Can the materialist explain the origin of love?

[AntiTheist]

Do you believe people are solely physical organisms?

I don’t see any evidence that suggests that people are anything more than physical organisms (minds are, as far as we can tell, rooted in the physical).

So I believe what the evidence suggests: that people are physical beings. I will continue to believe that until evidence to the contrary emerges.

In that case you are a passive observer in the sense that you cannot influence the course of events.

I guess. What’s the relevance of this, again?

Why does it have value for you?

“Values” are the results of a lot of different factors – natural empathy, reason, societal training, tradition, our internalization of rules and ideals placed upon us when we were young, etc.

My values come from a mix of all the above – and probably other sources that I’m not aware of. Whatever the reason, I exist with values – that is, I place importance on some things above others. I am a being so constituted that I value the emotion “love” more than many other things.

That’s it.

But you believe everything has emerged from matter?

I don’t know. I know that matter exists and that it has existed since the Big Bang. I don’t know a thing about what came before it – it seems that there was “stuff” that existed before the Big Bang (the stuff that started to expand), but no one knows where that “stuff” came from (it may, for instance, have always existed).

If you think that you know where the “stuff” came from, please present evidence. You’d be the first.

So far there is nothing to dislike because you have not explained precisely what love is!

Love is an emotion.

Seriously, now, what point are you trying to get to, here? I’m explaining some pretty basic stuff. I assume you think that love is some kind of magical force, akin to faery dust? What is your claim about love and what evidence do you have for your claim?

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t see any evidence that suggests that people are anything more than physical organisms (minds are, as far as we can tell, rooted in the physical).

So you believe all mental activity is the result of electrical activity in the brain? You are in effect a materialist?

So I believe what the evidence suggests: that people are physical beings. I will continue to believe that until evidence to the contrary emerges.

If human beings are just physical beings why do we distinguish them by calling them persons? Do you think persons exist on other planets?

In that case you are a passive observer in the sense that you cannot influence the course of events.

I guess. What’s the relevance of this, again?

It means you cannot be responsible for anything you do - yet in a court of law a normal person is considered responsible for his/her premeditated actions.

“Values” are the results of a lot of different factors – natural empathy, reason, societal training, tradition, our internalization of rules and ideals placed upon us when we were young, etc.My values come from a mix of all the above – and probably other sources that I’m not aware of. Whatever the reason, I exist with values – that is, I place importance on some things above others. I am a being so constituted that I value the emotion “love” more than many other things.

So your values are thrust upon you - and you are unable to change them?

But you believe everything has emerged from matter?

I don’t know. If you think that you know where the “stuff” came from, please present evidence.

Do you** believe** matter originated in some kind of physical reality?

Love is an emotion.

How is it distinguished from other emotions?

What is your claim about love and what evidence do you have for your claim?

I have stated my beliefs about love in the OP. You are welcome to ask any specific questions you may have.

 

[ipwnuathalo]

all you need is love.

John Lennon. Smart man, shot in the back, very sad.

(My silly response to a silly thread)

 

[AntiTheist]

So you believe all mental activity is the result of electrical activity in the brain? You are in effect a materialist?

I think the best evidence we have indicates that thoughts are contingent upon brain activity. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

If human beings are just physical beings why do we distinguish them by calling them persons? Do you think persons exist on other planets?

What? We call them “persons” to distinguish them from other physical beings, like cats, dogs, frogs, and trees.

So your values are thrust upon you - and you are unable to change them?

I think values are subject to change, as we learn more and interact with our environments, but a great deal of our values are “planted,” for lack of a better term, when we are young.

Do you** believe** matter originated in some kind of physical reality?

No. I don’t hold any belief about the origin of matter. I know that there was “stuff” that began to expand in the Big Bang. I have literally no idea where that “stuff” came from. It may, for instance, have always existed, but I don’t hold that as a belief.

How is [love] distinguished from other emotions?

Well, the word “love” is used to categorize a lot of different emotions, actually. It depends upon the person using the label and the specifics of the situation.

I have stated my beliefs about love in the OP. You are welcome to ask any specific questions you may have.

Okay. What evidence do you have that love is something other than a natural emotion that has its root, like all of our emotions, in our biochemistry?

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey
***So you believe all mental activity is the result of electrical activity in the brain?

---

I think the best evidence we have indicates that thoughts are contingent upon brain activity. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

What is the only fact that you know for certain?

If human beings are just physical beings why do we distinguish them by calling them persons? Do you think persons exist on other planets?

What? We call them “persons” to distinguish them from other physical beings, like cats, dogs, frogs, and trees.

Why are persons the only beings regarded as responsible for what they do?

So your values are thrust upon you - and you are unable to change them?

I think values are subject to change, as we learn more and interact with our environments, but a great deal of our values are “planted,” for lack of a better term, when we are young.

But we do not change our values: they are changed for us?

Do you** believe**

matter originated in some kind of physical reality?
I know that there was “stuff” that began to expand in the Big Bang. I have literally no idea where that “stuff” came from.

But you believe that "stuff"was material?

How is [love] distinguished from other emotions?

Well, the word “love” is used to categorize a lot of different emotions, actually. It depends upon the person using the label and the specifics of the situation.

What is your concept of love?

I have stated my beliefs about love in the OP. You are welcome to ask any specific questions you may have.

What evidence do you have that love is something other than a natural emotion that has its root, like all of our emotions, in our biochemistry?

Our power to control our natural instincts and feelings even to the extent of choosing to die for others…

 

[AntiTheist]

What is this, 20 questions? I’ll note that you did not provide any evidence that thoughts are not contingent upon the brain. Are you going to concede this point, or are you going to go through my post line-by-line posing apparently unrelated questions?

What is the only fact that you know for certain?

Uh…I’m not sure that anything can be known to a certainty. Perhaps labels can be known to a certainty, but that’s because we come up with the labels.

Why are persons the only beings regarded as responsible for what they do?

We’re not. Dogs are responsible for what they do, too. Have you ever disciplined a dog?

It’s called causality. We even label non-sentient things as “responsible” for effects. A storm, for example, is responsible for flooding basements.

But you believe that "stuff"was material?

I think it likely was – we call the expansion of this “stuff” “the universe,” and the universe is material. What reason do you have for thinking otherwise?

What is your concept of love?

A label we put on a wide variety of emotions.

Our power to control our natural instincts and feelings even to the extent of choosing to die for others…

“Controlling our natural instincts and feelings” does not qualify as evidence that love is something other than a natural emotion. For example, “controlling natural instincts and feelings” is natural for human beings to do – it’s part of our intellect, which is part of our biological inheritance.

Self-sacrifice is also not indicative of something more than a natural emotion. For one thing, we have lots of examples of animals sacrificing themselves for their communities. Similar behavior, abstracted into a broader idea of community, is precisely what we’d expect to see in higher primates.

Your argument, as I understand it – roughly paraphrased as, “love makes people do things that amaze me; therefore, love is magic!” – is silly.

 

[tonyrey]

What is this, 20 questions?

I’m quite prepared to answer any questions you may wish to ask.

I’ll note that you did not provide any evidence that thoughts are not contingent upon the brain.

Be patient!

Are you going to concede this point, or are you going to go through my post line-by-line posing apparently unrelated questions?

“apparently” is the key word…

I’m not sure that anything can be known to a certainty.

Aren’t you certain that you are thinking? Isn’t that fact more certain than the fact of having a brain?

Why are persons the only beings regarded as responsible for what they do?

We’re not. Dogs are responsible for what they do, too. Have you ever disciplined a dog

Have you ever seen a dog on trial in a law court?

It’s called causality. We even label non-sentient things as “responsible” for effects. A storm, for example, is responsible for flooding basements.

Is it **morally **responsible?

But you believe that "stuff"was material?

I think it likely was – we call the expansion of this “stuff” “the universe,” and the universe is material. What reason do you have for thinking otherwise?

You obviously believe everything is derived from matter. Yet there are the slight problems of consciousness, rationality, personality, free will, truth, goodness, evil, justice, purpose, love…

What is your

concept of love? A label we put on a wide variety of emotions.

Which makes it so vague as to be meaningless.

Our power to control our natural instincts and feelings even to the extent of choosing to die for others…

“Controlling our natural instincts and feelings” does not qualify as evidence that love is something other than a natural emotion. For example, “controlling natural instincts and feelings” is natural for human beings to do – it’s part of our intellect, which is part of our biological inheritance.

The intellect alone does not explain the power of self-control. It is possible we are impotent spectators - as some atheists believe. We may know what is happening but unfortunately we may not be able to do anything about it. We are supposedly just biological cogs in the machine of nature…

Self-sacrifice is also not indicative of something more than a natural emotion. For one thing, we have lots of examples of animals sacrificing themselves for their communities. Similar behavior, abstracted into a broader idea of community, is precisely what we’d expect to see in higher primates.

Do animals sacrifice themselves for others beyond their communities or for the sake of justice or freedom?

Your argument, as I understand it – roughly paraphrased as, “love makes people do things that amaze me; therefore, love is magic!” – is silly.

Would you say to a person who loves you:
“Your love is just a natural emotion. It’s exactly what we’d expect to see in a higher primate. There’s nothing extraordinary about it. It can be explained scientifically. Just accept it. You can’t help loving me. So don’t attach too much importance or significance to it. It will last only for a few years. It will die a natural death anyway!..”

 

[AntiTheist]

You obviously believe everything is derived from matter. Yet there are the slight problems of consciousness, rationality, personality, free will, truth, goodness, evil, justice, purpose, love…

Those aren’t problems. It seems likely that consciousness is an emergent property of our brains and that with that consciousness, we came up with those ideas.

There’s every reason to think all of that, and there’s no reason to think that those abstract qualities exist apart from brains. If you have any evidence that they do, please present it.

The intellect alone does not explain the power of self-control.

Of course it does. When I feel like doing something but decide against it because I rationally see that restraining myself is a better course of action, the only powers in play are my intellect and my instincts/inclinations.

If you have any evidence that something more than the intellect (and maybe values that inform the intellect) is at play, please present it.

Do animals sacrifice themselves for others beyond their communities or for the sake of justice or freedom?

No, because they don’t have the higher brain functions that we do, higher brain functions that let us dream up ideas like “freedom.” But they do have the instinct to sacrifice for community – the same instinct that we exercise using our more advanced intellects (intellects more capable of abstraction and generating ideas like justice).

Would you say to a person who loves you:
“Your love is just a natural emotion. It’s exactly what we’d expect to see in a higher primate. There’s nothing extraordinary about it. It can be explained scientifically. Just accept it. You can’t help loving me. So don’t attach too much importance or significance to it. It will last only for a few years. It will die a natural death anyway!..”

That’s probably all true, but I wouldn’t say it unless I wanted to get kicked out of the house.

In all seriousness, the way love feels is quite different than what love is. It’s obvious that love is a natural emotion that eventually dies out – but I’ll grant that it feels magical and wonderful. I’m all in favor of indulging in the feeling and the all the poetic trappings that accompany it. But let’s not confuse that with what it is.

 

[tonyrey]

Yet there are the slight problems of consciousness, rationality, personality, free will, truth, goodness, evil, justice, purpose, love…

1. Rationality is the power of reason. What do you reason with?
2. A person is an entity considered legally responsible. Is responsibility a myth?
3. Free will is the power to choose. Is that an illusion?
4. Truth is composed of facts. What do we know if there are no facts?
5. Goodness refers to that which is positive and creative. Do we imagine we do good?
6. Evil refers to that which is negative and destructive. Do we imagine we do evil?
7. Justice is the result of personal and social harmony. Is that a fiction?
8. Purpose is the result of an intention. Do we imagine we think and act purposefully?
9. Love is a creative power which unites persons and gives them joy and fulfilment.
   Fact or fiction?

The intellect alone does not explain the power of self-control.

Of course it does. When I feel like doing something but decide against it because I rationally see that restraining myself is a better course of action, the only powers in play are my intellect and my instincts/inclinations.

What enable you to restrain yourself? An idea? What is the mechanism which puts the idea into action?

If you have any evidence that something more than the intellect (and maybe values that inform the intellect) is at play, please present it.

The power of the mind is evident in the results of meditation and hypnosis.

Do animals sacrifice themselves for others beyond their communities or for the sake of justice or freedom?

No, because they don’t have the higher brain functions that we do, higher brain functions that let us dream up ideas like “freedom.”

If freedom is an illusion why do individuals prefer to die for it rather than live as slaves?

But they do have the instinct to sacrifice for community – the same instinct that we exercise using our more advanced intellects (intellects more capable of abstraction and generating ideas like justice).

How does a physical organ like the brain grasp abstract ideas? How did it acquire this ability? If ideas are tangible, electrical impulses in the brain how can they be also intangible and abstract?.

Would you say to a person who loves you:
“Your love is just a natural emotion. It’s exactly what we’d expect to see in a higher primate. There’s nothing extraordinary about it. It can be explained scientifically. Just accept it. You can’t help loving me. So don’t attach too much importance or significance to it. It will last only for a few years. It will die a natural death anyway!..”

That’s probably all true, but I wouldn’t say it unless I wanted to get kicked out of the house.

So you indulge in benevolent deception?! You devil, you!

In all seriousness, the way love feels is quite different than what love is. It’s obvious that love is a natural emotion that eventually dies out – but I’ll grant that it feels magical and wonderful. I’m all in favor of indulging in the feeling and all the poetic trappings that accompany it. But let’s not confuse that with what it is.

Why does love feel quite different from what it is? Why are the vast majority of people deceived by their feelings? And, most important of all, why do you believe in promoting a false view of reality, i.e. a fool’s paradise?! :tsktsk:

 

[AntiTheist]

I sense that you seriously don’t know the answers to the questions you pose, which is really disheartening that someone is so ill-informed. Worse, I suspect that you think that just because you don’t know the answers to those questions, you are justified in plugging in “god” or “magic” (or whatever) as an answer (without any evidence at all).

1. Rationality is the power of reason. What do you reason with?
2. A person is an entity considered legally responsible. Is responsibility a myth?
3. Free will is the power to choose. Is that an illusion?
4. Truth is composed of facts. What do we know if there are no facts?
5. Goodness refers to that which is positive and creative. Do we imagine we do good?
6. Evil refers to that which is negative and destructive. Do we imagine we do evil?
7. Justice is the result of personal and social harmony. Is that a fiction?
8. Purpose is the result of an intention. Do we imagine we think and act purposefully?
9. Love is a creative power which unites persons and gives them joy and fulfilment.
   Fact or fiction?

Briefly, all of those things you list above can be completely explained by natural processes. Rationality comes from our minds, which are emergent properties of physical brains. It feels like we choose things, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we have a “free” will – scientific findings, not only in the field of psychology but neural science, tend to cast doubt on that idea (we have observed, for example, an unconscious part of the brain that makes decisions seconds before a person becomes conscious of “choosing” the decision).

Truth is a label we give to our ideas corresponding to the world outside of our head. “Good,” “evil,” and “justice,” are likewise labels that we put on kinds of actions (that we like or don’t like). Truth, good, evil, and justice don’t exist apart from our minds and apart from the actions/ideas that we place those labels on.

Love is the label we put on a wide variety of emotions. The human being is constituted so that experiencing various forms of these emotions is healthy.

Absolutely nothing about this requires any sort of supernatural power or anything that’s not completely natural. You continually pose incredibly basic questions, acting like they’re great mysteries of the universe, and you’ve done nothing to support the argument that you’re trying to make (that these things are magical and come from a supernatural intelligence).

I’m still waiting for evidence.

What enable you to restrain yourself?

The reason, a part of the mind, which is an emergent property of brains. Completely and 100% natural.

The power of the mind is evident in the results of meditation and hypnosis.

I don’t even know what this is supposed to mean. What are you, one of those New Age fruitcakes, too? Closing your eyes and mumbling a mantra probably will put someone into a drowsy trance – it’s completely and 100% natural.

If freedom is an illusion why do individuals prefer to die for it rather than live as slaves?

Freedom is a concept, a label. You can die for a concept/label, but it doesn’t demonstrate that “freedom” exists as anything other than a concept/label.

If there were no human minds in the universe, the idea of freedom would also not exist. Freedom only exists in minds, and minds only exist as emergent properties of brains, as far as we can tell (again, feel free to present evidence to the contrary).

How does a physical organ like the brain grasp abstract ideas? How did it acquire this ability? If ideas are tangible, electrical impulses in the brain how can they be also intangible and abstract?

Minds are intangible. They are emergent from brain processes, as far as we can tell.

Why does love feel quite different from what it is?

Because subjective perceptions aren’t the same as the objective universe.

For example, it sure seems like the sun rises and moves around the earth, but that subjective perception is totally wrong. And yet, we still speak as if the illusion were true (“The sun is setting,” is something I often say, even though I know it doesn’t match up to objective reality).

Why do we do this? Because for purposes of communication and ease, we tend to refer to our incorrect subjective experience, not the objective universe.

In common speech, I say, “Hand me that cup.” I don’t say, “Send an electrical impulse down to the neurons in the collection of molecules we call your hand and make them grasp that collection of molecules we call a cup and put it in the collection of molecules we call my hand” – even though that’s really what’s going on. But shortening it to “hand me that cup” isn’t a “fool’s paradise” – it’s convenient shorthand that refers to our immediate (though faulty) experience.

So let’s review: all you have are a bunch of questions that prove you imperfectly understand the universe. Apparently, you think that your lack of knowledge indicates that there’s some supernatural force in the universe. You’re wrong – there’s no logical way to reach that conclusions from asking a bunch of incredibly simplistic questions and then stamping your feet when the answers don’t match what you’d like to be true.

 

[tonyrey]

Briefly, all of those things you list above can be completely explained by natural processes.

“**all **of those things you list above can be completely explained by natural processes”!
You are blithely ignoring difficulties which specialists and neuroscientists admit have left them baffled. Your reductive materialism calmly disposes of everything human beings value and cherish as if it’s child’s play! Your assertion that all I have is “a bunch of questions that prove you imperfectly understand the universe” is an incredible presumption of understanding the universe which no reputable philosopher or scientist would dare to make. It is clearly a waste of time trying to reason with some one who is utterly convinced everything is “100% natural” and whose mind is closed to any other possibility…

 

[AntiTheist]

It is clearly a waste of time trying to reason with some one who is utterly convinced everything is “100% natural” and whose mind is closed to any other possibility…

But I don’t hold that as a dogmatic position – I’m open to considering another position that has evidence behind it.

In fact, I’ve been asking you for evidence for several posts now. Do you have any evidence, or do you base your beliefs on the fact that we don’t know absolutely everything yet?

 

[tonyrey]

Do you have any evidence, or do you base your beliefs on the fact that we don’t know absolutely everything yet?

As we are now off topic please refer to my answer to today’s post by Eucharisted: Materialism isn’t founded on scientific grounds.

 

[hatsoff]

As we are now off topic please refer to my answer to today’s post by Eucharisted: Materialism isn’t founded on scientific grounds.

In post 27 of this thread, you implied that you were going to get around to presenting evidence, and that Antitheist should “be patient” while you ask him a bunch of “apparently” off-topic questions.

Those questions still appear to have been off-topic, as well as the subsequent ones, yet he answered them patiently, as you requested. You may wish to consider paying him the same courtesy.

 

[tonyrey]

In post 27 of this thread, you implied that you were going to get around to presenting evidence, and that Antitheist should “be patient” while you ask him a bunch of “apparently” off-topic questions.
Those questions still appear to have been off-topic, as well as the subsequent ones, yet he answered them patiently, as you requested. You may wish to consider paying him the same courtesy.

You are obviously not aware that our discussion is continuing on another thread: ** Materialism isn’t founded on scientific grounds.**

 

[hatsoff]

You are obviously not aware that our discussion is continuing on another thread: ** Materialism isn’t founded on scientific grounds.**

I am aware of the fact that in post 12 of that thread, you claim the evidence is to be found in another thread. Did you mean this one? Or another still?

 

[tonyrey]

I am aware of the fact that in post 12 of that thread, you claim the evidence is to be found in another thread. Did you mean this one? Or another still?

In this thread I posted the following points which were summarily dismissed . You are very welcome to answer them:

1. Rationality is the power of reason. What do you reason with?
2. A person is an entity considered legally responsible. Is responsibility a myth?
3. Free will is the power to choose. Is that an illusion?
4. Truth is composed of facts. What do we know if there are no facts?
5. Goodness refers to that which is positive and creative. Do we imagine we do good?
6. Evil refers to that which is negative and destructive. Do we imagine we do evil?
7. Justice is the result of personal and social harmony. Is that a fiction?
8. Purpose is the result of an intention. Do we imagine we think and act purposefully?
9. Love is a creative power which unites persons and gives them joy and fulfilment.
   Fact or fiction?

 

[hatsoff]

In this thread I posted the following points which were summarily dismissed . You are very welcome to answer them:

1. Rationality is the power of reason. What do you reason with?
2. A person is an entity considered legally responsible. Is responsibility a myth?
3. Free will is the power to choose. Is that an illusion?
4. Truth is composed of facts. What do we know if there are no facts?
5. Goodness refers to that which is positive and creative. Do we imagine we do good?
6. Evil refers to that which is negative and destructive. Do we imagine we do evil?
7. Justice is the result of personal and social harmony. Is that a fiction?
8. Purpose is the result of an intention. Do we imagine we think and act purposefully?
9. Love is a creative power which unites persons and gives them joy and fulfilment.
   Fact or fiction?

First of all, Antitheist took time to answer those questions, so it seems you’re the one who has “summarily dismissed” him.

Second, and more importantly, even if those questions remain unanswered, they still do not constitute evidence for a non-material reality. As Antitheist has already pointed out, we do not get to plug “magic” or “God” into the mix simply because we don’t know everything about the observable universe.

 

[tonyrey]

First of all, Antitheist took time to answer those questions, so it seems you’re the one who has “summarily dismissed” him.

His “answers” are unsubstantiated assertions:
“Briefly, all of those things you list above can be completely explained by natural processes.”
"Rationality comes from our minds, which are emergent properties of physical brains.
“It feels like we choose things, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we have a “free” will – scientific findings, not only in the field of psychology but neural science, tend to cast doubt on that idea (we have observed, for example, an unconscious part of the brain that makes decisions seconds before a person becomes conscious of “choosing” the decision).”
“Truth is a label we give to our ideas corresponding to the world outside of our head.” “Good,” “evil,” and “justice,” are likewise labels that we put on kinds of actions (that we like or don’t like).
“Truth, good, evil, and justice don’t exist apart from our minds and apart from the actions/ideas that we place those labels on.”
“Love is the label we put on a wide variety of emotions. The human being is constituted so that experiencing various forms of these emotions is healthy.”
Do you really regard those statements as satisfactory answers? With equal facility and more justification I can assert:
“Briefly, all of those things can be completely explained by supernatural processes.
Rationality comes from our minds which transcend physical objects. Free will is the basis of responsibility recognised in every law court throughout the world. Truth is the** correspondence** of beliefs to facts. Good and evil are not just “what (dis)pleases us” but that which promotes or destroys harmony in the individual and in society. Love is a form of creative energy without which life is meaningless.”
There was no answer at all to the following questions:
2. A person is an entity considered legally responsible. Is responsibility a myth?
8. Purpose is the result of an intention. Do we imagine we think and act purposefully?

Second, and more importantly, even if those questions remain unanswered, they still do not constitute evidence for a non-material reality. As Antitheist has already pointed out, we do not get to plug “magic” or “God” into the mix simply because we don’t know everything about the observable universe.

In other words no matter how many questions are answered your absolute faith in the magical power of matter to produce every single aspect of reality remains undiminished in the slightest…

 

[AntiTheist]

Do you really regard those statements as satisfactory answers? With equal facility and more justification I can assert:
"Briefly, all of those things can be completely explained by supernatural processes.

Sure, you can assert that. But the difference between your wild assertion and my reasonable answer is that my answer is supported by evidence: we have lots and lots and lots of evidence that indicates that matter exists and that minds depend on brains (I even mentioned actual experiments done where the data has indicated a portion of the brain that makes choices before the mind experiences “making” the choice).

The difference comes down to evidence. We actually have evidence. You have fantasy.

If you have evidence to the contrary (evidence – not questions), feel free to present it.

How many times is it that I’ve asked you for evidence now? If you don’t come up with some soon, people are going to start to suspect that you don’t have it.