Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Emotions and Consciousness Seperate from the Brain ??
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 127 (172066)
12-29-2004 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by nator
12-29-2004 8:12 AM


Re: Minding the Pink Elephant
schrafinator writes:
Because it works.
I think Dshort's overall point is that pure naturalism gives us no ground for logic since this logic arises out of the purely physical.
How can, he suggests, a bunch of chemical interactions, or whatever physical activity you want to describe it as, "perceive truths"? It could do so only by accident.
Our perception that it "works" thus is also ungrounded.
Maybe I'm confused about the topic, but I think "naturalism" here means the same thing as "materialism."
You would need an Absolute in order to ground our perception of universal truths and the fact that they work.
But of course if we substitute some notion of "mentality" for physicality, we haven't solved the problem. Perceptions would still be ungrounded.
In evolutionary terms, it is hard to see how the physical can "perceive truths." I'm not saying that hasn't happened, but it is odd.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by nator, posted 12-29-2004 8:12 AM nator has not replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 62 of 127 (172070)
12-29-2004 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by robinrohan
12-28-2004 6:05 PM


Re: Minding the Pink Elephant
Thanks.
I'm tempted to "quit while I'm ahead," but reading your take on dshortt's posts in another thread, I'm interested to see what you think of the following:
According to my understanding of your version of dshortt (confusing!), logic is not absolute--it is derived from physical beings in a physical world. if that's about right... I would agree. In other words, we can't get "outside ourselves" to see other ways of thinking.
But again, I don't think that matters either. Either logic is absolute, or it is absolute FOR US. I don't think it's ultimately meaningful to try and pull those two apart--WE ARE "US" and we'll NEVER BE ANYTHING ELSE!
Logic, to me, is just another system of deducing or predicting the future, given a set of assumptions (the "primitives" of logic) There's nothing absolute about it. Just like there's nothing absolute about Cartesian coordinates. All are based on "primitives" or "assumptions."
Suddenly I'm feeling I went beyond what you'll like. But I know you're interested in this stuff, and so am I. So let's see what happens

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by robinrohan, posted 12-28-2004 6:05 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by robinrohan, posted 12-29-2004 9:44 AM Ben! has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 127 (172078)
12-29-2004 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Ben!
12-29-2004 8:54 AM


Re: Minding the Pink Elephant
Myself, I like your idea of the "virtual absolute" (my phrase for your idea).
I think we are sort of kidding ourselves if we don't think that Logic is an absolute. I'm beginning to think I've been throwing around a lot of words that don't mean anything.
But I'm bumfoozled by all this brain stuff. I've been reading this book about it, and in this book the authors discuss at length what they call "mindmakers." These are different parts of the brain that holistically somehow create a "mind." But they never explain how this incredible event can really happen (obviously, it HAS happened in some sense).
The idea that dshortt is advocating I have read about in C.S. Lewis' writings, who has some very clever arguments which probably never quite work. Lewis was trying to prove that naturalism/materialism defeats itself, and there was no possible way that the physical could evolve to the point at which it can "perceive truths" (mathematical truths, for example). Evolution works on the principle of whatever is advantageous to survival is likely to survive. But what is advantageous to survival may or may not be true. So if proto-man began to believe something, and somehow that helped him to survive, that was no guarantee of its truth. So the belief could only be true by a fluke.
Gotta run. More later.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Ben!, posted 12-29-2004 8:54 AM Ben! has not replied

  
dshortt
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 127 (172093)
12-29-2004 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Ben!
12-29-2004 8:02 AM


Re: Minding the Pink Elephant
Hey Ben,
quote:
"knowledge" MUST be trusted. And if that applies, then I would also argue that the argument has nothing to do with science or anything else.
I somewhat agree until you say "anything else". Science is based on some philosophical premises that come into question, but robinrahn has addressed those and hopefully cleared up some confusion as to what I have been saying (sorry to be confusing).
But the "anything else" is where it gets stickier. To illustrate allow me to draw an example, similar to one from a previous post:
I have been reading some of David Dennett at the suggestion of Parasomnium, and have come across a frightening controversy that appears to be real and I will now take to it's logical conclusion. Project yourself for a moment into the future; you find yourself in a society where overpopulation is a serious problem. Now the prevailing worldview is naturalistic philosophy, and it is determined by the powers that be that, since Creationists are a constant threat to the power structure (education, government, etc) and an attempt to localize or seal off this threat has failed, it is now time to eliminate some of the problem. So Creationists are lined up and executed and then ground up for meat (since food is also a problem). Would this be truly wrong?
quote:
We have quantum chromodynamics, which according to the author can relate gravitational and intertial mass, marrying quantum mechanics with general relativity. That's new stuff.
Any idea where I can read about it?
quote:
... but thinking more about it, I understand where you're coming from I think. 40 years isn't much time (it seems to me) in the history of the world. And I think that the actual building blocks that are being developed have not, in any way, stagnated. I think "revolutionary" thought is based on good, solid, unexplained data. I think we're still getting new, good, data. I think the new ideas are, then, only inevitable. But of course, maybe not. It's all personal viewpoint. And if you want to turn away from science, that is a choice of course you have.
I don't want to turn away from science at all. Keeps my blood perculating, if nothing else. And certainly the sciences are capable of amazing discoveries which fascinate, inform, heal, and serve to explain many things. But you seem to be alluding to the God of the Gaps fallacy, and I would say that what I have witnessed in admittedly a very short time historically, but a very long ride personally, is what I will call the Science of Expanding Complexities. In Darwin's day, there was no thought of the vast world that awaited in the microbiology of a living cell. Before Hubble, and even well into the 70's many thought and argued for an infinite universe where "anything that could happen does happen." Now comes the complexity of explaining a universe that begins literally from nothing. I think you yourself have provided more evidence of this "growing complexity" I speak of with this quantum chromodynamics. And there is of course string theory, and all of it's related complexities. And DNA (which I believe we will find is not the sole informational component of living creatures). And lastly the subject of this thread, which even though progress is being made in terms of the physical explanations for how the brain works, I am arguing these musings come nowhere near explaining the mind. And thus we have fodder for further posts.
But at some point, I believe an individual who is paying attention begins to wonder "How did all of this complexity on top of complexity come together so exquisitely from mere particles bouncing off of each other?"
quote:
can you think of any alternate forms besides religion, philosophy, and ignorance?
I think it is certainly possible, if we back off of a purely naturalistic philosophy, to gain knowledge from the humanities, literature, legends and myths (maybe the stories aren't true, but there could be "lessons" to be learned), a forum such as EVC; I know it gets more complex and subjective perhaps, but formulating a cohesive worldview is the most important endeavor a human being can undertake.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Ben!, posted 12-29-2004 8:02 AM Ben! has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by robinrohan, posted 12-29-2004 1:58 PM dshortt has not replied
 Message 66 by robinrohan, posted 12-29-2004 2:11 PM dshortt has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 127 (172101)
12-29-2004 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by dshortt
12-29-2004 11:21 AM


Re: Minding the Pink Elephant
dshortt writes:
But at some point, I believe an individual who is paying attention begins to wonder "How did all of this complexity on top of complexity come together so exquisitely from mere particles bouncing off of each other?"
This appears to me to be implying an argument for design. The problem I have it with is that I don't see how the exquisiteness and complexity make any difference.
One might say, look at all objects in space, and how they exquisitvely follow their appointed routes to the point that we can predict eclipses a thousand years into the future!
But this is really no different from saying, "When I throw a ball into the air, it always comes down." The exquisiteness or complexity of the operation does not make it more incredible to me.
A law of nature is just a statement of what things always do. The ball always comes down. That's not what's incredible; what would be incredible is that if one day the ball did not come down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by dshortt, posted 12-29-2004 11:21 AM dshortt has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 127 (172102)
12-29-2004 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by dshortt
12-29-2004 11:21 AM


Absolute Morality
dshortt writes:
So Creationists are lined up and executed and then ground up for meat (since food is also a problem). Would this be truly wrong?
This seems to be implying--excuse me if I am jumping to conclusions--that without a moral absolute, morality is ultimately arbitrary. I think so too.
Something in our heart says, "That would be wrong" (although Lam might think, "That's OK with me!"--just joking, Lam).
The problem is that our heart is not very reliable, seemingly.
There is a brand of Islamic conservatism that looks to me like gender apartheid. But does the Islamic conservative feel that what he is doing is right in his heart--in forcing women to wear berkas, and not drive cars, and not be educated, etc.? I rather think he does.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-29-2004 14:13 AM
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-29-2004 14:16 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by dshortt, posted 12-29-2004 11:21 AM dshortt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by dshortt, posted 12-29-2004 3:06 PM robinrohan has replied

  
dshortt
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 127 (172113)
12-29-2004 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by robinrohan
12-29-2004 2:11 PM


Re: Absolute Morality
quote:
This seems to be implying--excuse me if I am jumping to conclusions--that without a moral absolute, morality is ultimately arbitrary. I think so too.
Something in our heart says, "That would be wrong" (although Lam might think, "That's OK with me!"--just joking, Lam).
The problem is that our heart is not very reliable, seemingly.
There is a brand of Islamic conservatism that looks to me like gender apartheid. But does the Islamic conservative feel that what he is doing is right in his heart--in forcing women to wear berkas, and not drive cars, and not be educated, etc.? I rather think he does.
But then it cuts back the other way in that you have no basis to truly condemn the Islamic conservative. This would imply there is no basis for being appalled, or horrified by anything. Morality, at the point it is arbitrary, becomes "Ahhem, excuse me sir, you are screwing with the normal construct of our society here, and would you please stop or you will suffer the consequence _________ (fill in the blank)." And what we may find in the future is that Islam (it is multiplying faster than any other religion in the world) has become the norm and your offspring are suffering exactly what was appalling to you. So why don't we acknowledge what we all know in our "hearts", that there are moral absolutes, and then return to the quest to find them. At least then there is some basis to even discuss it.
Dennis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by robinrohan, posted 12-29-2004 2:11 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by jar, posted 12-29-2004 3:15 PM dshortt has replied
 Message 69 by robinrohan, posted 12-29-2004 3:30 PM dshortt has not replied
 Message 71 by Silent H, posted 12-29-2004 4:12 PM dshortt has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 68 of 127 (172115)
12-29-2004 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by dshortt
12-29-2004 3:06 PM


Re: Absolute Morality
Dennis
I've asked you time and time again to list a Moral Absolute, yet so far you have not given even one.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by dshortt, posted 12-29-2004 3:06 PM dshortt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by dshortt, posted 12-29-2004 3:53 PM jar has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 127 (172117)
12-29-2004 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by dshortt
12-29-2004 3:06 PM


Re: Absolute Morality
dshortt writes:
But then it cuts back the other way in that you have no basis to truly condemn the Islamic conservative. This would imply there is no basis for being appalled, or horrified by anything.
I agree with that completely.
With the guilt I'm carrying around, I'm not going to dismiss objective morality out of hand.
But I'm not sure if it can be codified.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by dshortt, posted 12-29-2004 3:06 PM dshortt has not replied

  
dshortt
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 127 (172123)
12-29-2004 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by jar
12-29-2004 3:15 PM


Re: Absolute Morality
Hey Jar,
Must have missed those other requests. I am not claiming to have all the answers, even from the angle I am taking here. My claim is that naturalistic logic has a/some fatal flaws. I have outlined, I hope an argument that, logically there can be no Ultimate Truth statements if naturalistic philosophy is true. It becomes a self-defeating statement. Somehow, we have gotten off topic slightly, into this morality issue. To pursue this much further would seem to me to require a seperate thread. But I will throw what I consider to be a moral absolute out there: Love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Dennis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by jar, posted 12-29-2004 3:15 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Silent H, posted 12-29-2004 4:21 PM dshortt has not replied
 Message 74 by robinrohan, posted 12-29-2004 4:59 PM dshortt has not replied
 Message 78 by jar, posted 12-29-2004 7:49 PM dshortt has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 71 of 127 (172129)
12-29-2004 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by dshortt
12-29-2004 3:06 PM


Re: Absolute Morality
But then it cuts back the other way in that you have no basis to truly condemn the Islamic conservative. This would imply there is no basis for being appalled, or horrified by anything.
This is not true at all. Absolute (meaning external and objective) moral rules are not necessary as a basis to truly condemn anything, nor for one to be appalled.
One can truly criticize activities based on their inconsistency, hypocrisy, or negative effects on others. One can, and will, be appalled based on strong subjective feelings towards whatever activity. Indeed, I am sort of wondering how anyone requires objective rules to actually be horrified or appalled.
And what we may find in the future is that Islam (it is multiplying faster than any other religion in the world) has become the norm and your offspring are suffering exactly what was appalling to you. So why don't we acknowledge what we all know in our "hearts", that there are moral absolutes, and then return to the quest to find them.
This is highly ironic. You believe that your morality is the absolute moral set then? That is what the above suggests.
Otherwise what does moral absoluteness have to do with whether Islam conservatism is appalling or not? Why can it not be said (especially if it is the fastest growing religion) that conservative Islam represents the true moral absolutes?
And then you say, after thrusting out the bogeyman of Islamic conservatism, that we should all admit what we have in our heart... that there really are moral absolutes... and then suggest we go on a quest to find them.
There would not be a debate in the first place if people all felt in there hearts that there were moral absolutes, and more importantly that these absolutes were absolute.
Really, if they are absolute, then why must we quest for them? How did we lose them?
Why is it not more realistic to say there are no such thing as moral absolutes? That would explain why some don't feel there are absolutes, and the overwhelming evidence that there is no one set that the entire world is drawn to.
If moral absolutes existed the points above seem a pretty hard hurdle to jump.
Once we understand that morals are not absolute we may then address how we can best live within a moral diversity, which is a much more practical pursuit.
Moral relativism does not require us to abandon or berate ethics as meaningless. What it says is that they are individually derived and so will differ, it does not make them less important. I consider them quite important.
This message has been edited by holmes, 12-29-2004 16:16 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by dshortt, posted 12-29-2004 3:06 PM dshortt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by robinrohan, posted 12-29-2004 4:25 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 77 by dshortt, posted 12-29-2004 7:17 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 72 of 127 (172132)
12-29-2004 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by dshortt
12-29-2004 3:53 PM


Re: Absolute Morality
But I will throw what I consider to be a moral absolute out there: Love your neighbor as you love yourself.
Militant Islamic extremists and Xian fundies certainly love their neighbors as they love themselves. All of their actions have religious qualifiers to explain why the expression of that love differs vastly between them.
That is of course why their positions, while starting from a similar point, are relative.
Or perhaps you have an explanation why if the above is a real moral absolute, there seems to be so much hate towards one's neighbors?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by dshortt, posted 12-29-2004 3:53 PM dshortt has not replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 127 (172134)
12-29-2004 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Silent H
12-29-2004 4:12 PM


Re: Absolute Morality
Holmes writes:
Absolute (meaning external and objective) moral rules are not necessary as a basis to truly condemn anything, nor for one to be appalled.
Objective morality IS necessary if we are going to "truly" condemn anything. I don't like the actions of Islamic conservatives toward women, but what basis do I have to condemn them? I have my moral system, he has his. What makes mine better than his? He will do his thing while I do mine. "It's my culture," he would say. "Mind your own business." And he would be right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Silent H, posted 12-29-2004 4:12 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Silent H, posted 12-29-2004 5:25 PM robinrohan has replied

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 127 (172139)
12-29-2004 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by dshortt
12-29-2004 3:53 PM


Re: Absolute Morality
dshortt writes:
Somehow, we have gotten off topic slightly, into this morality issue.
You want to start a new topic dealing with this issue?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by dshortt, posted 12-29-2004 3:53 PM dshortt has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 75 of 127 (172145)
12-29-2004 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by robinrohan
12-29-2004 4:25 PM


Re: Absolute Morality
Objective morality IS necessary if we are going to "truly" condemn anything.
That's funny, but I could have sworn I gave other criteria it could be condemned. Your skipping over that part, and reasserting a premise does not make your argument valid.
The ONLY condemnation that an absolute morality would allow, in other words be necessary for, is the condemnation that something is absolutely immoral.
That form of condemnation is not the only condemnation available, and I would argue is almost useless in practice.
I don't like the actions of Islamic conservatives toward women, but what basis do I have to condemn them?
Inconsistency with actual teachings within the Koran, appeals to feelings of empathy they might have which would put into question (contradict) the rules they are currently following. One of the toppers would be an argument that the moral rules certain imams express are not absolute.
But let me turn that around on you. Moral absolutes exist. Okay, so how do you condemn them? Why are their morals not the absolute?
I have my moral system, he has his. What makes mine better than his? He will do his thing while I do mine.
Perhaps I am not understanding something. Why do you need to feel that yours is better than theirs, and what is wrong if you do your thing and they do theirs? That would not stop you from being able to criticize. And your being able to criticize their system will not make yours better.
"It's my culture," he would say. "Mind your own business." And he would be right.
Again, how would this change with a belief in moral absolutes? About the only thing that could happen is that he says, this is my culture and it is the absolute truth.
How would you be able to say he is wrong?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by robinrohan, posted 12-29-2004 4:25 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by robinrohan, posted 12-29-2004 6:32 PM Silent H has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024