Morality vs. Legalism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-09-2015, 06:41 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(18-09-2015 04:55 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  There is no objective method, because our brains are all wired differently. What it takes for your brain to register something is true might be entirely different for some other brain. In fact you might not even been entirely aware of what is required, because your introspection is unreliable.
My epistemology is somewhat based on the scientific method.
I understand that physical things cannot be proven 100%.

But if scientists publish papers to say that they have found a Higgs Boson like particle and they are sure within the extent of 5 standard deviations and other scientists have assessed the experiment, scrutinised the data and agree with the conclusions then I take this on board as knowledge. I don't merely believe, I know. It is truth as far as we can tell given the data at hand today.


To what degree has universal morality been examined, scrutinised, observed, verified?
Is there even a definition of universal morality which includes falsifiable criteria?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 12:37 AM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2015 12:47 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(18-09-2015 06:41 PM)Stevil Wrote:  My epistemology is somewhat based on the scientific method.
I understand that physical things cannot be proven 100%.

When trying to convince somebody that something is true, we are in essence communicating mind to mind. I'm trying to light up areas in your brain, that light up when you feel something is true, objective, rational, whatever you label it.

If I can string together some series of propositions that do just that, your brain would signal to you that its true.

I'm not trying to get you to think independent of your neurochemistry. Trying to convince you to believe something is true, is a matter of manipulating the neurochemistry in your brain.

Do you disagree with this? I'm not sure how you can avoid doing so when you subscribe to a physicalist perspective.

So when you claim that I need to provide you objective evidence, etc..., to accept a claim of mine, all you're telling me is what your introspection leads you to believe is the means of manipulating your neurochemistry in such a way. Even though your introspection may not be all that reliable.

Maybe folks who subscribe to some form of mind body dualism, can avoid such reconciliations, but you can't now can you? You sort of have to concede my points here now don't you?

Quote:To what degree has universal morality been examined, scrutinised, observed, verified?

“Thus, there is long-standing evidence for the existence of core morality in the overlap of ethical agreement by the major religions and in the lip service paid by international agreements. But wait, there’s more. Neuroscience, in particular the techniques of fMRI (functioning magnetic resonance imaging of brain activity), increasingly shows that people’s brains react the same way to ethical problems across cultures. This is just what the existence of core morality leads us to expect.”

Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 12:58 AM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2015 01:08 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(18-09-2015 05:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(18-09-2015 03:08 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  So basically it all reduces to physics. You're just peddling physiciallism.

Peddling? Consider There is no evidence for anything else.

You are the one peddling unsupported horseshit.

I'm perfectly fine with atheists subscribing to physiciallism, in fact I think that position is unavoidable for them. But physiciallism even if true, poses a number of serious problems, some of which we've been willing to abandon, like moral realism, free-will, but the problems it create extend beyond this, with implication for nearly every one of our common sense beliefs, like intentionality, objective and rational thinking, how we recognize what's true, etc... Hence why physicalist like Rosenberg have to go through a considerable degree of strains to argue for it's validity. Because the perspective of reality it offers, is entirely unintuitive, even if true.

If thoughts, thinking, recognizing truths, are reducible to neurochemistry in the brain, then I would like to know how those two can be reconciled. If your ability to accept something is true, is contingent on manipulating the neurochemistry in your brain, what makes you think that it's through actual objective facts, observable evidence that this occurs?

Anything I say or write to you, is something you read and breaks down to these sounds you hear in your head. And if I can figure out how to play the flute just right, you'll accept the tune I played as true.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 01:22 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(19-09-2015 12:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So when you claim that I need to provide you objective evidence, etc..., to accept a claim of mine, all you're telling me is what your introspection leads you to believe is the means of manipulating your neurochemistry in such a way. Even though your introspection may not be all that reliable.
Sure, and when I am challenged or when I challenge my own understanding or believed knowledge then I refer back to the source. A reputable and trusted source based on documented claims including falsifiable criteria which is peer reviewed and recreated and challenged without being falsified.
Sometimes when I refer back to the source I find that I understood the scientific view incorrectly and then I correct my own understanding.

(19-09-2015 12:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Maybe folks who subscribe to some form of mind body dualism
For them it's a free for all. They just believe whatever gives them warm fuzzies.

(19-09-2015 12:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:To what degree has universal morality been examined, scrutinised, observed, verified?

“Thus, there is long-standing evidence for the existence of core morality in the overlap of ethical agreement by the major religions and in the lip service paid by international agreements. But wait, there’s more. Neuroscience, in particular the techniques of fMRI (functioning magnetic resonance imaging of brain activity), increasingly shows that people’s brains react the same way to ethical problems across cultures. This is just what the existence of core morality leads us to expect.”

Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks.
I disagree with Rosenberg's assertions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 02:00 AM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2015 02:05 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(19-09-2015 01:22 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
Quote:So when you claim that I need to provide you objective evidence, etc..., to accept a claim of mine, all you're telling me is what your introspection leads you to believe is the means of manipulating your neurochemistry in such a way. Even though your introspection may not be all that reliable.

Sure, and when I am challenged or when I challenge my own understanding or believed knowledge then I refer back to the source. A reputable and trusted source based on documented claims including falsifiable criteria which is peer reviewed and recreated and challenged without being falsified.

That's all nonsense, your introspection been fooling you.

There are a variety of people who would say the same things of themselves, even moral nihilist like Rosenberg, who without reservations accepts the label scientism to describe his worldview. Yet in his view core morality is established beyond any scientific doubt. Yet you doubt. You don't believe this. You don't accept this as true. The reason for this, since all thoughts are reducible to neurochemistry in the brain, accepting this is true is not firing off those neurochemicals in the brain that provide for you that sensations you associate with true claims.

Think of your neurochemistry as a set of ears listing to music. A certain string or propositions hum a tune, if that's tune sounds abrasive, not soft enough, you reject these string of propositions as false. Where is if the tune is just right, sounds smooth, and sweet, a rhythm you can grove to, you accept the proposition as true. The truth of the matter is that your likely unaware to a considerable degree as to what it takes to play that proper tune, or the aspects of your life that draws you to that tune. It's a question of how much your introspection reveals your neurochemistry.

But recognize this though. That it doesn't matter if the series of proposition are true representations of reality or not, all that matters is that tune is played to your liking.

In order for the tune you desire, to be a true representation of reality, than reality itself would have to be the one singing that tune. In this regard I wouldn't be the playing the song, but directing your ears to the one who is. You would need not just to be a means of the cosmos to be aware of itself, but a cosmos that wants us to be aware of it. But that's a position you won't be able to accept.

Now you can try and preserve your introspective beliefs otherwise, but you're just going to be rambling one series of inconsistent arguments after the other. You're gonna find yourself in the situations you were in a long time ago, when your subscribed to moral relativism, only to watch that ground slip right under you feet, till you had no choice but to accept moral nihilism.

The next strop on the train is to take away your belief in truth all together.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 02:26 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(19-09-2015 12:58 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-09-2015 05:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  Peddling? Consider There is no evidence for anything else.

You are the one peddling unsupported horseshit.

I'm perfectly fine with atheists subscribing to physiciallism, in fact I think that position is unavoidable for them. But physiciallism even if true, poses a number of serious problems, some of which we've been willing to abandon, like moral realism, free-will, but the problems it create extend beyond this, with implication for nearly every one of our common sense beliefs, like intentionality, objective and rational thinking, how we recognize what's true, etc... Hence why physicalist like Rosenberg have to go through a considerable degree of strains to argue for it's validity. Because the perspective of reality it offers, is entirely unintuitive, even if true.

If thoughts, thinking, recognizing truths, are reducible to neurochemistry in the brain, then I would like to know how those two can be reconciled. If your ability to accept something is true, is contingent on manipulating the neurochemistry in your brain, what makes you think that it's through actual objective facts, observable evidence that this occurs?

Emergent properties is the answer. There is no inherent problem in a purely material and physical description of reality, only unanswered questions.

There are not known to be any unanswerable questions.

Quote:Anything I say or write to you, is something you read and breaks down to these sounds you hear in your head. And if I can figure out how to play the flute just right, you'll accept the tune I played as true.

Huh

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 02:37 AM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2015 02:59 AM by Tomasia.)
Morality vs. Legalism
(19-09-2015 02:26 AM)Chas Wrote:  Emergent properties is the answer. There is no inherent problem in a purely material and physical description of reality, only unanswered questions.

There are. Problems that are noted by physicalist like Rosenberg, such as the problem of intentionality. Where even he has concede that it doesn't exist, that it just an illusion:

Rosenberg:

"The four most difficult chapters of The Atheist’s Guide are devoted to this task, and most reviewers have avoided even discussing them. They are too hard for people who have never heard of the problem of intentionality or content or ‘aboutness.’ Once we take on board eliminativism about content, and Darwinism about every other instance of apparent purposiveness in the universe and in our brains, it’s easy to see that what consciousness tells us about ourselves, our motives, our plans, our purposes, is a tissue of illusions. This, not morality, is the part of our understanding of ourselves that requires radical reconstruction, at least for scientific purposes, if not for everyday life."
.....
"I started on that task in my answer to the last question. The best I can do in a few lines to answer the question further is to note that if intentionality, content, ‘aboutness,’ is impossible, given the way the brain works, it’s also impossible in consciousness—since that’s just more brain process. So, we need an explanation of the illusion that our conscious thoughts have sentential meaning and propositional content. Neuroscience explains why there is no original intentionality, along with no derived intentionality, in the brain. I show that adding consciousness doesn’t help in any way to create original intentionality. The argument is pretty simple once you grant that non-conscious brain states lack original intentionality because they can’t carry around information in the form of sentences."

http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=4209

The only way folks like yourself can imagine there's no problems, is by avoiding to think about then.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 03:08 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(19-09-2015 02:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-09-2015 02:26 AM)Chas Wrote:  Emergent properties is the answer. There is no inherent problem in a purely material and physical description of reality, only unanswered questions.

There are. Problems that are noted by physicalist like Rosenberg, such as the problem of intentionality. Where even he has concede that it doesn't exist, that it just an illusion:

Rosenberg:

"The four most difficult chapters of The Atheist’s Guide are devoted to this task, and most reviewers have avoided even discussing them. They are too hard for people who have never heard of the problem of intentionality or content or ‘aboutness.’ Once we take on board eliminativism about content, and Darwinism about every other instance of apparent purposiveness in the universe and in our brains, it’s easy to see that what consciousness tells us about ourselves, our motives, our plans, our purposes, is a tissue of illusions. This, not morality, is the part of our understanding of ourselves that requires radical reconstruction, at least for scientific purposes, if not for everyday life."
.....
"I started on that task in my answer to the last question. The best I can do in a few lines to answer the question further is to note that if intentionality, content, ‘aboutness,’ is impossible, given the way the brain works, it’s also impossible in consciousness—since that’s just more brain process. So, we need an explanation of the illusion that our conscious thoughts have sentential meaning and propositional content. Neuroscience explains why there is no original intentionality, along with no derived intentionality, in the brain. I show that adding consciousness doesn’t help in any way to create original intentionality. The argument is pretty simple once you grant that non-conscious brain states lack original intentionality because they can’t carry around information in the form of sentences."

http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=4209

There may or may not be intentionality, maybe there is only something that is like intentionality, that we interpret as intentionality. We don't know yet.
That's not a problem except in the sense that it is a problem awaiting solution.

We don't know everything. Those who claim that there is no intentionality or no free will or [fill in your favorite hobby horse here] if life, the universe, and everything are purely physical are over-reaching the current knowledge base. It is nothing more than an argument from ignorance.

You belief that there must be something else is a clear example of this.

Quote:The only way folks like yourself can imagine there's no problems, is by avoiding to think about then.

Oh, go fuck yourself. You are an arrogant little dick. You have no idea what I have thought and studied.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
19-09-2015, 03:14 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(19-09-2015 02:00 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  ..like Rosenberg...
Appealing to Rosenberg doesn't help. It is a form of name dropping.
I am not interesting in his assertions.
I may be interested in how he came about his conclusion (what evidence he presents, why he interprets it the way he does) but I certainly don't assume he is correct and if he says something then it must be true.
Religion works that way, you guys appeal to an authority, for Catholics it is the pope and the Church, the magisterium.

That shit don't fly with me. I don't consider myself smarter than everyone else but I don't accept authority either. If someone has credientials then that is great, I ought to listen, but then I need to ask how they came about their stance and decide for myself whether I agree with it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 06:49 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(19-09-2015 03:14 AM)Stevil Wrote:  
(19-09-2015 02:00 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  ..like Rosenberg...
Appealing to Rosenberg doesn't help. It is a form of name dropping.
I am not interesting in his assertions.
I may be interested in how he came about his conclusion (what evidence he presents, why he interprets it the way he does) but I certainly don't assume he is correct and if he says something then it must be true.
Religion works that way, you guys appeal to an authority, for Catholics it is the pope and the Church, the magisterium.

That shit don't fly with me. I don't consider myself smarter than everyone else but I don't accept authority either. If someone has credientials then that is great, I ought to listen, but then I need to ask how they came about their stance and decide for myself whether I agree with it.

I think you missed why I keep mentioning Rosenberg here, which was for the sake of having another mind to contrast your own with, and in this case one that subscribes to a variety of your own beliefs, like moral nihilism, physicalism, and scientism. Even with those similarities in mind, it's apparent that you are not of one mind. That your neurochemical makeup in regards to how you think and accept what is true, is very different. Yet both of your introspections will lead you to believe you followed the same path. The point here is not that he's right and your wrong, or vice versa, but to shed doubt on the reliability of your introspection.

Suppose the neurochemistry in your brain is not able to think objectively, not accurately attuned in a way that recognize what's true about reality, and from what's not, yet you believe you are. You will be holding false beliefs about yourself. Perhaps one's that are so deeply held, that you are unable to recognize them as false.

The problems here might become more apparent to you, not by accepting the authority, or even agreeing with Rosenberg, but perhaps applying you physicalist lens here, and not treat your own thoughts and thinking as irreducible, but by reducing it to the neurochemistry in your brain.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: