|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Can morality have meaning in a materialist universe?
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
That doesn't render the materialist/physicalist/naturalist putative explanation incoherent, especially since you struggle to even find words for your preferred position.
Actually, since materialism's own meaning is called into question, as well as any reasons to believe in it, I think it does render it incoherent in the long run, but since our focus is on morality specifically...
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The necessity of moral consciousness therefore constitutes evidence that there is another dimension of reality (a moral dimension) in operation, which is independent of, but interacts with, the material. To call this consciousness merely an emergent property of matter sounds like special pleading for the philosophy of naturalism, but even if it isn't that, it suggests that our sense of moral rightness and indignation is an illusion. ... Within materialism there is no "right and wrong", but just material reactions and configurations of atoms and molecules.
I do think I here agree
With the position of E E.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Actually, I don't think the 'endless array of signifiers' (from ChastMastr's post), only relate to each other.
I don't either, but that's part of why I am not a materialist nor a deconstructionist.
quote:
Anyway, I am still curious where this 'real meaning' hangs out, and how it is constructed. Please don't say that God does it, or I shall thkweam and thkweam.
By definition (as I understand it, as a non-materialist) it is not and cannot be "located" in a physical place, like the arrangement of neurons in a brain. It's its own thing. Meaning simply is.
ROTFL re "thkweam and tkhweam." I may borrow that.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Why do you think so many people are saying that the best thing The West can do about that whole situation is to get the hell out of there and stop giving them reason to suppose that their survival actually is in jeopardy?
I would think that morality would be part of the reason there--the question would be how best to apply it to help the innocents trapped there, but that's another thread...
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Not that many of the leading philosophical alternatives to materialism are much better off here. Language is a human creation, so Platonism about meaning is a bit of a non-starter - one can't suppose there are meanings out there independent of any human activity. Language and meaning are presumably activities of humans rather than things, but that doesn't really help the materialist, since the passages of words still have to mean.
I'm not sure about language being a human creation, but that gets into an array of other issues. I'm also talking about meaning here beyond "meanings of words"--the question of the intrinsic nature of things and of abstract things as well as material ones. And certainly Platonism could be relevant here, or some variant of Platonism.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't know if Chast would say that the 'real play' is going on elsewhere, and the brain is like a radio receiver, picking it up.
There can be an element of that, though some of that would be the brain picking up transmissions from our minds--and yes, that our minds are more than just our brains.
food now bye bye
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I find this all very slippery and unsatisfying. 'Meaning simply is'. I might as well say that meanings are being transmitted into our brains from an alien intelligence in Alpha Centauri.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
Actually, since materialism's own meaning is called into question,
Since you can't give a definition of what you mean by meaning, this is saying nothing at all.
quote:
The necessity of moral consciousness therefore constitutes evidence...
What is this necessity of moral consciousness of which you speak?
quote:
By definition (as I understand it, as a non-materialist) it is not and cannot be "located" in a physical place, like the arrangement of neurons in a brain. It's its own thing. Meaning simply is.
So what we have been talking about over the two threads is "How can morality have something that simply is in a materialist universe?" Forty two.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx
What is this necessity of moral consciousness of which you speak?
Try living life without any kind of moral sense. And see what happens.
It's part of how reality works (at least the reality in which I find myself. I can only speak for myself, of course...)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
@EE
So, basically, it's that we need morality for humans to flourish in the societies we live in. I'm afraid you're gonna have to spell out to me how this follows:
quote:
...therefore constitutes evidence that there is another dimension of reality (a moral dimension) in operation, which is independent of, but interacts with, the material.
At the moment it is just two statements and a therefore.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
To the OP. If morality isn't its own reward, i.e. regardless of the meaning of the universe, what's the point of it?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Grokesx -
Well, the important question is: does morality have to be universally valid in order to be valid at all?
We look at events occurring around us and say "This is right and that is wrong". That is how a moral sense works. But if morality has no universal validity, then we cannot say that. All we could say is: "That behaviour is not to my personal taste, but I guess it might be OK for that person of a particular ideological persuasion to behead that man or bury alive those women and children. Such behaviour is clearly to the taste of those who perpetrate such actions, and who am I to say that there is anything wrong with someone else's moral taste buds?"
It is indeed true that not everyone agrees on moral questions, but that is not the point. Everyone has a sense of language, but not everyone uses language properly. Does that mean that there is no such thing as a universal linguistic sense? Not everyone uses logic properly (and I suspect you would consider me to be one such person; hey ho), but does that invalidate the universal reach and scope of reason?
The philosophy of naturalism cannot account for the universal validity of morality (or reason, for that matter). It is merely how the human brain has puked it up, so to speak. Such an excretion has no more validity than the bile produced by our livers.
And yet I cannot escape the sense that when I read a newspaper account of, say, the 1400 children in Rotherham who have been abused over the last 15+ years, I am dealing with something rather more 'objective' than a statement of personal opinion in the same epistemic category as a discussion concerning how best to prepare Macaroni Cheese or Chocolate Soufflé!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Not that many of the leading philosophical alternatives to materialism are much better off here. Language is a human creation, so Platonism about meaning is a bit of a non-starter - one can't suppose there are meanings out there independent of any human activity.
I'm not sure about language being a human creation, but that gets into an array of other issues. I'm also talking about meaning here beyond "meanings of words"--the question of the intrinsic nature of things and of abstract things as well as material ones. And certainly Platonism could be relevant here, or some variant of Platonism.
Platonism about concrete things seems unnecessary - the meaning of 'cat' is just some set of actual felix domestica. (All the cats that have ever been talked about using the word 'cat' by English language users seems to me a good candidate set.) Abstract things are more complex, although I'd resist any theory that creates more abstract entities than are really necessary.
At root, meaning is a matter of interaction with entities who are capable of things having meaning for them. That is, entities capable of interacting in ways more sophisticated than simple stimulus-response. For most animals of medium complexity that can probably be limited to material objects. For a mouse, seeds mean food supply or possibly a trap. That kind of meaning is, I suppose, the necessary biological foundations of human meaning. But human meaning extends beyond the mere satisfaction of biological needs. It's when we try to account for that that we begin to flounder.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
We look at events occurring around us and say "This is right and that is wrong". That is how a moral sense works. But if morality has no universal validity, then we cannot say that.
Oddly, Grokesx agrees with you here, and you're both wrong.
It is the acceptance of universal moral validity that allows us to say 'I think this is wrong but it may not be.' If there is no universal validity, then there is no way in which our moral sentiments may be in error or inapplicable, and therefore there is no limit to how far we may go in imposing our moral sentiments on other people.
It is only if we decouple universal truth and epistemological access that we are given reason to hesitate in imposing our morals on other people.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't understand that view. It's like saying the Mona Lisa is just a bunch of pigments on canvas - technically true, but missing the point somewhat!
Yes, exactly. That's my point.
I thought your point was that the mere arrangement of the particles of paint couldn't possibly be meaningful - so there must be a supernatural constituent of the picture somewhere to serve as the source of the meaning...
I think we agreed some while back that a deterministic description of the world necessarily leaves out morality because it excludes choice. Only choices can be moral. If choice is an illusion then morality is an illusion.
If you're trying to argue that morality depends upon the supernatural (in some way which you haven't made at all clear), you can't assume that the only alternative to the traditional Christian metaphysics of the soul is a deterministic Newtonian universe where no choices occur. You have to address a naturalistic account of choice, and explain why such choices could not be said to have the property of being moral or immoral.
A logical approach is to consider choice-making entities that don't have a soul in the traditional scheme of things, which is why we've talked about animals, and about the potential for artificial intelligence.
If you deny that animals make choices (do you have a dog ? Ever said "bad dog" to it ?) or that computer software may soon make choices, you're ducking the question rather than answering it.
If the naturalistic worldview were true - if animals have the capacity to make real choices (in proportion to their intelligence) and future software will someday make real choices, and humans are something like animals and minds something like software...
...then why is it meaningful or not meaningful to talk about the morality of such choices ?
How does the added scientifically-inexplicable element, the ghost in the machine that you seem to believe in, turn a non-moral choice into a moral choice ?
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
Well, the important question is: does morality have to be universally valid in order to be valid at all?
It might be to you.
quote:
The philosophy of naturalism cannot account for the universal validity of morality (or reason, for that matter). It is merely how the human brain has puked it up, so to speak. Such an excretion has no more validity than the bile produced by our livers.
My goodness, you've upped the ante a bit here. Chast has just gone for a few "nothing buts" and "merelies" to try and conceal the fact he has such thin arguments. Now we've got puke, excretion and bile. All of which have perfectly valid functions, btw.
quote:
It is only if we decouple universal truth and epistemological access that we are given reason to hesitate in imposing our morals on other people.
We have no choice but to de-couple them. If there were indeed such a thing as universal moral truth, we have not as yet found any epistemological access to it. So we have to do the best we can. The problem is those who think they actually do have the epistemological access.
Anyway, I'll shut up now and leave it to Russ. He rules.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
No DON'T Grokesx! I understand dafyd through you!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
I think the question being asked is can a moral order that gives meaning to human existence itself exist without God or a divine power behind it. the answer I believe is yes.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
It is only if we decouple universal truth and epistemological access that we are given reason to hesitate in imposing our morals on other people.
We have no choice but to de-couple them. If there were indeed such a thing as universal moral truth, we have not as yet found any epistemological access to it. So we have to do the best we can. The problem is those who think they actually do have the epistemological access.
We certainly do have a choice. One can couple them in two directions. You can either couple access to truth, as it seems EtymologicalEvangelical is doing, in that it seems he thinks the existence of truth is sufficient to guarantee that we can know it. (This has problems explaining moral disagreement.) Or we can couple truth to access, as relativism largely does, or various forms of emotivism or subjectivism.
Quite a lot of people espouse relativism or emotivism of various forms. (But I'm glad you seem to agree with me that relativism doesn't give us reason to hesitate in imposing our morals on other people.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
Or we can couple truth to access, as relativism largely does, or various forms of emotivism or subjectivism.
Relativism doesn't, because it denies the existence of universal moral truth. We can't couple or decouple access to something that doesn't exist. You're still not getting relativism, but that's another discussion and one I'm not getting into again. I have a rule of one set of pointless wibblings at a time.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
Or we can couple truth to access, as relativism largely does, or various forms of emotivism or subjectivism.
Relativism doesn't, because it denies the existence of universal moral truth. We can't couple or decouple access to something that doesn't exist. You're still not getting relativism, but that's another discussion and one I'm not getting into again. I have a rule of one set of pointless wibblings at a time.
Now that made me laugh; is this irrelevant? By no means, as St Paul is fond of saying (in translation). For laughter is the best medicine for ailments of bad humour, and maybe indeed, it leads us to moral insights. He who laughs least, is led to lackadaisical lethargy.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
Or we can couple truth to access, as relativism largely does, or various forms of emotivism or subjectivism.
Relativism doesn't, because it denies the existence of universal moral truth. We can't couple or decouple access to something that doesn't exist.
That's what I mean by coupling: you merge the two issues into one. Denying that one pole exists is just an extreme form of merging.
(Emotivism and subjectivism deny the existence of moral truth altogether.)
quote:
You're still not getting relativism
If you want to believe that go ahead.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
That's what I mean by coupling: you merge the two issues into one. Denying that one pole exists is just an extreme form of merging.
Or insisting one pole exists when there is no epistemological access to it is just making shit up.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
The philosophy of naturalism cannot account for the universal validity of morality (or reason, for that matter). It is merely how the human brain has puked it up, so to speak. Such an excretion has no more validity than the bile produced by our livers.
My goodness, you've upped the ante a bit here. Chast has just gone for a few "nothing buts" and "merelies" to try and conceal the fact he has such thin arguments. Now we've got puke, excretion and bile. All of which have perfectly valid functions, btw.
I am only being consistent with what materialism actually is. Matter - and the laws governing it - does not have the magical properties that you are trying to load onto it.
I.t. J.u.s.t. D.o.e.s. N.o.t.
Sorry.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Matter - and the laws governing it - does not have the magical properties that you are trying to load onto it.
That doesn't mean it's completely worthless.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
I am only being consistent with what materialism actually is. Matter - and the laws governing it - does not have the magical properties that you are trying to load onto it.
I don't think it has any magical properties at all. That's the theist's department. I'm just saying the properties it does have will probably turn out to be enough to account for the results we experience. Only that.
Pretty much all I've heard in reply is a bunch of merelies, nothing buts and anguished existential angst that I apparently should be feeling if I don't have a particular metaphysical view. Any now you bring out the big guns. Full stops.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Full stops = assertionism.
This is true, because I say it is.
Note also the fake apology: sorry. Like hell.
[ 28. August 2014, 12:54: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx
I don't think it has any magical properties at all. That's the theist's department. I'm just saying the properties it does have will probably turn out to be enough to account for the results we experience. Only that.
In other words, you don't know. Materialism of the gaps.
We look at the nature of reality and seek explanations. Since matter cannot account for morality and logic - despite the special pleading and gaps thinking from the naturalists - then we have to accept that either we don't know how these realities have come into being, or we attempt to find some alternative explanation (nothing to do with magic by the way). There is no logical reason why we should assume that there has to be a materialistic explanation. Perhaps you think there's a reason why we should think like this. If so, do let us know what it might be.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
Full stops = assertionism.
This is true, because I say it is.
Note also the fake apology: sorry. Like hell.
Almost as vacuous and non-challenging as your pizza comment.
Very reassuring for my position. So thanks for that.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Since matter cannot account for morality and logic
That's your opinion, not any kind of fact.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
But not knowing something is perfectly OK. For example, I don't think physicists really understand gravity - well, they can describe how it works.
This is part of the incentive to know, isn't it? Thus, there are various research programmes investigating gravity.
Similarly, there are all kinds of research programmes looking at the relation between neurology and cognition. Again, there is plenty that is not known, of course.
As I said earlier, I used to work in a stroke clinic, helping people recover their speech and language. We could call on quite a lot of information about the relation between brain and speech (and language), but this information is by no means complete. Research continues.
To call this 'materialism of the gaps' seems bizarre to me.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I forgot to say that some kinds of brain damage appear to affect moral thinking, and some don't, so there is research going on into this. For example, so called frontotempral dementia can cause people to become uninterested in other people, or to lose empathy; they may also lose inhibition, so for example, may be found shop-lifting. This is often called dysmoral behaviour.
Well, again, there is plenty that is not known! But surely this kind of neurological research is valuable.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
To call this 'materialism of the gaps' seems bizarre to me.
It comes with equating science with religion. That any criticism aimed at religion can also be applied to science.
Ignorance and defensiveness do not help the conversation, but do not seem likely to go away.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
There is no logical reason why we should assume that there has to be a materialistic explanation.
The assertion presented in the two threads has been that in a materialist paradigm, morality has no meaning. That is, it is somehow incoherent and illogical to say it has and that there cannot be a materialist/physicalist/naturalist explanation for morality. All I am arguing for is that this is not the case, that there indeed can be such an explanation, and that a materialist can make moral choices that actually mean something.
This type of argument is a common one I've been involved in many times with creationists. Creationist asserts: "Abiogenesis is impossible!" I reply, "Well, actually there are several possible routes consistent with the available evidence, for instance..." Creationist responds: "That proves nothing. Just because something could happen doesn't mean it did."
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Ah but, Grokesx, two molecules can't have a moral discussion with each other, whereas we can.
Therefore God! Yay, triumph of theism.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I find this all very slippery and unsatisfying. 'Meaning simply is'. I might as well say that meanings are being transmitted into our brains from an alien intelligence in Alpha Centauri.
Sorry, but I'm not at this moment sure how to help there. I would say that meaning is one of those rock-bottom "first principle" things on which everything (including the validity of logic and reason themselves) rests. If there is no meaning, there is no logic (which is, itself, a statement which relies on logic to be valid).
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
So what we have been talking about over the two threads is "How can morality have something that simply is in a materialist universe?"
Probably, yes. But as I've said, I can't see how meaning can be in a purely materialist universe. Maybe this is the rock-bottom level where those first principles differ, and maybe that's frustrating, but OK.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I thought your point was that the mere arrangement of the particles of paint couldn't possibly be meaningful - so there must be a supernatural constituent of the picture somewhere to serve as the source of the meaning...
I think it may depend on what you mean by "supernatural." I don't mean that, I don't know, that the Art Fairy drops by with a magic wand and infuses an otherwise meaningless array of particles with Meaning! (tm), perhaps visible as a sort of bluish glow around it if one can see things like that. I suppose in a sense it could be considered supernatural but not in that sense.
quote:
If you're trying to argue that morality depends upon the supernatural (in some way which you haven't made at all clear), you can't assume that the only alternative to the traditional Christian metaphysics of the soul is a deterministic Newtonian universe where no choices occur.
It needn't be Newtonian; it could include quantum physics and the like or any other sort of thing.
quote:
If you deny that animals make choices (do you have a dog ? Ever said "bad dog" to it ?) or that computer software may soon make choices, you're ducking the question rather than answering it.
But I don't deny that animals make choices--nor that they have a spiritual essence. Computer software is something else, and in that case, the question of whether or not its choices could be meaningful or if its nature excludes that possibility remains, perhaps, where it us unless this software comes into being. (And if it turns out to make moral choices and be, basically, a person, then we'd damn well better treat it like one, though I think that's a pretty rough line for anyone to step over--like conceiving a child in order to do experiments on it... yikes.)
quote:
If the naturalistic worldview were true - if animals have the capacity to make real choices (in proportion to their intelligence) and future software will someday make real choices, and humans are something like animals and minds something like software...
...then why is it meaningful or not meaningful to talk about the morality of such choices ?
Russ
I'm literally not understanding what you mean here.
Again, I'm beginning to think this comes down to first principles.
Perhaps a deeper question on which all of this rests is, "Can there be meaning--'real' meaning, not merely the contextual appearance of meaning which would be fundamentally an illusion held within a matrix of cerebral biochemistry and interaction between organisms--in a materialist universe?"
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
That's almost like saying that wetness is an illusion, which occurs between interactions of molecules of water.
This can be related to the idea of incommensurability - for example, wetness is not commensurable with molecules of oxygen and hydrogen.
Similarly, the various abilities and faculties of the human body cannot just be totted up from the various molecules in the body.
But we can extend this to everything - you can't describe a spider's web just by noting down the molecules that it contains.
All is illusion! Allahu Akbar!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
That is, it is somehow incoherent and illogical to say it has and that there cannot be a materialist/physicalist/naturalist explanation for morality. All I am arguing for is that this is not the case, that there indeed can be such an explanation, and that a materialist can make moral choices that actually mean something.
The difference between this and evolution is that when a biologist proposes different possible paths for the evolution of organisms they are proposing actual paths. Whereas when materialists say they can make an explanation they seldom ever propose anything beyond just a handwavy 'geneticsdidit / reasondidit / socialcontractdidit / anythingjustsolongasitsnotgoddidit'.
Which isn't actually any better than 'goddidit'.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
My goodness, you've upped the ante a bit here. Chast has just gone for a few "nothing buts" and "merelies" to try and conceal the fact he has such thin arguments. Now we've got puke, excretion and bile. All of which have perfectly valid functions, btw.
Well, to be fair, on the other thread I went right for the Lovecraft, though I don't believe my arguments are thin, and certainly I am not trying to conceal anything, as that would be dishonest and morally wrong.
We can surely disagree without that, can't we?
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I think the question being asked is can a moral order that gives meaning to human existence itself exist without God or a divine power behind it. the answer I believe is yes.
But then what is its source? If you mean something like a mind, then it's essentially theism again, and if you don't mean something like a mind, then how is it a genuinely moral order?
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I am only being consistent with what materialism actually is. Matter - and the laws governing it - does not have the magical properties that you are trying to load onto it.
I.t. J.u.s.t. D.o.e.s. N.o.t.
Sorry.
And here E.E.
Doth speak for me.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Note also the fake apology: sorry. Like hell.
Oh for heaven's sake I don't think anyone thinks he was trying to say "sorry" in the sense of believing he'd committed a moral or social fault. It's more like, "Sorry, but I think you're mistaken here."
(I am sorry to disagree with everyone here because I don't like conflict. But in general if I say, "Sorry, but I do believe in climate change," I'm not apologizing to the person I'm disagreeing with.)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Ah but, Grokesx, two molecules can't have a moral discussion with each other, whereas we can.
Therefore God! Yay, triumph of theism.
molecules are happy being molecules obeying the rules tat are laid down for molecular behaviour. They don't have a moral discussion because they have no concept of trying to be something that contradicts their fundamental nature. Whereas humans have a lot more choice, and are so loosely coupled to other parts of nature that we can imagine we are capable of acting separately with only reference to ourselves, not to the total order we exist in.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
And here E.E.
Doth speak for me.
Though I should add to this wee verse
This is in regards to notions about the universe
And not in regards to any kind of conflict or frustration or more emotional sort of argumentative discourse
That might possibly come about as a result of tempers getting heated over philosophical, metaphysical, or religious disagreement that might come about on this thread or any other here on the Ship, of course
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It comes with equating science with religion. That any criticism aimed at religion can also be applied to science.
But this isn't about science--this is about philosophy.
quote:
Ignorance and defensiveness do not help the conversation, but do not seem likely to go away.
Agreed. ![[Frown]](frown.gif) That makes me want to thkweam and thkweam.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Ah but, Grokesx, two molecules can't have a moral discussion with each other, whereas we can.
Therefore God! Yay, triumph of theism.
"Almost, thou persuadest me..." ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
That is, it is somehow incoherent and illogical to say it has and that there cannot be a materialist/physicalist/naturalist explanation for morality. All I am arguing for is that this is not the case, that there indeed can be such an explanation, and that a materialist can make moral choices that actually mean something.
The difference between this and evolution is that when a biologist proposes different possible paths for the evolution of organisms they are proposing actual paths. Whereas when materialists say they can make an explanation they seldom ever propose anything beyond just a handwavy 'geneticsdidit / reasondidit / socialcontractdidit / anythingjustsolongasitsnotgoddidit'.
Which isn't actually any better than 'goddidit'.
Well, there are clearly strong correlations between brain and mental activity; for example, it's well known that injury to the brain, whether from disease or accident, will produce deficits in cognition, for example, memory and speech.
I can vouch for the latter, having worked in a stroke clinic!
There is also evidence that some kinds of brain damage result in 'dysmoral behaviour', e.g. lack of empathy, petty crime, and so on.
Of course, none of this demonstrates that brain causes mental activity, but it's all beginning to add up to strong evidence, isn't it?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
That is, it is somehow incoherent and illogical to say it has and that there cannot be a materialist/physicalist/naturalist explanation for morality. All I am arguing for is that this is not the case, that there indeed can be such an explanation, and that a materialist can make moral choices that actually mean something.
The difference between this and evolution is that when a biologist proposes different possible paths for the evolution of organisms they are proposing actual paths. Whereas when materialists say they can make an explanation they seldom ever propose anything beyond just a handwavy 'geneticsdidit / reasondidit / socialcontractdidit / anythingjustsolongasitsnotgoddidit'.
Which isn't actually any better than 'goddidit'.
Well, there are clearly strong correlations between brain and mental activity; for example, it's well known that injury to the brain, whether from disease or accident, will produce deficits in cognition, for example, memory and speech.
I can vouch for the latter, having worked in a stroke clinic!
There is also evidence that some kinds of brain damage result in 'dysmoral behaviour', e.g. lack of empathy, petty crime, and so on.
Of course, none of this demonstrates that brain causes mental activity, but it's all beginning to add up to strong evidence, isn't it?
If you spiked a radio receiver set so that it stopped receiving information properly or it received but distorted the output to speakers so that they sounded garbled, or it no longer functioned on certain wavelengths, or stopped properly controlling the devices attached to it - you wouldn't claim to have destroyed the main transmitter, would you?
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx
Creationist responds: "That proves nothing. Just because something could happen doesn't mean it did."
Oh, you remember that one, do you? (I do so miss Will and Testament).
Anyway, at least you've been a good boy on this thread by not mentioning the Dunning-Kruger effect (...yet...)! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
(BTW... an all powerful intelligent being could have created the universe. Ergo He did. Just sayin'...) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[ 28. August 2014, 20:52: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, there are clearly strong correlations between brain and mental activity; for example, it's well known that injury to the brain, whether from disease or accident, will produce deficits in cognition, for example, memory and speech.
For what it's worth I have no problem with materialism about minds. (To be precise, I can't see any problem that exists only for materialism about minds.)
I think there are serious problems for materialism about numbers, sets, and other mathematical objects.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
itsarumdo wrote:
If you spiked a radio receiver set so that it stopped receiving information properly or it received but distorted the output to speakers so that they sounded garbled, or it no longer functioned on certain wavelengths, or stopped properly controlling the devices attached to it - you wouldn't claim to have destroyed the main transmitter, would you?
I used to know a gnostic theist who put forward the radio receiver argument; I don't think it can be refuted, so it is possible. But then I could argue for a giant alien intelligence in Alpha Centauri transmitting to our brains. How would you tell the difference? (I mean, it's not falsifiable).
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It comes with equating science with religion. That any criticism aimed at religion can also be applied to science.
But this isn't about science--this is about philosophy.
Materialism is based on science. This I tell you, brother you can't have one without the other.
ETA: Yes, I know you actually can. But science is typically referenced in current materialism discussions, including this one. Besides, I wanted to use that song.
[ 28. August 2014, 23:48: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
To be honest, the beings of Alpha Centauri are rather dumb. They just sit there, watching 4 year old reruns of Earth television shows. Not really worth paying attention to.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
itsarumdo wrote:
If you spiked a radio receiver set so that it stopped receiving information properly or it received but distorted the output to speakers so that they sounded garbled, or it no longer functioned on certain wavelengths, or stopped properly controlling the devices attached to it - you wouldn't claim to have destroyed the main transmitter, would you?
I used to know a gnostic theist who put forward the radio receiver argument; I don't think it can be refuted, so it is possible. But then I could argue for a giant alien intelligence in Alpha Centauri transmitting to our brains. How would you tell the difference? (I mean, it's not falsifiable).
Well, in that case, it's just decided to reveal its whereabouts via a small internet chat board
The point is - which you have made very clearly - if it's just thoughts, then they can be anything. Reality can be anything, or nothing, or anything in between. There is no meaning in thoughts - they have no basis - it's what they arise from that has basis.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
There is no meaning in thoughts
Except that which we choose to give them, that is.
We are capable of inventing ideas that never before existed. The internet, internal combustion, democracy, scientology - all these things were created by people. Is it so much of a leap to think that morality is just one more idea that we have created? That meaning is just something we came up with as part of our developing ability to analyse the world in which we live?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
