How do Naturalists/Materialists account for the immateriality of morals, laws of logic or information?

[Ken-1122]

so what is the evidence that 1+1= 2.

(Ken)
If I put 1 rock into a basket, then added another rock to the same basket, then I asked you to count the number of rocks in the basket, your response would be that there were 2 rocks in the basket. This would be your response regardless of your opinion of rocks, your opinion of me, or anything else subjective you might have going on concerning the situation.

I'm not implying that. I am saying morality is normative so someone is going to be right and someone wrong. That may not always be clear but that doesn't automatically mean anyone who disagrees is corrupt. It may be that we need to look further to find the truth.

If morality were based on what is normal for everyone, and what is normal and moral were both objective, we would have already found the truth.

I would say the world doesn't work how you say and that there is often a way of sorting the disagreement out one way or the other. We don't just go around not knowing what to do morally. We actually do work it out and make clear cut lines as to what is right and what is wrong.

If that were true, there would be no disagreement concerning moral issues

We just went through how we do that with laws, Human Rights, ethical codes of conduct and social norms.

All of that stuff is based on laws; not morality. Laws are accomplished via compromise; What you believe to be right or wrong (morality) is not based on compromise.

I thought you were bringing the science in by asking for scientific evidence of moral truths. That I cannot make a claim that there are moral truths because there is no evidence. Evidence I assume that must meet the scientific method.

But you are the one constantly bringing up science; not me. All I’m saying is to apply the same standard to your answer that you insist with mine. Since you are not gonna apply science to your answer, (unless you find it convenient, then dismiss it when it gets in the way) don’t apply it to mine.

Going back to the radio example. Radio waves are separate from the radio box and wiring just like consciousness is separate from the brain and its wiring. So whatever we do that effects the radio box will effect radio waves. But as we know radio waves are separate. This mat be the same for the brain and consciousness. The brain becomes a consciousness recover like a radio receiver. So of course consciousness will be effected if you mess around with the receiver.

No, what we do to the radio box effects it’s ability to detect radio waves; but the radio waves remain the same regardless of what happens to the box
But unlike the radio box and radio waves, when you damage the person’s brain, you damage the person’s consciousness as well.

But if a human brain is only made of mindless matter then that would imply that creating a brain out of mindless matter that matches a human brain in every way will also produce Mind and consciousness.

Yes. But we don’t have the ability to do that; so how do you know if we did have this ability, that mind and consciousness would not also result?

What's the difference. There are one and the same as far as morality is concerned. I use objective to mean a fact. Truth in this sense is just a fact that cannot be changed due to subjective thinking.

How do you know morality is objective? There is no possible way of establishing a “moral” without a human making judgments. So how do you know this judgment is objective? You yourself pretty much admitted an inability to provide a single objective moral issue that does not align perfectly with your personal moral views; so how do you know you are always right?

But it is a fallacy to assume objective moral truths don't exist because we disagree or cannot find that truth. But I am not sure what you mean by "Everybody knows subjective moral truth". It sounds like a paradox. How can everyone know a subjective truth. If its truth and everyone knows that truth then its not really subjective as it implies everyone knows and agrees with the same truth.

When an opinion of a specific issue changes from person to person, we call that opinion subjective; right? What we call moral truth is just an opinion that changes from person to person.

 

[Ken-1122]

It does according to the science

Phi. The Golden Ratio of nature and beauty.
When we take a close look at nature, architecture, and the human face and body, it is no accident that mathematical relationships are found in their design. The Golden Ratio, a ratio of 1:1.618 is found in the proportions of the Egyptian pyramids, the nautilus shell, beautiful faces and the ideal body. Our eyes are attracted to objects with this ratio and find them visually appealing.

Victorian Cosmetic Institute

Victorian Cosmetic Institute is a Melbourne skin clinic treating wrinkles, volume loss, pigmentation, acne scars & rosacea. Book a consult with us here.

www.thevictoriancosmeticinstitute.com.au

Don’t confuse scientists with science. Individual scientists have opinions just like everyone else, and often those opinions are wrong. If a beautiful face were based on the Golden ratio, the closer to the Golden ratio a person’s face is, the more attractive we would consider that face to be; right? But there is not a single scientific theory that makes this claim. An individual scientist might make the claim, but that is not something supported by scientific theory.

 

[Bradskii]

so what is the evidence that 1+1= 2.

And with that little gem, I am unsubscribing from this thread...

 

[stevevw]

Don’t confuse scientists with science. Individual scientists have opinions just like everyone else, and often those opinions are wrong. If a beautiful face were based on the Golden ratio, the closer to the Golden ratio a person’s face is, the more attractive we would consider that face to be; right? But there is not a single scientific theory that makes this claim. An individual scientist might make the claim, but that is not something supported by scientific theory.

The golden ratio is considered a measure of beauty because its a symmetrically prefect which is based on Pi . So its not based on a scientists opinion but based on Math. Humans are attracted to this configuration. But I think there is a difference between something calculated as beautiful and having a beautiful experience.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The golden ratio is considered a measure of beauty because its a symmetrically prefect which is based on Pi . So its not based on a scientists opinion but based on Math. Humans are attracted to this configuration. But I think there is a difference between something calculated as beautiful and having a beautiful experience.

There is no relationship between the "golden ratio (phi)" and pi (or the circle ratio).

phi = (1 + sqrt(5) )/2

 

[stevevw]

And with that little gem, I am unsubscribing from this thread...

You don't need to unsubscribe, there are debaters you can engage with.

 

[stevevw]

There is no relationship between the "golden ratio (phi)" and pi (or the circle ratio).

phi = (1 + sqrt(5) )/2

The number phi, often known as the golden ratio, is a mathematical concept that people have known about since the time of the ancient Greeks.

Phi: The Golden Ratio

Reference Article: Facts about phi, the golden ratio.

www.livescience.com

 

[stevevw]

(Ken)
If I put 1 rock into a basket, then added another rock to the same basket, then I asked you to count the number of rocks in the basket, your response would be that there were 2 rocks in the basket. This would be your response regardless of your opinion of rocks, your opinion of me, or anything else subjective you might have going on concerning the situation.

But there would be no concept of addition and subtraction is it wasn't for the Mind. It is a mind concept which gives its the natural world its meaning. If there were no mind to do this then all we would have a bunch of rocks. So your example actually supports the idea of Mind and consciousness being fundamental to reality.

If morality were based on what is normal for everyone, and what is normal and moral were both objective, we would have already found the truth.

You keep forgetting that we have free will and are able to choose right and wrong. Just because there may be moral truths doesn't mean everyone is going to freely choose to act in accordance with those moral truths. But we already know and have morals truths in society for everyone, that's what we call moral norms, ethical codes of conduct or Human Rights. They are moral standards we set for society and anyone who doesn't follow these is said to be acting immorally or unethically.

If that were true, there would be no disagreement concerning moral issues

Why, We don't all agree about objective aspects of the world, look at climate change. There has been a long history of disagreement in the sciences. But we don't assume there there is no objective facts to be found when we disagree. We may not have all the information or we may choose to deny those facts like people have done and still do today with scientific ideas.

So just because there are disagreements with morality doesn't mean there may be no truth to be found like in science and the objective world. We thought lobotomies were good science and some disagreed. We thought people of color were subhuman and but people disagreed. Eventually the truth came out.

All of that stuff is based on laws; not morality. Laws are accomplished via compromise; What you believe to be right or wrong (morality) is not based on compromise.

Social norms, Ethical codes and Human Rights are not laws in that its illegal. They are ethical and moral standards we stipulate should be followed and anyone who doesn't follow them is regarded as acting unethically or immoral. If anything I think ethical and moral standards are uncompromising as they are strict standards which draw a line between moral and immoral behavior. .

But you are the one constantly bringing up science; not me. All I’m saying is to apply the same standard to your answer that you insist with mine. Since you are not gonna apply science to your answer, (unless you find it convenient, then dismiss it when it gets in the way) don’t apply it to mine.

If you remember the point being argued was about whether consciousness comes from the physical brain or is something beyond the physical brain. You referred to the science in how neuro scientists can measure the brain to explain consciousness. So I have to address the science in supporting consciousness being something beyond science. Its by showing how science is limited which helps support my argument that consciousness maybe something beyond that needs to be measured in a different way.

I am not sure what your argument is, whether you think only science can find the truth about consciousness and morals or you think there is some other way which supports transcendent phenomena being something real in the world. I think part of the confusion is that there is no clear line between what is considered real and unreal or material and immaterial. There are certainly things in the world that have influence but don't occupy space or have mass. Some think reality is only material, and any transcendent ideas are unreal, illusion or naivety. Others think they are real forces in the world.

No, what we do to the radio box effects it’s ability to detect radio waves; but the radio waves remain the same regardless of what happens to the box
But unlike the radio box and radio waves, when you damage the person’s brain, you damage the person’s consciousness as well.

We don't know that. If the brain is like a radio box that receives the signal of consciousness then damaging the brain may just weaken or lose the signal, cause interferences. Just like if we damaged the radio box the signal can be weakened and cause static, without total loss or can be completely lost if damaged enough.

But the weakened or lost signal doesn't happen to consciousness or radio waves themselves. The apparatus (brain or radio box) are what wakened the signal because the equipment was damaged and the signal could not get through or be received.

Yes. But we don’t have the ability to do that; so how do you know if we did have this ability, that mind and consciousness would not also result?

Well that's a possibility. But I am not sure we can build a human like brain with consciousness because there are processes involved that we cannot know in how to do that. But maybe we can map out every single correlation and work out exactly what causes each experience. It would be a mighty feat if possible.

But even if we knew all that there is still the Hard Problem of consciousness in how something like neurons and their connects would produce an experience of color or joy when those kind of things cannot be reducible to neurons and their connections. Its just not conceptually possible, they are different categorically. One is about quantities of measure and the other about quality of experience.

How do you know morality is objective? There is no possible way of establishing a “moral” without a human making judgments. So how do you know this judgment is objective? You yourself pretty much admitted an inability to provide a single objective moral issue that does not align perfectly with your personal moral views; so how do you know you are always right?

We know moral truths because we have embodies them through our experience. Humans can make judgements based on reasoning and after 1,000's of years in seeing how these moral truths work we reason they are truths that stand despite human subjective judgements.

When an opinion of a specific issue changes from person to person, we call that opinion subjective; right? What we call moral truth is just an opinion that changes from person to person.

If that was the case then that would mean there are many moral truths about the same issue. But that is a contradiction as truth implies one truth and not many.

I am not sure the idea that moral opinions change from person to person. Moral issues are either right or wrong. So opinion won't be that different. People will either agree or disagree that its right or wrong. There are only two options there. People may have different reasons for why they think its either right or wrong but those reasons don't change that the issue is either right or wrong.

 

[eleos1954]

Then we agree to disagree. That's the case whether there are what you might claim are divinely ordained moral laws or not. And I might ask if you accept those laws without question or whether you go through the same process as I do in determining if they are valid or not.

and what is your process of validation?

 

[eleos1954]

Quantum mechanics says that a particle can be in two places at the same time. Relativity says that you could end up older than your father. Do you reject those out of hand because you don't understand them? That they are 'too far of a reach' to comprehend? That evolution isn't true because you don't happen to believe it?

All of which was nothing at all to do with the question that I asked: Do you have an internal dialogue to confirm to yourself that moral laws are valid, as I do? Or do you accept them without question?

I don't claim to understand everything about science and the various theories .... what I am saying is that what we see has EXTREME complexity and intricacy in the universe and our world ..... and it would take gazzilions of various random occurrences to make it so and therefore don't believe it. Order out of chaos?

"That they are 'too far of a reach' to comprehend?"

Like you comprehend all of them? LOL. Likely don't even know of all the various theories there are put out there, much less comprehend them. lol

Biologically speaking it is not possible for a son/daughter to be older than his parents because the parents have to be old enough to produce eggs and sperm.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The number phi, often known as the golden ratio, is a mathematical concept that people have known about since the time of the ancient Greeks.

Phi: The Golden Ratio

Reference Article: Facts about phi, the golden ratio.

www.livescience.com

So what? pi is not related to phi, which was your claim.

 

[Bradskii]

Quantum mechanics says that a particle can be in two places at the same time. Relativity says that you could end up older than your father. Do you reject those out of hand because you don't understand them? That they are 'too far of a reach' to comprehend? That evolution isn't true because you don't happen to believe it?

All of which was nothing at all to do with the question that I asked: Do you have an internal dialogue to confirm to yourself that moral laws are valid, as I do? Or do you accept them without question?

I don't claim to understand everything about science and the various theories .... what I am saying is that what we see has EXTREME complexity and intricacy in the universe and our world ..... and it would take gazzilions of various random occurrences to make it so and therefore don't believe it. Order out of chaos?

"That they are 'too far of a reach' to comprehend?"

Like you comprehend all of them? LOL. Likely don't even know of all the various theories there are put out there, much less comprehend them. lol

Biologically speaking it is not possible for a son/daughter to be older than his parents because the parents have to be old enough to produce eggs and sperm.

You seem determined not to answer. But I'll ask again...

Do you have an internal dialogue to confirm to yourself that moral laws are valid, as I do? Or do you accept them without question?

 

[Ken-1122]

But there would be no concept of addition and subtraction is it wasn't for the Mind. It is a mind concept which gives its the natural world its meaning. If there were no mind to do this then all we would have a bunch of rocks. So your example actually supports the idea of Mind and consciousness being fundamental to reality.

(Ken)
So you agree with my response? BTW if there were no brain, there would be no mind nor consciousness; so it is the brain that is fundamental to reality. The mind is no more fundamental than our thoughts.

You keep forgetting that we have free will and are able to choose right and wrong. Just because there may be moral truths doesn't mean everyone is going to freely choose to act in accordance with those moral truths. But we already know and have morals truths in society for everyone, that's what we call moral norms, ethical codes of conduct or Human Rights. They are moral standards we set for society and anyone who doesn't follow these is said to be acting immorally or unethically.

Are you under the impression the only way 2 people can disagree on moral issues is if one person is being honest, and the other person is being dishonest? That if everybody were being honest, we would all agree on all moral issues?

Why, We don't all agree about objective aspects of the world, look at climate change. There has been a long history of disagreement in the sciences. But we don't assume there there is no objective facts to be found when we disagree. We may not have all the information or we may choose to deny those facts like people have done and still do today with scientific ideas.

There is 100% agreement in science that climate change is happening on Earth, just as it is on other planets where nobody exists. The disagreement is what effect humans have on Earth’s climate change. The fact that climate is changing is objective. The amount mankind has on climate change is subjective.
Care to try again? Provide an example of something objective that is not agreed upon.

Social norms, Ethical codes and Human Rights are not laws in that its illegal. They are ethical and moral standards we stipulate should be followed and anyone who doesn't follow them is regarded as acting unethically or immoral.

Yes! and those ethical codes and human rights are not objective, but subjective; which is why everybody does not agree with them.

If you remember the point being argued was about whether consciousness comes from the physical brain or is something beyond the physical brain. You referred to the science in how neuro scientists can measure the brain to explain consciousness.

Fair enough; my mistake. Allow me to rephrase; there are people who study the brain that are able to explain consciousness.

We don't know that. If the brain is like a radio box that receives the signal of consciousness then damaging the brain may just weaken or lose the signal, cause interferences.

The human brain is not like a box, and consciousness is not a signal. The brain is an organ that is able to use the 5 senses of taste, touch, hearing, smell, and sight; to observe human surroundings. This observation is called consciousness

We know moral truths because we have embodies them through our experience.

We only know subjective moral truths; not objective. That’s why you are unable to give an example of an objective moral truth that you disagree with; because it does not exist.

If that was the case then that would mean there are many moral truths about the same issue. But that is a contradiction as truth implies one truth and not many.

Only objective truth leaves room for one truth; subjective truth means there are many.

 

[stevevw]

and what is your process of validation?

I never said they were ordained laws but rather as the op asks "how do naturalists materialists account for the immateriality of morals laws of logic or information" am providing an argument for non material (transcendent moral truths) in the world.

I have given the arguments and support for this already.

 

[stevevw]

So what? pi is not related to phi, which was your claim.

Sorry I neglected to add the 'h'. Nevertheless the objection from Ken was we can't objectively support the experience of 'beauty' as we can with math equations like 1+1=2. I said that in some ways we can with the Golden ratio which is based on math as well. But thanks for pointing that out my bad.

 

[stevevw]

(Ken)
So you agree with my response?

No. Counting rocks doesn't support the idea of Math. Rather it supports the idea of Mind because without Mind there is no math. That's unless you want to claim that math exists in the universe.

BTW if there were no brain, there would be no mind nor consciousness; so it is the brain that is fundamental to reality. The mind is no more fundamental than our thoughts.

The idea of consciousness beyond brain proposes consciousness is a force or some sort of phenomena in the universe that the physical brain can tune into. Similar to how radio waves exist in the universe as a field/force. So it doesn't need a radio box as it already exists. Just as consciousness would not need a physical brain for it to exist.

The Mind would have to be more fundamental that 'thought' as there can be no 'thought' or 'knowledge' without a Mind. So Mind would have to come first and then thought. The idea that thought or knowledge is the basis for reality puts Mind and consciousness as fundamental.

Are you under the impression the only way 2 people can disagree on moral issues is if one person is being honest, and the other person is being dishonest? That if everybody were being honest, we would all agree on all moral issues?

I think for the obvious core morals yes. If 2 people are disagreeing about say murder (murder is unjustified, that is why its call murder and not killing). One says its Ok to murder people in the street. I cannot see how a person with a right mind can honestly claim murder is ok without knowing there is no justification for it.

But other moral situations are more complicated and we may need more info to understand the moral implications. But assuming that to be morally accountable we would have to be capable of being honest, understanding the difference between a morally ideal person that society holds and understanding the full implications of what murdering people would do to the murderer and society could that person honestly claim that murder was morally ok to do. I don't think so.

There is 100% agreement in science that climate change is happening on Earth, just as it is on other planets where nobody exists. The disagreement is what effect humans have on Earth’s climate change. The fact that climate is changing is objective. The amount mankind has on climate change is subjective.
Care to try again? Provide an example of something objective that is not agreed upon.

Sorry I should have clarified 'human caused climate change' as most people automatically thing 'human caused' when they say climate change. So that is my example. People disagree about human caused climate change. Yet human caused climate change can be objectively determined people still disagree.

Yes! and those ethical codes and human rights are not objective, but subjective; which is why everybody does not agree with them.

Then why do they stand as similar to laws in that they are enforced on everyone. Isn't that a form of dictatorship. Though it is not illegal as in being imprisoned to defy Ethical codes and Human Rights, it is still regarded as like a law or truth that everyone should follow. People and Nations are ostracized and condemned for not adhering to Human Rights. So these Rights are applied truths in the world that everyone should follow.

The same with Ethical codes. You can get sacked, be publicly condemned on social media, lose your reputation and money as a result for not adhering to a companies ethical standards of conduct. The point being that this seems to support the idea that morality is objective in that it stipulates that there is only one set of moral truths to live by and its imposed on the public. There is no room for subjective views as they have been rejected in place of the set imposed by those in control.

Fair enough; my mistake. Allow me to rephrase; there are people who study the brain that are able to explain consciousness.

I don't think there is. All they can do is correlate brain activity with conscious states. But that is not enough evidence to provide a theory of consciousness. Its only part of the explanation. There is an explanatory gap between the correlations and how those correlations (neurons) which are non-conscious can produce something like consciousness.

The human brain is not like a box, and consciousness is not a signal. The brain is an organ that is able to use the 5 senses of taste, touch, hearing, smell, and sight; to observe human surroundings. This observation is called consciousness

But your jumping the explanatory gap. You have just made an accretion and haven't explained how this is possible. How do you know the brain doesn't act like a radio box and that consciousness is not some sort of signal. There seems to be support that consciousness is something beyond brain and in the universe as a fundamental.

The point is we could build an artificial brain that can see, hear, smell and still not be conscious.

We only know subjective moral truths; not objective. That’s why you are unable to give an example of an objective moral truth that you disagree with; because it does not exist.

That assuming that we have no free will and I have no choice morally. What if I happen to freely choose to align my life with those moral truths. I may not be able to live up to those moral standards all the time but I can still freely choose to make them my objective standard as opposed to other ways to know and live out morality.

Only objective truth leaves room for one truth; subjective truth means there are many.

Yes that is the meaning. There is one truth about what is right or wrong behavior in a given moral situation. For example if we disagreed about murder. Can we determine a truth about whether murder is right or wrong morally.

 

[Ken-1122]

No. Counting rocks doesn't support the idea of Math.

(Ken)
.Are you kidding me? Math is the system of calculating numbers. Numbers are representative tokens used to represent things that exist; in this case rocks. Math and numbers are definitely connected.

The idea of consciousness beyond brain proposes consciousness is a force or some sort of phenomena in the universe that the physical brain can tune into.

No; Consciousness cannot be beyond the brain, it is a function of the brain.

I think for the obvious core morals yes. If 2 people are disagreeing about say murder (murder is unjustified, that is why its call murder and not killing). One says its Ok to murder people in the street. I cannot see how a person with a right mind can honestly claim murder is ok without knowing there is no justification for it.

But other moral situations are more complicated and we may need more info to understand the moral implications. But assuming that to be morally accountable we would have to be capable of being honest, understanding the difference between a morally ideal person that society holds and understanding the full implications of what murdering people would do to the murderer and society could that person honestly claim that murder was morally ok to do. I don't think so.

So (for example) If one person says the use of Nuclear weapons during war is morally acceptable, and the other says they are not, and they both have a 100% understanding of how Nuclear weapons work, it is your understanding that one of them is being honest, and the other is not; is this your claim?

Sorry I should have clarified 'human caused climate change' as most people automatically thing 'human caused' when they say climate change. So that is my example. People disagree about human caused climate change. Yet human caused climate change can be objectively determined people still disagree.

Still! The extent of human caused climate change is subjective. Care to try again?

Then why do they stand as similar to laws in that they are enforced on everyone. Isn't that a form of dictatorship. Though it is not illegal as in being imprisoned to defy Ethical codes and Human Rights, it is still regarded as like a law or truth that everyone should follow. People and Nations are ostracized and condemned for not adhering to Human Rights. So these Rights are applied truths in the world that everyone should follow.

They are only enforced by those who support that agenda. Those who don’t care about the agenda, or those who support said agenda have no reason to obey. Take the transgender issue for example. Transgender activists will ostracize and condemn anyone who does not claim a man can be a woman, or a woman can be a man; based on their thoughts. But if you don’t care what transgender activists think about you, they have no power over you; the only power they have is the power you give them.

I don't think there is. All they can do is correlate brain activity with conscious states. But that is not enough evidence to provide a theory of consciousness.

Actually it is. But even if it were not, all that means is that we don’t know yet; it does not mean it is unknowable.

But your jumping the explanatory gap. You have just made an accretion and haven't explained how this is possible. How do you know the brain doesn't act like a radio box and that consciousness is not some sort of signal.

Because it is not described that way

conscious

Definition, Synonyms, Translations of conscious by The Free Dictionary

www.thefreedictionary.com

The point is we could build an artificial brain that can see, hear, smell and still not be conscious.

How do you know this? What evidence do you have that this is possible?

That assuming that we have no free will and I have no choice morally. What if I happen to freely choose to align my life with those moral truths. I may not be able to live up to those moral standards all the time but I can still freely choose to make them my objective standard as opposed to other ways to know and live out morality.

No; the question was for you to list a moral issue that does not just so happen to align with your personal views. That was it, and you couldn’t do it! The question was not about your behavior, or if you live up to your own standards it was strictly about your views, and you couldn’t give an example.

Yes that is the meaning. There is one truth about what is right or wrong behavior in a given moral situation. For example if we disagreed about murder. Can we determine a truth about whether murder is right or wrong morally.

Yeah; as soon as you can provide objective proof that murder is wrong. I’ve asked before, and you can’t do it. Care to try again?

P.S.
You made a comment yesterday that I accidentally overlooked. If you don’t mind, I would like to respond to it now.

(Stevevw)
I am not sure what your argument is, whether you think only science can find the truth about consciousness and morals or you think there is some other way which supports transcendent phenomena being something real in the world.

(Ken)
My view is that natural science has nothing to do with morality or anything else based on your thoughts. If something is shown to exist, we automatically call it “material/physical”. But the brain is different; the brain (though physical) produces thoughts, and thoughts are not physical, but under the category of imagination. Now is there an imaginary world? Yes! Some call it make-believe or pretend, but it’s all the same thing; your thoughts. Your thoughts only exist in your brain.

(Stevevw)
I think part of the confusion is that there is no clear line between what is considered real and unreal or material and immaterial.

(Ken)
Actually there is a clear line; we have real/physical, and then we have imagination/thoughts. Those are the only options.

(Stevevw)
There are certainly things in the world that have influence but don't occupy space or have mass.

(Ken)
Those things only exist in your head/brain.

 

[stevevw]

(Ken)
.Are you kidding me? Math is the system of calculating numbers. Numbers are representative tokens used to represent things that exist; in this case rocks. Math and numbers are definitely connected.

The point was if there wasn't such a thing as math then all you would be doing is moving rocks around. So moving rocks around doesn't prove math unless there is such a thing as math in the first place.

No; Consciousness cannot be beyond the brain, it is a function of the brain.

But your assuming and just making an assertion that consciousness is caused by the brain.

So (for example) If one person says the use of Nuclear weapons during war is morally acceptable, and the other says they are not, and they both have a 100% understanding of how Nuclear weapons work, it is your understanding that one of them is being honest, and the other is not; is this your claim?

Yes. If a person understands how nuclear weapons work then they will know the devastation this causes people and the planet. If humans are moral, empathetic and rational creatures and are capable of being honest with themselves then they would be lying if they said destroying people indiscriminately and destroying the planet with nuclear bombs is normally ok.

I don't know why this is an issue as we do this everyday when we call out people for behaving badly. We call out people for their bad behavior insinuating they should have known better.

Still! The extent of human caused climate change is subjective. Care to try again?

How is it subjective. Are you saying there are no facts we can find regarding human caused climate change. Can't we measure say the pollution from human activity and say that is a contributing factor. Can't we sort out the vested interests and bias and facts regarding what is natural and human made climate change.

They are only enforced by those who support that agenda. Those who don’t care about the agenda, or those who support said agenda have no reason to obey.

I disagree. There are many examples of how people work for companies/organizations who have to suppress their moral views in order to keep their job. I remember the Qantas boss coming out in support of Same sex marriage which reflected the ethics of Qantas. So any employee who was opposed to SSM was made to feel uncomfortable and even have their job put at risk if they expressed their opposition to SSM. This actually happened in some organizations.

Take the transgender issue for example. Transgender activists will ostracize and condemn anyone who does not claim a man can be a woman, or a woman can be a man; based on their thoughts. But if you don’t care what transgender activists think about you, they have no power over you; the only power they have is the power you give them.

Once again I disagree. Say for example a person who disagrees with transgender or gender ideology is working for a company that supports trans ideology. Do you think the person who views transgender's ideology as morally wrong could freely express that view while at work, in the lunch room or maybe even in their private life if the news got back to the company. I don't think they would last long. So many keep their views to themselves to keep their job.

That is the control a companies ethical stand can have on others in real life and it happens all the time. We hear about the high profile cases but its common among everyday people. I as a Christian I have to button my lips sometimes at work or volunteering because I disagree on ethical grounds. But if I made a stand on something like say gender ideology it would not go down well.

Actually it is. But even if it were not, all that means is that we don’t know yet; it does not mean it is unknowable.

Ah that's what Popov called 'sciences promissory note. "If we haven't got the naturalistic explanation now it will come in the future". But this is more a belief than science itself that no matter what the explanation will always be material because matter is all there is.

The point is consciousness itself cannot be reduced to the physical brain. All correlations do is describe the activity of consciousness when it happens. It doesn't how that happens. How neurons that are not conscious or have mind can produce consciousness and mind.

Because it is not described that way

conscious

Definition, Synonyms, Translations of conscious by The Free Dictionary

www.thefreedictionary.com

How do you know this? What evidence do you have that this is possible?

The evidence is self supporting and logical. Science deals with quantitates and consciousness is about qualities. They are different categories altogether so you can't prove quality phenomena with quantified measurements. Its well acknowledge and known as the "Hard Problem of consciousness'.

Hard Problem of Consciousness

Philosopher David Chalmers on the combination problem, dualism, and panpsychism.

www.organism.earth

No; the question was for you to list a moral issue that does not just so happen to align with your personal views. That was it, and you couldn’t do it! The question was not about your behavior, or if you live up to your own standards it was strictly about your views, and you couldn’t give an example.

Everyone acts like there are moral truths they disagree with by the simple fact that we use moral truths such as norms, Human Rights and Ethical codes and people break them. Assuming they break them or act in opposition to them because they disagree with them under a subjective moral system.

But why would anyone acknowledge a moral truth they disagreed with. The fact that they know its a truth would mean they agree with it otherwise they are going against their own morals. If it wasn't an objective moral then it would not even be up for consideration.

I could technically say that I disagree with something that society makes a moral objective like say 'transgender ideology'. This goes against my moral views. Or people may hold a moral truth that black people were subhuman as they did in the 1800's but then as more understanding is gained change they moral view that this is wrong and that all humans have equal rights. So during that time there would have been people who disagreed with that moral objective or disagreed with the moral objectives of the objectors to the idea that blacks were subhuman.

The problem is people can claim morals are objective. But that doesn't mean the moral truth to a situation cannot be found. That is why I think we embody moral truths. We try our subjective ways even if we call them truth and find they are not actually the truth through living them out. Then we may try another way and find its not the truth either. Eventually we find the truth as we did with giving equal rights to colored people.

Yeah; as soon as you can provide objective proof that murder is wrong. I’ve asked before, and you can’t do it. Care to try again?

I think from memory I asked what sort of proof you wanted. Like testing in a lab or perhaps from some other way such as our experience and beliefs. Like I said we live out morality and find the truth through our experience. So our experience has led to humans making murder morally wrong through just about every aspect of society be it Ethical codes, Human Rights, social norms and criminal law.

If anything was to even express the idea that murdering people was morally ok they would be ostracized and condemned. Their can be no better evidence than coming straight from the conscious person themselves.

P.S.
You made a comment yesterday that I accidentally overlooked. If you don’t mind, I would like to respond to it now.

(Stevevw)
I am not sure what your argument is, whether you think only science can find the truth about consciousness and morals or you think there is some other way which supports transcendent phenomena being something real in the world.

(Ken)
My view is that natural science has nothing to do with morality or anything else based on your thoughts.

Ok then we cannot use science to deny morality as it has nothing to do with it in the first place. When you say I have provided no evidence for objective morals I assume you mean scientific verification. Is that right.

If something is shown to exist, we automatically call it “material/physical”.

What do you mean by exist. See that is half the problem in that there is no clear line between what exists as material of immaterial. We know justice, truth and love exists but they are not material. The idea that if something is shown to exist must be material/physical is an assumption and belief and not science.

But the brain is different; the brain (though physical) produces thoughts, and thoughts are not physical, but under the category of imagination. Now is there an imaginary world? Yes! Some call it make-believe or pretend, but it’s all the same thing; your thoughts. Your thoughts only exist in your brain.

You have made an objective claim that the brain produces the mind and consciousness but have not supported this. As I said mere correlations with physical brain activity is not enough evidence to claim the brain creates consciousness and mind. See how even when it comes to science we cannot help but entangle philosophical and metaphysical beliefs into the equation.

You have more or less said that something material/physical can create something immaterial and non physical but we cannot explain this. This is no different to someone claiming that a metal lamp can create a genie or a computer can create a ghost. And not to dissimilar to religious claims.

(Stevevw)
I think part of the confusion is that there is no clear line between what is considered real and unreal or material and immaterial.

(Ken)
Actually there is a clear line; we have real/physical, and then we have imagination/thoughts. Those are the only options.

OK then this is in line many people take even Galileo one of the fathers of the science method. So science is good at accounting for the physical quantified world and not qualitative transcendent ideas like consciousness, thought, mind, love, joy etc.. So why use science to dispute consciousness if it has nothing to say about its qualitive aspects.

(Stevevw)
There are certainly things in the world that have influence but don't occupy space or have mass.

(Ken)
Those things only exist in your head/brain.

They actually exist in peoples minds and not their heads literally. But that is the point that if they only exist in the mind then this makes mind fundamental and a powerful influence in the world. We know that transcendent phenomena like joy, love, pain, color exist as real forces just like physical forces in the world and yet they have no material basis.

 

[stevevw]

(Ken)
.Are you kidding me? Math is the system of calculating numbers. Numbers are representative tokens used to represent things that exist; in this case rocks. Math and numbers are definitely connected.

The point was if there wasn't such a thing as math then all you would be doing is moving rocks around. So moving rocks around doesn't prove math unless there is such a thing as math in the first place.

No; Consciousness cannot be beyond the brain, it is a function of the brain.

But your assuming that this is the case without evidence remembering that correlations of brain activity don't prove consciousness is created by brain activity. It only associates behavior of the brain with consciousness. But brain behavior doesn't equal cause.

So (for example) If one person says the use of Nuclear weapons during war is morally acceptable, and the other says they are not, and they both have a 100% understanding of how Nuclear weapons work, it is your understanding that one of them is being honest, and the other is not; is this your claim?

Yes. If a person understands how nuclear weapons work then they will know the devastation this causes people and the planet. If humans are moral, empathetic and rational creatures and are capable of being honest with themselves then they would be lying if they said destroying people indiscriminately and destroying the planet with nuclear bombs is normally ok.

I don't know why this is an issue as we do this everyday when we call out people for behaving badly. We call out people for their bad behavior insinuating they should have known better.

Still! The extent of human caused climate change is subjective. Care to try again?

How is it subjective. Are you saying there are no facts we can find regarding human caused climate change. Can't we measure say the pollution from human activity and say that is a contributing factor. Can't we sort out the vested interests and bias and facts regarding what is natural and human made climate change.

They are only enforced by those who support that agenda. Those who don’t care about the agenda, or those who support said agenda have no reason to obey.

I disagree. There are many examples of how people work for companies/organizations who have to suppress their moral views in order to keep their job. I remember the Qantas boss coming out in support of Same sex marriage which reflected the ethics of Qantas. So any employee who was opposed to SSM was made to feel uncomfortable and even have their job put at risk if they expressed their opposition to SSM. This actually happened in some organizations.

Take the transgender issue for example. Transgender activists will ostracize and condemn anyone who does not claim a man can be a woman, or a woman can be a man; based on their thoughts. But if you don’t care what transgender activists think about you, they have no power over you; the only power they have is the power you give them.

Once again I disagree. Say for example a person who disagrees with transgender or gender ideology is working for a company that supports trans ideology. Do you think the person who views transgender's ideology as morally wrong could freely express that view while at work, in the lunch room or maybe even in their private life if the news got back to the company. I don't think they would last long. So many keep their views to themselves to keep their job.

That is the control a companies ethical stand can have on others in real life and it happens all the time. We hear about the high profile cases but its common among everyday people. I as a Christian I have to button my lips sometimes at work or volunteering because I disagree on ethical grounds. But if I made a stand on something like say gender ideology it would not go down well.

Actually it is. But even if it were not, all that means is that we don’t know yet; it does not mean it is unknowable.

Ah that's what Popov called 'sciences promissory note. "If we haven't got the naturalistic explanation now it will come in the future". But this is more a belief than science itself that no matter what the explanation will always be material because matter is all there is.

The point is consciousness itself cannot be reduced to the physical brain. All correlations do is describe the activity of consciousness when it happens. It doesn't how that happens. How neurons that are not conscious or have mind can produce consciousness and mind.

Because it is not described that way

conscious

Definition, Synonyms, Translations of conscious by The Free Dictionary

www.thefreedictionary.com

How do you know this? What evidence do you have that this is possible?

The evidence is self supporting and logical. Science deals with quantitates and consciousness is about qualities. They are different categories altogether so you can't prove quality phenomena with quantified measurements. Its well acknowledge and known as the "Hard Problem of consciousness'.

Hard Problem of Consciousness

Philosopher David Chalmers on the combination problem, dualism, and panpsychism.

www.organism.earth

No; the question was for you to list a moral issue that does not just so happen to align with your personal views. That was it, and you couldn’t do it! The question was not about your behavior, or if you live up to your own standards it was strictly about your views, and you couldn’t give an example.

That is not going to prove objective morals if there is dispute over what is objective morals. Everyone can list moral objectives that don't align with their morals. I disagree with some of societies Ethical codes like transgender ideology. But who says that this is objective. The fact that a dominant culture can impose their morals on a minority shows that the minorities disagree with those moral objectives.

Yeah; as soon as you can provide objective proof that murder is wrong. I’ve asked before, and you can’t do it. Care to try again?

Murder is objectively wrong by the fact its called murder and not killing in self defense, or manslaughter. Murder means the unjustified taking of someone's life. Its not subjective because it narrows down the act to one option which is unjustified and not justified. Subjective moral views are always justified because they are not about right or wrong but rather about personal opinions which can never be right or wrong morally.

 

[stevevw]

P.S.
You made a comment yesterday that I accidentally overlooked. If you don’t mind, I would like to respond to it now.

(Stevevw)
I am not sure what your argument is, whether you think only science can find the truth about consciousness and morals or you think there is some other way which supports transcendent phenomena being something real in the world.

(Ken)
My view is that natural science has nothing to do with morality or anything else based on your thoughts.

Then why do you keep using science as a way to refute objective morality. You keep saying I have not given evidence for objective morals. I assume you mean scientific evidence. If science has nothing to do with how we can know morality then it cannot be used as a measuring method for morality.

If something is shown to exist, we automatically call it “material/physical”.

That is the problem, that it is assumed that everything that exists is material in nature. This is not science but more a metaphysical belief.

But the brain is different; the brain (though physical) produces thoughts, and thoughts are not physical, but under the category of imagination. Now is there an imaginary world? Yes! Some call it make-believe or pretend, but it’s all the same thing; your thoughts. Your thoughts only exist in your brain.

Are you saying all thoughts are imaginary. If that is the case then even the thought that there is such a thing as a material world out there is imaginary and make believe because 'thought' and 'imagination' are of Mind and come first before anything real outside of the Mind.

Everything is Mind, we are locked into Mind and therefore locked in a world of imagination and make believe where we cannot tell if anything is real. The 'thought' that science is real and can tell us what is objectively real then becomes just make believe.

(Stevevw)
I think part of the confusion is that there is no clear line between what is considered real and unreal or material and immaterial.

(Ken)
Actually there is a clear line; we have real/physical, and then we have imagination/thoughts. Those are the only options.

AS mentioned above, how can you tell what is 'real/physical' when all you have is Mind to work that out and you said 'thought' which comes from Mind is imagination and make believe. All we have is Mind and the Mind created idea that there is such a thing as a real physical world beyond our Mind is not science but a belief, make believe because we cannot get outside our Mind to check if there actually is a real physical world.

(Stevevw)
There are certainly things in the world that have influence but don't occupy space or have mass.

(Ken)
Those things only exist in your head/brain.

They actually exist in the Mind of the conscious observer. They cannot actually exist in the head or brain because they are just made of mindless matter just like bones, blood vessels and rocks. So its the Mind that is fundamental in determining reality and not the brain or what we call the head.