non-theism and epistemology

[jmac2112]

Greetings! I am pretty new to this site, but I have found it very interesting. I started a discussion in the General Chat forum which led to a long exchange on the concept of "order", which became more and more complicated as things went on. If you want to read the whole thing, it's in General Chat under "Question for Atheists and Agnostics". Anyway, the thread seems to have died, and I thought maybe I should transfer it to this forum instead. I'll begin by quoting my last post, to which I have received no reply:

Thanks for replying, realthinker. What I was trying to do in a roundabout way was to open up a big can of epistemological worms. I'm interested in the question of how we know order when we see it, although I could have chosen any number of other abstractions. "Order" expresses a relationship, and as such is not a material object, or at least not a material thing that exists outside of my own head (and yours, and everybody else's). So, although I've seen lots of examples of order, I've never seen order itself. Is our concept of order somehow present in a material way in our brains? If so, do we recognize order by comparing a given disposition of material elements (i.e. an example of order) to the material concept of order that exists in our brains? If so, how can my limited experience of reality give me a concept which will allow me to recognize any and every example of order that I will ever encounter? I mean, assuming that our memories (or internal images, or however you want to characterize the impression that something makes on our brains) of this or that example of order are going to allow us to recognize order whenever we see it, would we not have to somehow compare all of the memories (or internal images, etc.) and abstract from them a universal concept that applies to all cases of order? Is this concept also material? I'm confused as to how matter can comprehend anything, material or immaterial.

What I have written may not apply to what you personally think, but it seems to me to reflect the way someone might try to explain knowledge without resorting to metaphysics. I am very open to correction on this matter (no pun intended).

Thanks,

John

[/quote]

[realthinker]

Greetings! I am pretty new to this site, but I have found it very interesting. I started a discussion in the General Chat forum which led to a long exchange on the concept of "order", which became more and more complicated as things went on. If you want to read the whole thing, it's in General Chat under "Question for Atheists and Agnostics". Anyway, the thread seems to have died, and I thought maybe I should transfer it to this forum instead. I'll begin by quoting my last post, to which I have received no reply:

Thanks for replying, realthinker. What I was trying to do in a roundabout way was to open up a big can of epistemological worms. I'm interested in the question of how we know order when we see it, although I could have chosen any number of other abstractions. "Order" expresses a relationship, and as such is not a material object, or at least not a material thing that exists outside of my own head (and yours, and everybody else's). So, although I've seen lots of examples of order, I've never seen order itself. Is our concept of order somehow present in a material way in our brains? If so, do we recognize order by comparing a given disposition of material elements (i.e. an example of order) to the material concept of order that exists in our brains? If so, how can my limited experience of reality give me a concept which will allow me to recognize any and every example of order that I will ever encounter? I mean, assuming that our memories (or internal images, or however you want to characterize the impression that something makes on our brains) of this or that example of order are going to allow us to recognize order whenever we see it, would we not have to somehow compare all of the memories (or internal images, etc.) and abstract from them a universal concept that applies to all cases of order? Is this concept also material? I'm confused as to how matter can comprehend anything, material or immaterial.

What I have written may not apply to what you personally think, but it seems to me to reflect the way someone might try to explain knowledge without resorting to metaphysics. I am very open to correction on this matter (no pun intended).

Thanks,

John

I think order clearly is related to anticipation, the ability to recognize the higher probability of certain consequential stimuli related to a recognizable condition. I think it's pretty obvious how such an ability could arise in the human brain. It's a survival instinct, and a very powerful one. Throw that in with Man's ability to create an abstraction and patterns become even more powerful. Our brains pick out patterns and in anticipation of a personal benefit or a threat. With every pattern we look for meaning. We not only learn from particular patterns and adapt behavior that helps us survive, we've learned that patterns in general may offer an opportunity to adapt and be more successful.

[jmac2112]

Hello again, realthinker!

I think it's pretty obvious how such an ability could arise in the human brain.

First of all, I think it is far from obvious how we get from space dust to the human brain without any intelligence at work. The fact that such things are not obvious is the reason that this message board exists. It is certainly obvious that it would be advantageous for humans to be able to recognize patterns in order to preserve themselves, but why (atheistic) evolution should proceed in the direction of self-preservation rather than tending toward extinction is beyond me. The whole thing would involve luck of an unfathomable magnitude. But I digress.

Throw that in with Man's ability to create an abstraction and patterns become even more powerful.

Man's ability to think abstractly seems to be admitted by most (?) non-theists, and I was taking that ability as a starting point. My question involves how this ability can possibly be explained in purely materialistic terms. How we can recognize anything at all is mysterious, but I was confining myself to the concept of order.

Let's assume that our ideas about individual objects can be explained in materialistic terms. If I were somehow unfamiliar with the concept of order, and ran across a snowflake, I would not recognize it as being orderly, because I have no concept of order yet. So let's say that somehow the snowflake makes an impression on my brain so that an image is formed in my memory.

Next, let's say that I run across a honeycomb, with hundreds of identical cells existing the way that they do. I still have no concept of order, so the best I can do is to somehow form an image of the honeycomb in my memory.

Next let's say that I come upon a peacock, with its brightly colored feathers looking like they look (can't say "arranged" yet). I form another image in my memory. I STILL have no concept of order.

No matter how many examples of order I run across, I still don't have a concept of order, because "order" isn't a THING. I have no image of "order" because "order" doesn't exist on its own, apart from a particular instance of it. The only way I could come up with such a concept would be to somehow compare all those images and be able to "pull out" (abstract) the thing that they have in common. THEN I would have a concept that would allow me to recognize order every time I ran across a particular instance of it.

At this point, two questions arise: 1) What is it in my mind that is able to do this sort of comparison and abstraction? 2) Since the concept of "order itself" is not a concept about a particular material thing that exists in the world, does "order itself" refer to anything at all? How can we possibly know anything that we can't perceive with our senses? How have we grasped something that transcends matter?

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Thanks,

John

[BeHereNow]

jmac2112 At this point, two questions arise: 1) What is it in my mind that is able to do this sort of comparison and abstraction? 2) Since the concept of "order itself" is not a concept about a particular material thing that exists in the world, does "order itself" refer to anything at all? How can we possibly know anything that we can't perceive with our senses? How have we grasped something that transcends matter?

I’m not clear on these terms of ‘order’, and if there is a difference, ’order itself’. I will read the other thread tonight, as it probably has useful information for this thread.

We have memory, and memory is able to recombined bits and pieces into order, with no new sensory input.

You may be familiar with isolation tanks, or sensory deprivation. In such situations, the mind can use memory to re-catalogue thoughts and beliefs. A new order of things can be constructed, with no new sensory input. Order itself is reformed in our minds, and when we emerge from the isolation tank, we see things in a new light, with a new order of the material world.

It seems to me there is order, separate from our minds. Physical laws are order (I may not be using the term as you mean it), and these exist independent of any mind. The mind may recognize true order, or formulate its own order, which might disagree with reality.

If I know nothing of magnetism, I may believe solid objects (no moving parts) cannot move on their own, and the effect of magnetism may be so deviant from my mind’s order of things, that I believe a perfectly natural phenomena is supernatural.

My apologies for entering this thread without first reading the other, time is short, I have dialup, and I was anxious to be involved.

[realthinker]

Hello again, realthinker!

I think it's pretty obvious how such an ability could arise in the human brain.

First of all, I think it is far from obvious how we get from space dust to the human brain without any intelligence at work. The fact that such things are not obvious is the reason that this message board exists. It is certainly obvious that it would be advantageous for humans to be able to recognize patterns in order to preserve themselves, but why (atheistic) evolution should proceed in the direction of self-preservation rather than tending toward extinction is beyond me. The whole thing would involve luck of an unfathomable magnitude. But I digress.

Digress, indeed! I didn't know we were working from the cosmic nothing and arriving at Man's ability to recognize order.

Throw that in with Man's ability to create an abstraction and patterns become even more powerful.

Man's ability to think abstractly seems to be admitted by most (?) non-theists, and I was taking that ability as a starting point. My question involves how this ability can possibly be explained in purely materialistic terms. How we can recognize anything at all is mysterious, but I was confining myself to the concept of order.

Let's assume that our ideas about individual objects can be explained in materialistic terms. If I were somehow unfamiliar with the concept of order, and ran across a snowflake, I would not recognize it as being orderly, because I have no concept of order yet. So let's say that somehow the snowflake makes an impression on my brain so that an image is formed in my memory.

Next, let's say that I run across a honeycomb, with hundreds of identical cells existing the way that they do. I still have no concept of order, so the best I can do is to somehow form an image of the honeycomb in my memory.

Next let's say that I come upon a peacock, with its brightly colored feathers looking like they look (can't say "arranged" yet). I form another image in my memory. I STILL have no concept of order.

No matter how many examples of order I run across, I still don't have a concept of order, because "order" isn't a THING. I have no image of "order" because "order" doesn't exist on its own, apart from a particular instance of it. The only way I could come up with such a concept would be to somehow compare all those images and be able to "pull out" (abstract) the thing that they have in common. THEN I would have a concept that would allow me to recognize order every time I ran across a particular instance of it.

At this point, two questions arise: 1) What is it in my mind that is able to do this sort of comparison and abstraction? 2) Since the concept of "order itself" is not a concept about a particular material thing that exists in the world, does "order itself" refer to anything at all? How can we possibly know anything that we can't perceive with our senses? How have we grasped something that transcends matter?

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Thanks,

John

I think that fundamentally, the initial recognition of order was probably temporal. On Earth there is day and night very regularly. The tides occur very regularly. The ability to recognize and benefit from these phenomenon probably arose before Man came into the picture. As a simple organism, chemical and biological processes, such as digestion and sleep, cell repair, that occur when the energy level around us is at its least leave us ready to take advantage of the higher energy level of the daytime. It could have started with that. Those organisms that could use available energy more efficiently take advantage of lower energy times were more successful. Then as sophistication arises that ability to recognize environmental triggers gets encoded into the brain and eventually it's somewhat abstracted. Arbitrary repeated triggers gain arbitrary significance. Eventually as sophistication grows we are able to assign that significance consciously.

[BeHereNow]

realthinker I think that fundamentally, the initial recognition of order was probably temporal. On Earth there is day and night very regularly. The tides occur very regularly. The ability to recognize and benefit from these phenomenon probably arose before Man came into the picture. As a simple organism, chemical and biological processes, such as digestion and sleep, cell repair, that occur when the energy level around us is at its least leave us ready to take advantage of the higher energy level of the daytime. It could have started with that. Those organisms that could use available energy more efficiently take advantage of lower energy times were more successful. Then as sophistication arises that ability to recognize environmental triggers gets encoded into the brain and eventually it's somewhat abstracted. Arbitrary repeated triggers gain arbitrary significance. Eventually as sophistication grows we are able to assign that significance consciously.

Many good points.
I think it is easy to imagine simple one celled organisms that repeat actions to gain nutrients, and avoid actions to become nutrients.
Those who do not, become nutrients.