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

[stevevw]

Let's say that there is an ability a few people had that allowed them to understand what other people were feeling. Just a characteristic that a random assortment of genes threw up. Would it be useful? Well, yeah. Just like running faster or better eyesight is more useful. So it's selected for. And the genes that fortuitively gave someone an inkling of what someone else might be thinking was passed on. It becomes fixed in the population.

The problem is I think this lacks credibility. So far I don't think we have found genes for experiences like empathy. We have to be experiencing agents in the first place to experience empathy. So any mechanistic explanation is assuming the very thing its trying to explain. Plus empathy is not deterministic. It can have positive or negative effects as far as survival is concerned. Some may feel empathy for one group and hate for another due to their personal experiences.

Rather I think concepts like empathy, justice, kindness ect are of the mind of conscious beings and abstract rather than reducible to genes. So in that sense it is the conscious being who is controlling their own evolution and not an outside mechanism like genes or NS. They can choose to create a positive or negative situation for themselves and their offspring which will determine their fate so to speak.

The reason why this is overlooked by evolution is that in introducing the subject into the equation we are introducing agency and teleology which evolutionists don't like as it undermines the material mechanistic view of things. But like other scientific domains it seems the subject/observer is left out of the equation so as to do the science according to material naturalism. Like in QM where the observer is regarded as not having any influence on reality. But we keep popping up and I think we need to consider the role the subject plays in evolution as a casual aspect.

'Some people are more empathetic than others, and the new study revealed that a significant part of how empathetic we are is down to genetics.' How much of our empathy is down to genes?

There's your physical cause.

I don't this is any real evidence. Empathy can quite changeable according to context and not set in stone. It can depend on your culture, your upbringing and your personal experiences that make you empathetic in some situations and not others. Right now we know of many people who are suffering and people turn a blind eye because they perceive it as not their problem or that they don't want to disrupt their comfortable life.

Depending on those circumstances what one person feels empathy for another will feel hate for. So empathy itself is not a good measure of morals.

Against Empathy Bias: The Moral Value of Equitable Empathy

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797620979965

The decline of empathy and the rise of narcissism

The decline of empathy and the rise of narcissism, with Sara Konrath, PhD

There’s scientific research to back up the notion that Americans are caring less for others and more about themselves. This podcast explores why empathy is declining and what we can do to create more kindness and caring in our communities.

www.apa.org

So if we are now becoming less empathetic that is not anything genetic but more a life choice made by conscious beings who can choose their own destinies. We are not just passive robots subject to our genes and NS. Once again this is another example of how the subjects mind transcends the material and has some influence in the world.

 

[stevevw]

Just let me know when there is some evidence we can examine. I'll be all for it.

Didn't I just say I have already supplied the evidence. If you go back in my posts you will find it. This is a link to another thread with the evidence here #2,519

 

[Ken-1122]

Hearing is just the mechanism of the ear drum, noise waves vibrating the ear drum. A robot can hear and process information like Sirri voice recognition without any experience of the sounds heard. These are all mechanical processes like brain processes. Technically we could build a zombie that acts like a human and hears but not be able to experience the joy of music.

(Ken)
Yes! We can build machines and program them to behave the way it is natural for humans to behave. But that does not take away from the fact that enjoying music is natural for humans.

So there is something else going on with subjective experiences that cannot be reduced to the mechanisms for hearing. A qualitative aspect that is beyond the ear and brain.

(Ken)
I don’t agree, but if that is your claim, I am willing to hear you out. So….. what is this something else that you say is going on?

WE don't know if empathy is due to a naturalistic cause.

(Ken)
I disagree; I think it is natural. And it is not only natural for humans, but animals feel empathy also.

Research shows that we are born with the basic idea of empathy so its not something that we are taught by parents or culture. Concepts like empathy, justice, kindness, love cannot be reduced to genes

(Ken)
Why not?

so if we are born with morals like empathy its not because of any natural physical cause.

So what do you suspect it is caused by?

 

[stevevw]

(Ken)
Yes! We can build machines and program them to behave the way it is natural for humans to behave.

Are you saying we can build a Ai with conscious awareness of things like the joys of music.

But that does not take away from the fact that enjoying music is natural for humans.

Well that was the point of asking you about how joy which is a self awareness of music and not a material naturalistic thing can come from a material naturalistic thing. If we could make a replica of a human there is no reason why it could not function, hear noises and respond mechanically as programmed but not have consciousness like a zombie for example.

(Ken)
I don’t agree, but if that is your claim, I am willing to hear you out. So….. what is this something else that you say is going on?

I think just like there are agreed upon objective physical facts or laws that we have created to navigate the material world there are law or fact like truths that we can derive and agree upon just like we do with the objective world from our experiences. But these truths transcend the material world because they are our direct subjective experience which cannot be reduced to material things.

I think there are non material truth like laws that have just as much influence in the world and reality as objective truths about the material world. I think people are not very open to thinking that non material phenomena has any real influence on things because science has been so successful through technology. But we know these non material type truth laws are real because we live them everyday through our experience and have done for millennia.

(Ken)
I disagree; I think it is natural. And it is not only natural for humans, but animals feel empathy also.

I am not sure what you mean by 'natural'. Do you means caused by a naturalistic process. Naturalism is often equated with materialism or physicalism where all casual chains are enclosed and reduced to the physical. Anything that doesn't fit this is regarded as abstract or transcendent phenomena that cannot be measured within the physically enclosed.

So empathy is more an abstract idea about how we feel about and experience other conscious beings. This cannot be reduced to a mechanistic or material process and it doesn't do justice to human free as far as morality is concerned. Unbridled empathy is too unpredictable. It can lead to the opposite of kindness where people have reason to hate and discriminate against certain people. It still needs a grounding and evolution doesn't explain this. Survival is not enough as there are behavior's that contradict this when it comes to morals.

(Ken)
Why not?

Well how would you even begin to explain that. I don't think there is such a language. We can only explain ideas like empathy, justice, kindness, love through our direct experience of them. So its an inner world we are dealing with and not an outer objective one which is made up of genes, neurons, quarks, chemicals, fields and forces. Its a different category. One occupies space and time the other doesn't. How can anyone explain the cross over. I don't think there is an answer at least in material mechanistic terms.

So what do you suspect it is caused by?

I think its caused by our conscious experience. These transcendental truths are like laws of the universe but even beyond. In that sense they are part of fundamental reality because consciousness is fundamental reality. But some maybe many people are skeptical to believe in anything but material reality.

But like I said the truth of these non material truth like laws are the fact that they are the result of our direct consciousness which is all we really have and we live them out everyday and they have a powerful impact on the world. Its just a different kind of truth or law to scientific material ones.

 

[stevevw]

Actually neutrinos do have mass, otherwise the would not osscilate between flavors. (Technically one of the three flavors might be massless, but the other two cannot.)

Actually I counted neutrinos as coming under that which is regarded as material such as matter.

 

[expos4ever]

Seems incompatible given that they have no physical properties

Hi. I suggest the terms "materialist" and "naturalist" are just labels for a worldview that certainly does not entail being forced into believing that non-physical things like "logic" and "morals" cannot exist because they are not physical things. No one, I suggest, is forced into that position. I think it is self-evidently obvious that the very concept of logic, for example, is entirely compatible with the view that the universe is composed simply of matter, energy, time, and space all subject to physical laws. And no God.

A thing does not need to be "physical" or "material" to be real.

 

[expos4ever]

So far I don't think we have found genes for experiences like empathy. We have to be experiencing agents in the first place to experience empathy. So any mechanistic explanation is assuming the very thing its trying to explain.

I don't follow your reasoning. Yes, of course we need to be experiencing agents to experience empathy in the first place. And how we can, in fact, be experiencing agents is, I suggest, a mystery. But evolution by natural selection through the passing on of genes (perhaps I am not expressing myself clearly here) is a different matter altogether. It is understood how certain traits, like empathy, are selected for even though it is (I believe) not understood how the experience of empathy can be connected to neuronal activity in the brain.

 

[Larniavc]

The experience of joy is subjective and cannot be determined by objective science.

Yes it can. The biological changes when one experiences emotions is well known.

I think you may be out of date in your understanding of psychology.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It's like the difference between what is real, vs what is make-believe. Logic does not have an actual existence, it only exist in your thoughts.

I think that is the position of idealistic nominalism. Plato's forms and all that transcendent stuff exist only as ideas. And a materialists would say that ideas are just electron, synapse, neuron based.

 

[Larniavc]

Same logic as someone who equates the emergence of life from God or a Genie from a bottle.

Not so. Neurones firing can be directly observed. God or Djinns cannot.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Actually I counted neutrinos as coming under that which is regarded as material such as matter.

Frankly I'm just waiting for you to claim that neutrinos are how consciousness interacts with the brain...

 

[expos4ever]

Moral laws, logic, and information do not have an actual existence, they only exist in the imaginations and thoughts of those who think of them.

I would argue that moral laws, logic, and information certainly do exist. Sure, they are not "physical" things but I suspect very people would doubt that they "exist".

 

[expos4ever]

Yes it can. The biological changes when one experiences emotions is well known.

I think you may be out of date in your understanding of psychology.

I think I know where you are coming from, but I believe there remains a profound mystery that has yet to be explained by "science". I have not read through this thread so perhaps this has come up already.

I certainly understand that we now know what physiological events in the brain are correlated with subjective experience; however, I would maintain, that the connection between physiological events and such experiences (e.g., the sensation of seeing blue, the taste of an orange) remains mysterious - there is an "explanatory" gap in the sense that we yearn for an explanation of the connection between brain events and subjective experience. And right now, I believe we have no such story.

 

[expos4ever]

All we have is our conscious experience of morality and conscious experience cannot be accounted for by logic and materialism. Through our experience of the world and living together we have articulated moral laws through embodying them. This cannot be explained by any naturalistic process.

It seems that you think that "materialism" cannot be a sound basis for generating morals. Perhaps you are not saying this. In any event, I see no reason why we cannot argue thusly (from a "materialist" perspective):

1. All human beings, or almost all human beings, want the following: peace, justice, kindness, order, security, comfort, love, freedom.....
2. We are smart enough to understand that certain principles (or rules), if followed, tend to promote the achievement of these desired states.
3. Those rules effectively become our morals.

Where is the mystery?

 

[Ken-1122]

Are you saying we can build a Ai with conscious awareness of things like the joys of music.

(Ken)
No. Let me clarify. I’m saying we can program machines to function in a way that mimics natural human behavior.

Well that was the point of asking you about how joy which is a self awareness of music and not a material naturalistic thing can come from a material naturalistic thing.

(Ken)
Joy is the result of consciousness. Consciousness is natural for humans; thus joy is a natural thing for humans

I think just like there are agreed upon objective physical facts or laws that we have created to navigate the material world there are law or fact like truths that we can derive and agree upon just like we do with the objective world from our experiences. But these truths transcend the material world because they are our direct subjective experience which cannot be reduced to material things.

(Ken)
I don’t think it is possible for something that is objective to transcend the material world; however perhaps you can give an example of how this might be possible

I think there are non material truth like laws that have just as much influence in the world and reality as objective truths about the material world.

(Ken)
Can you give an example of this?

I think people are not very open to thinking that non material phenomena has any real influence on things because science has been so successful through technology. But we know these non material type truth laws are real because we live them everyday through our experience and have done for millennia.

(Ken)
When I think of anything non material, I think of human imagination. Human imagination has zero effect on the material world. It may inspire physical action, but imagination by itself; nothing. Perhaps you can give an example of something non material that might have such an effect.

I am not sure what you mean by 'natural'. Do you means caused by a naturalistic process. Naturalism is often equated with materialism or physicalism where all casual chains are enclosed and reduced to the physical. Anything that doesn't fit this is regarded as abstract or transcendent phenomena that cannot be measured within the physically enclosed.

So empathy is more an abstract idea about how we feel about and experience other conscious beings. This cannot be reduced to a mechanistic or material process and it doesn't do justice to human free as far as morality is concerned. Unbridled empathy is too unpredictable. It can lead to the opposite of kindness where people have reason to hate and discriminate against certain people. It still needs a grounding and evolution doesn't explain this. Survival is not enough as there are behavior's that contradict this when it comes to morals.

(Ken)
I believe empathy is a result of consciousness and intelligence. Consciousness and intelligence are descriptions of natural human traits. Because humans are evolved beings, human traits, evolves as well; empathy included; thus empathy IS a result of human evolution.

Well how would you even begin to explain that. I don't think there is such a language. We can only explain ideas like empathy, justice, kindness, love through our direct experience of them. So its an inner world we are dealing with and not an outer objective one which is made up of genes, neurons, quarks, chemicals, fields and forces. Its a different category. One occupies space and time the other doesn't. How can anyone explain the cross over. I don't think there is an answer at least in material mechanistic terms.

(Ken)
The way I see it, the view of empathy, justice, kindness, or love is not the result of biology, but the result of the environment we are raised in.

I think its caused by our conscious experience.

(Ken)
But aren’t our conscious experiences a description of one of our physical abilities?

 

[Ken-1122]

I think that is the position of idealistic nominalism. Plato's forms and all that transcendent stuff exist only as ideas. And a materialists would say that ideas are just electron, synapse, neuron based.

So you agree with me?

 

[Bradskii]

Some may feel empathy for one group and hate for another due to their personal experiences.

Rather I think concepts like empathy, justice, kindness ect are of the mind of conscious beings...

...your personal experiences that make you empathetic in some situations and not others. Right now we know of many people who are suffering and people turn a blind eye because they perceive it as not their problem or that they don't want to disrupt their comfortable life.

Depending on those circumstances what one person feels empathy for another will feel hate for. So empathy itself is not a good measure of morals.

You are confusing empathy with sympathy. It is not a positive emotion. It is simply an ability to be able to put oneself in anothers position. In their frame of mind. To understand what they are feeling. Which can be a positive thing for them - 'I wouldn't want to get beaten up and I think he feels the same, so let's keep this friendly. Or negative - 'I want him to suffer and I know he won't like this, so that's what I'm going to do.'

It is generally a help in negotiations - 'If I offer him next to nothing I know he'll simply leave, so I have to make the trade a reasonable one.'

And as I have shown, there is a definite genetic link. That link doesn't need to be a switch for Empathy On or Empathy Off. It just needs to have some people with a greater knowledge of what others are thinking for it to be an evolutionary advantage.

 

[Bradskii]

Didn't I just say I have already supplied the evidence. If you go back in my posts you will find it. This is a link to another thread with the evidence here #2,519

Thanks. I'll check those.

 

[Bradskii]

1. All human beings, or almost all human beings, want the following: peace, justice, kindness, order, security, comfort, love, freedom.....
2. We are smart enough to understand that certain principles (or rules), if followed, tend to promote the achievement of these desired states.
3. Those rules effectively become our morals.

Where is the mystery?

Pretty close to my view on the matter. Morals are what we called that which worked to allow us to survive. If everybody stole and murdered then civilisation would not have got a look in. Small groups of hunter gatherers wouldn't even have formed as the first rung to society. So those that had a tendency not to steal and murder had an evolutionary advantage and it was selected for. We therefore describe not stealing and murdering as good, and therefore moral.

An example I've used before is incest. It in universally thought to be immoral. And it's a very good reason why we don't procreate within our own families because the negative genetic results in offspring if we did would see us die off pretty quickly. So those that had a tendency to think it was OK have been removed from the gene pool. Leaving everyone else who thinks it's a bad idea.

But...if nature had rolled the dice differently and it would be an evolutionary advantage to breed within families, then we'd all think that having sex with someone who wasn't a close family member would be immoral.

 

[stevevw]

(Ken)
No. Let me clarify. I’m saying we can program machines to function in a way that mimics natural human behavior.

Yes I agree and we will probably get pretty close to human behavior. Even virtual reality can take us a long way being hard to tell between humans and virtual humans. But it misses one important ingredient, consciousness the ability to know what its like to be human and experience joy and other phenomenal experiences.

This is the big factor in the difference between mechanistic material conceptions of life and inner life which cannot be reduced to mechanistic material processes. Yet these non material phenomena are as real as the objective world. Not in the physical sense but in a phenomenal sense about the world.

(Ken)
Joy is the result of consciousness. Consciousness is natural for humans; thus joy is a natural thing for humans

If you mean as a naturalistic material basis for consciousness (physical brain) then this has not been supported by science. Its categorically impossible to equate brain (quantitative measure) with consciousness (qualitative measure).

(Ken)
I don’t think it is possible for something that is objective to transcend the material world; however perhaps you can give an example of how this might be possible

I agree objective science only deals with quantitative measures of the world like particles, chemicals, forces and fields. But is that all there is to know about the world and reality. What about transcendent phenomena like justice, beauty, kindness and truth. Are these like objective truths similar to laws of nature. Even laws of nature are a human creation and a concept of Mind. This implies some force beyond a physical object working in the world.

(Ken)
Can you give an example of this?

Love for example is non material idea. Yet it has a powerful effect on the world. Its opposite 'hate' has caused wars and the destruction of the planet. How much more real can we get. Truth is another its used as a measure of many things which in turn can determine the fate of people and the world we live in.

Our experience in general is the biggest non material phenomena with influence on things. Its what shaped our history as to who we are and the world we live in. From our experience we have derived these truth like laws such as 'truth' itself, justice, equality ect which all play a big role in who we are and how we survive on this planet and even the fate of the planet itself. So these non material phenomena can even wipe out human kind. That's pretty factual and real to me.

(Ken)
When I think of anything non material, I think of human imagination. Human imagination has zero effect on the material world. It may inspire physical action, but imagination by itself; nothing. Perhaps you can give an example of something non material that might have such an effect.

But as it inspires human action (the physical component) that is the cause of the physical outcome. We are entangled in the physical world and and have an influence. In fact imagination is the basis for science. Science ponders things beyond what we know and can see to be able to come up with new ways of knowing. You can't do that without imagination and creativity. Imagination gets a bad rap.
Why science needs imagination and beauty
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20131127-secret-to-thinking-like-a-genius

(Ken)
I believe empathy is a result of consciousness and intelligence. Consciousness and intelligence are descriptions of natural human traits. Because humans are evolved beings, human traits, evolves as well; empathy included; thus empathy IS a result of human evolution.

That seems like a circular reasoning, empathy is natural because evolution is natural. Actually empathy doesn't add up to being natural as it also includes conflicting evidence against it being beneficial for evolution. Empathy can invoke hate as well as kindness towards others. That's apart from there being no actual empathy gene.

(Ken)
The way I see it, the view of empathy, justice, kindness, or love is not the result of biology, but the result of the environment we are raised in.

If you mean the social environment then I agree. But I don't think any physical environment creates empathy like a tree or rock or even physical evens like predatory behavior's or natural events like volcanoes ect. It seems to be some abstract idea that only humans have between them. We are empathetic towards others and not the physical world. Morals seen to be a purely human domain. That is why consciousness is so central as this gives us the awareness of ourselves and others in the world.

(Ken)
But aren’t our conscious experiences a description of one of our physical abilities?

If you mean the brain then I don't think this has been verified. Its only been associated and that is not enough to explain why physical abilities should produce something that is not part of anything physical (physical ability). There is some other essence to it that is qualitative (qualia) and beyond the physical. That is subjective and cannot be measured objectively.