Hinman's "Argument From Transcendental Signifier"
ETA (23/Jun/20): I have just heard Joe is in hospital. I wish him a speedy recovery. All the best, Joe.
http://www.doxa.ws/Ontological/TS2.html
https://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2020/05/transcendental-signifier-argument.html
http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2011/06/transcendental-signifier-argument.html
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2018/01/premises-4-7-ts-argumet.html
The argument is a seven step syllogism:
1. Any rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe must of necessity presuppose organizing principles (Ops)First off, I have to acknowledge that Joe is dyslexic, and his writing shows it; it can be a struggle to understand what he means. However, it is also true to say that he makes little attempt to correct himself. His seven step syllogism is the same now as it was eleven years ago, despite me pointing out numerous times how it does not make sense (step 2 in particular!).
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).
Derrida
That said, this page is reasonably well written, and does offer a decent introduction to Derrida.A quick summary: Jacques Derrida was a deconstructionist philosopher. Certain principles - such as nature and culture, speech and writing, mind and body, presence and absence, inside and outside, literal and metaphorical, intelligible and sensible, and form and meaning - are inherent in Western thought, and in each pairing one is assumed to be dominant. In science, for example, it is implicit that objective dominates over subjective. Deconstructionism is supposing the situation is reversed, and seeing where that leads. And ultimately it seems to lead to concluding nothing is true...
Joe rejects Derrida's conclusion, but uses some of his ideas (which is fair enough, as far as it goes).
Hierarchy
That objective dominates over subjective indicates a hierarchy; objective ranks higher than subjective. Joe takes that, and mangles it into a nested hierarchy; a tree (inverted!) with a single entity at the top. That is quite a leap! Any number of pairs, one ranked higher than the other, on the one hand; a tree-like structure on the other. Both hierarchies, because both have a ranking, but otherwise very different.Unfortunately, Joe's argument is predicated on conflating the two.
1. There are numerous principles guiding how we view the world, and each principle is composed two opposite, one dominating the other
2. Therefore there must be a single entity that dominates all of them
3. That single entity is God
The leap from 2 to 3 is dubious, but the real flaw is from 1 to 2. Leave out the word "hierarchy", and it makes no sense at all. It is just semantic trickery.
In the mind or not?
Joe's argument is founded on the idea of "organising principles" (OPs). Are these mental constructs - that is, are OPs a way for us to organise ideas? Or, are they actual, like the laws of nature might be said to organise atoms?I do not know.
I have discussed this at length with him, and get conflicting ideas. I very much suspect it depends what step in his argument we are talking about.
Look at number 3 in his syllogism; given the link between OPs and TS, if modern thought rejects TS, presumably it rejects OPs. Clearly science recognises that matter is organised, and noting the second half of number 3, it is clear to me that at this point OPs are mental constructs. And number 5 is even more obviously about concepts.
But he is trying to conclude the God is real!
I have asked him repeatedly to make this clear, and he refuses. My guess: He is conflating the two.
"OP's summed up in TS"
What does that mean?I have pointed out to Joe this is meaningless, but he chooses not to make it any clearer.
I suspect it is more convenient for him to keep it obscure.
Modern thought
Worth noting that in one discussion on this (comment at 5/07/2020 11:38:00 PM here), Joe admitted that some modern thinkers do accept the TS and aspects of the mind. That means his number 3 actually means that they are various positions on the subjects. How he can conclude anything from the fact that modern thinks have a variety of opinions on the issue is beyond me.But then, I am not religious...
Numbers 3 and 4 are culture-based
Leading on from that, the thinking behind steps 3 to 4 is frankly bizarre. It would appear that the conclusion is based on the state of current thinking. If Joe presented his argument a thousand years ago, contemporary thought would be very different, and he would, presumably, arrive at a very different conclusion.The implication is that the nature of reality is dependent on beliefs of the culture!
Number 6 concludes...
In number 6 he concludes something (given it starts "therefore"), but he concludes it about a universal mind, which was not mentioned in steps 1 to 5. How can you conclude anything in a syllogism about something that was not previously mentioned?Number 6 is circular
The claim that the universal mind gives the best explanation is true only if the universal mind exists. If it does not exist, then it will be a poor explanation.What Joe is doing is assuming the universal mind exists, and using that assumption to prove the universal mind exists. It is a circular argument.
Signified and Signifier
Joe's TS stands for "Transcendental Signifier", and derived from Derrida's signified and signifier. That is unfortunate, because it is clear Joe has no clue how Derrida uses these terms. They come from something called semiotics, the study of signs.To Derrida, a signifier is a word, spoken or written, that refers to a meaning, the signified. The word "tree" is a signifier for what what you understand a tree to be.
Note that neither of these are actual things. Neither the signifier nor the signified are an actual tree.
Joe's "Transcendental Signifier" is a transcendental word that, presumably, refers to a transcendental meaning. That is a very long way from a God that actually exists. I am not the only one to point this out to him, but his ability to change his mind is what we expect from a theist.
By the Power of Google
Joe says: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.This is laughable! Of course scientists use the term. That is so far from proving they use it in the same way as Joe you have to wonder if this is supposed to be a joke!
But it gets worse. He goes the next step, and actually looks at some of those search results... The first he presents is "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". In the comments he admits it is not relevant, so why mention it? He offers about three more, but all are from biology, where there really is an organising process. Is that what Joe is talking about? No. In fact he even admits that "Secondly, the term itself (“self organizing”) is a misnomer. Systems are not organizing themselves, they are being organized by physical laws and properties." So in his view, the organising process in biology is misnamed!
So what did his Google search prove?
He picked an already popular term.
, I am not a creationist, digdong, I totality resent being labeled as such, You must be stupid enough to think christian - creationist? That stupidity is reflected in your ignorant approach to my argument. You clearly know nothing about Derrida. Derrida is very complicated, you can;t just read a little thing on the net and think you know him.
ReplyDeleteThat last paragraph is extreme stupidity:
=="But it gets worse. He goes the next step, and actually looks at some of those search results... The first he presents is "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". In the comments he admits it is not relevant, so why mention it? He offers about three more, but "all are from biology, where there really is an organising process. Is that what Joe is talking about? No. In fact he even admits that "Secondly, the term itself (“self organizing”) is a misnomer. Systems are not organizing themselves, they are being organized by physical laws and properties." So in his view, the organizing process in biology is misnamed!"
Stupid assumptions. I am preemption argument they might make. But you are so dense you don;t even know what the argument might say, Your connects are irrelevant,
On the term "self Organizing" This shows real stupidity my point was not that they use the term as I do but that they do use it and they accept it as a flexible term that can be used in many ways,I was refuting someone who said the term is never used!
DeleteJoe: I am not a creationist, digdong, I totality resent being labeled as such, You must be stupid enough to think christian - creationist? That stupidity is reflected in your ignorant approach to my argument.
DeleteI never said you are a creationist. The title of the blog is because I was originally concerned with creationism, but it become more about Christianity in general with a year or so.
Joe: You clearly know nothing about Derrida. Derrida is very complicated, you can;t just read a little thing on the net and think you know him.
I do not know much about Derrida, but it is pretty clear you do not either. It is not like you ever quote him supporting any of your nonsense. Why is that? Well, because he was talking about something else altogether.
Joe: That last paragraph is extreme stupidity:
...
Stupid assumptions. I am preemption argument they might make. But you are so dense you don;t even know what the argument might say, Your connects are irrelevant,
Of course, you cannot state what assumptions you consider to be stupid, or why you consider them stupid. As usual all you have is hot air.
Pre-empting an argument is fine, but why is it part of your syllogism? A syllogism should stand on its own.
Joe: On the term "self Organizing" This shows real stupidity my point was not that they use the term as I do but that they do use it and they accept it as a flexible term that can be used in many ways,I was refuting someone who said the term is never used!
The fact that people use a term in a totally different context does NOTHING to support your argument. That you think it does really shows how poor your reasoning is.
I note you have trotted out your syllogism again, and still cannot bring yourself to re-word it. Every time you do that you reinforce the idea that your argument is based on obfuscation.
We had a long debate about whether "organising principles" are mental constructs or not; interesting that you have chosen not to make your position clear in your latest post. You are keen to pre-empt arguments you expect, so why so shy about responding to arguments you have already had? Again, you reinforce the idea that your argument is based on, shall we say, flexible definitions.
seven step syllogism, what an idiot
ReplyDelete"I do not know much about Derrida, but it is pretty clear you do not either. It is not like you ever quote him supporting any of your nonsense. Why is that? Well, because he was talking about something else altogether."
ReplyDeleteThat's a really stupid reason for thinking I don't know Derrida. I told you I studied him from his student at Ph.D. level. Just because I don't quote him is no reason to assume I don't know him That;s really dumb,, see mu summary of Derrida:
Part 1
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2008/01/derrian-backgrond-ot-ts-argument-part-1.html
Part 2
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2008/01/derridats-part-2.html
...
Me: Stupid assumptions. I am preemption argument they might make. But you are so dense you don;t even know what the argument might say, Your connects are irrelevant,
yOU:"Of course, you cannot state what assumptions you consider to be stupid, or why you consider them stupid. As usual all you have is hot air."\\
If you had a brain it would be obvious. the argent I preempt would say the universe is self organizing obviously.
YOU: 'Pre-empting an argument is fine, but why is it part of your syllogism? A syllogism should stand on its own.
I did not offer a syllogism, that was skeptic's idea. Those seven lines are how a philosophical argument is made. syllogism is three lines, there can be no seven line syllogism. I follow those seven lines with an essay. yo need to read it to understand the argument, upi clearlydo ot.
https://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-transcendent-signifierts-argument.html
Joe: That's a really stupid reason for thinking I don't know Derrida. I told you I studied him from his student at Ph.D. level. Just because I don't quote him is no reason to assume I don't know him That;s really dumb,, see mu summary of Derrida:
DeleteThe reasons I think you misunderstand Derrida are: (1) your understanding is at odds with everyone else's on the internet; and (2) you cannot support your understanding.
I think taken together those are pretty good reasons.
You asserting that actually you do understand him would be a bad reason for changing my mind. Of course you think you understand him!
Me: Of course, you cannot state what assumptions you consider to be stupid, or why you consider them stupid. As usual all you have is hot air
Joe: If you had a brain it would be obvious. the argent I preempt would say the universe is self organizing obviously.
And if you had a brain you would be able to read the words you were responding to.
Or is this deliberate? You know you cannot support your accusation of "Stupid assumptions" so you ignore that, and chase after a red herring, hoping no one will notice.
Joe: I did not offer a syllogism, that was skeptic's idea. Those seven lines are how a philosophical argument is made. syllogism is three lines, there can be no seven line syllogism.
Okay, bad choice of words. But it does not change the fact that preempting an argument should not be in the logical argument. That should consist of a set of premises and conclusions. The premises should all be accepted as true by most people - otherwise they too need to be shown to be true. The conclusions must follow logically from the premises (and previous conclusions). A premise and conclusion must be either true or false.
See here if you are unsure of this.
Do you honestly think your argument follows those rules?
Joe: You have not answered the argument, you have merely demonstrated that you don;t understand it,
And I have done so repeatedly! And yet still you choose not to make it any clearer!
Hence, I conclude you do not want people to understand it. Your argument is founded first and foremost on obscurity.
You have not answered the argument, you have merely demonstrated that you don;t understand it,
ReplyDeleteTo illustrate how Hinman's argument is founded on obfuscation, take a look at step 2:
ReplyDelete"OP's summed up in TS"
What does "OP's" mean? Does the apostrophe "s" mean something belonging to an organising principle? Or is it a verbal contraction; organising principle is...? Is the apostrophe a mistake, and he means organising principle in the plural? I do not know.
What does "summed up" mean? It or they can be summarised as? If we take the total after adding them together we get? I do not know.
The whole thing could mean (and this is just three examples):
One organising principle is summarised by the idea of the transcendental signified
All organising principles can be added together to give the transcendental signified
The idea of an organising principle is contained within the idea of the transcendental signified
As Joe says, I do not understand his argument. Maybe he needs to address why that is.
What exactly are organising principles (OPs)? They are fundamental to his argument. Joe's latest version is here. He spends a lot of effort showing people use the term in other contexts, but makes no proper attempt to define what he means by it.
ReplyDeleteThe big question is whether they are mental constructs (things that exist purely in the mind) or real (like the laws of nature organising molecules in a snowflake perhaps).
I have taken a bunch of quotes about organising principles from that page, and tried to split them between when he appears to be using the term to refer to mental states and when he is referring to something actual, to show how he appears to flip from one to the other.
Mental:
* OP 's make sense of the universe and explain hierarchies of conceptualization
* meaning in language is organized by rules of grammar
* Western thought has always assumed Organizing principles that are summed up in a single first principle (an ἀρχή) which grounds any sort of meaning
* 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.
* The concept of uniting theories and the meta law are organizing principles.
* 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.
* We cannot organize without a principle of organizing.
* 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,
Actual:
* That a rational and coherent view requires a principle that organizes reality according to some aspect of logic or math should be obvious.
* The self organizing structure supposedly doesn't require an outside source to exist, that would defeat the principle of the necessity of organizing principles.
* 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.
As Joe says, I do not understand his argument. Maybe he needs to address why that is.
What about number 3?
ReplyDelete3. Modern Thought rejects TS outright or takes out all aspects of mind.
Who is he characterising by modern thought? Is that philosophers? The scientific community? Is he claiming this is the consensus? Or that everyone holds that view? Is he saying their are two camps; one rejecting TS and the other taking out all aspects of the mind?
The TS is (I think) an organising principle. Is he claiming scientists reject the use of organising principles to organise their thoughts? Of that they reject the idea that nature organises molecules? Neither is true.
Some scientists reject the idea of the mind, but it is not a consensus position that I am aware of.
On this page he admits:
"It would be more technically correct to say postmodern thought rejects TS."
Postmodern thought is no friend of science. Who exactly is he arguing against here?
"But modern thought may keep TS's such as reason but doesn't allow them to be connected to mind."
Really? Who does that exactly? Joe has twenty references on that page, but none for this section. Why is that? Because it is not true. He is battling a straw man version of modern thought. Which he admits is postmodern thought.
"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."
So now the TS is God. He says "Modern Thought rejects TS outright", but what he means is that modern thought rejects God. Of course, there are plenty of places in his argument when "TS" does not appear to mean specifically God (he indicates there are different TSs, for example, in the next paragraph; "There are so many TS's"). It looks like the exact meaning changes as is convenient.
As Joe says, I do not understand his argument. Maybe he needs to address why that is.
What about number 4?
ReplyDelete4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.
Presumably, he means post-modern thought, right?
It is a fact that science offers the most rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe that we have. Joe will dispute that, but his view of the universe is incredible simplistic. It does not explain beyond the assertion that God is behind it. It presents the universe as a black box that we should not look inside. Just take it on faith that what is inside is rational, coherent and meaningful.
Science does not know it all. There is much still to be discovered, and likely much that science cannot discover. But if you want a rational, coherent, and meaningful view - rather than the illusion of one - science is your best bet.
Step 4 follows from step 3, given it starts "Therefore". Step 3 was that (post-)modern thought rejects God, so his argument is:
(post-)modern thought rejects God
therefore (post-)modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe
What he is assuming there is that God exists. If God does not exist, then the fact that (post-)modern thought rejects God will not negatively impact our understanding. His logic only works if we assume God exists.
Which is exactly what he is trying to prove!
By re-labelling God as "TS" he is trying to hide the fact that his argument is circular. This is why he does not want anyone to actually understand his argument.
What about number 4?
ReplyDelete4. Therefore, Modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.
F2A:Presumably, he means post-modern thought, right?
If I meant post modern i would have said postmodern
2FA: "It is a fact that science offers the most rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe that we have."
No that is not a fact. It's clearly an opinion and he has no basis for it. His reasons for disbelief are childish and involve adolescent rebellion,
2FA: "Joe will dispute that, but his view of the universe is incredible simplistic. "
You nothing about y view of the universe but it's clear more sophisticated than yours, where did you study for your Ph,D? I studied for mine at the University of Texas.
It does not explain beyond the assertion that God is behind it. It presents the universe as a black box that we should not look inside. Just take it on faith that what is inside is rational, coherent and meaningful.
You lying moron ,you are merely stereotyping based upon ugnorant prejudice agaisnt Christians, You are too stupid to have known any real thinkers but you know one now
Science does not know it all. There is much still to be discovered, and likely much that science cannot discover. But if you want a rational, coherent, and meaningful view - rather than the illusion of one - science is your best bet.
Science doesn't offer a rational view because it posits what it knows is impossible,a universe from nothing,
2FA: Step 4 follows from step 3, given it starts "Therefore". Step 3 was that (post-)modern thought rejects God, so his argument is:
(post-)modern thought rejects God
therefore (post-)modern thought fails to provide a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe
What he is assuming there is that God exists. If God does not exist, then the fact that (post-)modern thought rejects God will not negatively impact our understanding. His logic only works if we assume God exists.
Me:--Modern not post Modern Modern rejection of God is irrational and illogical.
2FA: Which is exactly what he is trying to prove!
Me: No it's not. you Blithely ignore my statements about rational warrant, My arguments are not proof of God they are warrants for belief, Even so if you seek to prove X exists then belief X exists is not circular but logical. But if you seek to prove X you must believe X exists. that is not circular.
2FA: By re-labelling God as "TS" he is trying to hide the fact that his argument is circular. This is why he does not want anyone to actually understand his argument.
Me: You incredkably ignorant one it;s Derria who said that. Derrida says God is a verison of the TS He was an atheist.
REPLY
Joe: If I meant post modern i would have said postmodern
DeleteWhat you wrote with regards to number 3 was "It would be more technically correct to say postmodern thought rejects TS." If you meant postmodern for number three, why did you not say postmodern?
So anyway, it turns out that number 4, a comment about modern thought, somehow can be inferred from number 3, a comment about postmodern thought. How does that work?
As usual, what we see here is definitions slipping and sliding. One minute you mean postmodern, the next you mean modern.
You have a choice, Joe. You can either strive for clarity or obfuscation. If you strive for clarity, ensure you make clear what these terms mean, and stick to a single meaning. If you strive for obfuscation... wel, keep doing what you are doing.
Joe: No that is not a fact. It's clearly an opinion and he has no basis for it. His reasons for disbelief are childish and involve adolescent rebellion,
There is nothing that even gets close to science when it comes to a rational, coherent, and meaningful view of the universe.
The problem is that your view is severely blinkered; it is focused on one thing, and the blinkers prevent you seeing that there is so much besides that.
Joe: You lying moron ,you are merely stereotyping based upon ugnorant prejudice agaisnt Christians, You are too stupid to have known any real thinkers but you know one now
So tell me how YOUR view of the universe explain how coffee cools, why the earth rotates about the sun and how he internet works. To me, it looks like you just hand-wave all that away. God is the ground of being. Done.
If you want to get into areas science fails at, tell me how you establish whether abortion or slavery are right or wrong, and we can see how your view of the universe does - I freely acknowledge science fails in those areas, but I have yet to see anything do better.
Joe: Science doesn't offer a rational view because it posits what it knows is impossible,a universe from nothing,
Where does it posit that? Sure, a few scientists think that, but science as a whole does not.
Where does it say it is impossible? I suggest that it is Christians say that, not scientists.
https://www.livescience.com/65819-how-did-the-universe-begin.html
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-evolution-of-the-universe/
Joe: Me:--Modern not post Modern Modern rejection of God is irrational and illogical.
And yet a large proportion (I would guess a majority) of scientists are religious! Why do they reject God?
Joe: Me: You incredkably ignorant one it;s Derria who said that. Derrida says God is a verison of the TS He was an atheist.
How does that change my point? It is still a circular argument, and you are still trying to disguise that it is a circular argument by re-labelling God.