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

[stevevw]

Even if this is true, it still doesn't change the fact that what we perceive of the world is based on something that is objectively real.

How do you know its objectively real. The science seems to point to it not being objectively real.

That's not what I was talking about. Allow me to rephrase what I said earlier:

And if it did represent some deeper aspect of reality, and that's why different people see reality the same way, then that just shows that there is more to reality than just some invented mental image. There is some objective truth to reality.

Consciousness would affect our perception of that reality, but I was talking about the reality itself.

Consciousness doesn't effect our perceptions, consciousness is the experience of 'what it is like' to have those perceptions. We perceive a color in from of us and we experience that color. Consciousness is direct between the perceived object and our Mind. A mental concept is something we create as a result of our experience. So conscious experience comes first.

The reality itself as you term it is our conscious experience. The mental image or concept our Mind creates about what we perceive may be how we comprehend fundamental reality by constructing the objective world. That's is all we can manage given our abilities.

 

[stevevw]

No, I'm saying that if our perception of colour is completely subjective, then what appears to me to be a high contrast yellow/black could appear to you to be a low contrast dark blue/dark red. Since our ability to detect contrast can be objectively tested (a simple measure of how quickly we can determine if a series of lines is two different colours or not), this suggests that there is some objective thing that we are perceiving.

Then your making a case for objective phenomena in the world that cannot be reduced to mass or occupy space and time which is what I have been trying to point out all along.

 

[stevevw]

(Ken)
No. Math and the other stuff you mentioned do not have an actual existence, math is a system based on human thought. No more real than dreams are real.

This is the crux of what I am talking about as far as realness is concerned. What is realness, is it just physical objects or is there abstract and transcendent real things in the world. Real as in they help create reality or influence the world and reality. You keep saying Math and transcendent phenomena don't exist but then you make a case that math does exist.

Math exist in the world, it governs our money system, engineering, its even the basis for physic theories like Relativity and Newtonian physics. If math is not real as in not having some influence on what reality is then our theories about the world are also not real.

You’re taking the opinions of Philosophers as evidence of what happens in the real world? There is no empirical evidence that what this guy is saying is true. Philosophy is not about getting to the truth of the matter, Philosophy is about questions; often that can never be answered.

Philosophy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You obviously didn't read the article. The ideas proposed in the article are based on empirical science in quantum mechanics.

If morality were objective, there could be no greater moral to over-ride it when someone deems necessary. Gravity is objective; do we get to over ride the effects of gravity if say…. a life is at stake? No.

Actually if we look at gravity as a force in the world understanding its fundamental reality we could say that Newtonian gravity has been over ridden by a greater objective truth in Einstein's theory of relativity. Now with QM we are facing another possible greater truth in how gravity relates to the quantum world. So the objective truth of the matter is being updated all the time.

But nevertheless this example will break down as morality is not like empirical science. But the principle that there can be a greater truth still works the same. Morals ultimately will come into conflict with each other. If your in a situation where your faced with a choice which means you have to lie to save a life, then what do you do. Which is the greater wrong. Most people would say sending an innocent to their death is a greater wrong than lying about their whereabouts and for good reason.

Math is objective; do we get to over ride math with a greater math if money is at stake? No.
I can’t think of anything; perhaps you can. Please provide another example of something objective being over-ridden this way.

That's because using math or objects to compare to morality is a false analogy. Its only similar in that both math and morality have truths or facts about them but are explained in different ways.

I see. I think our disagreement is based on whether morality is based on facts or not. I say it is not, you say it is based on the subjective opinions of a couple of Philosophers.

How is dictionary definitions the work of philosophy.

So if a worker has the view that his race is superior to all others, he should be allowed to express it free of judgment, and his views should not in any way hinder him when he is considered for promotion over other people; is this your view?

Well yes as that's got nothing to do with his ability to do the job. I am sure workers within a large company have all sorts of strange and weird beliefs and views on the world. But they are also good at their job. Their beliefs or views should not come into it. They should be able to express those beliefs and views if it comes up without fear of losing their job.

Then save up your money, start your own business, and you can invite an environment where people can express all of their views; even the ones that harm your business.

Why would I need to do that when its a basic Human Right to be able to hold and express your beliefs and views. Current workplace law already provides this environment so I don't need to start a business as its already been done.

If we can’t hear, taste, or touch it, how do we know?

We know through our direct experience of something. What 'it is like' to experience something. This can give us direct knowledge of reality. For example the experience of color. Color is not an objective thing but it can be real. We see something red in front of us and can gain knowledge of what 'it is like' to have a red experience.

But if your opinion is 100% truth, how is this different than what I just said?

Because its not my opinion but the 'Truth' of the matter. Just like its not my opinion that the earth is round, but the fact of the matter. If someone says the earth is flat I can refer to objective facts about the earth being round. That is not my truth but is the "truth'. The same with moral truths. I can point to how abusing people is a moral wrong because it effects their wellbeing. That's not my truth that's just a 'truth' in the world that we know and have experienced.

Wellbeing does not determine right vs wrong.

It does if human life is sovereign and we have guaranteed natural rights that go along with this like the right to thrive.

There are plenty of facts concerning SSM, but none of them determine right vs wrong unless you subjectively decide those facts determine right vs wrong in your view.

Once again not if life is sovereign and we have natural rights that go along with this like the right to thrive.

We also stand here and say SSM is right! Does that mean we have moved closer to the truth in that regard? Or is that issue an exception because you personally disagree with it?

It will depend on the truth of the matter. We may not know that truth right now just like people thought slavery was ok in the past. Just because there may be a moral truth doesn't mean people can get things wrong or deny the truth. Secular society has thought many things to be morally OK only to find they were not later.

But that is how subjective morals work. It seems moral views are influenced and dictated by personal motives and agendas like slavery was with money and cheap labor. Whoever can force their views on society wins. So we have to go through living out those personally enforced views until we see that they were always wrong and then we change hopefully learning a lesson and stepping closer to the moral truth.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Not having read through all 240+ posts in this thread, here's my position...

Things like morality, laws of logic, and information are concepts, and as such exist in our thoughts. Since our thoughts are a function of our brains, and the interactions between neurons, they still ultimately stem from a material position.

However, I'll state this is a provisional position. I haven't thought too much about it, and I reserve the right to change this position in part or in full at any time.

This is the problem with materialism or naturalism. It says that these things exists solely within our thoughts, the thing is though is that by making such an admission you do admit that they do in fact exist. The reckoning that because they exist solely within our thoughts and therefore it disqualifies them in some manner or another is fundamentally blind and speaks to the biases exhibited in order to maintain the position. If these things come from a material substance but yet remain immaterial (think of numbers, symbols or information in general), that would still have a thing that exists within our universe that exists without physical properties.

For example, if circular reasoning exists and is unable to be measured in terms of physical properties (weighed, measured & etc), it would posit that an immaterial law would exist. Whether it came from a material means or not is irrelevant, there is still the matter of an immaterial thing existing. What then becomes the case is that an immaterial thing exists and exists within the material person and the logic to deny such will invoke a faith based supposition or position as to how an immaterial thing came into existence from a universe in which only matter exists.

 

[Kylie]

How do you know its objectively real. The science seems to point to it not being objectively real.

I literally just explained this.

If it was not objectively real, there would be no reason why I would see something as high contrast colours and you should not. Yet this never happens.

Consciousness doesn't effect our perceptions, consciousness is the experience of 'what it is like' to have those perceptions. We perceive a color in from of us and we experience that color. Consciousness is direct between the perceived object and our Mind. A mental concept is something we create as a result of our experience. So conscious experience comes first.

The reality itself as you term it is our conscious experience. The mental image or concept our Mind creates about what we perceive may be how we comprehend fundamental reality by constructing the objective world. That's is all we can manage given our abilities.

If conscious ness and our perception are the same thing, then reality is the thing that we are perceiving. There is either something external to ourselves that we are perceiving, or everything that we are perceiving is invented within our own minds from scratch.

If it's something external to ourselves that we are perceving, then that is reality. If it is entirely within our own minds, then there's no reason why what I see should be the same as what you see.

Yet, if we were standing next to each other and someone popped a balloon behind us, we'd both react to the sound. If what we perceive is invented purely within our own minds, then why would your mind invent something to be startled by at the exact same moment that my mind invented the same sort of thing?

 

[Kylie]

This is the problem with materialism or naturalism. It says that these things exists solely within our thoughts, the thing is though is that by making such an admission you do admit that they do in fact exist. The reckoning that because they exist solely within our thoughts and therefore it disqualifies them in some manner or another is fundamentally blind and speaks to the biases exhibited in order to maintain the position. If these things come from a material substance but yet remain immaterial (think of numbers, symbols or information in general), that would still have a thing that exists within our universe that exists without physical properties.

For example, if circular reasoning exists and is unable to be measured in terms of physical properties (weighed, measured & etc), it would posit that an immaterial law would exist. Whether it came from a material means or not is irrelevant, there is still the matter of an immaterial thing existing. What then becomes the case is that an immaterial thing exists and exists within the material person and the logic to deny such will invoke a faith based supposition or position as to how an immaterial thing came into existence from a universe in which only matter exists.

I think you are confusing "a thing" and "a thought about a thing."

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I think you are confusing "a thing" and "a thought about a thing."

If both reside within existence and one happens to be immaterial, then an immaterial thing would exist within existence. Whether it's a thought or not is irrelevant.

 

[Kylie]

If both reside within existence and one happens to be immaterial, then an immaterial thing would exist within existence. Whether it's a thought or not is irrelevant.

I think you need to go and read my post HERE again...

 

[Ken-1122]

If both reside within existence and one happens to be immaterial, then an immaterial thing would exist within existence. Whether it's a thought or not is irrelevant.

That depends on how you are defining “existence”. I define existence as something that is real. Thoughts are not real, they have no existence outside of the person imagining them. If you want to define existence to include “thoughts of a thing”, then you have to include Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, and anything a wild imagination can muster because everything exists. This causes confusion because most when most people think of that which exist, they think of that which is real

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

That depends on how you are defining “existence”. I define existence as something that is real. Thoughts are not real, they have no existence outside of the person imagining them. If you want to define existence to include “thoughts of a thing”, then you have to include Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, and anything a wild imagination can muster because everything exists. This causes confusion because most when most people think of that which exist, they think of that which is real

They might not be "real" but your admission that they have no existence outside of the person imagining them means that they do still exist in one form or another, that being existing within the person imagining them. Which still needs an explanation under materialism, how something that is immaterial can exist within inside a person when that person itself is supposed to be only matter. Unless of course you want to say that information itself is not "real" because it only exists inside the thoughts of a person.

I think you need to go and read my post HERE again...

I read them and that's what I responded to. To say that an immaterial thought doesn't exist because it's produced by a thought within a person is a non sequitur. You still believe that which is immaterial exists, even if it only exists within thought.

 

[Kylie]

They might not be "real" but your admission that they have no existence outside of the person imagining them means that they do still exist in one form or another, that being existing within the person imagining them. Which still needs an explanation under materialism, how something that is immaterial can exist within inside a person when that person itself is supposed to be only matter. Unless of course you want to say that information itself is not "real" because it only exists inside the thoughts of a person.


I read them and that's what I responded to. To say that an immaterial thought doesn't exist because it's produced by a thought within a person is a non sequitur. You still believe that which is immaterial exists, even if it only exists within thought.

My post said that a thought is a function of the brain, which is material.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

My post said that a thought is a function of the brain, which is material.

If both reside within existence and one happens to be immaterial, then an immaterial thing would exist within existence. Whether it's a thought or not is irrelevant.

If matter produces non matter then it needs an explanation as to how it happened within a material universe

 

[Ken-1122]

This is the crux of what I am talking about as far as realness is concerned. What is realness, is it just physical objects or is there abstract and transcendent real things in the world.

(Ken)
Real is limited to physical objects

Real as in they help create reality or influence the world and reality.

Real is not defined that way; there are countless things that are real that do not influence the world and reality

You keep saying Math and transcendent phenomena don't exist but then you make a case that math does exist.

Math exist in the world, it governs our money system, engineering, its even the basis for physic theories like Relativity and Newtonian physics. If math is not real as in not having some influence on what reality is then our theories about the world are also not real.

To suggest math governs our money system, or engineering is as absurd as suggesting trees, and steel create houses. People USE wood from trees and steel to build houses, but never in the history of mankind has an actual tree and steel from the ground ever built a house. The same goes for math; people USE math to govern money systems and engineering, but never has math done any of this itself.

But the principle that there can be a greater truth still works the same. Morals ultimately will come into conflict with each other.

Who decides when there can be a greater moral truth? What is this decision based on?

That's because using math or objects to compare to morality is a false analogy. Its only similar in that both math and morality have truths or facts about them but are explained in different ways.

Math is objective. My point is; anything objective cannot be over-ridden by something greater. If you disagree, then again; point to something else objective that can be over-ridden. If you can’t do that then admit morality is NOT objective.

How is dictionary definitions the work of philosophy.

My claim that morality is subjective has nothing to do with philosophy.

Well yes as that's got nothing to do with his ability to do the job. I am sure workers within a large company have all sorts of strange and weird beliefs and views on the world. But they are also good at their job. Their beliefs or views should not come into it. They should be able to express those beliefs and views if it comes up without fear of losing their job.

If a white racist makes it clear that he thinks white people are superior to all other races and make better leaders, to promote such a racist to management will make it clear to all non-white people that they don’t stand a chance for advancement because the racist will never promote him. He will also treat non white customers differently than he treats white customers. Can you see how this will affect business?

Why would I need to do that when its a basic Human Right to be able to hold and express your beliefs and views.

In the USA there is no human right to be able to express your beliefs and views free of consequences.

We know through our direct experience of something. What 'it is like' to experience something.

Again; how do you experience something if you can’t taste, touch, hear, smell or see it?

Because its not my opinion but the 'Truth' of the matter. Just like its not my opinion that the earth is round, but the fact of the matter.

According to you, it is your opinion, and the truth of the matter. Just like the fact that the Earth is round is my opinion AND the truth of the matter.

It does if human life is sovereign and we have guaranteed natural rights that go along with this like the right to thrive.

Well feel free to provide proof that human life is sovereign, and all that other stuff you mentioned; till then it will remain just an empty claim.

It will depend on the truth of the matter. We may not know that truth right now

Maybe we do know the truth of the matter right now. Maybe you are just on the wrong side of truth but don’t realize it. If that is the case, how would you know it?

 

[Kylie]

If matter produces non matter then it needs an explanation as to how it happened within a material universe

Thought is a process, not a substance.

It's no more difficult to understand than how a car can create movement.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Thought is a process, not a substance.

It's no more difficult to understand than how a car can create movement.

Is the process immaterial or does it have physical properties?

Also I'm guessing that both you & I don't know how a car actually creates movement, so I think that's a poor analogy. We know that motion exists, but motion itself doesn't have any physical properties. Your argument seems to refute itself if you hold to materialism, which states that only matter exists.

 

[Kylie]

Is the process immaterial or does it have physical properties?

The process is the interaction of physical things, in the case of thoughts, it is the interaction between neurons, which are physical things.

Also I'm guessing that both you & I don't know how a car actually creates movement, so I think that's a poor analogy.

I understand quite well the processes by which an internal combustion engine works, and how the car uses that to create movement.

We know that motion exists, but motion itself doesn't have any physical properties. Your argument seems to refute itself if you hold to materialism, which states that only matter exists.

And what is it that you think is in motion? That's right - it's MATTER.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

The process is the interaction of physical things, in the case of thoughts, it is the interaction between neurons, which are physical things.

I understand quite well the processes by which an internal combustion engine works, and how the car uses that to create movement.

And what is it that you think is in motion? That's right - it's MATTER.

Motion is the CONCEPT (which itself is without physical properties) of the movement of matter, which would be information. You say that understand the creation of movement but the point I was making was that you (or I) wouldn't be able to explain why motion *IS* as apposed to a combustion engine not creating movement but something else entirely. All of your definitions of what is 'real' are defined through the lens of materialism, but the very idea of materialism itself is without physical properties. You call things 'real' that have physical properties, yet the very way in which you do so is to adhere to immaterial laws of logic and reason in order to form the argument. If something violates those immaterial laws of logic or reason it would be considered incorrect, which is the position mentioned in the OP. The notion that immaterial ideas, whether or not they exist because of a material process, exist nonetheless and you yourself can't form an argument without using the immateriality of logic.

 

[Kylie]

Motion is the CONCEPT (which itself is without physical properties) of the movement of matter, which would be information. You say that understand the creation of movement but the point I was making was that you (or I) wouldn't be able to explain why motion *IS* as apposed to a combustion engine not creating movement but something else entirely.

I can explain why an internal combustion engine can create movement as opposed to something else.

Honestly, why would you think I can't? It's not a complicated thing.

All of your definitions of what is 'real' are defined through the lens of materialism, but the very idea of materialism itself is without physical properties. You call things 'real' that have physical properties, yet the very way in which you do so is to adhere to immaterial laws of logic and reason in order to form the argument. If something violates those immaterial laws of logic or reason it would be considered incorrect, which is the position mentioned in the OP. The notion that immaterial ideas, whether or not they exist because of a material process, exist nonetheless and you yourself can't form an argument without using the immateriality of logic.

I've explained how a thought can result from something physical. You seem to be going around in circles. Any attempt to explain it would be just repeating myself.

 

[stevevw]

I literally just explained this.

Its like a competition as to what is real or not lol. I know that objective reality is regarded as real in the sense that we can measure it independent of ourselves. Well that's the theory. But what is classed as real or not. You just gave me an example of the experience of color as being real and yet this doesn't occupy objective physical reality.

Our experience of color though it can be measured its measurement is not through empirical science but by asking the experiencing subject directly. Basically this is about defining the line between what is regarded as real or unreal and I am saying that there are abstract and transcendent phenomena like conscious experience that also reveal what is real in the world.

If it was not objectively real, there would be no reason why I would see something as high contrast colours and you should not. Yet this never happens.

But this is support for non physical objectives in the world. We experience colors regardless of how they present to us. If they are objectively real they are not real because they occupy space and time or have mass. They are real because we as subjects experience them as real and can describe 'what it is like' to have that experience. There's nothing material about that.

What if both sets of experiences about the different ways colors are presented are objectively real and yet different. That seems counterintuitive but according to QM this may be a possibility.

If conscious ness and our perception are the same thing, then reality is the thing that we are perceiving. There is either something external to ourselves that we are perceiving, or everything that we are perceiving is invented within our own minds from scratch.

I don't think consciousness and perception are the same thing. The reason why is we could imagine a robot or zombie that is wired with human senses and can perceive the world like humans but without consciousness. So the zombie can touch something and give off data about the texture, solid, liquid ect just like we can with our sense of touch. But to experience the touch of velvet or metal is another thing altogether. This brings in a new dimension of the world that is unlike the material mechanisms of physical objects.

So it seems consciousness has this direct connection with the world. The mechanical view deals with data which we conceptualize with theories etc. later. But what we experience comes direct which can tell us something beyond that mechanical view to a deeper level of reality IMO.

If it's something external to ourselves that we are perceving, then that is reality. If it is entirely within our own minds, then there's no reason why what I see should be the same as what you see.

If we were all in a simulation then everyone will see the same programmed illusion. Just like we all see the same programmed images on a computer screen. The images may be just an information read out of something more fundamental as to what is really going on. In the case of a Simulation its a programmed interface created by some future intelligent beings.

Or it could be the interface of a deeper reality of consciousness and Mind where physical reality is information or knowledge. I think this is based on the findings from QM. There are several theories based on information, consciousness and Mind being fundamental to creating what we see.

Yet, if we were standing next to each other and someone popped a balloon behind us, we'd both react to the sound. If what we perceive is invented purely within our own minds, then why would your mind invent something to be startled by at the exact same moment that my mind invented the same sort of thing?

Our minds don't invent being startled. That is our direct experience of a 'bang' noise. We later then create mental concepts about what that bang may be. The thing about noises in some ways relates to color. One person may hear a balloon pop and another a gun shot and still another a fire cracker or electrical fuse popping.

But the experience of the bang is more or less the same in that we should experience anything at all about a bang noise. If everything is just mindless and unconscious matter why should we jump as a reaction to that noise at all. A robot can hear the same bang noise and not react. The question is why do we experience anything. Is that experience just an epiphenomena or does it represent something deeper about what's going on.

 

[Kylie]

Its like a competition as to what is real or not lol. I know that objective reality is regarded as real in the sense that we can measure it independent of ourselves. Well that's the theory. But what is classed as real or not. You just gave me an example of the experience of color as being real and yet this doesn't occupy objective physical reality.

As I've said, the experience we have is a result of brain cells interacting in response to photons stimulating the rod and cone cells in our eyes. Photons are real, the cells in the eyes are real, the brains cells are real.

Our experience of color though it can be measured its measurement is not through empirical science but by asking the experiencing subject directly. Basically this is about defining the line between what is regarded as real or unreal and I am saying that there are abstract and transcendent phenomena like conscious experience that also reveal what is real in the world.

So? This doesn't mean there isn't something in reality that we are experiencing. And I've already address the idea that it's all in our heads, back in post 265.

But this is support for non physical objectives in the world. We experience colors regardless of how they present to us. If they are objectively real they are not real because they occupy space and time or have mass. They are real because we as subjects experience them as real and can describe 'what it is like' to have that experience. There's nothing material about that.

The photon that enters your eye doesn't depend on your experience in order to exist. It has a certain wavelength that doesn't depend on your experience of it.

What if both sets of experiences about the different ways colors are presented are objectively real and yet different. That seems counterintuitive but according to QM this may be a possibility.

Then we'd be seeing people who would look at a wasp and think it does not have the high contrast colours.

I don't think consciousness and perception are the same thing. The reason why is we could imagine a robot or zombie that is wired with human senses and can perceive the world like humans but without consciousness. So the zombie can touch something and give off data about the texture, solid, liquid ect just like we can with our sense of touch. But to experience the touch of velvet or metal is another thing altogether. This brings in a new dimension of the world that is unlike the material mechanisms of physical objects.

If you don't think "consciousness" and "perception" are the same thing, why did you say, "Consciousness doesn't effect our perceptions, consciousness is the experience of 'what it is like' to have those perceptions." You literally said that conscious is having perceptions, so you can't now say that they are two different things.

So it seems consciousness has this direct connection with the world. The mechanical view deals with data which we conceptualize with theories etc. later. But what we experience comes direct which can tell us something beyond that mechanical view to a deeper level of reality IMO.

As of yet, this idea can tell us nothing verifiable about the world and can't be tested in any way whatsoever. So it's nothing more than wishful thinking.

If we were all in a simulation then everyone will see the same programmed illusion. Just like we all see the same programmed images on a computer screen. The images may be just an information read out of something more fundamental as to what is really going on. In the case of a Simulation its a programmed interface created by some future intelligent beings.

In which case the simulation is the thing external to ourselves that we are perceiving. That would fit perfectly with what I have been saying.

Or it could be the interface of a deeper reality of consciousness and Mind where physical reality is information or knowledge. I think this is based on the findings from QM. There are several theories based on information, consciousness and Mind being fundamental to creating what we see.

But we have no way to test this interpretation, so it remains just an interpretation.

I'm not going to tell you that you can't believe it's correct if you want. But there's no justification for you to hold it as any more correct than my position.

Our minds don't invent being startled. That is our direct experience of a 'bang' noise. We later then create mental concepts about what that bang may be. The thing about noises in some ways relates to color. One person may hear a balloon pop and another a gun shot and still another a fire cracker or electrical fuse popping.

But then there must be something external to ourselves which is providing said experience, otherwise why would we both get that experience at the same time?

But the experience of the bang is more or less the same in that we should experience anything at all about a bang noise. If everything is just mindless and unconscious matter why should we jump as a reaction to that noise at all. A robot can hear the same bang noise and not react. The question is why do we experience anything. Is that experience just an epiphenomena or does it represent something deeper about what's going on.

Why do we experience things? Because there are things which can harm us and so the ability to experience them so we can protect ourselves will be evolutionarily advantageous.