Stephen Hawkings' Grand Design

[tonyrey]

You are assuming (i) Concern for the harm done by polyamory reflects a repressive attitude and (ii) “joy” never leads to harm to oneself, others and society.

The colossal amount of grievous harm done to all the men, women and children who have become the victims of a sexually permissive society - with over one million one-parent families in the UK where boys and girls are starved of the love and affection of their father or mother. That certainly does affect my personal sensibilities every time I come into close contact with them and witness the ravages caused by immorality and the lust for pleasure regardless of the consequences.

quote “joy” never leads to harm to oneself, others and society.

ii) This applies to any activity we might choose to undertake - after all, as an example, children can be a source of joy or a source of anguish to their parents, and possibly even a source of harm in the wider world. Is this a reason to avoid having children?

The risks from children are unavoidable. The risks from polyamory are definitely not unavoidable.

Why do you find it so ‘absurd’ to think that complex arrangements of matter and energy can exhibit intention whilst individual particles lack intention? Do you find it odd to think that molecules of hydrogen and molecules of oxygen are not ‘wet’?

The same old fallacious chestnut - as if **mental **intentions and **physical **wetness are comparable…

How did the wiring - and the initial intention - originate?

Evolution, development of ever more complex neural arrangements.

As if an increase in complexity magically explains everything! Why did anything develop at all? By chance?

Why do you believe it necessary for the intention to have been there from the beginning?

Why do you ask the question? Is it the result of “ever more complex neural arrangements”? Or is it because you want to know the truth? Or are you and your intention and the truth merely complex neural arrangements?
[/QUOTE]

 

[Sair]

Your god doesn’t even know what’s happening and has no control over events!

My god is not a conscious entity. My god is the divinity of reality.

Do you change when you change things?

Yes, in the sense that I have interacted with my environment and to that extent altered my relationship with it - I have invoked new potentialities, new opportunities through enacting change. Not to mention that the initial decision to act, to effect change, involved a change in my own internal state.

It makes great sense to believe the Supreme Being is not inferior to us in any respect - and it makes infinitely more sense than attributing mind to an inanimate universe.

I don’t attribute mind to the universe. Mind is a property of specific, complex arrangements of matter.

I am delighted to acknowledge that the immense value of existence - and a personal existence in particular - is due to the Supreme Being with all those attributes.

Is this immense value to be found in material or immaterial existence? Which is more valuable?

But you do feel the need to augment reality with nebulous ideas about a god in nature.

My god is not ‘in’ nature. My god is nature.

I certainly don’t believe in Pan - the universe that creates itself out of nothing and has all the attributes you find lacking in materialism…

I think you choose to define my beliefs as ‘materialist’ because you want to keep them in a box and to insist that certain aspects of our experience are fundamentally beyond a physical explanation. We don’t know everything there is to know about the reality we inhabit. It strikes me as premature and not at all illuminating to look beyond it for an explanation.

Is the process of development is utterly valueless? Only a hedonist expects everything to be served up without the need for effort and sacrifice.

Not at all. I think there is value in the process of development, in the journey as well as the destination. But that’s because I don’t believe there’s a perfect, supernatural creator involved. Value arises from the experience of the natural by natural beings; I don’t see it as something that had to be injected into the physical universe by some kind of disembodied mind. And far from considering evolution as a deliberate process to bring about a certain state of affairs - for example, the existence of humans - I understand it as simply a process of change. It moves in the direction of organisms that are better adapted for certain environments, until such time as the environments change, and then the organisms are driven to still more change.

 

[Sair]

Are death and suffering the worst of all evils?

For subjective beings, yes, suffering is the worst of all evil. Almost by definition. And as for death, well, that’s kind of anathema to the whole point of your religion, especially as you believe only humans live forever. What about the billions of other living creatures? Is there a point to their deaths other than to make way for others who will die in their turn? As an aside, given we’re delving into ethical territory, here’s a scenario. A while ago I spent some time reading to a beautiful four-year-old girl who was hospitalised with severe brain damage. She was able to hear what was going on around her, but her ability to respond to her environment was very limited. It would have been terribly sad had she been born this way, but the fact that her circumstances were imposed upon her by a father who lost his temper and threw her across a room because he was annoyed by her crying is quite simply horrifying. What kind of benevolent entity would place a higher value on the father’s free will in this case than on the suffering of the little girl and those who cared about her?

It is not a question of “wanting” but recognising the inadequacy of “natural explanations”.

Do you even know the extent of natural explanations?

No one has ever defined “nature” satisfactorily. Why are you a pantheist? Because reality in all its richness cannot nor ever will be explained by science?

Nature is all that is. If this seems too broad, then what is the point of even claiming there’s a whole realm of existence that is somehow ‘beyond’ the natural? It’s quite conceivable that science will never arrive at a definitive explanation for every single aspect of reality - even the eagerly looked for ‘theory of everything’ will still be, of necessity, a broad and somewhat abstract explanation for why things are as they are. But what could you hope to gain by inventing supernatural explanations for anything?

Not a whole new set of phenomena that we don’t understand and cannot test but one simple fact - and our sole certainty - that we have a conscious mind.

Which is, in all likelihood, a product of natural phenomena.

According to you subjective experience doesn’t exist! It is not “natural” or scientifically testable…

Since when have I claimed anything of the kind?

It has a lot to do with what happens to you and those you love if you become the unhappy victim of gross injustice.

Again, why would or should the universe care about these things?

Then why is it so widely disregarded?

Because our societies have changed to the extent where our social experience has become more and more abstract - just like this conversation. For most of the time that humans existed, we did so in small, close-knit clans, depending upon each other directly for survival. This has become less and less the case, and the fact is that biological evolution has not kept pace with other changes in the environment we have built for ourselves. There are more people that we interact with, directly or indirectly, every day than our brains are capable of keeping track of, much less actively taking an interest in. That’s one explanation for why so many people exhibit so little care for their fellows. Another is one that I’ve touched on in another thread - the valuing of ideas over people, whether those ideas are religious, political, economic or other.

I see… You would sacrifice only a relatively trivial pleasure?

Did I say ‘only’? And actually, ‘relatively’ trivial is an important consideration. Let’s say I have a sandwich, and that is all I have to eat on a given day. What would be the point of my giving it to someone who already had enough to eat, just because it might make them a bit happier than they were whilst it would leave me starving? Their happiness in this situation is relatively trivial, compared with my own needs. On the other hand, if there were someone else who had nothing at all to eat, sharing my sandwich with them might mean that I was a little hungrier than I would otherwise have been, but at least neither of us would be starving. Their need is relatively greater than mine, under the circumstances.

You have contradicted yourself. You admitted that unselfishness brings its own reward.

Has the potential to do so, certainly. However, in the case where unselfish actions bring negative consequences - let’s say that in the above scenario, my offer to share my sandwich led the other person to snatch it and run away with it, leaving me with nothing. I doubt I’d be feeling warm and fuzzy at that point. Especially since I wouldn’t be contemplating a reward in an afterlife.

You have twisted deathbed repentance after a life of debauchery and violence into a guarantee of salvation!

And isn’t it? Sure, there might be millennia of purgatory, but you’re not going to end up in hell. Or has that doctrine changed in the 15 years since I last went to mass?

 

[Sair]

The colossal amount of grievous harm done to all the men, women and children who have become the victims of a sexually permissive society - with over one million one-parent families in the UK where boys and girls are starved of the love and affection of their father or mother. That certainly does affect my personal sensibilities every time I come into close contact with them and witness the ravages caused by immorality and the lust for pleasure regardless of the consequences.

You’re still equating polyamory with casual promiscuity, so in that sense your criticism is invalid. Single-parent families are not the result of people pursuing polyamorous relationships, but of the failure of monogamous arrangements.

The risks from children are unavoidable. The risks from polyamory are definitely not unavoidable.

Avoiding having children is actually pretty easy. And in any case, my previous point still stands - there are many things in life that carry risks. The decision is always about whether the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks.

The same old fallacious chestnut - as if **mental **intentions and **physical **wetness are comparable…

Mind is a property of complex arrangements and interactions of matter and energy. Wetness is a property of simpler arrangements of matter. If you are not astounded by the wetness of water, you should not be mystified by mental events. There is nothing in our experience or in neurological research that suggests mental events are independent of physical events, and plenty that suggests that the former arise from - indeed, are often indistinguishable from - the latter.

As if an increase in complexity magically explains everything! Why did anything develop at all? By chance?

There’s an element of randomness, sure. But beyond that, the laws of nature - the behaviour of matter and energy under local conditions - take over. Complexity in and of itself doesn’t so much explain things but allows for explanations - a complex arrangement of particles gives rise to intricate interaction and complex phenomena.

Why do you ask the question? Is it the result of “ever more complex neural arrangements”? Or is it because you want to know the truth? Or are you and your intention and the truth merely complex neural arrangements?

Truth is a measure of the correspondence between a statement and the reality it describes - it is a concept that allows us to categorise statements as either descriptive of reality or not descriptive of reality. So in that sense, it could be said that ‘truth’ as we understand it actually is a product of complex neural arrangements. And it still strikes me as odd that you can’t accept purpose and intention as the result of interactive neural systems that evolved to respond to the external and internal conditions of the organisms in question.

 

[tonyrey]

   The colossal amount of grievous harm done to all the men, women and children who have become the victims of a sexually permissive society - with over one million one-parent families in the UK where boys and girls are starved of the love and affection of their father or mother. That certainly does affect my personal sensibilities every time I come into close contact with them and witness the ravages caused by immorality and the lust for pleasure regardless of the consequences.

I have not equated polyamory with casual promiscuity. The failure of monogamous arrangements and polyamory are the result of living in a sexually permissive society, i.e. one in which there are fewer restrictions on sexual activity outside marriage.

The risks from children are unavoidable. The risks from polyamory are definitely not unavoidable.

Avoiding having children is actually pretty easy.

That is beside the point! Unless you believe polyamory is as important for everyone as having children. Is it more important for you? Would you sacrifice having children if you had to choose one or the other?

And in any case, my previous point still stands - there are many things in life that carry risks. The decision is always about whether the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks.

Are you sure the long term potential benefits of polyamory for **everyone **outweigh the potential risks? How would you justify that belief?

The same old fallacious chestnut - as if mental intentions and physical wetness are comparable…

Mind is a property of complex arrangements and interactions of matter and energy.

How do you know that? Or is it an assumption?

Wetness is a property of simpler arrangements of matter. If you are not astounded by the wetness of water, you should not be mystified by mental events.

Both are a cause for wonder but mystification is not in the same class as wetness!

There is nothing in our experience or in neurological research that suggests mental events are independent of physical events, and plenty that suggests that the former arise from - indeed, are often indistinguishable from - the latter.

Do you think neurological research is anywhere near accounting for the depth and richness of personal existence? Do you believe we are biological machines? Are you a slave of your physical makeup? There is plenty of evidence that the mind controls both the brain and the rest of the body - and that we can transcend time, space and the material world with hindsight, insight and foresight.

As if an increase in complexity magically explains everything! Why did anything develop at all? By chance?

There’s an element of randomness, sure. But beyond that, the laws of nature - the behaviour of matter and energy under local conditions - take over.

What causes the laws of nature to be as they are? Physical necessity?

Complexity in and of itself doesn’t so much explain things but allows for explanations - a complex arrangement of particles gives rise to intricate interaction and complex phenomena.

Is this an inevitable, inexplicable brute fact which sums up your philosophy? All human activity is produced by blind arrangements and movements of particles?

Why do you ask the question? Is it the result of “ever more complex neural arrangements”? Or is it because you want to know the truth? Or are you and your intention and the truth merely complex neural arrangements?

Truth is a measure of the correspondence between a statement and the reality it describes - it is a concept that allows us to categorise statements as either descriptive of reality or not descriptive of reality.

Is correspondence just a concept or is it also an objective fact?

So in that sense, it could be said that ‘truth’ as we understand it actually is a product of complex neural arrangements.

So truth doesn’t really exist at all? It is an insignificant, worthless myth…

And it still strikes me as odd that you can’t accept purpose and intention as the result of interactive neural systems that evolved to respond to the external and internal conditions of the organisms in question.

It strikes me as extremely odd that you can entertain the reduction of thought, purpose and intention to the activity of processes that have no idea of what they are doing! You are well on the way to total self-destructive scepticism. All “your” beliefs, reasons and conclusions become the aimless meanderings of mindless objects which make “you” totally redundant! You have forgotten that neuroscience doesn’t recognise such an entity… According to “you” “you” don’t even exist…

 

[Sair]

I have not equated polyamory with casual promiscuity. The failure of monogamous arrangements and polyamory are the result of living in a sexually permissive society, i.e. one in which there are fewer restrictions on sexual activity outside marriage.

And now the truth comes out - you believe that restricting sex to the realms of officially sanctioned monogamous matrimony is the only way to prevent relationship problems. Or at least the kind of relationships that you find problematic! Clearly you believe that since sex is necessary for procreation, it has to be done sooner or later, but that had better be with as few people as possible, by golly!

That is beside the point! Unless you believe polyamory is as important for everyone as having children. Is it more important for you? Would you sacrifice having children if you had to choose one or the other?

Building strong relationships in which to raise children is an important preliminary step to deciding to have them. That is what I think, anyway - I’m sure there are single mothers who are so determined to have children that they go ahead without having even one partner would probably disagree with me. Personally, having my own children has never been that much of a priority for me.

Are you sure the long term potential benefits of polyamory for **everyone **outweigh the potential risks? How would you justify that belief?

No, of course I’m not sure that polyamory would benefit everyone. In fact, I don’t think there is any particular relationship configuration that would benefit everyone who attempted it. In any case, it’s a bit weird for you to condemn polyamory on the basis of the fact that it can fail and cause heartache. Monogamy certainly doesn’t get a free pass in that regard. Didn’t you know that one of the highest risk factors for divorce is being married in the first place? And let’s not get back into discussing the incidence of domestic abuse within monogamous relationships… Do you think these risks are worth it, for everyone who enters a monogamous relationship?

How do you know that? Or is it an assumption?

It is an assumption made on the basis of observation and evidence. It is certainly no more of an assumption than yours, of an immaterial soul.

Do you think neurological research is anywhere near accounting for the depth and richness of personal existence? Do you believe we are biological machines? Are you a slave of your physical makeup? There is plenty of evidence that the mind controls both the brain and the rest of the body - and that we can transcend time, space and the material world with hindsight, insight and foresight.

Imagining the future isn’t the same as actually transcending time and space. Isn’t it funny how foresight and insight generally prove most effective when exercised on the basis of experience? There is plenty of evidence that that the mind is controlled and shaped by both the external environment and the internal environment of the body, as well as the internal workings of the brain. In what sense am I distinguishable from the physical properties of my body?

What causes the laws of nature to be as they are? Physical necessity?

Given the definition of natural laws, I would say yes.

Is this an inevitable, inexplicable brute fact which sums up your philosophy? All human activity is produced by blind arrangements and movements of particles?

Wow. If it isn’t determinism that gets your back up, it’s randomness.

Is correspondence just a concept or is it also an objective fact?

Correspondence is an empirical observation.

So truth doesn’t really exist at all? It is an insignificant, worthless myth…

Truth exists to the extent that we are able to successfully use symbols to describe reality. No, truth doesn’t exist as a ‘thing’ - more as a relationship between a set of things.

It strikes me as extremely odd that you can entertain the reduction of thought, purpose and intention to the activity of processes that have no idea of what they are doing! You are well on the way to total self-destructive scepticism. All “your” beliefs, reasons and conclusions become the aimless meanderings of mindless objects which make “you” totally redundant! You have forgotten that neuroscience doesn’t recognise such an entity… According to “you” “you” don’t even exist…

‘Reduction’ from what, exactly? You seem quite stuck on this image of a collection of molecules that just happened to fall into place, randomly and without any direction, that then somehow ‘determine’ how ‘we’ behave and think - and then you project this weird image as your concept of my beliefs. Thought is an immensely complex interactive process that is not reducible to the behaviour of the individual molecules and forces and energies that produce it. The fact that we don’t understand all the ins and outs of how physics and chemistry produce mental processes is not a reason to assume there isn’t a physical explanation, and then posit a fantastical, magical, undetectable, unmeasurable entity that somehow ensouls the physical body. I agree it’s intuitively difficult to grasp that what we experience as thought is the result of physical and chemical processes, but if you examine the idea of a soul, and then try to fit it in with what we already know about the brain and the rest of the body, it seems no less absurd. I’ve even seen people propose that there is some kind of quantum-mechanical explanation for souls, but that is to admit that souls are natural, physical entities, if they exist at all.

 

[tonyrey]

And now the truth comes out …
I thought you don’t believe in truth…

• you believe that restricting sex to the realms of officially sanctioned monogamous matrimony is the only way to prevent relationship problems.

Given the definition of natural laws, I would say yes.So you believe things must be as they are? This is the only possible universe?

I

f it isn’t determinism that gets your back up, it’s randomness.

Emotion doesn’t come into it. It is the cold facts that count. The question remains:
Is all human activity ultimately produced by purposeless arrangements and movements of particles?

Correspondence is an empirical observation.

Of what?

Truth exists to the extent that we are able to successfully use symbols to describe reality.

So the truth is an accurate description of reality?

No, truth doesn’t exist as a ‘thing’ - more as a relationship between a set of things.

Is the relationship tangible and observable by the senses? Is it real?

It strikes me as extremely odd that you can entertain the reduction of thought, purpose and intention to the activity of processes that have no idea of what they are doing! You have forgotten that neuroscience doesn’t recognise such an entity… According to “you” “you” don’t even exist…

‘Reduction’ from what, exactly?

You seem quite stuck on this image of a collection of molecules that just happened to fall into place, randomly and without any direction, that then somehow ‘determine’ how ‘we’ behave and think - and then you project this weird image as your concept of my beliefs. Thought is an immensely complex interactive process that is not reducible to the behaviour of the individual molecules and forces and energies that produce it. The fact that we don’t understand all the ins and outs of how physics and chemistry produce mental processes is not a reason to assume there isn’t a physical explanation, and then posit a fantastical, magical, undetectable, unmeasurable entity that somehow ensouls the physical body. I agree it’s intuitively difficult to grasp that what we experience as thought is the result of physical and chemical processes, but if you examine the idea of a soul, and then try to fit it in with what we already know about the brain and the rest of the body, it seems no less absurd.

You assume that only physical and chemical processes exist. Yet that assumption is based on inference from your perceptions. You have no direct knowledge of those processes at all. The only direct knowledge you have is of what occurs in your mind: your thoughts, feelings and perceptions, all of which are all intangible, immeasurable and undetectable by your senses. So you are putting the cart before the horse! It is not matter that is the prime reality but mind. You are using your mind to dispose of your mind - which is obviously absurd. It is fantastical and magical to attribute consciousness and the power of the mind to inanimate matter. Logical positivism has been defunct for more than half a century - ever since it was realised that the verification principle cannot be verified by the senses.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Sair]

I thought you don’t believe in truth…

I don’t believe in many things you hold to be true…

Sexual permissiveness is not the sole cause of marital failure but it is an important one and a symptom of moral decline.

But not the cause of moral decline. Disrespect of persons, treating them as means to an end rather than ends in themselves, is the cause - that attitude encompasses sex.

You don’t think sex is necessary for procreation?! It’s certainly necessary for fulfilment in marriage - but not with an indeterminate number of individuals according to a degree of friendship and physical attraction.

Where did I imply that sex is not necessary for procreation? That only happens in your religion! Why do you think it’s necessary for fulfilment in marriage? Answer that and you might begin to understand why it’s an important part of polyamorous relationships too…

Why are more than two parents desirable? Do children need several adults in the home?

More than two parents are desirable for the same reason that more than one parent is desirable - it strengthens the child’s support network and gives them multiple sources of love and learning.

Would it benefit the majority?

If the majority of people were polyamorously inclined, then it would benefit them.

it is the unwillingness to commit oneself in a permissive society that is at the root of the problem. Excessive freedom leads to slavery to one’s desires.

At what point did I intimate that polyamory involves an unwillingness to commit or an excessive degree of freedom? You’re still talking about casual promiscuity here.

Yes because you know the risks are confined to one person you can get to know and understand better than several at the same time.

Oh, okay. So it’s all about risk minimisation. Why have any relationships at all if you’re so concerned about the risks?

You are not a property for a start!

No, I’m a collection of interactive properties.

You are also more than the sum of your parts. Which part of you is responsible for what you choose to do? Your brain? If so which part of your brain? Can’t you distinguish any of your personal qualities from your physical properties? Are they all apelike?

All human qualities are apelike, because we are apes. The brain is the central processing unit of the body, so it governs the decision-making process. Read any neurology textbook to find out what specific parts of the brain do this, but generally speaking the cerebral cortex is what produces a lot of the characteristic features we think of as human.

So you believe things must be as they are? This is the only possible universe?

Given the nature of the particles and forces of which this universe consists, this universe could not but have the physical laws it has, or at least that seems to be the conclusion to which physicists are heading. As to it being the only possible universe, I don’t know - there might be others, with different kinds of particles and forces and hence different laws.

Is all human activity ultimately produced by purposeless arrangements and movements of particles?

Ultimately, yes, if by purpose you mean conscious intent.

So the truth is an accurate description of reality?

Essentially, yes.

Is the relationship tangible and observable by the senses? Is it real?

To the extent that we hear the statements, decode the symbols and compare them to our own sensory experiences, yes, they are tangible and observable.

You assume that only physical and chemical processes exist.

And until other kinds of processes are observed and described, or at the very least, plausibly elucidated, I will continue to do so.

Yet that assumption is based on inference from your perceptions.

Given that we have no other means of accessing the rest of the world outside our bodies, what else could it be based on?

The only direct knowledge you have is of what occurs in your mind: your thoughts, feelings and perceptions, all of which are all intangible, immeasurable and undetectable by your senses.

Or alternatively, they are the results of our senses. My thoughts and feelings and perceptions are only intangible in the most literal sense possible, that you can’t handle them with your hands or put them in a container. We can, however, move our thoughts and feelings and perceptions from our own minds onto paper or onto computer screens and even into the minds of others by means of encoding them in language, whether this language be words or images or actions. These are all, strictly speaking, tangible, physical things that we are doing. Thinking, feeling and perceiving are things that our physical bodies do, not things that happen to our physical bodies because some nonphysical entity is doing them.

It is not matter that is the prime reality but mind. You are using your mind to dispose of your mind - which is obviously absurd. It is fantastical and magical to attribute consciousness and the power of the mind to inanimate matter.

What is mind made of? In what sense am I ‘disposing’ of my mind by explaining it in terms of physical processes? Inanimate matter, so far as we can ascertain, doesn’t even exist. If mind is all that exists, does that make the rest of the world imaginary? Are you a solipsist?

 

[tonyrey]

Disrespect of persons, treating them as means to an end rather than ends in themselves, is the cause of moral decline - that attitude encompasses sex.

That is precisely what sexual permissiveness amounts to.

Where did I imply that sex is not necessary for procreation? Why do you think it’s necessary for fulfilment in marriage?

Sex is necessary for fulfilment in marriage because it is the expression of lifelong commitment and undivided love of a man and woman for each other which unites them and enables them to have children who blend their qualities.

More than two parents are desirable for the same reason that more than one parent is desirable - it strengthens the child’s support network and gives them multiple sources of love and learning.

Children are very perceptive and notice the different opinions and attitudes of adults who are not their parents. Favouritism and confusion are inevitable in a sexual commune.

If the majority of people were polyamorously inclined, then it would benefit them.

So it wouldn’t benefit the majority!

At what point did I intimate that polyamory involves an unwillingness to commit or an excessive degree of freedom?

Polyamory is based on mutual consent and consistency which are liable to end at any time. Excessive freedom exists from the moment a couple renounce their promise to faithful to each other.

Why have any relationships at all if you’re so concerned about the risks?

The principle of moderation applies…

No, I’m a collection of interactive properties.

A collection cannot have self-control or a mind of its own.

All human qualities are apelike, because we are apes.

So none of our activity is radically different from that of apes?

The brain is the central processing unit of the body, so it governs the decision-making process.

What governs the brain?

Read any neurology textbook to find out what specific parts of the brain do this, but generally speaking the cerebral cortex is what produces a lot of the characteristic features we think of as human.

Where do the other features originate? Are neuronal impulses the sole causes of all our mental activity?

As to it being the only possible universe, I don’t know - there might be others, with different kinds of particles and forces and hence different laws.

If so the laws of nature could be different.

Is all human activity ultimately produced by purposeless particles?

Ultimately, yes, if by purpose you mean conscious intent.

Yet intent and purpose are directed towards the future of which particles are not aware. How can they appear in a system restricted to the present?

So the truth is an accurate description of reality?

Essentially, yes.

What ensures the accuracy?

To the extent that we hear the statements, decode the symbols and compare them to our own sensory experiences, yes, they are tangible and observable.

Is the relationship tangible and observable?

You assume only physical and chemical processes exist.

And until other kinds of processes are observed and described, or at the very least, plausibly elucidated, I will continue to do so.

Can you observe your assumption?

Given that we have no other means of accessing the rest of the world outside our bodies, what else could it be based on?

The inference is intangible.

The only direct knowledge you have is of your thoughts, feelings and perceptions.

Or alternatively, they are the results of our senses.

How can intangible events be the results of our senses?

My thoughts and feelings and perceptions are only intangible in the most literal sense possible, that you can’t handle them with your hands or put them in a container.

That is the only sense that matters in this context!

We can, however, move our thoughts and feelings and perceptions from our own minds onto paper or onto computer screens and even into the minds of others by means of encoding them in language, whether this language be words or images or actions.

We can move the expression of thoughts and feelings and perceptions but not the experiences themselves. You are attempting to dispose of subjectivity by making it objective!

Thinking, feeling and perceiving are things that our physical bodies do, not things that happen to our physical bodies because some nonphysical entity is doing them.

You believe they are physical activities although they are unobservable. Yet mental activities are essentially different because they are the controlling factors. How could the brain control itself without insight? Can a computer learn to understand what it is doing?

What is mind made of?

What is physical energy made of? The success of science demonstrates that the mind is far more powerful than matter.

In what sense am I ‘disposing’ of my mind by explaining it in terms of physical processes?

Can physical processes interpret and explain themselves? You have described the mind as a collection thereby rejecting it as an enduring entity and eliminating it as a source of reasoning and responsibility. In your scheme of things the self disappears completely and so does self-control - with devastating results for any theory of knowledge.

If mind is all that exists, does that make the rest of the world imaginary?

The mind is our starting point. We have good reasons to believe material objects exist but our reasons are abstract. It is absurd to think thoughts are minute electrical currents which have succeeded in understanding themselves!

 

[Sair]

That is precisely what sexual permissiveness amounts to.

So you think that fulfilling one’s sexual desires is inherently disrespectful?

Sex is necessary for fulfilment in marriage because it is the expression of lifelong commitment and undivided love of a man and woman for each other.

I have no issue with sex being an expression of lifelong commitment and the means of reproduction. Sharing love does not divide it or diminish its strength.

Children are very perceptive and notice the different opinions and attitudes of adults who are not their parents. Favouritism and confusion are inevitable in a sexual commune.

Favouritism and confusion don’t appear to be issues in societies where shared paternity is the norm.

So it wouldn’t benefit the majority!

I would be surprised if perfectly monogamous marriages have been the majority of cases throughout history. There’s been more than one ‘revelation’ in recent years that long-standing partnerships have been ‘open’ marriages. Polyamorous inclinations may be more common than we realise.

Polyamory is based on mutual consent and consistency which are liable to end at any time.

Which is exactly what monogamous relationships are based on!

Excessive freedom exists from the moment a couple renounce their promise to faithful to each other.

Being faithful means staying true to your partner as a person, which may or may not include the requirement for sexual exclusivity.

The principle of moderation applies…

As it does in all things. But you have a very restrictive definition of ‘moderation’ if one partner is moderate and two is excessive!

A collection cannot have self-control or a mind of its own.

And you know this how? Is this a law of the universe?

So none of our activity is radically different from that of apes?

Our behaviours are ape behaviours, because we are apes. Our chimp and bonobo cousins don’t tend to wear clothes or drive cars or write novels or use money, but frankly, these are differences of degree rather than kind. The basic impulses and characteristics that drive our behaviours are ape impulses and characteristics.

What governs the brain?

The interactions of its components, the influence of the internal and external environment.

Where do the other features originate? Are neuronal impulses the sole causes of all our mental activity?

Of course they’re not the sole causes. I think, in philosophical terms, they might be deemed ‘efficient causes’. Surely you’ve heard of the ‘lizard brain’ - the parts of the brain we share with our earliest vertebrate ancestors.

 

[Sair]

If so the laws of nature could be different.

Could be, but don’t appear to be. The nature of matter and energy in this universe is not different to what it is.

Yet intent and purpose are directed towards the future of which particles are not aware. How can they appear in a system restricted to the present?

By extrapolation from the information gained through the experience of the organism. Our predictions and anticipation of the future are always based on the past and the present.

What ensures the accuracy?

Continued observation. As to that, I don’t think ‘ensuring’ is the right word. We have to keep checking. That’s why science is a progressive discipline.

Is the relationship tangible and observable?

I’m not sure what you mean here - are you asking if a relationship between objects is itself an object?

Can you observe your assumption?

I can certainly be aware of making it.

The inference is intangible.

By your standards, electricity is also intangible.

How can intangible events be the results of our senses?

Why is smell such a powerful trigger of memory? Why does music elicit emotional responses? I don’t know. But these things are undeniably so.

That is the only sense that matters in this context!

See above comment about electricity. Is gravity intangible too?

We can move the expression of thoughts and feelings and perceptions but not the experiences themselves. You are attempting to dispose of subjectivity by making it objective!

Nothing of the kind. I can attempt to translate the electrochemical impulses of my thoughts into symbols on a page, and by such means, another person may decode the symbols and experience something of my thoughts.

You believe they are physical activities although they are unobservable. Yet mental activities are essentially different because they are the controlling factors.

So you don’t think that the source of mental control of the body could possibly originate from within the brain itself?

How could the brain control itself without insight? Can a computer learn to understand what it is doing?

How can insight develop without experience? In other words, how can we obtain information about a situation other than via our senses? Computers can learn to defeat chess masters. Does that mean they might one day exhibit consciousness? Who can say? Are you certain that a complex, sophisticated computer is not self-aware?

What is physical energy made of? The success of science demonstrates that the mind is far more powerful than matter.

Even physicists don’t know what energy is other than energy. The success of science is increasingly demonstrating that mind cannot exist independently of matter.

Can physical processes interpret and explain themselves? You have described the mind as a collection thereby rejecting it as an enduring entity and eliminating it as a source of reasoning and responsibility. In your scheme of things the self disappears completely and so does self-control - with devastating results for any theory of knowledge.

A collection endures as an entity for as long as the collection or configuration stays together. I don’t expect my consciousness to endure after my body dies and begins to disintegrate. Why should not certain physical processes be self-aware? Is this somehow logically contradictory? True, we don’t know precisely how self-awareness arises, but this is not a reason to simply assume it is a product of some immaterial soul or magical mind-stuff. What’s more, if we can’t observe an immaterial entity other than through physical processes, how would we ever know the difference?

The mind is our starting point. We have good reasons to believe material objects exist but our reasons are abstract. It is absurd to think thoughts are minute electrical currents which have succeeded in understanding themselves!

Why absurd? And just how abstract are our reasons to believe in a material world? Is experience abstract? I would have thought that if I immerse myself in a body of water, sit on a chair, or stick my hand into a fire, they would all provide pretty concrete reasons to believe the material world exists.

 

[levinas12]

In spite of your disclaimers, Sair, your universe is Laplacean.

And, if everything is determined by physical necessity, then everything we do, we have to do. Our actions cannot be otherwise.

Is a clock interested in truth? in moral responsibility? in refuting tonyrey?

 

[levinas12]

In spite of your disclaimers, Sair, your universe is Laplacean.

And, if everything is determined by physical necessity, then everything we do, we have to do. Our actions cannot be otherwise.

Is a clock interested in truth? in moral responsibility? in refuting tonyrey?

I should have said:

But why would a clock be interested in the truth? in moral responsibility? in refuting tonyrey?

Your very postings argue against your position.

You are obviously not a clock.

 

[tonyrey]

That is precisely what sexual permissiveness amounts to.

Disrespect exists when physical sex becomes a matter of multiple choice with an indefinite number of answers.

Sex is necessary for fulfilment in marriage because it is the expression of lifelong commitment and undivided love of a man and woman for each other.

I have no issue with sex being an expression of lifelong commitment and the means of reproduction. Sharing love does not divide it or diminish its strength.

Do polyamorists engage in sexual love with more than one person at a time?

Children are very perceptive and notice the different opinions and attitudes of adults who are not their parents. Favouritism and confusion are inevitable in a sexual commune.

Favouritism and confusion don’t appear to be issues in societies where shared paternity is the norm.

Which societies do you have in mind?

So it wouldn’t benefit the majority!

I would be surprised if perfectly monogamous marriages have been the majority of cases throughout history. There’s been more than one ‘revelation’ in recent years that long-standing partnerships have been ‘open’ marriages. Polyamorous inclinations may be more common than we realise.

That is not surprising in a permissive society which has led to disastrous consequences.

Polyamory is based on mutual consent and consistency which are liable to end at any time.

Which is exactly what monogamous relationships are based on!

Partiularly in our present society!

Excessive freedom exists from the moment a couple renounce their promise to faithful to each other.

Being faithful means staying true to your partner as a person, which may or may not include the requirement for sexual exclusivity.

The issue is whether you stay true when you give way to your desire for other lovers.

The principle of moderation applies…

As it does in all things. But you have a very restrictive definition of ‘moderation’ if one partner is moderate and two is excessive!

I didn’t realise polyamory means biamory! Or even triamory!

A collection cannot have self-control or a mind of its own.

And you know this how? Is this a law of the universe?

It’s a law of logic! A self is a singular unit whereas a collection is a multiple set.

So none of our activity is radically different from that of apes?

Our behaviours are ape behaviours, because we are apes. Our chimp and bonobo cousins don’t tend to wear clothes or drive cars or write novels or use money, but frankly, these are differences of degree rather than kind. The basic impulses and characteristics that drive our behaviours are ape impulses and characteristics.

So civilisation is merely a veneer? Philosophical reasoning is motivated by ape impulses? Moral responsibility is a myth?

What governs the brain?

The interactions of its components, the influence of the internal and external environment.

So we are biological machines?

Where do the other features originate? Are neuronal impulses the sole causes of all our mental activity?

Of course they’re not the sole causes. I think, in philosophical terms, they might be deemed ‘efficient causes’.

What are the other causes?

Surely you’ve heard of the ‘lizard brain’ - the parts of the brain we share with our earliest vertebrate ancestors.

That explains why you’re a polyamorist!

“An interesting aspect to reproduction in these asexual lizards is that mating behavior still occurs even though the populations are all female. One female plays the role of a male and mounts the female that is about to lay eggs. This behaviour is due to hormonal cycles. Since lizards who act out the courtship ritual produce more offspring, it can be said that they still require sexual behaviour for maximum reproductive success.”

mudfooted.com/asexual-lizard-genetic-variation/

I reckon the female of the species could well be at the root of polyamory! The male is notoriously unsatisfactory in the eyes of the opposite sex…

 

[Sair]

Disrespect exists when physical sex becomes a matter of multiple choice with an indefinite number of answers.

You’re forgetting the key factor that polyamory isn’t just about sex.

Do polyamorists engage in sexual love with more than one person at a time?

Some do. Depends on the people.

Which societies do you have in mind?

Examples found from a quick google of ‘partible paternity’ returned the Bari, Ache and Tapirape of lowland South America - multiple fathers for children are the norm for them.

That is not surprising in a permissive society which has led to disastrous consequences.

And yet the couples who have admitted to having open marriages seem to have enjoyed strong and enduring relationships. Doesn’t seem disastrous from their point of view.

The issue is whether you stay true when you give way to your desire for other lovers.

You have a different and more sexually specific notion of ‘staying true’, obviously.

I didn’t realise polyamory means biamory! Or even triamory!

Polyamory technically means ‘many loves’ - it doesn’t specify actual numbers.

It’s a law of logic! A self is a singular unit whereas a collection is a multiple set.

And what do you have when multiple components work together to create an overall effect? Is a car, for example, a set of parts or a whole that works because of the interaction of its parts?

So civilisation is merely a veneer? Philosophical reasoning is motivated by ape impulses? Moral responsibility is a myth?

The basis of our concept of justice is shared by our chimp and bonobo cousins. Our theory of mind is shared by them as well, which is why apes have been observed engaging in acts of deception - you need to be able to imagine what another can see and know in order to successfully deceive them. Like I said, differences of degree, not of kind.

So we are biological machines?

If you like that phrase, sure. But why should this diminish the status we like to award ourselves? Mousetraps and magnetic resonance imagers are both machines, but one is immensely more complex, delicate and capable than the other.

I reckon the female of the species could well be at the root of polyamory! The male is notoriously unsatisfactory in the eyes of the opposite sex…

I’d agree with you, in a roundabout way - the female of the species may well be responsible for the more egalitarian relationships that are the norm for polyamorists, whereas throughout much of history, the sexual freedom exercised by men either with mistresses or with multiple wives far outstripped any similar behaviour by women.

 

[Sair]

In spite of your disclaimers, Sair, your universe is Laplacean.

And, if everything is determined by physical necessity, then everything we do, we have to do. Our actions cannot be otherwise.

Is a clock interested in truth? in moral responsibility? in refuting tonyrey?

So, can you give me a breakdown of the types of human activity that are constrained by physical necessity and those that are not? Regardless of what we do, we can’t ‘break’ the laws of physics, otherwise they wouldn’t be physical laws at all. You’re also leaving out the role of randomness in influencing the behaviour of material entities.

In what sense is the ‘me’ that must behave in certain ways not the ‘me’ that does behave in those ways? What part of me - that is somehow not me - is forcing ‘me’ to act? If, as recent neuroscientific research suggests, we make our choices and then rationalise them, rather than reasoning our way to making choices, how would I know the difference between a decision I made and a decision forced on ‘me’ by the me-that-is-not-me?

Your dualistic assumptions lead you to suppose there must be in every person some entity that is more themselves than themselves, that is not governed by the fundamental behaviour of matter and energy, even though it is inextricably bound to the physical body whilst said body remains alive.

And I think you’ll find that human brains - indeed, all mammalian brains - are vastly more complex, variable and subtle instruments than the average clock…

 

[tonyrey]

Disrespect exists when physical sex becomes a matter of multiple choice with an indefinite number of answers.

Physical sex is the key - and defining - factor in polyamory. In your view love is not love when it is asexual.

Do polyamorists engage in sexual love with more than one person at a time?

Some do. Depends on the people.

Do you believe group sex should be encouraged? And recommended to children? Or Should they be taught that they are free to choose how to behave sexually?

Which societies do you have in mind?

Examples found from a quick google of ‘partible paternity’ returned the Bari, Ache and Tapirape of lowland South America - multiple fathers for children are the norm for them.

Do you believe those tribes should be role models for modern society?

That is not surprising in a permissive society which has led to disastrous consequences.

And yet the couples who have admitted to having open marriages seem to have enjoyed strong and enduring relationships. Doesn’t seem disastrous from their point of view.

How long have their relationships lasted? How any couples are there in your sample?
How have the children in open marriages developed? Have they followed in their parents’ footsteps?

The issue is whether you stay true when you give way to your desire for other lovers.

You have a different and more sexually specific notion of ‘staying true’, obviously.

Then it should appeal to a polyamorist! The truth is to be found in sexual activity!

I didn’t realise polyamory means biamory! Or even triamory!

Polyamory technically means ‘many loves’ - it doesn’t specify actual numbers.

Is “many loves” moderation? Perhaps a better term would be “moderatamory” - or “optimamory”!

It’s a law of logic! A self is a singular unit whereas a collection is a multiple set.

And what do you have when multiple components work together to create an overall effect? Is a car, for example, a set of parts or a whole that works because of the interaction of its parts?

The car is not responsible for its performance… Are you just the sum of your parts?

So civilisation is merely a veneer? Philosophical reasoning is motivated by ape impulses? Moral responsibility is a myth?

The basis of our concept of justice is shared by our chimp and bonobo cousins.

Do they accept the universal principles of liberty, equality and fraternity? Are they morally responsible for their actions? And is philosophical reasoning motivated by ape impulses?

Our theory of mind is shared by them as well, which is why apes have been observed engaging in acts of deception - you need to be able to imagine what another can see and know in order to successfully deceive them. Like I said, differences of degree, not of kind.

You base your entire theory of mind on acts of deception by apes?

So we are biological machines?

If you like that phrase, sure.

You obviously dislike it! However true implications are not always palatable. It is not a question of liking: the phrase is either true or false.

But why should this diminish the status we like to award ourselves? Mousetraps and magnetic resonance imagers are both machines, but one is immensely more complex, delicate and capable than the other.

Complexity, delicacy and capability don’t add up to rationality, freedom or moral responsibility.

I reckon the female of the species could well be at the root of polyamory! The male is notoriously unsatisfactory in the eyes of the opposite sex…

I’d agree with you, in a roundabout way - the female of the species may well be responsible for the more egalitarian relationships that are the norm for polyamorists, whereas throughout much of history, the sexual freedom exercised by men either with mistresses or with multiple wives far outstripped any similar behaviour by women.

You are distorting a male vice into a female virtue: equality at all costs even when it entails degradation… It is ironic that you are strongly motivated by a desire for sexual freedom when you believe you are a biological machine! Something is not quite right in Australia…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

And I think you’ll find that human brains - indeed, all mammalian brains - are vastly more complex, variable and subtle instruments than the average clock…

Why do people keep making the mistake of assuming that because a thing is incredibly complex that this some how excuses us from the insurmountable logical implications involved in believing that everything is physical? It doesn’t matter how complex a thing is, it doesn’t make us anymore free from physical laws than we were before. Freewill intrinsically presents by its very definition, and our experiential knowledge of the fact, that we are more than physical entities; that our personal natures are both immanent and transcendent of physical reality. Freewill simply becomes meaningless if all our thoughts and actions are nothing more than the sum total of all physical events in the universe so far.

 

[Sair]

Why do people keep making the mistake of assuming that because a thing is incredibly complex that this some how excuses us from the insurmountable logical implications involved in believing that everything is physical?

Because our ‘logical implications’ are deduced from our experience from inside the complex array of physical phenomena that make up our conscious awareness. We don’t know everything there is to know about the nature of physical phenomena, so it seems premature to claim that physical phenomena can’t explain our conscious experience.

It doesn’t matter how complex a thing is, it doesn’t make us anymore free from physical laws than we were before. Freewill intrinsically presents by its very definition, and our experiential knowledge of the fact, that we are more than physical entities;

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Maybe free will is meaningless. Maybe it is a wish-thinking construct.

If there is nothing “willing”, how can something be a “wish-thinking construct”?!! Its meaningless. Wishing is only meaningful given the existence of a being with a personal will. “Will” doesn’t exist and is meaningless if all events are just products of previous ones.

I fail to understand why you don’t get that. Its not difficult.