Basic E&M question

[Ana the Ist]

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.

I didn't say anything was deterministic.

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."

I don't recall you ever asking me about how we form moral opinions. Given that all this stuff about taste was a big waste of time...it might have been better just to start with that question, wouldn't it?

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.

I don't know what this digging and foundation talk refers to.

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

I don't think we'd classify them the same way for the purposes of forming morals. Certainly, we experience emotions...but I would look at someone's experiences of riding a bike and how riding a bike makes them feel emotionally as the same kind of experience.

I think that both kinds of experiences could alter someone's opinion of morals differently...so it would be wrong to lump them all together.

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.

In some cases sure...but in others, like the fluoride in your water, I would see it necessary to separate the two.

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

It certainly appears they do.

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.

How do you experience them? Incoherently?

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.

Why would you think I'm unwilling to listen?

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't recall you ever asking me about how we form moral opinions. Given that all this stuff about taste was a big waste of time...it might have been better just to start with that question, wouldn't it?

Not always.

It certainly appears they do.

I'll suggest, then, that you look at it again.

Why would you think I'm unwilling to listen?

Just an impression of mine that you dismiss some things quickly without really giving them much thought - that you don't want to give them much thought.

How do you experience them? Incoherently?

The experience and my ability to explain it are two different things.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not always.

ok

I'll suggest, then, that you look at it again.

I've looked at it more times than I care to get count...my understanding of it is the only one that fits consistently and requires no delusional thinking.

Just an impression of mine that you dismiss some things quickly without really giving them much thought - that you don't want to give them much thought.

I can see why it might look that way...consider that I've given some things a lot of thought and dismissed them for very good reasons. In that way, when someone presents these things to me...it would appear that I dismiss it quickly.

The experience and my ability to explain it are two different things.

Sure, but unless you're suggesting that there are no words capable of describing your experience...then I don't see the problem.

 

[quatona]

You described my motives as "noble".

No, it was you who said you would do it for "the good". To my knowledge, he never made such a claim. That was the whole point.

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".

Thanks. That´s how I understood it initially. I guess I got just confused by the "beating someone up" thing. I had the impression that you felt people beating others up demonstrated they believe in your idea "objective right and wrong", and that it is a token of being "rational" and being not "dehumanized", too. (You hadn´t said that explicitly, though. Thanks for clarifying!).
Anyway. Personally, I don´t believe that the reactions of people in emotional stress reveal their "rationality". So I have serious doubts about the methodology of your "philosophical experiment". Particularly since my hypothesis (supposedly "objective" value judgements are post hoc rationalizations of emotions) would explain said behaviour just as well as yours would.

 

[quatona]

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

Indeed, my curiosity is limited. I´m not inclined to ask more than three times when someone asks me to be open for their ideas, but are reluctant to present them. Besides being curious, I am also patient. I´m sure there´s a reason why the person isn´t ready (yet) to present their ideas.
So, again, your initial request of me "being open for the possibility" is being met here.
You just changed the horses midstream.

 

[Resha Caner]

Indeed, my curiosity is limited. I´m not inclined to ask more than three times when someone asks me to be open for their ideas, but are reluctant to present them.

I'm assuming you're just having fun trying to turn a phrase on me, but in the event you honestly didn't understand what I said, I'll clarify. I don't care one whit whether you're curious about my ideas. I meant that, should you agree the claim under discussion was incomplete, I thought you might be curious enough to develop your ideas about how to fill the gap.

When a question hangs out there with no answer, I don't wait for other people to offer an answer. My curiosity prompts me to seek an answer. I thought maybe you might be of the same inclination, but I was wrong ... at least insofar as the stated parameters of the discussion go.

 

[Resha Caner]

I can see why it might look that way...consider that I've given some things a lot of thought and dismissed them for very good reasons. In that way, when someone presents these things to me...it would appear that I dismiss it quickly.

Yes, I suppose "a lot of thought" is a relative thing.

Sure, but unless you're suggesting that there are no words capable of describing your experience...then I don't see the problem.

I don't know. It could simply be that I've not yet found the words ... or even that I've not found the words suitable for you.

 

[Chesterton]

And you got a simple answer.

I did? Was it a yes or a no?

Yes.

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

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?

You're just giving me the definition of disagreement, not telling me why we disagree.

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

I'm referring to the fact that every non-sociopathic human is against murder.

Too?

Obviously there's a reason it's against the law - it's immoral.

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.

I asked how you thought the baby would feel about being killed without his choice.

No, it was you who said you would do it for "the good". To my knowledge, he never made such a claim. That was the whole point.

Okay, fair enough. But as an aside I'll note that your whole thread is you making value judgment. In talking with someone who feels as you do, we theists always seem to have the "home field advantage". The discussion always takes place on our terms, and I think that's because our terms are real, and there are no others. And that's evidence that has led me to believe what I believe in the first place.

Thanks. That´s how I understood it initially. I guess I got just confused by the "beating someone up" thing. I had the impression that you felt people beating others up demonstrated they believe in your idea "objective right and wrong", and that it is a token of being "rational" and being not "dehumanized", too. (You hadn´t said that explicitly, though. Thanks for clarifying!).

You had the right impression the first time. That's why punishment is a feature of criminal justice systems.

Anyway. Personally, I don´t believe that the reactions of people in emotional stress reveal their "rationality". So I have serious doubts about the methodology of your "philosophical experiment".

You're saying that in the heat of the moment you might blurt out "that's wrong!", but maybe an hour later, or a year later, you might change and think that smashing the guitar was not wrong?

Particularly since my hypothesis (supposedly "objective" value judgements are post hoc rationalizations of emotions) would explain said behaviour just as well as yours would.

That kind of sidesteps the question of whence springs the emotion in the first place. And, why do you think emotions would need to be rationalized? You think they are not true and accurate? If you feel sad when grandmother dies is that not right and appropriate? If you compose the best piece of music you have ever composed should you not feel happy?

(Thank you for sharing an idea of yours. Maybe if I'll be a bit more direct and you'll be a bit more forthcoming the conversation can be more fruitful. )

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, I suppose "a lot of thought" is a relative thing.

Indeed.

I don't know. It could simply be that I've not yet found the words ... or even that I've not found the words suitable for you.

Well if you find them, I'll be around.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I did? Was it a yes or a no?

I pointed out that your question is a false dichotomy....do you need me to explain what that means?

You're just giving me the definition of disagreement, not telling me why we disagree.

I've explained why we disagree...I just haven't given you my opinion.

I'm referring to the fact that every non-sociopathic human is against murder.

Untrue...and obviously untrue at that. I'd say that most people support a war or two in their lives...which is explicit approval of murder.

Regardless of these blatantly obvious facts, you don't know what people think...if your understanding of morality requires that you do, then you've already failed to understand it.

Obviously there's a reason it's against the law - it's immoral.

Laws are hardly based upon morality...it's against the law because it's hard to have a functional society with people assaulting each other.

I asked how you thought the baby would feel about being killed without his choice.

Right...but if we want to know how he feels about a moral situation/choice, we'd have to explain the situation to him. It would be like asking you if you're against old ladies being shoved...but not telling you that they're being shoved out of the way of oncoming traffic. The situation will change how you feel about the action, right?

 

[Ana the Ist]

When a question hangs out there with no answer, I don't wait for other people to offer an answer. My curiosity prompts me to seek an answer.

When you seek such types of answers...what methodology do you use?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Untrue...and obviously untrue at that. I'd say that most people support a war or two in their lives...which is explicit approval of murder.

I'd be careful of murder terminology. Killing by the state or with approval of the state is not murder. Typically we say that murder is unlawful killing. No doubt the country with which we happen to be at war would view our killing of their combatants as tantamount to murder. But if we win, we do not see it that way.

It's slippery. I think it is good to distinguish between lawful killing and unlawful killing (such a firing in a bar room) in these discussions.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'd be careful of murder terminology. Killing by the state or with approval of the state is not murder. Typically we say that murder is unlawful killing. No doubt the country with which we happen to be at war would view our killing of their combatants as tantamount to murder. But if we win, we do not see it that way.

It's slippery. I think it is good to distinguish between lawful killing and unlawful killing (such a firing in a bar room) in these discussions.

Is there any nation which lawfully allows large groups of people from other nations to invade it and kill people?

Is there any war in which we wouldn't expect significant numbers of innocent non-combatants to be killed by our forces?

 

[Resha Caner]

When you seek such types of answers...what methodology do you use?

It depends on the question.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It depends on the question.

Just use our example...the gap in knowledge of where tastes come from.

 

[Resha Caner]

Just use our example...the gap in knowledge of where tastes come from.

The scientific method would be fine for some of it. I guess I was too prickly with @essentialsaltes since he didn't reply to me, but a pet peeve of mine was lurking there. One could begin a study by postulating the cause of taste to be everything, but that's a pretty useless hypothesis. Even if we divide into internal and external factors, that's still pretty useless ... as is environment and experience. The category of genetics was the only one from the study you cited that I have any respect for. The rest of it was lazy science (unless the scientists were summarizing/simplifying for a scientifically illiterate public). Environment and experience needed to be better defined, and as a result I expect it would have broken down into yet further categories.

For example, I would wonder if some of our tastes emerge randomly. Or, is there cross talk in the brain? It's a significant concern in signal processing - especially for wireless communication (I think Shannon's Law is fascinating).

But, then, I expect some of the gap comes from personality. I realize people such as yourself consider that to be a mere outgrowth of nature/nurture, but I happen to disagree. Aside from questions of how personality is formed, I think the best way to connect personality to taste is simply to talk to people - not in an investigative way, but in a narrative way - learn their story. In terms of formal method that could lean on historical methods, but I wouldn't even bother with that. I'd rather just have a meal with the person and talk.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The scientific method would be fine for some of it. I guess I was too prickly with @essentialsaltes since he didn't reply to me, but a pet peeve of mine was lurking there. One could begin a study by postulating the cause of taste to be everything, but that's a pretty useless hypothesis. Even if we divide into internal and external factors, that's still pretty useless ... as is environment and experience. The category of genetics was the only one from the study you cited that I have any respect for. The rest of it was lazy science (unless the scientists were summarizing/simplifying for a scientifically illiterate public). Environment and experience needed to be better defined, and as a result I expect it would have broken down into yet further categories.

For example, I would wonder if some of our tastes emerge randomly. Or, is there cross talk in the brain? It's a significant concern in signal processing - especially for wireless communication (I think Shannon's Law is fascinating).

But, then, I expect some of the gap comes from personality. I realize people such as yourself consider that to be a mere outgrowth of nature/nurture, but I happen to disagree. Aside from questions of how personality is formed, I think the best way to connect personality to taste is simply to talk to people - not in an investigative way, but in a narrative way - learn their story. In terms of formal method that could lean on historical methods, but I wouldn't even bother with that. I'd rather just have a meal with the person and talk.

For the record, I think when they referred to experience and environmental factors, I think they had other things in mind. Perhaps a good example is how we might find someone who likes beer, in spite of their genetic makeup showing they should hate the bitter taste. We might find from their experiences,that they originally hated beer...but drank it frequently on weekends...and their environment, that they drank in social settings primarily....be able to learn how the positive associations of both experience and environmental factors have more or less overridden the genetic factors to the point where they enjoy the taste of beer.

Of course, that's how I read it...you're certainly entitled to think whatever you like.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Is there any nation which lawfully allows large groups of people from other nations to invade it and kill people?

Is there any war in which we wouldn't expect significant numbers of innocent non-combatants to be killed by our forces?

It's kind of irrelevant. War is not murder. It's killing. It's a different category since there is no binding legal authority that can say nation X was in the right and nation Y is in the wrong. That is to say, we make those judgments but it has no legal force. If I support a "just" war against, say, Pol Pot, is that not justified? Is the killing to depose such a government murder?

Again, I think that it is not useful to call all killing murder.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's kind of irrelevant. War is not murder. It's killing.

Of course it's murder...and what's irrelevant about the question? Just because we get together under our respective banners and murder en masse doesn't mean it isn't murder. If the losing nation could hold you accountable...they would...and the winning nation often holds prisoners accountable for their actions.

This idea that simply because it's state sanctioned doesn't make it murder is silly.

It's a different category since there is no binding legal authority that can say nation X was in the right and nation Y is in the wrong. That is to say, we make those judgments but it has no legal force. If I support a "just" war against, say, Pol Pot, is that not justified? Is the killing to depose such a government murder?

By the definition of murder...yes...it is. If you go over there...kill people...and get captured by Pol Pot, he can convict you of murder if he likes.

Again, I think that it is not useful to call all killing murder.

We don't call all killing murder.

 

[Tinker Grey]

How are you defining murder? How do you distinguish it from killing that is not murder? In almost all discussions I've run across, murder is defined as illegal killing.