Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8984 total)
41 online now:
ICANT, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 38 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Post Volume: Total: 877,305 Year: 9,053/23,288 Month: 68/1,544 Week: 343/518 Day: 11/57 Hour: 2/8


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What does life do outside of science?
nwr
Member
Posts: 5611
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 5 of 112 (242258)
09-11-2005 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Ben!
09-11-2005 11:26 AM


Re: I don't get it at all
Please point me to the scientific study that gives us the meaning of life.

I always wonder what people mean by "meaning" when they ask these questions. It seems to me that "meaning" is a subjective term. It becomes the question "what does life mean to me." No scientific study can give us "the meaning of life," because there is no such thing as "the meaning of life." There is my meaning of life (what life means to me), and there is your meaning of life. We each have to decide for ourselves what life means for us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Ben!, posted 09-11-2005 11:26 AM Ben! has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5611
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 20 of 112 (242716)
09-12-2005 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Ben!
09-12-2005 4:28 PM


Re: I don't get it at all
Ben writes:

Even if you can describe something with science, we simply don't USE science in our daily lives.


Science is just learning writ large. And we do learn and use the results of learning in our daily lives.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 4:28 PM Ben! has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5611
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 30 of 112 (242859)
09-13-2005 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Silent H
09-13-2005 5:59 AM


Re: I don't get it at all
The basis of morality is not an objective "thing", nor a logical rule/paradigm. Thus the results of science cannot form the basis for a morality.

The basis for morality is that homo sapiens evolved as a social species, and survival of the species is dependent on cooperative social interaction.

The foundation of all moral systems is a subjective statement. That is how you get from pure statements of "is", to statements of "ought" or "good".

I would prefer to say that moral systems are evolved systems of social interaction. In this paragraph, I refer to social evolution, rather than biological evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2005 5:59 AM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2005 1:43 PM nwr has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5611
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 36 of 112 (242984)
09-13-2005 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Silent H
09-13-2005 1:43 PM


Re: I don't get it at all
Second I do not necessarily believe the above is quite as definite as you make it out to be. That we are social does not mean that it was an evolved trait, and we certainly are not dependent on cooperation for our survival.

We certainly have several evolved traits that are social adaptations:
Our language ability;
The long period from childbirth until the child becomes self-sufficient;
Our loss of fur.

As for survival, sure some individuals could survive. We see that with hermits. But solitary survival is difficult, and it would be difficult for enough individuals to survive so that the species could persist.

As long as evolution is meant in the neutral sense I agree. If it is meant in a directional sense (getting better or more complete) then I disagree.

I intended that in the neutral sense.

Do you believe a person would not develop a moral system of some kind without others to interact with?

It's hard to see what would be the use of such a moral system, if there were no others to interact with.

Of course, in practice, a child is normally raised by parents (or the tribe). So there are others to interact with during the years where moral development would occur.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2005 1:43 PM Silent H has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2005 2:39 PM nwr has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5611
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 44 of 112 (243106)
09-13-2005 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Silent H
09-13-2005 2:39 PM


Re: I don't get it at all
Language ability was not driven by adaptation, unless we are using a lamarkian system of evolution.

By "language ability" here, I was referring to the change in shape of the throat (compared to other apes) that makes it possible to make complex sounds. I was also referring to neurons that are needed to control the fine articulation of the vocal chords, and the brain areas to support them. I'm not sure what you would see as lamarkian about developing these.

I am at a loss to see what long periods from birth to self-sufficiency, and especially loss of fur have to do with social adaptation.

That long period is when socialization occurs. The lack of fur makes us more sensitive to touch, caressing, etc, which plays a role in socialization. More importantly, the lack of fur make a child more vulnerable, and more dependent on others. The child's learning to cope with such dependency is an important part of what drives socialization.

What is the "use" of a moral system anyway? It appears mainly to be a way for a person to understand themselves, produce a narrative or force a consistency of narrative for one's identity and that's it.

You must have a different understanding of "morality" than I. To me, it seems obvious that morality is part of our social contract.

Imagine you have no other person to interact with. Aren't there rules that you might construct for yourself, including prohibitions you might set feeling that following them will result in something better for you, or the world as a whole?

Rules? Sure. If I found an effective way of catching fish, then I might make that into rules (or at least practices). I don't see what it has to do with morality.

For example, would you then destroy a beaver's dam as much as look and admire it?

If I have no other person to interact with, then I am presumably living in the wild. Finding food for the day becomes a major chore. If destroying a beaver dam would help with finding food, I expect I woiuld do it. Otherwise, I expect I wouldn't have the time to waste on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Silent H, posted 09-13-2005 2:39 PM Silent H has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5611
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 99 of 112 (274492)
12-31-2005 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by joshua221
12-31-2005 7:06 PM


The physical world
Science is the study of the physical world. One cannot know of anything that is of importance within the realm of science. Meaning, true purpose, it all comes in the realm of spirituality, God, the search for truth. Socrates said it best when he discussed what he thought was truly important in life.

The physical world brings you food to eat, water to drink, air to breath. How long do you think you would last if you instead relied on the spiritual world for those?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by joshua221, posted 12-31-2005 7:06 PM joshua221 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by joshua221, posted 12-31-2005 7:35 PM nwr has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5611
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 101 of 112 (274532)
01-01-2006 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by joshua221
12-31-2005 7:35 PM


Re: The physical world
"Those" do not pertain to my destiny.

That is where you are seriously mistaken. Food, drink, breathing are central to your destiny.

If you were suffering from thirst, had pangs of hunger, and if it were a struggle for you to get your next breath of air, you would find it almost impossible to even think about spirituality. It is only because you have the fortune to be well fed and have your other basic physiological needs satisfied that you are even able to think of spiritual things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by joshua221, posted 12-31-2005 7:35 PM joshua221 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by joshua221, posted 01-01-2006 12:46 AM nwr has responded
 Message 103 by Nuggin, posted 01-01-2006 1:35 AM nwr has not yet responded
 Message 104 by Nuggin, posted 01-01-2006 1:35 AM nwr has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5611
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 107 of 112 (274559)
01-01-2006 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by joshua221
01-01-2006 12:46 AM


Re: The physical world
When I challenge some of your posts, I am not trying to talk you out of a spiritual life. The way you lead your life has to be your choice, and is not for me to object.

What troubles me about some of your posts, is that you seem to be lacking perspective. My challenging of your posts is in the hope that you will develop a better perspective.

I readily admit that I might be misjudging you.

Are you are aware that Mother Theresa, with her deep spiritual committment, nevertheless has a crisis of faith? That may happen to you too, so I hope you will have the perspective that allows you to deal with it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by joshua221, posted 01-01-2006 12:46 AM joshua221 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by joshua221, posted 01-03-2006 3:45 PM nwr has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5611
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 108 of 112 (274561)
01-01-2006 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by joshua221
12-31-2005 7:06 PM


Nwr will tell me that it is subjective, but one cannot be a relativist, there lies in life, absolute truth.

I have suggested that truth is a human invention. That's not the same as relativism.

If there is a convenient library, you might want to spend some time looking through the philosophy section to see what is written about truth. You might find that it is all circular. The tendency is to define truth as correspondence to the facts. But then facts are likely to be defined as true statements. Before you commit yourself to a search for absolute truth, it might be wise to investigate whether there is such a thing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by joshua221, posted 12-31-2005 7:06 PM joshua221 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by joshua221, posted 01-03-2006 3:50 PM nwr has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5611
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 111 of 112 (275502)
01-03-2006 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by joshua221
01-03-2006 3:45 PM


Re: The physical world
What is a better perspective?

What exactly do you mean?


I'm not sure if you saw Message 145, and my response to it. The message quotes Dawkins, where he gives his mechanistic view of existence. I think that's where you get your idea that life is meaningless to a scientist. Well, maybe it is meaningless to Dawkins, although I doubt it. I disagree with Dawkins, as I indicated in Message 146.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by joshua221, posted 01-03-2006 3:45 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5611
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 112 of 112 (275507)
01-03-2006 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by joshua221
01-03-2006 3:50 PM


Absolute truth may be beyond mankind, but I do feel that it exists.

Don't you think you should go on more than feelings?

The "Right" choice exists.

Does it? How can you be sure? Some choices don't much matter, with none more "right" than another.

We are all reaching to find what is absolutely true, what is absolutely right.

I'm not. We can live successful lives without having to waste it searching for an imagined "absolute truth."

Truth can be looked at as subjective, but that muddles the mind, making anything and everything relative to an individual.

There are subjective truths, just as their are objective truths. Your message - the one to which I am responding - contains several subjective truths, for they are based on your own feelings.

At some time in the future you will have a crisis in faith. Are you prepared to handle it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by joshua221, posted 01-03-2006 3:50 PM joshua221 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020