Basic E&M question

[Resha Caner]

Well, there is a difference between a hypothetical gremlin and no hypothetical gremlin.

Sure. I just didn't think scientists were interested in gremlins. Are they entering new territory, cuz I could give them all kinds of ideas?

Since you - the one who postulates the potential existence of such factors - can´t even come up with an example, I am not sure what the point would be for me to try.

I didn't say I couldn't. I said I wasn't offering it here. Do I have to do all the thinking while you sit in your easy-chair and take pot shots?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Kick the can down the road. If you don't want to explain your answer, don't post.

What, do you need to know why people are not identical? As others have been saying, it is a combination of nature and nurture.

Seriously, "Different Strokes for Different Folks" would seem to be not just a description, but an adequate explanation for why some prefer chocolate to vanilla, and others the reverse.

 

[Resha Caner]

What, do you need to know why people are not identical?

I don't recall you ever accepting such a lazy answer from me. It's importance lies in the fact that it was proposed as an example explanation for the larger issues discussed in this thread. If even the simple explanations don't work, there is no hope of reaching higher.

As others have been saying, it is a combination of nature and nurture.

And? The "others" have not been able to establish those two factors as a complete explanation.

 

[essentialsaltes]

And? The "others" have not been able to establish those two factors as a complete explanation.

What's left after internal factors (nature) and external factors (nurture)?

 

[Resha Caner]

What's left after internal factors (nature) and external factors (nurture)?

First, it may help for you to back up and start reading from post #115.

Second, to equate internal = nature and external = nuture is to move the goal posts. I've not agreed to any such definitions. If you want to start over with your own definitions, we can proceed with those.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Suppose? If you know those are the factors, then some scientific relationship was established (per the article you quoted), and you certainly should be able to make predictions. A theory without predictive power is not a scientific theory.

Well, there are several genetic markers related to taste...but I sincerely doubt we know all of them. You read the article, didn't you?

Saying you can't factor in experience is to say there is significant noise involved. But what noise? You can claim it is simply that you don't know a person's experience, but that is a cop out.

How is that a cop out? We know experience is a factor...but I have no way of knowing what someone's experience is without a time machine and the time to go through someone's entire life. I don't understand why that's so hard for you to accept.

If a physicist were to say they know the reason for Mercury's precession, but they can't measure the factors involved so they can't prove it, you would reject their claim.

Right. This is nothing like that though.

Upon the same principle, the claim here needs to be rejected - or at least acceptance needs to be withheld.

Why? We know, from evidence, that experience is a factor.

I don't doubt genetics and environment are factors, further that the effects of those factors can be demonstrated, but I've not seen anything to say they (and experience) are the only factors.

Ok. You forgot tiny invisible space aliens...they could be landing on your tongue and zapping the food as it enters your mouth. I haven't seen anything that says they aren't a factor as well. Solid logic there.

So I have no reason to accept our taste preferences (or morals) are determined.

I don't think anyone said they are.

This signals to me you're not going to put any effort into this conversation. OK.

You've badly misconstrued a simple analogy. Now you want to duck out because I pointed out that you misconstrued an analogy. I never said opinions of taste and opinions of morality are formed the same way...just that they're both opinions.

But if you do continue the next step would be to quantitatively define this term "experience".

Your experiences are the things that have happened to you and things you have done.

I made a suggestion in post #105, but you will need to explain what you (or the scientists you reference) mean by it.

I must've missed it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

As I noted to Ana, I accept genetics and environment as factors. I just haven't seen good reason to think they are the only factors. I'm not offering another factor, but simply stating it does not appear those have been locked down as the only ones. As such, it seems to me we should remain open to the possibility some other factor exists.

Ok...it's "possible" some other factors exist...but we cannot proceed the conversation on mere possibility, we can only discuss what we know. We know genetics, environment, and experience are factors in taste. Anything else you want to discuss?

 

[Resha Caner]

Your experiences are the things that have happened to you and things you have done.

I must've missed it.

Yet you make no effort to go back and address it ... and I'm the one trying to "duck out"? Uh huh.

So, I'll ask again. How does your statement above differentiate "experience" from environment and genetics? As I noted to quatona & essentialsaltes, at this point your use of the word "experience" is no different than a claim of gremlins.

Well, there are several genetic markers related to taste...but I sincerely doubt we know all of them. You read the article, didn't you?

Yes, and I've conceded genetics are one factor. You, however, are claiming something different. You have claimed a complete explanation for taste. Then, when you can't make a prediction, can't actually give a complete explanation, you say it's because you don't know all the genetic markers, don't know all of someone's experience. Either you have a complete explanation or you don't. So far, you don't.

Right. This is nothing like that though.

It's exactly what you're doing.

I don't think anyone said they are.

You did here.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yet you make no effort to go back and address it ... and I'm the one trying to "duck out"? Uh huh.

I addressed it...I only do one post at a time.

So, I'll ask again. How does your statement above differentiate "experience" from environment and genetics? As I noted to quatona & essentialsaltes, at this point your use of the word "experience" is no different than a claim of gremlins.

For the example of taste...environment might determine if the fugu fish is available to eat. Experience would determine if you've actually eaten it. See the difference? One creates an opportunity...the other is whether or not you took said opportunity. If you don't understand the difference between these and genetics...we've got a long talk ahead.

Yes, and I've conceded genetics are one factor. You, however, are claiming something different. You have claimed a complete explanation for taste. Then, when you can't make a prediction, can't actually give a complete explanation, you say it's because you don't know all the genetic markers, don't know all of someone's experience. Either you have a complete explanation or you don't. So far, you don't.

Fine...I don't. I fully admitted that we cannot possibly know someone's entire experience regarding taste...it isn't knowable.

It's exactly what you're doing.

Isn't...all I've stated is what we know.

You did here.

That was regarding taste...you tacked on morality. The processes of forming both opinions aren't the same...and I never claimed they were.

 

[Resha Caner]

That was regarding taste...you tacked on morality. The processes of forming both opinions aren't the same...and I never claimed they were.

Yes, my apologies. The parenthetical expression confused the issue. I understand your claim only referred to taste. Hence my comment that other questions are forthcoming. I made a mistake and rushed the issue.

Fine...I don't.

However, it seems you've now retracted your statement.

For the example of taste...environment might determine if the fugu fish is available to eat. Experience would determine if you've actually eaten it. See the difference? One creates an opportunity...the other is whether or not you took said opportunity. If you don't understand the difference between these and genetics...we've got a long talk ahead.

OK, but I don't see why this distinction makes a difference. How is my experience as described above affecting my taste? This is why it's good to define these things. It appears you are using "taste" and "environment" in a manner different from what I am. Let's try some combinations here:

G = genetic predisposition to like chocolate, g = genetic predisposition to dislike chocolate
A = chocolate available in environment, a = chocolate not available in environment
E = Chocolate is experienced, e = chocolate is not experienced
T = Taste for chocolate, t = no taste for chocolate

We then have the following possibilities. Can you please tell me the result?
G+A+E = T/t?
G+A+e = T/t?
G+a = T/t?
g+A+E = T/t?
g+A+e = T/t?
g+a = T/t?

Isn't...all I've stated is what we know.

So, if genetics plus environment plus experience doesn't determine taste, how important are each of the factors? i.e. is the undetermined portion 1%, 10%, 99%?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, my apologies. The parenthetical expression confused the issue. I understand your claim only referred to taste. Hence my comment that other questions are forthcoming. I made a mistake and rushed the issue.

Don't worry about it.

However, it seems you've now retracted your statement.

There's always a possibility of new evidence...I just don't constantly refer to such possibilities. It doesn't add anything to the discussion.

OK, but I don't see why this distinction makes a difference. How is my experience as described above affecting my taste?

I'm sure there's some great scholarly articles on the topic which I won't be looking up.

So, if genetics plus environment plus experience doesn't determine taste, how important are each of the factors? i.e. is the undetermined portion 1%, 10%, 99%?

Again, the entirety of experience is unknowable. I don't see why these percentages matter at all.

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm sure there's some great scholarly articles on the topic which I won't be looking up.

If this means you don't know, there is no shame in saying so. I wouldn't think less of you for it. Actually, it's those who try to avoid such a reply that I find wanting.

I don't see why these percentages matter at all.

Because, if it explained 99% of taste, I would be willing to concede that, for all practical purposes, taste is determined. If it only explains 1% of taste, I would say it's a useless scientific endeavor and borders on deceptive to even mention it. Likely the truth falls somewhere between those extremes.

So do you want to back up to the questions on morality now, or should we end here? It seems you want this to end.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If this means you don't know, there is no shame in saying so. I wouldn't think less of you for it. Actually, it's those who try to avoid such a reply that I find wanting.

Lol of course I don't know...this is a religious discussion forum, not a neurological/biochemical forum. I sincerely doubt anyone here would know something so specific. I'm accepting the conclusions of authorities on the matter.

Because, if it explained 99% of taste, I would be willing to concede that, for all practical purposes, taste is determined. If it only explains 1% of taste, I would say it's a useless scientific endeavor and borders on deceptive to even mention it. Likely the truth falls somewhere between those extremes.

What are you basing that conclusion on? Hopeful optimism?

So do you want to back up to the questions on morality now, or should we end here? It seems you want this to end.

I didn't want this to start...I don't see the relevance to morality.

 

[Resha Caner]

What are you basing that conclusion on? Hopeful optimism?

Experience

I don't see the relevance to morality.

That's odd, because it all stemmed from your exchange with Chesterton (below). You drew the connection.

My point is that when you suffer injustice, you'll know it, and you'll say it.

I suppose you could say that I would know my opinion on the matter. It would be similar to the way I know I like vanilla milkshakes, or that I know it's a pretty day outside.

This is far apart from the way I know 2+2=4.

However, given the result, I'm not sure there's much to conclude from attempting to make a connection. I had thought it might help to explore how your moral opinions are known differently from knowing 2+2=4, but ...

I didn't want this to start.

... it would make me feel guilty to continue to drag you through this in light of this comment.

Another question I had thought to ask was whether your moral opinions are formed primarily (or exclusively) from your experiences, or whether you think there might be others who are wiser than you.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Experience

Lol ok...Well surely then you have a similar experience which you can share with us as an example. I'm curious about how you draw conclusions about unknowns like that.

That's odd, because it all stemmed from your exchange with Chesterton (below). You drew the connection.

Read what I wrote very carefully...because I'm talking about knowing what my opinion is, not forming an opinion, but merely accessing it. I could've stated literally any type of opinion for that comparison.

You and Chester seem to have a tendency to read into words for meanings that aren't there.

However, given the result, I'm not sure there's much to conclude from attempting to make a connection. I had thought it might help to explore how your moral opinions are known differently from knowing 2+2=4, but ...

But? Opinions aren't facts? Is that what you were going to say?

... it would make me feel guilty to continue to drag you through this in light of this comment.

That's because I understood at the start that the formulation of opinions on taste has nothing to do with the formulation of opinions on morality.

Another question I had thought to ask was whether your moral opinions are formed primarily (or exclusively) from your experiences, or whether you think there might be others who are wiser than you.

That's a false dichotomy. No I don't think experience is the sole factor in forming moral opinions...I would consider emotions a factor as well. I don't see what "others wiser than me" has to do with it...it seems they must form moral opinions the same way.

 

[quatona]

Sure. I just didn't think scientists were interested in gremlins. Are they entering new territory, cuz I could give them all kinds of ideas?

Depends on your ideas. As long as you don´t even want to present them, this is a moot point.

I didn't say I couldn't. I said I wasn't offering it here. Do I have to do all the thinking while you sit in your easy-chair and take pot shots?

Three factors have been identified. If you think there are others and if you want me to consider them, it´s not my job to find them for you.
As you said, we need to be open to possibilities. We needn´t invent them on your behalf.

 

[Chesterton]

I thought I answered both of those....

1. This is a false dichotomy. Those aren't the only two options. I don't think your opinion on a moral matter can be "factually" proven right or wrong...if that's what you mean.

No, I'm not asking you to prove anything. Just a simple question.

2. I disagree with your opinion because it doesn't match mine...again, that's how opinions work. When our opinions match, we agree...when our opinions don't match, we disagree. Make sense?

You disagree with my opinion because it doesn't match yours? My opinion causes you to hold a different opinion? That's not a reason, you're being continually evasive and I'm ready to drop this.

Maybe you meant to ask me for my opinion...which isn't the same question. Do you want to know my opinion? Is that what you're asking?

Not necessary. Since you're human, I already know your opinion on murder.

My guess is that they knew their little game was against the law.

Yeah, that too.

Well why would you think that? You said yourself that situations are almost always a factor in morality, what makes abortion an exception?

The baby can't choose death like terminally ill people can.

I just pointed out that he didn´t have the same motives. So, better not project your value judgements on me.

You described my motives as "noble". You expressed the value judgment. (Although I'm sure it was sarcastic, which just means you expressed a different judgment.)

Anyway, I still would like to learn what it would look like if your "philosophical experiment" (coming over and smashing one of the guitars) would be "successful". IOW, the logic behind this "philosophical experiment" and the criteria for "success".

As an amateur doctor of philosophy I just think it would be an exciting opportunity to study the mysterious and elusive quatonas erectus in its natural environment, being challenged with a real human difficulty in order to see if it's capable of responding as a human would. The experiment would be successful if you responded by saying something rational like "that was wrong" or "you shouldn't have done that".

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, I'm not asking you to prove anything. Just a simple question.

And you got a simple answer.

You disagree with my opinion because it doesn't match yours?

Yes.

My opinion causes you to hold a different opinion?

No...that's not what I said. Your question was why we disagree...the answer is because we hold different opinions.

That's not a reason, you're being continually evasive and I'm ready to drop this.

It's not difficult. You come across two people who both have opinions on the same subject. They are very different opinions. Would you say these two agree or disagree?

Not necessary. Since you're human, I already know your opinion on murder.

Are you a mind reader? Or are you referring to the circumstances where I said I would agree with murder being a moral choice?

Yeah, that too.

Too?

The baby can't choose death like terminally ill people can.

That is the question you asked though, remember? "If we could speak to an unborn baby and they could understand us...."


I can quote your post if you've forgotten.

 

[Resha Caner]

Read what I wrote very carefully...because I'm talking about knowing what my opinion is, not forming an opinion, but merely accessing it. I could've stated literally any type of opinion for that comparison.

Fair enough.

But? Opinions aren't facts? Is that what you were going to say?

No. But of course opinions aren't facts. If they were, we would only need one word, not two. My interest was in knowing why you think things are deterministic, and that is why I pushed on until I got something I could grasp.

We got at least that far, but I'm still left with only vagaries about how you think morals are formed. At this point it doesn't seem you've really thought it through to any depth. There isn't anything really wrong with that, but I wish you'd just say, "I haven't really thought about it," or, "I don't know." Rather, it seems as if you're claiming that if we dig deep enough we'll find a solid foundation ... and then when we dig there's nothing there.

That's a false dichotomy. No I don't think experience is the sole factor in forming moral opinions...I would consider emotions a factor as well.

Emotions? You've lost me again. Your emotions are independent of your experiences?

Had you not skipped over the G+A+E exercise, I think you would have seen (or maybe you did) that the construct shows Aa can be subsumed under Ee - that they are not independent factors.

I don't see what "others wiser than me" has to do with it...it seems they must form moral opinions the same way.

I think it would be an error to assume everyone forms their morals the same way you do.

Lol ok...Well surely then you have a similar experience which you can share with us as an example. I'm curious about how you draw conclusions about unknowns like that.

I'm not really interested in sharing my experiences with you. I'm honestly not sure I could present them coherently - hence my interest in your experiences.

But, for one thing, when encountering that which is unknown to me I differ from you in that I am willing to listen to those who have experienced it. Even if it seems to me there is something lacking in how they abstracted the experience, it at least gives me a starting point.

 

[Resha Caner]

Three factors have been identified. If you think there are others and if you want me to consider them, it´s not my job to find them for you.

True, it's not. I erroneously assumed a certain amount of curiosity on your part.