Connection between love and sex?

[levinas12]

Who’s making up our minds for us? If certain of my neural impulses control and shape other neural impulses, or hormonal, electrochemical, kinetic impulses, then I am, in every way that matters, a self-controlling entity.

Humans have this sense of “holding sway” over their lives albeit imperfectly … as you put it, a sense of being “a self-controlling entity”. And I agree that neuronal impulses are involved. But somehow, in a way I can’t explain, humans transcend physical necessity. If “reasons” are simply driven by ineluctable “physical causes”, then rationality is a cruel joke of nature.

By the way, you have helped me deepen my understanding of animals. I just saw a wonderful IMAX film at the Smithsonian Museum in Washington DC about people who care for “orphan” elephants and orangutans (“Born to Be Wild”). These animals definitely have a richer emotional life than I had ever imagined.

Although I still think the difference between us and the other higher mammals is not just a matter of degree, I admire your sensitivity and love for animals.

 

[tonyrey]

I certainly have a low opinion of the advocacy of virginity as an ideal state, especially for a woman. Not to mention the fact that Mary is set up as an ideal no real woman could emulate - a virgin and a mother.

Should all women be mothers even if they have more important goals? That is one of your objections to Catholicism - that women have no other role in life!
It is also absurd to think Mary is set up as an ideal virgin-mother. Do we pray for more immaculate conceptions? Are mothers expected to renounce sex after having children?

It depends how you treat the people you take to bed - if you use them for sex and discount every other aspect of their person, especially if they are seeking more from the association than a casual bit of fun, then it’s a bit more than a question of degree.

You argued that different people have a different range of needs and some need more than one intimate relationship… Why should they stop at four or five if they believe they need many and promiscuity does no one any harm?

Are you the same person you were as a teenager or a young adult?

Did you believe you needed lovers when you married each other or did you discover that subsequently?

Certainly one of the most worthwhile and rewarding experiences. I also, for example, find it extremely worthwhile and rewarding to walk and cuddle the dogs at the shelter I’ve been volunteering with.

So physical contact is essential? Something is missing if you cannot give yourself completely? Are caresses necessary with your female friends?

How do you know that people isolate sex from everything else?

Some people’s behaviour is a big giveaway in this regard.

In what ways?

Actually, there’s some evidence that prior to the advent of the extensive taboos of organised religion, sex was not such a private activity. The numbers of people who view pornography and the natural tendency of women, in particular, to be loudly vocal during sex, suggest that there’s a strong and probably innate desire to watch or at least be aware of others having sex.

Should this be encouraged?

Unless a couple spends all their time having sex, they are hardly to be considered as isolating themselves from others. Do you worry about isolating yourself from a partner when you use the toilet?

Is the time factor similar?

In any case, polyamory involves exploring a range of intimate expression with lovers, not restricting one particular expression to one person and one only.

This implies that love-making is an art which requires the development of skill and a fair amount of time in order to maximise pleasure.

If there is no essential difference animals should have equal rights and the same obligations.They should held responsible, put on trial and in prison with men and women.

Would you treat a tapeworm the same way you would treat a cat? Secondly, I think you’ll find that our closest relatives - chimps and bonobos - are already quite happily exercising a form of polyamory without any intervention required from us.

I specified that in your scheme of things polyamory should be extended to other apes and mammals - which you support with evidence that it is already practised… but you have overlooked their rights and obligations towards us.

If we can’t choose what to believe we can’t - full stop.

Some people try really, really hard to persuade themselves that the religion they have adopted or that they grew up in is really, really true.

And people try really hard to persuade themselves that their religion is false if it proves to be an obstacle.

Who’s making up our minds for us? If certain of my neural impulses control and shape other neural impulses, or hormonal, electrochemical, kinetic impulses, then I am, in every way that matters, a self-controlling entity.

How can you be if there is no self? Self-control must be an illusion. “you” are nothing more than a set of processes controlled by the autonomic nervous system. Everything done by the body which is sending messages to this forum has a physical cause and there is no mind to make up!

This process is not a one-way street, either - other impulses and responses influence neural impulses in their turn, as we interact with our environment. Beliefs are meaningful in that they influence our actions and the way we think about things. That doesn’t mean they can’t change as we continue to experience different aspects of life in the world. Why do you find it at all useful or meaningful to draw a distinction between the ‘me’ that governs a person’s actions and the ‘me’ that exists as part of material reality? They are one and the same being.

There is no “me” at all! So there is no need to draw a distinction. In your scheme of things persons don’t exist. Beliefs and thoughts are regular patterns of neural impulses which interact with stimuli from their environment. The body which harbours them is a cog in the machine of nature which is turned relentlessly towards non-existent goals.

And good luck finding that one truth out of the many contenders -

I don’t need luck. The success of science justifies my belief in the independence of our power of reason and its ability to discover the truth about ourselves and the nature of reality.

I know your church claims access to ultimate truth, but it’s hardly shown itself immune to error or to changing its mind.

The Church is infallible only with regard to fundamental truths. Ironically it is condemned on the one hand for being fossilised and on the other for changing its mind! The development of doctrine is clear evidence that it takes into account scientific discoveries together with the development of the political and social institutions it has inspired.

 

[Sair]

Humans have this sense of “holding sway” over their lives albeit imperfectly … as you put it, a sense of being “a self-controlling entity”. And I agree that neuronal impulses are involved. But somehow, in a way I can’t explain, humans transcend physical necessity. If “reasons” are simply driven by ineluctable “physical causes”, then rationality is a cruel joke of nature.

I’m not sure how, though - reasoning must be reasoning about something, and without the interactions between our consciousness and the external environment, we would have no source and what’s more, no use for reason.

By the way, you have helped me deepen my understanding of animals. I just saw a wonderful IMAX film at the Smithsonian Museum in Washington DC about people who care for “orphan” elephants and orangutans (“Born to Be Wild”). These animals definitely have a richer emotional life than I had ever imagined.

They are, indeed, an endless source of fascination. Even what we think of as very simple animals can have deeply complex lives in many ways.

Although I still think the difference between us and the other higher mammals is not just a matter of degree, I admire your sensitivity and love for animals.

The more I learn about and interact with other animals, the more I am driven to the belief that they are differences of degree. We have set ourselves apart from other animals, not just to their detriment in many respects, but also, I think, to ours.

 

[Sair]

Should all women be mothers even if they have more important goals? That is one of your objections to Catholicism - that women have no other role in life!

The point I was making was that women have for a very long time been defined by their sexual/maternal status, whilst men generally have not. Is Jesus ever declared to be a virgin? Why does this matter more for women than for men?

It is also absurd to think Mary is set up as an ideal virgin-mother. Do we pray for more immaculate conceptions? Are mothers expected to renounce sex after having children?

The implication is that anything that falls short of Mary’s ideal is a failure in terms of ‘purity’.

You argued that different people have a different range of needs and some need more than one intimate relationship… Why should they stop at four or five if they believe they need many and promiscuity does no one any harm?

A one-night stand doth not an intimate relationship make.

Did you believe you needed lovers when you married each other or did you discover that subsequently?

We’ve been through this before. The realisation that we were inclined to polyamory came after we were married, but there were certainly hints of it before.

So physical contact is essential? Something is missing if you cannot give yourself completely? Are caresses necessary with your female friends?

Some kind of physical contact is essential, whether sexual or not. I certainly hug and kiss my female friends - why wouldn’t I? Physical contact is an important means by which humans may express acceptance of others.

In what ways?

One that I saw all too frequently in my university days was that someone would take someone else to bed for a night, then not speak to them afterwards, shunning or ignoring them in social situations. Pretty telling, don’t you think?

Is the time factor similar?

That depends on whether there’s curry involved…

This implies that love-making is an art which requires the development of skill and a fair amount of time in order to maximise pleasure.

I wasn’t talking about a range of sexual expression, but a range of intimacies. Emotional, intellectual and physical. I won’t deny there is a definite art to giving pleasure, though - one that thrives upon other forms of intimacy as well.

I specified that in your scheme of things polyamory should be extended to other apes and mammals - which you support with evidence that it is already practised… but you have overlooked their rights and obligations towards us.

Do other animals have obligations towards us? Are they to be somehow condemned for providing us with ‘bad’ examples? Really not sure what your point is here.

And people try really hard to persuade themselves that their religion is false if it proves to be an obstacle.

That’s also true. The important thing is to be open to different ways of understanding life and the world. If one is closed-minded in any direction, it can have negative consequences. Some philosophers even contend that we have a moral duty to continually scrutinise our ideas, rather than blinding following an ingrained or adopted set of notions.

How can you be if there is no self? Self-control must be an illusion. “you” are nothing more than a set of processes controlled by the autonomic nervous system. Everything done by the body which is sending messages to this forum has a physical cause and there is no mind to make up!
There is no “me” at all! So there is no need to draw a distinction. In your scheme of things persons don’t exist. Beliefs and thoughts are regular patterns of neural impulses which interact with stimuli from their environment. The body which harbours them is a cog in the machine of nature which is turned relentlessly towards non-existent goals.

You’re missing the entire point of my comments. My ‘self’ is an entity that consists of matter and energy and the interactions between them. What we experience as beliefs and thoughts are patterns of neuronal impulses. Why should they be anything else? My self-control exists as part of the material ‘me’. In what sense is that then not me? You understand the self as an entity that is fundamentally separate from the body and from interaction with the body’s environment. I don’t. There is ample evidence of how deeply the self is shaped by the environment and the experience of the body. In what sense are our goals non-existent?

I don’t need luck. The success of science justifies my belief in the independence of our power of reason and its ability to discover the truth about ourselves and the nature of reality.

Our power of reason is hardly independent of that which we are reasoning about.

The Church is infallible only with regard to fundamental truths.

What’s the difference between a fundamental truth and your everyday, garden-variety truth? Is it a fundamental truth that the soul exists? What if there were one day some conclusive evidence that it doesn’t? How much circumstantial evidence against it can a ‘fundamental truth’ withstand?

 

[tonyrey]

The point I was making was that women have for a very long time been defined by their sexual/maternal status, whilst men generally have not.

One that I saw all too frequently in my university days was that someone would take someone else to bed for a night, then not speak to them afterwards, shunning or ignoring them in social situations.You haven’t explained their reasons or motives.

That depends on whether there’s curry involved…

Would curry equalise the time factor between the toilet and love-making?

The numbers of people who view pornography and the natural tendency of women, in particular, to be loudly vocal during sex, suggest that there’s a strong and probably innate desire to watch or at least be aware of others having sex.

Should this be encouraged? What should children be taught about sexual relations?

This implies that love-making is an art which requires the development of skill and a fair amount of time in order to maximise pleasure.

I wasn’t talking about a range of sexual expression, but a range of intimacies. Emotional, intellectual and physical. I won’t deny there is a definite art to giving pleasure, though - one that thrives upon other forms of intimacy as well.So a considerable amount of time, attention and energy is dedicated to a lover.

Do other animals have obligations towards us?

If we are animals there is no reason to exclude other animals, particularly apes, from rights and obligations towards us.

And people try really hard to persuade themselves that their religion is false if it proves to be an obstacle.

The important thing is to be open to different ways of understanding life and the world. Are you open-minded with regard to religion and polyamory?

There is no “me” at all! So there is no need to draw a distinction. In your scheme of things persons don’t exist. Beliefs and thoughts are regular patterns of neural impulses which interact with stimuli from their environment. The body which harbours them is a cog in the machine of nature which is turned relentlessly towards non-existent goals.

You’re missing the entire point of my comments. My ‘self’ is an entity that consists of matter and energy and the interactions between them. What we experience as beliefs and thoughts are patterns of neuronal impulses. My self-control exists as part of the material ‘me’.What is doing the controlling? The brain as a whole? Or one part of the brain? How is the control exercised?

In what sense is that then not me? You understand the self as an entity that is fundamentally separate from the body and from interaction with the body’s environment.

The mind and body are inextricably related and constantly interact with each other but the mind is the dominant element because it transcends physical causes. A mindless body is not a person.

There is ample evidence of how deeply the self is shaped by the environment and the experience of the body. In what sense are our goals non-existent?

If we are cogs in a vast purposeless machine our goals are imaginary.

The success of science is ample evidence of the independence of our power of reason and its ability to discover the truth about ourselves and the nature of reality.

Our power of reason is hardly independent of that which we are reasoning about.
We are not compelled to reason about anything in particular nor are we compelled to reach any particular conclusions.

The Church is infallible only with regard to fundamental truths.

What’s the difference between a fundamental truth and your everyday, garden-variety truth? Is it a fundamental truth that the soul exists? What if there were one day some conclusive evidence that it doesn’t? How much circumstantial evidence against it can a ‘fundamental truth’ withstand?For you it is a fundamental truth that only material objects exist and that existence is ultimately valueless, purposeless and meaningless. The circumstantial evidence against this hypothesis is that human beings have succeeded in understanding and controlling themselves and their environment to an extent unparallelled in the history of the known universe. There is no evidence that the universe is even aware that we exist!

[/QUOTE]

 

[Sair]

Sair;8024213:

So not all women should be mothers if they have more important goals? Your objection to virginity has no rational basis. Catholic women have always had leading roles in schools, hospitals, orphanages and other institutions in what has otherwise been a patriarchal society.

Note how these are all caring roles - generally acceptable because women are all natural nurturers, right? The fact is that not all women are cut out to be good mothers. Should a woman who has no desire to have children and wishes to pursue a career as a heart surgeon be expected to remain a virgin, or expected to have children because that’s what women do?

Jesus was never declared to be a virgin because everyone knew He claimed to be divine and praised those who give up marriage to be His apostles.

So he was obviously a virgin, in light of this?

Most women are mothers, spend much more time with their children and their example is of paramount importance but infidelity on the part of either parent has always been condemned by the Church because it undermines family life.

Is infidelity in this case entirely defined in sexual terms?

Mothers have never been considered unchaste because they have sexual relations with their husbands.

Probably not since the middle ages, at least.

But without sexual intimacy you believe close friendships are thwarted. What is wrong with promiscuity if it does no harm, obviates frustration and reduces the incidence of rape?

It depends on the nature of the friendship, and whether there is mutual sexual attraction. Promiscuity can be harmful if it is undertaken with a view only to using others for sex, and otherwise not engaging with them as people. It’s worth noting that masturbation obviates sexual frustration as well.

Did you discuss it?

Of course.

Are sexual caresses necessary?

How do you define ‘sexual’ in this case? A hug can be perfectly platonic, or it can be intended to arouse.

You haven’t explained their reasons or motives.

I think it’s pretty obvious from the behaviour that they were after no-strings-attached sex.

Would curry equalise the time factor between the toilet and love-making?

How could I possibly make a general statement in response to this? It depends on the curry and the lover in question!

Should this be encouraged? What should children be taught about sexual relations?

I’m not sure that encouraging voyeurism is entirely acceptable in modern society, but I don’t think people should necessarily find it embarrassing to witness others engaging in sexual intimacy. Children should be taught that sex is a normal, healthy activity in which adults engage for the purpose of bonding, procreation and mutual pleasure. I don’t think they should be taught that their sexuality is a fragile, precious prize which must be guarded at all costs until the ‘right’ person comes along. They should always be taught to respect others, in whatever way they choose to engage with them.

So a considerable amount of time, attention and energy is dedicated to a lover.

In some cases, yes. Again, it depends on the relationship between the people involved. I know of some lovers who live on opposite sides of Australia who only see each other a few times a year. Some people are very independent and self-contained, and don’t need a constant intimacy with another.

 

[Sair]

If we are animals there is no reason to exclude other animals, particularly apes, from rights and obligations towards us.

Except that you’re still missing the fact that different animals have different capacities. Their rights and interests and the expectations we have of them are all tied to this fact.

Are you open-minded with regard to religion and polyamory?

Sure. The fact that I don’t agree with a lot of religious teaching about sexuality doesn’t mean I just ignore it or reject it out of hand without considering whether such ideas are worthwhile. Being open-minded doesn’t mean just accepting everything you encounter.

What is doing the controlling? The brain as a whole? Or one part of the brain? How is the control exercised?

Some parts of the brain exercise control over other parts, and I don’t think this is a one-way street. Sometimes one part of the brain dominates our thoughts and actions, sometimes another part. Sometimes the brain responds to impulses generated in other parts of the body.

The mind and body are inextricably related and constantly interact with each other but the mind is the dominant element because it transcends physical causes. A mindless body is not a person.

How does the mind transcend physical causes? How does anything immaterial cause anything material? Does the immaterial mind grow and mature along with the physical body? One doesn’t usually see babies engaged in deep philosophical speculation or higher mathematics, after all. What’s with that?

If we are cogs in a vast purposeless machine our goals are imaginary.

Not to us, nor in the effects they have on our lives.

We are not compelled to reason about anything in particular nor are we compelled to reach any particular conclusions.

But if we reach conclusions that are at odds with our experience of the rest of the world, that’s hardly a useful exercise of reason.

For you it is a fundamental truth that only material objects exist and that existence is ultimately valueless, purposeless and meaningless. The circumstantial evidence against this hypothesis is that human beings have succeeded in understanding and controlling themselves and their environment to an extent unparallelled in the history of the known universe. There is no evidence that the universe is even aware that we exist!

Why should the universe be aware of our existence? Why does it matter if our lives are not of universal, absolute value? Why should that make them any less valuable to us, here and now? The fact that we have exercised an unprecedented level of control over our environment is a product of the fact that evolution shaped us as conscious, self-aware, intelligent animals that could manipulate and shape objects, could band together to achieve objectives, could create complex cultures and social interactions. Yet despite so much technological progress in some parts of the world, there are still people who live at subsistence level. Maybe we just got lucky. The fact that we don’t know precisely what consciousness is, or how it happens, is, as I’ve said before, not a reason to suppose it stems from some magical, immaterial entity that inhabits us for the duration of our lives.

People used to think that gods or spirits made the sun rise and the winds blow and the rains fall. We have physical explanations for all those things. Perhaps the day is coming when people will look back and say, “People used to think consciousness was caused by the soul. Now we know differently.” Or perhaps not. I don’t claim to know that there are fundamental truths. But the observable fact is that physical explanations have invariably trumped supernatural ones. Until we know all there is to know about matter and energy and forces and fields - and we might never know - truth is simply the best fit for what we experience. By saying that the mind ‘must’ be immaterial, you are tacitly asserting that we already have all the knowledge there is to be had about physical reality, and can therefore reject it as an explanation for the mind, the soul, consciousness, qualia, whatever. That strikes me as premature and not particularly useful.

 

[tonyrey]

So not all women should be mothers if they have more important goals? Your objection to virginity has no rational basis. Catholic women have always had leading roles in schools, hospitals, orphanages and other institutions in what has otherwise been a patriarchal society.

“generally acceptable” makes it sound as if a caring role is less valuable and significant than other roles. If they are naturally gifted for caring why does it merit criticism? It seems as if polyamory could be linked with a devaluation of femininity and motherhood as well as virginity. The traditional family is certainly regarded as an outmoded institution for emancipated women.

The fact is that not all women are cut out to be good mothers. Should a woman who has no desire to have children and wishes to pursue a career as a heart surgeon be expected to remain a virgin, or expected to have children because that’s what women do?

Who has those expectations? Who puts obstacles in their way?

Jesus was never declared to be a virgin because everyone knew He claimed to be divine and praised those who give up marriage to be His apostles.

So he was obviously a virgin, in light of this?

Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Most women are mothers, spend much more time with their children and their example is of paramount importance but infidelity on the part of either parent has always been condemned by the Church because it undermines family life.

Is infidelity in this case entirely defined in sexual terms?

Neglect, cruelty and desertion are forms of infidelity condemned by the Church.

Mothers have never been considered unchaste because they have sexual relations with their husbands.

Probably not since the middle ages, at least.

Can you provide evidence?

But without sexual intimacy you believe close friendships are thwarted. What is wrong with promiscuity if it does no harm, obviates frustration and reduces the incidence of rape?

It depends on the nature of the friendship, and whether there is mutual sexual attraction. Promiscuity can be harmful if it is undertaken with a view only to using others for sex, and otherwise not engaging with them as people. It’s worth noting that masturbation obviates sexual frustration as well.

It is possible to engage with others even for a short period of time.

Did you discuss it?

Of course.

But you decided against or came to no conclusion?

Are sexual caresses necessary?

How do you define ‘sexual’ in this case? A hug can be perfectly platonic, or it can be intended to arouse.

Not necessarily intended. It seems likely that frustration could lead to sexual caresses if the lovers are away or unsatisfactory because the need for intimacy is obviously very strong.

You haven’t explained their reasons or motives.

I think it’s pretty obvious from the behaviour that they were after no-strings-attached sex.

Which is a typical attitude in a permissive society in which sex has no spiritual significance and is concerned solely with physical satisfaction and mutual contentment.

Would curry equalise the time factor between the toilet and love-making?

How could I possibly make a general statement in response to this? It depends on the curry and the lover in question!

No matter how bad the curry the lover wouldn’t live up to the standards you have stipulated unless he is a hypochondriac or an invalid!

I’m not sure that encouraging voyeurism is entirely acceptable in modern society, but I don’t think people should necessarily find it embarrassing to witness others engaging in sexual intimacy.

What would be its purpose? Entertainment? A revolt against conventions?

Children should be taught that sex is a normal, healthy activity in which adults engage for the purpose of bonding, procreation and mutual pleasure. I don’t think they should be taught that their sexuality is a fragile, precious prize which must be guarded at all costs until the ‘right’ person comes along. They should always be taught to respect others, in whatever way they choose to engage with them.

Should they be taught they are free to have sexual relations from the age of puberty with anyone they admire and find attractive?

So a considerable amount of time, attention and energy is dedicated to a lover.

In some cases, yes.

So in most cases it is not the case!

Again, it depends on the relationship between the people involved. I know of some lovers who live on opposite sides of Australia who only see each other a few times a year. Some people are very independent and self-contained, and don’t need a constant intimacy with another.

That is hardly surprising when they have others to keep them happy and satisfied.

 

[tonyrey]

If we are animals there is no reason to exclude other animals, particularly apes, from rights and obligations towards us.

You stated that apes have moral capacities.

The fact that I don’t agree with a lot of religious teaching about sexuality doesn’t mean I just ignore it or reject it out of hand without considering whether such ideas are worthwhile.

How do you think sexual expression should be restricted - if at all?

What is doing the controlling? The brain as a whole? Or one part of the brain? How is the control exercised?

Some parts of the brain exercise control over other parts, and I don’t think this is a one-way street. Sometimes one part of the brain dominates our thoughts and actions, sometimes another part.

So different parts of the brain are responsible for our behavior?

The mind and body are inextricably related and constantly interact with each other but the mind is the dominant element because it transcends physical causes. A mindless body is not a person.

How does the mind transcend physical causes? How does one physical cause transcend another? Or is your behaviour entirely determined by different physical causes?

How does anything immaterial cause anything material?

How does anything material cause anything immaterial? Or do you believe only material things exist?

Does the immaterial mind grow and mature along with the physical body?

Why not?

One doesn’t usually see babies engaged in deep philosophical speculation or higher mathematics, after all.

One doesn’t usually see babies engaged in polyamory!

If we are cogs in a vast purposeless machine our goals are imaginary.

Not to us, nor in the effects they have on our lives.

That doesn’t mean they cease to be imaginary. A mirage has an effect - especially when you’re thirsty…

We are not compelled to reason about anything in particular nor are we compelled to reach any particular conclusions

.
But if we reach conclusions that are at odds with our experience of the rest of the world, that’s hardly a useful exercise of reason.

Reason is never useful if we can’t reason properly!

For you it is a fundamental truth that only material objects exist and that existence is ultimately valueless, purposeless and meaningless. The circumstantial evidence against this hypothesis is that human beings have succeeded in understanding and controlling themselves and their environment to an extent unparallelled in the history of the known universe. There is no evidence that the universe is even aware that we exist!

]Why should the universe be aware of our existence?

It shouldn’t and isn’t! The point is that our power of reason is the most remarkable phenomenon in the entire universe and you dismiss it as an accidental product of purposeless events - which has accidentally discovered that it is an accidental product of purposeless events. It requires an inordinate amount of faith to believe in the most stupendous miracle that has ever occurred based on an even more stupendous miracle… Ah, well. Miracles never cease, do they?

Why does it matter if our lives are not of universal, absolute value? Why should that make them any less valuable to us, here and now?

Because wishful thinking is a good recipe for disillusionment and disaster.

The fact that we have exercised an unprecedented level of control over our environment is a product of the fact that evolution shaped us as conscious, self-aware, intelligent animals that could manipulate and shape objects, could band together to achieve objectives, could create complex cultures and social interactions. The fact that we don’t know precisely what consciousness is, or how it happens, is, as I’ve said before, not a reason to suppose it stems from some magical, immaterial entity that inhabits us for the duration of our lives.

You prefer to believe it stems from a magical, material entity - or collection of entities… Do you really believe the most important things in life are the things you can see, taste, smell, hear and touch?

People used to think that gods or spirits made the sun rise and the winds blow and the rains fall. Perhaps the day is coming when people will look back and say, “People used to think consciousness was caused by the soul. Now we know differently.” I don’t claim to know that there are fundamental truths. But the observable fact is that physical explanations have invariably trumped supernatural ones.

Do you think physical explanations explain themselves? They must be exceedingly powerful if they defy the incompleteness theorem…

Until we know all there is to know about matter and energy and forces and fields - and we might never know - truth is simply the best fit for what we experience.

Is the “best fit” something you can observe with your senses? What does it look like?

By saying that the mind ‘must’ be immaterial, you are tacitly asserting that we already have all the knowledge there is to be had about physical reality, and can therefore reject it as an explanation for the mind, the soul, consciousness, qualia, whatever. That strikes me as premature and not particularly useful.

How do you deduce that an immaterial mind must be omniscient? Or even precocious?

 

[Sair]

You stated that apes have moral capacities.

Sure they do. To about the same extent as young human children. We don’t allow young children to vote, and our expectations of them are very different to our expectations of adult humans.

How do you think sexual expression should be restricted - if at all?

Sexual expression should be restricted to such as does not cause physical or emotional pain to persons. Good luck finding a hard line for this one. The restriction I apply is the same restriction I apply to all moral decisions - if I am treating a fellow being as a means to an end, rather than an end in him- or herself, that is unacceptable.

So different parts of the brain are responsible for our behavior?

Pretty much.

How does the mind transcend physical causes? How does one physical cause transcend another? Or is your behaviour entirely determined by different physical causes?
How does anything material cause anything immaterial? Or do you believe only material things exist?

An interesting set of questions. Allow me to answer with a few others. Is gravity material or immaterial? Are relationships between material things tangible and material, or intangible and immaterial? Greta Christina has an excellent blog post on this very concept.

One doesn’t usually see babies engaged in polyamory!

I suspect the opportunities and inclinations are rather scarce at that age. One does, however, find that young children masturbate. Do you think they should be told that this is naughty and dirty? Or should it be accepted as a valid form of self-exploration?

That doesn’t mean they cease to be imaginary. A mirage has an effect - especially when you’re thirsty…

A mirage is actually a specific physical effect, though - just because we mistake it for some other physical thing - in this case, a body of water - doesn’t make the mirage itself any less real. Maybe our problem lies in calling things what we want or imagine them to be, rather than what they are.

The point is that our power of reason is the most remarkable phenomenon in the entire universe and you dismiss it as an accidental product of purposeless events

Is it really the most remarkable phenomenon? Or is it just anthropocentric pride that leads to that belief? I agree it is most certainly a remarkable thing, but it is one amongst many, surely. Maybe it is not for the sake of conquering nature, but of humbling ourselves before it that we ought to use our conscious awareness.

And yes, I do consider it an accident, if by ‘accident’ you mean ‘not planned by any conscious agent’. After all, if I drive with a high blood alcohol concentration and crash into a tree, should that really be considered an accident, or a product of cause and effect relationships? Our conscious intelligence is a product of such relationships between the reproductive mechanisms of organisms and the natural environment in which said organisms exist. This is not an intelligently planned process, but neither is it something entirely random, dependent only upon chance occurrences. I don’t have any facts to hand, but I’m sure I could come up with many examples of important discoveries that humans made ‘by accident’.

 

[levinas12]

The fact that we don’t know precisely what consciousness is, or how it happens, is, as I’ve said before, not a reason to suppose it stems from some magical, immaterial entity that inhabits us for the duration of our lives.

I agree up to a point.

But I think it’s helpful to consider why Aristotle, for example, introduced “immateriality” into the discussion with his concept of “agent intellect”. He believed that some active principle apart from matter was needed to explain the sense of “intellectual” as opposed to “physical” necessity. What is “intellectual” necessity"? Consider the following example from geometry. The square of the hypotenuse of the right triangle must be equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. This “must” is not the same type of “must” that applies to physical necessity. If we don’t make this distinction, then we fall into the error of psychologism, i.e., logic, mathematics, the “hard” sciences (physics, chemistry, etc) would reflect only the contingent circuitry of the human brain, not the structure of reality. In other words, there would be no “truth” as disclosure.

But psychologism itself is self-refuting. How would we know the “truth” of the contingent circuitry? There seems to be a vicious infinite regress here.

I’m not sure whether an “immaterial” entity like the “agent intellect” is necessary. But I can see the reason why Aristotle postulated such an entity.

 

[tonyrey]

You stated that apes have moral capacities.

This hardly tallies with your statement that we are not the only animals that display co-operation, altruism, a theory of mind and a sense of justice!

How do you think sexual expression should be restricted - if at all?

Sexual expression should be restricted to such as does not cause physical or emotional pain to persons.

So otherwise it is permissible?

The restriction I apply is the same restriction I apply to all moral decisions - if I am treating a fellow being as a means to an end, rather than an end in him- or herself, that is unacceptable.

You have borrowed this criterion from Kant but it doesn’t fit into your purposeless scheme of things. Why is a person an end if ends exist only in our minds?

So different parts of the brain are responsible for our behavior?

Pretty much.

Morally responsible?

How does the mind transcend physical causes? How does one physical cause transcend another? Or is your behaviour entirely determined by different physical causes? How does anything material cause anything immaterial? Or do you believe only material things exist?

An interesting set of questions. Allow me to answer with a few others. Is gravity material or immaterial?

Material,

Are relationships between material things tangible and material, or intangible and immaterial?

Material. Now what are your answers?

One doesn’t usually see babies engaged in polyamory!

I suspect the opportunities and inclinations are rather scarce at that age. One does, however, find that young children masturbate. Do you think they should be told that this is naughty and dirty? Or should it be accepted as a valid form of self-exploration?

They are not morally responsible and therefore the question is pointless.

That doesn’t mean they cease to be imaginary. A mirage has an effect - especially when you’re thirsty…

A mirage is actually a specific physical effect, though - just because we mistake it for some other physical thing - in this case, a body of water - doesn’t make the mirage itself any less real. Maybe our problem lies in calling things what we want or imagine them to be, rather than what they are.

That is precisely what you are doing if you believe our goals are arbitrary…

The point is that our power of reason is the most remarkable phenomenon in the entire universe and you dismiss it as an accidental product of purposeless events

Is it really the most remarkable phenomenon?

Can you think of a more remarkable one?

Or is it just anthropocentric pride that leads to that belief?

Or a realistic recognition of a truth you prefer not to admit?

I agree it is most certainly a remarkable thing, but it is one amongst many, surely.

What are the others?

Maybe it is not for the sake of conquering nature, but of humbling ourselves before it that we ought to use our conscious awareness.

That is beside the point.

And yes, I do consider it an accident, if by ‘accident’ you mean ‘not planned by any conscious agent’. After all, if I drive with a high blood alcohol concentration and crash into a tree, should that really be considered an accident, or a product of cause and effect relationships?

It is an accident for which you are not responsible even though you may have been responsible for consuming too much alcohol…

Our conscious intelligence is a product of such relationships between the reproductive mechanisms of organisms and the natural environment in which said organisms exist.

Is intelligence necessary for reproduction? Amoeba have no problem…

This is not an intelligently planned process, but neither is it something entirely random, dependent only upon chance occurrences. I don’t have any facts to hand, but I’m sure I could come up with many examples of important discoveries that humans made ‘by accident’.

Discoveries presuppose intelligence.

Why does it matter if our lives are not of universal, absolute value? Why should that make them any less valuable to us, here and now?

  Because wishful thinking is a good recipe for disillusionment and disaster....

The fact that we don’t know precisely what consciousness is, or how it happens, is, as I’ve said before, not a reason to suppose it stems from some magical, immaterial entity that inhabits us for the duration of our lives.

You prefer to believe it stems from a magical, material entity - or collection of entities… Do you really believe the most important things in life are the things you can see, taste, smell, hear and touch?

I don’t claim to know that there are fundamental truths. But the observable fact is that physical explanations have invariably trumped supernatural ones.

Do you think physical explanations explain themselves? They must be exceedingly powerful if they defy the incompleteness theorem…

               Until we know all there is to know about matter and energy and forces and fields - and we might never know - truth is simply the best fit for what we experience.

Is the “best fit” something you can observe with your senses?

By saying that the mind ‘must’ be immaterial, you are tacitly asserting that we already have all the knowledge there is to be had about physical reality, and can therefore reject it as an explanation for the mind, the soul, consciousness, qualia, whatever.

How do you deduce that an immaterial mind must be omniscient?

 

[Sair]

This hardly tallies with your statement that we are not the only animals that display co-operation, altruism, a theory of mind and a sense of justice!

Have you never been lied to by a young child? Lying is evidence of a theory of mind. The child must know what you’re probably thinking in order to lie successfully. Don’t you ever see young children play together, or respond to perceived unfairness? There you have cooperation and a sense of justice. Young children will attempt to hug and comfort other young children who are crying, or will cry themselves in response. There you have altruism and empathy.

So otherwise it is permissible?

I think it is permissible, yes. But that is because I understand my body as an autonomous entity, not a possession of any god.

You have borrowed this criterion from Kant but it doesn’t fit into your purposeless scheme of things. Why is a person an end if ends exist only in our minds?

The scheme of things which you choose to call purposeless because I disbelieve in eternal life, you mean… I adopt it because it’s a useful criterion that squares well with the golden rule. I do not wish to be used by others without respect to my own interests, therefore I don’t do this to others. We are ends in ourselves, as are all things, because in ‘my purposeless scheme of things’, I recognise that others don’t exist ‘for’ me, or for any other purpose than their own existence. Purposes may be conceived in conscious minds, however, and since humans have conscious minds that may conceive purpose, that also makes us ends in ourselves.

Morally responsible?

Moral responsibility is a complex construction based on our actions and the effects they have on others. It’s made more complex by the positing of imaginary entities that have an interest in us, but let’s keep it relatively simple for now. To the extent that our brains incite, control and influence the actions of our bodies, then we take this to be moral responsibility. But the question you’re asking is actually rather ridiculous if you break it down. You are attempting to separate the components that actually make up what we perceive as persons. If I were to say, “Yes, my right frontal lobe is morally responsible for my actions”, for example, then I would be artificially separating something that is an integral part of who and what I am. I am not distinguishable from the processes of my brain and body.

Material. Now what are your answers?

The mind doesn’t transcend physical causes. It arises from them, sure, as a complex relationship between them, but remove the physical causes and you remove the mind, as surely as you remove the rainbow from the sky when the water vapour dissipates. No-one, ever, has observed a disembodied mind.

They are not morally responsible and therefore the question is pointless.

Why aren’t they morally responsible? Don’t they have immaterial minds controlling their actions? I mean, if the mind is essentially supernatural, and not a property of the physical substance of the brain, where is it and what is it doing whilst an infant is growing up? Is it off in a corner of the braincase, twiddling its thumbs and waiting for the brain to mature enough to be useful? Is it there already, or does it gradually infiltrate the brain as the child grows? And what happens in the event of mental disability, dementia, brain damage? Does the mind attempt repairs? Or does it just lay down its broken tool and take a holiday, maybe retreat to some other place? These questions are of course weird and somewhat ridiculous, but they are implied by a supernatural, immaterial, non-physical view of the mind.

 

[tonyrey]

The child must know what you’re probably thinking in order to lie successfully. Don’t you ever see young children play together, or respond to perceived unfairness? Young children will attempt to hug and comfort other young children who are crying, or will cry themselves in response. There you have altruism and empathy.

I adopt it because it’s a useful criterion that squares well with the golden rule. I do not wish to be used by others without respect to my own interests, therefore I don’t do this to others. A wish is not an obligation!

We are ends in ourselves, as are all things, because in ‘my purposeless scheme of things’, I recognise that others don’t exist ‘for’ me, or for any other purpose than their own existence. Purposes may be conceived in conscious minds, however, and since humans have conscious minds that may conceive purpose, that also makes us ends in ourselves.

In a purposeless universe all purposes are fictions. You cannot get something for nothing. Material objects have no concepts, let alone concepts of the future. In the materialist’s scheme of things concepts are no more than arrangements of particles.

Moral responsibility is a complex construction based on our actions and the effects they have on others.To the extent that our brains incite, control and influence the actions of our bodies, then we take this to be moral responsibility. If I were to say, “Yes, my right frontal lobe is morally responsible for my actions”, for example, then I would be artificially separating something that is an integral part of who and what I am. I am not distinguishable from the processes of my brain and body.

If only the processes of the brain and body exist there is no such thing as responsibility - or thought for that matter… As Antony Flew remarked - when he was an atheist - reductive materialism is clearly false.

The mind doesn’t transcend physical causes. No-one, ever, has observed a disembodied mind.

No one has ever observed a mind! Nor has anyone ever observed truth, goodness, evil, freedom, equality, justice, love, purpose. Can you explain them in terms of physical events? Do you really believe the most important things in life are the things you can see, taste, smell, hear and touch?

Why aren’t they morally responsible? Don’t they have immaterial minds controlling their actions? I mean, if the mind is essentially supernatural, and not a property of the physical substance of the brain, where is it and what is it doing whilst an infant is growing up?

Children are not morally responsible because their minds have not developed sufficiently nor do they have the knowledge on which to base decisions according to abstract principles - which, incidentally, are beyond the grasp of the lumps of tissue inside their skulls because even in adults electrical impulses lack insight into, and understanding of, what they are doing…

And what happens in the event of mental disability, dementia, brain damage? Does the mind attempt repairs? Or does it just lay down its broken tool and take a holiday, maybe retreat to some other place? These questions are of course weird and somewhat ridiculous, but they are implied by a supernatural, immaterial, non-physical view of the mind.

Can a guitarist play the guitar if it is damaged?

Our power of reason is the most remarkable phenomenon in the entire universe and you dismiss it as an accidental product of purposeless events

Is it really the most remarkable phenomenon?Can you think of a more remarkable one?

I agree it is most certainly a remarkable thing, but it is one amongst many, surely.

What are the others?

Our conscious intelligence is a product of such relationships between the reproductive mechanisms of organisms and the natural environment in which said organisms exist.

Is intelligence necessary for reproduction? Amoeba have no problem…

This is not an intelligently planned process, but neither is it something entirely random, dependent only upon chance occurrences. I don’t have any facts to hand, but I’m sure I could come up with many examples of important discoveries that humans made ‘by accident’.

Discoveries presuppose intelligence.

Why does it matter if our lives are not of universal, absolute value? Why should that make them any less valuable to us, here and now?

Because wishful thinking is a good recipe for disillusionment and disaster…

I don’t claim to know that there are fundamental truths. But the observable fact is that physical explanations have invariably trumped supernatural ones.

Do you think physical explanations explain themselves? They must be exceedingly powerful if they defy the incompleteness theorem…

Until we know all there is to know about matter and energy and forces and fields - and we might never know - truth is simply the best fit for what we experience.

Is the “best fit” something you can observe with your senses?

By saying that the mind ‘must’ be immaterial, you are tacitly asserting that we already have all the knowledge there is to be had about physical reality, and can therefore reject it as an explanation for the mind, the soul, consciousness, qualia, whatever.

How do you deduce that an immaterial mind must be omniscient?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Sair]

Sair;8032286:

Are young children morally responsible

for what they do?

I don’t think so. But you seemed to be implying that if other animals had comparable capacities to young human children, we should lay moral obligations upon them; or alternatively, that this meant other animals had no moral capacity whatsoever.

So causing physical and emotional pain to persons is the **sole **

criterion of what is right or wrong?

For a broad understanding of persons and an understanding of pain that encompasses not just short- but long-term consequences of actions, yes.

A wish is not an obligation!

Of course not. But how is it in my interests to treat others badly if I would prefer them to treat me well?

In a purposeless universe all purposes are fictions. You cannot get something for nothing. Material objects have no concepts, let alone concepts of the future. In the materialist’s scheme of things concepts are no more than arrangements of particles.

There is more to the physical universe than matter. There is a difference between understanding the relationships between matter, energy, forces and fields as natural and physical, as I do, and understanding them as necessarily supernatural and undefined and mystical, as you seem to.

If only the processes of the brain and body exist there is no such thing as responsibility - or thought for that matter… As Antony Flew remarked - when he was an atheist - reductive materialism is clearly false.

What about nonreductive physicalism?

No one has ever observed a mind!

Except through the actions of physical beings.

Nor has anyone ever observed truth, goodness, evil, freedom, equality, justice, love, purpose.

Except as relationships between physical conditions.

Children are not morally responsible because their minds have not developed sufficiently nor do they have the knowledge on which to base decisions according to abstract principles - which, incidentally, are beyond the grasp of the lumps of tissue inside their skulls because even in adults electrical impulses lack insight into, and understanding of, what they are doing…

Yet we still undertake the moral and social education of children. How does a mind a) exist and b) acquire knowledge of any kind without physical phenomena and the relationships between them?

Can a guitarist play the guitar if it is damaged?

So you are acknowledging that the mind and the physical body are separate entities?

Can you think of a more remarkable one?

Remarkable in an objective sense, or just from our perspective? Personally, I think the processes of evolution that produced us are rather more remarkable than our varying mental abilities.

Is intelligence necessary for reproduction?

In environments where intelligence leads to favourable survival rates, yes, it is necessary for the differential reproductive success of certain lines of descent.

Discoveries presuppose intelligence.

But an intelligence that is tied directly to the physical world.

Because wishful thinking is a good recipe for disillusionment and disaster…

As demonstrated by the history of most religions…

Do you think physical explanations explain themselves? They must be exceedingly powerful if they defy the incompleteness theorem…

Firstly, you are attempting to apply an abstract mathematical construct to the real material world, which is never particularly precise; secondly, a near approximation of accuracy is a sufficient level of understanding to serve survival processes, which is what human minds evolved for - that and understanding other human minds, which are complex and variable.

Is the “best fit” something you can observe with your senses

?

What else would one observe it with? One observes that things are a certain way, with the senses. One finds ways of describing what one observes. The accuracy of our observations is what informs the level of truth we may reach with our descriptions of reality.

How do you deduce that an immaterial mind must be

omniscient?

At what point did I claim such a thing? I don’t even think purely immaterial minds can exist. How would I be in a position to make any claims as to their abilities?

 

[Curious_Seed]

A man and a woman complement each other physically, psychologically and spiritually. Their love unites them and enables them to bring a child into the world. In our experience it is the closest parallel to the perfect unity of the three divine Persons which stems from Love - the greatest creative power that exists…

The greatest creative power that exists?

A bit of a stretch there, no?

 

[tonyrey]

You seemed to be implying that if other animals had comparable capacities to young human children, we should lay moral obligations upon them; or alternatively, that this meant other animals had no moral capacity whatsoever.

For a broad understanding of persons and an understanding of pain that encompasses not just short- but long-term consequences of actions, yes.Are there exceptions?

A wish is not an obligation!

Of course not. But how is it in my interests to treat others badly if I would prefer them to treat me well?Millions of people don’t agree with you if we are to judge by the way they behave.

There is a difference between understanding the relationships between matter, energy, forces and fields as natural and physical, as I do, and understanding them as necessarily supernatural and undefined and mystical, as you seem to.

How can matter, energy, forces and fields produce purposeful activity - which presupposes hindsight, insight and foresight, all of which they lack?

Reductive materialism is clearly false.

What about nonreductive physicalism?That’s your problem not mine!

No one has ever observed a mind!

Except through the actions of physical beings.No one has ever observed a mind. So according to you it doesn’t exist or it is just the activity of the brain.

Nor has anyone ever observed truth, goodness, evil, freedom, equality, justice, love, purpose.

Except as relationships between physical conditions.Not necessarily. They are often confined to mental activity.

Yet we still undertake the moral and social education of children. How does a mind a) exist and b) acquire knowledge of any kind without physical phenomena and the relationships between them?

How does matter exist? How the brain acquire knowledge of any kind without mental phenomena and the relationships between them?

So you are acknowledging that the mind and the physical body are separate entities?

They are inextricably linked. A mindless body cannot reason and a bodiless mind cannot express itself.

Personally, I think the processes of evolution that produced us are rather more remarkable than our varying mental abilities.

That is hardly surprising in view of their ignorance! It is the most incredible metaphysical conjuring trick ever performed!

Is intelligence necessary for reproduction?

In environments where intelligence leads to favourable survival rates, yes, it is necessary for the differential reproductive success of certain lines of descent.Did amoeba need intelligence in order to reproduce? The issue is what caused them to become intelligent given that they have survived whereas intelligent animals have become extinct.

An intelligence that is tied directly to the physical world.

Not necessarily. Are all your thoughts about physical objects?
Because wishful thinking is a good recipe for disillusionment and disaster…

As demonstrated by individuals like Nietzsche who detested religion - and other atheists.

According to a study in the American Journal of American Psychiatry atheists have a substantial higher rate of suicide than people that have some type of religious affiliation. ajp.psychiatryonline.org/

Firstly, you are attempting to apply an abstract mathematical construct to the real material world, which is never particularly precise; secondly, a near approximation of accuracy is a sufficient level of understanding to serve survival processes, which is what human minds evolved for - that and understanding other human minds, which are complex and variable.

Mathematical principles are derived from logical principles which reflect the nature of physical reality. The success of science is ample evidence of its extreme accuracy and relevance to the real material world. Survival value is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of the development and power of the human mind which greatly exceeds what is required for self-preservation. Stephen Hawking has pointed out the incidence of life is probably low because intelligence is a disadvantage, a view confirmed by the main threat to life on earth by mankind…

Is the “best fit” something you can observe with your senses?

One observes that things are a certain way, with the senses. The accuracy of our observations is what informs the level of truth we may reach with our descriptions of reality.
The interpretation of our observations is not performed by our observations but by abstract thought processes. “accuracy”, “informs”, “the level of truth” and “reality” are all beyond the scope of our senses.

How do you deduce that an immaterial mind must be omniscient?

At what point did I claim such a thing? “By saying that the mind ‘must’ be immaterial, you are tacitly asserting that we already have** all the knowledge** there is to be had about physical reality”…

BTW You seem reluctant to affirm that the most important things in life are the things you can see, taste, smell, hear and touch…

[/QUOTE]

 

[tonyrey]

The greatest creative power that exists?

A bit of a stretch there, no?

Can you suggest a greater one?

 

[Sair]

tonyrey;8027188:

Children have the capacity to grasp and apply abstract principles, use syntactic language and reason logically whereas apes cannot and that is why they are never morally responsible. They cannot understand

the concepts of innocence or guilt, let alone give reasons. It is far-fetched to think they have a theory of mind and a **concept **of justice - and that all our qualities are animal qualities.

Oh, okay. That’s why orangutans can be taught sign language, and why social apes such as chimps and bonobos have complex societies and hierarchies, why even baboons have been observed to actively engage in deceptive activities. It’s amazing how interesting and complex other animals seem when you think outside the anthropocentric box…

How can matter, energy, forces and fields produce purposeful activity - which presupposes hindsight, insight and foresight, all of which they lack?

How do you know they lack them? The very fact that we exercise these things as physical beings would suggest that certain configurations of physical substance and properties produce the ability to interact with the environment in such a way as to obtain and organise information about it, thus producing the abovementioned effects.

How

does matter exist? How the brain acquire knowledge of any kind without mental phenomena and the relationships between them?

Matter, according to modern physics, is a form of energy. How would mental phenomena exist except as a kind of physical phenomena, given that so far as we observe, they are inextricably tied to functioning brains?

Did amoeba need intelligence in order to reproduce? The issue is what caused them to become intelligent given that they have survived whereas intelligent animals have become extinct.

You do have a working knowledge of how evolution operates, right? You seem to be implying that the process of evolution has some kind of intent to produce intelligence, and is unwise to do so given the extinction rates of intelligent animals. Amoeba don’t need intelligence to reproduce, and they also don’t need sex, as it happens. This is what works for the environments in which amoeba flourish. Evolution by natural selection is a process of differential survival rates of organisms in their environment. That means not only the landscape or terrain in which they exist, but the animal communities amongst which they exist. In certain circumstances, intelligence and adaptability win out.

According to a study in the American Journal of American Psychiatry atheists have a substantial higher rate of suicide than people that have some type of religious affiliation.

Oh, okay. So one should invest belief in things one strongly suspects are not true, in order to avoid depression and suicide?

Mathematical principles are derived from logical principles which reflect the nature of physical reality.

Or at least a certain understanding of physical reality, which may not be entirely accurate. Quantum mechanics tends not to adhere to the principles of classical logic.

"By saying that the mind ‘must’ be immaterial, you are tacitly asserting that we already have** all the knowledge**

there is to be had about physical reality"…

BTW You seem reluctant to affirm that the most important things in life are the things you can see, taste, smell, hear and touch…

I think you misunderstood - when you claim the mind must be immaterial, you are implicitly claiming that you know all there is to be known about physical phenomena, in order to reject them as an explanation for the mind. Well, let’s see - two of the most important things in my life are my husband and my dog - I can certainly see, smell, hear, touch and occasionally taste them.

 

[tonyrey]

Children have the capacity to grasp and apply abstract principles, use syntactic language and reason logically whereas apes cannot and that is why they are never morally responsible. They cannot understand the concepts of innocence or guilt, let alone give reasons. It is far-fetched to think they have a theory of mind and a concept of justice - and that all our qualities are animal qualities.

It’s astonishing how animal-like and simple human beings seem when you are thinking inside the simianocentric box - unable to grasp the significance of abstract principles, syntactic language, logical reasoning, free will and moral responsibility…

How can matter, energy, forces and fields produce purposeful activity - which presupposes hindsight, insight and foresight, all of which they lack?

How do you know they lack them? The very fact that we exercise these things as physical beings would suggest that certain configurations of physical substance and properties produce the ability to interact with the environment in such a way as to obtain and organise information about it, thus producing the above-mentioned effects.

Your logic is defective:

1. Our bodies have physical forces
   2.** We** are capable of purposeful activity
2. Therefore physical forces have produced purposeful activity!

How does matter exist? How the brain acquire knowledge of any kind without mental phenomena and the relationships between them?

Matter, according to modern physics, is a form of energy. How would mental phenomena exist except as a kind of physical phenomena, given that so far as we observe, they are inextricably tied to functioning brains?

What is the evidence for your assumption that matter is the **sole **reality?

So causing physical and emotional pain is the sole criterion of what is right or wrong?

For a broad understanding of persons and an understanding of pain that encompasses not just short- but long-term consequences of actions, yes.

What are the exceptions to the rule?

But how is it in my interests to treat others badly if I would prefer them to treat me well?

In many ways when your interests conflict with theirs…

Did amoeba need intelligence in order to reproduce? The issue is what caused them to become intelligent given that they have survived whereas intelligent animals have become extinct.

You seem to be implying that the process of evolution has some kind of intent to produce intelligence, and is unwise to do so given the extinction rates of intelligent animals.

False. Evolution is a** physical **process which has no insight or intent whatsoever.

Amoeba don’t need intelligence to reproduce, and they also don’t need sex, as it happens.

Then how and why did sex originate?

This is what works for the environments in which amoeba flourish. Evolution by natural selection is a process of differential survival rates of organisms in their environment. That means not only the landscape or terrain in which they exist, but the animal communities amongst which they exist.

How and why did intelligence originate?

In many circumstances, intelligence and adaptability win out.

In many more circumstances intelligence and adaptability have become extinct whereas simple organisms have survived to this very day. You have just referred deprecatingly to the extinction rates of intelligent animals!

According to a study in the American Journal of American Psychiatry atheists have a substantial higher rate of suicide than people that have some type of religious affiliation.

Oh, okay. So one should invest belief in things one strongly suspects are not true, in order to avoid depression and suicide?

Certainly - if one has an irrational suspicion… You were the one who stated the history of most religions is evidence that wishful thinking is a good recipe for disillusionment and disaster whereas it turns out that atheists have a substantially higher rate of suicide! Or perhaps you think that is a positive response to the problems of life!

Mathematical principles are derived from logical principles which reflect the nature of physical reality.

Or at least a certain understanding of physical reality, which may not be entirely accurate.

Are you denying the power and success of the scientific method?

Quantum mechanics tends not to adhere to the principles of classical logic.

By their fruits you shall know them…

I think you misunderstood - when you claim the mind must be immaterial, you are implicitly claiming that you know all there is to be known about physical phenomena, in order to reject them as an explanation for the mind.

When you claim the mind must be material you are implicitly claiming that you know all there is to be known about the nature of reality…

Well, let’s see - two of the most important things in my life are my husband and my dog - I can certainly see, smell, hear, touch and occasionally taste them.

Do you say to him “I love you, my dear old thing”?! Is he just a material object as far as you are concerned? Husbands **are **often regarded as pieces of furniture. What does he consist of? Solely of what you can see, taste, smell, hear and touch? I wonder what your love for him consists of…