Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's not a metaphysical belief. Perform a moral act and I will agree with it. Or not. It isn't anymore complicated than that.I don't need to as you have supported my point and thats all that matters. So agreeing that secularists can have metaphysical beliefs besides religion supports my point that humans even atheists naturally create different kinds of metaphysical ideas to account for morality and reality.
So the material atheist claims about morality and beliefs is but a metaphysical belief itself.
Yes.Otherwise if its just what the brain does mechanically then we should be able to one day create consciousness mechanically.
I can verify it. I'll cut off your head. You are arguing nonsensically now. If you want to say that somewhere there is something that somehow connects to the brain but which isn't of the brain then show me. To save you wasting your time any talk about NDEs will be completely ignored.This has not be verified and in fact evidence shows that consciousness can go on with a dead brain...
How you got to your conclusion is somewhat garbled. But at least the conclusion is correct.Your missing the logic. The idea of relative morality applying to groups (cultures) and subjective morality applying to individuals is that it logically makes morality non objective outside the individual or culture.
Yes. You do. If it exists then giving an example is trivially easy.I don't need to give examples because its a matter of logic and reasoning.
Yes, they can. Everything that the brain does is a material process. It's the experience of consciousness is the hard problem.Exactly. So don't use neurons, dendrites, genetics, biology, evolution to explain consciousness and morality as they cannot be reduced to such material processes.
No we don't. Well, you might If you think it's objective. Again, an example is required.Yes I do. But do you really know why this is a problem when it comes to morality. There is none. And yet we live like moral truths are as everybit a law as physics.
In your reality headless people can be conscious. It's not mine.Why is that when we cannot reduce this to the physics. Some non physical law that dictates reality.
It's the reason as in the explanation. Not as in the purpose.Is survival a purpose...that is my question.....in ToE, is increased chances of survival the reason life forms evovle?
No. Not "secularism", secular morality. When you conflate things it really makes it hard to communicate.Ok secularism. But isn't there some beliefs within secularism that are not religious in the traditional sense. My point was that people can have other metaphysical beliefs besides religious ones about God as the basis for they morality.
Random quotes from old scientists won't support your idea for a "fundamental consciousness". Actual evidence is required for not only phenomena, but mechanisms.The idea comes from quantum mechanics itself. The psychicist who dicovered QM Max Planck says the same think.
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulating consciousness.” – Max Planck, theoretical physicist who originated quantum theory, which won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918.
You need a citation for my opinion. My post is the citation of my own opinion.Citation needed.
The burdon of proof is on the person making the claim, they need to convince others that their claim is real.How does the fact that these things can be imagined mean they are not real?
The people that are listening to the person making the claim.Who is the "we"?
No, not really.Increased chances of survival = purpose?
We went over this guy a while back and his "institute" before. He is a DI fellow writing in a DI journal. He's not even a scientist, but a software engineer.By the beginning of the twentieth century, biologists were actively avoiding any sort of purpose-oriented language, sometimes to the point of ridiculousness. Mayr suggested that we can use the term teleonomy to represent something that operates according to a purpose because of a program.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321339258_Evolutionary_Teleonomy_as_a_Unifying_Principle_for_the_Extended_Evolutionary_Synthesis
So scientists were already naturally referring to purpose and design in eviolution. They has to come up with some way of minimizing this through teleonomy. But this is still teleological in nature as it just pushes back the teleology to a program of design and purpose. How did the problem come about with some purpose.
Did Plank write a peer reviewed scientific paper about consciousness being the precursor to reality?It does matter who is saying it as to whether its nonsense or not.
OK, so have we made vampires and werewolves real? What zoo can I find them in?Its not about the different ideas people use as metaphysical beliefs. Butthe fact that coming up with these ideas, looking for them and making them real is a natural human tendency.
Are we talking about beliefs now?Thats the point, that is the evdience for belief that as humans we have a a natural inclination to believe.
I am open to new evidence of things coming in, but until then, I'm not going to put much stock into this.From this we can either say its all illusion of there is some truth that the tendency to believe maybe based on the reality that there is something beyond what we see. But both options are open.
I'm the opposite of this. There is no evidence of all these supernatural or immaterial claims therefore they are either best ignored or simply to be enjoyed in fiction books or movies as a bit of escapism fun.In fact I would say the weight is towards there being something beyond.
Do you understand the difference between "the appearance of design" vs "the evidence shows that there is clearly design going on here"?What do you mean. Dawkins famously states that evolution has the appearence of design.
No they aren't.So scientists were already naturally referring to purpose and design in eviolution.
No they don't.They has to come up with some way of minimizing this through teleonomy.
Yes, when it comes to threads or discussions about proof for god(s), this is all that needs to be said.Theres no way to direcly prove God.
This is an excuse, used to try and implore people to look beyond the fact that the claim is incomplete and that there is no evidence in support of the claim. Don't be a doubting Thomas, just believe. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeease, just believeeeeeeeeeeee.That is the idea I think, faith. Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.
The burdon of proof is on those making the claim. Show some credible evidence. What is god made of? Is anything else made of that same stuff? Can we detect that stuff? How did god(s) evolve from that stuff?But the mere possibility (that springs from a materialist view of reality and not a thiestic one). Means that the possibility cannot be counted out and therefore any claim about objective reality being the only reality is undermined.
Huh, this is evidence of something?But I think theres a stronger case for something beyond because if you add up all the theistic beliefs for which there are many and the majority of the world believes. Even non theists believing in some sort of soul.
Oh boy...As well as all the non theistic metaphysical beliefs like the 'Simulation theory', the many theories that stem from QM such as Multiverse and Hologram principle, String theory, Wheelers Participatory universe, Quantum Bayesianism, Panphysicism ect which all posit some intelligent Mind fundementally.
What evidence?The evidence seems to point more in the direction of something beyond, some sort of mind or intelligence beyond what we see.
Fantasy unless some evidence comes to light to show there is something there.So are you saying because they are untestable they are all fantasy. It doesn't follow.
Love is a concept.We can't test for love but does that make it a fantasy.
What rest?You seem to think the only way we can know reality is by physically testing it.
But that can only account for one aspect of reality which is the physical aspects. What about all the rest.
OK, let's just have faith.Lets say God is real.
OK, let's just say that someone claims that the Dodo bird exists today.According to your logic there is no God and yet God is real. How do you get around your worldview counting out what may be real automatically because it doesn't fit to a limited way of measuring reality. Your more or less saying GOd is unreal not because He is truely unreal as in verified as unreal. But is unreal because of a biased way to see the world that counts out everything except what we can see and test.
Please provide specific and credible evidence. It is incredibly lazy to say the evidence is all around us and just leave it at that.Ok but when I say the evidence is all around us I am saying the work was already done in looking for the evidence and accummulating it.
Show me credible evidence of something immaterial (not just a concept) and I will then no longer be a materlialist. I am open to changing my mind based on evidence. Just not on faith, or emotional appeal or appeal to belief of others.The materialist worldview will dismiss all this but those supporting an immaterial fundemental reality like Mind or consciousness beyond brain see it as evidence. In that sense the evdience is all around us but materialist cannot see it dioes to a bias that makes that evidence fantasy.
Purpose requires intention. Adaptation leading to survival and to evolution is a causal chain--a process.Is survival a purpose...that is my question.....in ToE, is increased chances of survival the reason life forms evovle?
Beliefs don't add together, nor is overall popularity of an idea evidence for its correctness.But I think theres a stronger case for something beyond because if you add up all the theistic beliefs for which there are many and the majority of the world believes. Even non theists believing in some sort of soul.
Show us where string theory posits mind fundamentally.As well as all the non theistic metaphysical beliefs like the 'Simulation theory', the many theories that stem from QM such as Multiverse and Hologram principle, String theory, Wheelers Participatory universe, Quantum Bayesianism, Panphysicism ect which all posit some intelligent Mind fundementally.
I talking about why you believe morality is subjective and theres nothing beyond the objective world. Thats the metaphysical belief.It's not a metaphysical belief. Perform a moral act and I will agree with it. Or not. It isn't anymore complicated than that.
Thats the metaphysical belief I am talking about. You believe that physical reality is all there is.Yes.
This is a false comparison. You also cannot do anything with your head cut off and we can never know. But a person who is brain dead and comes back to life can tell us about the experience. Why are you banning evidence for consciousness beyond brain. NDE and OBE are the best evidence for this.I can verify it. I'll cut off your head. You are arguing nonsensically now. If you want to say that somewhere there is something that somehow connects to the brain but which isn't of the brain then show me. To save you wasting your time any talk about NDEs will be completely ignored.
I said I don't need to prove that you claim that objective morality doesn't exist because I am using your own arguements. I said if your logic is true and theres no objective morality then what you are talking about as morality is not morality because morality demands an objective.Yes. You do. If it exists then giving an example is trivially easy.
That is faulty logic. Its like saying everything a radio does is a physical process so radio waves are the physical processes of the radio. It doesn't follow. So you can't use physical brain processes to explain consciousness. This only explains the behaviour of the brain during a conscious experience. Or that the experience of a violin concerto is the violin itself and the sound vibrations from the rubbing of a bow against cat gut.Yes, they can. Everything that the brain does is a material process. It's the experience of consciousness is the hard problem.
As I mentioned true belief is not in what people say but how they act. People can say morality is subjective but act like morality is objective and thus contradict their own morality.No we don't. Well, you might If you think it's objective. Again, an example is required.
We are talking about lived morality. We live as though morality is objective. Like the morals are laws unto themselves like physical laws. If there is no objective morality then there is no morality at all.In your reality headless people can be conscious. It's not mine.
Everything a radio transmitter does is physical. A radio transmitter produces radio waves which are physical entities. A radio receiver receives the radio waves and processes them into audio waves which are also physical entities.That is faulty logic. Its like saying everything a radio does is a physical process so radio waves are the physical processes of the radio. It doesn't follow. So you can't use physical brain processes to explain consciousness. This only explains the behaviour of the brain during a conscious experience. Or that the experience of a violin concerto is the violin itself and the sound vibrations from the rubbing of a bow against cat gut.
But your wanting me to use your definition which is not necessarily correct. Under secularism people can believe in non religious metaphysics and ideology such as paganism or Woke as their basis for morality. So secular is not a good way to describe subjective morality.No. Not "secularism", secular morality. When you conflate things it really makes it hard to communicate.
If you mean by "secularist" a person who does not believe in God and/or some transcendant reality, I think that you will find that they are generally not substance dualists. Nor even are all theists.But your wanting me to use your definition which is not necessarily correct. Under secularism people can believe in non religious metaphysics and ideology such as paganism or Woke as their basis for morality. So secular is not a good way to describe subjective morality.
Its more about a material verses immaterial worldview. The material will restrict everything to the objective world. Whereas an immaterialist will be open to a immaterial basis for morality be it something non religious like consciousness. Secularists believe in consciousness beyond brain and from this they can expand morality to some objective conscious law like physical laws.
Beliefs do add together is they all allow metaphysically something beyond the material world and it doesn't have to be a religious belief.Beliefs don't add together, nor is overall popularity of an idea evidence for its correctness.
I never said mind but rather posits other dimensions beyond our own reality. Multiverse theory which stems from String theory claims there are other universes where the physics may be completely different. Where another you or me is living different lives.Show us where string theory posits mind fundamentally.
Because it's my opinion on what constitutes a moral act. You can give me an objective moral position if you could (3). The number represents the number of times I have asked for this.I talking about why you believe morality is subjective...
Which would include concepts such as value, love, height etc. Yes.Thats the metaphysical belief I am talking about. You believe that physical reality is all there is.
That's right. QEDThis is a false comparison. You also cannot do anything with your head cut off...
I've seen headless bodies. There's definitely no consciousness there.and we can never know.
Paaarp. Not interested.But a person who is brain dead...
You don't need to prove it. Just give me an example of a moral act that you have performed that is objectively true (4).I said I don't need to prove that you claim that objective morality doesn't exist because I am using your own arguements. I said if your logic is true and theres no objective morality then what you are talking about as morality is not morality because morality demands an objective.
It will certainly be my opinion. But if you think you have a better one (that's objective) then you can argue against mine. Can you give me one (5)? The one with the best argument wins. Or we agree to disagree.As soon as you try to apply your morality outside yourself it can be defeated as 'just your opinion'.
It is.That is faulty logic. Its like saying everything a radio does is a physical process...
They are....so radio waves are the physical processes of the radio.
It does.It doesn't follow.
I did.So you can't use physical brain processes to explain consciousness.
That's right.This only explains the behaviour of the brain during a conscious experience.
Quite right. How you interpret that sound is a personal matter.Or that the experience of a violin concerto is the violin itself and the sound vibrations from the rubbing of a bow against cat gut.
You'll have to give me an example of what you mean (6).As I mentioned true belief is not in what people say but how they act. People can say morality is subjective but act like morality is objective and thus contradict their own morality.
If I thought that someone really needed something of mine to survive, then I'd probably give it to him. I certainly wouldn't ask for it back. Your mileage may vary.For example under subjective morality some may say that stealing is ok if people are in such need to steal. But the moment a subjectivist who supports such an idea has something stolen they demand justice and their stuff back.
Let's examine this. Maybe with an example (7)?We are talking about lived morality. We live as though morality is objective.
Perhaps you can give me an example of what you mean (8).Like the morals are laws unto themselves like physical laws. If there is no objective morality then there is no morality at all.
Studies have been done where the majority of people believe we have a soul and even some atheists supported this. I would say many secularists believe in a soul.If you mean by "secularist" a person who does not believe in God and/or some transcendant reality, I think that you will find that they are generally not substance dualists. Nor even are all theists.
Well the link I posted above and other studies I have seen show that even the majority of atheists believe in some sort of life after death or a soul. I would assume secularists are atheists or atheists are secularists.If you mean by "secularist" a person who does not believe in God and/or some transcendant reality, I think that you will find that they are generally not substance dualists. Nor even are all theists.
That is one of the silliest things you have ever written. According to Pew Research, around 3% of atheists believe in some kind of life after death.Well the link I posted above and other studies I have seen show that even the majority of atheists believe in some sort of life after death or a soul. I would assume secularists are atheists or atheists are secularists.
The subject was morality. @Bradskii preferred you use "secular morality" rather than "atheist morality" (and I would agree), but in either case the subject in question was *morality*, not some philosophy you are trying to argue into existence as "secularism".But your wanting me to use your definition which is not necessarily correct. Under secularism people can believe in non religious metaphysics and ideology such as paganism or Woke as their basis for morality. So secular is not a good way to describe subjective morality.
Its more about a material verses immaterial worldview. The material will restrict everything to the objective world. Whereas an immaterialist will be open to a immaterial basis for morality be it something non religious like consciousness. Secularists believe in consciousness beyond brain and from this they can expand morality to some objective conscious law like physical laws.