What can science tell us about truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love?

[tonyrey]

Jewel34;11520073:

Ah, the quintessential “ad hominem argument

”!!! The correction of a false generalisation is not an ad hominem.

No response!

“rare” begs the question because there has been - and still is - so much disagreement within the scientific community and so much corruption in the Establishment it is often years before scandals are revealed and the full truth comes to light. Nature is a prime example of favouritism and prejudice.

No response!

1. Goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are all based on truth.

1. Truth, freedom, justice, beauty and love are all aspects of goodness.
2. There is no dispute regarding the fundamental meanings of truth, goodness, freedom and justice in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

No response!

Science presupposes logic which is a branch of philosophy.

“Positive” presupposes human rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

“non-destructive behavior” presupposes human rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

a “quid-pro-quo” attitude” presupposes human rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

Beauty is objective - e.g. the Golden Ratio - as well as subjective.

Love is primarily a personal commitment resulting from a rational decision to will the good of another. (Aristotle, Aquinas)

No response!

Science is totally silent with regard to the origin, value, purpose and significance of existence.

Total silence in philosophy implies no defence!

 

[balto]

All abstractions presuppose a “someone”, who can make those abstractions. In a universe without conscious beings there can be no abstractions, even though the properties are “there” which make the process of abstracting possible.

I get what you’re saying here, but I don’t know that observers need to exist for abstractions to be real. Humans are an interesting case in that we need material processes as “training wheels” so-to-speak to get to the abstractions. But I don’t know that abstractions depend on the existence of material beings. Maybe they do but just because humans need the material components doesn’t necessarily entail that abstractions don’t have independent existence.

Using a variant of the old question: “if a CD player is operational in the forest, and there is no one there to hear it… does it make music?” The answer is simple: No, there is no music, however there are the vibrations of the air, which might be taken as “music” if there was someone who could hear it and whose mind would perceive it as “music” rather than “noise”.

But, if I may be so bold, what causes any particular individual to perceive a certain series of sounds to be “musical?” I mean, what is it that we are responding to? If it’s the case that there is no abstract reality that is being kindled by the music, then shouldn’t it be the case that I am no more likely to find inspiration in Beethoven than the police sirens and dog barking outside my home?

(Or to use a cute version of it: “If there is a guy in the forest, who says something… but there is no woman around… is he still wrong?”

Oh boy, that one can get you into trouble . In my case I’d probably still be wrong .

From this it follows logically that Beethoven did not create the Ninth Symphony, rather “discovered” it. Also Shakespeare did not create the Hamlet, he “discovered” it. What about the translations of Hamlet? Do they refer to the same “abstract object”, or are the versions in German (or French…) also “discovered”? What if there is a typo in an edition? Did the typesetter “discover” a brand new “Hamlet-look-alike”? What about Picasso’s Guernica? Is it “copied” from some “abstract object” which existed (forever!) independently from humans?

I think it is more about the external message or reality behind it. I know I am doing a poor job of explaining this… It could be that Hamlet does a very nice job of connecting people to an abstract truism about reality; whereas the junk in, say, the tabloids does not do. Creativity is a skill that I unfortunately don’t have (my right brain is only good for moving the left side of my body) but I think that right-brained individuals really are connecting to these realities and making them accessible through music, literature, art, etc. On the other hand, I think you and I would agree that scientists and rationalists can do so as well. Not all people respond well to science and rationalism though.

If there’s no abstractions behind these works, then we run into another problem. Say all humanity dies off and sometime in the distant future aliens arrive on Earth and discover old manuscripts of Hamlet. Not knowing the language or human customs it would be impossible for them to discover the meaning. But is it true that the meaning was not real or passed out of existence with humanity? I contend not; it’s just that Hamlet’s bridge to the abstract meaning was burned irreversibly.

And, of course, the infants are totally unable to “think” in abstractions. It is quite a learning curve for them. And yet, some people assert that they (as part of the human species) do have a “rational soul”. So the conclusion is that thinking in abstractions is independent from the “soul”.

Well I think they have a rational soul at the moment of conception (maybe even before that, it’s just not paired with a specific body yet) but the inability to think in abstractions is a consequence of not having a sufficiently developed body, because humans need the material interactions to build the bridges to the abstractions. I hope I am making more sense.

 

[Jewel34]

balto:

But I don’t know that abstractions depend on the existence of material beings.

I used a more generic description: “thinking beings, capable of abstractions”. The idea of an “immaterial object” or “immaterial being” still escapes me. I have no idea what would be behind this label.

balto:

But, if I may be so bold, what causes any particular individual to perceive a certain series of sounds to be “musical?” I mean, what is it that we are responding to? If it’s the case that there is no abstract reality that is being kindled by the music, then shouldn’t it be the case that I am no more likely to find inspiration in Beethoven than the police sirens and dog barking outside my home?

This is not my specialty, but I can try to answer. Music has precious little to do with the sound waves themselves. The perceived sound (just like a burning sensation of your hand) get transmitted to the proper area of the brain, and induces emotions – in some people. As another cute saying expressed: “Wagner’s music is actually much better than it sounds”. Joke aside, not all people respond to the same type of music. But the basic effect is the same: the brain produces the chemicals according to the stimuli.

balto:

If there’s no abstractions behind these works, then we run into another problem. Say all humanity dies off and sometime in the distant future aliens arrive on Earth and discover old manuscripts of Hamlet. Not knowing the language or human customs it would be impossible for them to discover the meaning. But is it true that the meaning was not real or passed out of existence with humanity? I contend not; it’s just that Hamlet’s bridge to the abstract meaning was burned irreversibly.

The abstraction is created, not discovered. Just ask yourself: “Where was Hamlet (or the Ninth symphony) before the first cave-men arrived on the scene?” If there would be “abstract objects”, which exist independently of us… where were they before the Earth was formed from the interstellar debris?

balto:

Well I think they have a rational soul at the moment of conception (maybe even before that, it’s just not paired with a specific body yet) but the inability to think in abstractions is a consequence of not having a sufficiently developed body, because humans need the material interactions to build the bridges to the abstractions. I hope I am making more sense.

It is a fact that not even the Catholic Church asserts any more that the “soul” is assigned at the time of conception (I am not kidding! Look it up). The point is that interfering with the activity of the brain (either by electrodes or by chemicals) does change the ability to think, and stopping the interference will restore the “status quo” is an excellent indication that there is no need to assume some “soul”.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It is a fact that not even the Catholic Church asserts any more that the “soul” is assigned at the time of conception (I am not kidding! Look it up).

Your source?

 

[Maxime_Indigent]

Please elaborate…

Well, neuroscience has already deduced the components necessary to create love: nerve growth factor, testosterone, estrogen, dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, oxytocin, and vasopressin.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Well, neuroscience has already deduced the components necessary to create love: nerve growth factor, testosterone, estrogen, dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, oxytocin, and vasopressin.

Unfortunately, love isn’t merely an emotion.

 

[CrossofChrist]

It is a fact that not even the Catholic Church asserts any more that the “soul” is assigned at the time of conception (I am not kidding! Look it up). The point is … that there is no need to assume some “soul”.

:ehh:

 

[balto]

This is not my specialty, but I can try to answer. Music has precious little to do with the sound waves themselves. The perceived sound (just like a burning sensation of your hand) get transmitted to the proper area of the brain, and induces emotions – in some people. As another cute saying expressed: “Wagner’s music is actually much better than it sounds”. Joke aside, not all people respond to the same type of music. But the basic effect is the same: the brain produces the chemicals according to the stimuli.

I accept all of this, but the question I have is that why does human thinking tend to converge on what we would call “good music?” There is an enormous, if not infinite, selection of sounds that could be combined into would-be music, but only a very small, specific set is considered music. If there really is nothing that we are connecting to in music, then shouldn’t we expect to see a random distribution of musical preferences? Although not everyone likes the same kind of music, we tend to agree on what is and is not music and what is dissonance. Maybe we are connecting to the meaning that the artist was trying to represent, and not everyone connects through the same type of music? The artist’s capturing of this meaning and then her expression of said meaning into musical form is significant I think.

The abstraction is created, not discovered. Just ask yourself: “Where was Hamlet (or the Ninth symphony) before the first cave-men arrived on the scene?” If there would be “abstract objects”, which exist independently of us… where were they before the Earth was formed from the interstellar debris?

Just to clear up any misconceptions, I am not claiming that the physical manuscript or play of Hamlet is pre-existent. I think that what I am meaning to say is that something akin to the “moral” of Hamlet is pre-existent and Shakespeare connected with this moral and expressed it as a play in order to convey this meaning to other people. Speaking of “where” and “when” this moral would exist is undefined, as an immaterial truth would not be constrained by spacetime. Does this make more sense? I apologize for my lack of clarity.

It is a fact that not even the Catholic Church asserts any more that the “soul” is assigned at the time of conception (I am not kidding! Look it up). The point is that interfering with the activity of the brain (either by electrodes or by chemicals) does change the ability to think, and stopping the interference will restore the “status quo” is an excellent indication that there is no need to assume some “soul”.

Well I’ll have to check the Catechism but I think what is probably claimed is that human life begins at conception, which would be true. A human, according to Catholic doctrine, consists of both a body and soul. If either component is missing, then it is not a human. So the soul may exist prior to bodily formation, but it is not technically human life until the distinct body exists. After bodily death, the soul is not technically human until reunited with the resurrected incorruptible body. As to brain stimulation being able to affect human thinking, this is actually what would be expected to occur even if you accept that a human has an immaterial intellect. Physical sensation and imagination are needed to understand the abstract truths, so interference with these processes would hamper the ability to grasp new concepts and connect with previously understood concepts.

 

[Jewel34]

balto:

I accept all of this, but the question I have is that why does human thinking tend to converge on what we would call “good music?” There is an enormous, if not infinite, selection of sounds that could be combined into would-be music, but only a very small, specific set is considered music.

This leads to more general question of “what do we find aesthetically pleasing, or beautiful”? The answer is again rather simple: we find something beautiful if we are exposed to it frequently. In other words, beauty is “learned” not ingrained. Just an example: look at the Madonna pictures created a few hundred years ago. They are quite similar to each other, so we can safely assume that they represent the prevailing concept of beauty. But if you look at them closely, their eyes are all protruding and ugly by today’s standards. The reason is simple: most people had such protruding eyes… due to the lack of iodine in the drinking water. (It is called Basedow’s disease.)

There is the Golden Ratio (1.618…) which we find very pleasing. Artists discovered this fact a long time ago. Michelangelo’s Last Supper is loaded with this number. The reason that we find it “beautiful” is simple. We are surrounded with it. It is all over the place in nature. The average human body has this ratio everywhere.

balto:

If there really is nothing that we are connecting to in music, then shouldn’t we expect to see a random distribution of musical preferences? Although not everyone likes the same kind of music, we tend to agree on what is and is not music and what is dissonance.

Not really. When Mozart created his first pieces, they were not considered “beautiful”, they were off the beaten track. When rock music was first introduced it was characterized as a mere cacophony. Today most people do not like “rap” music, others love it. Even in music there are trends. The old, oriental (especially Indian) music using mostly drums and some strings is not palatable to many people.

balto:

Just to clear up any misconceptions, I am not claiming that the physical manuscript or play of Hamlet is pre-existent. I think that what I am meaning to say is that something akin to the “moral” of Hamlet is pre-existent and Shakespeare connected with this moral and expressed it as a play in order to convey this meaning to other people.

Very well. Somewhat clearer now, but still not clear. The manuscript is only one of the representations of Hamlet. There is no abstract “moral” of Hamlet, or the Ninth Symphony. If there are “abstract objects”, then all these exist independently from us.

balto:

Speaking of “where” and “when” this moral would exist is undefined, as an immaterial truth would not be constrained by spacetime.

This is the point when you lose me. The word “exists” is undefined here. We are all aware of physical existence – no disagreement there. We are aware of concepts, and abstractions. These cannot exist without the material underpinning. To say that there is an abstract “behind” independently from two physical objects and an observer (all aligned on the same line, with the observer being at one end) makes no sense at all. Without an observer there is no “behind”.

balto:

Well I’ll have to check the Catechism but I think what is probably claimed is that human life begins at conception, which would be true.

I am talking about the “moment of ensoulment”. For a long time it was asserted that ensoulment is connected to the “quickening”. (In Genesis God blew the “soul” into Adam’s nostrils, and in some languages the word “soul” is a derivative of “breath”.) As far as I am aware, there is no official teaching about the moment of ensoulment. Just Google the “moment of ensoulment” and you will find a truckload of opinions One of the serious objections is related to the case of maternal twins. There is one egg being impregnated and then a split occurs, and two fetuses are formed. What happens to the “soul”? Anyhow… the concept of the soul adds nothing to activity of the brain (called the mind), it only adds unnecessary confusion.

 

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by Jewel34

 

[tonyrey]

  			Originally Posted by **Maxime Indigent**

And fortunately the components necessary to create the power of reason are not found in the skull of a neuroscientist - or in anyone else’s for that matter!

 

[tonyrey]

Well, neuroscience has already deduced the components necessary to create love: nerve growth factor, testosterone, estrogen, dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, oxytocin, and vasopressin.

Has neuroscience has deduced the components necessary to create your “rational” thoughts?

 

[tonyrey]

…Anyhow… the concept of the soul adds nothing to activity of the brain (called the mind), it only adds unnecessary confusion.

There is far more confusion in a mindless brain than a brainless mind…

 

[tonyrey]

] Originally Posted by Jewel34

• It is a fact that not even the Catholic Church asserts any more that the “soul” is assigned at the time of conception (I am not kidding! Look it up).

Your source?

**

2270

Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72**
The Catholic Church is assumed to assign a different moment to the creation of the soul - for some undisclosed reason…**
**

 

[oldcelt]

---

The Catholic Church is assumed to assign a different moment to the creation of the soul - for some undisclosed reason…**
**

Innocent life except for original sin. That thing that God laid on all humanity for the actions of two thousands of years before according to the Church.

 

[balto]

This leads to more general question of “what do we find aesthetically pleasing, or beautiful”? The answer is again rather simple: we find something beautiful if we are exposed to it frequently. In other words, beauty is “learned” not ingrained. Just an example: look at the Madonna pictures created a few hundred years ago. They are quite similar to each other, so we can safely assume that they represent the prevailing concept of beauty. But if you look at them closely, their eyes are all protruding and ugly by today’s standards. The reason is simple: most people had such protruding eyes… due to the lack of iodine in the drinking water. (It is called Basedow’s disease.)

There is the Golden Ratio (1.618…) which we find very pleasing. Artists discovered this fact a long time ago. Michelangelo’s Last Supper is loaded with this number. The reason that we find it “beautiful” is simple. We are surrounded with it. It is all over the place in nature. The average human body has this ratio everywhere.

I’m not sure that prevalence is sufficient to explain beauty though. I agree that societal influences are powerful, but there are a lot of things that are common but not beautiful. For instance, greedy and dishonest behavior is quite ubiquitous but I think that you’d be hard-pressed to find people that consider it beautiful (even greedy and dishonest people would probably not find it beautiful).

Not really. When Mozart created his first pieces, they were not considered “beautiful”, they were off the beaten track. When rock music was first introduced it was characterized as a mere cacophony. Today most people do not like “rap” music, others love it. Even in music there are trends. The old, oriental (especially Indian) music using mostly drums and some strings is not palatable to many people.

I think this is the crux of the matter though. If Mozart was not initially considered beautiful, then why is it considered beautiful now? Making recourse to societal influences doesn’t quite explain it because at its inception, Mozart had to at least find it beautiful and then convince others that it was beautiful. What were people responding to if it was nothing more than an arrangement of sounds with no fundamental difference from any other arrangement? The societal pressures of the day were opposing its rise to the level of beauty. Taken to the extreme, there was a first musician who had to discover music. But how is this possible if there is no such thing as music?

This is the point when you lose me. The word “exists” is undefined here. We are all aware of physical existence – no disagreement there. We are aware of concepts, and abstractions. These cannot exist without the material underpinning. To say that there is an abstract “behind” independently from two physical objects and an observer (all aligned on the same line, with the observer being at one end) makes no sense at all. Without an observer there is no “behind”.

I think we are kind of approaching metaphysics now. I don’t think there is a reason in principle why concepts, morals, and abstractions cannot exist independently of matter. It’s true that humans generally would not be able to reach them if not for the material objects, but that is a limitation of human nature. Our being aware of it does not cause it to exist.

I am talking about the “moment of ensoulment”. For a long time it was asserted that ensoulment is connected to the “quickening”. (In Genesis God blew the “soul” into Adam’s nostrils, and in some languages the word “soul” is a derivative of “breath”.) As far as I am aware, there is no official teaching about the moment of ensoulment. Just Google the “moment of ensoulment” and you will find a truckload of opinions One of the serious objections is related to the case of maternal twins. There is one egg being impregnated and then a split occurs, and two fetuses are formed. What happens to the “soul”?

I understand that we don’t know exactly when ensoulment occurs, but ensoulment doesn’t necessarily entail that the soul is created at the moment of ensoulment. I think the reason for asserting ensoulment occurs at conception is that conception is the first moment when it is possible (before that there’s no unique body, so no ensoulment can occur). The objection of twins is raised frequently, but I’m not sure it causes problems. I think the difficulty arises because we are trying to imagine a soul being “divided” during twinning, but again if a soul is immaterial there is no such thing as “dividing a soul.” It’s more likely that both souls have existed since creation and only become paired with a body at conception or twinning.

Anyhow… the concept of the soul adds nothing to activity of the brain (called the mind), it only adds unnecessary confusion.

Naturally I disagree . I think it can help resolve some of the above issues. If abstractions and morals exist, we cannot connect to them using material objects alone. I think I may need your responses to the above before I can comment further though.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The Catholic Church is not a front for a “cruel and vindictive” god, as OldCelt has said elsewhere. It seeks to protect the life of the unborn. That’s more than can be said for godless, cruel, and vindictive men who seek to crush the life of the unborn child.

 

[tonyrey]

Innocent life except for original sin. That thing that God laid on all humanity for the actions of two thousands of years before according to the Church.

“No man is an island”. We are not isolated individuals but members of a family who are affected and afflicted by the behaviour of others. Our blood-stained history is ample evidence that we are not born into society with a clean slate but are victims of the sins of our ancestors:

**CCC **405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants.

 

[tonyrey]

The Catholic Church is not a front for a “cruel and vindictive” god, as OldCelt has said elsewhere. It seeks to protect the life of the unborn. That’s more than can be said for godless, cruel, and vindictive men who seek to crush the life of the unborn child.

Irrefutable! It is very easy to pass the buck. It gets you off the hook…

 

[tonyrey]

… If abstractions and morals exist, we cannot connect to them using material objects alone.

Nothing matters is everything consists of nothing more than matter!