the top of the metaphysical hierarchy. The actual thing at the top itself is the TSED, the object of belief to which all TS's point. In other words as transcendental signifiers point to one reality at the top, the transcendental signified. so any given transcendental signifier might be wrong, but there has to be a Transcendental Signified. The words that describe the reality may very but there is a reality there. That which is all pervasive and mutually exclusive is not necessarily part of the definition but it flows out of the nature of being the top of the metaphysical hierarchy. It is clear that for some examples of the TS it is exclusive, such as “God.”We can understand this tendency of all OP's to be summed up in and explained by the TS as hierarchical ordering, This is what I call “metaphysical hierarchy,” the TS functions as the top of the Metaphysical hierarchy. This forms a major part of the argument because the TS is the best explanation for the hierarchy.(3) Modern Thought rejects TSEDIt would be more technically correct to say postmodern thought rejects TS. But modern thought may keep TS's such as reason but doesn't allow them to be connected to mind. I use the term “modern” here to mean contemporary, no reference to the academic schools. I've already described this process. They reject God but leave in place an organizing principle in terms of laws of physics as a mindless principle that can take the place of a creator. It is impossible to do without OPs, all attempts to do so have ended in establishment of a new organizing principles: such as the Derrida and ethics examples I just go through describing (see chapter 2 for greater depth). We cannot organize without a principle of organizing. Chapter two is all about this example of Derrida and ethics. The way the OP's are summed up in TS's is hierarchical and suggests the basic reason for hierarchical ordering.Modern thought either reduces the TS to laws of physics or rejects it out right but in either case fails to unite the grounding function of the TS in such a way as to explain a coherent hierarchical ordering in the universe with an understanding of what it means to be. I don't know who invented the term “transcendental signifier,” but Derrida took it over in a sense and made it famous. It actually refers to any universal concept in human understanding. There are so many TS's because it's not limited to one notion, but also because it refers to or includes the ultimate first principle. That means it's basically about the areas of reality of which we know so little, thus there are many different ideas about it. Yet the hierarchical nature implies a single first principle. There are many different ideas, God, the life force, the over soul, the Buddha mind, being itself, but they all point to a single first principle at the top, The discussion is always about which one: reason, logic, math, God.Sources[1] Jerome E. Bickenbach and Jackqueline M. Davis, Good Reasons for Better Arguments: An Introduction To The Sills and Values of Critical Thinking. Calgary: Broadview Press, 1996, 189.[2]Ibid.[3]Patricia Kuhl, “Early Language Acquisition: Cacking the Speech Code.” Nature reviews Neuroscience 5, (Nov. 2004) 831-843, doi:10.1038/nrn1533.Institute for Learning and Brain Sciences and the Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA.
Email: pkkuhl@u.washington.eduSee also: Sophie K Scott et al, “Categorical speech representation in human superior temporal gyrus. Is Categorical perception a fundamental property of speech perception?" Nature Neuroscience,(2010). 13: 1428-1432.[4]Google search, organizing principles in nature,https://www.google.com/#q=organizing+principles+in+nature accessed 5/3/16[5]Henri Bortoft, Wholeness of Nature of The Universe: Goethe’s Way Toward a Science of Conscious Participation in nature. Herdon VA:Lindisfarne Books originally published by Steiner Books,1971, 1985, re worked version 1992, 69.Henri Bortoft, (1938 – 29 December 2012) received undergraduate degree at university of Hull then did Postgraduate research at Beirbeck college. He studiedQuantum Physics with David Bohm.[6]Barbara Marte, “Milstone 1: Organizing Principles,” Nature.Org (july 1,2004) doi:10.1038/nrn1449URL: http://www.nature.com/milestones/development/milestones/full/milestone1.html accessed 6/3/16Marte is senior editor Nature.[7]viiM.J. Bissell, D.C Radisky, and A. Rizki, “The Organizing Principle:Microenvironmental Influences In The Normal amd Malignant Breast.” Pub Med, NCB, Dec;70(9-10): 2002, 537-46. on line resource URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12492495 accessed 6:3/16[8]viiiWilliam Graham, “Natures Organization Principles,” Nature’s Tangled Web: The Art, Soul, and Science of a Connected Nature. Oct. 30, 2012, Online resource.http://www.freshvista.com/2012/natures-organizing-principles/ accessed 6/3/16.[9]ixRichard Johns, “”Self Organizations in Dynamical Systems,” Synthese, Volume 181, issue 2,( July, 2011) 255-275Johns is in the Dpartment of Philosophy, University British Columbia.[10]xIbid.[11]xiIbid., 258.[12]xii Carlos Gershen and Francis Heylighen, “When Can We Call A System Self Organizing?” Advances in Artificial Life, Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, Volume 2801 of the series Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2003,Gershen is from Mexico, he earned his Ph.D. from University of Burssels in interdisciplinary studies. He studies self organizing systems.[13]John Collier, “Self Organization, Individuation, and Identity,” Revue Internationale De Philosophie, 2004/2 (n 228) 151-172, 172.John Collier is a philosopher at University of Natal. The University of Natalis in Durbin South Africa, it has now become The University of Kwazulu-Natal. Collier is from Canada, he has taught at MIT and published extensively on self organizing systems.[14]Ibid., 151.[15]xv Huberto R. Maturana and Francisco J. Varele, The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of HumanUnderstanding. Boston: Sambhala,, 43ff.[16]xviCollier, “Self Organization...” op. cit.[17]xviiJohn Horgan, “Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg Still dreams of a final Theory,” Scientific American, (May 1, 2015) Graham isa marine biologist.Online resourse, URL http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/nobel-laureate-steven-weinberg-still-dreams-of-final-theory/ accessed 9/20/15John Horgan was staff writter, A teacher at Stevens Institute of Technology, Horgan is the author of four books, including The End of Science, 1996, re-published with new preface 2015; and The End of War, 2012, paperback published 2014.[18]xviiiSteven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory: Scientists Search For the Ultimate Laws of Nature. New York: Vintage, reprint edition, 1994, 10.[19]xixZeeya Merali, ”A Meta-law to rule them all: Physicists Devise a Theory of Everything.” Scientific American, (May 26, 2014) online rfesource URL http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-meta-law-to-rule-them-all-physicists-devise-a-theory-of-everything/ accessed 9/20/15.[20]Derrida misspells “difference” for special reasons dealing with his theory “deconstruction.” Se chapter three on “the Derridian Background of the Argument.
Derridian Background part 2
Rauser Interviews me on the TS argumemt
Comments
Now I am pretty sure this is not how you are using the terms, so again, I will say: You really need to make clear what you mean by them.
Pix
Pix
What about organizing principles? What about TS?
I cannot believe you are still pushing this in its original state. I am sure I have pointed out these issues before. Shall we go though it again?
1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)
Okay, so if we are to understand the universe, then we need a way to organise ideas in our head. I guess that is fair enough. But we need to be clear that these OPs are in the head; this is how we organise ideas.
2. OP's summed up in TS
What does even mean? I appreciate you explain later, but surely you could make it a little clearer here. I think what it means is that the principles by which people organise ideas in their head have an over-arching principle, which is what you call the TS.
3. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind.
How can that be a part of your argument? It is culturally dependent. If we were discussing this in the eighteenth century, number 3 would not be true. Does that mean that back then your argument was wrong?
Any argument has to be able to stand or its own merits, without reference to competing theories. What modern thought fails to do is irrelevant.
4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.
As far as I can see 3 and 4 have no bearing on your argument.
5. minds organize and communicate meaning
The fact that minds organise probably should appear before the claim about organising principles. But, okay, yes, minds do organise ideas and they do communicate them.
6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS
You present this as a conclusion ("Therefore"), and yet this is the first mention of a universal mind. How can you conclude universal mind from premises that do not mention it?
The TS appears to be each person's overarching principle for organising ideas. How does a supposed universal mind help us understand that?
7. Concept of God unites TS with universal mind therefore offers best explanation
for a view that is Rational, Coherent, and Meaningful (RCM).
I assume this to is a conclusion, given it is the last line, and yet it also introduces this new quantity, God. Do you not understand how logic works?
Pix
1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)
So now this is presumably about the laws of nature (i.e., the regularity in nature, not the laws of science). To do science - or even just to get by in life - we have to assume some regularity.
Calling the "organizing principles" is presumably because you want to prove there is an organiser, so kind of building the conclusion in.
2. OP's summed up in TS
Again, what does even mean? If OPs are the laws of nature, the the TS is the overriding law, which physicists would call the theory of everything. A single mathematical system that - in theory - describes the universe.
3. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind.
4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.
See previous comment, as it is just as relevant here.
Furthermore, modern thought does not reject a theory of everything, and indeed many cosmologies are actively searching for it.
I suspect that the TS has at this point mutated into God!
5. minds organize and communicate meaning
Okay, yes, minds do organise ideas and they do communicate them.
6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS
And here we see why you labelled them "organizing principles" - to link from the regularities of the universe, to a mind regulating the universe.
What is the organising that is being done? Is the "universal mind" organising atoms to obey rules, or is the universal mind devising the regularities they follow or what? Does it matter? I think so, if this is to be taken seriously.
Perhaps more importantly, how does the universal mind increase our understanding? What new insights are there?
Scenario one:
Why is there regularity in the universe?
I do not know.
Scenario two
Why is there regularity in the universe?
God did it
Why?
I do not know.
Does the second scenario represent better understanding?
Certainly not if it is wrong! Maybe that is the big flaw here. Number 6 assumes the universal mind is true, which is what the argument seeks to prove. If it is not true, then the universal mind gives a poorer understanding.
Pix
Yes, I know objects are real.
What about organizing principles? What about TS?
clearly real
I cannot believe you are still pushing this in its original state. I am sure I have pointed out these issues before. Shall we go though it again?
1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)
Okay, so if we are to understand the universe, then we need a way to organised ideas in our head. I guess that is fair enough. But we need to be clear that these OPs are in the head; this is how we organise ideas.
no that is wrong,I provided examples of cancer researchers using that phrase of real thing that really effects the physical universe.
2. OP's summed up in TS
What does even mean? I appreciate you explain later, but surely you could make it a little clearer here. I think what it means is that the principles by which people organise ideas in their head have an over-arching principle, which is what you call the TS.
No obviously I'm talking about things that really effect the physical universe, example was self organizing of the universe.
3. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind.
How can that be a part of your argument? It is culturally dependent. If we were discussing this in the eighteenth century, number 3 would not be true. Does that mean that back then your argument was wrong?
you are making wrong assumptions about what things mean.Clearly modern thought rejects mind that doesn't make it right
Any argument has to be able to stand or its own merits, without reference to competing theories. What modern thought fails to do is irrelevant.
Bull shit. Obviously my argument centers on the sort comings of materialism so that has to be discussed. The argumemt does not depend upon taht per se
4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.
As far as I can see 3 and 4 have no bearing on your argument.
you need to study ore carefully, Need for a change is endemic to debate.
5. minds organize and communicate meaning
The fact that minds organise probably should appear before the claim about organising principles. But, okay, yes, minds do organise ideas and they do communicate them.
why?
6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS
You present this as a conclusion ("Therefore"), and yet this is the first mention of a universal mind. How can you conclude universal mind from premises that do not mention it?
It's obvious since we it;sa God aruent, taht is just iplied amdobvious.
The TS appears to be each person's overarching principle for organising ideas. How does a supposed universal mind help us understand that?
you have no idea how arguments are made,
7. Concept of God unites TS with universal mind therefore offers best explanation
for a view that is Rational, Coherent, and Meaningful (RCM).
I assume this to is a conclusion, given it is the last line, and yet it also introduces this new quantity, God. Do you not understand how logic works?
Pix
1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)
Okay, so if we are to understand the universe, then we need a way to organised ideas in our head. I guess that is fair enough. But we need to be clear that these OPs are in the head; this is how we organise ideas.
no that is wrong,I provided examples of cancer researchers using that phrase of real thing that really effects the physical universe.
2. OP's summed up in TS
What does even mean? I appreciate you explain later, but surely you could make it a little clearer here. I think what it means is that the principles by which people organise ideas in their head have an over-arching principle, which is what you call the TS.
No obviously I'm talking about things that really effect the physical universe, example was self organizing of the universe.
5. minds organize and communicate meaning
The fact that minds organise probably should appear before the claim about organising principles. But, okay, yes, minds do organise ideas and they do communicate them.
why?
6. Therefore universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS
You present this as a conclusion ("Therefore"), and yet this is the first mention of a universal mind. How can you conclude universal mind from premises that do not mention it?
It's obvious since we it;sa God aruent, taht is just iplied amdobvious.
7. Concept of God unites TS with universal mind therefore offers best explanation
for a view that is Rational, Coherent, and Meaningful (RCM).
your close
I assume this to is a conclusion, given it is the last line, and yet it also introduces this new quantity, God. Do you not understand how logic works?
pretentious and ignorant, I was in hihschool debate I was in college debate/ I studied under a great debate coach whose teams won nationals . you kmnownitingabout arguentation.
Just for fun, let us see what happens if we suppose organizing principles and the TS are real, rather than in the head. Having gone through it, it does make more sense this way. But a different set of flaws.
1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)
So now this is presumably about the laws of nature (i.e., the regularity in nature, not the laws of science). To do science - or even just to get by in life - we have to assume some regularity.
You have not disprove my point that we need to assume OPs.
Calling the "organizing principles" is presumably because you want to prove there is an organiser, so kind of building the conclusion in.
I've documented scientists speaking of organizing principles it's not something I made up.
2. OP's summed up in TS
Again, what does even mean? If OPs are the laws of nature, the the TS is the overriding law, which physicists would call the theory of everything. A single mathematical system that - in theory - describes the universe.
Not necessarily the theory of everything but that could an example.Op include laws of nature but are not limited to them. Gravity causes organization so gravity is an op.It's not the only op. Inflation is an op in economics. Sacristy is an op in economics.The alphabet i an Op because we alphabetize that is organization.
3. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind.
4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.
See previous comment, as it is just as relevant here.
Obviously my argument does not stand or fall on that point but your comment does not negate my argument,
Furthermore, modern thought does not reject a theory of everything, and indeed many cosmologies are actively searching for it.
stop trying to reduce TS to theory of everything, that does not disprove my point. Theory of Everything is an example of a TS but that does not mean that the TS is only that one theory.
I suspect that the TS has at this point mutated into God!
God is an example of a TS but not the only one. However Derrida said God is the best version of the TS
5. minds organize and communicate meaning
Okay, yes, minds do organise ideas and they do communicate them.
you grant my premise
And here we see why you labelled them "organizing principles" - to link from the regularities of the universe, to a mind regulating the universe.
No I used that phrase because I've seen it used so many times,When I have made this argument skeptics have argued that there is nothing in science called an “organizing principle.” One opponent in particular who was a physicist was particularly exercised about my use of this term. While there is no formal term such that scientists speak of the “organizing principles” along side laws of physics or Newtonian laws, they speak of organizing principles all the time. A google search resulted in 320,000,000 results.[4] On every page of this search we see articles by cell biologists, cancer researchers, environmental biologists. Mathematicians, physicists, and so on. Yes there are also articles by crack pots, new age mystics, people with all kinds of ideas. There is even a book by a physicist who argues that the scientific thinking of the poet and dramatist Johann Wolfgang Goethe is valid in modern terms of quantum theory. He talked about organizing principles.[5] An Article in Nature entitled “Organizing principles” discusses a famous experiment in developmental biology: in 1924 carried out by Hilde Mangold, a Ph.D. student in the laboratory of Hans Spemann in Freiburg. “It provided the first unambiguous evidence that cell and tissue fate can be determined by signals received from other cells…This experiment therefore demonstrated the existence of an organizer that instructs both neuralization and dorsalization, and showed that cells can adopt their developmental fate according to their position when instructed by other cells.”[6]vi
M.J. Bissell et. al. Discuss malignancy in breast cancer. “A considerable body of evidence now shows that cell-cell and cell-extracellular matrix (ECM) interactions are essential organizing principles that help define the nature of the tissue context, and play a crucial role in regulating homeostasis and tissue specificity.”[7] All objects in nature are connected to other objects. This can be demonstrated easily enough, as William Graham makes clear in discussing “Natures Organizing Principles.”[8] He turns to ecosystems as an example. Fish in a school work by individually possessed set of common principles such that they act in unison without a leader. These are not evidences of God they are not a design argument. They merely serve to bring home the point there are organizing principles about. I know this general informal use of the term does not mean that the Ops I want to talk about exist. But it is clear there are plenty of structures that organize and guide the way things turn out we do not have an understanding of what organizes the OP. Yet modern science still seeks a logos or a TS that would bind them all together and unite them in one over arching principle.
What is the organising that is being done? Is the "universal mind" organising atoms to obey rules, or is the universal mind devising the regularities they follow or what? Does it matter? I think so, if this is to be taken seriously.
all the stuff it takes to make a universe
Perhaps more importantly, how does the universal mind increase our understanding? What new insights are there?
how does reason expand our understanding? how intelligence? how does learning.? stupid question. that would require a needlessly complex recitation of many aspects of learning that we can forgo to discuss the argument,
Scenario one:
Why is there regularity in the universe?
I do not know.
Scenario two
Why is there regularity in the universe?
God did it
Why?
I do not know.
I do know. so we can have a world in which free moral agents willingly choose the good.
Does the second scenario represent better understanding?
Certainly not if it is wrong! Maybe that is the big flaw here. Number 6 assumes the universal mind is true, which is what the argument seeks to prove. If it is not true, then the universal mind gives a poorer understanding.
It's your burden to how its wrong
sources and foot notes for my answer on 6
[4]Google search, organizing principles in nature,https://www.google.com/#q=organizing+principles+in+nature accessed 5/3/16
[5]Henri Bortoft, Wholeness of Nature of The Universe: Goethe’s Way Toward a Science of Conscious Participation in nature. Herdon VA:Lindisfarne Books originally published by Steiner Books,1971, 1985, re worked version 1992, 69.
Henri Bortoft, (1938 – 29 December 2012) received undergraduate degree at university of Hull then did Postgraduate research at Beirbeck college. He studiedQuantum Physics with David Bohm.
[6]Barbara Marte, “Milstone 1: Organizing Principles,” Nature.Org (july 1,2004) doi:10.1038/nrn1449
URL: http://www.nature.com/milestones/development/milestones/full/milestone1.html accessed 6/3/16
Marte is senior editor Nature.
[7]viiM.J. Bissell, D.C Radisky, and A. Rizki, “The Organizing Principle:Microenvironmental Influences In The Normal amd Malignant Breast.” Pub Med, NCB, Dec;70(9-10): 2002, 537-46. on line resource URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12492495 accessed 6:3/16
[8]viiiWilliam Graham, “Natures Organization Principles,” Nature’s Tangled Web: The Art, Soul, and Science of a Connected Nature. Oct. 30, 2012, Online resource.http://www.freshvista.com/2012/natures-organizing-principles/ accessed 6/3/16.
So we are going with organising principles are real, not how ideas are organised in your head.
Joe: no that is wrong,I provided examples of cancer researchers using that phrase of real thing that really effects the physical universe.
Really? So if we called it "regularity of nature" your argument would still work?
1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose regularity of nature
2. regularity of nature summed up in TS
...
Does that still work? Frankly, it is hard to say because 2 is so meaningless, but I very much suspecxt not.
That you think the number of results from a Google search has some relevance is laughable. I am not sure Henri Bortoft's "Wholeness of Nature of The Universe: Goethe’s Way Toward a Science of Conscious Participation in nature" is exactly mainstream science, given it is about the natural philosophy of Goethe.
The article by Barbara Marte is available here:
http://virtuallaboratory.colorado.edu/DEVO@CU/papers/Developmental%20Milestones.pdf
It is about developmental biology. The organiser is DNA (and the mechanisms in the cell), which organises the layout of the body. I think that is quite different to what you mean.
From the abstract of the M.J. Bissell, D.C Radisky, and A. Rizki paper:
A considerable body of evidence now shows that cell-cell and cell-extracellular matrix (ECM) interactions are essential organizing principles that help define the nature of the tissue context, and play a crucial role in regulating homeostasis and tissue specificity.
Is that really what you mean by organising principles? again, this is about the biochemistry of the cell.
And so it goes on.
Certainly these organising principles rely on the regularity of nature, but then so does everything! They are something quite different to it - for one thing they are very specifically about biology and the chemistry going on inside a cell.
Pix
I really hope you re-word this next time you post this argument.
Pix: Again, what does even mean? If OPs are the laws of nature, the the TS is the overriding law, which physicists would call the theory of everything. A single mathematical system that - in theory - describes the universe.
Joe: Not necessarily the theory of everything but that could an example.Op include laws of nature but are not limited to them. Gravity causes organization so gravity is an op.It's not the only op. Inflation is an op in economics. Sacristy is an op in economics.The alphabet i an Op because we alphabetize that is organization.
If the theory of everything could an example, that implies there is more than one TS. Is that right?
So we are looking for a principle that organises in the way gravity does, and the way inflation does and the way the alphabet does?
Why should we suppose such a thing even exist?
Joe: ....The alphabet i an Op because we alphabetize that is organization.
And now we are back to OPs being how we organise ideas in our head.
Pix
Joe: you are making wrong assumptions about what things mean.Clearly modern thought rejects mind that doesn't make it right
Ah, so you are equating TS with mind. When you say "Modern Thought rejects TS outright", you mean Modern Thought rejects mind outright, because they are one and the same, right?
Joe: you are making wrong assumptions about what things mean.Clearly modern thought rejects mind that doesn't make it right
Prove it.
Joe: Bull shit. Obviously my argument centers on the sort comings of materialism so that has to be discussed. The argumemt does not depend upon taht per se
Of course it has to be discussed, but not as part of the logic for your argument. The logic should be a set of precises that are all accepted as true, and the inferences that follow directly from them. Surely you know how logic works?
If the logic does not depend on it, then it should not be part of the logic!
Pix: Furthermore, modern thought does not reject a theory of everything, and indeed many cosmologies are actively searching for it.
Joe: stop trying to reduce TS to theory of everything, that does not disprove my point. Theory of Everything is an example of a TS but that does not mean that the TS is only that one theory.
But you did say theory of everything is an example of TS, so your claim that modern thought rejects TS is nonsense.
You think the TS is God, and modern thought rejects God.But that is not what you have said.
Pix
Joe: No I used that phrase because I've seen it used so many times,
Quote cosomologists, bot biologists. Biologists are using it in quite a different way to you (arguably a subset, but still different).
Joe: how does reason expand our understanding? how intelligence? how does learning.? stupid question. that would require a needlessly complex recitation of many aspects of learning that we can forgo to discuss the argument,
Read what you are claiming: "universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS". It is you saying that the understanding that we get from the conclusion of your argument is superior to any other understanding.
That means you think that believing the conclusion leads to us have a better understanding. How is it better?
Joe: It's your burden to how its wrong
No it is not! It is your argument. The burden is on you to prove your assumptions are true. Your claim "universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS" is only true if the universal mind is real. That is, you are assuming the universal mind is real.
And that is exactly what you claim to be proving!
Pix
Organising Principles
So we are going with organising principles are real, not how ideas are organised in your head.
Of course I never aid otherwise. If you thought that its just because you don't pay attention to what I say. I told all of this before you don't listen.
Joe: no that is wrong,I provided examples of cancer researchers using that phrase of real thing that really effects the physical universe.
Really? So if we called it "regularity of nature" your argument would still work?
sure you could call it that, doesn't sound as good,I'm not sure regulatory and organize are the same thing exactly. I see subtle shades of difference,
1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose regularity of nature
2. regularity of nature summed up in TS
...
Does that still work? Frankly, it is hard to say because 2 is so meaningless, but I very much suspecxt not.
why is important? I think that's just another red herring,you have no nothing to say about the argument so you are justifying to obfuscate, There is no reason to use regulatory as opposed to organize so I wont,
That you think the number of results from a Google search has some relevance is laughable.
come off it Obvious it had relevance because the issue was "no one ueses that phrase," that I found a million examples proves they do use it.
I am not sure Henri Bortoft's "Wholeness of Nature of The Universe: Goethe’s Way Toward a Science of Conscious Participation in nature" is exactly mainstream science, given it is about the natural philosophy of Goethe.
I didn't mention that to say it's main stream I mentioned it because of some my reader's will be interested. Geothe played a significant role in the world of my late brother. Besides even crack pots using a term means the term is used. .
The article by Barbara Marte is available here:
http://virtuallaboratory.colorado.edu/DEVO@CU/papers/Developmental%20Milestones.pdf
It is about developmental biology. The organiser is DNA (and the mechanisms in the cell), which organises the layout of the body. I think that is quite different to what you mean.
It does not matter what it is,I did not say Op's are God. I've already given examples of mundane things that are ops. when are you going to start listening?
From the abstract of the M.J. Bissell, D.C Radisky, and A. Rizki paper:
A considerable body of evidence now shows that cell-cell and cell-extracellular matrix (ECM) interactions are essential organizing principles that help define the nature of the tissue context, and play a crucial role in regulating homeostasis and tissue specificity.
Is that really what you mean by organizing principles? again, this is about the biochemistry of the cell.
did you think I said OPs are secret invisible magic things that are supernatural? If you did that's really stupid and I've contracted that in so many ways. Honestly man you are not even trying to understand the argument why are pretending to argue?
And so it goes on.
Certainly these organising principles rely on the regularity of nature, but then so does everything! They are something quite different to it - for one thing they are very specifically about biology and the chemistry going on inside a cell.
You thin God can't influence nature? who says? If he can create it he can organize it. In your understanding of nature you have removed the universal mind you have ignored the big picture with the top of the metaphysical hierarchy so your version is not rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe m
I really hope you re-word this next time you post this argument.
Pix: Again, what does even mean? If OPs are the laws of nature, the the TS is the overriding law, which physicists would call the theory of everyt
It could be beyond even that, although that would be a deep structure.
Joe: Not necessarily the theory of everything but that could an example.Op include laws of nature but are not limited to them. Gravity causes organization so gravity is an op.It's not the only op. Inflation is an op in economics. Sacristy is an op in economics.The alphabet i an Op because we alphabetize that is organization.
If the theory of everything could an example, that implies there is more than one TS. Is that right?
No we have to demote it. God is the TSed. So the math that explains everything (which doesn't because it doesn't explain God) is not God thus not the TSED. The theory of every thing is a deep structure,
So we are looking for a principle that organises in the way gravity does, and the way inflation does and the way the alphabet does?
It rounds all of that it doesn't have to do it as they do it but it grounds them. you are trying to foge another mindless force of nature. that is a mistake.
Why should we suppose such a thing even exist?
what things? theory of everything? Math? God"
TS" I told you why the TS because we want a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe
Joe: you are making wrong assumptions about what things mean.Clearly modern thought rejects mind that doesn't make it right
Ah, so you are equating TS with mind. When you say "Modern Thought rejects TS outright", you mean Modern Thought rejects mind outright, because they are one and the same, right?
that's part of it. I read Nagel's Mind book and think he's good. I appricate his view and incorporated some of it.
Joe: you are making wrong assumptions about what things mean.Clearly modern thought rejects mind that doesn't make it right
Prove it.
which that it rejects it? or doesn;'t make it right? That it doesn't make it right is obvious. The fact someone does something doesn't make it right,.The prove's it inherently.The personal dimension exists but naturalism merely reduces it away as though it doesn't exist, That does not solve the philsopical problems
Joe: Bull shit. Obviously my argument centers on the sort comings of materialism so that has to be discussed. The argumemt does not depend upon taht per se
Of course it has to be discussed, but not as part of the logic for your argument. The logic should be a set of precises that are all accepted as true, and the inferences that follow directly from them. Surely you know how logic works?
Unfortunate you don't. Noting in logic says you can't argue for a position. you want logic to confine the opponent to assertion that agree with your ideologywhat are you talking about that;'s just gibberish,
Pix: Furthermore, modern thought does not reject a theory of everything, and indeed many cosmologies are actively searching for it.
I've already told yoy the TS does not reduce to the theory of everything. Baht cannot be the TSED. Knock off that conflating thing It's obviously an attempt to screw the argument it wont work.
Joe: stop trying to reduce TS to theory of everything, that does not disprove my point. Theory of Everything is an example of a TS but that does not mean that the TS is only that one theory.
But you did say theory of everything is an example of TS, so your claim that modern thought rejects TS is nonsense.
It's an example that fails.It could be the TSED just like a hundred others but when we examine it we see it doesn't really fill the bill. It can;t be the TSED.
You think the TS is God, and modern thought rejects God.But that is not what you have said.
one TS is the TSED. the others are attempts at understanding it or candidates
Pix
Joe: No I used that phrase because I've seen it used so many times,
Quote cosomologists, bot biologists. Biologists are using it in quite a different way to you (arguably a subset, but still different).
no not true, I never said OP are magic invisible things,I includes some such things but all naturalistic Ops are also included, JUst the way they use them, I admit I concieve if other Ops that diferet,si so what?
Joe: how does reason expand our understanding? how intelligence? how does learning.? stupid question. that would require a needlessly complex recitation of many aspects of learning that we can forgo to discuss the argument,
Read what you are claiming: "universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS". It is you saying that the understanding that we g
Man will you ever learn to argue without twisting the other guy;s words and obfuscation? first of call yu don;t even understand the argument you were totally off util this ground,(you still don't have it)so clearly your understanding it is not not a masterpeoce.
no way my statement can be taken to mean that my understanding of the scientific particulars of the universe will be better,but my undertading of what constuties the TSED sure will be yes! i can prove it
That means you think that believing the conclusion leads to us have a better understanding. How is it better?
because it includes so many aspects that are left out which make the view meaningful and cohere, for exa,ple the personal nature of TSED
Joe: It's your burden to how its wrong
No it is not! It is your argument. The burden is on you to prove your assumptions are true.
Nope! wrong! science doesn;t prove thing is disproves hypotheses, all I have to do is prove that my argument warrants belief,I did that I met my pirma facie burden.
Your claim "universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS" is only true if the universal mind is real. That is, you are assuming the universal mind is real.
It deosn;t have to be proven real it just has to be best hypothesis standing since it shows the inadequacy of writing out the personal dimension it is the best standing,.
I suspect differences too. So then the question is, what?
Joe: come off it Obvious it had relevance because the issue was "no one ueses that phrase," that I found a million examples proves they do use it.
I do not dispute that the phrase is used. I dispute that cosmologies use it. The number of hits on a Google search is not going to show that.
Joe: I didn't mention that to say it's main stream I mentioned it because of some my reader's will be interested. Geothe played a significant role in the world of my late brother. Besides even crack pots using a term means the term is used. .
So why start with it? Your first two bits of evidence are this and a Google search! That is telling your audience you had to scrape the bottom of the barrel.
Joe: It does not matter what it is,I did not say Op's are God. I've already given examples of mundane things that are ops. when are you going to start listening?
What you mean by "organising principle" is fundamental to this. How can you say it does not matter?
Frankly it looks like you use it to mean whatever you want. It can mean the regularity of nature, or it can mean the system a cell uses to build organs, or it can mean God, or it can mean alphabetical order!
Why should we imagine there even is some overarching OP?
Joe: did you think I said OPs are secret invisible magic things that are supernatural? ...
No, I think you have failed to say what they are.
Joe: You thin God can't influence nature? who says? If he can create it he can organize it. ...
God can only influence nature if he exists. You assume he exists, you assume there is this "top of the metaphysical hierarchy". Why should we suppose such a thing even exists?
Joe: No we have to demote it. God is the TSed. ...
Every other time, God has been the TS, now he is the TSed. Interesting.
Joe: No we have to demote it. God is the TSed. So the math that explains everything (which doesn't because it doesn't explain God) is not God thus not the TSED. The theory of every thing is a deep structure,
Again, you are assuming God.
Joe: It rounds all of that it doesn't have to do it as they do it but it grounds them. you are trying to foge another mindless force of nature. that is a mistake.
Why assume they need grounding?
Joe: what things? theory of everything? Math? God"
TS" I told you why the TS because we want a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe
What thing? The TS, the over-arching OP.
Joe: that's part of it. I read Nagel's Mind book and think he's good. I appricate his view and incorporated some of it.
You read one book, then confidently state "Modern Thought rejects TS outright"? Wow.
Joe: which that it rejects it? or doesn;'t make it right?
That "Modern Thought rejects TS outright".
Pix
To be clear, I am talking about formal logic, as your 1 to 7 purports to be.
Of course you can argue for a position. That was not the objection. The objection is that 3 and 4 are extraneous to the formal argument.
It is the rules of formal logic that should confine you - but clearly do not!
Joe: I've already told yoy the TS does not reduce to the theory of everything. Baht cannot be the TSED. Knock off that conflating thing It's obviously an attempt to screw the argument it wont work.
Then you have to prove there even is a TS; I do not believe there is.
Joe: It's an example that fails.It could be the TSED just like a hundred others but when we examine it we see it doesn't really fill the bill. It can;t be the TSED.
You flip between TS and TSed about six times in your post. Why not make up your mind, and stick with it?
Joe: one TS is the TSED. the others are attempts at understanding it or candidates
Wow, so now the TS is the TSed, the signifier is the signified!
Joe: no not true, I never said OP are magic invisible things,I includes some such things but all naturalistic Ops are also included, JUst the way they use them, I admit I concieve if other Ops that diferet,si so what?
Where did I mention "magic invisible things"?
Why should I think the organising principles for the biochemistry of a cell is not a consequence of the theory of everything? I very much suspect it is, so why should I suppose your TS or TSed, which ever you are currently going for?
Joe: no way my statement can be taken to mean that my understanding of the scientific particulars of the universe will be better,but my undertading of what constuties the TSED sure will be yes! i can prove it
Okay I understood TS to be the regularity of the universe.
So let us try again: "universal mind, offers the best understanding of TS" Your conclusion is that a universal mind is the best way to understand God?
Joe: because it includes so many aspects that are left out which make the view meaningful and cohere, for exa,ple the personal nature of TSED
The TSed, not the TS?
Pix: The burden is on you to prove your assumptions are true.
Joe: Nope! wrong! science doesn;t prove thing is disproves hypotheses, all I have to do is prove that my argument warrants belief,I did that I met my pirma facie burden.
So why not say:
We can assume God exists*
Therefore God exists
* Note that I do not have to prove my assumptions are true
... and be done with it? That is pretty much what you are doing with the BS cut out.
Joe: sure you could call it that, doesn't sound as good,I'm not sure regulatory and organize are the same thing exactly. I see subtle shades of difference,
I suspect differences too. So then the question is, what?
Joe: come off it Obvious it had relevance because the issue was "no one ueses that phrase," that I found a million examples proves they do use it.
I do not dispute that the phrase is used. I dispute that cosmologies use it. The number of hits on a Google search is not going to show that.
what difference doe that make? you have no real projection to the concept, this is more knit picks because you have nothing to say. btw I did not make a cosmology, the TS argument is not a cosmology
Joe: I didn't mention that [Goethe's sciemce] to say it's main stream I mentioned it because of some my reader's will be interested. Geothe played a significant role in the world of my late brother. Besides even crack pots using a term means the term is used. .
So why start with it? Your first two bits of evidence are this and a Google search! That is telling your audience you had to scrape the bottom of the barrel.
I didn't start with it I have several examples before that one, can you not even read? It still adds to the fact that the term is used.
Joe: It does not matter what it is,I did not say Op's are God. I've already given examples of mundane things that are ops. when are you going to start listening?
What you mean by "organizing principle" is fundamental to this. How can you say it does not matter?
It does not matter that I don't have a scientist saying "joes use of this is right" the examples make clear it;s used in general the way I;m using it.This is a fishing expedition for you, You're fishing to find a problem you have not found one yet,.
Frankly it looks like you use it to mean whatever you want. It can mean the regularity of nature, or it can mean the system a cell uses to build organs, or it can mean God, or it can mean alphabetical order!
well duh! I am describing the broad and general behavior of the universe to organize, so obvious, yea, that;s not a problem you are kust illiterate philosophically
Why should we imagine there even is some overarching OP?
Because we can't make our ideas work without it, even when we reject it we try to bring it back in a form we can control, That;s why they kick God out then turn around and seek a theory of everything.The theory of everything is modern man;s attempt to fin a TS without having to obey it.
Joe: did you think I said OPs are secret invisible magic things that are supernatural? ...
No, I think you have failed to say what they are.
despite all the clear examples? respire saying they are all the ways the universe organizes itself? how is that not clear? It;s a big topic it;s a broad list it;s not unclear.
Px God can only influence nature if he exists. You assume he exists, you assume there is this "top of the metaphysical hierarchy". Why should we suppose such a thing even exists?
The most logical assumption based upon the best evidence, it warrants belief.
Joe: No we have to demote it.[demote theory of everything] God is the TSed. ...
Every other time, God has been the TS, now he is the TSed. Interesting.
No you have twisted my words, every time I have said the TS are words that propose solution's and TSED is the reality those words point to. the word "t[r[e[e is the Signified and the big hunk of biomass growing out of the ground is the signified. so "rock of ages" is the TS and the actual creator of all things is the TSED
Joe: No we have to demote it. God is the TSed. So the math that explains everything (which doesn't because it doesn't explain God) is not God thus not the TSED. The theory of every thing is a deep structure,
Again, you are assuming God.
that is ex hypothesis. you know noting of logic taht is petty picky fallacious argument, of course one assumes the thesis one argues for,how dense!
Joe: It rounds all of that it doesn't have to do it as they do it but it grounds them. you are trying to forge another mindless force of nature. that is a mistake.
Why assume they need grounding?
why assume we need logic? grounding is logic l it means logically justified.
Joe: what things? theory of everything? Math? God"
TS" I told you why the TS because we want a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe
What thing? The TS, the over-arching OP.
Joe: that's part of it. I read Nagel's Mind book and think he's good. I appricate his view and incorporated some of it.
You read one book, then confidently state "Modern Thought rejects TS outright"? Wow.
If you had any real brains you would see that I am extremely well read on the subject. I've studied it for years, I've researched it thoroughly, I've a chapter in my forth coming book. You obviously knit picking because you have no real arguments,
Joe: which that it rejects it? or doesn't make it right?
That "Modern Thought rejects TS outright".
some modern thinkers do and some reduce it to mindless principles. the general tendency is to reject mind, you can't deny that. show me some counter evidence
Joe: Unfortunate you don't. Noting in logic says you can't argue for a position. you want logic to confine the opponent to assertion that agree with your ideologywhat are you talking about that;'s just gibberish,
To be clear, I am talking about formal logic, as your 1 to 7 purports to be.
Of course you can argue for a position. That was not the objection. The objection is that 3 and 4 are extraneous to the formal argument.
first of all it;;s not a formal it's not written in symbolic logic. Those points play an important role in the argument because the point is modern thought rejects God thus is not rational,coherent or meaningful.
It is the rules of formal logic that should confine you - but clearly do not!
Nothing in formal logic says one can;t argue against the present system..
Joe: I've already told yoy the TS does not reduce to the theory of everything. Baht cannot be the TSED. Knock off that conflating thing It's obviously an attempt to screw the argument it wont work.
Then you have to prove there even is a TS; I do not believe there is.
I proved that in the opening paragraphs of chapter one and in chapter two. (1)all use of logical thought is geocentric by definition
(2) Modern thinkers try to ditch the notion but always wind up making new TS.
(3) we cannot have a rational, coheret, or meaningful view without, we know that we can have such view,
(4) religious thinning works to give us such a view, therore, itr;s best evidence says there must be a TSED.
Joe: It's an example that fails.It could be the TSED just like a hundred others but when we examine it we see it doesn't really fill the bill. It can;t be the TSED.
You flip between TS and TSed about six times in your post. Why not make up your mind, and stick with it?
You don't bother to keep the distinction clear but I do. You can;t see it because you don;t want to see it.
Joe: one TS is the TSED. the others are attempts at understanding it or candidates
Wow, so now the TS is the TSed, the signifier is the signified!
You are trying to muddle the distinction, you are trying to poison the well.You know yo lost, you know don't have a logical answer,
Therefore God exists
I never try prove God exists,I only seek to show that it;s rational and Justified to believe in God.
* Note that I do not have to prove my assumptions are true
... and be done with it? That is pretty much what you are doing with the BS cut out.
Assumptions must be justified,I never said they don;t have to be, hor disparagement of the warrant argent is really a quibble with CARL Popper you don;t have the guts to confront his writings
5/07/2020 12:20:00 PM