posted
In the question of materialism, I am not treating with morals, though I guess it's possible that we arrived here via that route. Tom said that emotions have mass. I disagree.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even with that, the scientific method can't tell you if it is "harmful" or "beneficial" to kill that person without introducing some premise not subject to the scientific method.
Are we assuming that it is possible for everything to be known?
------
quote:Tom said that emotions have mass. I disagree.
Electrons have a known mass. Which emotion are you feeling without electrons?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:My point was that you have to understand harm and benefit before you can jump to good and bad.
I agree that you have to do that. But you still have to jump there, and that jump isn't possible bases solely on the scientific method. This was Tres's point to which you were responding: "X is bad" is beyond the scope of science.
quote:But we still have to define "good" and "bad" first.
Yep. And science alone is insufficient to do so, although it is highly necessary for any definition of good or bad with practical import.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Electrons have a known mass. Which emotion are you feeling without electrons?
Again, necessary does not equal sufficient. Just because material things are necessary to feel something doesn't mean that feeling something is completely material.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are we assuming that it is possible for everything to be known?
Tom, I stated exactly what I'm assuming is known in the hypothetical itself. If there's something else you'd like to be assumed to be known in analyzing it, let me know.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:My point was that you have to understand harm and benefit before you can jump to good and bad.
I agree that you have to do that. But you still have to jump there, and that jump isn't possible bases solely on the scientific method. This was Tres's point to which you were responding: "X is bad" is beyond the scope of science.
quote:But we still have to define "good" and "bad" first.
Yep. And science alone is insufficient to do so, although it is highly necessary for any definition of good or bad with practical import.
Science alone is insufficient. But when you leave science, you move onto critical thinking, which is a large part of science. Critical thinking is sufficient to define good and bad.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Electrons have a known mass. Which emotion are you feeling without electrons?
Again, necessary does not equal sufficient. Just because material things are necessary to feel something doesn't mean that feeling something is completely material.
The fact that the material world can create and manipulate emotions implies that emotions are completely material. If it's a part of the material world then it is material by definition.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The fact that the material world can create and manipulate emotions implies that emotions are completely material.
Are you saying that the material world can do this by itself or that it is a necessary part of the process? Because the latter appears to be true, but the former is just another unprovable assumption.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The number wheel post isn't about proving anything, it is about underscoring the difficulty of saying anything about the probability of certain sorts of events.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick, is it seriously your contention that there exists some sort of API for the spirit world?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Science alone is insufficient. But when you leave science, you move onto critical thinking, which is a large part of science. Critical thinking is sufficient to define good and bad.
Critical thinking is a large part of other epistemologies as well. Science gets no special claim to it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which epistemologies support critical thinking? Once you add critical thinking to a non-scientific epistemology, what differentiates it from science?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The fact that the material world can create and manipulate emotions implies that emotions are completely material.
Are you saying that the material world can do this by itself or that it is a necessary part of the process? Because the latter appears to be true, but the former is just another unprovable assumption.
Supernatural implies something outside of the natural laws. However, the natural laws are defined by what is possible within the natural world. In the natural world it is possible to create a physical entity that has emotions and manipulate those emotions in any desirable way. We can create emotions in the natural world so those emotions are part of the natural world by extension.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think your second sentence is a necessary consequence of your first. I'd agree that it's a likely consequence, but I think the possibility of free will still exists in a materialistic worldview.
If you grant the existence of some class of entities that are for some reason not completely affected by causality, I guess, but that's seems like those conditions would put them more or less outside the material world anyway.
I don't think outcomes must necessarily be deterministic in the brain, which may be capable of stimulating itself absent external inputs.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:We can create emotions in the natural world so those emotions are part of the natural world by extension.
Right. That's what I presented as the latter option. It is part of the natural world. No problems with that.
That it is only part of the natural world is more problematic. The only way that this is necessarily true is if you start out assuming that it is only part of the natural world.
Also,
quote:In the natural world it is possible to create a physical entity that has emotions and manipulate those emotions in any desirable way.
Really? Where are you getting that information from?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think outcomes must necessarily be deterministic in the brain, which may be capable of stimulating itself absent external inputs.
I'm not sure why that would contradict determinism. It's not limited to mere external stimulus leading to a response. I don't see anything that challenges the idea that brains are formed and function fully subject to causality.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: And to set things at right, I'll point out that the effect of Western philosophy on China has been completely poisonous.
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Everyone was considering whether China (or more broadly, Eastern thought) had an effect on Western philosophy. I was turning it around and saying what is the West's impact on China? And the most prominent thing that came to mind was Marx and communism.
I was then acknowledging that I was just doing this to barb people for assuming their own culture to be at the center of everything.
Everyone? At least in my case I was asking TomD about the subject *precisely* because I do know more about the impact of Western ideas on China rather than vice versa, and from the Chinese perspective too. Thus this exchange *really * confused me when I first read it.
Mind if I barb you for assuming that I assumed that Western culture was the centre of everything, even though it isn't actually my culture?
As for the first quote, I think that summarizing the "effect of Western philosophy on China has been completely poisonous" is rather simplistic. Some effects were massively disastrous, some effects were good.
I daresay the average Chinese person is much better off when comparing modern China with some sort of hypothetical China where China never was heavily affected, at least in measurable ways such as poverty, access to health care and food, and literacy. Almost certainly, if we compare modern China to say, 1800 China.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Just as the Mongol Hordes came from the East and blew apart the West's concepts of superiority, the Europeans came from the West and blew open China's doors of ethnocentrism and elitism.
To add context, they didn't blow up doors. They blew up doors AND ships, forts, Summer Palaces, and people trying to defend the above. Heck, they didn't just blow open China's doors to those two, they also blew open the doors protecting people from drug dealing foreigners. Talk about being on the wrong side of the "War on Drugs." Literally Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the natural world it is possible to create a physical entity that has emotions and manipulate those emotions in any desirable way.
Really? Where are you getting that information from?
The physical entity (humans) is created through a biological process. Human emotions are caused by certain chemicals in the brain and can be manipulated with various drugs.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The physical entity (humans) is created through a biological process.
Can you prove that the creation of a human being who can feel emotions is solely a material process or is that another assumption?
quote:Human emotions are caused by certain chemicals in the brain and can be manipulated with various drugs.
Emotions are affected by the action of neurotransmitters but we certainly don't have the ability to "manipulate those emotions in any desirable way."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: For goodness sake China's name in Chinese still means, "Center Country/Kingdom."
Meh, there is also the fact that we still regularly call you a "gweilo" and it still takes me a fair amount of time to think of a politically correct (and much less popular) alternative. Then again, it will be a sad day when Cantonese starts becoming politically correct
quote:Critical thinking is sufficient to define good and bad.
When it comes down to it, morality is 100% subjective. I personally subscribe to the theory you presented earlier about equating harm/benefit with bad/good. But this is a choice. With atheism, there is no objective source telling us that human life and positive social interactions are what we should strive for. Those are values that I have based on nothing more than my preference for them. Critical thinking will not help us arrive at the same "good" and "bad" unless we share the same subjective values.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Critical thinking is sufficient to define good and bad.
When it comes down to it, morality is 100% subjective. I personally subscribe to the theory you presented earlier about equating harm/benefit with bad/good. But this is a choice. With atheism, there is no objective source telling us that human life and positive social interactions are what we should strive for. Those are values that I have based on nothing more than my preference for them. Critical thinking will not help us arrive at the same "good" and "bad" unless we share the same subjective values.
I never said it would lead us all to the same good and bad definitions. This is why we have society. (Or one of the reasons why we should, anyway.)
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The physical entity (humans) is created through a biological process.
Can you prove that the creation of a human being who can feel emotions is solely a material process or is that another assumption?
The burden of proof is actually on you in this case because my "assumption" is the logical default. I'm not going to cop out though
Defining terms such as natural and supernatural is extremely tough, so I hope my point comes across even if my definitions are subpar. I would argue that there is a one-way interaction between a supernatural process and the natural world. In other words, a supernatural process can directly affect the natural world but the natural world can only indirectly affect a supernatural process. An example of such a supernatural process would be a common version of God. God can directly manipulate the natural world, however the natural world can only indirectly affect God. Human actions can prompt Him to do something but they cannot make him do something. A natural process cannot control a supernatural process because otherwise that supernatural process would be natural.
No features of humans fit the definition of a supernatural process. Even though we have no flipping clue as to what creates consciousness we do know that conscious beings arise through processes in the natural world and that consciousness can be manipulated through other natural processes. In other words, there is a two-way interaction between consciousness (which is necessary to feel emotion) and the rest of the natural processes. This makes consciousness (which is necessary to feel emotion) a natural process by default (a different default than the burden of proof default). While it's certainly possible that a soul or something else could be necessary for our existence, it would be irrelevant unless we could detect it. The parts of us that interact with the natural world (in other words, all aspects of human beings that have been observed) do not the criteria for a supernatural process.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Human emotions are caused by certain chemicals in the brain and can be manipulated with various drugs.
Emotions are affected by the action of neurotransmitters but we certainly don't have the ability to "manipulate those emotions in any desirable way."
I didn't mean it that literally. Theoretically we can do it and that's all that matters for this discussion.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: For goodness sake China's name in Chinese still means, "Center Country/Kingdom."
Meh, there is also the fact that we still regularly call you a "gweilo" and it still takes me a fair amount of time to think of a politically correct (and much less popular) alternative. Then again, it will be a sad day when Cantonese starts becoming politically correct
Well that is just Cantonese bluntness, in Taiwan I was regularly called "ah dou gah," a blanket term for foreigners, which in Fukinese means, "Big Nose." In mandarin the standard word for foreigner is, "Wai Guo Ren," which is basically, "Outside Country Person."
I often pointed out to kids 10 years old or younger that I had lived in China longer than them so I was justified in calling them foreigners, they always found that hilarious. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mormon scripture does actually say that spirit is a "refined" form of matter. I don't know if that means energy or something different. But I don't think emotions are in themselves spiritual anyway, if one takes as a definition a mental state producing a physical response.
So what is the materialist view on free will, or the dignity of a human life apart from one's abilities?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There IS no official materialist position on these. But my personal reaction is as follows:
1) You have free will, in the sense that you are the combination of stimuli that produce a reaction in you. When you react to something, even if that reaction is indeed predictable based on all the appropriate inputs, "you" are still acting freely because "you" -- as a self -- are really just a necessary fiction, anyway. Once you grant that selfhood only functions in an internal context, it's pretty easy to allocate "will" to that context as well. Things may be externally deterministic, but that doesn't invalidate the internal process.
2) I'm not sure what you mean about the "dignity" of life as opposed to, say, the value or sanctity of life.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Critical thinking is sufficient to define good and bad.
What do you mean exactly by critical thinking?
I would probably consider critical thinking to be something that entails using logic, and logic in turn is based on assumptions. So you can't really do critical thinking without starting with some assumptions. And that still leaves us with the question of how we know those starting assumptions accurately reflect reality.
In other words, you can't just start thinking and come up with an understanding of good and bad. You have to ground that critical thinking in some sort of assumptions.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Critical thinking is sufficient to define good and bad.
What do you mean exactly by critical thinking?
I would probably consider critical thinking to be something that entails using logic, and logic in turn is based on assumptions. So you can't really do critical thinking without starting with some assumptions. And that still leaves us with the question of how we know those starting assumptions accurately reflect reality.
In other words, you can't just start thinking and come up with an understanding of good and bad. You have to ground that critical thinking in some sort of assumptions.
Um...ok. So what?
And I certainly can just start thinking and come up with an understanding of good and bad. It may not match up with yours, and it may not be a 'good' understanding, but I can certainly do it.
More comes from using my understanding in the real world and discussing my understanding with other people who have come up with their own understanding.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How do your suppose that is different from how people make faith decisions?
Do you mean making a decision using faith?
Well, I suppose it is different because you don't have to sit and think about it. You can sit and think about it, and I'm sure many if not most theists do. But you don't have to think about it.
The answer is given to you and you accept it. There's no critical thinking necessary.
At least, that's how making decisions on faith seems to me. As always, correct me if I'm wrong.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
At least for me, you are wrong. I was not given answers. I reached some answers and then recognized that other people (both present and throughout history) had reached similar answers. And I keep thinking about and refining or changing those answers.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No kidding. To quote from the study guide for the class I led last night, "Faith doesn't have the answers: faith raises questions."
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Can you specify what questions you think people use faith to answer?
"What is moral and immoral?"
"Is there a god? And if there is, which one/what kind of god is it?"
"Is there an afterlife?"
Now, those are questions that I know some people use faith to answer. This doesn't mean that you can only use faith to answer them.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
My faith would indeed inform my thinking on that*. And I would have to, according to my religious beliefs, vote against such a ban.
*gay marriage - to make it clear since there was an intervening post.
I just want to be clear, I've never said or believed that just because you believe something on faith that the answer you land on is necessarily wrong.
It's just that, using faith, you can technically come to any conclusion, so it doesn't seem to be terribly good at determining truth.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:My faith would indeed inform my thinking on that*. And I would have to, according to my religious beliefs, vote against such a ban.
Sure, but many people do things that are apparently objectively harmful, such as preventing gay marriage, for reasons of faith. Most of the people I know that are against gay marriage are against it for purely religious and/or other irrational (i.e. "eww, gross!") reasons.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well...I suppose that it depends on your initial assumptions.
edit: the above was to javert.
Matt,
People come to different conclusions. And, again, the base assumptions may be different. And, as was mentioned earlier, for some people, "faith" isn't about seeking your own answers. And sometimes, faith can be used as a justification for doing what you want to do.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Well...I suppose that it depends on your initial assumptions.
Exactly. If you assume that God exists and that He is the ultimate authority on morality, and that He clearly communicates His desire for you to do things to affect that morality, then you will act accordingly, regardless of what He communicates to you, whether it's denial of gay marriage or the murder of your children.
That's why the initial assumptions of religion can lead to any conclusion. Once you posit a supernatural entity with intent and authority to influence human events, virtually anything can be justified as being the will of that entity.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Matt, "clearly communicates his desire" is tricky. I think that very broad concepts are "clear" and then the specifics require a good deal of digging and examination.
For example, the broad concept that God loves all of us seems clear to me. God's position on gay marriage is not so clear. I have to reason that out given my experience, the experience of others, and weighed against that initial broad concept.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:He clearly communicates His desire for you to do things to affect that morality, then you will act accordingly, regardless of what He communicates to you,...
Maybe I read this wrong but it sounds like you just said that, "If I believe God clearly reveals his morality to me then I will act according to that mandate regardless of what God may say in the future to me."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe I read this wrong but it sounds like you just said that, "If I believe God clearly reveals his morality to me then I will act according to that mandate regardless of what God may say in the future to me."
I meant that no matter how horrible his instructions may appear to be, you will follow them because you believe that he is the only arbiter of morality.
I don't remember if "Thou shalt not kill" occurred before or after "Abraham, sacrifice your son to me", but I don't think it matters. In the end, what God says goes, right?
Edit: OK, I do remember which came first, but the point is that even within the Bible, morality is relative to the desires of God at any given time. Attempting to sacrifice your child would seem universally wrong to us, even Christians, if it weren't for the story of Abraham. It doesn't matter that God didn't let Abraham go through with it, because Abraham had to be willing to complete the act to show his obedience. If Abraham was wrong, he wouldn't have known it until after he'd killed his son.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:He clearly communicates His desire for you to do things to affect that morality, then you will act accordingly, regardless of what He communicates to you,...
Maybe I read this wrong but it sounds like you just said that, "If I believe God clearly reveals his morality to me then I will act according to that mandate regardless of what God may say in the future to me."
I think what he means is "I will act according to that mandate, regardless of what that mandate is."
Essentially, we think not killing someone is moral. But tomorrow, god could say killing people is fine.
If your morality is derived from faith in god and his morality, then what's to stop you from going and killing people as long as you believe that's what god wants?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
