Summations Only

One day I will, as you know.AbE:but the ideal, love, beauty, honor exists even if there is no one to experience it.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

Obviously. Which is why your position suffers from all the problems with dualism.If something is causeless then it is just random isn't it? Do you think your preferences just occur randomly? Or are you suggesting that your preferences and ideals are uncaused but somehow non-random?How exactly do you see this dualism of yours occurring and why is there the demonstrable link between the physical and the things that you claim are non-physical? (e.g. firing neurons and feelings of love)This seems to be the key to understanding your approach to 'why' questions that you think are best answered by religion rather than science.

Well that is debatable. But your preference for a blue sky (which is what we were talking about) requires your brain to physically exist doesn't it? The physical cause of your preferences is very relevant to them. If we were to selectively lobotomise you or ply you with various mind altering drugs your preferences would doubtless be significantly effected.

As I pointed out on the other thread, you're assuming your incorrectly restricted definition of why in order to come to your conclusions, although I don't think you're doing this intentionally. "Why", in those questions can be technical. It doesn't have to mean "for what objective purpose", or "for what ultimate reason".Take the birds singing. A why question might initially be answered by an immediate reason, like "because they are communicating". Then "why do they communicate" could be answered by giving specific functions, like marking territory, mating, warning, etc. Then, if a questioner asks why they do those things, you could give a reasonable general answer like "it's advantageous for them to do so, and aids their survival."If someone wanted to phrase a question in the way that you have "why did it happen that birds sing", the answer "because it was advantageous to their ancestors, and aided their survival" is a reasonable one. Or "because there was positive selection for traits that contributed to efficient communication". That could then lead naturally to a good how question about the processes of evolution.Once you realise that why isn't restricted to intentional purpose, you'll be able to understand the various ways you hear it being used all the time around you, outside science and in.You could try to support statement (2) in the O.P. if you want to, as it was you who made it on the thread that led to this one, but I wouldn't recommend trying, as it's demonstrably wrong. As for statement one, another old favourite of yours, forget it!

The ideals seem to be causeless but not random.And I never claimed that either religion or philosophy provide answers beyond what questions to ask.

And as I said, I am not at all sure and in fact believe that such things do not require my brain to exist.

Do you accept that changes to your physical brain (e.g. selective lobotomisation or mind altering drugs) will change the preferences that you hold?Or not?

Sure. But I also find that totally irrelevant and unimportant to the issue.

I'll take that as a compliment. Okay. I don't have the same problem with the wording that you do. Besides, its pretty much just a catchphrase. But statements 1 and 2 were made within a very specifc context with a certain definition of "why". Changing the context and definition to reduce their veracity isn't an honest approach.

quote:

---

(1) Science doesn't ask/answer "why" questions

---

It does answer some why questions, just not the ones refered to in statement 3.

quote:

---

(2) The proper use of "why" is to answer questions of purpose.

---

There are other proper uses of that word, just not in the context of statement 3. Suppose a Canadian said: "It never really snows in the U.S.". Now, if I wanted them to be wrong, I could assume they were saying something stupid because of course it snows down here. But giving them the benfit of the doubt, and assuming they're not just saying something stupid, I could parse the phrase as saying that, compared to the ridiculous amounts of snow they get in Canada, what little bit we do get down here doesn't really count as snowing. If you look at the context in which RAZD brought in the phrase, DB was saying that the TOE wasn't falsifiable because it didn't answer the ultimate why-question on the existence of species in the first place. RAZD pointed out that science doesn't answer those questions, but rather answers the how-questions on the emergence of species. And he was right. Now, you can remove all that context and assume he was just saying something stupid and then go to show how his statement could be wrong, but I don't think that's an honest approach to understanding the point that was being made.

Your first task would be to demonstrate that ideals are actually real.

Why would I?I believe they are real. Is that not sufficient?

Am I missing the sarcasm here?Of course it is not sufficient. Belief is never sufficient as an indicator of what is real or not. This gets back to my earlier contention that philosophy and theology invent entities and purposes. This is why science can not approach these "why" questions, because no one can demonstrate that they are real. Science does not attempt to explain fantasies, and for good reason.

Perhaps that is true for you. If so I am sorry.

Holy rolling Moses naked on a tricycle, strangling a goose, eating peanut butter jelly sandwiches made of diamonds, jar! I prefixed my comments to you with the following sentence

quote:

---

Unless you are a substance dualist, the reason why you had a thought is an empirical question, being as it is based on physical phenomena.

---

You could have saved me both time and effort by simply explaining that you were discussing the situation from the unsupported and unsupportable position of dualism. That would have been an explanation that you seemed so desperate to avoid.

Beauty (for example) is in the eye of the beholder is it not?How can there be an "ideal" beauty when what you think is beautiful I may well not?It seems inarguable that what one considers beautiful is the brain's reaction to physical stimuli of one sort or another.