Morality vs. Legalism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-09-2015, 11:27 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(23-09-2015 11:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So it follows that since external object isn't, and the neurons in your brain aren't.

No one is. No one is interested in the truth. Not even you.

Oh, come on. Is that where this pointless ramble has been going? To a blatant attempt at equivocation? I expected more from you, Tom. I was at least hoping for some quality gibberish. This is just boring.

"Reality is interested in conveying to you what is true" is not equivalent to "you are interested in the truth". This is just a pathetic excuse for an argument, really. A third grader would be able to point out this hole.

You might at least try.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2015, 11:30 AM (This post was last modified: 23-09-2015 11:36 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(23-09-2015 11:27 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(23-09-2015 11:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So it follows that since external object isn't, and the neurons in your brain aren't.

No one is. No one is interested in the truth. Not even you.

Oh, come on. Is that where this pointless ramble has been going? To a blatant attempt at equivocation? I expected more from you, Tom. I was at least hoping for some quality gibberish. This is just boring.

"Reality is interested in conveying to you what is true" is not equivalent to "you are interested in the truth". This is just a pathetic excuse for an argument, really. A third grader would be able to point out this hole.

You might at least try.


You should of answered the two part question the first time. Here it is again:

"If it's not the object that's interested in conveying to you what's true. Then what is it then?

The neurons in your brain?

If the external object isn't, and the neurons in your brain aren't. Then who is then?"

I'll reemphasize the main part you didn't respond to yet:

Are the neurons in your brain interested in conveying to you what's 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
23-09-2015, 11:38 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(23-09-2015 11:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You should of answered the two part question the first time.

I did. The answer, again, is nothing.

(23-09-2015 11:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I'll reemphasize the main part you didn't respond to yet:

Are the neurons in your brain interested in conveying to you what's true?

I did respond to this. You just failed to understand the response.

The neurons in your brain are not interested in anything. They behave mechanically. Your entire brain does. It is only when taken together than consciousness begins to emerge (for more details on this, I point you to integrated information theory and the works of Christof Koch, who explores the computational basis for consciousness).

Now, assuming that your question was formulated coherently and refers to the mind as a whole rather than individual neurons, the answer is still "no" in the technical sense. The brain is "designed" (referring to evolutionary processes and refinement, not actual intelligent design) to maximize survivability and reproductive efficiency. To that end, it only "intends" to tell you the truth so far as is necessary to get you to reproduce.

It does happen, however, that in the case of humans, greater intellectual ability is a survival trait. The brain's "goal", insofar as it can be said to have any, is mere survival, but the means by which it accomplishes this is the ability to accurately perceive and understand our surroundings.

There is no grand force that wants us to understand. We've just gotten very good at it because it makes us better at surviving. I have mentioned this before; non-functional minds are a liability for humans. A mind which cannot accurately perceive and understand its surroundings is not functional, and will not survive, so we end up with brains capable of understanding.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
23-09-2015, 01:40 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
Quote:To that end, it only "intends" to tell you the truth so far as is necessary to get you to reproduce.

This is just superstitious nonsense, your desperate attempt to preserve your belief here is noted.

It doesn’t intend to tell you the truth. It’s only concerned with the movement, that leads you to reproduce. It doesn’t give a shit if it’s a lie or a truth that does the trick. It’s only interested in removing any neural chemical friction that slows or prevents this momentum. You neurons are not interested in telling you that your wife is cheating on you. A fetus isn’t born with a foresight of the external world it’s going to find himself in. He’s born trying to navigate through it with whatever through whatever abstractions of it exists and forms in his head.

But you already know you’re a ship without a captain, so that gives you no excuse to talk outside of both sides of your mouth. Our beliefs are not a matter of choice, or free-will. We don’t get to choose what we believe is true. We’re just along for the ride. We’re not the director of that film, that abstract moving picture that play in our head, of that external object, called reality. We’re just a part of the audience. You can’t slime your way out of this by appealing to consciousness, because that’s the same route people who appeal to free-will try to slime out of it through.

You’re the puppet on the strings of your neurochemistry. It’s a neurochemistry that doesn’t respond to spooky forces, but physical forces. The external object doesn’t have rules of logic, rational thoughts, or speak in propositions. It doesn’t speak at all. It’s not trying to get you to recognize what’s true about it.

So what exerts those forces that try to get you to recognize what’s true? Your conscious thoughts? All thoughts are reducible to your neural chemistry, even the special thoughts we refer to as conscious ones. Are your neurons trying to get another set of neurons to recognize what’s true? Of course not, unless you believe in spooky shit. All they give a shit about is getting you to move. And will play whatever film it has to, to make sure it’s a smooth of a ride as possible, to get that ship without a captain going.

If you’re trying to provide a persuasive reconciliations between your precious beliefs and physicalism, keep that Deepak Chopra shit at home.

"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
23-09-2015, 01:43 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(23-09-2015 01:40 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:To that end, it only "intends" to tell you the truth so far as is necessary to get you to reproduce.

This is just superstitious nonsense

What?

(23-09-2015 01:40 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It doesn’t intend to tell you the truth. It’s only concerned with the movement, that leads you to reproduce. It doesn’t give a shit if it’s a lie or a truth that does the trick.

Yes, that is what I said.

You may want to read the rest of my post about intelligence being a survival trait in humans.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2015, 03:17 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(23-09-2015 11:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  "If it's not the object that's interested in conveying to you what's true. Then what is it then?

The neurons in your brain?
Tomasia, what people are trying to tell you is that you are looking at things backwards.

You seem to be assuming an intent or purpose to the universe.
An intent for you to know the truth.
But this isn't the case.

The universe is driven by a mechanical tug of war between the four fundamental autonomous forces. These forces are there because they are a consequence of the existence of matter and energy. Perhaps matter and energy is a consequence of the underlying fields which permeate all through space and time. Physics can calculate what will happen in simple systems where the state is known. In complex systems the forces and rules are still the only driver but we humans and our computers lack the processing power to know how to calculate what will happen.

The universe doesn't care about human's knowledge of the "truth". It has not set up the laws of physics in such a way that humans will inevitably discover truth.

Life forms are complex structures which have come about via evolution. Structures that are prolific at reproducing become more abundant and continue their evolving lineage. Therefore whatever functions we have developed, we have them because they have in some way contributed to our ability to prolifically reproduce within a lineage that has lasted 4 billion years persisting through an ever changing environment.

Questions such as "If it's not the object that's interested in conveying to you what's true. Then what is it then?

The neurons in your brain?"

Are irrelevant, as these question assume something that is not the case.
There is no purpose to the universe, no intent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
23-09-2015, 05:39 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(23-09-2015 10:25 AM)Matt Finney Wrote:  
(23-09-2015 09:47 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Truth is anything but simple.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Einstein

"Seek simplicity and distrust it." - Alfred North Whitehead

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2015, 06:24 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(23-09-2015 03:17 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(23-09-2015 11:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  "If it's not the object that's interested in conveying to you what's true. Then what is it then?

The neurons in your brain?
Tomasia, what people are trying to tell you is that you are looking at things backwards.

You seem to be assuming an intent or purpose to the universe.
An intent for you to know the truth.
But this isn't the case.

The universe is driven by a mechanical tug of war between the four fundamental autonomous forces. These forces are there because they are a consequence of the existence of matter and energy. Perhaps matter and energy is a consequence of the underlying fields which permeate all through space and time. Physics can calculate what will happen in simple systems where the state is known. In complex systems the forces and rules are still the only driver but we humans and our computers lack the processing power to know how to calculate what will happen.

The universe doesn't care about human's knowledge of the "truth". It has not set up the laws of physics in such a way that humans will inevitably discover truth.

Life forms are complex structures which have come about via evolution. Structures that are prolific at reproducing become more abundant and continue their evolving lineage. Therefore whatever functions we have developed, we have them because they have in some way contributed to our ability to prolifically reproduce within a lineage that has lasted 4 billion years persisting through an ever changing environment.

Questions such as "If it's not the object that's interested in conveying to you what's true. Then what is it then?

The neurons in your brain?"

Are irrelevant, as these question assume something that is not the case.
There is no purpose to the universe, no intent.

It's not irrelevant. If the object external to our minds is not interested in conveying to us to the truth. And if the neurons in our brain are not.

Then how can you be, when it's your neurons pulling the strings?

"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
23-09-2015, 06:41 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(23-09-2015 06:24 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It's not irrelevant. If the object external to our minds is not interested in conveying to us to the truth. And if the neurons in our brain are not.

Then how can you be, when it's your neurons pulling the strings?

A single bit in a computer does not perform any computations by itself.

Computers still compute.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
23-09-2015, 06:44 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(23-09-2015 06:24 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It's not irrelevant. If the object external to our minds is not interested in conveying to us to the truth. And if the neurons in our brain are not.

Then how can you be, when it's your neurons pulling the strings?
This is apologetics 101 right?

If love isn't a fundamental unit of the universe then from where does love come?
If consciousness isn't a complex property of the universe then where did it come from?

Answer - The J-man did it! "I win, atheists you lose!"


My answer to you is this.
I find understanding the universe to be beneficial, I find toasters beneficial, cars beneficial, all these things are a result of humans getting to understand the universe and how things work.

If we falsely understand things then we find that what we think would work, sometimes does not.
e.g. under Newton's model of gravity GPS systems would be off by quite a bit, but under Einstein's model of general relativity then GPS systems are more accurate. Which means we can find that special fishing spot easier, or we can trust our navman.

Finding truth about things gives accurate results and provides benefits, finding false truths might also provide benefits but we might find they are a little quirky or not entirely accurate.

Science helps us narrow in on the truth by filtering out things that are not true. It does this by testing falsifiable criteria.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: