Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-17-2019 8:32 AM
28 online now:
4petdinos, Aussie, Diomedes, JoeT, kjsimons, Stile, Theodoric, vimesey (8 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,891 Year: 8,927/19,786 Month: 1,349/2,119 Week: 109/576 Day: 10/99 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
6789Next
Author Topic:   the rules in science
Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3753 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 61 of 123 (485473)
10-08-2008 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Straggler
10-08-2008 2:30 PM


Re: Spiritual realm?
I already explained many times about how the spiritual applies for when there are alternatives, then you get a "why" one or the other, and this is spiritual.

You do objectify pity and indifference, why you would then not objectify love is beyond me.

You can't talk about making any choices without referencing something spiritual. The thing that is deciding must be spiritual, because material things predetermine, and then there would be no alternative. You simply fail to have any knowledge about freedom on an intellectual level.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Straggler, posted 10-08-2008 2:30 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Straggler, posted 10-08-2008 7:00 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 269 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 62 of 123 (485474)
10-08-2008 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Syamsu
10-08-2008 5:07 PM


Re: Clear distinctions
Fun is a thing in the spiritual domain. That's how I use the word spiritual, for anything which is subjective.

You need to change the term you are using then. You are being extremely misleading otherwise.

"Spiritual" has a perfectly good definition, and "fun" is not a part of it.

Perhaps "nonmaterial" would be better, if that's what you are really trying to say?


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Syamsu, posted 10-08-2008 5:07 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 63 of 123 (485481)
10-08-2008 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Syamsu
10-08-2008 5:22 PM


Spiritual Realm Vs "The Minds of Men"
This whole debate comes down to whether or not acts of nature are "moral decisions" made by mindless inanimate objects and natural physical processes in the way that you insist and assert.

I already explained many times about how the spiritual applies for when there are alternatives, then you get a "why" one or the other, and this is spiritual.

No you have not!! That is the problem. You use meaningless labels such as "spiritual realm" and "decisions" but point blank refuse to describe or explain what you mean by these terms in relation to actual examples. I'll ask yet again:

Is a Tsunami a "decision"?
Does the sea as a whole "decide" to rise up and kill people?
Does each water molecule take part in this decision?
Does each atom? Each quark?
Are you saying that the sea/molecules/atoms/quarks make a moral decision that results in a Tsunami?

How exactly do decisions and morality of the "spiritual realm" apply to nature?

You do objectify pity and indifference, why you would then not objectify love is beyond me.

I have not objectified pity or indifference. Or love. I have simply stated the conclusion that is obvious to almost everybody, creationist or otherwise, that acts of nature and inanimate objects are incapable of moral decisions. Or love. They are amoral. In this sense they are pitiless and indifferent because they are incapable of caring, wanting, desiring or decision-making. A rock can no more be evil than it can be good. Nor can a Tsunami.

Is a tsunami a "decision"? Is a tsunami a moral decision made in the spiritual realm? Why won't you explain what you actually mean by "decision" and "spiritual realm"?

You can't talk about making any choices without referencing something spiritual. The thing that is deciding must be spiritual, because material things predetermine, and then there would be no alternative. You simply fail to have any knowledge about freedom on an intellectual level.

You have no understanding of the theory that you yourself advocate beyond a superficial belief that it supports your wider subjective world view. Ironically it is you that is trying to objectify your subjective views with a theory of decisions supposedly based on maths about which you have no clue at all.

Science suggests that nature is amoral and that the concept of morality is the product of conscious brained beings.
You say that this is untrue and that every act in nature is a "decision" with a moral value derived from the "spiritual realm". Not only do you repeatedly refuse to define what you mean by these vague terms you are also unable to explain any of the following in terms of your alternate "theory":

  • Why it is that simple inanimate objects act in such predictable ways that suggest that they have little or no freedom at all (e.g. orbiting planets).
  • Why it is that brained beings are observed to exhibit what appears to be considerably more freedom than those objects that do not possess brains.
  • Why it is that damage to brains can result in significant effects on subjective views regarding morality.

    MINDS OF MEN Vs THE SPIRITUAL REALM
    Nobody is denying subjectivity. But your ongoing assertion that we should label this with the meaningless term "spiritual realm" is wholly unwarranted.
    All the evidence suggests that subjectivity, including morality, is derived from the "minds of men". We know that brains exist. We know that physical changes affect the ability to be subjective and moral. Yet we have no reason at all to think that the "spiritual realm" exists in any way shape or form beyond your assertion that it must.

    Unless you are able to explain how nature and inanimate objects make "decisions" derived from the "spiritual realm" why should we abandon the very obvious and very physical evidence that if you remove someone's brain they become incapable of moral decisions and indeed all subjectivity?

    If you insist on divorcing subjectivity from any physical basis then you need to explain why physical phenomenon can have such profound effects on the nature and ability of beings to be subjective. You never confront this issue despite the fact it is fundamental to the theory of decisions that you espouse.

    CONCLUSION
    I don't expect you will be able to answer any of the above questions. I ask mainly to highlight the weaknesses in your position. I am sure that you don't have any answers to such questions and that you will fail to even acknowledge such questions because they refute your whole "decisions" argument.
    You have some sort of irrational prejudice against science based on your own straw man version of what science actually is and you have seized upon the first theory to come along that you think supports this twisted view in a gleeful grasp of ignorance.
    You have no more idea as to what you mean by the "spiritual realm" or how this might interact with the physical world than I do. It is simply a convenient term for you to use when asserting the validity of your own subjective and unjustifiable views regarding the nature of morality. Views which are themselves derived from irrational faith based dogma.

    Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 61 by Syamsu, posted 10-08-2008 5:22 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 64 by Brad McFall, posted 10-08-2008 7:41 PM Straggler has responded

      
  • Brad McFall
    Member (Idle past 3196 days)
    Posts: 3428
    From: Ithaca,NY, USA
    Joined: 12-20-2001


    Message 64 of 123 (485484)
    10-08-2008 7:41 PM
    Reply to: Message 63 by Straggler
    10-08-2008 7:00 PM


    Re: Spiritual Realm Vs "The Minds of Men"
    I do not know if this will help in your difference of opinion with Syamsu, but I thought I would give it a try.

    Bertrand Russell, in The Principles of Mathematics, writes (page 454 Norton and Company), "..a psychological reason is given why we cannot imagine holes in space. The impossibility of holes is apparently what is called a necessity of thought. This argument again involves such purely logical discussion. Concerning necessities of thought, the Kantian theory seems to lead to the curious result that whatever we cannot help believing must be false."

    Now I DO read the last sentence in two different ways depending on whether "cannot help" or "help belieiving" is the 'syllable of emphasis'. It seems to be the conventional reading of Kant that his ideas are unusable because whatever is true in it, is so obvious that there is no need for the subtility he introduces. That, I take it was Russell's reading. Thus holes or no holes the physical connection of matter to spirit was never a possible thought as you suggest.

    But when I first read the sentence, I, with my own bias, stressed help "believing"... and thus I had at first read Russell to have said that if one can not help in believing in/of something then it must be false. That seemed to be a true senetence for me and I was open to the possiblity that the biological relation to whatever the holes in space might physically be or not be biologically was then a vaild converstaion. This way of simple change of empahsis is all that seems required to open the way to answering the question you put, beyond subjectivity, to Syamsu.

    The full answer however seems to involve the notion of "physico-theology" and reading reverse wise Kant's Critique of Judgement so as not to only find it as a wrongful physical teleology. I contend that a notion of genetic programs WITH a notion of the atoms involved might indeed find this goal achieved. I have not achieved it but this does not mean that there is no "in principle" answer to your questions to Syamusu. Russell's idea of belief was NOT what he found at Harvard.

    Here is how I have started to script the problem-
    Physico-Theology : Beyond the Culture of Intelligent Design

    Kant, made the fundamental point about this subject when he wrote, “physicotheology is a misunderstood physical teleology, only serviceable as a preparation (propaeduetic) for theology, and it is only adequate to this design by the aid of a foreign principle on which it can rely, and not in itself, as its name seems to indicate.”

    By definition, physicotheology in name is “the endeavor of reason to infer the supreme cause of nature and its properties from the purposes of nature (which can only be empirically known)." The existence of an object of physcio-theology belies the false social praxis of the creation-evolution debate as it appeared throughout the 20th century right up to the attempts to change the discussion through the notion of intelligent design. The creationist revival of the 60s and the Intelligent Design Movement have tended to polarize the empirical from the supernatural, amongst all inquirers after truth but the IDists have additionally confused the use of reflexion in subjectively internalizable purposivness of some nature of human nature. They have done this through the concept of irreducible complexity which prematurely invokes a bound between the reduction and analysis of organized beings which is actually and then rarely if ever approached a posteriori. This in turn inhibits to what aid the ‘foreign principle’ of Kant can alter a verisimilitude into a probability AFTER the/a moral theology is given, not before.

    This claim can be understood from the notion of ‘physical teleology’ as described in Mayr’s dissection of the word.

    And because of this physicotheology as it becomes a prepared discipline indicates the intellectual end of the creation/evolution controversy as a new broader philosophy of biology can be constructed in which the polarization is separated into simple differences of the skills of the participants which tolerates room for biologically attachable concepts into religious contexts not religious content to biological evidence. I have been dismayed that I was unable to become an evolutionary theorist in my own time due to the older generations’ arguing over faith and science rather than agreeing to disagree and get on with it.

    Mayr asserts that certain erroneous principles needed refutation before biology could become an autonomous discipline of science. This was not so. It was only that moral teleology and physical teleology be kept fully separate and cognized but yet the advances in biology since and including the synthesis occurred in the broader popularity of the separation of church and state which did not suffice for the sepretatist’s job. In this attempt to prefigure a new biophilosophy Mayr removes the potential use of Netwon’s sensical analogy from the repertoire of biological intuition. He failed because he did not see through that the dream state of biologists can precompete for theory formation as Poincare pointed out for math in Science and Method (page 37) "Under this second aspect, all combinations are formed as the result of automatic action of the subliminal ego, but those only which are interesting find their way into the field of consciousness. This, too, is most mysterious. How can we explain the fact that, of the tousand products of our unconscious activity, some are invited to cross the threshold , while others remain outside? Is it mere chance that gives them the privilege. Evidently not..."

    There is no doubt that your question makes sense but if we insist on asking if red is a taste we will not have an answer.

    Brad


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 63 by Straggler, posted 10-08-2008 7:00 PM Straggler has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 66 by Straggler, posted 10-09-2008 2:26 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded
     Message 67 by Stile, posted 10-09-2008 3:53 PM Brad McFall has responded

        
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 3501
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004
    Member Rating: 4.2


    Message 65 of 123 (485488)
    10-08-2008 8:31 PM
    Reply to: Message 60 by Syamsu
    10-08-2008 5:07 PM


    Different words for clarity
    Syamsu writes:

    So then the material get's it's acknowledgement and there are these things in an unnamed category which are tied to the material.

    No. There is the material, and the immaterial. What is unnamed?

    That's not easily practicable to distinghuish, and seems prejudicial towards material.

    It may very well be difficult to distinguish. Nature isn't always cut-and-dry, that's just reality. We don't even have an easy-to-distinguish line between things that are inanimate and things that are alive. That's just the reality of nature.

    It may also be that all things are a part of the material world, and that there is no immaterial world at all. Maybe not. But no one's come up with anything to show that this can't happen, yet anyway. Do you know of anything that definitively exists and is not a part of the material world in some way?

    Fun is a thing in the spiritual domain.

    No, it's not. I have fun all the time when I'm playing soccer, or humming a tune to myself or sometimes just joking with friends. There is nothing spiritual about any of those things. They certainly are all subjective, though. All the fun we sense is also tied into our material brains, as well. Unless you're able to show otherwise?

    That's how I use the word spiritual, for anything which is subjective.

    That's rather confusing. Perhaps you should use the word "spiritual" for things that are actually spiritual. And then you can use the word "subjective" for things that are simply subjective. That is, after all, why we have two different words to identify the differences in the first place.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 60 by Syamsu, posted 10-08-2008 5:07 PM Syamsu has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 68 by Syamsu, posted 10-09-2008 6:28 PM Stile has responded

        
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10285
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 66 of 123 (485557)
    10-09-2008 2:26 PM
    Reply to: Message 64 by Brad McFall
    10-08-2008 7:41 PM


    Re: Spiritual Realm Vs "The Minds of Men"
    There is no doubt that your question makes sense but if we insist on asking if red is a taste we will not have an answer.

    If you are able to make sense of Syamsu's assertions that every event involving physical processes and inanimate objects is made as a result of moral decisions by those self same physical processes and inanimate objects in the "spiritual realm" then I for one would love to see it.

    As things stand it seesm to me that he is just applying meaningless labels to ill thought and evidentially refuted concepts.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 64 by Brad McFall, posted 10-08-2008 7:41 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

      
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 3501
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004
    Member Rating: 4.2


    Message 67 of 123 (485562)
    10-09-2008 3:53 PM
    Reply to: Message 64 by Brad McFall
    10-08-2008 7:41 PM


    McFallism
    I have to agree with Straggler, are you suggesting that Syamsu's assertions actually make sense, and that it's Straggler's questions that seem off-balance?

    Brad McFall writes:

    There is no doubt that your [Straggler's?] question makes sense but if we insist on asking if red is a taste we will not have an answer.

    Using your symbollism, I have to say that I see the situation as Syamsu asserting that red has a taste, and Stragler is simply asking Syamsu to explain such a strange idea.

    The only way I can make sense of your post is if you replied to Straggler, but ended up shifting and talking more about Syamsu at the end of it. Did you intend for your final remark to be for Syamsu instead of Straggler?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 64 by Brad McFall, posted 10-08-2008 7:41 PM Brad McFall has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 72 by Brad McFall, posted 10-10-2008 1:37 PM Stile has responded

        
    Syamsu 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3753 days)
    Posts: 1914
    From: amsterdam
    Joined: 05-19-2002


    Message 68 of 123 (485586)
    10-09-2008 6:28 PM
    Reply to: Message 65 by Stile
    10-08-2008 8:31 PM


    Re: Different words for clarity
    Right, there is me, Syamsu, and then there is the rest which is not Syamsu. That is selfcentered, and what you do is material centered, you can't reasonably hope to avoid blending ought with is that way.

    You see you do wrong, like 1+1=2, you break the rule, yet you continue doing it. We can well see that your way 99 percent of goodness is going to be attributed to people, because they are scientifically good, because they have brains, and yet close to 100 percent of the universe was not made by human beings.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 65 by Stile, posted 10-08-2008 8:31 PM Stile has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 69 by Stile, posted 10-10-2008 8:51 AM Syamsu has not yet responded
     Message 70 by Straggler, posted 10-10-2008 10:34 AM Syamsu has responded

        
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 3501
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004
    Member Rating: 4.2


    Message 69 of 123 (485633)
    10-10-2008 8:51 AM
    Reply to: Message 68 by Syamsu
    10-09-2008 6:28 PM


    I'm not sure I understand you
    Stile writes:

    Do you know of anything that definitively exists and is not a part of the material world in some way?

    Syamsu writes:

    Right, there is me, Syamsu, and then there is the rest which is not Syamsu. That is selfcentered, and what you do is material centered, you can't reasonably hope to avoid blending ought with is that way.

    A simple "no" would have sufficed.

    Why are you just making up things about other people? You don't know if anyone else is being self-centered or not. You don't know if what I do is material centered or not. You have no idea how concretely my oughts and is' are separated. Why are you lashing out like this? Is it because you're incapable of thinking of anything that definitively exists and is not a part of the material world in some way? It's okay to just say "I don't know".

    Syamsu writes:

    We can well see that your way 99 percent of goodness is going to be attributed to people, because they are scientifically good, because they have brains, and yet close to 100 percent of the universe was not made by human beings.

    Who would you like to contribute the good to if not the people who initiated that good?

    Can you think of a situation where "good" should be attributed to something-without-a-brain?

    Edited by Stile, : I got confused...

    Edited by Stile, : All better.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 68 by Syamsu, posted 10-09-2008 6:28 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

        
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10285
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 70 of 123 (485645)
    10-10-2008 10:34 AM
    Reply to: Message 68 by Syamsu
    10-09-2008 6:28 PM


    Re: Different words for clarity
    Right, there is me, Syamsu, and then there is the rest which is not Syamsu. That is selfcentered, and what you do is material centered, you can't reasonably hope to avoid blending ought with is that way.

    Without brains there is no such thing as subjectivity.
    This is not the same as saying that issues such as morality can be determined objectively.
    But I challenge you to make a moral decision without your brain.

    You see you do wrong, like 1+1=2, you break the rule, yet you continue doing it.

    There is no "rule". There is only the limitation of science in it's ability to study only the physical and empirical. I agree that questions such as "ought" are not covered by science as a result of this limitation.

    We can well see that your way 99 percent of goodness is going to be attributed to people

    100% in fact. With the possible exception of other conscious, potentially moral, beings elsewhere in the universe. However if such beings do exist then there is little reason to think that their moral values will be the same as ours.

    because they are scientifically good

    No. Nobody is saying that. I don't even know what "scientifically good" means?
    What do you mean by "scientifically good"?

    because they have brains

    Yes. Or the equivalent that allows conscious thought.

    and yet close to 100 percent of the universe was not made by human beings.

    Precisely. And as a result close to 100% of the universe is neither moral nor immoral. Hence descriptions such as blind, pitiless, loveless and indifferent. These terms are not being applied in the same negative manner as we might apply them to a fellow moral being of whom our expectations are higher. With regard to nature we could also use descriptions such as evil-less, vindictive-less or hate-less. Nature is amoral in the pure and strict definition of the term. I.e. incapable of morality. This is because most natural processes and entities, all those incapable of conscious thought, are incapable of decisions and therefore are incapable of subjective moral choices.

  • Until you can explain the contradiction that simple physical entities (e.g. planets) make moral decisions in the "spiritual realm" whilst appearing to obey mechanistic laws and displaying highly predictive behavior:
  • Until you can explain why it is that physical phenomenon (such as brain damage) have such profound effects on the ability of conscious beings to make subjective judgements:
  • Until you can explain how the physical and spiritual realms can interact such that physical beings can derive decisions in the "spiritual realm" and apply them to the physical:
  • Until you can give us any reason to believe that the "spiritual realm" even exists beyond your stupidly misconceived idea of the "rule":

    Why should we abandon evidence and reason to follow your insane notions that toothbrushes make decisions, planetary orbits can be evil and that paper-clips feel love (all of which you have indicated elsewhere to be a direct consequence of the position you are taking in this thread)?

    There is no "rule". You have no point.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 68 by Syamsu, posted 10-09-2008 6:28 PM Syamsu has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 71 by Syamsu, posted 10-10-2008 11:34 AM Straggler has responded

      
  • Syamsu 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3753 days)
    Posts: 1914
    From: amsterdam
    Joined: 05-19-2002


    Message 71 of 123 (485653)
    10-10-2008 11:34 AM
    Reply to: Message 70 by Straggler
    10-10-2008 10:34 AM


    Re: Different words for clarity
    As before,

    - the entire universe works by decisions, and a few universal constants. Cause and effect is false, or a soft-science view of things

    - objects of large size are in a decided state, leading to believe they decide themselves. And besides it can be calculated if and how a system generates a decider (also called "observer" in the literature, but the function of an observer in this context is to make the system realize one of several possible states)

    - the common use of words such as love is not in respect to brains, which are generally not mentioned, but always in relation to freedom. And since there is freedom shown througout the universe, the same logic applies.

    - one can use reasonable judgement, an art, to avoid talking about toothbrushes loving, but you can't prove or disprove love scientifically for any decision. What you want is to say that "treehugging" for instance is a scientifically invalid pastime. You are misusing science for what is basicly religious bigotry, as is well shown by that your only argument against it seems to be that it is ridiculous and therefore unscientific.

    - and lastly, hands up who trust Straggler to distinghuish ought from is in science when subject comes to things like emotions, and evolution of morality, not me


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 70 by Straggler, posted 10-10-2008 10:34 AM Straggler has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 74 by Straggler, posted 10-10-2008 4:32 PM Syamsu has responded
     Message 76 by onifre, posted 10-10-2008 7:05 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

        
    Brad McFall
    Member (Idle past 3196 days)
    Posts: 3428
    From: Ithaca,NY, USA
    Joined: 12-20-2001


    Message 72 of 123 (485662)
    10-10-2008 1:37 PM
    Reply to: Message 67 by Stile
    10-09-2008 3:53 PM


    Re: McFallism
    quote:
    If you are able to make sense of Syamsu's assertions that every event involving physical processes and inanimate objects is made as a result of moral decisions by those self same physical processes and inanimate objects in the "spiritual realm" then I for one would love to see it.

    As things stand it seesm to me that he is just applying meaningless labels to ill thought and evidentially refuted concepts.


    That was Straggler. They stand at a very odd angle indeed.

    First off, I cannot, in today's world, explain why we do not tend to think more often that moral "decisions" precede material ones for the self-same space of the material and its laws. I had tried to skectch a reading in the history of biology that explains how come we do not. The use of "red" vs "taste" however was rather cryptic and not fair as it was two sided.

    Syamsu had a very specific question about "evolutionists" and 'why' questions as this thread opened. In particular Mayr's reading is that Darwin can be used to support the notion that ethics arose via hard group selection. My reading does not lead to this support or conclusion. If, as I imagine soft group selection can result in ethical praxis, there is no a priori reason to have to say that moral possession is without the material and its laws, only I would not agree that cosmic teleology had been reliably ditched in the last century, as Mayr, one of the supposedly top 100 scientists of all time would like us to believe. But to say that moral decisions are made via the same material in the same space does seem questionable to me. That is why it is a psychological problem about holes etc. I am not sure I would agree with Saymsu about cause and effect, but then I am speaking more as a biologist than a physcisit or whatever physical nature is being observed. Regardless, in today's world we do not have a science that pursues the difference of GOD and LORD or "spirit" that Newton did in the General Scholium.
    I do not see why we can not have such a science. Straggler is correct how it stands but in repose....

    I wrote that all of this was the confusion of one sense for another as I said in my last post. In fact forcing oneself to answer the question, "Does what I am reading make sense?" is a good guide to interpretation. Syamsu has a rather specific notion of reality and I would not hesitiate to think that Straggler finds it all quite false.

    But,...

    while reading Kant in some detail I was able to notice that Kant has a thought process that ((attempts)(he only really succeeds in analogy))relates the utilitarian happy populations of nations to atoms under attraction and repulsion which the Critique of Judgement slowy (from the beautiful to the sublime to the teleological) replaces with relation between taste and teleology. I KNOW some artists miss that. Interestingly despite myself NOT thinking there was any such comparison (populations of people in the civil state and molecules in motion) I was told indeed at Cornell that this is viable avenue of higher education's pursuit. What I was not told however was that the notion the sublime trumps this every time. This is what got me into so much trouble outside academia.

    Sorry, to take up this much space here, I am probably done threading this for a while. I did try to say that Syamsu's general observation is one that I seem to have observed as well. But as for THEN answering Straggler on Straggler's terms he had not done as well.
    It is possible that Syamsu views these terms as a distortion. I dont know.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 67 by Stile, posted 10-09-2008 3:53 PM Stile has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 73 by Stile, posted 10-10-2008 2:23 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded
     Message 75 by Straggler, posted 10-10-2008 4:45 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

        
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 3501
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004
    Member Rating: 4.2


    Message 73 of 123 (485672)
    10-10-2008 2:23 PM
    Reply to: Message 72 by Brad McFall
    10-10-2008 1:37 PM


    Re: McFallism
    Brad McFall writes:

    I wrote that all of this was the confusion of one sense for another as I said in my last post. In fact forcing oneself to answer the question, "Does what I am reading make sense?" is a good guide to interpretation. Syamsu has a rather specific notion of reality and I would not hesitiate to think that Straggler finds it all quite false.

    Ah, I see. Straggler's "red" vs. Syamsu's "taste." That makes much more sense. I was too linear in my interpretation.

    I did try to say that Syamsu's general observation is one that I seem to have observed as well.

    Actually, I've had similar observations myself. But it's one thing to muse over some interesting observations and another to assert a categorical truth of the universe without having the necessary support to show such.

    Sorry, to take up this much space here, I am probably done threading this for a while.

    Take your time, and have fun.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 72 by Brad McFall, posted 10-10-2008 1:37 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

        
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10285
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 74 of 123 (485681)
    10-10-2008 4:32 PM
    Reply to: Message 71 by Syamsu
    10-10-2008 11:34 AM


    Re: Different words for clarity
    As before,
    - the entire universe works by decisions, and a few universal constants. Cause and effect is false, or a soft-science view of things

    - objects of large size are in a decided state, leading to believe they decide themselves. And besides it can be calculated if and how a system generates a decider (also called "observer" in the literature, but the function of an observer in this context is to make the system realize one of several possible states)

    - the common use of words such as love is not in respect to brains, which are generally not mentioned, but always in relation to freedom. And since there is freedom shown througout the universe, the same logic applies.

    None of this means anything. You have no idea what you are talking about and this is obvious to all. You are garbling and conflating ill understood scientific concepts with faith based dogma to form a Syamsu hybrid that is neither one nor the other.

    What do you actually mean. If you have something meaningful to say then give us the example that you have been repeatedly asked to give. By myself and various others who have taken part in this thread.

    Why are you so reluctant or incapable of doing this? As before I ask (for the 6th time?):

    Is a Tsunami a "decision"?
    Does the sea as a whole "decide" to rise up and kill people?
    Does each water molecule take part in this decision?
    Does each atom? Each quark?
    Are you saying that the sea/molecules/atoms/quarks make a moral decision that results in a Tsunami?

    How exactly do decisions and morality of the "spiritual realm" apply to nature?

    - one can use reasonable judgement, an art, to avoid talking about toothbrushes loving, but you can't prove or disprove love scientifically for any decision. What you want is to say that "treehugging" for instance is a scientifically invalid pastime.

    "Reasonable judgement" is just a euphamism for whatever the person using the term wants to believe is reasonable. Regardless of reason. It means nothing more than "I believe" to all practical intents and purposes.
    If people decide that they want to hug trees for the sake of hugging trees, because it makes them feel better about themselves and becuase it is the "right thing to do" then I don't think science has much to say about that. If anything science may even be able to show that such practises have genuinely stress relieving and beneficial health effects!! However if people say that hugging trees causes their "energy" to be enhanced such that their "metaphysical presence" is amplified and their "soul cleansed" then I would suggest that they are talking in pseudo scientific terms that are ill defined and meaningless. Much like your completely undefined notion of the "spiritual realm".

    Meaningless terms dressed up in pseudoscientific language to give credence to utter nonsense.

    - and lastly, hands up who trust Straggler to distinghuish ought from is in science when subject comes to things like emotions, and evolution of morality, not me

    I love my son and would do almost anything to save him from pain, suffering and death. I make no rational argument for this view and require none to be made for me. I need no more reason for this than the love for my son that I know I subjectively feel. I would have it no other way. This, like many other such examples, is what makes us all human. Despite some notable exceptions, I am proud to count myself as a member of such an amazing species as humanity and subjectively consider the future of humanity as a whole as something worth fighting for.

    But this does not stop me from recognising that such things as love for ones offspring are objectively necessary features of a successfully evolved social species. Scientific investigation explains why I feel such deep love for my son without ever detracting from the very subjective human nature of the love that I actually personally subjectively feel.

    This is what you fail to understand in your black and white, objective vs subjective, material vs supernatural simplistic and ill conceived view of the world.

    and lastly, hands up who trust Straggler to distinghuish ought from is in science when subject comes to things like emotions, and evolution of morality, not me

    Whom should we trust and on what basis? You? Why?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 71 by Syamsu, posted 10-10-2008 11:34 AM Syamsu has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 77 by Syamsu, posted 10-10-2008 7:36 PM Straggler has responded

      
    Straggler
    Member
    Posts: 10285
    From: London England
    Joined: 09-30-2006


    Message 75 of 123 (485682)
    10-10-2008 4:45 PM
    Reply to: Message 72 by Brad McFall
    10-10-2008 1:37 PM


    Re: McFallism
    As Syamsu is so unwilling to answer and as you seem to be the only person who even claims to have half an idea as to what he does actually mean, maybe you can answer the following questions:

    Is a Tsunami a "decision"?
    Does the sea as a whole "decide" to rise up and kill people?
    Does each water molecule take part in this decision?
    Does each atom? Each quark?
    Are you saying that the sea/molecules/atoms/quarks make a moral decision that results in a Tsunami?

    How exactly do decisions and morality of the "spiritual realm" apply to nature?

    Syamsu is claiming that all alternatives in time are formed by decisions and that the reason "why" any given outcome is chosen over any other is a subjective decision made in the "spiritual realm". All acts of nature are therefore "decisions" and the inanimate objects and processes involved in such decisions are therefore capable of good, evil, love and all other non-objective facets of the "spiritual realm".

    So what decisions do toothbrushes make, can planetary orbits be evil and do coffee-cups experience love?

    As stupid as the above sentance sounds Syamsu has claimed all of the above as "common sense" conclusions of his decisions theory. Are you really agreeing with this?


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 72 by Brad McFall, posted 10-10-2008 1:37 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

      
    Prev1234
    5
    6789Next
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019