Thursday, July 16, 2009
The Problems With Materialism
Hi my name's Bob and I'm a recovering materialist. I'd like to thank my sponsor Gene, who talked me down from the ledge a few years ago...
Over at Crash Landing, my frequent critic Tokyo Tom decided to throw caution to the winds and went head to head(s?) against Gene Callahan and me on materialism. Specifically, Tom labors under the belief that something doesn't "really" exist unless it's physical, or at the very least corresponds to something physical. Now you have to overlook Gene's impatience, but in my book we whupped Tom good. It wasn't even close.
However, I sympathize with Tom because several years ago I thought the exact same thing he did. Rather than write a huge essay here, let me just give some bullet points. What I'm trying to get you to see is that it is a completely baseless bias to reserve "objective existence" only for items of the physical universe. So here goes:
* Does Sherlock Holmes exist? Where is he then? Can you point to him? (And don't point to a book talking about him; that's not Sherlock Holmes himself, that's a book describing him.)
* OK so maybe he exists in our thoughts, and thoughts are "really" just a part of our brains. But why do we say that? Why aren't our brains just "really" a part of our thoughts? We know brains exist, and we know minds exist, and for some reason we attribute more objective reality-ness to the former. Why?
* This is the deep part. We know that our subjective experiences are real. We only hold a theory that there is a physical world. It is logically possible that we are in the matrix, that this is all a dream, that we are being deceived by an evil demon, etc. But as Descartes famously argued, we can't be mistaken about our own consciousness.
* Now here's an argument Gene used on me back in the day, which at the time I dismissed as flippant. But now I realize, I had to just blow it off, because it was crushing. Daniel Dennett convinced me at the time that consciousness was a "user illusion." During evolution, it became advantageous for our ancestors to learn to "talk to themselves," and so our bodies now create the illusion of consciousness. But Gene asked a simple question, "Whom are they fooling?" (Actually I bet Gene's question was less grammatical.) You can't have a "user illusion" if there really is no user!
* Is 2+2=4 an objective, true statement? Is it physical? Can you point to it? Sure, you can point to two balls, and then another two balls, and then say that all four of them are, well, four balls. But that's not the same thing as grasping the truth of the equation, and in fact, it's entirely possible that one of the balls will disappear while you're counting (maybe it's a ball of ice on a stove), or will multiply while you're counting (maybe it's a ball of Tribble fur). So when you try to "demonstrate" 2+2=4 with physical objects, it might not work. But you rule out such counterexamples, because you know a priori--without having to look at the physical universe--what the equation means. So all of mathematics seems like a pretty important thing that exists and yet is not physical.
* OK let's assume that all of reality consists entirely of atoms (or quarks or whatever). We're watching them bounce around, obeying the laws of physics. Whoa, say what? What the heck is a law of physics? Where is it? Can you point to it, weigh it, see how much bathwater it displaces? No, it's just a pattern governing the motions of the "real" stuff. But is the law itself real?
* This last point is at once incredibly obvious and yet unbelievably profound. (That's how I roll on Free Advice.) You can control matter with your mind. (!!) In fact, right now I am making the molecules in my "fingers" (just an arbitrary label we give to these group of cells) move in very specific ways, in order to influence the electric charges in my "laptop" (another label for molecular configurations). I know scientists can peer really hard at the action, and tell me that it seems to be completely due to the laws of physics with no ghostly interference from the spirit world, but I tell ya, I can really control my fingers with my mind. We can sit here all day, and my predictive powers over the motions of the molecules in my fingers will be uncanny. So by the positivist's own criterion, it seems as if there is more to existence than mere matter in motion.
Over at Crash Landing, my frequent critic Tokyo Tom decided to throw caution to the winds and went head to head(s?) against Gene Callahan and me on materialism. Specifically, Tom labors under the belief that something doesn't "really" exist unless it's physical, or at the very least corresponds to something physical. Now you have to overlook Gene's impatience, but in my book we whupped Tom good. It wasn't even close.
However, I sympathize with Tom because several years ago I thought the exact same thing he did. Rather than write a huge essay here, let me just give some bullet points. What I'm trying to get you to see is that it is a completely baseless bias to reserve "objective existence" only for items of the physical universe. So here goes:
* Does Sherlock Holmes exist? Where is he then? Can you point to him? (And don't point to a book talking about him; that's not Sherlock Holmes himself, that's a book describing him.)
* OK so maybe he exists in our thoughts, and thoughts are "really" just a part of our brains. But why do we say that? Why aren't our brains just "really" a part of our thoughts? We know brains exist, and we know minds exist, and for some reason we attribute more objective reality-ness to the former. Why?
* This is the deep part. We know that our subjective experiences are real. We only hold a theory that there is a physical world. It is logically possible that we are in the matrix, that this is all a dream, that we are being deceived by an evil demon, etc. But as Descartes famously argued, we can't be mistaken about our own consciousness.
* Now here's an argument Gene used on me back in the day, which at the time I dismissed as flippant. But now I realize, I had to just blow it off, because it was crushing. Daniel Dennett convinced me at the time that consciousness was a "user illusion." During evolution, it became advantageous for our ancestors to learn to "talk to themselves," and so our bodies now create the illusion of consciousness. But Gene asked a simple question, "Whom are they fooling?" (Actually I bet Gene's question was less grammatical.) You can't have a "user illusion" if there really is no user!
* Is 2+2=4 an objective, true statement? Is it physical? Can you point to it? Sure, you can point to two balls, and then another two balls, and then say that all four of them are, well, four balls. But that's not the same thing as grasping the truth of the equation, and in fact, it's entirely possible that one of the balls will disappear while you're counting (maybe it's a ball of ice on a stove), or will multiply while you're counting (maybe it's a ball of Tribble fur). So when you try to "demonstrate" 2+2=4 with physical objects, it might not work. But you rule out such counterexamples, because you know a priori--without having to look at the physical universe--what the equation means. So all of mathematics seems like a pretty important thing that exists and yet is not physical.
* OK let's assume that all of reality consists entirely of atoms (or quarks or whatever). We're watching them bounce around, obeying the laws of physics. Whoa, say what? What the heck is a law of physics? Where is it? Can you point to it, weigh it, see how much bathwater it displaces? No, it's just a pattern governing the motions of the "real" stuff. But is the law itself real?
* This last point is at once incredibly obvious and yet unbelievably profound. (That's how I roll on Free Advice.) You can control matter with your mind. (!!) In fact, right now I am making the molecules in my "fingers" (just an arbitrary label we give to these group of cells) move in very specific ways, in order to influence the electric charges in my "laptop" (another label for molecular configurations). I know scientists can peer really hard at the action, and tell me that it seems to be completely due to the laws of physics with no ghostly interference from the spirit world, but I tell ya, I can really control my fingers with my mind. We can sit here all day, and my predictive powers over the motions of the molecules in my fingers will be uncanny. So by the positivist's own criterion, it seems as if there is more to existence than mere matter in motion.
Comments:
Perhaps a thorough (or even a cursory) reading of Atlas Shrugged might cure Tom of his misunderstanding.
It's simpler that all of that, Bob.
Materialism is an idea. Thus, materialism is false.
Materialism is an idea. Thus, materialism is false.
# posted by 
: July 17, 2009 at 1:52 AM
: July 17, 2009 at 1:52 AM
Bob, objectively, you`re nice, while Gene Callahan is an ill-tempered and ill-mannered, petulant brat.
You know this, but other readers can confirm it for themselves by reviewing Gene`s "victorious" evasions, as documented
Here,
here, and
here.
You can call it a "victory", but it seems to me that Gene`s failure to address my comments, his deletion of the blog post, reinstatement after I called him on it, responding to a bunch of strawmen and then deleting my response, throwing in a parting shot at another strawman and then turning off all comments (while every other thread remains open) are all not only shameful but an indication of Gene`s own awareness that his position is far from triumphal.
What we have instead is a continuing failure to communicate.
While I appreciate you posting this here, you are essentially asking that I abandon all of the efforts that I have made on Gene`s threads, ignore my responses and questions to him and you, and start all over - in addressing further comments by you that don`t even broach the original topic, Gene`s assertion that there is an objective moral order.
Well, the flesh is willing, but the spirit is weak. After being mistreated by Gene, I just don`t feel up to it for now.
I`ll revisit when I feel freshed, okay?
You know this, but other readers can confirm it for themselves by reviewing Gene`s "victorious" evasions, as documented
Here,
here, and
here.
You can call it a "victory", but it seems to me that Gene`s failure to address my comments, his deletion of the blog post, reinstatement after I called him on it, responding to a bunch of strawmen and then deleting my response, throwing in a parting shot at another strawman and then turning off all comments (while every other thread remains open) are all not only shameful but an indication of Gene`s own awareness that his position is far from triumphal.
What we have instead is a continuing failure to communicate.
While I appreciate you posting this here, you are essentially asking that I abandon all of the efforts that I have made on Gene`s threads, ignore my responses and questions to him and you, and start all over - in addressing further comments by you that don`t even broach the original topic, Gene`s assertion that there is an objective moral order.
Well, the flesh is willing, but the spirit is weak. After being mistreated by Gene, I just don`t feel up to it for now.
I`ll revisit when I feel freshed, okay?
"his deletion of the blog post, reinstatement after I called him on it"
Hey, idjit, that was a glitch in the blog that, when you noted it, I fixed.
As far as deleting comments, I don't see any marked as deleted in any recent threads. I turned off comments because I told you we were done with the discussion, and yet you came back and posted again.
As far as "mistreatment" goes, Tom, "mistreatment," not being made of matter and energy, doesn't exist.
Hey, idjit, that was a glitch in the blog that, when you noted it, I fixed.
As far as deleting comments, I don't see any marked as deleted in any recent threads. I turned off comments because I told you we were done with the discussion, and yet you came back and posted again.
As far as "mistreatment" goes, Tom, "mistreatment," not being made of matter and energy, doesn't exist.
And as far as strawmen go, Tom, I am not, for instance, trying to say that you hold algorithms don't exist. I am saying that that is a logical consequence of your statement that "only matter and energy exist." Per that principle, you should hold that algorithms don't exist, but you don't hold that -- therefore, you're position is incoherent. That is how philosophical discussion, with which your unfamiliarity is obvious, works.
Brandon, I don't get why Rand would cure him of that. Does she attack materialism in Atlas Shrugged?
Anon, good one re: materialism being an idea.
Tom, I'm not asking you to do anything. I'm trying to free others from their materialist worldview prison just as I was freed by Gene the Handsome lo, many moons ago. But now he's Gene the Cranky.
Wenzel, so who owns 2+2=4? I assume there is some Greek guy that has the rights and I owe him money, or is it an Arabic guy? Cuz I ripped off the "spirit" of the former, but the symbols of the latter.
Anon, good one re: materialism being an idea.
Tom, I'm not asking you to do anything. I'm trying to free others from their materialist worldview prison just as I was freed by Gene the Handsome lo, many moons ago. But now he's Gene the Cranky.
Wenzel, so who owns 2+2=4? I assume there is some Greek guy that has the rights and I owe him money, or is it an Arabic guy? Cuz I ripped off the "spirit" of the former, but the symbols of the latter.
Great point about Dennett, Bob--glad you made it: the notion that consciousness could be an illusion is just bizarre, since all talk of illusion presupposes conscious experience.
I think it's possible to move beyond the point about mathematical objects to two broader ones: (a) logical, epistemic, moral, and aesthetic norms all raise the same problem; (b) normativity itself poses a fairly serious problem, since it's hard to find anywhere in the matter-energy relationships to which the materialist wants to reduce everything else. Now, one can perfectly well claim that moral normativity really isn't there. But it makes no sense to do this as a way of getting rid of the normativity problem, because there's still logical and epistemic normativity (not to mention the fact that one is invoking this latter sort of normativity when arguing that the concept of moral normativity is uninstantiated).
I think it's possible to move beyond the point about mathematical objects to two broader ones: (a) logical, epistemic, moral, and aesthetic norms all raise the same problem; (b) normativity itself poses a fairly serious problem, since it's hard to find anywhere in the matter-energy relationships to which the materialist wants to reduce everything else. Now, one can perfectly well claim that moral normativity really isn't there. But it makes no sense to do this as a way of getting rid of the normativity problem, because there's still logical and epistemic normativity (not to mention the fact that one is invoking this latter sort of normativity when arguing that the concept of moral normativity is uninstantiated).
I read most of the post over at Crash Landing - I stopped about halfway through because I already know the gist of both arguments.
I guess I would ask you, Bob, the following:
Given a moral situation, two people come to opposite conclusions. How do you proceed to prove one of those conclusions "true" and the other "false"? Then ask yourself this question again assuming both can map their conclusions in a logically sound manner.
As for your "I can control matter with my mind," thing, that's a false analogy because we have defined physical processes that we show are necessary to the movement of your fingers. That is, someone who lacks a living brain cannot move their fingers and you, having such necessary processes, cannot move matter that is not directly and physically linked to such.
By the way, I'm a relatively new reader of this blog, but I am already a fan.
I guess I would ask you, Bob, the following:
Given a moral situation, two people come to opposite conclusions. How do you proceed to prove one of those conclusions "true" and the other "false"? Then ask yourself this question again assuming both can map their conclusions in a logically sound manner.
As for your "I can control matter with my mind," thing, that's a false analogy because we have defined physical processes that we show are necessary to the movement of your fingers. That is, someone who lacks a living brain cannot move their fingers and you, having such necessary processes, cannot move matter that is not directly and physically linked to such.
By the way, I'm a relatively new reader of this blog, but I am already a fan.
# posted by : July 17, 2009 at 12:42 PM
: July 17, 2009 at 12:42 PM
Bruce,
Glad you like the blog. As far as two people disagreeing on morality, I could say the same thing about two historians disagreeing on who shot JFK. Does that mean it's entirely subjective, that there is no capital-t Truth to the matter?
As far as the fingers, you're just moving the problem somewhere else. Yes, when my fingers move, it's "because" of certain changes in my nervous system etc. But OK, what causes those changes? I'm telling ya, it's my mind man!
The materialist has a bias where an explanation doesn't count unless it is composed strictly of physical things. But yet in everyday life, we explain events all the time by reference to non-material causes, namely other people's desires. It's so natural that we don't even notice what a refutation of materialism that it poses.
Glad you like the blog. As far as two people disagreeing on morality, I could say the same thing about two historians disagreeing on who shot JFK. Does that mean it's entirely subjective, that there is no capital-t Truth to the matter?
As far as the fingers, you're just moving the problem somewhere else. Yes, when my fingers move, it's "because" of certain changes in my nervous system etc. But OK, what causes those changes? I'm telling ya, it's my mind man!
The materialist has a bias where an explanation doesn't count unless it is composed strictly of physical things. But yet in everyday life, we explain events all the time by reference to non-material causes, namely other people's desires. It's so natural that we don't even notice what a refutation of materialism that it poses.
"Tom, I'm not asking you to do anything. I'm trying to free others from their materialist worldview prison ...."
Thanks for the clarification of your motives.
Foolish me; I had thought that when, after Gene closed his blog post and you chased me with an "objectively sincere" (your words) email stating that you would "will try to take up this debate on Free Advice" and then with another email advising me that you had indeed restarted the discussion, you had at least in part intended to address your post to me and invited me to respond.
I can see now that I`ve been presumptuous at guessing at your motivations. So your various references to me in your first two paragraph are simply to point to me as an object lesson to your readers? If so, I`m flattered that I can be of service, in some small way.
Thanks for the clarification of your motives.
Foolish me; I had thought that when, after Gene closed his blog post and you chased me with an "objectively sincere" (your words) email stating that you would "will try to take up this debate on Free Advice" and then with another email advising me that you had indeed restarted the discussion, you had at least in part intended to address your post to me and invited me to respond.
I can see now that I`ve been presumptuous at guessing at your motivations. So your various references to me in your first two paragraph are simply to point to me as an object lesson to your readers? If so, I`m flattered that I can be of service, in some small way.
Tom wrote:
Foolish me, I had thought...you had at least in part intended to address your post to me and invited me to respond.
Of course I intended for you to respond. And then in your first post here, you listed all the ways I was chafing you for what I was "essentially" asking you to do. So I'm clarifying, I'm not asking you to do anything; if you don't want to continue the debate, fine. But since you were crying foul that Gene closed the comments, I thought you wanted to keep arguing.
Man.
Foolish me, I had thought...you had at least in part intended to address your post to me and invited me to respond.
Of course I intended for you to respond. And then in your first post here, you listed all the ways I was chafing you for what I was "essentially" asking you to do. So I'm clarifying, I'm not asking you to do anything; if you don't want to continue the debate, fine. But since you were crying foul that Gene closed the comments, I thought you wanted to keep arguing.
Man.
1. "As far as deleting comments, I don't see any marked as deleted in any recent threads."
Gene, I don`t see any comments "marked as deleted" either, but so what? If you`d care to read either my latest linked blog post or my earlier direct email to you (the one remarking "FYI" and "Hopefully"), you`d have noticed that (a) I DID post a long comment - before your last comment - in response to your previous three comments, (b) your blogging platform sent a full copy of my comment to me (and any others who had checked "subscribe to comments"), and (c) I`ve provided to you the full deleted comment, both in my blog post first linked above and as in my FYI email.
The comment was clearly posted - which I why I received a post alert from your blogging platform - and some how deleted. If you didn`t do this or don`t understand how it happened, then you might wish to make your own inquiries.
2. "Hey, idjit, that was a glitch in the blog that, when you noted it, I fixed."
Use of term of endearment duly noted, but I`m not sure if you`re biting your tongue, trying to make nice or both/neither. Care to communicate your intention (your intention, communications of them, and my guess what they mean all being objectively real - you know, electrons and other stuff moving)?
I wasn`t sure at the time, but with the disappearance of my subsequent post, your prior deletion of a "slug trap" post and your evident reluctance to really address the topic (two months` delay, etc.), the initial disappearance of the complete post kinda looks (to my mind, thinking objectively real thoughts - electrons and stuff moving) like a part of a "pattern".
However, I recognize that my mere thinking about a pattern in your behavior doesn`t make the pattern itself "real": there could have just been a "glitch" on the disappearance of the whole post and thread, and my long response could have also disappeared through as some yet unknown means.
But if these disappearances are simply coincidental and your role purely innocent, then why have you closed that blog post, and no others, why did you ignore my email (which brought the disappearance to your attention), and why have you taken not steps to remedy the situation by reposting my deleted comment (which you have had in whole in front of you), with the same alacrity with which you fixed the earlier glitch that I pointed out?
3. "I turned off comments because I told you we were done with the discussion, and yet you came back and posted again."
Do you fail to recognize that you have just specifically acknowledged that you DID receive my "non-deleted" post?
Or are you suggesting that is this not part of a pattern, but simply another glitch, whereby you CAN read my "non-deleted" posts, but for some unknown reason they simply cease to appear after you comment in response?
4. The other point of interest is your closing the blog post itself. After you made three serial comments, ending with "I hope your electrons thrive in the future, Tom!", but did NOT close the blog post, I - apparently mistakenly - assumed I still had the liberty to respond. Your closing took place after my "disappeared" response, and after you got in another last word.
Yet ALL THE REST of you blog posts remain OPEN.
Is this how a gentlemen behaves, or is this instead the behavior of a philosopher, addressing the question of a "friend" about the objective reality of morals? By saying "toodles", and then plugging one`s ears and unplugging the phone?
Gene, I don`t see any comments "marked as deleted" either, but so what? If you`d care to read either my latest linked blog post or my earlier direct email to you (the one remarking "FYI" and "Hopefully"), you`d have noticed that (a) I DID post a long comment - before your last comment - in response to your previous three comments, (b) your blogging platform sent a full copy of my comment to me (and any others who had checked "subscribe to comments"), and (c) I`ve provided to you the full deleted comment, both in my blog post first linked above and as in my FYI email.
The comment was clearly posted - which I why I received a post alert from your blogging platform - and some how deleted. If you didn`t do this or don`t understand how it happened, then you might wish to make your own inquiries.
2. "Hey, idjit, that was a glitch in the blog that, when you noted it, I fixed."
Use of term of endearment duly noted, but I`m not sure if you`re biting your tongue, trying to make nice or both/neither. Care to communicate your intention (your intention, communications of them, and my guess what they mean all being objectively real - you know, electrons and other stuff moving)?
I wasn`t sure at the time, but with the disappearance of my subsequent post, your prior deletion of a "slug trap" post and your evident reluctance to really address the topic (two months` delay, etc.), the initial disappearance of the complete post kinda looks (to my mind, thinking objectively real thoughts - electrons and stuff moving) like a part of a "pattern".
However, I recognize that my mere thinking about a pattern in your behavior doesn`t make the pattern itself "real": there could have just been a "glitch" on the disappearance of the whole post and thread, and my long response could have also disappeared through as some yet unknown means.
But if these disappearances are simply coincidental and your role purely innocent, then why have you closed that blog post, and no others, why did you ignore my email (which brought the disappearance to your attention), and why have you taken not steps to remedy the situation by reposting my deleted comment (which you have had in whole in front of you), with the same alacrity with which you fixed the earlier glitch that I pointed out?
3. "I turned off comments because I told you we were done with the discussion, and yet you came back and posted again."
Do you fail to recognize that you have just specifically acknowledged that you DID receive my "non-deleted" post?
Or are you suggesting that is this not part of a pattern, but simply another glitch, whereby you CAN read my "non-deleted" posts, but for some unknown reason they simply cease to appear after you comment in response?
4. The other point of interest is your closing the blog post itself. After you made three serial comments, ending with "I hope your electrons thrive in the future, Tom!", but did NOT close the blog post, I - apparently mistakenly - assumed I still had the liberty to respond. Your closing took place after my "disappeared" response, and after you got in another last word.
Yet ALL THE REST of you blog posts remain OPEN.
Is this how a gentlemen behaves, or is this instead the behavior of a philosopher, addressing the question of a "friend" about the objective reality of morals? By saying "toodles", and then plugging one`s ears and unplugging the phone?
5. "As far as "mistreatment" goes, Tom, "mistreatment," not being made of matter and energy, doesn't exist."
Blah, blah, blah.
Since you`ve already demonstrated you are not interested in discussing the subject of this blog post, why should anyone, much less me, even trouble to listen to this remark, whose sincerity is belied by its own sarcastic tone?
But I would be the last to deny the reality of either behavior or perceptions, Gene - which certainly DO have a material existence. Nor would I deny that humans are sensitive to the behavior of others and to what such behavior may communicate or imply.
6. "That is how philosophical discussion, with which your unfamiliarity is obvious, works."
Yes, I know I`m not a fancy-pants, trained philospher. Compared to your Cadillac, I`ve got just a little Nash Rambler, stuck in second gear (beep, beep!).
But does "philosophy" work by inviting but then yanking the ball away from Charlie Brown, telling him go go play with his peers, clanging down the shutters, and retreating to gazing at flickering shadows?
If so, you`re welcome to it, man. But I suspect not, which is why you have come out again to "play".
Sorry, Lucy, but for the time being I have not interest in taking another kick at the football ...
Blah, blah, blah.
Since you`ve already demonstrated you are not interested in discussing the subject of this blog post, why should anyone, much less me, even trouble to listen to this remark, whose sincerity is belied by its own sarcastic tone?
But I would be the last to deny the reality of either behavior or perceptions, Gene - which certainly DO have a material existence. Nor would I deny that humans are sensitive to the behavior of others and to what such behavior may communicate or imply.
6. "That is how philosophical discussion, with which your unfamiliarity is obvious, works."
Yes, I know I`m not a fancy-pants, trained philospher. Compared to your Cadillac, I`ve got just a little Nash Rambler, stuck in second gear (beep, beep!).
But does "philosophy" work by inviting but then yanking the ball away from Charlie Brown, telling him go go play with his peers, clanging down the shutters, and retreating to gazing at flickering shadows?
If so, you`re welcome to it, man. But I suspect not, which is why you have come out again to "play".
Sorry, Lucy, but for the time being I have not interest in taking another kick at the football ...
Bob, I appreciate you continuing the thread, but you really have pretty much ignored my responses and questions on Gene`s prior threads, and starting over here is, well, starting over, and requires more more work (I`m surprised you don`t see this) that I simply wasn`t up to before.
Yes, my response indicates some churlishness - both my mindframe and your perception of it having a real, material basis. Sorry, but it`s hard to be chipper in the face of a sarcastic, and smugly superior grump who cares little about the reality of deleted blog posts, much less the feelings of his guests (to be clear, I`m not talking about you).
Yes, my response indicates some churlishness - both my mindframe and your perception of it having a real, material basis. Sorry, but it`s hard to be chipper in the face of a sarcastic, and smugly superior grump who cares little about the reality of deleted blog posts, much less the feelings of his guests (to be clear, I`m not talking about you).
"OK so maybe he exists in our thoughts, and thoughts are "really" just a part of our brains. But why do we say that? Why aren't our brains just "really" a part of our thoughts? We know brains exist, and we know minds exist, and for some reason we attribute more objective reality-ness to the former. Why?"
I think I can answer that. I'd say we know empirically that the mind (i.e. consciousness) is a product of the brain. We know this because, when you apply stimuli to the brain, as a result you obtain a modification in our mental state. For example, when you electrically stimulate precise parts of the brain, you can induce precise emotions in the patient (e.g. the patient is genuinely amused and says "you doctors are funny guys"). Or, if you ingest various kind of pills, this is a simpler way to induce precise emotions. (I think we can also do MRI and know whether the patient is thinking about a face or about a boat).
Now, what are we doing when we stimulate the brain electrically or chemically? All we are doing is to alter the (electro-chemical) computation executed by the brain. And what do we obtain as a result? We obtain a modification of our consciousness (=emotions).
So we can conclude (beyond reasonable doubt) that consciousness (=mind) is a product of the computation done by the brain, and not the other way around.
If you had asked "why is the mind a product of the brain, and not the other way around?", I think I have answered. But to be correct you actually asked "why is the mind part of the brain", the meaning of which I don't really understand. I assumed you wanted to say the former.
I think I can answer that. I'd say we know empirically that the mind (i.e. consciousness) is a product of the brain. We know this because, when you apply stimuli to the brain, as a result you obtain a modification in our mental state. For example, when you electrically stimulate precise parts of the brain, you can induce precise emotions in the patient (e.g. the patient is genuinely amused and says "you doctors are funny guys"). Or, if you ingest various kind of pills, this is a simpler way to induce precise emotions. (I think we can also do MRI and know whether the patient is thinking about a face or about a boat).
Now, what are we doing when we stimulate the brain electrically or chemically? All we are doing is to alter the (electro-chemical) computation executed by the brain. And what do we obtain as a result? We obtain a modification of our consciousness (=emotions).
So we can conclude (beyond reasonable doubt) that consciousness (=mind) is a product of the computation done by the brain, and not the other way around.
If you had asked "why is the mind a product of the brain, and not the other way around?", I think I have answered. But to be correct you actually asked "why is the mind part of the brain", the meaning of which I don't really understand. I assumed you wanted to say the former.
Bob, a few thoughts in response:
- the universe exists, for animate and inanimate objects and thins in between.
- we are gradually beginning to understand how matter and energy in the universe behaves. Not all of how the universe behaves seems logical or commons sense to us, but it appears that matter and energy behave in consistent ways, irregardless of whether we are there and observing.
- in addition to our direct physical senses, we have, using disciplined and tested ways of thinking (mathematics and science) and technology, developed increasingly sophisticated ways of understanding the universe.
- what we think we know about the universe we call "laws" of physics, mathematical principles and rules of chemistry and the like. But our understanding is not yet perfect (and it is likey impossible that our knowledge with ever be perfect), so it is mistake to say that any of our thought-derived "laws" of nature are themselves "real" - other than as real thoughts that we have had, written down or otherwise communicated.
- Our path to knowledge has been a painstaking one, and each human society has had its own "rules of nature" which may have been useful but have been proven wrong in one way or another. Our understanding of the place of the Earth in the universe has changed. Newtonian physics we now see as accurate only with respect to masses that are moving a relatively slow speeds, and Einsteinian relativity and quantum mechanics are useful, but most physicists consider that the are not "truths" themselves, but mere summaries of our still limited understanding.
- If all men die and we do not successfully pass on our understanding of the universe to other beings, our "laws" and "truths" will vanish, while the universe will keep acting as it does (while given our relatively sophisticated understanding, we can expect that matter and energy would keep acting in pretty much the way we now expect it to)..
- Life - complex animate objects that collect and use energy - exists, but all life forms exist as objects comprised of matter, continually interacting with their surrounding environment chemically and physically (using energy).
- Life forms have differing ways of sensing changes and responding to changes in their environments. Some life forms have specialized sense organs (of which we have found a breath-taking variety), and some life forms have nervous systems and brains of differing specialization and sophistication.
- Like other animals that have brains, humans "think"; that is, brains receive information from senses, process such information, and provide directions to the body to act.
- Before we were aware that we our brains were the locus of thinking, we called our organ of thinking the "mind". We have no thinking, and no "mind", without our brain.
- Thinking is a material phenomenon, involving the movement of electrical impulses and chemical substances across complex neural networks - our understanding of which continues to improve (along with our understanding of perception and the way our brains direct our bodies to act). But clearly dead brains (or live brains who method of communicating with their bodies or replacements) can`t act.
- Animals have differing degrees of consciousness, but in all cases (excluding some reflexes that do not reach the brain and some internal organ activity) it is the brain that directs external behavior. Just like your "mind" may deliberately cause your body to move, so do other animals` brains cause their body to move - supplemented or not by consciousness (just like dogs, we make decisions and act at subconsious levels, and can vocalize and otherwise move in our sleep).
- the universe exists, for animate and inanimate objects and thins in between.
- we are gradually beginning to understand how matter and energy in the universe behaves. Not all of how the universe behaves seems logical or commons sense to us, but it appears that matter and energy behave in consistent ways, irregardless of whether we are there and observing.
- in addition to our direct physical senses, we have, using disciplined and tested ways of thinking (mathematics and science) and technology, developed increasingly sophisticated ways of understanding the universe.
- what we think we know about the universe we call "laws" of physics, mathematical principles and rules of chemistry and the like. But our understanding is not yet perfect (and it is likey impossible that our knowledge with ever be perfect), so it is mistake to say that any of our thought-derived "laws" of nature are themselves "real" - other than as real thoughts that we have had, written down or otherwise communicated.
- Our path to knowledge has been a painstaking one, and each human society has had its own "rules of nature" which may have been useful but have been proven wrong in one way or another. Our understanding of the place of the Earth in the universe has changed. Newtonian physics we now see as accurate only with respect to masses that are moving a relatively slow speeds, and Einsteinian relativity and quantum mechanics are useful, but most physicists consider that the are not "truths" themselves, but mere summaries of our still limited understanding.
- If all men die and we do not successfully pass on our understanding of the universe to other beings, our "laws" and "truths" will vanish, while the universe will keep acting as it does (while given our relatively sophisticated understanding, we can expect that matter and energy would keep acting in pretty much the way we now expect it to)..
- Life - complex animate objects that collect and use energy - exists, but all life forms exist as objects comprised of matter, continually interacting with their surrounding environment chemically and physically (using energy).
- Life forms have differing ways of sensing changes and responding to changes in their environments. Some life forms have specialized sense organs (of which we have found a breath-taking variety), and some life forms have nervous systems and brains of differing specialization and sophistication.
- Like other animals that have brains, humans "think"; that is, brains receive information from senses, process such information, and provide directions to the body to act.
- Before we were aware that we our brains were the locus of thinking, we called our organ of thinking the "mind". We have no thinking, and no "mind", without our brain.
- Thinking is a material phenomenon, involving the movement of electrical impulses and chemical substances across complex neural networks - our understanding of which continues to improve (along with our understanding of perception and the way our brains direct our bodies to act). But clearly dead brains (or live brains who method of communicating with their bodies or replacements) can`t act.
- Animals have differing degrees of consciousness, but in all cases (excluding some reflexes that do not reach the brain and some internal organ activity) it is the brain that directs external behavior. Just like your "mind" may deliberately cause your body to move, so do other animals` brains cause their body to move - supplemented or not by consciousness (just like dogs, we make decisions and act at subconsious levels, and can vocalize and otherwise move in our sleep).
(Cont.)
- Brains are developed according to blueprints provided in an animal`s genes, subject to influence from the environment (nutrition, received stimulation, learning etc.); humans are no different.
- Because how other life in our environment is important, all animals have inherited abilities of knowing and guessing, to some degree or other, how other animals behave. This sense of the "mind" of others gets developed and more sophisticated with experience.
- All social animals are exquisitely sensitive to other members of their group. One can see other life acting in cooperative and reciprocal manners; if they were conscious, they might very well call the terms of such give and take "morals".
To turn to some of your Qs:
- Is 2+2=4 an objective, true statement?
While it`s objectively true that people have thoughts, and this is one of them, this statement otherwise has no "objective" reality apart from men thinking about it. While mathematics and physics may be very helpful in understanding the world and in planning our interactions with it, they simply provides models for understanding reality. Some models may be apparently absurd, but nevertheless helpful, such as imaginary numbers, quantum mechanics and Heisenberg`s uncertainty principle.
- Is a law of physics itself real?
No; already answered.
- "in everyday life, we explain events all the time by reference to non-material causes, namely other people's desires. It's so natural that we don't even notice what a refutation of materialism that it poses."
Sure, we refer to other people`s desires and intentions, but in all cases we are using our brains to do so, even unconsciously. This is no refutation of the recognition that conscious thought and other mental processing are all material activities in the brain.
Does the fact that we think - or that we are at times conscious of it - refute that thought itself is a material, physical activity in the brain?
No.
- Brains are developed according to blueprints provided in an animal`s genes, subject to influence from the environment (nutrition, received stimulation, learning etc.); humans are no different.
- Because how other life in our environment is important, all animals have inherited abilities of knowing and guessing, to some degree or other, how other animals behave. This sense of the "mind" of others gets developed and more sophisticated with experience.
- All social animals are exquisitely sensitive to other members of their group. One can see other life acting in cooperative and reciprocal manners; if they were conscious, they might very well call the terms of such give and take "morals".
To turn to some of your Qs:
- Is 2+2=4 an objective, true statement?
While it`s objectively true that people have thoughts, and this is one of them, this statement otherwise has no "objective" reality apart from men thinking about it. While mathematics and physics may be very helpful in understanding the world and in planning our interactions with it, they simply provides models for understanding reality. Some models may be apparently absurd, but nevertheless helpful, such as imaginary numbers, quantum mechanics and Heisenberg`s uncertainty principle.
- Is a law of physics itself real?
No; already answered.
- "in everyday life, we explain events all the time by reference to non-material causes, namely other people's desires. It's so natural that we don't even notice what a refutation of materialism that it poses."
Sure, we refer to other people`s desires and intentions, but in all cases we are using our brains to do so, even unconsciously. This is no refutation of the recognition that conscious thought and other mental processing are all material activities in the brain.
Does the fact that we think - or that we are at times conscious of it - refute that thought itself is a material, physical activity in the brain?
No.
Now, a few questions of my own, to Bob or anyone else besides Gene (he`s rejected the apple enough times already), regarding the assertion that there are
- Is an objective moral order something real that can be tested for despite the inability of a particular observer to perceive directly - like beings that can`t directly perceive light (or like us who can`t personally physically observe much of what technology allows us to)?
- Are those who believe that there is an objective "moral" order asserting that, for every being - regardless of species - that there is a uniform, objective moral order in the universe? Or is the argument that there is an object moral order only for conscious and self-aware beings, and none for organisms that are not conscious, or are conscious but not self-aware?
- Or is the argument that the "objective" moral order exists only for humans, and perhaps someday can be identified and located in universally shared mental processes, based on brain activity and arising from shared genes?
- Or is the objective moral order one that exists for some humans, but not all - depending on physical development of the brain as we mature (with the development of some being impaired via genetic or other defect)?
- Is the human "objective" moral order universal, for all individuals - of whatever, gender or age - across all history?
- Does the objective moral order have an existence apart from man? Will it still exist if all mankind ceases to exist?
Just what do those who believe in "objective moral truths" and an "objective moral order" mean when they say these things?
And if the objective moral order is a part of the universe, can we apply the scientific method to confirm its existence of and explore its parameters, and to explain (and test) it with "laws"?
Bob, hope you don`t mind me dragging over here just a few things that were left unresolved on Gene`s comment threads.
- Is an objective moral order something real that can be tested for despite the inability of a particular observer to perceive directly - like beings that can`t directly perceive light (or like us who can`t personally physically observe much of what technology allows us to)?
- Are those who believe that there is an objective "moral" order asserting that, for every being - regardless of species - that there is a uniform, objective moral order in the universe? Or is the argument that there is an object moral order only for conscious and self-aware beings, and none for organisms that are not conscious, or are conscious but not self-aware?
- Or is the argument that the "objective" moral order exists only for humans, and perhaps someday can be identified and located in universally shared mental processes, based on brain activity and arising from shared genes?
- Or is the objective moral order one that exists for some humans, but not all - depending on physical development of the brain as we mature (with the development of some being impaired via genetic or other defect)?
- Is the human "objective" moral order universal, for all individuals - of whatever, gender or age - across all history?
- Does the objective moral order have an existence apart from man? Will it still exist if all mankind ceases to exist?
Just what do those who believe in "objective moral truths" and an "objective moral order" mean when they say these things?
And if the objective moral order is a part of the universe, can we apply the scientific method to confirm its existence of and explore its parameters, and to explain (and test) it with "laws"?
Bob, hope you don`t mind me dragging over here just a few things that were left unresolved on Gene`s comment threads.
Maurizio, I can use your exact same technique to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the mind causes brain states. Do I need to spell it out or do you see what I mean?
Tom, I am sorry to make you waste your time (again), but I don't think we should be arguing the finer points of whether morality is objectively true, when you have just said that mathematics and the laws of physics are not objectively true.
Obviously, if you don't think 2+2=4 is "real" and would cease to exist if everybody died, then there's no way I'm going to convince you that "you shouldn't murder babies for fun" is an objectively true statement.
Obviously, if you don't think 2+2=4 is "real" and would cease to exist if everybody died, then there's no way I'm going to convince you that "you shouldn't murder babies for fun" is an objectively true statement.
Careful, Bob, are you trying to eliminate all room for the objective reality of God?
Throughout history scientists have thought they had fashioned "objectively true" "laws" of nature and physics that further inquiry has proven wrong, in details large and small.
While mathematics and what scientists call "laws" of physics are tremendously helpful and accurate in predicting actual behavior of matter and energy, man is not perfect, nor is our understanding of the universe. Acccording, all our "laws" of physics and matehmatics should not be considered as perfect or "objectively true", and scientists would acknowledge that we may continue to improve on them.
Even with current science, 2+2 does not equal 4 if we are talking about atomic particles or very high velocities.
Again, the behavior of the universe is certainly "real" and would not change if man ceases to exist. That is simply not what I am say. Rather, what I`m saying is that a concept is simply a product of our thoughts, and some are clearly more correct and accurate than others.
If starting with basic physics is too much for you, then feel free to ignore all that, and just address my questions about qhat you mean about the "objective reality" of varius moral prescriptions. Do they exist independent of man? For all men? All societies? Have they changed over time? Do they not exist for other animals?
TT
Throughout history scientists have thought they had fashioned "objectively true" "laws" of nature and physics that further inquiry has proven wrong, in details large and small.
While mathematics and what scientists call "laws" of physics are tremendously helpful and accurate in predicting actual behavior of matter and energy, man is not perfect, nor is our understanding of the universe. Acccording, all our "laws" of physics and matehmatics should not be considered as perfect or "objectively true", and scientists would acknowledge that we may continue to improve on them.
Even with current science, 2+2 does not equal 4 if we are talking about atomic particles or very high velocities.
Again, the behavior of the universe is certainly "real" and would not change if man ceases to exist. That is simply not what I am say. Rather, what I`m saying is that a concept is simply a product of our thoughts, and some are clearly more correct and accurate than others.
If starting with basic physics is too much for you, then feel free to ignore all that, and just address my questions about qhat you mean about the "objective reality" of varius moral prescriptions. Do they exist independent of man? For all men? All societies? Have they changed over time? Do they not exist for other animals?
TT
Tom, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this debate is difficult because you keep reaching "conclusions" of what my worldview entails, when actually they are the (wrong) results of what your position entails. (I'll give a few examples.) I am trying to soldier on, though, because this is exactly what happened when Gene and I had a comparable argument years ago, when I was in your shoes.
Careful, Bob, are you trying to eliminate all room for the objective reality of God?
I have no idea what makes you say that. You are the one who apparently said that even 2+2=4 is just a model we have, and might be wrong. I was disputing that, saying that no, 2+2=4 is objectively true. So how do you then proceed to caution me about eliminating the objective existence of God?
Throughout history scientists have thought they had fashioned "objectively true" "laws" of nature and physics that further inquiry has proven wrong...
Tom, surely you know that I know this. What I am saying is the actual laws of physics are objectively true.
While mathematics and what scientists call "laws" of physics are tremendously helpful and accurate in predicting actual behavior of matter and energy, man is not perfect, nor is our understanding of the universe.
Here you are mixing up two types of knowledge. Mathematical theorems are a priori true; the only way we could be wrong about them, is if we collectively missed a non sequitur in the proof. There is no experiment that could suddenly show the Pythagorean theorem is false. Yes, we might use experiments to decide that the physical universe is non-Euclidean, but the Pythagorean theorem assumes a Euclidean world and so is still true (just possibly inapplicable).
Acccording, all our "laws" of physics and matehmatics should not be considered as perfect or "objectively true", and scientists would acknowledge that we may continue to improve on them.
No Tom, not at all. We can keep adding to the body of mathematics, but we won't overturn previously discovered theorems, except in the rare case where someone catches a mistake in the proof. That is qualitatively different from realizing that Newton was wrong.
Even with current science, 2+2 does not equal 4 if we are talking about atomic particles or very high velocities.
No Tom, and this is again a product of your materialist viewpoint. 2+2 still equals 4. Of course it does. That's not the same thing as saying, "If I am going .8c and turn on my headlights, the photons go 1.6c." It is only because you insist on translating obvious mathematical statements into statements about the physical universe, that you are led to the absurdity of saying 2+2 no longer equals 4.
At this point I think I could easily rest my case to the outside observer. You see everyone, Tom's worldview has led him to say that 2+2 no longer equals 4. People thought it did when Newton wrote, but now we realize it doesn't!
If starting with basic physics is too much for you...
Again you are spinning things here. You wanted to dive in to whether moral statements can be objectively true, and I said, "Whoa, hold on there, you don't even think the laws of physics are objectively true. So clearly we can't move on to ethics." I.e. I was saying to you that "basic physics is too much for you," and now you've spun that around somehow.
Careful, Bob, are you trying to eliminate all room for the objective reality of God?
I have no idea what makes you say that. You are the one who apparently said that even 2+2=4 is just a model we have, and might be wrong. I was disputing that, saying that no, 2+2=4 is objectively true. So how do you then proceed to caution me about eliminating the objective existence of God?
Throughout history scientists have thought they had fashioned "objectively true" "laws" of nature and physics that further inquiry has proven wrong...
Tom, surely you know that I know this. What I am saying is the actual laws of physics are objectively true.
While mathematics and what scientists call "laws" of physics are tremendously helpful and accurate in predicting actual behavior of matter and energy, man is not perfect, nor is our understanding of the universe.
Here you are mixing up two types of knowledge. Mathematical theorems are a priori true; the only way we could be wrong about them, is if we collectively missed a non sequitur in the proof. There is no experiment that could suddenly show the Pythagorean theorem is false. Yes, we might use experiments to decide that the physical universe is non-Euclidean, but the Pythagorean theorem assumes a Euclidean world and so is still true (just possibly inapplicable).
Acccording, all our "laws" of physics and matehmatics should not be considered as perfect or "objectively true", and scientists would acknowledge that we may continue to improve on them.
No Tom, not at all. We can keep adding to the body of mathematics, but we won't overturn previously discovered theorems, except in the rare case where someone catches a mistake in the proof. That is qualitatively different from realizing that Newton was wrong.
Even with current science, 2+2 does not equal 4 if we are talking about atomic particles or very high velocities.
No Tom, and this is again a product of your materialist viewpoint. 2+2 still equals 4. Of course it does. That's not the same thing as saying, "If I am going .8c and turn on my headlights, the photons go 1.6c." It is only because you insist on translating obvious mathematical statements into statements about the physical universe, that you are led to the absurdity of saying 2+2 no longer equals 4.
At this point I think I could easily rest my case to the outside observer. You see everyone, Tom's worldview has led him to say that 2+2 no longer equals 4. People thought it did when Newton wrote, but now we realize it doesn't!
If starting with basic physics is too much for you...
Again you are spinning things here. You wanted to dive in to whether moral statements can be objectively true, and I said, "Whoa, hold on there, you don't even think the laws of physics are objectively true. So clearly we can't move on to ethics." I.e. I was saying to you that "basic physics is too much for you," and now you've spun that around somehow.
Oops in the above I should have said, "the photons don't go 1.8c." I.e. the speed of the ship is 0.8c and the photons go the speed of light away from the vehicle, so if you naively added them the photons should be going 1.8c (which Einstein says they don't).
"was disputing that, saying that no, 2+2=4 is objectively true. So how do you then proceed to caution me about eliminating the objective existence of God?"
Bob, what you were saying is that essentially we know how the uiniverse functions, so that what we call "laws" of physics are themselves real, whereas I was just saying that they are approximate descriptions of actual reality. While descriptions themselves are real, they may or may not be accurate.
I was making the point that the laws of physics - as we presently know them - themselves do not allow for miracles (breaches in such laws) or the existence of God, and that if God exists and miracles are possible, then obviously our mathematical statements (and verbal shortcuts) are mistaken, and will need to be corrected.
Because you are now asying on your new thread that God nd miracles don`t violate the laws of physics, it seems that you don`t actually disagree with me when I saw that the "laws of physics" as we know them, may be wrong, which implies that our knowledge itself has no separate "objective" reality.
The universe itself of course has an objective reality and structure; our descriptions of it will always be only approximations, true within certain parameters. Of course 2+2 DOES =4, but only at Newtonian speeds.
[Scientits` understanding of what is objectively true has often proved wrong.] "[Yes, but] What I am saying is the ACTUAL laws of physics are objectively true."
It seems like we agree; man`s descriptions of the "laws" of physics may be wrong; if so, such descriptions have no objectively real existence.
I`ll agree with you that "the ACTUAL laws of physics are objectively true," but we will never be certain that we actually fully understand those ACTUAL laws of physics.
"the Pythagorean theorem assumes a Euclidean world and so is still true (just possibly inapplicable)."
We have no disagreement here.
"We can keep adding to the body of mathematics, but we won't overturn previously discovered theorems, except in the rare case where someone catches a mistake in the proof. That is qualitatively different from realizing that Newton was wrong."
Again, agreed. But mathematics is simply a tool for understanding the world and a method of expressing what we think we know of the structure of the universe, without an "objective reality" of its own.
Descriptions of anything, whether deliberate fiction or non-fiction, have no separate "objective reality" of their own. They merely exists as objectivel real descriptions.
"you don't even think the laws of physics are objectively true. So clearly we can't move on to ethics."
A punt is a punt, Bob. You are declaring again that you are unwilling to explain to anybody - and not simply me, whom you are not directing this post to anyway - what you or Gene mean by an "objective moral order".
The inquiring mind (even the guy who agrees with you that the ACTUAL laws of physics are real but our mathematical and verbal descriptions might be wrong) what are the parameters and laws governing the moral order, and whether this moral order applies to butterflies, ants, docs, cats, the Borg, men and women of all ages and mental capacity, etc.
Why keep everyone in suspense, just because I don`t that mind exists without matter?
Bob, what you were saying is that essentially we know how the uiniverse functions, so that what we call "laws" of physics are themselves real, whereas I was just saying that they are approximate descriptions of actual reality. While descriptions themselves are real, they may or may not be accurate.
I was making the point that the laws of physics - as we presently know them - themselves do not allow for miracles (breaches in such laws) or the existence of God, and that if God exists and miracles are possible, then obviously our mathematical statements (and verbal shortcuts) are mistaken, and will need to be corrected.
Because you are now asying on your new thread that God nd miracles don`t violate the laws of physics, it seems that you don`t actually disagree with me when I saw that the "laws of physics" as we know them, may be wrong, which implies that our knowledge itself has no separate "objective" reality.
The universe itself of course has an objective reality and structure; our descriptions of it will always be only approximations, true within certain parameters. Of course 2+2 DOES =4, but only at Newtonian speeds.
[Scientits` understanding of what is objectively true has often proved wrong.] "[Yes, but] What I am saying is the ACTUAL laws of physics are objectively true."
It seems like we agree; man`s descriptions of the "laws" of physics may be wrong; if so, such descriptions have no objectively real existence.
I`ll agree with you that "the ACTUAL laws of physics are objectively true," but we will never be certain that we actually fully understand those ACTUAL laws of physics.
"the Pythagorean theorem assumes a Euclidean world and so is still true (just possibly inapplicable)."
We have no disagreement here.
"We can keep adding to the body of mathematics, but we won't overturn previously discovered theorems, except in the rare case where someone catches a mistake in the proof. That is qualitatively different from realizing that Newton was wrong."
Again, agreed. But mathematics is simply a tool for understanding the world and a method of expressing what we think we know of the structure of the universe, without an "objective reality" of its own.
Descriptions of anything, whether deliberate fiction or non-fiction, have no separate "objective reality" of their own. They merely exists as objectivel real descriptions.
"you don't even think the laws of physics are objectively true. So clearly we can't move on to ethics."
A punt is a punt, Bob. You are declaring again that you are unwilling to explain to anybody - and not simply me, whom you are not directing this post to anyway - what you or Gene mean by an "objective moral order".
The inquiring mind (even the guy who agrees with you that the ACTUAL laws of physics are real but our mathematical and verbal descriptions might be wrong) what are the parameters and laws governing the moral order, and whether this moral order applies to butterflies, ants, docs, cats, the Borg, men and women of all ages and mental capacity, etc.
Why keep everyone in suspense, just because I don`t that mind exists without matter?
"Given a moral situation, two people come to opposite conclusions. How do you proceed to prove one of those conclusions "true" and the other "false"?"
And what if two astronomers, given an "astronomical situation," come to opposite conclusions, like, say, Tycho Brahe and Johann Kepler did over the theory of Copernicus? Good God, there is no physical truth either!
"As for your "I can control matter with my mind," thing, that's a false analogy because we have defined physical processes that we show are necessary to the movement of your fingers."
Uh, yes, and certain mental processes are necessary to arrive at that definition.
And what if two astronomers, given an "astronomical situation," come to opposite conclusions, like, say, Tycho Brahe and Johann Kepler did over the theory of Copernicus? Good God, there is no physical truth either!
"As for your "I can control matter with my mind," thing, that's a false analogy because we have defined physical processes that we show are necessary to the movement of your fingers."
Uh, yes, and certain mental processes are necessary to arrive at that definition.
Uh, yes, and certain mental processes are necessary to arrive at that definition.
So nice to see that the philosopher-king has returned from his cave.
But how can he expect us to take his "mind" games seriously here, given his unrepentant thread closures and comment deletions at his own place?
So nice to see that the philosopher-king has returned from his cave.
But how can he expect us to take his "mind" games seriously here, given his unrepentant thread closures and comment deletions at his own place?
Tom, stop acting like I've done something objectively wrong when you know that morality is whatever one wants it to be!
# posted by : August 24, 2009 at 5:23 AM
: August 24, 2009 at 5:23 AM
Annoying Mouse, please give us back our good, thoughtful Gene Callahan; this one both offends and bores.
you know that morality is whatever one wants it to be!
Ridiculous; I know no such thing, nor have I ever suggested it.
Indeed, I recognize that man has an exquisite moral sense, and have provided various links that suggest that this moral sense evolved because it provided benefits by allowing enhanced cooperation and reducing tragedies of the commons; see this latest (a 4-page op-ed by Robert Wright that touched on the evolutionary basis for religion) in the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/opinion/23wright.html.
What I have contested is that there is an "objective moral reality" outside of man, that applies to all humans and all other life forms.
Even while man objectively does have a moral sense, like other parts of our genetic endowment, it is not in all individuals equally inherited nor is its phenotype (which is influenced by upbringing, culture and experience) equally expressed.
Tom, stop acting like I've done something objectively wrong
Ahh, the perversity by which others make my case by denying their own.
So because I doubt there is a universal object moral order, that means it`s okay to treat me shabbily?
So there IS an objective moral order to the universe, but it just doesn`t apply to interactions with doubting Thomases who are beyond the pale, and whom believers are obviously justified in abusing?
Is this an objective moral code that a moral man can be proud of?
So run off, anonymous, we await the appearance of a man of integrity and sincerity.
you know that morality is whatever one wants it to be!
Ridiculous; I know no such thing, nor have I ever suggested it.
Indeed, I recognize that man has an exquisite moral sense, and have provided various links that suggest that this moral sense evolved because it provided benefits by allowing enhanced cooperation and reducing tragedies of the commons; see this latest (a 4-page op-ed by Robert Wright that touched on the evolutionary basis for religion) in the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/opinion/23wright.html.
What I have contested is that there is an "objective moral reality" outside of man, that applies to all humans and all other life forms.
Even while man objectively does have a moral sense, like other parts of our genetic endowment, it is not in all individuals equally inherited nor is its phenotype (which is influenced by upbringing, culture and experience) equally expressed.
Tom, stop acting like I've done something objectively wrong
Ahh, the perversity by which others make my case by denying their own.
So because I doubt there is a universal object moral order, that means it`s okay to treat me shabbily?
So there IS an objective moral order to the universe, but it just doesn`t apply to interactions with doubting Thomases who are beyond the pale, and whom believers are obviously justified in abusing?
Is this an objective moral code that a moral man can be proud of?
So run off, anonymous, we await the appearance of a man of integrity and sincerity.
OK, Tom, I'm going to respond to just one opint here -- the rest has been adequately handled by Bob and me in numerous posts; you just don't pay attention.
"So because I doubt there is a universal object moral order, that means it`s okay to treat me shabbily?"
Here's your idea of "shabby" treatment:
You come to MY blog, which I pay for, and post a number of snarky comments like "Inquiring minds want to know!" You hark back to this topic again and again, even in threads that have nothing to do with it. You apparently pay no attention whatsoever to anything said in response to your posts, but keep posting the same things, again and again, as if no one else has spoken.
Finally I say, "All right Tom, discussion is over!" But you post several more times -- no, not just this apparently deleted comment you are so worked up about. Finally, exasperated, I closed the thread. I that point, you began crying all over the place, like a five-year-old, that I had treated you "shabbily."
Tom, your like someone who came over to MY house, begins boring me by going on and on about some pet peeve or yours, when asked to stop keeps on talking, and then mewls like an infant once he is tossed out on the street.
"So because I doubt there is a universal object moral order, that means it`s okay to treat me shabbily?"
Here's your idea of "shabby" treatment:
You come to MY blog, which I pay for, and post a number of snarky comments like "Inquiring minds want to know!" You hark back to this topic again and again, even in threads that have nothing to do with it. You apparently pay no attention whatsoever to anything said in response to your posts, but keep posting the same things, again and again, as if no one else has spoken.
Finally I say, "All right Tom, discussion is over!" But you post several more times -- no, not just this apparently deleted comment you are so worked up about. Finally, exasperated, I closed the thread. I that point, you began crying all over the place, like a five-year-old, that I had treated you "shabbily."
Tom, your like someone who came over to MY house, begins boring me by going on and on about some pet peeve or yours, when asked to stop keeps on talking, and then mewls like an infant once he is tossed out on the street.
You come to MY blog, which I pay for
Yes, and until recently I appreciated the privilege (including on the post that you specifically addressed to me, but closed and which Bob kindly continued here).
But just as you`re free to do as you wish at your blog, so am I free to comment on this topic and on your behavior at my blog and here at Bob`s.
You hark back to this topic again and again, even in threads that have nothing to do with it.
Sure, I`ve made creative allusions to this topic in unrelated posts, but only to get you to respond to my questions that you left unanswered in your May 15 post regarding Danny Shahar. I note that Danny specifically left a comment at my blog that "I think the concerns you voice are pretty much on the money. I agree with the idea that understanding morality is a matter of understanding human psychology. ... I have no idea what Gene thinks he's saying here."
But of course now we`re talking about your July 10 post, which you specifically directed to this topic. That you decided to revisit it then and you`re still discussing it now is your own responsibility, not mine.
You apparently pay no attention whatsoever to anything said in response to your posts, but keep posting the same things, again and again, as if no one else has spoken.
I invite readers to compare The World According to Gene with the real world, which is replete with questions that Gene and Bob both declined to answer.
The link above is a good start, but also see my surviving comments on Gene`s closed out post, my comments above at July 18, 2009 5:44 AM and July 19, 2009 4:31 AM, and my closing comment on Bob`s related thread.
As I noted to Bob: "A punt is a punt, Bob. You are declaring again that you are unwilling to explain to anybody ... what you or Gene mean by an "objective moral order".
"The inquiring mind (even the guy who agrees with you that the ACTUAL laws of physics are real but our mathematical and verbal descriptions might be wrong) [wants to know] what are the parameters and laws governing the moral order, and whether this moral order applies to butterflies, ants, docs, cats, the Borg, men and women of all ages and mental capacity, etc."
(Yes, I can see how "inquiring minds" can get annoying, but I use it to summarize questions, not for snark.)
Yes, and until recently I appreciated the privilege (including on the post that you specifically addressed to me, but closed and which Bob kindly continued here).
But just as you`re free to do as you wish at your blog, so am I free to comment on this topic and on your behavior at my blog and here at Bob`s.
You hark back to this topic again and again, even in threads that have nothing to do with it.
Sure, I`ve made creative allusions to this topic in unrelated posts, but only to get you to respond to my questions that you left unanswered in your May 15 post regarding Danny Shahar. I note that Danny specifically left a comment at my blog that "I think the concerns you voice are pretty much on the money. I agree with the idea that understanding morality is a matter of understanding human psychology. ... I have no idea what Gene thinks he's saying here."
But of course now we`re talking about your July 10 post, which you specifically directed to this topic. That you decided to revisit it then and you`re still discussing it now is your own responsibility, not mine.
You apparently pay no attention whatsoever to anything said in response to your posts, but keep posting the same things, again and again, as if no one else has spoken.
I invite readers to compare The World According to Gene with the real world, which is replete with questions that Gene and Bob both declined to answer.
The link above is a good start, but also see my surviving comments on Gene`s closed out post, my comments above at July 18, 2009 5:44 AM and July 19, 2009 4:31 AM, and my closing comment on Bob`s related thread.
As I noted to Bob: "A punt is a punt, Bob. You are declaring again that you are unwilling to explain to anybody ... what you or Gene mean by an "objective moral order".
"The inquiring mind (even the guy who agrees with you that the ACTUAL laws of physics are real but our mathematical and verbal descriptions might be wrong) [wants to know] what are the parameters and laws governing the moral order, and whether this moral order applies to butterflies, ants, docs, cats, the Borg, men and women of all ages and mental capacity, etc."
(Yes, I can see how "inquiring minds" can get annoying, but I use it to summarize questions, not for snark.)
More for Gene:
You apparently pay no attention whatsoever to anything said in response to your posts, but keep posting the same things, again and again, as if no one else has spoken.
In MY world (see references), you never bother to state, much less support, your position, but prefer to dismiss observations and questions with sarcasm, and to delete comments and close blog threads if need be.
Finally I say, "All right Tom, discussion is over!" But you post several more times -- no, not just this apparently deleted comment you are so worked up about. Finally, exasperated, I closed the thread.
More fantasy that readers can objectively confirm themselves, by reviewing Gene`s comment thread and my post setting out the comment Gene deleted.
I left two comments to Bob Murphy and left the blog; Gene responded with three comments, the final one shooing me away. Yes, I tried to respond to these - and my comment was actually posted - but Gene deleted my comment. Then he graciously added a further remark that no one could respond to because he also closed the comment thread.
you began crying all over the place, like a five-year-old, that I had treated you "shabbily."
Um, scare quotes?
Gene, have I or have I not made ongoing efforts to address this with you privately, like adults?
Just whose place is this, Gene? Just who is mewling, Gene?
Methinks thou art engaged in too much projection.
Post a Comment
You apparently pay no attention whatsoever to anything said in response to your posts, but keep posting the same things, again and again, as if no one else has spoken.
In MY world (see references), you never bother to state, much less support, your position, but prefer to dismiss observations and questions with sarcasm, and to delete comments and close blog threads if need be.
Finally I say, "All right Tom, discussion is over!" But you post several more times -- no, not just this apparently deleted comment you are so worked up about. Finally, exasperated, I closed the thread.
More fantasy that readers can objectively confirm themselves, by reviewing Gene`s comment thread and my post setting out the comment Gene deleted.
I left two comments to Bob Murphy and left the blog; Gene responded with three comments, the final one shooing me away. Yes, I tried to respond to these - and my comment was actually posted - but Gene deleted my comment. Then he graciously added a further remark that no one could respond to because he also closed the comment thread.
you began crying all over the place, like a five-year-old, that I had treated you "shabbily."
Um, scare quotes?
Gene, have I or have I not made ongoing efforts to address this with you privately, like adults?
Just whose place is this, Gene? Just who is mewling, Gene?
Methinks thou art engaged in too much projection.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]