Morality vs. Legalism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-09-2015, 06:58 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(O_o)

W.T.H. did I just read?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 07:23 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(19-09-2015 03:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  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.

It is a problem, for those not getting cold feet, and being ify. If you say we shouldn’t be confident that it’s all purely physical, you just opened the door for dualism. It’s a problem for anyone trying to construct a non-religious worldview. It’s a problem for anyone trying to uphold a materialistic worldview. It's problem for anyone trying to reduce it all to physics or to neurochemistry in the brain. It's a problem for anyone who wants to believe in an uncreated, accidental view of human existence.

It’s a problem for anyone trying to extend methodological observations into ontological beliefs. It’s problem for those who don’t want their criticism of other beliefs, to amount to nothing than appeals to not believe in anything.

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

Yes, where as you might have an aversion to holding anything even remotely resembling a religious belief, I have an aversion to defining myself as lacking a believe. If I was an atheists, I would be someone who believes God/s don’t exist.

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

Touché.

"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, 12:44 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(19-09-2015 02:00 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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 ore mocrality is established beyond any scientific doubt. Yet you doubt. You don't believe this.

There probably is a "core morality" among humans that evolved naturally as some sort of survival mechanism. What the hell does "core morality" have to do with "absolute morality".

(19-09-2015 02:00 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The next strop on the train is to take away your belief in truth all together.

Truth is relative to an axiomatic framework for the umpteenth time. There is no "absolute truth". There is no "absolute morality".

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
19-09-2015, 01:39 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(19-09-2015 06:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.
I agree with Rosenberg on the following:
There is no evidence to support gods
There is no evidence to support morals
There is no evidence to support free will

That as far as we know the fundamental four forces are all there is. Everything is ultimately a result of how these forces play out. Our consciousness, our "free will" our intentionality cannot overcome the four fundamental forces and do not amount to some new force.

I feel you have to look at our mind as some kind of complex process, part instance, part software, part hardware. As the thought process is in play it is able to process rules and change state and alter persistent storage. In such a way it represents a dynamic model on top of the static model of our underlying infrastructure (physical brain).
It's no more magical than transistors switching state in a CPU, able to change the course of the program instance.
The reason why we think we are able to make choices is because we can, albeit limited to program and rules that we must follow. The illusion is that what we call "I" is actually the sum of the program, the rules, the infrastructure which is all ultimately based on the physical matter and energy and completely driven by the fundamental forces. If an outsider knew the total state of the "I" of me and they knew all the inputs they could predict with 100% certainty what the next state would be (i.e. they could accurately predict all of "my" decisions).

I disagree with Rosenberg with regards to his assertion that there exists a "moral" core. I don't even know what he means by that. Perhaps it's a semantic thing.
Without free will, without intentionality then morality makes no sense. You cannot blame someone for making immoral choices. I see this "problem" as a fundamental reason why some atheists choose to accept "compatibilism" as they want morality to mean something, they want people to be held accountable on the scale of morality. They want laws to have a moral basis.

I don't want any of these things, I am happy to reject "compatibilism", I am happy to have laws devoid of morality. I am happy to accept that we are merely biochemical machines operating according to fundamental physics. Doing exactly what we must, the only difference between my next state and the next state of a falling rock is that due to the complexity of the human brain my next state is harder to model.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2015, 04:57 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(19-09-2015 12:44 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  There probably is a "core morality" among humans that evolved naturally as some sort of survival mechanism. What the hell does "core morality" have to do with "absolute morality".

It's evidence, but not proof, for the very least the illusion of objective morality.

Quote:
(19-09-2015 02:00 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The next strop on the train is to take away your belief in truth all together.

Truth is relative to an axiomatic framework for the umpteenth time. There is no "absolute truth". There is no "absolute morality".

Truth is relative to the neurochemistry in your brain. Your introspection may lead you to believe that the truths you hold are are relative to some defined axiomatic framework, but you're introspection is probably not as reliable here as you imagine it to be.

"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
20-09-2015, 05:01 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(19-09-2015 01:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(19-09-2015 06:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.
I agree with Rosenberg on the following:
There is no evidence to support gods
There is no evidence to support morals
There is no evidence to support free will

That as far as we know the fundamental four forces are all there is. Everything is ultimately a result of how these forces play out. Our consciousness, our "free will" our intentionality cannot overcome the four fundamental forces and do not amount to some new force.

I feel you have to look at our mind as some kind of complex process, part instance, part software, part hardware. As the thought process is in play it is able to process rules and change state and alter persistent storage. In such a way it represents a dynamic model on top of the static model of our underlying infrastructure (physical brain).
It's no more magical than transistors switching state in a CPU, able to change the course of the program instance.
The reason why we think we are able to make choices is because we can, albeit limited to program and rules that we must follow. The illusion is that what we call "I" is actually the sum of the program, the rules, the infrastructure which is all ultimately based on the physical matter and energy and completely driven by the fundamental forces. If an outsider knew the total state of the "I" of me and they knew all the inputs they could predict with 100% certainty what the next state would be (i.e. they could accurately predict all of "my" decisions).

I disagree with Rosenberg with regards to his assertion that there exists a "moral" core. I don't even know what he means by that. Perhaps it's a semantic thing.
Without free will, without intentionality then morality makes no sense. You cannot blame someone for making immoral choices. I see this "problem" as a fundamental reason why some atheists choose to accept "compatibilism" as they want morality to mean something, they want people to be held accountable on the scale of morality. They want laws to have a moral basis.

I don't want any of these things, I am happy to reject "compatibilism", I am happy to have laws devoid of morality. I am happy to accept that we are merely biochemical machines operating according to fundamental physics. Doing exactly what we must, the only difference between my next state and the next state of a falling rock is that due to the complexity of the human brain my next state is harder to model.

"Illusions" are important here. As an atheists I don't expect any concession beyond the acknowledgement of an illusion. The "illusion" of I, the "illusion" of objective morality, the "illusion" of free will. The illusion of "truth".

"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
20-09-2015, 09:36 AM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2015 09:42 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(20-09-2015 04:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-09-2015 12:44 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  There probably is a "core morality" among humans that evolved naturally as some sort of survival mechanism. What the hell does "core morality" have to do with "absolute morality".

It's evidence, but not proof, for the very least the illusion of objective morality.

Not sure what evidence for an illusion means.

(20-09-2015 04:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-09-2015 12:44 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Truth is relative to an axiomatic framework for the umpteenth time. There is no "absolute truth".
Truth is relative to the neurochemistry in your brain.

No it isn't. After hundred of posts you still have no clue what "truth" means. Please take this course. It's free. Introduction to Logic.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
20-09-2015, 09:40 AM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2015 09:50 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(20-09-2015 05:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The "illusion" of I, the "illusion" of objective morality, the "illusion" of free will. The illusion of "truth".

I agree, those are all illusions. Here's a very good book you will like.

[Image: user.jpg]

And here's a woo video bemore turned me onto that's quite good.




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
20-09-2015, 10:01 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
Quote:
(20-09-2015 04:57 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Truth is relative to the neurochemistry in your brain.

No it isn't. After hundred of posts you still have no clue what "truth" means. Please take this course. It's free. Introduction to Logic.

(20-09-2015 09:40 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 05:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The "illusion" of I, the "illusion" of objective morality, the "illusion" of free will. The illusion of "truth".

I agree, those are all illusions. Here's a very good book you will like.

Reconcile this for me. You concede that truth is an illusion.

Is it an illusions that reducible to the neurochemistry of our brains?

It’s not a mind independent illusion right?

So I fail to see what the problem here is beyond some semantic squabble.

If you agree with me on these points, then I fail to see any meaningful disagreement.

"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
20-09-2015, 01:15 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(20-09-2015 05:01 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  "Illusions" are important here. As an atheists I don't expect any concession beyond the acknowledgement of an illusion. The "illusion" of I, the "illusion" of objective morality, the "illusion" of free will. The illusion of "truth".
By "illusion" we mean intuitive assumptions that are made.
Those assumptions being false.

We assume we have free will because from the perspective of our conscious mind we think we are free to make decisions. It is not visible to our minds the forces at play and that the strongest force will influence the electron.

We assume our knowledge is 100% correct (truth) however sometimes we forget that it takes one black swan to change our fact into fiction.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: