Morality vs. Legalism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-09-2015, 06:49 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?

The neurons ain't pulling the strings, they are the strings.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
23-09-2015, 07:23 PM (This post was last modified: 23-09-2015 07:53 PM by Tomasia.)
Morality vs. Legalism
(23-09-2015 06:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(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.

It's not apologetics 101.

Reality is not interested in conveying the truth to you. Nor are the neurons in your brain.

Physical forces are only interested in movement, not what's true. The abstract picture you form in your head, is not for the sake of having an accurate picture of reality, it's merely for the sake of navigating through your own life. The truth of this abstraction does not matter to your neurons, (or in other words to you), it just needs to resolve whatever sort of neural chemical frictions that stall you from moving.

Those thing that you call true are not really true at all, they're just useful. Useful for you to deal with your own personal and subjective existence. It's your mental image, that abstract image created by all the parts of your life not some single part you call science, but rather a history of physical forces acting on the neurochemistry of your brain, that have created the image you refer to as reality.

Science didn't draw your image of reality, your neurons did, based on the endless stream of physical forces from birth till now, both conscious and unconscious.

"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, 07:37 PM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(19-09-2015 07:23 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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.

No, it is not a problem for grown-ups who don't demand answers or staking a position on too little evidence as you seem to do.

Quote:If you say we shouldn’t be confident that it’s all purely physical, you just opened the door for dualism.

No, it doesn't. There is no credible mechanism for dualism - it can be dismissed.
What it points to is emergent properties.

Quote:It’s a problem for anyone trying to construct a non-religious worldview.

Wrong again. Please justify your claim that anyone is doing anything other that constructing hypotheses based on evidence.

Quote:It’s a problem for anyone trying to uphold a materialistic worldview.

You mean the only worldview supported by evidence? That worldview? Consider

Quote:It's problem for anyone trying to reduce it all to physics or to neurochemistry in the brain.

Only, as I have already pointed out, a problem yet to be solved.

Quote:It's a problem for anyone who wants to believe in an uncreated, accidental view of human existence.

You mean the only view supported by evidence? The only view with a plausible mechanism? Consider

Quote: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.

I believe that for which there is proof. I consider likely that for which there is evidence. I don't whine like a six-year-old that we must have an answer.

Quote:
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 atheist, I would be someone who believes God/s don’t exist.

There is no evidence for any gods. Theology is all made up.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
24-09-2015, 05:20 AM (This post was last modified: 24-09-2015 06:17 AM by Tomasia.)
Morality vs. Legalism
(23-09-2015 06:41 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(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.

No one said anything about a single bit. Even the combined bits don't desire the truth, just whatever works to keep them moving, to minimize any frictions that arise from any other set of neurons that can stall movement. All they care about in essence is their feelings, managing their emotional states in light of a variety of physical forces pushing against them.

If you think, you who is nothing more that your neurochemistry, desires to know the truth, you're just fooling yourself, because it's a sham. You just want something that makes you feel a certain way.

"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
24-09-2015, 06:28 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(24-09-2015 05:20 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Even the combined bits don't desire the truth

Yes, they do.

You seem to be posting from some strange alternate universe where human brains are entirely different.

"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
24-09-2015, 06:46 AM (This post was last modified: 24-09-2015 06:55 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(24-09-2015 06:28 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(24-09-2015 05:20 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Even the combined bits don't desire the truth

Yes, they do

You seem to be posting from some strange alternate universe where human brains are entirely different.

I don't believe human brains are entirely different than every other animal, in fact the view being expressed here sees them as very similar.

Are the combined bits interested in truth, or movement? In truth of navigation? They are not the same thing.

Are your combined bits interested in the truth, or how to navigate your life?

Those things like science, logical calculus, etc.. don't matter to you because they help you recognize what's true, they matter to you because they put you at ease, like a cup of coffee in the morning might do for some, or a hobby might do for others, or a long walk does. When some one says a proposition with the words like science, logical, and reason in them, as long it has a particular cadence, it sounds pleasing in your ears. You don't want the truth, you just want a song that you can dance to without feeling awkward, or off beat.

"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
24-09-2015, 07:01 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(24-09-2015 06:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Are the combined bits interested in truth, or movement? In truth of navigation? They are not the same thing.

Are your combined bits interested in the truth, or how to navigate your life?

You keep adding nonsense phrases to your questions, which makes them too incoherent to answer. Regardless, yes, people are perfectly capable of actually wanting the truth.

(24-09-2015 06:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Those things like science, logical calculus, etc.. don't matter to you because they help you recognize what's true, they matter to you because they put you at ease, like a cup of coffee in the morning might do for some, or a hobby might do for others, or a long walk does. When some one says a proposition with the words like science, logical, and reason in them, as long it has a particular cadence, it sounds pleasing in your ears. You don't want the truth, you just want a song that you can dance to without feeling awkward, or off beat.

[Image: mlfw10755_medium.jpg]

"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
24-09-2015, 07:07 AM (This post was last modified: 24-09-2015 07:22 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(24-09-2015 07:01 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(24-09-2015 06:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Are the combined bits interested in truth, or movement? In truth of navigation? They are not the same thing.

Are your combined bits interested in the truth, or how to navigate your life?

You keep adding nonsense phrases to your questions, which makes them too incoherent to answer. Regardless, yes, people are perfectly capable of actually wanting the truth.


You desire the truth, while the neural chemistry of your brain doesn't care about this. And you don't see the conundrum here? The ship without a captain?

Is the desire and want for a truth, a near universal here? Do we all want the truth? Do all of our "combined bits" desire this abstract thing called truth?

Is the desire for truth a biological desire, like a desire for food, and drink. A desire for friendship, and love, and sex? Or is sort of like a manufactured desire, like a desire for coke?

"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
24-09-2015, 07:27 AM (This post was last modified: 24-09-2015 07:31 AM by Unbeliever.)
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(24-09-2015 07:07 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You desire the truth, while the neural chemistry of your brain doesn't care about this. And you don't see the conundrum here? The ship without a captain?

You don't seem to understand this whole "emergence" concept.

No single part of a car's engine "cares" about making the car move. No single part has producing the motion of the whole as its specific purpose.

And yet, it moves...

"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
24-09-2015, 08:03 AM
RE: Morality vs. Legalism
(24-09-2015 07:27 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(24-09-2015 07:07 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You desire the truth, while the neural chemistry of your brain doesn't care about this. And you don't see the conundrum here? The ship without a captain?

You don't seem to understand this whole "emergence" concept.

And you can't distinguish the difference been eliminativism and emergence, since you think the difference is primarily one of practicality. But that works too. So we can cut out the middle man, and speak in an eliminative sense.

Either way appealing to emergence here, doesn't answer any of the questions being posed to you. Your appeal is primarily for the sake of avoiding answering some uncomfortable questions. It's just a red herring. A means to avoid having to recognize that your emperor has no clothes.

Or in other words when you neurons get uncomfortable by a series of questions, they've become accustom to having you spit out a series of jargon as a defense, in replace of non-answers. They're hoping that those uncomfortable questions disappear, or get brushed under the rug. They're hoping to change the topic to the one between eliminativism vs emergence, in hopes of getting us to not to point at the sand you've built your house on.

"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: