Collated by Tusar Nath Mohapatra
obviously we all have a metaphysics - at minimum a set of axioms we assume about the world. However my aversion to metaphysics as it tends to be practiced in the wild are numerous:
1. That people think that their metaphysics are CORRECT rather than merely useful. If they were demonstrably correct they'd be physics. Metaphysics are conjectures or useful guesses. I'm not opposed at all to metaphysical speculations that strive to be "pre-physics" like string theory or the various speculations that are the many different "foundations of quantum mechanics" or even the simulation hypothesis. They are speculations today but might be ruled in or out in the future as physics or as errors.
2. Lack of parsimony - so many metaphysical systems propagate things not necessary as a basis for understanding our being. Most religions are examples of this. Even something initially simple as Buddhism has propagated lots of unnecessary elements like devas and celestial spheres and complicated mechanisms around karma etc.
3. Much confusion about complexity, emergence, and dynamical systems and metaphysics. While our understandings of the complexity domains is still very weak, they aren't metaphysical phenomena, rather they are natural phenomena out on the ragged edge of physics (very broadly construed).
4. This is a Ruttian speculation itself, but I don't consider consciousness a metaphysical topic. I believe it will turn out to be a pretty straightforward emergence from the biological. We'll be quite surprised how well integrated it is with the rest of our science. Just as we were surprised at how well biology fit in with the rest of the fabric of science/reality once we dumped elan vital. The quantity of what to me is embarrassing blather of the metaphysical sort on the topic of consciousness is immense.
5. Extending #4 thought, qualia, concepts, language etc aren't metaphysical just more sets of existing things in the universe.
https://twitter.com/jim_rutt/status/1744857831902228751?t=11azGNUv_QXpmFz2L2F1tg&s=19
Looks like I'll have a chance to speak with @jim_rutt about the meaning & importance of metaphysics (or speculative philosophy) in a couple months. For now I'll offer a few preliminary thoughts in response to his post.
Yes, metaphysics is unavoidable. But it needn't be axiomatic. Metaphysics is the search for premises, NOT deduction from clear premises. I reject metaphysical foundationalism of any kind. Our categoreal conditions must be revisable & subject to pragmatic test. The sole justification for a metaphysical idea is that it elucidates experience. I love Jim's comment about metaphysics "as it tends to be practiced in the wild." We need a more diplomatic method of philosophizing together! Partisanship in metaphysics is just as harmful as it is in politics. It is important to seek deep understanding of multiple approaches.
1. Strictly speaking, all metaphysical systems are false. The same is true of all scientific models. "Use" is not the only criterion of evaluation, however. Our metaphysics shld pass the rational tests of consistency & coherence, & the empirical tests of adequacy & applicability. These are the criteria Whitehead lays out in "Process & Realty," at least, & I'm not sure I can do better. His empirical criteria cover but extend beyond just instrumental use.
Metaphysics doesn't become physics when proven correct. Again, no physical model is strictly "correct" or "proven." Physical science is not just the part of metaphysics that got proven true. That would be to misunderstand the aim of metaphysics: the search for the general presuppositions of physical science itself. What else must be the case if physical knowledge is possible?
2. On parsimony, I'd say we should strive for simplicity but not be afraid to accept complexity. I'm sure Jim would agree! But again, the aim of speculative philosophy is not to become a special science, it's to search for the premises of not only science, but experience itself. With all due respect to physicist L. Krauss, why there should be something rather than nothing is never going to be a strictly scientific question. I'd add that given the hardness of the hard prob of consc., there's a decent argument on grounds of parsimony for panexperientialism
3. Of course complexity is natural! "Metaphysical" doesn't mean beyond nature/supernatural. If I ask you to explain what you mean by "natural phenomena," you'd be doing metaphysics to answer. It's what we do when we get meta- about things. The complexity sciences *do* have metaphysical implications. Eg, to acknowledge that novel regimes of order can emerge atop or within earlier regimes tells us something important about nature's "laws." This topic will make for very interesting conversation when Jim and I speak.
4. Consciousness is a loaded word. I agree it has biological roots, but I'm not so sure living organisms can be easily integrated into standard physicalist science. Vitalism & mechanism are just inverted mirror images of one another. I think complexity takes us beyond both. We inhabit an organic universe. From top to bottom, self-organizing is powering the cosmic process. There is no "mere matter" anywhere. Nor is there some invisible vital force driving bodies around. Energy itself has a tendency to order itself, to take on habits, to evolve. And yes, eventually energy becomes conscious.
Doing metaphysics doesn't mean wildly speculating without any concern for scientific facts. Philosophers ought to pay close attention to the sciences. Metaphysics just seeks deeper coherence between the sciences & human experience.
https://twitter.com/ThouArtThat/status/1744927403833430498?t=Lj0kA4qAkJujd6z7ECEGZA&s=19
Well, this is where Evolutionary Panentheism comes into it. It provides meaning and a sense of cosmic perspective, without reliance on premodern religious themes like an external creator deity. Yes that's basically what Panentheism says as well. My criticism is directed at religious literalism.
You'd be surprised. Jehovah's Witnesses, Evangelical Christians, Creationists, Hare Krishnas, Ultra Orthodox Jews, most Muslims, etc etc. Few people can understand things allegorically. As for atheists, I appreciate their love of science but can't agree with their reductionism.
https://twitter.com/akazlev/status/1745026163104501887?t=30UPJVQeaSHfu9BVCWW3Fg&s=19
Tried reading up on Jeremy England and found him hard to get into. Erich Jantsch and Eric Chaisson are better re cosmic evolution. e/acc is associated with Beff Jezos (as opposed to Jeff Bezos here). I support superintelligent AI, but e/acc is too sectarian, which puts me off. Oops, sorry, just realised this is Beff Jezos. That's what happens when you post before reading! I mention Jantsch and Chaisson because I'm a system builder, interested in mapping out stages of cosmic evolution.Same reason I like Teilhard and Aurobindo. My hypothesis is AI-(post)human synergy is the next stage.I think Lovelock in his book the Novacene says something similar. Oh, right. I'm halfway through the book. I agree with him Gaia is "elderly" (not due to a limitation of life as such but because the aging sun giving off more heat), so it looks like we only get one shot at this.
https://twitter.com/akazlev/status/1745002061971022323?t=aUjbNiU17fEruz91K1WNJg&s=19
This diagram embodies what I love about paleontology. There's the #CambrianExplosion right there; all those amazing early evolutionary experiments! Fascinating time in the history of life on Earth. I envisage a similar but #posthuman spacefaring radiation in the near future.
https://twitter.com/akazlev/status/1744605748242649444?t=CjO04oURm6b_g8Bw8kD3VQ&s=19
Douglas Murray on the absurdity of identity politics. This is an extremist and regressive leftist ideology that denies individuality and reduces everyone to a set of rigid identity groups oppressed by designated villain groups.
https://twitter.com/akazlev/status/1742484121602154536?t=aTpZx_2L8fGOsNZ7B8rANg&s=19
In the past it was the "Republican war on science" (climate change denialism etc). Now it's the regressive left in academia. Any extreme ideology will hate science. Look at the Nazis with "Jewish science", Stalin with agriculture (Lysenkoism), or the Scopes monkey trial
https://twitter.com/akazlev/status/1742142027284848954?t=RJUspTrLoNZTEMTnfzJc4g&s=19
Don't believe that's happening as long as hindus behave in a stupid manner... only a catastrophic collapse will wake up these bhakts... just as the Germans woke up about NAZISM and Hitler after every city of theirs had been destroyed, lives devastated, their territories occupied!
https://twitter.com/viswag59/status/1744982627290079271?t=z6XPlVBjZReG80l_lUw8ZA&s=19
