I hardly think anyone with a background in chemistry or physics is going to provide assistance in understanding how the arrangement of protons, neutrons, and electrons results in persons becoming conscious, self-control and insight into reality…
I think it’s appropriate to refer back to the level of abstractions named in the section of the message to which I was responding. I’ve copied it below.
From what I see the levels of abstraction that were discussed there were molecules and atoms. Would you like to shift from the composition of molecules from atoms to the composition of conscious beings from atoms? (we can do that, but it may go far outside the boundaries of what was being discussed before).
I probably know just enough to be dangerous. In Catholic Philosophy, the word “Good” is an objective term and not a subjective one like “morality”. It comes ultimately from Plato’s Theory of Forms. God is Pure Act meaning that He has no potentiality and, ie, is the First Cause of all things. The Form of the Good is the highest of the forms. Good means to know the Form which is to know the perfect archetype of the thing.
What about it?
I don’t see much reason to doubt that people are just complicated things.
Please tell me you’re joking. You aren’t actually defending mysticism, are you? If so, I suppose you would also say that humans adopted astrology, alchemy, and phrenology because they recognized the inadequacy of astronomy, chemistry, and neurology?
It may not be the answer to everything. But that doesn’t imply that religion answers the questions science doesn’t.
No, primarily for two reasons:
Think about this for a moment: Suppose that we lived in a world where everyone despised each other and meant to harm each other, but ultimately no one could actually do another person harm. What good would it do to describe people as having “evil motives”? (I’m assuming you agree that in this scenario people would have evil motives.)
Well, we usually consider the phrase “spoiled brat” to be derogatory because it suggests that a person’s expectations of their own treatment are too great. However, we’re talking about an ideal world here, and so no expectation is too great.
Maybe. But usually suffering begets more suffering than happiness. A lot of people tell themselves that having a difficult life has “made them stronger and more successful”, but this is usually a transparent attempt to disregard personal tragedies. In other words, it’s an act of thought suppression. I think we would all prefer to not undergo personal tragedies in spite of the strength they might lend.
Stay away from my future kids, then.
Alright, I’ll grant you that. But why would we want to allow people to share their misery when we could just do away with the misery? Why would we want a doctor to heal a person’s wounds when we can just eliminate the possibility of being wounded to begin with? Love and caring can exist without suffering.
It depends on what I’m wanting. The desire to eliminate suffering is an admirable one, I think. I would like to have my way in that regard.
Tell that to nearly any celebrity. A person can enjoy their life without having obstacles or difficulties.
Well obviously society can’t be happy because it isn’t sentient. “Society” is just an abstract concept used to refer to a group of individuals. It doesn’t have feelings.
While I’m sure emotions are involved, I suspect that people value their lives based on more than emotion. I think a large factor is reconciling one’s self-image with one’s preferences. These are far more ingrained than emotions. Therefore, I think our perception of self-worth is not as fickle as you suspect.
I disagree. If I say, “I want the majority of people to be happy”, then the common good is in my interest. Now you can toy with words and say that it’s not in my “self”-interest, but the bottom line is that if I truly feel that way, then my happiness is contingent on the happiness of others.
And if that’s what he wanted, then by creating us, he was satisfying his desires. Therefore, his act was self-interested.
But if you believe something is right then you’ll want to do it. This is because our moralities are closely entwined with our preferences. Because of this, if you do what you believe is the right thing, you’re satisfying at least one of your desires.
I don’t. I don’t believe that there are immaterial things, but I don’t believe there aren’t immaterial things either. You don’t understand that people can be neutral with regard to belief.
Yes, and neurology is getting closer and closer to demonstrating that our thoughts may indeed be material things.
Matter doesn’t “create”. It can be rearranged or converted into energy, but it can’t create.
I’m not. You are trolling at this point.
Firstly, “why?” is usually an unnecessary question in science, because it assumes that something is intended when there may be no reason to suspect that it is.
We have simply defined “good” to be that which God is, does, or orders. This way, even Biblical events such as the termination of all males captured alive after the fall of Jericho, including children, and the enslavement of female children, becomes “good” because God ordered it. Etc. Make sense?
Anything to get out of this miserable and corrupt world and go to Heaven is not only good, but kind!
Glad you made that clear. There’s an opportunity for confusion to come about when some one applies the meaning of the word “good” as used in a secular context.
Sure, but I don’t see your point.
I’m sure that preferences do occasionally conflict, but that doesn’t negate the fact that we take action because certain preferences are in place.
Yes, we do have the capacity for self-sacrifice, but people choose to do such things because they desire to.
Such as?
By obeying your conscience you’re preventing yourself from feeling guilty, and people would prefer not to feel guilty. You would still be satisfying a preference.
I was stating a suspicion of mine, not something I dogmatically cling to.
Wait, materials aren’t real?
I don’t know, but that’s what I suspect.
Materialism is the belief that all things are material, not the belief that all things are possibly material. Stating a possibility is not an affirmation of dogma–it is usually indicative of open-mindedness.
I didn’t say that. I said that in most cases there isn’t a reason to suspect that something in the universe is intentional. There might be a reason for things, and there might not be. However, if you claim that there is a reason for things, the burden of proof is on you.
Do you or do you not agree that molecules can have properties that their constituent atoms lack? By definition, these properties would be emergent. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about this. An affirmative answer to this question necessarily implies that you believe emergent properties exist.
Yes, as in an incomplete description or representation or generalization. These are part of every day communication. If I say “I drove my car to the store to get bread” one could treat “car” as an abstraction of a motorized ground transport with wheels (usually 4) even though I haven’t identified any of the details of the car. As more details are known about the car it becomes less abstract (or more concrete) with the least abstract being an instantiated uniquely identified car.
My explanation of abstractions above may be sufficient for eliminating these questions. Consciousness and self-control could be considered referent abstractions if they are indirectly or ambiguously refer to something that has those properties. If I am speaking about molecules in general then they can be considered abstractions to. Or one could instantiate a particular molecule and speak of it concretely.
Right, but you need more than facts to derive morality; you need some kind of bias. I mean, I prefer for the world to be one way and someone else prefers the world to be entirely different. A single moral code cannot be based on both of these sets of preferences, since they are in conflict with each other. In order to have morality, you have to have some kind of bias that will let you discriminate based on preference, i.e., a bias that will let you say “this preference is better than this one”.
The fact that people have conflicted preferences shows that there is no single sense of “self-interest” for any given person. If I have some preferences that concentrate on the common good and some that concentrate on my own good, then a state of affairs that appeals to either of those groups (the majority or myself) could possibly help my self-interest in one way but harm it in another.
Please provide a real-life example of someone choosing a course of action without finding it preferable in some respect to their other options. You can’t, because it doesn’t happen. What’s more, it doesn’t seem like it even can happen. That’s why you haven’t given a single concrete example.
Please be specific. Whenever I conform to someone else’s desires it’s because I find doing that to be preferable to the other options. I can’t think of a single moment when I have “shot myself in the foot”, so to speak, without expecting any sort of payoff. If a friend asks for a favor, I do it because it makes me feel good, for example. Feeling like you’re a generous person who’s well-liked is a kind of payoff in itself.
I haven’t. If you’re so convinced that I’m a materialist, prove that I am. Name one time that I’ve stated that materials are all that exist.
I don’t know about you, but my metaphysical viewpoints don’t substantially affect my life.
Actually, you assert that the entire universe has a purpose. The burden of proof is on you.
We’ve made progress here. You started by vehemently decrying emergent properties as “cloaks of ignorance”, but now you agree that they exist.
Those are not my assumptions. Some of those are counter to what I think. For example I don’t think that everything comes from molecules (though things that can be decomposed to molecules are certainly ubiquitous in my environment!). But before I start down the trail of discussing those four items I first consider why I am having this exchange. And it was to point out a direction that could lead to an explanation of how compounds can have properties that their constituent atoms do not.
I’m sure there is potential for that to sound absurd and counter to one’s intuition. Though intuition and something sounding absurd isn’t always the best guide for determining if something is possible.
Wrong, bad or evil in us - limits our freedom. We become slaves of our wrong, bad or evil choices or decisions.
The problem with that notion is that the people who have contributed to making the world what it is are mostly God-fearing Christians who figure on going to heaven. If they succeeded, which seems simply a matter of following some doctrine and showing up for church on Sundays, heaven will be full of the same nits who screwed up earth.