Morality and Subjectivity

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

If all you say is true, then …

Imagine a person who honestly forms an opinion that slavery is justified, because (in their estimation) it tends to lead to the best consequences. What would you say to them? They have a different viewpoint from yours, but you have no rational way to distinguish your position from his. You can argue all day about how to calculate best consequences, but he always has a sensible answer.

I am only reading this thread now but this is a good place to have started the thread. Essentially it is the standard challenge to moral relativism put in your own words. How do you argue your moral point against someone who has equal arguments for their contrary one is what you are asking.

I will answer this without appealing to your example because I think it is worth noting the example you choose is entirely fantasy as no one here or that I am aware of HAS any good arguments at this time to argue for slavery.

My response however is a very simple one. Morality is merely a subjective set of rules we work on in which to help us live with Each Other. It is therefore “Each other” that I present to you as an answer to breaking the above dilemma. Plain and simple democracy.

If someone thinks they have good arguments against my moral position (on slavery or anything) then let him go out and campaign for it and educate people, including me, on his arguments. I will do the same.

Then me and mine, will see him and his down the voting booth on voting day. To return to your example therefore, if someone has a list of arguments for slavery I am AGOG to hear them. At this time however I find myself not worried in the slightest that there are any arguments waiting on the wings to change the minds of the democratic public in my country.

 

[o_mlly]

Understanding that this subject has been addressed both directly and indirectly on several threads…I firmly believe any moral system must be able to prove its worth in terms of the observable and experiential consequences of adhering to it. If however, to be a moral relativist or ethical subjectivist means that I think the morality of actions is informed by subjectivity, and is relative to the circumstances in which any moral decision is made, then the answer must be yes.

…

However, my contention is that morality springs from and depends upon the experience of sentient beings - that morality is inextricably bound to subjectivity.

… without subjectivity, happiness would not be possible. We would have no reason to care about others, no reason or ability to feel compassion or empathy or love. These are the very things that inform our moral choices, and I believe that to deny the role of subjectivity in a moral system is as much as to say that any such system has as its end goal something other than human happiness.

There is, of course, a lot more to be said on this subject, but I think the above will serve as an adequate introduction to the thread, so for now I shall leave it open to comment.

After reading the OP’s comment, I jumped to page 5 of the thread and saw the topic had somehow driffted to the formula and process for producing atomic weapons. So, I skipped the rest of the thread.

But I do offer the OP this web site for transcripts of Peter Kreeft’s detailed arguments against moral relativism:

peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism/relativism_transcription.htm

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[tonyrey]

                 [

The concept of One Supreme Being is a simpler and more adequate explanation of the development of rational persons

from atomic particles for the simple reason that it integrates consciousness, truth, goodness, freedom, beauty, love and purpose - recognising them as fundamental realities rather than rejecting them as either illusions or “efficacious human concepts”.
How does the God hypothesis explain the things that you say it explains?
It relates all these aspects of reality to one another, to the order and intelligibility of the universe, to the evidence for Design, to the progressive nature of evolution, the development of rational beings from irrational particles,and to our power of reason, creativity, conscience, free will, responsibility and capacity for love.

How did God supposedly go about creating a universe that includes truth, goodness, beauty, etc if not through natural selection?

We obviously cannot understand the nature of the creative power of God but we do have experience of our own creative power which inanimate objects lack. We also know that intelligent selection is a far more powerful agent than natural selection which functions mechanistically without insight or foresight. That is why NeoDarwinism is an inadequate explanation of progressive evolution. Since natural selection presupposes the conditions necessary for life and its development it is only one factor in the process. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6076066#post6076066

Do you regard your consciousness, power of reason and decision-making, free will and capacity for love as magical?

No. I am not the one proposing that claiming “goddidit with his magical powers” adds anything to biological evolutionary theory.In other words you believe “matterdidit with its magical powers” is a sufficient and adequate explanation. Your pragmatism is based on the metaphysical theory known as materialism.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6076066#post6076066

How do you explain and integrate

them? Or do you too reject them as merely efficacious human concepts?You keep saying that I don’t think any of those things are real.I am simply asking you how you explain and integrate them or whether you believe they are just human concepts.

Since you believe in them and believe that your God hypothesis explains them, perhaps you could support your claim by explaining how God created free will and love and stuff.

God did not create consciousness, rationality, free will and love because they are inherent in His creative power… We know from our own experience that these powers are interlinked and inseparable.

 

[Sair]

It is self-evident that all our thoughts about morality, science and everything else come from ourselves. Why is science not metaphysically subjective given that it is based on **our interpretation **of sense data?

Here you are in danger of solipsism. The reason the scientific method requires that experiments be repeatable is precisely to confirm that the data being measured behave in the same manner, regardless of who is doing the observing. By the same token, the number of stones used to build York Minster remains the same, regardless of who counts them. This is a metaphysically objective reality. On the contrary, if you and I both have a memory of a certain place - let’s say York Minster for the sake of uniformity - our memories will not be identical, because memory is metaphysically subjective.

The status of morality is clearly affected by whether human beings are animals which exist by chance or rational beings who exist by Design.

Is it? Does it automatically acquire a greater importance and compulsion through being a product of design? If so, why?

If all our experiences stem from our biochemistry our “evaluation” of them is beyond our control. There is no reason to regard one evaluation as superior to another because they are all equally insignificant in the amoral context of biochemistry.

This is why we need to be able to assess consequences. We can build, from experience, an understanding of what kinds of actions in what kinds of circumstances lead to certain consequences. Brain chemistry both produces experience, and is shaped by experience. It is a two-way street.

Since it is possible for a person to have commitment to any version of morality - including undiluted egoism - there is no prima facie reason to suppose it is a mistake. The real question is whether the biological version is adequate and worthy of commitment. Why should a particular species be singled out?

Of all people to accuse of singling out humans for special consideration, you pick me!

If you take the biological, evolutionary basis of morality seriously, it seems compelling. Psychological experiments have been done that have strongly suggested the existence of an ingrained moral sense - a wide variety of people, from a wide variety of cultural and religious backgrounds, responded to given moral dilemmas in the same way, with only a very small percentage responding contrary to the norm. What does this tell us? Is our moral sense evolved, or is it imparted by religious faith and cultural shaping? If a moral sense is programmed into us, why must this be necessarily less compelling than moral senses shaped by culture (including religion)?

 

[wanstronian]

It relates all these aspects of reality to one another, to the order and intelligibility of the universe, to the evidence for Design, to the progressive nature of evolution, the development of rational beings from irrational particles,and to our power of reason, creativity, conscience, free will, responsibility and capacity for love.

What you clearly still do not realise Tony, is that it does those things **only **as a result of your arbitrary postulation that “God did it all” - a postulation that you cannot substantiate. It is very easy to fabricate an arbitrary explanation that links X, Y and Z, then baldly state that the explanation must be right because it links X, Y and Z. This is clearly circular reasoning, and rests upon an initial baseless supposition, which is that your pre-held beliefs are right … unless you can expand and explain more about the processes involved. In other words, provide the evidence that you have been challenged to provide on numerous occasions. As a previous poster said: Don’t worry about whether you think it’s up to atheistic scrutiny, just present the evidence that you believe supports your arguments. To date you’ve never done so, it’s always been, “If you atheists can’t describe in detail exactly how your theories are correct, then I win by default.” As has been pointed out, you demand a significant amount of detail from those who reject your simplistic “God did it” answer, but seem to think yourself immune from having to provide an equivalent level of detail, presumably as a result of some sort of self-invented divine concession. This makes no sense, and it’s clear from every post that your argument is based on nothing more than your personal incredulity - much like erstwhile proponents of Flat-Earthedness, geocentricity, and luminiferous aether.

We obviously cannot understand the nature of the creative power of God but we do have experience of our own creative power which inanimate objects lack. We also know that intelligent selection is a far more powerful agent than natural selection which functions mechanistically without insight or foresight.

Why should a more powerful process be the right one? Again, this presupposes your conclusion - that intelligence is at work. It’s another circular argument.

That is why NeoDarwinism is an inadequate explanation of progressive evolution.

Yet any and all evidence supports it!? What gives you the authority to unilaterally reject this evidence, in favour of a hypothesis that has none?

Since natural selection presupposes the conditions necessary for life and its development it is only one factor in the process.

Yes, but what do you think this proves?

In other words you believe “matterdidit with its magical powers” is a sufficient and adequate explanation. Your pragmatism is based on the metaphysical theory known as materialism.

This is just a petulant knee-jerk response on your part, unless you class nature as ‘magical’ for some obscure reason?

 

[Sair]

It relates all these aspects of reality to one another, to the order and intelligibility of the universe, to the evidence for Design, to the progressive nature of evolution, the development of rational beings from irrational particles,and to our power of reason, creativity, conscience, free will, responsibility and capacity for love.
We obviously cannot understand the nature of the creative power of God but we do have experience of our own creative power which inanimate objects lack. We also know that intelligent selection is a far more powerful agent than natural selection which functions mechanistically without insight or foresight. That is why NeoDarwinism is an inadequate explanation of progressive evolution. Since natural selection presupposes the conditions necessary for life and its development it is only one factor in the process.
In other words you believe “matterdidit with its magical powers” is a sufficient and adequate explanation. Your pragmatism is based on the metaphysical theory known as materialism.
I am simply asking you how you explain and integrate them or whether you believe they are just human concepts.
God did not create consciousness, rationality, free will and love because they are inherent in His creative power… We know from our own experience that these powers are interlinked and inseparable.

 

[Leela]

It relates all these aspects of reality to one another, to the order and intelligibility of the universe, to the evidence for Design, to the progressive nature of evolution, the development of rational beings from irrational particles,and to our power of reason, creativity, conscience, free will, responsibility and capacity for love.
**We obviously cannot understand the nature of the creative power of God **

You propose that intelligent selection is needed to supplement natural selection. How does this intelligent selection work. Does God need to decide which species will live and which will die rather than letting nature “decide”?

In other words you believe “matterdidit with its magical powers” is a sufficient and adequate explanation. Your pragmatism is based on the metaphysical theory known as materialism.

No. I mean that when I don’t know how something works, I’m willing to say “I don’t know,” and I’m unwilling to say “goddidit” and pretend that saying so somehow means that I have explained how it works.

I am simply asking you how you explain and integrate them or whether you believe they are just human concepts.

What do you mean by “just human concepts”? What is a nonhuman concept, and how do human concepts suffer by comparison to nonhuman concepts to warrant the “just”?

Best,
Leela

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;6078088:

Your so-called explanation then seems to amount to saying that we cannot explain it.

On the contrary. I have described an ultimate Reality that accounts for the highest and lowest aspects of known reality. What have you given? Inanimate matter? Or some unknown source of everything? What they account for? Precisely nothing - apart from inanimate matter!

You propose that intelligent selection is needed to supplement natural selection.

Incorrect! I did not propose anything of the sort. Intelligent selection does not supplement natural selection it utilises it.

How does this intelligent selection work?

How do you select? By using your power of reason.

Does God need to decide which species will live and which will die rather than letting nature “decide”?

Nature makes no decisions. It is a set of blind processes designed to function to fulfil a multitude of purposes. Purposes are established by creators, inventors and directors who determine the goals and the means by which they are to be attained, intervening where necessary to ensure a successful outcome.

No. I mean that when I don’t know how something works, I’m willing to say “I don’t know,” and I’m unwilling to say “goddidit” and pretend that saying so somehow means that I have explained how it works.

You overlook the fact that I have explicitly stated that I (or anyone else for that matter) cannot understand the nature of the creative power of God . Is that a pretence? So what important aspects of reality can you explain and what can’t you explain? There’s no point in criticising me if you have no alternative… How do you proceed from “I don’t know how everything originated but evolution did the rest”?

What do you mean by “just human concepts”? What is a nonhuman concept, and how do human concepts suffer by comparison to nonhuman concepts to warrant the “just”?

Human concepts are those “grasped” by human beings, whereas non-human concepts relate to non-human rational beings> You cannot assume that we are the only rational beings, can you? You really wish to ask why “just”, i.e. “non more than”? The answer is that they do not exist only in the mind. They are facts and like facts they exist whether we recognise them or not. You can deny that something or some one is good or evil, true or false, just or unjust, free or not free but that does make one jot of difference.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;6078088:

This is a very interesting and revealing post, to which I shall make sure to respond when it it is not less than an hour from midnight in my part of the world!

Have a good rest… and pleasant dreams!

 

[tonyrey]

It is self-evident that all our thoughts about morality, science and everything else come from ourselves. Why is science not metaphysically subjective given that it is based on **our interpretation **

If I were a solipsist I wouldn’t be having a discussion with anyone!

The reason the scientific method requires that experiments be repeatable is precisely to confirm that the data being measured behave in the same manner, regardless of who is doing the observing. By the same token, the number of stones used to build York Minster remains the same, regardless of who counts them. This is a metaphysically objective reality. On the contrary, if you and I both have a memory of a certain place - let’s say York Minster for the sake of uniformity - our memories will not be identical, because memory is metaphysically subjective.

Absolutely true! Now, don’t you think similar experiments are carried out in psychology? They establish the fact that intelligence, feelings, emotions, sensations and decisions inter alia are objectively real.

The status of morality is clearly affected by whether human beings are animals which exist by chance or rational beings who exist by Design.

Is it? Does it automatically acquire a greater importance and compulsion through being a product of design? If so, why?

If you plan to have children you do so because you appreciate the inestimable value of existence and wish to share it with others. You love your children and you long to be loved by them. You want them to be happy but when they grow up you respect their freedom because you know that without freedom life loses most of, if not all, its value. So you are prepared to take the risk of being disappointed and suffer if they become criminals or drug addicts and reject you. But in spite of everything they know that you love them, care for them and have done everything you can to ensure that they are happy. Normal children will appreciate you, be immensely grateful and feel contented because they realise they belong to a wonderful family, are not fatherless, motherless and lost in a harsh world with no one to care for them but have a home to which they will ultimately return - if they choose to…

If all our experiences stem from our biochemistry our “evaluation” of them is beyond our control. There is no reason to regard one evaluation as superior to another because they are all equally insignificant in the amoral context of biochemistry.

This is why we need to be able to assess consequences. We can build, from experience, an understanding of what kinds of actions in what kinds of circumstances lead to certain consequences. Brain chemistry both produces experience, and is shaped by experience. It is a two-way street.

It is a two-way street but it leads to the same destination! You can’t change direction because your brain chemistry determines what experiences you have and your experiences are therefore beyond your control. As I wrote in a previous post which you were probably too busy to answer: If we had enough information we could predict exactly which choices a person will make. So in reality self-control is an illusion because all physical and mental events are caused by biochemical processes. If the self is merely a product of brain activity it is absurd to believe it has any power to alter the course of events because it is no more than a collection - in David Hume’s phrase “a bundle of events”. Even supposing what seems impossible, that the collection of impulses could alter the course of events it would not constitute a rational, responsible decision because it would still be a mechanical operation without insight. Free will implies that we are “prime movers”, that we initiate activity rather than doing what we are compelled to do by our physical makeup, that the self is an entity rather than a collection and that we transcend material objects. The buck stops with us and not with our brain.

Since it is possible for a person to have commitment to any version of morality - including undiluted egoism - there is no prima facie reason to suppose it is a mistake. The real question is whether the biological version is adequate and worthy of commitment. Why should a particular species be singled out?

Of all people to accuse of singling out humans for special consideration, you pick me!

My dear, you are not a species but a highly intelligent individual - and a person into the bargain!

If you take the biological, evolutionary basis of morality seriously, it seems compelling. Psychological experiments have been done that have strongly suggested the existence of an ingrained moral sense - a wide variety of people, from a wide variety of cultural and religious backgrounds, responded to given moral dilemmas in the same way, with only a very small percentage responding contrary to the norm. What does this tell us? Is our moral sense evolved, or is it imparted by religious faith and cultural shaping? If a moral sense is programmed into us, why must this be necessarily less compelling than moral senses shaped by culture (including religion)?

I see inevitable conflict between the various sources of morality. I believe we have evolved in order to become rational, moral, responsible beings. What counts more than anything else is our ability to choose between different moral codes. It is not for nothing that the Catholic Church teaches that our ultimate authority is our conscience. We are certainly programmed, morally and otherwise, but we are not enslaved by our programme…

 

[tonyrey]

What you clearly still do not realise Tony, is that it does those things **only **as a result of your arbitrary postulation that “God did it all” - a postulation that you cannot substantiate.

I refer you to my answers to Sair and Leela in which I have covered quite a lot of ground - which will elicit further questions from all three. After all, that is why we are here, is it not?

 

[tonyrey]

It is self-evident that all our thoughts about morality, science and everything else come from ourselves. Why is science not metaphysically subjective given that it is based on **our interpretation **

If I were a solipsist I wouldn’t be having a discussion with anyone!

The reason the scientific method requires that experiments be repeatable is precisely to confirm that the data being measured behave in the same manner, regardless of who is doing the observing. By the same token, the number of stones used to build York Minster remains the same, regardless of who counts them. This is a metaphysically objective reality. On the contrary, if you and I both have a memory of a certain place - let’s say York Minster for the sake of uniformity - our memories will not be identical, because memory is metaphysically subjective.

Absolutely true! Now, don’t you think similar experiments are carried out in psychology? They establish the fact that intelligence, feelings, emotions, sensations and decisions inter alia are objectively real.

The status of morality is clearly affected by whether human beings are animals which exist by chance or rational beings who exist by Design.

Is it? Does it automatically acquire a greater importance and compulsion through being a product of design? If so, why?

If you plan to have children you do so because you appreciate the inestimable value of existence and wish to share it with others. You love your children and you long to be loved by them. You want them to be happy but when they grow up you respect their freedom because you know that without freedom life loses most of, if not all, its value. So you are prepared to take the risk of being disappointed and suffer if they become criminals or drug addicts and reject you. But in spite of everything they know that you love them, care for them and have done everything you can to ensure that they are happy. Normal children will appreciate you, be immensely grateful and feel contented because they realise they belong to a wonderful family, are not fatherless, motherless and lost in a harsh world with no one to care for them but have a home to which they will ultimately return - if they choose to…

If all our experiences stem from our biochemistry our “evaluation” of them is beyond our control. There is no reason to regard one evaluation as superior to another because they are all equally insignificant in the amoral context of biochemistry.

This is why we need to be able to assess consequences. We can build, from experience, an understanding of what kinds of actions in what kinds of circumstances lead to certain consequences. Brain chemistry both produces experience, and is shaped by experience. It is a two-way street.

It is a two-way street but it leads to the same destination! You can’t change direction because your brain chemistry determines what experiences you have and your experiences are therefore beyond your control. As I wrote in a previous post which you were probably too busy to answer: If we had enough information we could predict exactly which choices a person will make. So in reality self-control is an illusion because all physical and mental events are caused by biochemical processes. If the self is merely a product of brain activity it is absurd to believe it has any power to alter the course of events because it is no more than a collection - in David Hume’s phrase “a bundle of events”. Even supposing what seems impossible, that the collection of impulses could alter the course of events it would not constitute a rational, responsible decision because it would still be a mechanical operation without insight. Free will implies that we are “prime movers”, that we initiate activity rather than doing what we are compelled to do by our physical makeup, that the self is an entity rather than a collection and that we transcend material objects. The buck stops with us and not with our brain.

Since it is possible for a person to have commitment to any version of morality - including undiluted egoism - there is no prima facie reason to suppose it is a mistake. The real question is whether the biological version is adequate and worthy of commitment. Why should a particular species be singled out?

Of all people to accuse of singling out humans for special consideration, you pick me!

My dear, you are not a species but a highly intelligent individual - and a person into the bargain. Oh dear! I seem to have misunderstood you…

If you take the biological, evolutionary basis of morality seriously, it seems compelling. Psychological experiments have been done that have strongly suggested the existence of an ingrained moral sense - a wide variety of people, from a wide variety of cultural and religious backgrounds, responded to given moral dilemmas in the same way, with only a very small percentage responding contrary to the norm. What does this tell us? Is our moral sense evolved, or is it imparted by religious faith and cultural shaping? If a moral sense is programmed into us, why must this be necessarily less compelling than moral senses shaped by culture (including religion)?

I see no inevitable conflict between the various sources of morality. I believe we have evolved in order to become rational, moral, responsible beings. What counts more than anything else is our ability to choose between different moral codes. It is not for nothing that the Catholic Church teaches that our ultimate authority is our conscience. I think you will agree that we are programmed, morally and otherwise, but not enslaved…

 

[Betterave]

I’m pretty sure it’s not a dodge - or at least, it’s not intended to be so. I don’t believe I’m being inconsistent, either, in saying that we experience that which we take to be free will.

Okay, it’s no big deal, but earlier you wrote:
“I don’t know whether or not free will is an illusion - in that, our decisions are directed by the physical/chemical functioning of the brain, and we experience the results as “making a decision” to act.”
Now you seem to be talking about free will as a *real *‘emergent’ phenomenon (which it would *not *make sense to call an illusion, right?). I think you’ve changed your mind again perhaps? (You seem to be actually doing some thinking here, not just belligerently spouting your settled opinions, good job - although of course that’s just what we expect from everybody here, right?) Anyway, I’ll let you clarify your own position.

(And just to clarify the question I’m asking: do you want to talk about “what we experience as free will” (preserving the possibility that it is an illusion) or just about *free will *(leaving only the question of what free will is)? Or do you have some reason for continuing to talk about both?)

A question I asked in a previous post, directed particularly at those who assume free will/conscious choice cannot be the result of biochemical functions, was as follows - if it is a product of such biochemical functions, how do they expect that it would feel any different to the experience they define as free will? This, as I said, is part of the problem of trying to understand ourselves from the inside. We can hypothesise that our thoughts and emotions are governed by molecular processes, but we can never be removed to an observer’s distance from those processes, in order to analyse them. It is also for this reason that I believe it is misleading to draw distinctions between brain, mind and self, unless we are to describe the mind as an emergent property of the brain. To me it seems spurious to declare that the mind - and thus consciousness - is an entity that has a separate existence to that of the physical brain.

I, for one, will answer your question by saying that of course it wouldn’t feel any different. To insist that it would would be to beg the question. An objection to the point you raise here can only be based on an argument pointing out that the question itself has somehow been badly posed (the main possibility being that it asks about a counterfactual situation which, for reasons we haven’t really gotten into, we are not justified in considering as being possibly factual, rather than merely counter-factual).

 

[Betterave]

My friend, it was just a simplified description of the process, not the textbook description of how to create a nuclear explosion. Of course I did not go into technical details about U-235, it is not necessary for this discussion. The principle is what counts. (I could have brought up an example about the collapse of a star into a black hloe, where during the gradual cooling of the star the gravitational force will violently cause the star to collapse unto itself. Examples like this are endless.).

It seemes to me that your objection is the “sloppy” nature of the example given, but you agree that gradual, quantitative changes do lead (not always, but in certain circumstances) to qualitiatve changes, the emergence of new attributes, which cannot be simply reduced to the underlying “mass” of matter. Well, if so, it is just a minor disagreement.

I hope your lack of response to the other examples indicates basic agreement.

I’m afraid we do not have basic agreement on a number of points. First of all, I don’t know what kind of textbooks you are used to reading, but I didn’t not offer any technical scientific details. I am looking for some technical philosophical details, which are what is relevant here, to which, with all due respect, you seem to be completely oblivious. Secondly, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Your example is indeed “sloppy” (I take it you acknowledge this?), but the result is that it does not function as analogical evidence in the way that you thought it did. So why would you think that I agree with you? My previous point was specifically pointing out that I did not agree with you! You seem to want to jump straight to agreement on conclusions, without examining whether or not we can reasonably get there (whether or not these perhaps agreed upon conclusions should be thought of as true). Your response here is also not reasonable as you have focussed on the minor point and ignored the major one. (Did you not notice the words “but mainly” in the post you were responding to?) Basic point on productive dialogue: if someone criticizes a point you make, concede the justice of the criticism or defend your original point; don’t change the subject by making a different point (did you understand what I said about your multiplying examples?).

The original definition of a meter was the 1/40,000,000th of the Equator. This was the basis for the length of the iridium rod in Paris. The new definition (accepted in 1983) is the distance what light covers in vacuum in 1/299,792,458th of a second. Tell me what is not arbitrary about this.

Again, the point was that equating God with goodness explains neither God, nor goodness. It is a meaningless tautology.

(1) The standard meter in Paris *is *a rod.
(2) The “meter” *is *an arbitrary distance.
The problem with teachers sometimes is that they falsely believe that they already know everything, and so they falsely believe that they have nothing to learn. Try to slow down and think about this carefully: do you think that the word “meter” is being used in the same sense in the two statements above? (Google the word “equivocation” if you need to.)

 

[R_Daneel]

I’m afraid we do not have basic agreement on a number of points. First of all, I don’t know what kind of textbooks you are used to reading, but I didn’t not offer any technical scientific details. I am looking for some technical philosophical details, which are what is relevant here, to which, with all due respect, you seem to be completely oblivious. Secondly, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Your example is indeed “sloppy” (I take it you acknowledge this?), but the result is that it does not function as analogical evidence in the way that you thought it did. So why would you think that I agree with you? My previous point was specifically pointing out that I did not agree with you! You seem to want to jump straight to agreement on conclusions, without examining whether or not we can reasonably get there (whether or not these perhaps agreed upon conclusions should be thought of as true). Your response here is also not reasonable as you have focussed on the minor point and ignored the major one. (Did you not notice the words “but mainly” in the post you were responding to?) Basic point on productive dialogue: if someone criticizes a point you make, concede the justice of the criticism or defend your original point; don’t change the subject by making a different point (did you understand what I said about your multiplying examples?).

You did not agree on what? That quantitative changes result in qualitative changes? I gave many examples for that. Where is the point of disagreement? Spell it out, please. This whole part of the conversation came from the hypothesis (presented by me) that consciousness, free will, etc. are emergent attributes of the mind. The substantiation of this claim in underway, in the form of AI experiments, which are more and more advanced. I proposed, that if and when these experiments become successful (the Ai will pass the Turing test) the “supernatural” explanation will be useless. Concentrate on this, if you wish to continue.

(1) The standard meter in Paris *is *a rod.

True, but it is not the **definition **of a meter any more.

(2) The “meter” *is *an arbitrary distance.

Right on. Again, it was an example, corresponding to the assetion that “God is good” is a meaningful definition. And it is not.

The problem with teachers sometimes is that they falsely believe that they already know everything, and so they falsely believe that they have nothing to learn. Try to slow down and think about this carefully: do you think that the word “meter” is being used in the same sense in the two statements above? (Google the word “equivocation” if you need to.)

It was not my assertion. I merely responded to it. I am more than willing to learn, if there is anything to learn. Sometimes it happens, and I am happy to acknowledge it - publicly.

 

[Leela]

Leela;6078407:

On the contrary. I have described an ultimate Reality that accounts for the highest and lowest aspects of known reality. What have you given? Inanimate matter? Or some unknown source of everything? What they account for? Precisely nothing - apart from inanimate matter!

Your so called explanation is not an explanation at all. It is just your assertion that a Supreme Being accounts for everything. How exactly does that all work?

Incorrect! I did not propose anything of the sort. Intelligent selection does not supplement natural selection it utilises it.

whatever…

Okay, maybe you can now explain how all this works. How does God intervene? What is this intervention like? Does God, say, kill all members of a species that is interfering with the evolution of some other more desired species? Does God help some species survive that otherwise would be selected for extinction? What sort of help was given? How did God give this help? Which species needed help and which ones did not?

Do you see that your hypothesis of divine intervention raises at least as many questions as it answers? Do you see that anyone who hears you try to explain can ask as many questions as you do and always claim that you still haven’t explained anything?

You overlook the fact that I have explicitly stated that I (or anyone else for that matter) cannot understand the nature of the creative power of God .

This is supposed to be an explanation that is better than the current evolutionary theory? All you are saying in response to evolutionary theory is that they are wrong and we will never actually understand how species evolved because we “cannot understand the nature of the creative power of God.”

There’s no point in criticising me if you have no alternative… How do you proceed from “I don’t know how everything originated but evolution did the rest”?

I’m okay with admitting that I don’t know the first life emerged. The fact that I don’t know how something happened is not evidence that it happened through divine intervention. Do you disagree? Do you have any other support for your theory beyond that we have no way of knowing what happened at the precise instant when the first life emerged? If I accept the claim that divine intervention was involved at that instant, how would that guide scientific inquiry in the future?

Human concepts are those “grasped” by human beings, whereas non-human concepts relate to non-human rational beings> You cannot assume that we are the only rational beings, can you?

The only concepts I am aware of are those created by human beings. Can you give me an example of a concept that is nonhuman?

You really wish to ask why “just”, i.e. “non more than”? The answer is that they do not exist only in the mind. They are facts and like facts they exist whether we recognise them or not. You can deny that something or some one is good or evil, true or false, just or unjust, free or not free but that does make one jot of difference.

When we say something is true we always mean that it is so whether anyone believes it or not, but when we call something a concept, by definition we are saying that it is a mental construct or an idea. How could mental constructs exist without minds? That doesn’t make ideas unreal in any way. They are as real as rocks and trees though they are experienced differently from rocks and trees. There is no reason to deny the reality of something we all experience. When you say “mere human concepts” or the like, you seem to be saying that ideas aren’t really real. I disagree. Clearly a world without ideas would be a very different world. When you say that to Leela, free will and love and empathy and democracy are “just ideas,” I wonder what else you think they could be. They are certainly idea, but why the “just”?

Best,
Leela

 

[Touchstone]

I, for one, will answer your question by saying that of course it wouldn’t feel any different. To insist that it would would be to beg the question. An objection to the point you raise here can only be based on an argument pointing out that the question itself has somehow been badly posed (the main possibility being that it asks about a counterfactual situation which, for reasons we haven’t really gotten into, we are not justified in considering as being possibly factual, rather than merely counter-factual).

Maybe those reasons need to be teased out a bit, then? That’s a pretty major point, here. Your “of course it wouldn’t feel any different” concedes the question ont he grounds of parsimony. If, as you grant, we can’t identify a way to distinguish between “real” (ahem) free will and compatibilist free will on materialism, the supernatural/spiritual explanation is superfluous, laden with unneeded hypotheses.

You did not agree on what? That quantitative changes result in qualitative changes? I gave many examples for that. Where is the point of disagreement? Spell it out, please. This whole part of the conversation came from the hypothesis (presented by me) that consciousness, free will, etc. are emergent attributes of the mind. The substantiation of this claim in underway, in the form of AI experiments, which are more and more advanced. I proposed, that if and when these experiments become successful (the Ai will pass the Turing test) the “supernatural” explanation will be useless. Concentrate on this, if you wish to continue.

I think intelligence really isn’t the problem, here, is it? No doubt intelligent is needed in the mix, but what really gets people hung up is their own consciousness, which is not the same faculty. AI researchers I believe have gotten bored with Turing Tests and have been for a while now, because it forces AI to subsume the problem of consciousness, which is, perhaps, an interesting enterprise on its own, but a bit of a tar baby for AI research proper.

In the “pen pal” version of the Turing Test, the focus is much more on AI, as that version of the test does not rely on immediate and shared sensations, the fruits of consciousness. When you ask, “Who was the 16th President of the United States”, an artificial intelligence doesn’t need consciousness to respond – semantic prowess in understanding the question and a search of a good historical database would suffice.

But, in the “Robot” version the Turing Test, you have an “artificial being” of some kind there with you, and you can ask, for example, what kind of object that is over in the corner of the room. In that case, no matter how good the robot’s database it is, the robot will be unable to answer in a human-like fashion without at least the rudiments of consciousness - visual systems that can analyze subjects in real time and integrate them conceptually the conversation. The robot may be able inundate you with info about “ficus benjamina” from it’s stored knowledge base, but without the “eyes to see”, it won’t matter – the potted tree in the corner will be an utter mystery to the robot.

-TS

 

[wanstronian]

I refer you to my answers to Sair and Leela in which I have covered quite a lot of ground - which will elicit further questions from all three. After all, that is why we are here, is it not?

Yes, I’ve reviewed the thread. But the fact remains that the ‘generic’ definition of God is an entity that made the world and everything in it, either in-place or through ID or whatever. If one accepts that hypothesis, then it is easy to say that God is the only thing that links the various phenomena that we experience. But it remains a circular argument. It links these things because it has been defined to do so. The supporting arguments presuppose the assumed conclusion, which is no way to argue a case. In the absence of evidence, the hypothesis falls to the most elementary scrutiny.

I’m aware that I kind of butted in to a thread that was flowing quite nicely. I don’t want to complicate that flow so I think I’ll butt back out again and just enjoy the discussion. I’ve hardly any time to post at the moment anyway - it’s nearly Saturnalia, dontcha know!

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;6078678:

                                                              *On the contrary. I have described an ultimate Reality that accounts for the highest and lowest aspects of known reality. What have you given? Inanimate matter? Or some unknown source of everything? What they account for? Precisely nothing - apart from inanimate matter!*

Your so called explanation is not an explanation at all. It is just your assertion that a Supreme Being accounts for everything.
Don’t you believe evolution accounts for everything except matter? You have forgotten the principle of economy…

How exactly does that all work?

In the same way that an artist, scientist, composer or inventor creates something, only at an infinitely higher level - by using the power of reason and determining the goals and the means by which they are to be attained. In a word, by conscious, rational, purposeful, valuable activity - which is conspicuous by its absence in the type of evolution favoured by NeoDarwinists…

                                                  [

](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6078678#post6078678)

Incorrect! I did not propose anything of the sort. Intelligent selection does not supplement natural selection it utilises it.

whatever… Then you have no objections!

Okay, maybe you can now explain how all this works.

I have already explained that is the result of Design. Do you really think I claim to understand precisely how God works? I’m afraid I’m only a minute dot in the cosmos… with finite intelligence… Can you understand the fundamental nature of physical energy, let alone the workings of the mind?

All you are saying in response to evolutionary theory is that they are wrong and we will never actually understand how species evolved because we "cannot understand the nature of the creative power of God… I’m okay with admitting that I don’t know the first life emerged. The fact that I don’t know how something happened is not evidence that it happened through divine intervention. Do you disagree? Do you have any other support for your theory beyond that we have no way of knowing what happened at the precise instant when the first life emerged? How does God intervene? What is this intervention like?

One striking example is the co-ordination of all the factors necessary for the formation of life. Another is the Cambrian explosion without which human beings would not have emerged. A third is the suspension of physical laws when miracles occur. A fourth is the conception of a person created in the image of God with the power of reason, free will and a capacity for love…

Does God, say, kill all members of a species that is interfering with the evolution of some other more desired species? Does God help some species survive that otherwise would be selected for extinction? What sort of help was given? How did God give this help? Which species needed help and which ones did not?

Direct intervention is not generally necessary in the process of evolution because the simplest living cell is endowed the urge and the means to survive but it is clear that what we regard as random mutations offer ample scope for intervention to ensure that development is progressive. Not only that. The fittingness of the environment plays a vital role in evolution which is often unnoticed or neglected. There again there is ample scope for intervention to ensure that catastrophes do not lead to the extinction of life.
Considering the extreme complexity of advanced organisms and their consequent vulnerability it is miraculous they have survived the countless “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune” and “the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to”… We take our existence for granted but the extreme fragility of higher mammals, many of whom have become extinct, demonstrates that complexity is a disadvantage from the point of view of survival. The simplicity of monocellular organisms has enable them to survive since the dawn of life on earth. The higher the stage of evolution the more perilous and improbable its development becomes. As evolutionists have remarked, events could have turned out very differently…

Do you see that your hypothesis of divine intervention raises at least as many questions as it answers?

It is not unique in that respect. Every hypothesis relating to the origin of rational beings raises innumerable questions. Specialists in every field of biochemistry and biology disagree on many issues. You are forgetting that is a vast subject the surface of which has only been scratched. You are giving the false impression that evolutionary science is almost complete! My goodness!
There are ten volumes of a work by one author on the “simple” cell alone… The greater the complexity of life the more improbable the Chance and Necessity hypothesis becomes - as recently published books make abundantly clear.

                                                  [

](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6078678#post6078678)

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=6079961

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey;6078678:

Do you see that anyone who hears you try to explain can ask as many questions as you do and always claim that you still haven’t explained anything?

You can claim what you like but that does not mean it is true! Try dealing with the specific points I have made rather than making blanket assertions… I could go to town on the inadequacy of NeoDarwinism but that is off topic.

This is supposed to be an explanation that is better than the current evolutionary theory?

You are mistakenly equating current evolutionary theory with NeoDarwinism! Evolution by Design is immeasurably superior to the hypothesis that we are no more than the naked apes.

Human concepts are those “grasped” by human beings, whereas non-human concepts relate to non-human rational beings> You cannot assume that we are the only rational beings, can you?

The only concepts I am aware of are those created by human beings. Can you give me an example of a concept that is nonhuman? I am quite sure that other rational beings, if they exist, have concepts of truth, freedom, equality and justice…

You really wish to ask why “just”, i.e. “non more than”? The answer is that they do not exist only in the mind. They are facts and like facts they exist whether we recognise them or not. You can deny that something or some one is good or evil, true or false, just or unjust, free or not free but that does make one jot of difference.

When we say something is true we always mean that it is so whether anyone believes it or not, but when we call something a concept, by definition we are saying that it is a mental construct or an idea.Indeed! But don’t you believe truth is a concept? After all it is intangible… It is a concept but is also the correspondence of a proposition to reality, i.e. an objective fact.

How could mental constructs exist without minds? That doesn’t make ideas unreal in any way. They are as real as rocks and trees though they are experienced differently from rocks and trees. There is no reason to deny the reality of something we all experience. When you say “mere human concepts” or the like, you seem to be saying that ideas aren’t really real. I disagree. Clearly a world without ideas would be a very different world. When you say that to Leela, free will and love and empathy and democracy are “just ideas,” I wonder what else you think they could be. They are certainly ideas, but why the “just”?

Several atheists on this forum have stated that the realities you mention are no more than “efficacious concepts”. I am delighted if you think otherwise. Ideas are real enough and so are their counterparts in objective, i.e. non-mental, reality. Equality, proportion, symmetry, identity, purpose, regularity are all intangible but as real as specific objects.