|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 7:49 pm Post subject: 588 |
 |
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| I know of no correlations that I know can't have explanations, so perhaps I shouldn't believe in them. |
I think I agree with your intent there, though I think it needs further division.
First, putting the whole sentience thing completely aside, and dealing only with what hard science typically deals with, I think correlations fall into two categories:
1) The most basic laws of physics - correlations that are observed to hold universally, but are not explainable in terms of more basic laws. These are like axioms in a mathematical proof system. Of course, I don't know how we can ever be quite sure we've hit on one of these. Sub-atomic physics, string theory, etc, ... new findings ... may change what we held as axioms to be theorems deduced from lower-level axioms. In any case, these "axiomatic" correlations, that essentially are the basic laws, either:
1a) They exist - basic laws (correlations) that can't be explained as the result of more basic laws, or ...
1b) An infinite regress - every law is actually a correlation explainable as resulting from lower level laws.
2) Correlations that can be explained as the result of a combination of more basic laws.
Concerning sentience, I think there can't be an explanation of a correlation between it and anything else. The lack of any intersubjective verifiability means the correlation can't be observed, nor can the nature of subjective experiences be described in terms of simpler properties that are observed or deduced to correlate with anything else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 8:18 pm Post subject: 589 |
|
|
| Why should that make me think that everything is sentient? Shouldn't I need more to go on than just the facts that sentience exists and I can never know that it's not universal. I can never know that everything is sentient either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 8:43 pm Post subject: 590 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| Why should that make me think that everything is sentient? Shouldn't I need more to go on than just the facts that sentience exists and I can never know that it's not universal. I can never know that everything is sentient either. |
Because you have no reason to believe in a correlation between it and an arbitrary subset of everything, or between it and some arbitrary set of physical properties. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 8:52 pm Post subject: 591 |
|
|
| I have no reason to accept any one such correlation as correct but any one of a great many might be correct. All things being sentient is just one of a vast number of possibilities. I have no reason to accept everything being sentient over any of the others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 9:22 pm Post subject: 592 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| I have no reason to accept any one such correlation as correct but any one of a great many might be correct. All things being sentient is just one of a vast number of possibilities. I have no reason to accept everything being sentient over any of the others. |
I'm open to a suggestion as to a possible correlation between sentience and whatever as an example.
I've heard, for instance, suggestions (pure speculation) that it might be correlated with any "information processing", but I don't think "information processing" has a meaningful definition - I think it's just an interpretation.
My intuition is that the more complex the description of what it is sentience correlates with, the more reason there needs to be to believe it. The least complex descriptions are "everything" and "nothing", and the latter can be ruled out. "All points in space" would be low on the complexity scale of descriptions. The description of a biological neural network is highly complex ("biological neural network" is not a description). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 10:41 pm Post subject: 593 |
|
|
The simplest explanation is usually more likely that any one of the others but that doesn't mean it's likely to be true. When there are multiple other possible explanations then it's more likely to be one of the others even if each of them is more complicated. I could suggest other explanations, such as being human, as a possibility and you could point out for each such reason that it's less likely than absolutely everything, but that doesn't make absolutely everything more likely to be correct than some unknown one of the others.
A seven being the most likely roll for a pair of dice doesn't mean my next roll will probably be a seven. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:08 pm Post subject: 594 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
The simplest explanation is usually more likely that any one of the others but that doesn't mean it's likely to be true. When there are multiple other possible explanations then it's more likely to be one of the others even if each of them is more complicated. I could suggest other explanations, such as being human, as a possibility and you could point out for each such reason that it's less likely than absolutely everything, but that doesn't make absolutely everything more likely to be correct than some unknown one of the others.
A seven being the most likely roll for a pair of dice doesn't mean my next roll will probably be a seven. |
But if I come up with a procedure that will enumerate an infinite number of descriptions of various sorts of gods, does that mean the existence of one of them is more likely than the simple "no god" scenario? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:17 pm Post subject: 595 |
|
|
| Not convincingly since I don't know that a god exists like I know that sentience exists. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:22 pm Post subject: 596 |
|
|
| Also, I'm not sure what you mean by a god. By sentience I assume you mean what I experience. Some definitions of god can be of real things that I do believe in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:34 am Post subject: 597 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| Not convincingly since I don't know that a god exists like I know that sentience exists. |
But the point is that the large number of less preferable theories does not generally mean that it is more likely that some one of the many of them is correct than that the single simplest one is correct.
For any simplest theory that explains what's observable, I can come up with countless more complex theories. I can just keep adding random complexities. The sheer number of such does not detract from the simplest theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 1:38 am Post subject: 598 |
|
|
| No god isn't really an explanation for anything. A large number of non-god explanations for the universe could also be described. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 3:37 am Post subject: 599 |
|
|
| Come to think of it, just accepting that everything is sentient isn't very useful. You could convince someone that it's true and he'd forget it in an hour because there are no consequences of accepting the belief. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:11 am Post subject: 600 |
|
|
| Usefulness is useful, I agree. Truth is another matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:15 am Post subject: 601 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Usefulness is useful, I agree. Truth is another matter. |
But if you can never know that it's really true and doesn't matter anyway, is it just for entertainment? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:02 pm Post subject: 602 |
|
|
| I'm not sure it doesn't matter, or has no consequences. I don't know. If one accepts the universe has sentience, then perhaps free will also (if one accepts anything has free will). I don't know. It has no consequences to how we build bridges and things like that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:29 pm Post subject: 603 |
|
|
| To have consequences, wouldn't there have to be some measurable effect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 4:50 pm Post subject: 604 |
|
|
I don't necessarily mean physical consequences, but consequences on how one sees the world.
Regarding free will, that could have consequences, but not measurable or with verifiable evidence. Quoting part of a reply to BraveHat:
| Quote: |
| And again, if that's what "mind" is - this consciousness of subjective experience, which can't be detected, which arise from the physical, though not pure epiphenomena, but coupled with some sort of "free will" that is an actual cause behind what theory says are, and what can't be detected as other than, random events at a microscopic level, that affect macroscopic outcomes - if that's what mind is, in all that, there's absolutely not a thing to suggest it's limited to living things. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:41 pm Post subject: 605 |
|
|
It sounds more like the belief that sentience is everywhere matters but not whether or not it actually is everywhere.
I'm not clear on what free will is.
No one is forcing my fingers to type this post and no one is holding a gun to my head. I don't seem to have been tortured nor sleep deprived. I don't feel like I'm sick and I haven't been locked up as too insane to run loose. I could be brainwashed, hypnotized, or drugged without knowing it but I find it hard to believe that anyone would bother. The decision that I should type this post seems to have come from me alone.
Is that free will?
Although no one else has decided specifically that I should type this post, a great many external influences went in to making me who I am. My decision to type it certainly isn't free of them.
If there's some other component that's not caused by anything else then it seems like my decisions are things that happen to me, not things for which I'm responsible. I had no say in those events happening. Assigning them to be mine seems purely arbitrary, even if they did happen within my brain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sat May 05, 2012 9:32 pm Post subject: 606 |
|
|
A question for atheists that come here.
Though I'm not a raving fan of Christian Apologist William Lane Craig (most likely because my initial impression of some of his concerns seem unduly restrictive), he does bring up some awfully thought-provoking points in his debates with atheists, and one of them concerns the objectivity of moral values and duties. As he defines it specifically:
An objectively moral value or duty is a moral value or duty which is valid and binding to a person regardless of whether or not the person believes it to be so. In other words, a person ought to do this and ought not to do that can be said objectively.
I'm curious as what GL atheists believe in an objective moral values and duties, and what atheists believe moral values and duties are basically relative.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deception
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sat May 05, 2012 10:21 pm Post subject: 607 |
|
|
I'm more not really an atheist so much as I am someone who has absence of belief in god, though I do not believe that there is no god.
I believe in relative morality, but let me address Craigs' definition of Objecitve Morality.
If some action X is objectively good or bad (as in, it is assigned a value of good or bad and that is static) in the sense that Craig states, then morality in that sense is meaningless. I say this because morals only are meaningful if people are compelled to follow them. If morality is static regardless of personal viewpoints (so, the feeling of doing something right or wrong is a nonfactor) then how do we initially determine if something is moral? I would expect the Apologist to have a hallowed list of morals which can be applied to every action if he is making this claim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 3:21 am Post subject: 608 |
|
|
| Deception wrote: |
| If some action X is objectively good or bad (as in, it is assigned a value of good or bad and that is static) in the sense that Craig states, then morality in that sense is meaningless. I say this because morals only are meaningful if people are compelled to follow them. |
But isn't the object of moral activity normally for the benefit of something larger than or other than oneself, rendering one's personal compulsions at least secondary if not irrelevant? If someone's personal view point is that tossing Jews in an oven is a good and right thing, do we not have any objective grounds to say that they are morally wrong to do so?
| Deception wrote: |
| If morality is static regardless of personal viewpoints (so, the feeling of doing something right or wrong is a nonfactor) then how do we initially determine if something is moral? I would expect the Apologist to have a hallowed list of morals which can be applied to every action if he is making this claim. |
The claim Craig makes, literally, is that if God does not exist, there is no foundation for objective moral values and duties. I haven't read further into how he defines "God" in this case, but it seems to me he means a transcendent being whose very nature is where humans derive ( knowingly or not) a sense of moral goodness. In other words, the existence of such a being would be the only possible way morality could be objective. Such a claim does not obligate the apologist to have a list of hallowed morals, but it does obligate him to show how no other model for objective morality would make any sense.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deception
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 3:54 am Post subject: 609 |
|
|
BraveHat: I see, I'm prepared to counter that theory of objective morality, but first...
The objective grounds which we possess to say that the Jew-tosser (if I may call him that) is morally wrong is the law. This is to say, that the law is an ethical code which is manufactured through majority rule. If the majority of peoples subscribe that action X is morally good, then the law makes X good. As a citizen of a certain nation, you inherently subscribe to that ethical code.
Now, I believe that there are some things which are intrinsic values of human beings and all creatures.
Firstly, the necessity to protect the young. This is easily provable because if the young die (and the young are weak) then the species can not go on.
Secondly, the necessity to live healthily. This is also apparently true as healthy creatures reproduce and live on.
Thirdly, the necessity for others (not the young) to live (also fairly obvious).
Fourthly,the necessity to understand. To understand oneself and ones' surroundings is a property of the mind which must exist for one to do anything but reproduce and eat.
From this we derive the "original morals", set P if you will, which were at the beginning of mankind and exist in every person the moment that they are born. As you grow up, you have experiences with your surroundings and grow knowledge of them. "Thorns are spiky, they hurt and make me bleed", "Joe bled a lot and is now dead", "poking someone with thorns could kill them", "it is wrong to poke someone with thorns".
Progressions like this (though far more sophisticated in reality) developed many humans with many different subjective morals. As society grew, people had experiences which eliminated some of set P for some reason and thus we have people who find it ethical to break the law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 5:49 pm Post subject: 610 |
|
|
| Deception wrote: |
| The objective grounds which we possess to say that the Jew-tosser (if I may call him that) is morally wrong is the law. This is to say, that the law is an ethical code which is manufactured through majority rule. If the majority of peoples subscribe that action X is morally good, then the law makes X good. As a citizen of a certain nation, you inherently subscribe to that ethical code |
Are you only talking about democratic nations? The Nazis, for example, tossed Jews in the ovens precisely because it was their duty to the law. Are we to say they weren't morally wrong to do this, because it was ratified by the law? Are you saying whenever something is legal, we have objective grounds to say it is moral and whenever something is illegal, we have objective grounds for saying it is immoral?
| Deception wrote: |
Now, I believe that there are some things which are intrinsic values of human beings and all creatures.
Firstly, the necessity to protect the young. This is easily provable because if the young die (and the young are weak) then the species can not go on.
Secondly, the necessity to live healthily. This is also apparently true as healthy creatures reproduce and live on.
Thirdly, the necessity for others (not the young) to live (also fairly obvious).
Fourthly,the necessity to understand. To understand oneself and ones' surroundings is a property of the mind which must exist for one to do anything but reproduce and eat.
From this we derive the "original morals", set P if you will, which were at the beginning of mankind and exist in every person the moment that they are born. As you grow up, you have experiences with your surroundings and grow knowledge of them. "Thorns are spiky, they hurt and make me bleed", "Joe bled a lot and is now dead", "poking someone with thorns could kill them", "it is wrong to poke someone with thorns".
Progressions like this (though far more sophisticated in reality) developed many humans with many different subjective morals. As society grew, people had experiences which eliminated some of set P for some reason and thus we have people who find it ethical to break the law. |
Are you saying Set P values were intrinsic to all people at the beginning but are now only intrinsic to some, or that when someone is born, even now, they have Set P values that are intrinsic but get overridden by what they learn from their surroundings?
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deception
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 6:20 pm Post subject: 611 |
|
|
I'm talking only about democratic nations, yes. Dictatorships and other forms of government which are not democratic are by nature of their structure not objectively moral. Note that objective morality as defined by the law is only restrictive within the governed state. There are in fact global laws, or international policies, which govern the world and were enacted through a democratic process. And yes, I am saying that if something is legal in area X, then granted it is legal through democratic process, it is objectively moral within the state. However the state is a part of the world, so should the world declare action Z immoral and the state declare Z moral, the world overrides the state. The reason? By being part of the world, the state subscribes to the world law; if the state asserts a contradictory statement, then the state is being immoral.
I am saying that set P values are intrinsic and always will be intrinsic to all people at birth. These values aren't "overridden' necessarily, rather they are mutated and built upon through subjective experiences. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 6:55 pm Post subject: 612 |
|
|
| Deception wrote: |
| ... And yes, I am saying that if something is legal in area X, then granted it is legal through democratic process, it is objectively moral within the state. |
I'm curious as to why you choose to use the word "objectively" to describe this. 51% say it's moral today, so it's objectively moral. 2% change their mind, and then it's not. And then, what sort of "democratic process"? One where only white male landowners can vote? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun May 06, 2012 8:52 pm Post subject: 613 |
|
|
| Deception wrote: |
| I'm talking only about democratic nations, yes. Dictatorships and other forms of government which are not democratic are by nature of their structure not objectively moral. Note that objective morality as defined by the law is only restrictive within the governed state. There are in fact global laws, or international policies, which govern the world and were enacted through a democratic process. And yes, I am saying that if something is legal in area X, then granted it is legal through democratic process, it is objectively moral within the state. However the state is a part of the world, so should the world declare action Z immoral and the state declare Z moral, the world overrides the state. The reason? By being part of the world, the state subscribes to the world law; if the state asserts a contradictory statement, then the state is being immoral. |
So basically, we only have objective grounds to say that the Nazi treatment of the Jews was morally wrong when it pertains to those treatments that were against international law at the time. Further, if Hitler had succeeded in conquering the world, killing most of the people he saw as enemies and succeeded in appealing to the majority of people left alive to change the international laws to include hunting down anyone who disagreed with government policy and killing them, one would have object grounds to call the killing a morally right action?
| Deception wrote: |
| I am saying that set P values are intrinsic and always will be intrinsic to all people at birth. These values aren't "overridden' necessarily, rather they are mutated and built upon through subjective experiences. |
not sure what you mean by "mutated" moral values. Do you mean that when a mother deliberately drowns her child, her intrinsic value of protecting the young that she had when she was born was somehow modified to make her think she wasn't acting in breach of it?
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 12:52 am Post subject: 614 |
|
|
| When it comes to making a law, or voting on the passage of a law in a referendum, is there any (objectively?) moral course of action? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 2:24 pm Post subject: 615 |
|
|
| Morality is what we call our personal opinions when we want to inflict them on others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 5:46 pm Post subject: 616 |
|
|
So if I say that tossing children off of tall buildings is immoral, I'm just inflicting my personal opinion onto someone?
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 6:35 pm Post subject: 617 |
|
|
| Yes, even though most people would agree with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 8:12 pm Post subject: 618 |
|
|
But why would most people agree with me? Why isn't it an even distribution of 50% for 50% against or 40 for 40 against 20 undecided or some such? What turns the odds in favor of my opinion?
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 8:31 pm Post subject: 619 |
|
|
| Why should we expect opinions on some moral question to be split 50-50? It doesn't seem to work that way with a great many other things. The world's population doesn't appear to be evenly divided on every yes or no opinion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 8:34 pm Post subject: 620 |
|
|
Sorry Chuck I added more examples of outcomes in the editing. The gist of my question is the final question. What makes the majority agree with my opinion?
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 8:44 pm Post subject: 621 |
|
|
| Whatever makes people who they are. Genetics and environment come to mind. Different people have different genes that grow different brains that are then exposed to different information. Maybe there are other things that contribute. I can't think of any. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 9:08 pm Post subject: 622 |
|
|
I will grant all that, but there's nothing in that general description of causes that suggests the majority of those people with different backgrounds, genes, etc., are likely to have the same opinion as me (against child-tossing).
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 9:15 pm Post subject: 623 |
|
|
| We all have similar genes and grew up on the same planet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 11:12 pm Post subject: 624 |
|
|
What common trait about our genes makes us prone to not kill children? How does sharing the same planet factor into that opinion? I don't see the connection there.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 12:16 am Post subject: 625 |
|
|
| I was just watching on Animal Planet that when a male lion takes over a pride (by defeating the former alpha male), the first thing he does is kill all the cubs. The evolutionary pressure to do this is obvious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 12:17 am Post subject: 626 |
|
|
Our brains received information while we grew up on earth so we received similar information.
I don't know how brains work. We observe that most people agree on some things and differ in opinion on others. People stop expressing opinions when their brains are destroyed or sufficiently damaged. I don't need to know how brains work to see this. I don't even need to know that brains are large contributor.
I can see and hear how people behave without the need of any explanation. I see and hear them expressing opinions. When they express the opinion that an action is immoral they usually claim that the action should not be performed and often suggest the use of force if necessary to stop it. I've come to associate opinions about morality with recommendation of forced compliance. Not always, of course, but enough that I've noticed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2012 12:00 pm Post subject: 627 |
|
|
So, there really isn't anything objectively wrong with recommending forced compliance, or indeed with actually forcing compliance. It would just be a personal opinion that there is something wrong with it.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
