Certainly if we start with stunney's view of God as transcendent Reason, then I don't know what it means to say "transcendent Reason exists", any more than I know what it means to say "pi exists".

Reason is an attribute of mind; and pi is an object or content of rational thought, which is an activity of mind.

So maybe that's a clue as to what it means…

Science is about confidence: that is, it is about how confident one can be that one's explanations of what one has observed will apply again if the same conditions are repeated. Indeed, the term "confidence" is an integral part of the vocabulary of statistical analysis, and as such is an integral part of the process of hypothesis validation/falsification as it is currently practiced in the natural sciences.

Much of the problem with the theory of evolution is that it deals with processes the dynamics of which can only be inferred. We cannot possibly directly observe objects that no longer exist (such as living Tyranosaurids) nor processes that have happened in the distant past. This means that we must either say nothing about them, or we must be satisfied with explanations that infer non-observable events on the basis of observable ones.

This is where "consensus" comes in. No single person can possibly carry out sufficient numbers of direct observations to make the kinds of inferences that characterize modern science. Instead, we all depend on the diligence and honesty of the other members of the scientific community to collectively make enough observations to allow us to be reasonably confident that our explanations have been empirically verified.

Does this mean that such explanations are 'true?" No, it simply means that they are the best we have. Scientific theories are not "true," they are simply our best guess given the empirical observations we have so far. Appeals to authority are only useful insofar as those authorities are clearly committed to the same standards of verification, and are applying the accepted concensus rules pertaining to such verification (such as the 95% rule in statistical verification).

This is why science is continuously changing, whereas non-empirical beliefs generally tend not to do so. It has, is, and will always be "true" that 2 +2 = 4, but the same is clearly not the case for any explanation in the natural sciences.

- I'm not sure why you think materialists owe you answers

Because people who claim to be the guardians of rationality and truth ought to address questions from people who claim to be showing them a hole in their belief system.

"” what do YOU think?

Everything that is thought, perceived, or felt is an object that is perceived by consciousness.

So even a materialist who is thinking about a materialistic model in which there is nothing but matter and physical forces — those thoughts are being perceived. Perception, awareness is happening, at that moment it is perception of thoughts about materialism. A moment later it might be perception of an upset stomach from too much rumination!

For instance, people mean all sorts of things by "exist". I assume that even a theist doesn't believe that God exists in the same sense that the chair I'm sitting on exists.

I'm not sure if I fit the definition of "theist" or not. You might not think what I see as "God" fits the mark.

But to me, "God" is another word for the universal Awareness in which all phenomena manifest themselves. This awareness perceives everything, including the seemingness of being a person typing these words as well as the seemingness of being a person reading them.

One can talk all you want about all universes being real, but we have definitions for reality, and they all require, sooner or later, that perception occurs.

That's a mighty problem when postulating real universes existing without consciousness, since reality is always defined in terms of something that can be perceived.

Materialists don't like that, they can see the implicit trap, and so that thought systems subconsciously refuse to answer the question. And of course you didn't really answer the question, did you? (But I do very much appreciate you giving it your best shot ).

I don't have any problem admitting that I might not know the answers to questions like the ones you pose. Unlike some of the theists here, I don't claim to have figured out the One True Metaphysics.

I don't care much for the idea of the "One True Metaphysics". Metaphysics and philosophy are so often about getting lost in thought constructs.

What I am after is much simpler. What is the foundation of our humanness?

I am not after something esoteric or abstruse either. Something very basic, something very simple and obvious.

Go look at a newborn infant, and then at a six month old baby.

The youngest humans, and many animals, clearly and obviously perceive. Awareness is present, there are sensations of light and sound and touch. But there is no conceptual thought. So being a baby is very much like being an adult, just with the absense of thoughts (especially abstract ideas like the "me"). Baby and adult both feel sensations and experience moods (althouth the adult repertoire is obviously more extensive). Therefore the foundation of all beingness is perception since that is where we come from, both from evolutionary and a personal perspective.

Conceptual thought gradually develops, and it is illuminated by the same perception that experiences being a baby, that is seen within higher animals, and (I would say) within all objects in the universe. Perception (or awareness if you prefer) is the foundational reality within which appear all disparate phenomena.

People say "my awareness" or "my consciousness" but this is precisely backwards. The awareness existed prior to any of the ideas which appear within it (which is clearly seen by looking at any infant child). In reality "I", "me" and "my" are all concepts which arise within awareness, so the thought "my awareness" is an object which imagines itself as a subject. Much the same way that a character in a dream believes itself to be you, even though it was born a few minutes ago and is immediately "seen through" upon awakening.

1) What is the difference between a hypothetical universe that exists for real, and doesn't have any observer(s), and a hypothetical universe that is entirely imaginary?

2) What do we mean when we say that something "exists" In other words, what is our definition of "real" versus "imaginary" And then describe how a universe can be "real" or "exist" without observers.

I suppose the answers could be any combination of
- I don't know
- It depends on how you define your terms
- Your questions aren't meaningful
- Your questions don't admit of a simple answer.
- I'm not sure why you think materialists owe you answers — what do YOU think?

For instance, people mean all sorts of things by "exist". I assume that even a theist doesn't believe that God exists in the same sense that the chair I'm sitting on exists. Or maybe they do, it's hard to say. Certainly if we start with stunney's view of God as transcendent Reason, then I don't know what it means to say "transcendent Reason exists", any more than I know what it means to say "pi exists".

If we are talking about universes, then the answers to your question tend to run into the anthropic cosmology/multiple universe model. In this model, all unverses exist but only the ones with observers in them will be observed.

I'm partial to Max Tegmark's version of this that equates physical existence with mathematical existence, if only because it is elegant and extreme, but I can't say I believe in it.

I don't have any problem admitting that I might not know the answers to questions like the ones you pose. Unlike some of the theists here, I don't claim to have figured out the One True Metaphysics.

How very interesting. . .

Yeah, those meetings are good occasions for socializing. How are SCs helpful as a means of ascertaining truth?

Science operates by collective efforts and institutions. Meetings, peer review, grants, citations, university hiring practices are all part of this. This is as you noted (and deleted) perhaps a banal observation, but it's true just the same. This social process is not incidental to science, it's crucial to it. And without it, science wouldn't be capable of revealing as much truth as it does. That's all.

What science does is experimentally test. Social collectives went out of fashion with the demise the iron curtain.

mtraven: I guess that big AAAS meeting a month ago in San Francisco was a figment of my imagination then.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I sure hope so.

Yeah, those meetings are good occasions for socializing. How are SCs helpful as a means of ascertaining truth?

Scientific meetings are more than just places to 'socialize'. They are good places to see and hear about ongoing work in one's discipline in different labs around the world. They are opportuniuties to learn about new techniques or results which can enhance one's own research, or prevent one from pursuing unproductive avenues. They are a chance to hear ideas and opinions outside of the often insular environment of one's own lab or university. They are places where graduate students can learn to present and discuss their research to colleagues.

If one gains information that improves one's own research and knowledge at such meetings, then the 'socializing' goes a long way towards 'ascertaining truth'.

"If a card has a D on one side, it has a 3 on the other, a simple P-implies-Q statement. The subjects were shown four cards and asked which ones they would have to turn over to see if the rule was true….:

[D] [F] [3] [7]

The correct answer is D and 7. "P implies Q" is false only if P is true and Q is false. The 3 card is irrelevant;"

(Emphases added)

I elaborate on this theme here.

Materialism tries to reduce reason to psychology and pyschology to the physical. Both attempts at reduction are hopelessly wrongheaded.

mtraven: I guess that big AAAS meeting a month ago in San Francisco was a figment of my imagination then.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I sure hope so.

Yeah, those meetings are good occasions for socializing. How are SCs helpful as a means of ascertaining truth?

Science presupposes the reliabilty of reason.

This presupposition is more warranted on the hypothesis that theism is true than on the hypothesis that evolutionary naturalism is true.

stunney,

In a previous thread, you wrote:

I'm quite, quite hopeful that reason is pretty reliable, that it's genuinely well designed for a good purpose, etc.

You're "quite hopeful", eh? Since when has hope been a sufficient warrant for belief?

The evolutionary naturalist has an explanation for the basic reliability of reason. You, on the other hand, are merely "quite hopeful" that reason was "well-designed for a good purpose."

By the way, evolution explains some interesting anomalies of human reason. Here's one of my favorites, from Steven Pinker's How the Mind Works, pp. 336-337:

Some areas of knowledge have their own inference rules that can either reinforce or work at cross-purposes with the rules of logic. A famous example comes from the psychologist Peter Wason. Wason was inspired by the philosopher Karl Popper's ideal of scientific reasoning: a hypothesis is accepted if attempts to falsify it fail. Wason wanted to see how ordinary people do at falsifying hypotheses. He told them that a set of cards had letters on one side and numbers on the other, and asked them to test the rule "If a card has a D on one side, it has a 3 on the other," a simple P-implies-Q statement. The subjects were shown four cards and asked which ones they would have to turn over to see if the rule was true. Try it:

[D] [F] [3] [7]

Most people choose either the D card or the D card and the 3 card. The correct answer is D and 7. "P implies Q" is false only if P is true and Q is false. The 3 card is irrelevant; the rule said that D's have 3's, not that 3's have D's. The 7 card is crucial; if it had a D on the other side, the rule would be dead. Only about five to ten percent of the people who are given the test select the right cards. Even people who have taken logic courses get it wrong. (Incidentally, it's not that people interpret "If D then 3" as "If D then 3 and vice versa." If they did interpret it that way but otherwise behaved like logicians, they would turn over all four cards.) Dire implications were seen. John Q. Public was irrational, unscientific, prone to confirming his prejudices rather than seeking evidence that could falsify them.

But when the arid numbers and letters are replaced with real-world events, sometimes, — though only sometimes — people turn into logicians. You are a bouncer in a bar, and are enforcing the rule "If a person is drinking beer, he must be eighteen or older." You may check what people are drinking or how old they are. Which do you have to check: a beer drinker, a Coke drinker, a twenty-five-year-old, a sixteen-year-old? Most people correctly select the beer drinker and the sixteen-year-old. But mere concreteness is not enough. The rule "If a person eats hot chili peppers, then he drinks cold beer" is no easier to falsify than the D's and 3's.

Leda Cosmides discovered that people get the answer right when the rule is a contract, an exchange of benefits. In those circumstances, showing that the rule is false is equivalent to finding cheaters.

If reason were an ability bestowed upon us by a benevolent Creator, you'd expect us to use the same logical faculty for reasoning about the D's and 3's as we do for reasoning about the drinkers. After all, the situations are exactly equivalent in terms of logic.

Instead, we use different faculties of reason depending on the problem domain, and we get different answers. This is the kind of thing you would expect to see with a system that was not designed, but evolved.