holo

former Christian
Dec 24, 2003
8,992
751
✟77,794.00
Country
Norway
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I'm still interested in challenging the reductionist notion of whats "more real" that you seemed to champion. Maybe youve given up on that, or maybe I misunderstood your position in the first place.
Maybe "more real" isn't the best term. "More fundamental" is better, I guess. I think it would be true to say that anything that is a concept is... well, a concept, rather than a thing in and of itself.

But then you could say that everything we perceive, we perceive as a concept. Even physical matter isn't "made" of matter. I can't think of a single thing that can't be reduced and understood in smaller, more fundamental parts. But I forget why I even began making a point of it :p
 
Upvote 0

holo

former Christian
Dec 24, 2003
8,992
751
✟77,794.00
Country
Norway
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
My argument was Morality could be more Real in some measure, as it is directly apprehended. You would champion molecules or atoms as primary, but how do you know they exist? Via an argument from Authority that told you they do, and if you accept a primarily empirical method of reality testing, you perceive their 'realness' only via senses and a mental simulacrum. In essence, you would need to assume a priori notions of uniformitarianism, empiricism, and establish some method of Intersubjectivity to overcome our in essence subjective experience, for the latter.
Sure. That's true for all of us.

The axioms are far more to adopt molecules as true, and even if true, that doesn't actually impact the concept of morality without importing further assumptions like Naturalistic Materialism that don't deductively follow therefrom
Could you rephrase this please? I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Besides, we assume the 'reality' of extra-material concepts all the time, which this worldview actively needs, such as Force or Gravity or Electromagnetism. They are tenuously deduced from changes observed in matter, but how does this differ from deducing Moral Law from human behaviour? Not very clearly, hence why the founders of the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment championed both these 'forces' and the idea of the Natural Law of morality.
We can't say there must exist a moral law just because humans have an extremely strong intuition of it.

Anyway, human morality is surprisingly uniform. Basic morality is even found in infants. It is a bit disingenuous to claim it is evolutionary or instinctive on the one hand (everyone cares about kith and kin, or speak of hypothetical small groups of primordial humans) and then say morality 'goes in all directions'. It really doesn't. Murder, theft, the Golden Rule, etc. are found in almost all cultures. The differences are marginal, and can be easily seen to be superstrate from an ideological system or historic artifact that actively need to be culturally enforced, like Japanese Emperor worship or honour culture.
I don't agree that the differences are marginal. The kind of morality that seems to be pretty much uniform, is exactly the kind of morality we would expect if it were designed by natural selection - it's about taking care of oneself and the family. But like other evolved traits, it's not "perfect". Just like our fear of the dark or sexual appetite sometimes goes overboard, or our natural tendency to hang out in groups can be destructive. But on the whole, through history and large populations, all the traits we have are there because they have somehow been beneficial to the passing on of our genes. Even horrible stuff like jealousy and war has served an evolutionary purpose. Had morality been truly God-given, I would expect it to have been much much better than it evidently has been. If it came from God, killing a stranger would feel every bit as wrong as killing your own mother.

Good ideas like the golden rules may exist in every culture, but it's usually overrun by our stronger more selfish and fearful desires. If there's anything that seems to evolve, it's our sense of morality. Our values change over time, and as far as I can tell the tendency is to include ever more people and animals into the "us" group.
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Could you rephrase this please? I don't understand what you're trying to say.
That if we assert Uniformitarianism and Empiricism on axiomatic grounds, that does not actually say anything about Morality at all. You'd need further axioms to decide for any pronouncement on the nature of Morality, such as assering Naturalistic Materialism say, or Idealism of some sort, or some other structure of Intersubjectivity.

We can't say there must exist a moral law just because humans have an extremely strong intuition of it.
True, but neither can we say Empiricism is valid because we have a strong intuition to trust our senses. In fact, we have reason not to; especially on Empiric grounds, when ultimately it looks like what we are perceiving is essentially not the 'real' thing, but a mediated and mentally altered image thereof. So asserting Morality is a more basic intuition, akin to trusting your eyes perhaps. Thing is, we can't be sure of absolutely anything - the five tropes of Agrippa the Sceptic always apply, as I said earlier in this thread. Everything can be doubted, but at some point you must draw an epistemologic line in the sand.

Our empiric reasoning expects us to trust in non-corporal, and frankly unknown entities like 'energy' or 'force' or 'quantum waveform' that we can't explicate well too, and have to determine inductively and intuitively to account for our sensory qualia. It really is a situation of people in glass houses throwing stones, I'd say.

I don't agree that the differences are marginal. The kind of morality that seems to be pretty much uniform, is exactly the kind of morality we would expect if it were designed by natural selection - it's about taking care of oneself and the family. But like other evolved traits, it's not "perfect". Just like our fear of the dark or sexual appetite sometimes goes overboard, or our natural tendency to hang out in groups can be destructive. But on the whole, through history and large populations, all the traits we have are there because they have somehow been beneficial to the passing on of our genes. Even horrible stuff like jealousy and war has served an evolutionary purpose. Had morality been truly God-given, I would expect it to have been much much better than it evidently has been. If it came from God, killing a stranger would feel every bit as wrong as killing your own mother.

Good ideas like the golden rules may exist in every culture, but it's usually overrun by our stronger more selfish and fearful desires. If there's anything that seems to evolve, it's our sense of morality. Our values change over time, and as far as I can tell the tendency is to include ever more people and animals into the "us" group.
You should read up a bit. It isn't as animalistic. There is a decided tendency of an 'aught to act' which is universal - not merely for me and my own. I have attached an infant study which you might find interesting.
 

Attachments

  • Vondervoort_et_al-2016-Child_Development_Perspectives.pdf
    127.9 KB · Views: 9
Last edited:
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,412
15,559
Colorado
✟428,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Maybe "more real" isn't the best term. "More fundamental" is better, I guess. I think it would be true to say that anything that is a concept is... well, a concept, rather than a thing in and of itself.

But then you could say that everything we perceive, we perceive as a concept. Even physical matter isn't "made" of matter. I can't think of a single thing that can't be reduced and understood in smaller, more fundamental parts. But I forget why I even began making a point of it :p
Yeah, I think "more fundamental" expresses it well.

Call me an "anti-fundamentalist" then, because I really appreciate emergent properties, forms, and meanings that cannot be derived from the study of fundamental ingredients alone.

Now, I absolutely do appreciate the investigation into the fundamentals. I just dont value the study of fundamentals over the study of above the emergent or complex. I reject what I call "scale privilege", although individual scholars will typically have to specialize at some point on the scale-scale. Particle physics is neat, for example.

(Good discussion, btw. I like the way you think about things.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ruthiesea

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2007
714
504
✟71,668.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married

Deuteronomy 30:15-19
:
"See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the LORD your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess.”

G-d gave us freedom of choice. Without evil His commandments would have no meaning and would be useless. He shows us the way of righteousness and leaves the decision up to us.

The man asked HaShem, “Why do You allow such evil in the world?”
He answered, “Why do you?”
 
Upvote 0

holo

former Christian
Dec 24, 2003
8,992
751
✟77,794.00
Country
Norway
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
That if we assert Uniformitarianism and Empiricism on axiomatic grounds, that does not actually say anything about Morality at all. You'd need further axioms to decide for any pronouncement on the nature of Morality, such as assering Naturalistic Materialism say, or Idealism of some sort, or some other structure of Intersubjectivity.
Surely you didn't think this would be more intelligible to me?

True, but neither can we say Empiricism is valid because we have a strong intuition to trust our senses. In fact, we have reason not to; especially on Empiric grounds, when ultimately it looks like what we are perceiving is essentially not the 'real' thing, but a mediated and mentally altered image thereof. So asserting Morality is a more basic intuition, akin to trusting your eyes perhaps. Thing is, we can't be sure of absolutely anything - the five tropes of Agrippa the Sceptic always apply, as I said earlier in this thread. Everything can be doubted, but at some point you must draw an epistemologic line in the sand.
Sure, but again, morality as we know it today in humans and at least some other primates (who at the very least seem to have an understanding of fairness and probably empathy), seems to fit right in with the theory of evolution, rather than being in contradict it.

You should read up a bit. It isn't as animalistic. There is a decided tendency of an 'aught to act' which is universal - not merely for me and my own. I have attached an infant study which you might find interesting.
Again, it's pretty much what we'd expect from evolution, I think. It's only natural that our moral judgment should extend beyond ourselves, and that this happens more readily the better we know other people. Knowing others makes us identify more with them.
 
Upvote 0

holo

former Christian
Dec 24, 2003
8,992
751
✟77,794.00
Country
Norway
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Yeah, I think "more fundamental" expresses it well.

Call me an "anti-fundamentalist" then, because I really appreciate emergent properties, forms, and meanings that cannot be derived from the study of fundamental ingredients alone.

Now, I absolutely do appreciate the investigation into the fundamentals. I just dont value the study of fundamentals over the study of above the emergent or complex. I reject what I call "scale privilege", although individual scholars will typically have to specialize at some point on the scale-scale. Particle physics is neat, for example.

(Good discussion, btw. I like the way you think about things.)
Thanks, and right back at you.

I came upon this quote by Albert Einstein:
“It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense. It would be a description without meaning—as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.”

This post is a message. It is also just pixels on a screen and electrical currents in a cable. I think the more "layers of reality" we know about, the wiser we can act. For example, knowing that if you get really deep down to the fundamentals, even the thoughts in my consciousness - even if they're 100% real - are just atoms moving about and that ultimately and fundamentally, my brain is just another part of the universe. As I think I said earlier, it's both humbling and liberating. I think we mostly agree, I'm not suggesting we should "ditch" certain levels of experience or reality, but rather complement them.
 
Upvote 0

holo

former Christian
Dec 24, 2003
8,992
751
✟77,794.00
Country
Norway
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Deuteronomy 30:15-19: "See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, in that I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the LORD your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess.”

G-d gave us freedom of choice. Without evil His commandments would have no meaning and would be useless. He shows us the way of righteousness and leaves the decision up to us.
I'd take useless commandments over the Holocaust any day.

It's like seeing your kid running out into traffic and not stopping him because it's so important to allow him to decide for himself.
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Surely you didn't think this would be more intelligible to me?
What specifically are you failing to understand?
Sure, but again, morality as we know it today in humans and at least some other primates (who at the very least seem to have an understanding of fairness and probably empathy), seems to fit right in with the theory of evolution, rather than being in contradict it.

Again, it's pretty much what we'd expect from evolution, I think. It's only natural that our moral judgment should extend beyond ourselves, and that this happens more readily the better we know other people. Knowing others makes us identify more with them.
Actually, Morality doesn't fit Evolutionary Theory at all. It was a big problem with any developmental models of human culture for the first 100 or so years after Evolution was proposed. Evolution origins cannot be derived FROM morality as we see it. The only way to make it fit, is to assume an Evolutionary origin beforehand and then try and explain how this is possible - which is done via Prisoner's dilemma and Game Theory, hard to support group selection, and convoluted Appeals to Motive. It is an exercise in Question-begging, which has more gained acceptance by repetition than by any form of evidence in support thereof.

Case in point the Infant studies I presented. Infants favour cooperative behaviour, 'good' behaviour, even if they themselves might gain from the bad. A figure that steals a toy to give to you, is still a reviled one. Likewise, while infants prefer their parents and those they are familiar with, there is no evidence of not applying the same standards of preference with regards to completely unknown ones. Simply put, it does not fit the type of morality one would assume would be instinctual if derived from natural selection. You have to assume group selection pressures with a balance of faithful or cheaters for selfish genes, which simply has not been demonstrated at all.
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Thanks, and right back at you.

I came upon this quote by Albert Einstein:
“It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense. It would be a description without meaning—as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.”

This post is a message. It is also just pixels on a screen and electrical currents in a cable. I think the more "layers of reality" we know about, the wiser we can act. For example, knowing that if you get really deep down to the fundamentals, even the thoughts in my consciousness - even if they're 100% real - are just atoms moving about and that ultimately and fundamentally, my brain is just another part of the universe. As I think I said earlier, it's both humbling and liberating. I think we mostly agree, I'm not suggesting we should "ditch" certain levels of experience or reality, but rather complement them.
If your Consciousness is solely derived from matter, then functionally it doesn't exist. Matter is per definitionem irrational, and conscious reason supposed to be Rational. Your 'thoughts' or 'consciousness' in such a system must be determined and therefore nothing of the sort. The 'emergent property' argument is even more weasel-words, as it amounts to "we can't demonstrate it or explain it, but we assert a material origin while applying consequence that simply cannot follow from it". You can't have your cake and eat it too. At least some Naturalistic Materialists are at least honest, and therefore deny that the Self, or Consciousness, even exists - but of course, they still claim to have reached their conclusions by Reason, which they thus have invalidated. People are utterly silly indeed.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

holo

former Christian
Dec 24, 2003
8,992
751
✟77,794.00
Country
Norway
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
What specifically are you failing to understand?
The entire paragraph.

Actually, Morality doesn't fit Evolutionary Theory at all. It was a big problem with any developmental models of human culture for the first 100 or so years after Evolution was proposed. Evolution origins cannot be derived FROM morality as we see it. The only way to make it fit, is to assume an Evolutionary origin beforehand and then try and explain how this is possible - which is done via Prisoner's dilemma and Game Theory, hard to support group selection, and convoluted Appeals to Motive. It is an exercise in Question-begging, which has more gained acceptance by repetition than by any form of evidence in support thereof.
Well, the only way to make morality fit as a god-given quality would be to assume a divine origin too, right?

Our knowledge and understanding of evolution is by no means complete, but the general trend is that the more we learn about it, the better it fits what we see, not only i biology but in psychology as well.

I may have a response to the prisoner's dilemma, game theory, appeals to motive and question-begging, but you'll have to wait until I've looked up those terms and gotten a decent grasp on what they mean and entail, unless you'd like to use more layman's terms in your arguments.

Case in point the Infant studies I presented. Infants favour cooperative behaviour, 'good' behaviour, even if they themselves might gain from the bad. A figure that steals a toy to give to you, is still a reviled one. Likewise, while infants prefer their parents and those they are familiar with, there is no evidence of not applying the same standards of preference with regards to completely unknown ones. Simply put, it does not fit the type of morality one would assume would be instinctual if derived from natural selection. You have to assume group selection pressures with a balance of faithful or cheaters for selfish genes, which simply has not been demonstrated at all.
Imagine two groups of early humans, one with a sense of morality and one without. Which group would be more likely to survive and grow?

Or imagine a group of humans with perfect morality (the kind of morality one could suppose God would've given, complete with loving your enemies etc) and one with "regular" morality (as in we take care of our own but don't care as much about other groups). Surely the latter group is more likely to survive and grow.

Anyway, again: if God gave us morality, how come it's so flawed? Why doesn't it come naturally for us to love our enemies?
 
Upvote 0

holo

former Christian
Dec 24, 2003
8,992
751
✟77,794.00
Country
Norway
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
If your Consciousness is solely derived from matter, then functionally it doesn't exist.
What does that mean, that something doesn't exist functionally?

Matter is per definitionem irrational, and conscious reason supposed to be Rational. Your 'thoughts' or 'consciousness' in such a system must be determined and therefore nothing of the sort.
True, everything that happens in the universe is necessarily and by definition the consequence of something else, and is therefore strictly speaking determined. Things couldn't have been different and free will is basically an illusion. You don't create thoughts out of literally nothing, they are caused by something.

The 'emergent property' argument is even more weasel-words, as it amounts to "we can't demonstrate it or explain it, but we assert a material origin while applying consequence that simply cannot follow from it". You can't have your cake and eat it too. At least some Naturalistic Materialists are at least honest, and therefore deny that the Self, or Consciousness, even exists - but of course, they still claim to have reached their conclusions by Reason, which they thus have invalidated. People are utterly silly indeed.
Sure, consciousness is a huge mystery, and maybe we'll never figure out what exactly it is. But that doesn't mean we must assume it's something supernatural.

I'm not aware that it's common that naturalists and/or materialists (not sure what the practical difference between them would be) deny that consciousness or a self exists. I think we can all agree that consciousness exists.
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
The entire paragraph.
This is a bit of a flippant answer. Do you not understand English grammar? How it is parsed? Do you not understand the concepts like Empiricism I referenced? Come now, how am I to address your failure of understanding if you refuse to point out what you seem unable to grasp.

Our knowledge and understanding of evolution is by no means complete, but the general trend is that the more we learn about it, the better it fits what we see, not only i biology but in psychology as well.
This is untrue. In Psychology, Evolution fits very poorly. For instance, why would we evolve a crippling condition like Depression? Why would there be maladaptive responses like Dunning-Kruger? As I said, Evolution is made to fit by assuming it before-hand, and then trying to find excuses for things we can't easily describe thereby. We have to make complex suppositional arguments, or write things off as spandrels or consequence of other assumed adaptations now archaic or maladaptive. If you take Psychologic studies themselves, you can never reach a theory of evolution from it, if you didn't start with the precept.

Anyway, again: if God gave us morality, how come it's so flawed? Why doesn't it come naturally for us to love our enemies?
I don't consider it flawed. Morality fails in implementation, but people generally know what is right or not - hence, when acting incorrectly, they jump through hoops to excuse their actions, such as when slaves were said to be naturally inferior and thus deserving of enslavement, or the White Man's Burden. As I said, almost all cultures have the Golden Rule in some form. Why we fail to implement it, this was historically associated with the Fall, or you can assume evolutionary mechanisms if you wish. Either way, the concepts of Morality generally stand and man then tries to undermine them to do what he wants.

Imagine two groups of early humans, one with a sense of morality and one without. Which group would be more likely to survive and grow?

Or imagine a group of humans with perfect morality (the kind of morality one could suppose God would've given, complete with loving your enemies etc) and one with "regular" morality (as in we take care of our own but don't care as much about other groups). Surely the latter group is more likely to survive and grow.
You are creating a strawman of 'perfect morality as God wants' by equating Morality with agency and ethics. Regardless, your 'regular morality' does not exist empirically - I refer you back to those infant studies. Innate instinctual morality is cooperative; the Us vs Them response seems not to be, but a learned behaviour. Hence children adopt the prejudices of their parents and society, so its socio-cultural effects are clear.

So regardless of your thought experiment, a group with 'perfect morality' is more likely to grow and expand, as each would help every other. The strong support the weak, etc. You don't seem very knowledgable on presumed Evolutionary theory in psychology: It takes a few forms, but usually they assume a balance between a group faithful to general rules, a group not, and a group that is mostly faithful but switches between the two. So in Adultery say, you would have a group chronically unfaithful, a group of faithful spouses, and a middling bunch. If too many are unfaithful, no one trusts their spouse anymore and then the evolutionary advantage of cheating, where another man raises your children, dissipates. In general, it forms an equilibrium, and if the 'immoral' behaviour escalates beyond a point, the advantage thereof also disappears and the system becomes unstable. This is often framed by the device of two prisoners that either have to stay faithful to each other for both's greatest advantage, but if the other person is going to rat you out, it would be better for you to rat him out first - this is the Prisoner's dilemma; and the entirety of this type of thinking, of weighing advantage vs disadvantage of a system, of cooperation or trying to cheat your fellows for personal gain, is termed Game Theory. Evolutionarily, complete faithfulness is best for the species as a whole in Group Selection, but a low level 'cheating' would advantage select Selfish Genes. So in order to describe Morality or Psychology in Evolutionary terms, people need to jump from one to the other as they see fit. It is really haphazard and inconsistent, but pop-science and the layman is made to believe it isn't. Even less controversial things like why Bees have sterile drones if genes are supposed to be 'selfish', then run into problems of modelling how this state of affairs could have arisen by Game Theory-esce reasoning to begin with. How you can so confidently assert that Evolutionary modelling so perfectly fits morality and psychology, while seemingly wholely ignorant of the mechanisms this is attempted by, I find decidedly odd.

What does that mean, that something doesn't exist functionally?
Daniel Dennett famously said that your Consciousness is as real as your screensaver.

Sure, consciousness is a huge mystery, and maybe we'll never figure out what exactly it is. But that doesn't mean we must assume it's something supernatural.

I'm not aware that it's common that naturalists and/or materialists (not sure what the practical difference between them would be) deny that consciousness or a self exists. I think we can all agree that consciousness exists.
You get materialists that aren't Naturalistic Materialists, like the old Epicureans or people like Voltaire from the Enlightenment. It has to do with ontology and entelechy, mostly.

If you assume Consciousness to be only material, then as you stated yourself, everything is determined. Consciousness is then at best a spandrel, at worst a delusion. Everything you have said here was therefore not reasoned, but inevitably you would have said it - you didn't decide what seems more plausible, think over things, decide what was right and what was wrong. It simply is so, whether your statements might have been wildly incoherent veridically perhaps. This is the problem: Sure, you can assert consciousness need not be Supernatural; but the reverse, by asserting it is Naturalistic only, you have negated your ability to reason or make any logically valid arguments at all. Your only method of asserting this was by Reason though, so you have completely cut off the branch you were sitting on and leaving all your arguments incoherent and irrational. People like Sam Harris know this as much as the rest of us do, so they describe Consciousness in terms like a qualitative dimension to a physical system, or terming the Self an illusion, thus expecting people to pretend as if this isn't true in practice while asserting it in theory. Essentially such say that we must ignore our experience and the empiric evidence of daily life, so as to still support the theory that completely contradicts it. Really, how people can think this can in any way be seen as a 'scientific' view is beyond me. Those that simply assert a Mind-Body problem or a 'Hard problem of Consciousness' and leave it at that, are far more consistent. It is not really possible to reduce to either side of the divide, to Idealism or Determinism, without gutting Empirical reasoning entirely.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

holo

former Christian
Dec 24, 2003
8,992
751
✟77,794.00
Country
Norway
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
This is a bit of a flippant answer. Do you not understand English grammar? How it is parsed? Do you not understand the concepts like Empiricism I referenced? Come now, how am I to address your failure of understanding if you refuse to point out what you seem unable to grasp.
As I said, the entire paragraph I quoted. I didn't understand any of it. Again, I know I can sort of dechiper it flipping back and forth between dictionaries and Wikipedia articles explaining the details of the words, but I was kind of hoping you'd put it in simpler terms. Personally, I try to say things like "hey, you're going after the guy instead of addressing his arguments" rather than "you're committing the ad hominem fallacy."

This is untrue. In Psychology, Evolution fits very poorly. For instance, why would we evolve a crippling condition like Depression?
Just because we have depression or any other sickness doesn't mean it's advantageous to us. The idea is that whatever traits a species has, it has basically because it's proven to be an advantage, though of course one and the same quality can be both an advantage and a disadvantage. Evolution explains so much, I don't see why it wouldn't also explain psychological phenomena.

But yes, I do assume evolution. I'm not convinced there are more reasonable explanations for what we see in biology.

If you take Psychologic studies themselves, you can never reach a theory of evolution from it, if you didn't start with the precept.
That's probably true.

I don't consider it flawed. Morality fails in implementation, but people generally know what is right or not - hence, when acting incorrectly, they jump through hoops to excuse their actions, such as when slaves were said to be naturally inferior and thus deserving of enslavement, or the White Man's Burden. As I said, almost all cultures have the Golden Rule in some form. Why we fail to implement it, this was historically associated with the Fall, or you can assume evolutionary mechanisms if you wish. Either way, the concepts of Morality generally stand and man then tries to undermine them to do what he wants.
Personally I find the story of the Fall to be extremely unprobable. I'm not so sure slave owners had a sting of conscience over slavery. Even if they believed in some version of the Golden Rule. Because the question isn't really whether or not we should treat others as ourselves, but rather what it means to be "others". In the case of slavery or other forms of racism, the problem isn't that they don't see other humans as unworthy, but that they don't see them as human to begin with, or at least not as human as they themselves are.

You are creating a strawman of 'perfect morality as God wants' by equating Morality with agency and ethics. Regardless, your 'regular morality' does not exist empirically - I refer you back to those infant studies. Innate instinctual morality is cooperative; the Us vs Them response seems not to be, but a learned behaviour. Hence children adopt the prejudices of their parents and society, so its socio-cultural effects are clear.
As we would expect them to if evolution is true.

So regardless of your thought experiment, a group with 'perfect morality' is more likely to grow and expand, as each would help every other.
But if they didn't also have a sense of us vs. them, they'd probably be slaughtered by more violent groups.

The strong support the weak, etc. You don't seem very knowledgable on presumed Evolutionary theory in psychology: It takes a few forms, but usually they assume a balance between a group faithful to general rules, a group not, and a group that is mostly faithful but switches between the two. So in Adultery say, you would have a group chronically unfaithful, a group of faithful spouses, and a middling bunch. If too many are unfaithful, no one trusts their spouse anymore and then the evolutionary advantage of cheating, where another man raises your children, dissipates. In general, it forms an equilibrium, and if the 'immoral' behaviour escalates beyond a point, the advantage thereof also disappears and the system becomes unstable. This is often framed by the device of two prisoners that either have to stay faithful to each other for both's greatest advantage, but if the other person is going to rat you out, it would be better for you to rat him out first - this is the Prisoner's dilemma; and the entirety of this type of thinking, of weighing advantage vs disadvantage of a system, of cooperation or trying to cheat your fellows for personal gain, is termed Game Theory. Evolutionarily, complete faithfulness is best for the species as a whole in Group Selection, but a low level 'cheating' would advantage select Selfish Genes. So in order to describe Morality or Psychology in Evolutionary terms, people need to jump from one to the other as they see fit. It is really haphazard and inconsistent, but pop-science and the layman is made to believe it isn't.
What's the inconsistency? We all have competing and conflicting urges. I have a strong desire to be faithful to my wife and a good father, but heaven knows I also have a desire to impregnate as many young females as possible (in my case I'm happy to say the former desires are strongest).

How you can so confidently assert that Evolutionary modelling so perfectly fits morality and psychology, while seemingly wholely ignorant of the mechanisms this is attempted by, I find decidedly odd.
I'm not saying it fits perfectly, because both theories of evolution and psychology will always be flawed and incomplete, like any other science. The question is if there are more convincing alternatives. I don't assume the existence of God (I used to), and as far as I can tell, evolution explains very very much of what we see in nature, and since the mind appears to be a product of the brain, I find it very reasonable to assume that whatever mechanisms shaped our bodies also shaped our thinking.

If you assume Consciousness to be only material, then as you stated yourself, everything is determined.
I don't think consciousness "is" material, but it appears to be the product of a brain. Unless there's something to the idea of consciousness being fundamental (I'm about to order a book about that).

But yeah, everything is determined. Free will is a useful illusion.

Consciousness is then at best a spandrel, at worst a delusion. Everything you have said here was therefore not reasoned, but inevitably you would have said it - you didn't decide what seems more plausible, think over things, decide what was right and what was wrong.
Free will and making choices aren't the same thing. A computer makes choices, but in that case it's obvious to us that the choice isn't the product of a free will. Even if the calculations are too complex for us understand, we still know that in the end, it's just a calculation, even though it can appear to be either deliberate or random.

It simply is so, whether your statements might have been wildly incoherent veridically perhaps. This is the problem: Sure, you can assert consciousness need not be Supernatural; but the reverse, by asserting it is Naturalistic only, you have negated your ability to reason or make any logically valid arguments at all.
If the brain is basically a computer, then surely it's not impossible for it to calculate things like probability?

We have an intuition that our reasoning and making of choices happen in our consciousness, but I believe that is false. We don't make choices with our consciousness, it's probably more correct to say that we become aware of our choices.

Of course that raises the question of what consciousness is for. I wouldn't pretend to know :/

People like Sam Harris know this as much as the rest of us do, so they describe Consciousness in terms like a qualitative dimension to a physical system, or terming the Self an illusion, thus expecting people to pretend as if this isn't true in practice while asserting it in theory.
The self is an interesting concept to say the least. I think it's a very interesting (and useful) exercise to try to locate it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
since the mind appears to be a product of the brain, I find it very reasonable to assume that whatever mechanisms shaped our bodies also shaped our thinking.
Did you miss the whole bit about the Hard problem of Consciousness? Neurology has singularly failed to support the notion that the mind is a product of the brain. That is the whole point.

What we have are Neural Correlates on fMRI, but causation and mechanism have never been demonstrated. So we can confidently say they are likely related in some way to each other, but the mind does not 'seem' a product of the brain unless starting out with an assumption that it must be - from some form of materialism a priori.

A good example was some recent studies from Australia in which they did EEGs on volunteers undergoing muscle relaxation - but no Anaesthesia. While fully awake, the EEG (in the form of BiS monitoring) appeared as how we thought a person looks when sedated. Similarly, EEG monitoring and fMRI in subjective states of heightened mental activity like Meditation, show decreased brain activity - which is counter-intuitive.

Free will and making choices aren't the same thing. A computer makes choices, but in that case it's obvious to us that the choice isn't the product of a free will. Even if the calculations are too complex for us understand, we still know that in the end, it's just a calculation, even though it can appear to be either deliberate or random.
If the brain is basically a computer, then surely it's not impossible for it to calculate things like probability?

We have an intuition that our reasoning and making of choices happen in our consciousness, but I believe that is false. We don't make choices with our consciousness, it's probably more correct to say that we become aware of our choices.

Of course that raises the question of what consciousness is for. I wouldn't pretend to know :/
You must be careful here. You are confusing metaphor for reality.

Computers don't think. They don't make choices. Computers are glorified calculators that take input, process it, and then present output based on their programming. In essence, they run functions and math of binary numbers, and any meaning thereof is ascribed by us humans once presented on an output screen. Its 'choice' is merely the result of its programmed functions.

When Computers came to be made, we used the metaphor of our brains and thinking processes to describe what they were doing - which in actual fact was wholely other. Now, people reverse the metaphor and try and describe the brain as a computer, since computers are now so ubiquitous.

We know computers are deterministic. We know they don't think or reason or choose. We have no evidence humans don't do this, but every evidence from personal qualia to intersubjective experience that they do. When these terms were ascribed to computers, they were knowingly used as a metaphor to describe processes assumed to be very different - which people have now forgotten, and fallaciously try and reverse it.

So no, a computer can't calculate probability. A computer can calculate inputs given to it, which a human can then ascribe the meaning of probability to, once presented as output, yes.

The metaphor of the 'brain is a computer' has no veridicality to it at all. Neurons function by electro-chemical gradients via depolarisation of Sodium and Potassium over cell membranes - which neither makes a circuit, nor acts as a voltage gate or switch as found in computers. Further, we don't actually know how most information is 'processed' in the brain, though we can pinpoint vague areas. Certainly it is far more complex than any computer, as axons and dendrites connect multiple neurons over large areas. Again though, subconscious activity and conscious awareness have not been shown to have much more than correlation subjectively by report of the subjects investigated. It does not lend itself to mathematical modelling even. Nor does it seem the brain merely processes information, but adds and changes it; like Inattentional blindness; or that if you wear glasses making the world upside down, your brain will spontaneously swop the picture rightside up after a while. Or in things like phantom limbs or hallucinations the brain creates what there is no input to account for, or in more quotidian things like creativity perhaps as well. What computers and the brain have in common is that both process information (though not solely that in the brain), using electromagnetic properties - that is about it. No further relation can be drawn without being fully fallacious.

A computer is a fancy calculator; and anything a computer 'does' is basically something a human with a fancy calculator did.

But if they didn't also have a sense of us vs. them, they'd probably be slaughtered by more violent groups.
More violent groups first need to arise. They don't just exist. That is what the Prisoner's dilemma and Game Theory try to model. How to mix differing behaviours observed. The inconsistency lies in that they don't use the same model, but change it depending what they are trying to excuse - oh, altruism and adoption then group selection, but then turn around and ignore it otherwise to assert Selfish Genes. In essence, it models poorly as the mechanism needs to be constantly altered, even to the point of mutual exclusion, to maintain the premise of evolutionary origin thereof.

Don't get me wrong, I don't presume to say all this theorising is definitely wrong - but it is haphazard, inconsistent, and evolutionary modelling of psychology and human behaviour certainly does not fit "well", as you would have it. For instance, why do we "all have conflicting desires" as you said? You can't just assume that, but need to justify its evolutionary existence - as no ant has conflicting desires as to the colony or so. This works better in animals in which we can safely put aside subjective evidence and purely observe behaviour, than in humans in which they can explain their motivations and thought patterns that accounted for the behaviour (though you can always ignore that evidence, as many Determinists are wont to do - very scientific minded bunch, excluding things that don't fit their a priori ideas).

As we would expect them to if evolution is true
You seemed to argue the opposite in posts 122 and 126, where you assumed familiarity leads to identification with them. This is mistaken, as infants identify firstly, assume the best, but only develop stranger anxiety later - along with cultural prejudices. Familiarity seems to breed contempt of some, and closer identification with others. As the impulse of the Revolutionary or the rebellious teen shows, not even this is consistently applied. Granted, you can ascribe it to Evolution - but that is the problem, that it is ascribed to Evolution and then worked out how this can be the case, instead of the reverse. So no matter what evidence is presented, by hook or by crook, Evolution will be held responsible. Classic question-begging at its finest.

When reaching something like Depression that obviously has no advantage, it still needs to be assumed to have arisen from something advantageous as byproduct, spandrel or maladaption. So happily it will be, as obviously our axiom can't be wrong...

As I said, the entire paragraph I quoted. I didn't understand any of it. Again, I know I can sort of dechiper it flipping back and forth between dictionaries and Wikipedia articles explaining the details of the words, but I was kind of hoping you'd put it in simpler terms. Personally, I try to say things like "hey, you're going after the guy instead of addressing his arguments" rather than "you're committing the ad hominem fallacy."
I rewrote the whole once already in what I assumed you would more easily grasp. These posts are long enough already, that I don't feel it necessary that I have to write a whole dissertation to explain terms to you. If you care enough, you can look up what you don't understand and ask for clarification, but expecting me to spoonfeed concepts is a bit beyond the pale. It would be more to anyone's advantage when approaching something unfamiliar, to go read it up yourself and ruminate thereon, than to complain about the way it is represented and thus just ignore it further. It is easier to use established terms than to reduce it to basic language only - that is why scientific, philosophic or medical terminology exist, as they have implied semantic meanings. They are shortcuts to those familiar with them, and spurs to education to those who are not. If I say "the heart physiologically circulates the blood" , that means something subtly very different from "the heart pumps the blood around the body". The former implies anastomoses of blood vessels, the non-ejected fraction in the ventricle, preload and afterload, etc., so has far more meaning, than the latter which is much simpler - to say the same, would require paragraphs of explanation in 'simple language' in the other.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

holo

former Christian
Dec 24, 2003
8,992
751
✟77,794.00
Country
Norway
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Did you miss the whole bit about the Hard problem of Consciousness? Neurology has singularly failed to support the notion that the mind is a product of the brain. That is the whole point.

What we have are Neural Correlates on fMRI, but causation and mechanism have never been demonstrated. So we can confidently say they are likely related in some way to each other, but the mind does not 'seem' a product of the brain unless starting out with an assumption that it must be - from some form of materialism a priori.
Again, as far as we know, consciousness is found only where there is a brain, and we know that altering the brain alters the nature and contents of consciousness. So even if it's true that we can't positively prove that consciousness is a product of the brain, the question is if there are better theories. The only ones I can think of are religious. What do you think consciousness is?

A good example was some recent studies from Australia in which they did EEGs on volunteers undergoing muscle relaxation - but no Anaesthesia. While fully awake, the EEG (in the form of BiS monitoring) appeared as how we thought a person looks when sedated. Similarly, EEG monitoring and fMRI in subjective states of heightened mental activity like Meditation, show decreased brain activity - which is counter-intuitive.
There are lots of results in brain research that seem counter-intuitive. For example, hallucinogens like psilocybin seem to decrese activity in parts of the brain, even though the subjects certainly don't have the experience of their consciousness being limited, but rather the opposite. But more advanced imaging techniques will probably give us a fuller picture in the future.

You must be careful here. You are confusing metaphor for reality.

Computers don't think. They don't make choices. Computers are glorified calculators that take input, process it, and then present output based on their programming. In essence, they run functions and math of binary numbers, and any meaning thereof is ascribed by us humans once presented on an output screen. Its 'choice' is merely the result of its programmed functions.

When Computers came to be made, we used the metaphor of our brains and thinking processes to describe what they were doing - which in actual fact was wholely other. Now, people reverse the metaphor and try and describe the brain as a computer, since computers are now so ubiquitous.

We know computers are deterministic. We know they don't think or reason or choose. We have no evidence humans don't do this, but every evidence from personal qualia to intersubjective experience that they do. When these terms were ascribed to computers, they were knowingly used as a metaphor to describe processes assumed to be very different - which people have now forgotten, and fallaciously try and reverse it.

So no, a computer can't calculate probability. A computer can calculate inputs given to it, which a human can then ascribe the meaning of probability to, once presented as output, yes.
But that's still basically what a brain is doing. I don't mean that they operate in the same way as a computer (as in 0s and 1s etc) but, fundamentally, by the same principle: calculation. As I mentioned before, it's probably not true that we make choices or solve problems "in" our consciousness - it's the brain, or various parts of it, that make the calculations and then we become aware of them. The brain and mind can be thought of as a collection of modules, each with their own abilities, functions and "desires" (more on that further down).

Nor does it seem the brain merely processes information, but adds and changes it; like Inattentional blindness; or that if you wear glasses making the world upside down, your brain will spontaneously swop the picture rightside up after a while. Or in things like phantom limbs or hallucinations the brain creates what there is no input to account for, or in more quotidian things like creativity perhaps as well. What computers and the brain have in common is that both process information (though not solely that in the brain), using electromagnetic properties - that is about it. No further relation can be drawn without being fully fallacious.
I find it unreasonable to believe that the brain, or mind, can create things literally out of nothing. Anything that's in there has been put in there in some way or another, at some time or another. Some things have a clear biological basis, like swallowing, while others are obviously cultural. (Or maybe not so obviously, but that's another topic.)

More violent groups first need to arise. They don't just exist.
Of course I don't think groups or traits jut pop into existence, as if suddenly one day there was born (or hatched?) a fish with lungs. It's just trying to make a simple picture to illustrate the point.

That is what the Prisoner's dilemma and Game Theory try to model. How to mix differing behaviours observed. The inconsistency lies in that they don't use the same model, but change it depending what they are trying to excuse - oh, altruism and adoption then group selection, but then turn around and ignore it otherwise to assert Selfish Genes. In essence, it models poorly as the mechanism needs to be constantly altered, even to the point of mutual exclusion, to maintain the premise of evolutionary origin thereof.
I'm not familiar with this changing back and forth between mutually exclusive explanations. Are there anyone in particular you have in mind that are doing this?

I don't see how competing desires or tendencies are necessarily mutually exclusive. The mind can be seen as modular. There's the "I should work out" module and the "I wanna take a nap" module. It's not a matter of one reason or explanation excluding another, but of which one is stronger.

Don't get me wrong, I don't presume to say all this theorising is definitely wrong - but it is haphazard, inconsistent, and evolutionary modelling of psychology and human behaviour certainly does not fit "well", as you would have it. For instance, why do we "all have conflicting desires" as you said? You can't just assume that, but need to justify its evolutionary existence - as no ant has conflicting desires as to the colony or so.
I don't know that ants don't experience conflicting desires. But of course the reason we humans do is because we need different desires in different situations. It strikes me as obvious that I should experience desires both to use violence and to make peace, and with the world being as it is, it's not always obvious what the best choice would be.

You seemed to argue the opposite in posts 122 and 126, where you assumed familiarity leads to identification with them. This is mistaken, as infants identify firstly, assume the best, but only develop stranger anxiety later - along with cultural prejudices. Familiarity seems to breed contempt of some, and closer identification with others. As the impulse of the Revolutionary or the rebellious teen shows, not even this is consistently applied. Granted, you can ascribe it to Evolution - but that is the problem, that it is ascribed to Evolution and then worked out how this can be the case, instead of the reverse. So no matter what evidence is presented, by hook or by crook, Evolution will be held responsible. Classic question-begging at its finest.
Then the question is if there's a more reasonable and better founded theory than that of evolution.

When reaching something like Depression that obviously has no advantage, it still needs to be assumed to have arisen from something advantageous as byproduct, spandrel or maladaption. So happily it will be, as obviously our axiom can't be wrong...
Yes, it's a maladaption. Like social anxiety. Back in the day it could mean death if those around you thought you were weak or dangerous or otherwise a liability. So being sensitive to what those around you think of you was vital. Today, when you can live in a city an never meet the same person twice, why should you care if make a fool of yourself in public? But huge cities aren't the environment we evolved in. This is simplified, of course, but why should we expect adaptions to be perfect? They only have to be good enough to give an advantage over other traits.

as obviously our axiom can't be wrong...
Can yours?

I rewrote the whole once already in what I assumed you would more easily grasp. These posts are long enough already, that I don't feel it necessary that I have to write a whole dissertation to explain terms to you. If you care enough, you can look up what you don't understand and ask for clarification, but expecting me to spoonfeed concepts is a bit beyond the pale. It would be more to anyone's advantage when approaching something unfamiliar, to go read it up yourself and ruminate thereon, than to complain about the way it is represented and thus just ignore it further. It is easier to use established terms than to reduce it to basic language only - that is why scientific, philosophic or medical terminology exist, as they have implied semantic meanings. They are shortcuts to those familiar with them, and spurs to education to those who are not. If I say "the heart physiologically circulates the blood" , that means something subtly very different from "the heart pumps the blood around the body". The former implies anastomoses of blood vessels, the non-ejected fraction in the ventricle, preload and afterload, etc., so has far more meaning, than the latter which is much simpler - to say the same, would require paragraphs of explanation in 'simple language' in the other.
I'm not asking you to spoonfeed me concepts or dissertations, I was just hoping you'd use simpler, more common and less technical terms. It's my experience anyway that it's not that hard to say what one means using words most people wouldn't have to look up.

I think I would take "decide for any pronouncement on the nature of Morality" to mean "say anything about what morality is." Would that be correct?
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
we know that altering the brain alters the nature and contents of consciousness.
We do? No, altering the brain alters incidents of consciousness like memory, colour perception, emotion, etc. We don't know it alters the nature of Consciousness.

So even if it's true that we can't positively prove that consciousness is a product of the brain, the question is if there are better theories. The only ones I can think of are religious. What do you think consciousness is?
Traditionally the West had a Rational Soul for it. The East had Consciousness arising from some form of Monistic Unity, or illusion of desire in things like Buddhist thought. I find these just as plausible as placing it in the brain, as they all have equal amounts of evidence in support. The only reason people favour a material origin is an a priori assumption. In fact though, if you take noumenal qualia as evidence, it probably has the least going for it. Hence locating consciousness in the brain is merely a Positivist notion of Western Civilisation, not even close to a universal one - most cultures seem to assume Consciousness does not reside therein.

There are lots of results in brain research that seem counter-intuitive. For example, hallucinogens like psilocybin seem to decrese activity in parts of the brain, even though the subjects certainly don't have the experience of their consciousness being limited, but rather the opposite. But more advanced imaging techniques will probably give us a fuller picture in the future.
You'd think we'd reconsider our baseline assumptions if so much of our evidence seems incongruent to it.

Anyway, we already have EEG and fMRI to assess electromagnetic activity, which we would assume responsible if the material brain lead to consciousness, so I don' t know what sort of imaging modality you'd think would show anything these were unable to deliver? Maybe, but I don't expect it.

But that's still basically what a brain is doing. I don't mean that they operate in the same way as a computer (as in 0s and 1s etc) but, fundamentally, by the same principle: calculation.
Feel free to present any evidence to that effect. We can try and model the brain mathematically as if it does calculation (which so far has had severely limited efficacy), but we have no evidence it actually works this way. No, this is merely confusion from people retroactively trying to extend metaphor. Neurons work by depolarisation of membrane potentials, not anything that is amenable to presenting as functions in calculations. The evidence of physiology seems against it, but you can always assume it a priori.

I find it unreasonable to believe that the brain, or mind, can create things literally out of nothing. Anything that's in there has been put in there in some way or another, at some time or another. Some things have a clear biological basis, like swallowing, while others are obviously cultural. (Or maybe not so obviously, but that's another topic.)
At some point man had to have invented Language, so ascribed meaning to sound that has a referent to something else. Even built Grammar. This clearly has no external origin, though it does refer to things externally - but of course, also to internal unobservable traits, in concepts like honour or so. Besides, what do you think 'Culture' largely is, other than creations from 'nothing' - where that of course is a hard material referent.

I'm not familiar with this changing back and forth between mutually exclusive explanations. Are there anyone in particular you have in mind that are doing this?

I don't see how competing desires or tendencies are necessarily mutually exclusive. The mind can be seen as modular. There's the "I should work out" module and the "I wanna take a nap" module. It's not a matter of one reason or explanation excluding another, but of which one is stronger.
Adultery vs Faithfulness is a good example. They are contradictory impulses, that need to be modelled differently vis-a-vis group selection and presumed advantage for specific genes. It is not the desires or tendencies that are mutually exclusive, but the explanations of how they are supposed to come about.

Then the question is if there's a more reasonable and better founded theory than that of evolution.
We'd never know, as everything is immediately forced to relate to Evolution in psychologic areas nowadays. There are other theories about, like Jungian Archetypes, or even the more esoteric like Anthroposophy. Evidence-Based Medicine is probably your best bet to point us in a good direction, but alas it is so often sacrificed on the altar of such axiomatic dogmatism.

Can yours?
Certainly. However, those that assume Evolutionary origin for psychology a priori, never can. Whatever they find they rather explain by their axiom, instead of working from the evidence. I for one, would prefer a system that is Evidence-Based, instead. I'd like something to base it on, instead of having to assume things on authority in a circular reasoning fashion.

I'm not asking you to spoonfeed me concepts or dissertations, I was just hoping you'd use simpler, more common and less technical terms. It's my experience anyway that it's not that hard to say what one means using words most people wouldn't have to look up.

I think I would take "decide for any pronouncement on the nature of Morality" to mean "say anything about what morality is." Would that be correct?
No, it wouldn't be. The 'nature of Morality' is not the same as what Morality is, anymore than the nature of a tree equals the tree itself. The former implies categorisation or mental distinctions, the latter holism. In a Christian example, the Nature of God would be Omnipresence, omnibenevolence, Etc. but God is Love or the Logos or the Trinity.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

holo

former Christian
Dec 24, 2003
8,992
751
✟77,794.00
Country
Norway
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
We do? No, altering the brain alters incidents of consciousness like memory, colour perception, emotion, etc. We don't know it alters the nature of Consciousness.
I should've qualified what I mean by nature, or used another term. I didn't mean it alters what consciousness is (though it can be argued that consciousness is merely whatever someone is conscious of at any given moment), but that we alter the degree/quality of consciousness, and its contents. We know that by manipulating the brain, we can manipulate consciousness. Why should we think the two were somehow independent of each other? What kind of evidence would you need to see to believe the mind is a product of a brain? If it's not, why is there a correlation at all?

Traditionally the West had a Rational Soul for it. The East had Consciousness arising from some form of Monistic Unity, or illusion of desire in things like Buddhist thought. I find these just as plausible as placing it in the brain, as they all have equal amounts of evidence in support. The only reason people favour a material origin is an a priori assumption. In fact though, if you take noumenal qualia as evidence, it probably has the least going for it. Hence locating consciousness in the brain is merely a Positivist notion of Western Civilisation, not even close to a universal one - most cultures seem to assume Consciousness does not reside therein.
Well, most cultures have been wrong about a lot of things.

Do you believe it's possible to be conscious if the brain is destroyed?

You'd think we'd reconsider our baseline assumptions if so much of our evidence seems incongruent to it.

Anyway, we already have EEG and fMRI to assess electromagnetic activity, which we would assume responsible if the material brain lead to consciousness, so I don' t know what sort of imaging modality you'd think would show anything these were unable to deliver? Maybe, but I don't expect it.
I assume fMRI will be superseded by much more detailed imaging methods in the future. And our knowledge of how the brain works will obviously increase.

Feel free to present any evidence to that effect. We can try and model the brain mathematically as if it does calculation (which so far has had severely limited efficacy), but we have no evidence it actually works this way. No, this is merely confusion from people retroactively trying to extend metaphor. Neurons work by depolarisation of membrane potentials, not anything that is amenable to presenting as functions in calculations. The evidence of physiology seems against it, but you can always assume it a priori.
As I said, I don't mean calculations like a computer would. It's probably not mathematical (though given enough knowledge it could maybe be explained in mathematical terms), but it's a calculation in the sense that there is surely an if-then sort of thing going on, and a cost/benefit "calculation" (for lack of a better term).

At some point man had to have invented Language, so ascribed meaning to sound that has a referent to something else. Even built Grammar. This clearly has no external origin, though it does refer to things externally - but of course, also to internal unobservable traits, in concepts like honour or so. Besides, what do you think 'Culture' largely is, other than creations from 'nothing' - where that of course is a hard material referent.
I'm not following your argument here. Why can't grammar be a result of evolution?

Adultery vs Faithfulness is a good example. They are contradictory impulses, that need to be modelled differently vis-a-vis group selection and presumed advantage for specific genes. It is not the desires or tendencies that are mutually exclusive, but the explanations of how they are supposed to come about.
OK, I misread you there. But I'm not entirely sure what you have in mind when you say the explanations are mutually exclusive.

We'd never know, as everything is immediately forced to relate to Evolution in psychologic areas nowadays. There are other theories about, like Jungian Archetypes, or even the more esoteric like Anthroposophy. Evidence-Based Medicine is probably your best bet to point us in a good direction, but alas it is so often sacrificed on the altar of such axiomatic dogmatism.
I'm not too versed in the Jungian archetypes, but I've never heard about them being somehow contrary to evolution. How is that?

In any case the TOE is the only serious contender when we're looking to explain why the world is as it is, and it's provided us with a lot of insights that seem to make good sense. And since I don't believe in god(s) that's basically the option I have. As long as we keep finding reasonable natural explanations for one phenomenon after the other, it seems less and less likely to me that some god is behind it. We will probably never be able to truly grasp the nature of reality itself, and consciousness may stay a hard problem forever, but to me, as a non-believer, it seems unreasonable to assume that it has anything to do with the supernatural.

Certainly. However, those that assume Evolutionary origin for psychology a priori, never can. Whatever they find they rather explain by their axiom, instead of working from the evidence. I for one, would prefer a system that is Evidence-Based, instead. I'd like something to base it on, instead of having to assume things on authority in a circular reasoning fashion.
What evidence do you have in mind?

No, it wouldn't be. The 'nature of Morality' is not the same as what Morality is, anymore than the nature of a tree equals the tree itself. The former implies categorisation or mental distinctions, the latter holism. In a Christian example, the Nature of God would be Omnipresence, omnibenevolence, Etc. but God is Love or the Logos or the Trinity.
OK.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I should've qualified what I mean by nature, or used another term. I didn't mean it alters what consciousness is (though it can be argued that consciousness is merely whatever someone is conscious of at any given moment), but that we alter the degree/quality of consciousness, and its contents. We know that by manipulating the brain, we can manipulate consciousness. Why should we think the two were somehow independent of each other? What kind of evidence would you need to see to believe the mind is a product of a brain? If it's not, why is there a correlation at all?
How pray tell do we alter the 'quality' of Consciousness? I really have no idea what you mean here. How is this verified?

Anyway, why is there a correlation? Earlier we were talking about the Mind-Body problem - reducing to Idealism or Determinism makes Empirical Reasoning invalid. If no correlation, logically valid empiric evidence would be an impossibility - which is also true if only a product of the brain. So empiric evidence that it is solely a product of the brain, would invalidate all of Empiricism - and any such evidence itself. Bit of a catch-22.

Traditionally in the West, the Rational Soul was seen as enervating the body, along with the Spirit, so Man has no real existence apart from all three (though spirit and soul seem poorly differentiated at times). Hence at the Parousia we are told to expect a glorified body also. Both living body and mind of man are aspects of a whole, differentiable in aspect, but in practice inseparable.

Do you believe it's possible to be conscious if the brain is destroyed?
Don't know. I do think the ideas of Paul, such as the dead-in-Christ do suggest it, but in some manner that is incomplete or dependant upon Christ, with only the person returning to completion upon the Parousia. Many aspects of Conscious experience have unequivocal material incidents, so such quality (such a protean term) of Consciousness would be markedly different. I don't see how you would be able to demonstrate such on material grounds though, so this would be an occult quality that is per defitionem excluded by Baconian scientific enquiry.

As I said, I don't mean calculations like a computer would. It's probably not mathematical (though given enough knowledge it could maybe be explained in mathematical terms), but it's a calculation in the sense that there is surely an if-then sort of thing going on, and a cost/benefit "calculation" (for lack of a better term).
You deny the mathematical, yet clothe it in mathematical metaphors. Again, feel free to present any evidence. Assuming an if-then axis is just that, an unfounded assumption.

Have you heard of Platinga? He is a philosopher who argues there is no reason to expect logic in a mental system that is evolutionarily derived - as it isn't veridicality, but advantage at play. So we don't even need to expect logical syllogisms at play at all in decision making in a mammalian brain.

I'm not following your argument here. Why can't grammar be a result of evolution?
Never said that, but it is abstraction without material precedent. It is creation from 'nothing' as you phrased it.

I'm not too versed in the Jungian archetypes, but I've never heard about them being somehow contrary to evolution. How is that?
Not really contrary to Evolution, but certainly not amenable to it. Jung has a Collective Unconscious, within which these archetypes dwell, from which each individual conscious mind emerges and falls back into on sleep. Many have seen parallels with Hindu concepts of the world soul and such.

In any case the TOE is the only serious contender when we're looking to explain why the world is as it is, and it's provided us with a lot of insights that seem to make good sense. And since I don't believe in god(s) that's basically the option I have. As long as we keep finding reasonable natural explanations for one phenomenon after the other, it seems less and less likely to me that some god is behind it. We will probably never be able to truly grasp the nature of reality itself, and consciousness may stay a hard problem forever, but to me, as a non-believer, it seems unreasonable to assume that it has anything to do with the supernatural.
Again, don't get me wrong. I have no beef with Evolutionary theory. I do think the tendency to use it as a totalitarian dogma is wrong though. The very practice of assuming it before hand, and explaining phenomena by it, will inevitably make it always 'appear useful and give insight' - there is nothing as satisfying as confirmation bias or preaching to the choir. This is stultifying, and the same ossification of intellectual discourse as happened in the decadence of Scholasticism - where a vibrant intellectual system has become dogmatic to the point of assuming its precepts a given, and ostracising or a priori excluding, everything not in accord with it. In Psychology, Psychiatry, and Neuroscience, this is a especially acute, as those deal with the mind-body problem directly, and the consequence is a tendency to exclude evidence and build massive suppositional structures on flimsy evidence.

Hopefully Evidence-Based Medicine will help right the ship, but the problem here is that the principles of external validity of studies aren't followed. Why on earth people think it right to assume a precept and interpret according to it, even when we have good data from the subjects themselves - being human and thus able to communicate. This is a travesty, and I assume Francis Bacon would be rolling in his grave that we are reintroducing a specific Final Cause or Formal Cause, and treating it as Sacrosant.

We are in the decadence of the Scientific Revolution, at least in study of the mind.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

holo

former Christian
Dec 24, 2003
8,992
751
✟77,794.00
Country
Norway
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Usually I have to set aside quite a bit of time figuring out what you're saying, but here's a quick reply to the points I think you're making. I have to say again, I have a hard time believing you can't make yourself clearer. Of course I don't mean you're not using the correct terms or that you're using them imprecisely, but I simply don't see the point seemingly consistently choosing the least known, most technical way of saying stuff. It kind of reminds me of @2PhiloVoid. I (and I guess many others) have to read his long sentences two or three times to figure out what the heck he's talking about. I assume it's partly because he knows a lot, is clever and good with words and likes to show it, but mostly because it's fun. But it's happened more than once that I've just gone "meh, whatever, can't be bothered" and I'm sure I'm not the only one. It's of course possible that I'm simply too dumb for threads like this, but at the same time I don't have too much trouble following quite complicated and deep philosophical discussions on, say, The Science Salon podcast (this thread made me think of a recent episode with Deepak Chopra who has some very interesting ideas about the nature of reality, consciousness etc).

I don't assume the threads I participate in will be necessarily very interesting to others, but I know that when I read posts and go "oh, parousia, what was that again, I gotta open a new browser window" several times, I can't help but ask why. Personally, I would use the extra seconds to write "second coming" and spare the reader having to go look something up when I could've made myself perfectly clear with words I could reasonably expect the other to know. So like I said, I might get to a point where I simply can't be bothered.

How pray tell do we alter the 'quality' of Consciousness? I really have no idea what you mean here. How is this verified?
I couldn't name a specific experiment that proved this, but what I mean is that consciousness at sleep, being awake, half-awake, stoned on drugs, concentrated etc, are different forms, or qualities, of consciousness. At the very least it seems obviuously right to say there are degrees of consciousness.

Anyway, why is there a correlation? Earlier we were talking about the Mind-Body problem - reducing to Idealism or Determinism makes Empirical Reasoning invalid. If no correlation, logically valid empiric evidence would be an impossibility - which is also true if only a product of the brain. So empiric evidence that it is solely a product of the brain, would invalidate all of Empiricism - and any such evidence itself. Bit of a catch-22.
I don't see how it follows that empiric evidence is impossible if consciousness is a product of the brain. Is empiric evidence possible if it's not?

Traditionally in the West, the Rational Soul was seen as enervating the body, along with the Spirit, so Man has no real existence apart from all three (though spirit and soul seem poorly differentiated at times). Hence at the Parousia we are told to expect a glorified body also. Both living body and mind of man are aspects of a whole, differentiable in aspect, but in practice inseparable.
Well, people can think about it in all sorts of ways, but I haven't seen good evidence of ideas like consciousness being independent of the brain.

You deny the mathematical, yet clothe it in mathematical metaphors. Again, feel free to present any evidence. Assuming an if-then axis is just that, an unfounded assumption.
Like you say, it's a metaphor. You make choices all the time, most of them unconscious, like when you suddenly have to jump out of the way of a speeding car. The brain does a bunch of "calculations" of lots and lots of information and makes you get out of the way.

Have you heard of Platinga? He is a philosopher who argues there is no reason to expect logic in a mental system that is evolutionarily derived - as it isn't veridicality, but advantage at play. So we don't even need to expect logical syllogisms at play at all in decision making in a mammalian brain.
It's certainly true that we didn't evolve to see reality as it is, because that in itself doesn't increase our chances of survival and procreation.

Never said that, but it is abstraction without material precedent. It is creation from 'nothing' as you phrased it.
OK, but do you mean we shouldn't expect to see things like grammar if we are the product of evolution?

Not really contrary to Evolution, but certainly not amenable to it. Jung has a Collective Unconscious, within which these archetypes dwell, from which each individual conscious mind emerges and falls back into on sleep. Many have seen parallels with Hindu concepts of the world soul and such.
Any model of the mind and personalities will obviously be tentative. Jung's are as far as I've learned among the more solid and useful ones.

Again, don't get me wrong. I have no beef with Evolutionary theory. I do think the tendency to use it as a totalitarian dogma is wrong though. The very practice of assuming it before hand, and explaining phenomena by it, will inevitably make it always 'appear useful and give insight' - there is nothing as satisfying as confirmation bias or preaching to the choir.
But again, the question is, what's the alternative if you don't already believe in something supernatural? A lot of arguments against evolution/for God (or "something else out there") don't really answer anything as far as I can tell, it's just an assertion that we don't know, or our current knowledge and theories don't explain it well enough, and we basically end up with a god of the gaps.

Hopefully Evidence-Based Medicine will help right the ship, but the problem here is that the principles of external validity of studies aren't followed. Why on earth people think it right to assume a precept and interpret according to it, even when we have good data from the subjects themselves - being human and thus able to communicate. This is a travesty, and I assume Francis Bacon would be rolling in his grave that we are reintroducing a specific Final Cause or Formal Cause, and treating it as Sacrosant.

We are in the decadence of the Scientific Revolution, at least in study of the mind.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0