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

[stevevw]

People may have a voice in which attributes are being selected for, but the final arbiter of which attributes survive is always evolution.

I'm not sure about that. If you mean by natural selection then yes in the end only certain behaviors will persist. But that doesn't explain these behaviors and what they represent as far as what is actually driving things. I think humans can have a say in the world and direct the outcome of evolution. In that sense its the human who is creating the environment that is most beneficial and not being modified by some external force upon them. This gives more causal influence to humans themselves rather than a naturalistic process like evolution.

In the short term people may appear to have some say in the matter, but in the long term the final arbiter is always evolution. In that sense evolution is a lot like God. As Kyle Reese says in "The Terminator".

“It can't be bargained with, it can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity! Or remorse or fear and it absolutely will not stop!"​

And I might add that it's always correct, it never makes mistakes, it's completely impartial, and therefore its decisions are always just. Evolution is the epitome of objectivity.

I disagree and think this view is very simplistic and doesn't take into account the ability of a conscious being being able to act in the world and change it and that is what naturalistic ideas like evolution do. They step beyond what it actually does and give creative power that is not there. You are right in that its almost a form of religious belief. We are natural believers in some force beyond this world and we will indulge in this thinking whether we give gods or nature that power.

You're correct that human behavior in the short term isn't simply about survival of the fittest, but evolution will always guarantee that in the long term it IS about survival of the fittest. So if you have some overarching sense of morality... thank evolution.

I don't think so. I think morality transcends this naturalistic view. It could be as you say that in the future it may come down to eliminating people for survival sake. In some ways we do that now with the way we treat some people as though their life doesn't matter and other certain people do.

So to me that is not moral and morality transcends this. Its about sacrificing ones self for the greater good of others which seems to contradict evolution and survival of the fittest. And there are many examples where we would have to act in contradiction to morality which evolution cannot account for.

 

[stevevw]

No you don't.

Suppose we grant that such inherent "moral laws" exist. Why *ought* we follow them?

I submit that you cannot answer this question without appealing to value judgement. Values are necessarily subjective. "Objective value" is an oxymoron.

I disagree that values are subjective but rather a different kind of truth in the world like the 'is' of objective facts. But these truths or facts are also different to objective facts as they contain a moral component in how we should treat others. So moral truths are entangled with value judgements about how we should live with each other as moral beings so they transcend the is/ought gap understood by logic.

 

[Ken-1122]

The examples I gave were about when justice is not being served. You can't determine if justice is being served or not unless you have some objective determination of what justice is. The OJ case is an interesting one. Most people of color thought he was innocent and most whites thought he was guilty. That tells us that race was involved and that is what the defense tapped into to take the focus off the evidence and the truth. That shows that we can corrupt the truth.

(Ken)
When truth is objective, it cannot be corrupted. 1+1=2; is true concerning math. No amount of trickery, emotional corruption or opinion can change that; because it is objective. If moral truths were objective, it would be as non corruptible as math.

But what if the laws of the law actually stemmed from the laws of God. What if as part of being human we have the knowledge of Gods laws. Then we could say that non-believers act out Gods laws by making them laws of the land. This is consistent with the Bible which says that people know Gods laws before they were set in stone.

If that were true, human laws would not be in a constant state of change.

But that is not scientific. It jumps from the physical brain to consciousness without any account of how that exactly happens.

Actually those who study the brain ( neurology) do know how this happens; but for the sake of your argument, let’s say it’s not scientific. Why you bringing science into this conversation? Remember it is science who dismiss YOUR explanation outta hand, so if those silly scientists don’t know what they are talking about when they dismiss your explanation, why would you all of a sudden act like they know what they are talking about concerning mine?

That's the question many don't stop to think about. Its the laws that really model the universe and these are a product of Mind. We use mental model of Math in physics and cosmology and it seems to map out things very well. In fact Einstein said that one of the greatest mysteries is how Math can explain the universe so well.

Laws of the land have nothing to do with how the Universe works. Laws are an example of something non material (Legal matters) coming from material (Brain).

But like I said 'thoughts' themselves are materially transcendent. Thoughts are of mind which points to Mind being fundamental and not matter.

The mind is what we call the thinking function of the brain. The brain is physical/material and the mind cannot be separated from it.

The answer is and I don't want to cop out but I think its yes and no. Yes in that everything is really a subjective view of the conscious subject. We all as subjects have our point of view. That can be influenced by many factors and taint things even morality. But at the same time I think we can sort through this to find moral truths and our long history of doing this lends support for these truths because we didn't just prefer or feel these truths we embodied them to know their reality.

There is support for everyone knowing these moral truths from birth or a very early age before we can be indoctrinated and that they are more sophisticated then human made ideas. I think for various reasons we corrupt and deny these truths which doesn't mean their open to personal opinion. The very nature of morality is that its normative so we live like morals require a right or wrong determination.

So its not really about mine or anyone else personal moral views but whether morals require an objective determination by nature. I could claim that I know a moral truth about something but then be wrong in that I did not fully understand what was involved. Some moral truths seem very clear like rape, child abuse, murder and others not so clear at the time. But none of this means there is not a truth to be found.

I think everyone's subjective morals views including my own line up for the most part with these moral truths. But that's not surprising if we all have this knowledge in the first place. I don't think there's as much difference between people morally whether they act in in accordance with these truths or not.

Are you suggesting there are objective moral truths, but we just don’t always know what they are? If so, how do you know they even exist?

 

[Bradskii]

I'm not sure about that. If you mean by natural selection then yes in the end only certain behaviors will persist. But that doesn't explain these behaviors and what they represent as far as what is actually driving things. I think humans can have a say in the world and direct the outcome of evolution.

This is an important point. That we have reached a point where we can control the environment in which we live to a greater degree. But bear in mind that the evolutionary driven characteristics that have been discussed were selected for a very long time ago indeed. This modern ability to effectively control the direction of our evolutionary future hasn't been in place long enough to cause any great changes.

That said, other changes brought on by the pressures of civilisation and large societies have made changes to us. Call that the nurture in nature v nurture if you like. That possibly runs at about 50:50 give or take.

Or, as I read recently, if a German philosopher is correct and we are fated to be as we are, it could be nurture v nature v Nietzsche.

Thanks you...I'm here all week. Try the veal, it's delicious.

 

[Bradskii]

I disagree that values are subjective but rather a different kind of truth in the world...

Redefining words to suit your argument is never a great way to conduct a conversation. Values are subjective by definition.

 

[stevevw]

Redefining words to suit your argument is never a great way to conduct a conversation. Values are subjective by definition.

Well you have just counted out all the objectivists who think values can be objective.

Value Is Objective
The objectivist believes that value is a property of the object itself, independent of any particular subject's judgment.

If you are talking about moral values then claiming moral values are subjective is unjustified as you cannot know this and therefore its an assumption and more a belief then fact.

 

[Bradskii]

Well you have just counted out all the objectivists who think values can be objective.

Value Is Objective
The objectivist believes that value is a property of the object itself, independent of any particular subject's judgment.

If you are talking about moral values then claiming moral values are subjective is unjustified as you cannot know this and therefore its an assumption and more a belief then fact.

I guess I need to confirm what I said. Yes, objectivists who think that what I value has the same value for them are...how can I put this...grossly mistaken.

At the moment I have my drink on a coaster made from sticks that my son made when he was about six. Possibly one of the things I would rescue first in a fire. To any given 'objectivist' it's a few painted sticks stuck together. You think it has the same value to each of us?

You are having a joke, surely...

And knowing that moral values are subjective isn't one of the hardest concepts to determine. You simply ask people.

 

[stevevw]

This is an important point. That we have reached a point where we can control the environment in which we live to a greater degree. But bear in mind that the evolutionary driven characteristics that have been discussed were selected for a very long time ago indeed. This modern ability to effectively control the direction of our evolutionary future hasn't been in place long enough to cause any great changes.

I disagree. We have always had that control. We are no different in the past as we are today. The only difference is we have an accumulated knowledge and tech ect. This was done by the types of living conditions we created, changing environments, the values we pass on ect. These aspects have no genetic basis as they are subjectively determined by the subject/s.

We have through our experience ways of knowing nature and the ability to side step non beneficial conditions and work with nature so we can live in harmony. We also have the ability to make poor choices and destroy nature and the environment.

That said, other changes brought on by the pressures of civilisation and large societies have made changes to us. Call that the nurture in nature v nurture if you like. That possibly runs at about 50:50 give or take.

Yes I think evolution is more reciprocal rather than a one way process of being adapted to fit environments. Environments change, creatures can change environments and in doing influence other species and back again. Its not all about genes but also non genetic influences like epigenetics where lifestyle influence the expression of genes for better or worse.

But I think this places humans in control of their own evolution and once again places the subject as central as far as reality is concerned. Our knowledge and actions have an effect on nature and the world and its not all about the material processes underlying.

It seems this is a common theme in all sciences where Mind and consciousness seem to be a fundamental aspect through the inclusion of the subject as being an influencing factor.

Or, as I read recently, if a German philosopher is correct and we are fated to be as we are, it could be nurture v nature v Nietzsche.

Thanks you...I'm here all week. Try the veal, it's delicious.

I think that's a nihilistic way of seeing things. But isn't this what the naturalist and determinist view is, we are just meat robots, without free will programmed by our genes and nervous system. There is no morality because we cannot help do what we do because this was determined by naturalistic causes.

 

[Bradskii]

I disagree. We have always had that control. We are no different in the past as we are today.

I guess you don't live in a cave, take all day to root around for some berries and take all day to hunt down a kangaroo and eat it raw. I guess that you live in a modern home with heating and hot and cold water, have a fridge full of food you could cook with instant gas or electric to hand and have the same option to order out as I just did.

So why you just said that I have no idea whatsoever.

Time to get real, buddy.

 

[stevevw]

I guess I need to confirm what I said. Yes, objectivists who think that what I value has the same value for them are...how can I put this...grossly mistaken.

At the moment I have my drink on a coaster made from sticks that my son made when he was about six. Possibly one of the things I would rescue first in a fire. To any given 'objectivist' it's a few painted sticks stuck together. You think it has the same value to each of us?

You are having a joke, surely...

No, what you are talking about is instrumental value, this value depends on something else which can be subjective. But there are also intrinsic values. Things that have value in and of themselves as an end. Like say Truth, Beauty, Goodness and Justice for example.

And knowing that moral values are subjective isn't one of the hardest concepts to determine. You simply ask people.

The same with moral values, things like Truth and Justice have value in themselves as a end. But saying that asking people about morals doesn't means they are subjective. We could apply the same logic to asking people about whether the earth is round or if climate change is real. This doesn't negate that there may be an objective determination about morals.

As mentioned everything is subjective in the sense that the world can be experienced by the subject. But we can still know and determine truths about the world physically and transcendently.

 

[stevevw]

I guess you don't live in a cave, take all day to root around for some berries and take all day to hunt down a kangaroo and eat it raw. I guess that you live in a modern home with heating and hot and cold water, have a fridge full of food you could cook with instant gas or electric to hand and have the same option to order out as I just did.

So why you just said that I have no idea whatsoever.

Time to get real, buddy.

It is real. Even non human creatures who I would expect are far less advanced than a cave man can have control over evolution. Primitive humans created environments that were conducive to their survival. In fact in some ways primitive humans may have been even better at controlling things than modern humans who seem to mess nature up rather than live in harmony with it. We are only just recognizing Indigenous knowledge for example and how this was used to survive for 1000's of years.

Culture is another. The type of cultural beliefs and practices can mean the difference between survival or not. These are about human influence on evolution which are not about genes and NS or at least these behavior's can influence what is selected. But that is putting things in the hands or should I say Minds of humans and not nature.

 

[Bradskii]

No, what you are talking about is instrumental value, this value depends on something else which can be subjective. But there are also intrinsic values. Things that have value in and of themselves as an end. Like say Truth, Beauty, Goodness and Justice for example.

Abject nonsense. Beauty, for example, is literally in the eye of the beholder.

Your arguments have some desperation about them. I'm close to losing my patience in continuing.

 

[stevevw]

(Ken)
When truth is objective, it cannot be corrupted. 1+1=2; is true concerning math. No amount of trickery, emotional corruption or opinion can change that; because it is objective. If moral truths were objective, it would be as non corruptible as math.

That's because you are using a false analogy between Math and morality. Math doesn't have that normative aspect as moral do. But it can work like Math in that morals are true in themselves. You could say sexual abuse = morally wrong. No amount of corrupted opinion will change that. Anyone who claims sexual abuse is morally good is mistaken just like someone who claims 1+1=3.

But also ideas like Justice, Truth and kindness are true in themselves. Like I said before Justice is Justice regardless of whether its corrupted because we cannot say it has been corrupted if there is no standard what Justice itself means. Like C.S. Lewis who asked how can I complain about an unjust universe if there was no truth to Justice in the first place, It is only by acknowledging that there is Justice in the universe to object in the injustices done in this world.

If that were true, human laws would not be in a constant state of change.

Why just because we may know the law and the truth doesn't mean people have to acknowledge or follow them. We have free will and can choose. We also have a selfish nature where we can corrupt the truth. But often we learn the hard way and its by experiencing these truths in our lives that we come to realize them. In the past we may have had a lack of understanding of situations especially in medicine and we did things that may have been immoral in todays thinking. But through knowledge we now realize it was wrong.

I suspect that even when we don't fully understand at the time that we do intuitively know something is wrong or begin to suspect its wrong but it takes time and often conflict to allow that truth to come out into the light.

Actually those who study the brain ( neurology) do know how this happens; but for the sake of your argument, let’s say it’s not scientific. Why you bringing science into this conversation? Remember it is science who dismiss YOUR explanation outta hand, so if those silly scientists don’t know what they are talking about when they dismiss your explanation, why would you all of a sudden act like they know what they are talking about concerning mine?

I'm not dismissing science. I am saying science is good at certain things and has its limits. Those limits fall into more transcendent truths about life and reality. Science knows about the workings of the brain but it seems to hit a conceptual wall when it comes to consciousness and transcendent truths which are more about a quality and value that science cannot measure. Why not include both aspects as being real. Why does scientific materialism get to determined everything when our experience of the world is not just about the material things.

I think that because science and tech have been so successful that people begin to see it all the all inclusive answer to everything when its not. In fact taking this view can actually cause more problems morally as it detaches ourselves from these transcendent truths and our sense of self.

Laws of the land have nothing to do with how the Universe works. Laws are an example of something non material (Legal matters) coming from material (Brain).

Actually laws come from immaterial Mind which cannot be reduced to the material brain. Mind itself has no wires, or neurons. Saying its the result of the material brain is just an unsupported assertion as no one has ever explained how Mind can actually come from mindless material matter.

Laws as a governing principle can be applied to many things like in a legal sense, laws of physics, laws of nature and laws of morals.

The mind is what we call the thinking function of the brain. The brain is physical/material and the mind cannot be separated from it.

But the Mind is already separate from it in the sense that the physical brain or mindless matter cannot think and experience. If we built a robotic brain that functioned like humans it still won't have the ability to think for itself or have a sense of conscious self no more than a rock can.

Are you suggesting there are objective moral truths, but we just don’t always know what they are? If so, how do you know they even exist?

We do know what they are as we are born with basic morals. Its a fallacy to say that just because we don't know what the truth is at the time that there is no truth to be found.

 

[stevevw]

Abject nonsense. Beauty, for example, is literally in the eye of the beholder.

The point is the beholder can experience beauty as something real.

Your arguments have some desperation about them. I'm close to losing my patience in continuing.

I am talking about the principles of these truths. There is such a thing as beauty that we experience in the world despite peoples subjective views.

Even so beauty can even be measured in certain situations. For example the Golden ratio found in nature such as a face, or shells, and even people copied this with the pyramids for example. We intuitively know this beauty when we see it regardless of subjective views about beauty.

 

[Ken-1122]

Even so beauty can even be measured in certain situations. For example the Golden ratio found in nature such as a face, or shells, and even people copied this with the pyramids for example. We intuitively know this beauty when we see it regardless of subjective views about beauty.

The Golden ratio has nothing to do with beauty.

 

[Ken-1122]

That's because you are using a false analogy between Math and morality. Math doesn't have that normative aspect as moral do. But it can work like Math in that morals are true in themselves. You could say sexual abuse = morally wrong. No amount of corrupted opinion will change that. Anyone who claims sexual abuse is morally good is mistaken just like someone who claims 1+1=3.

(Ken)
I can provide proof that 1+1 does not equal 3. Can you provide proof that sexual abuse is wrong? No you cannot; that’s because unlike math, morality is not objective.

Why just because we may know the law and the truth doesn't mean people have to acknowledge or follow them. We have free will and can choose. We also have a selfish nature where we can corrupt the truth.

The problem with your line of thinking is you act as if everybody knows the truth concerning each moral issue, and those who disagree are purposely being corrupt. the real world does not work that way; people disagree with each other because they each believe they are right and the other person is wrong; and there is no objective means of proving otherwise.

I'm not dismissing science. I am saying science is good at certain things and has its limits. Those limits fall into more transcendent truths about life and reality. Science knows about the workings of the brain but it seems to hit a conceptual wall when it comes to consciousness and transcendent truths which are more about a quality and value that science cannot measure. Why not include both aspects as being real. Why does scientific materialism get to determined everything when our experience of the world is not just about the material things.

I think that because science and tech have been so successful that people begin to see it all the all inclusive answer to everything when its not. In fact taking this view can actually cause more problems morally as it detaches ourselves from these transcendent truths and our sense of self.

All I’m saying is if you aren’t going to apply science to the entirety of your explanation, don’t try applying it to mine; keep science out of the discussion.

Actually laws come from immaterial Mind which cannot be reduced to the material brain. Mind itself has no wires, or neurons. Saying its the result of the material brain is just an unsupported assertion as no one has ever explained how Mind can actually come from mindless material matter.

But the Mind is already separate from it in the sense that the physical brain or mindless matter cannot think and experience.

No, the mind is not separate from the brain. Whatever you do that effects the brain, will effect the mind because they are the same.

If we built a robotic brain that functioned like humans it still won't have the ability to think for itself or have a sense of conscious self no more than a rock can.

What we call a robotic brain is not an actual brain.

We do know what they are as we are born with basic morals. Its a fallacy to say that just because we don't know what the truth is at the time that there is no truth to be found.

You keep mistaking moral truth for objective moral truth. Everybody knows subjective moral truth, nobody knows objective moral truth and it is not a fallacy to assume objective moral truth does not exist.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Seems incompatible given that they have no physical properties

Language

 

[Ana the Ist]

Nouns can be concrete or abstract.

This guy gets it

 

[stevevw]

(Ken)
I can provide proof that 1+1 does not equal 3. Can you provide proof that sexual abuse is wrong? No you cannot; that’s because unlike math, morality is not objective.

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

The problem with your line of thinking is you act as if everybody knows the truth concerning each moral issue, and those who disagree are purposely being corrupt.

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. But as we have a inclination to be selfish sometimes perhaps often we will corrupt the truth to benefit ourselves. Maybe turn a blind eye, justify something that may not be the case, be blinded by pride or in denial of reality. The point was the way morality works most of the time I think someone is going to be wrong because its about rightness and wrongness.

the real world does not work that way; people disagree with each other because they each believe they are right and the other person is wrong; and there is no objective means of proving otherwise.

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

All I’m saying is if you aren’t going to apply science to the entirety of your explanation, don’t try applying it to mine; keep science out of the discussion.

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.

No, the mind is not separate from the brain. Whatever you do that effects the brain, will effect the mind because they are the same.

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.

What we call a robotic brain is not an actual brain.

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. We can reproduce a human hand electronically, we can reproduce a human eye maybe even better with technical advances. So why not a brain.

David Chalmers Zombie thought experiment covers this. The idea is that there is no reason why nature could not have produced human like zombies that have no consciousness and yet can function just like humans. Consciousness seems to be this additional 'something' that is not necessary if we tale the material and reductive view of life.

You keep mistaking moral truth for objective moral truth.

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.

Everybody knows subjective moral truth, nobody knows objective moral truth and it is not a fallacy to assume objective moral truth does not exist.

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.

 

[stevevw]

The Golden ratio has nothing to do with beauty.

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