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

[Belk]

Everything you do requires brain function from walking, eating, to talking. Thought is a particular brain function.

Is walking not requiring of thought? That seems to reduce thought to be synonymous with conscious.

 

[Larniavc]

In order to comprehend time as we do it requires abstract thought and inductive reasoning. I'm sure they do comprehend time in some sense or rather the effects of it, because they do bury bones. But they're not planning anything for a specific moment in time in the same way we understand time, that requires maths .

Yeah, but that’s not what you said.

 

[Ken-1122]

Is walking not requiring of thought?

No.

 

[Paulos23]

You're using logic to conclude that logic works. You're using logic to define what works means. It seems you assume the truth of logic before you come to the conclusion that it works. You say we made it up but if someone were to invent another system what would you use to determine it's viability?

In regards to morality if we made them up then agreements upon behaviour =/= why I should follow them, they are arbitrary agreements and need a basis if you want to condemn someone. If a society comes together and agrees that torture for x reason is moral, and I disagree, which one would be right and why? Your moral principles are entirely arbitrary, you need a reason as to why hurting people is bad and then a reason as to why it's true. If you have no reason as to why it's true then you literally have no reason to believe it or follow it, let alone legislate it. If your reason is the avoidance of harm, you have now assumed that the avoidance of harm is a moral truth and you assume the value of human life which has no basis in materialism & naturalism. It seems incoherent. The only consistent stance within your worldview is that morality is arbitrary preference. I've only ever seen one person take this stance and it was The Amazing Atheist (used to watch him back in my atheist days) and if you were to take it I couldn't argue against it.

We observe things, make mesurements and come to conclutions that then are tested over time. There are optimal steps to get there and that is logic. Logic can be used to make incorrect conclutions if based on incorrect or incomplete assumtions. But in general, as a thought tool, it works well. It is used to figure out and discribe how the universe works. It doesn't exist outside of our heads.

The same goes with morals. The reason people follow group morals is that it is usally better to follow the morals of the group in order to get along with the group. Most groups (or societies) follow morals that are good for the group and tend to be good for the individual. We have don't steal as a common moral since for the most part society works better when people are not taking stuff from each other without asking. But even as strong as the moral is, it is boken every day in society because of a number of personal reasons.

So yes, if you don't want to follow the common morals, then don't. But that is why legal enforcement was invented.

 

[loveofourlord]

Of course a dogs sense of time is the same as ours; why would you think different?

Actually many animals have a much faster blink rate then us, some at least doubled, and some theorize that they might concieve time differently, at least the passage of it. human eyes can see a refresh rate of around 30-60 before wich it's too fast, some birds it's around one hundred and twenty, so to them, does the world move at a much slower rate?

 

[Ken-1122]

Actually many animals have a much faster blink rate then us, some at least doubled, and some theorize that they might concieve time differently, at least the passage of it. human eyes can see a refresh rate of around 30-60 before wich it's too fast, some birds it's around one hundred and twenty, so to them, does the world move at a much slower rate?

Time is not based on how fast you blink your eyes, so why would you assume time is different for the guy who blinks his eyes faster than you?

 

[loveofourlord]

Time is not based on how fast you blink your eyes, so why would you assume time is different for the guy who blinks his eyes faster than you?

....blink rate is the rate at wich a light or image can blink before it's a continual shot, you know like movies, games and such?

 

[loveofourlord]

Time is not based on how fast you blink your eyes, so why would you assume time is different for the guy who blinks his eyes faster than you?

looks like the proper term is, "flicker fusion rate"

 

[Ken-1122]

looks like the proper term is, "flicker fusion rate"

Flicker fusion rate does not affect time.

 

[loveofourlord]

Flicker fusion rate does not affect time.

no, but there is a good argument it would effect your perception of time, wich to an animal with double the rate, it would to them make the world move half the speed, in order for them to be able to register and view each and every single flash and movement.

 

[Tinker Grey]

no, but there is a good argument it would effect your perception of time, wich to an animal with double the rate, it would to them make the world move half the speed, in order for them to be able to register and view each and every single flash and movement.

How does a blind person experience time?

 

[loveofourlord]

How does a blind person experience time?

well it would be more how the brain processes things then the eyes themselves, the brain would have to be able to process more things.
Not quiet what I was talking about but this goes into a similar discussion.

Time is in the eye of the beholder: Time perception in animals depends on their pace of life

Scientists have shown that animals' ability to perceive time is linked to their pace of life. The rate at which time is perceived varies across animals. For example, flies owe their skill at avoiding rolled up newspapers to their ability to observe motion on finer timescales than our own eyes...

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[Ken-1122]

well it would be more how the brain processes things then the eyes themselves, the brain would have to be able to process more things.
Not quiet what I was talking about but this goes into a similar discussion.

Time is in the eye of the beholder: Time perception in animals depends on their pace of life

Scientists have shown that animals' ability to perceive time is linked to their pace of life. The rate at which time is perceived varies across animals. For example, flies owe their skill at avoiding rolled up newspapers to their ability to observe motion on finer timescales than our own eyes...

www.sciencedaily.com

Are you suggesting that if your brain has the ability to process more actions in a given unit of time, this gives the appearance that time is speeding up for you?

 

[gaara4158]

Seems incompatible given that they have no physical properties

Danger also has no physical properties, yet we are wise to consider it in every decision we make. Does the existence of danger pose a problem for materialists? Then why should logic and morals?

 

[Bradskii]

Are you suggesting that if your brain has the ability to process more actions in a given unit of time, this gives the appearance that time is speeding up for you?

No. It would appear to slow down. If you've been in a dangerous situation, like a car crash for example, you'll get a shot of adrenaline. That has the effect of focusing your mind and giving a boost to the speed at which you can react. So the sensation is of time slowing down. Things seem to happen in slow mo.

 

[Ken-1122]

No. It would appear to slow down. If you've been in a dangerous situation, like a car crash for example, you'll get a shot of adrenaline. That has the effect of focusing your mind and giving a boost to the speed at which you can react. So the sensation is of time slowing down. Things seem to happen in slow mo.

So how come things don't seem to happen in slow motion during a car crash?

 

[Bradskii]

I see no reason to believe otherwise. You believe the longer someone lives, the shorter time appears to them? So like if person "A" lives only to be 65, but person "B" lives to 100, that times appears slower to person "B" than "A"?

Two mayflies sitting on a leaf and one is discussing something that happened to him, and says 'Ah, but I'm going right back...oh...let me see...must be 15, 20 minutes ago'.

 

[Bradskii]

So how come things don't seem to happen in slow motion during a car crash?

They often do: Why accidents and emergencies seem to dramatically slow down time

 

[Bradskii]

They are products but not material in any sense that I can think of. I prefer to think of them as products of the mind, rather than the brain. It is common in speech to consider mind and brain as the same thing, but that does seem to be the case.

There is no room for the mind in materialism..This is, I think, the central weakness.

I think it's like a car and driving representing the brain and thinking. There's a physical car. But you can't point to 'the driving'. You can see which parts of the car are responsible for making it move just like we know which parts of the brain activate when you think of something. But the sensation of driving is not the sum of those parts being active.

 

[Ken-1122]

They often do: Why accidents and emergencies seem to dramatically slow down time

Wow! I guess for some people, that's really a thing huh? Never really had it happen to me, but I guess for some people it's real. Thanks for the info.