Regarding evidence

wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Regarding evidence

How do we know quarks exist? There is no direct observations of quarks. But there is indirect evidence that is expected to be there based on theoris of physics. Becuase these theories are remarkably consistent, we safely conclude that quarks are real.

 

Does evil exist? Is there any evidence that evil is real? I can give a definition of evil - pleasure derived from intentional harm to an innocent. And I don't have to look too hard to find examples of this. And yet there is great argument over whether or not evil is objectively real. Which seems odd. Not only can I give a defintion of evil, and find examples of evil, I can also give examples of the effects of evil (PTSD in a sexually abused child). So why is a quark considered objectively real, but evill is still argued over?


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: An apple

wavefreak wrote:
An apple falling from a tree is evidence of gravity.

The rape of a 5 year old is evidence of what? I suggest that it is evidence of evil. Occam's Razor. Why do we need some convoluted explanation that uses biochemical imbalances and evolutionary pressure? The simplest explanation is that it is evil.

The principle Occams Razor does not suggest that the simplest explanation is the one using the fewest words. It suggests that the issue should be examined with the fewest assumptions possible.

Evil, as has been discussed at length, is a subjective description of actions based purely on personal perception. Attempting to sum up the question at hand with an assumption is actually farthest from Occams Razor.  


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
marcusfish

marcusfish wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
An apple falling from a tree is evidence of gravity.

The rape of a 5 year old is evidence of what? I suggest that it is evidence of evil. Occam's Razor. Why do we need some convoluted explanation that uses biochemical imbalances and evolutionary pressure? The simplest explanation is that it is evil.

The principle Occams Razor does not suggest that the simplest explanation is the one using the fewest words. It suggests that the issue should be examined with the fewest assumptions possible.

Evil, as has been discussed at length, is a subjective description of actions based purely on personal perception. Attempting to sum up the question at hand with an assumption is actually farthest from Occams Razor.

The physical and psychological damage done to the victim is objective, not subjective. How is it in any way subjective?  


Kazuya
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-11-22
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote:

wavefreak wrote:

Hmmm ... Are you guessing or can you site sources that have eliminated quantum mechanical effects in conciousness? AFAIK, this has not yet been shown.

Fact 1: The neuronal net in your head consists of synapsis. Synapsis are the the contacts between nervouse cells (molecular structures). To get a connection between nervous cell A and nervous cell B, one of the cells has to create a neurotransmitter, let's say cell A. When this neurotransmitter is emitted from the cell, it established a connection with cell B (Synapsis A-B is established). This is how a neuronal net works basically. Any highschool biology book, should back that up. Just look up Synapsis or Neurotransmitters (Dopamine, Serotonine etc.)

Short: The connections in our brain are moleculare structures.

Fact 2:For quantum mechanical effects to occour in our brain, we would need much more energy. For observing an the Tunnel-effect with a hydroniumnuclid (the core of a hydronium atom), we are already needing energy levels that are in the range of nuclear radiation. (Look up alpha-radiation in a physics book) Not to imagine, getting a whole molecule to do that. Heisenbergs uncertainty principle applys to scales like neutrons, protons, electrons, positrons or even quantums, but not to whole molecules. At least not, until they reach high energy values (moving very fast)

 

Which quantum mechanical effect should apply in that neuronal net? The Photoeffect? The Comptoneffect? Come on!

wavefreak wrote:
An apple falling from a tree is evidence of gravity.

The rape of a 5 year old is evidence of what? I suggest that it is evidence of evil. Occam's Razor. Why do we need some convoluted explanation that uses biochemical imbalances and evolutionary pressure? The simplest explanation is that it is evil.

Do not mix up Occam's Razor with the simplest explanation. To answer the question, where thunder and lightning comes from, I could say: electro static charges in the clouds create electric potential differences, that when big enough allow electrons to bridge the distance through otherwise non-conducting air.

Or I could say: Zeus does.

Occams Razor means, that of all theories, that explain the same fact, the simplest should be favoured. Why does Occam not favour Zeus? Because it doesn't explain that process. In the first case, I can derive statements from and check them, I can falsify my statements, whereas the second case, contains actually no statement.

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

You included the example of child rape, is such an act evil , etc.

If you think so, then you misread my point. Whether an act is evil or not, depends only on the code of morality you are using. Use morality code A and the act is evil, use morality code B and it might be good.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
How does the application of these scientific principles that you discuss have any bearing upon the subject of evil ?

Where do they intersect ?


It interfers with wavefreaks example, that although, nobody has ever seen a quark, we have scientific evidence for its existence. After that he made the remark, that the existence of an evil act is evidence for evil itself.

All I try to point out is: No matter, what my definition of a quark is, the experiment that indicates its existence, will always have the same result. While in the child rape example, changing the definitions effects the result.


Kazuya
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: It seems to

Vessel wrote:

It seems to me that from this removed perspective the observer would be able to categorize acts based only on what is beneficial or detrimental for the ability of the observed speices to continue to exist. This is where I think a case can be made that evil does have actual existence. There is an effect for every action and the effect of any given action will be either beneficial or detrimental to humanity as a whole.

Your fallacy is to assume, that the existence of the observed species is something desirable. Who says so that it is? Imagine, the observed species is a babaric nazi society, that just hasn't yet developed the ability to enslave the whole universe.  

Quote:
I would say that evil exists in that there is an objective moral good and evil but that our perception of any given act's moral value is subjective. Or that evil has actual existence for humanity as a whole but not for the individual.
Just regarding this statement. Assuming that there is an objective morality. If our perception is always subjective, does it really matter if there is an objective morality or not?


Kazuya
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-11-22
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: The

wavefreak wrote:

The physical and psychological damage done to the victim is objective, not subjective. How is it in any way subjective?

My new kazuyan religion is: If you are being raped by me, then you will receive eternal happieness in your afterlife. If you don't get raped by me, you will be doomed and suffer eternally.

 

I only need to find a child, that I can indoctrinate enough with that shit and it will be happy, getting raped by me.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Kazuya wrote: Fact 1: The

Kazuya wrote:

Fact 1: The neuronal net in your head consists of synapsis. Synapsis are the the contacts between nervouse cells (molecular structures). To get a connection between nervous cell A and nervous cell B, one of the cells has to create a neurotransmitter, let's say cell A. When this neurotransmitter is emitted from the cell, it established a connection with cell B (Synapsis A-B is established). This is how a neuronal net works basically. Any highschool biology book, should back that up. Just look up Synapsis or Neurotransmitters (Dopamine, Serotonine etc.)

Short: The connections in our brain are moleculare structures.

Fact 2:For quantum mechanical effects to occour in our brain, we would need much more energy. For observing an the Tunnel-effect with a hydroniumnuclid (the core of a hydronium atom), we are already needing energy levels that are in the range of nuclear radiation. (Look up alpha-radiation in a physics book) Not to imagine, getting a whole molecule to do that. Heisenbergs uncertainty principle applys to scales like neutrons, protons, electrons, positrons or even quantums, but not to whole molecules. At least not, until they reach high energy values (moving very fast)

 

Which quantum mechanical effect should apply in that neuronal net? The Photoeffect? The Comptoneffect? Come on!

Please. Rattling on about synapses is not citing a source. Here's a source: 

 

Why Classical Mechanics Cannot Naturally Accommodate Consciousness but Quantum Mechanics Can

Henry P. Stapp
Theoretical Physics Group
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
University of California
Berkeley, California 94720
U.S.A.

Link:

http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-05-stapp.html 


Kazuya
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-11-22
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Please.

wavefreak wrote:

Please. Rattling on about synapses is not citing a source. Here's a source:


http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-05-stapp.html

 

Not Found

The requested URL /v2/psyche-2-05-stapp.html  was not found on this server.

 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Hmmm. Link works for me.

Hmmm.

Link works for me. Anybody else have trouble with it? I see you have a weird character at the end of the UR. Try removing it.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Kazuya wrote: Vessel

Kazuya wrote:
Vessel wrote:

It seems to me that from this removed perspective the observer would be able to categorize acts based only on what is beneficial or detrimental for the ability of the observed speices to continue to exist. This is where I think a case can be made that evil does have actual existence. There is an effect for every action and the effect of any given action will be either beneficial or detrimental to humanity as a whole.

Your fallacy is to assume, that the existence of the observed species is something desirable. Who says so that it is?

It is not required that the existence of the observed species is desirable beyond that species for the morality of the observed species to be based in their continued existence. In fact, it is impossible as this would then require that there was a basis for grounding that desirability, or good, and we would be working towards an infinite regress. That the survival of a given species is desirable for that species is something that is inherent to the given species.  

Quote:
Imagine, the observed species is a babaric nazi society, that just hasn't yet developed the ability to enslave the whole universe.

A society is not a species. If the species was a species whose  survival was somehow benefited by barbarism (which would almost certainly not be a social species as barbarism seems to be counter productive to societies and social species need socities) then I am sure their good and evil would differ greatly from human's good and evil. 

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
I would say that evil exists in that there is an objective moral good and evil but that our perception of any given act's moral value is subjective. Or that evil has actual existence for humanity as a whole but not for the individual.

Just regarding this statement. Assuming that there is an objective morality. If our perception is always subjective, does it really matter if there is an objective morality or not?

Certainly it does, just as the fact that our perception of reality relies on subjective intepretation does not render the existence of objective reality irrelevant. 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Wyzaard
Posts: 58
Joined: 2007-06-08
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: An apple

wavefreak wrote:

An apple falling from a tree is evidence of gravity.

The rape of a 5 year old is evidence of what? I suggest that it is evidence of evil. Occam's Razor. Why do we need some convoluted explanation that uses biochemical imbalances and evolutionary pressure? The simplest explanation is that it is evil.

That's not Occham's Razor... "Do not unnecessarally multiply your entities" means that when confronted with one way or explaining something and that way and another tacked on as well... tick with the most parsimonious explanation.  In this case... choosing between natural laws, and natural laws + the supernatural... go with the former.

 

 


Kazuya
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Okay, here the repaired

Okay, here the repaired link:

http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v2/psyche-2-05-stapp.html

wavefreak wrote:

Please. Rattling on about synapses is not citing a source.

Maybe you should have read your own source before. Then you would have known, that my opposing points are mentioned in it.

Quote:
5. Final Remarks

5.1 It will be objected that the argument given above is too philosophical; that the simple empirical fact of the matter is that brains are made out of neurons and other cells that are well described by classical physics, and hence that there is simply no need to bring in quantum mechanics.

That's exactly what I said before, when I mentioned, that molecular structures are simply too large.

And when the author later describes:

Quote:
5.3 In an even much more important way the processes that make brains work the way they do depend upon the intricate physical and chemical properties of the materials out of which they are made: brain processes depend in an exquisite way on atomic and molecular processes that can be adequately understood only through quantum theory.
He actually falls short, because claim is no proof. He doesn't explain where exactly the classic approach fails. (it doesn't)

I found a nice short article:

Quote:
i.e., that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the current classical approach to neural network simulations. We find that the decoherence time scales (∼10-13–10-20 s) are typically much shorter than the relevant dynamical time scales (∼10-3–10-1 s), both for regular neuron firing and for kinklike polarization excitations in microtubules. This conclusion disagrees with suggestions by Penrose and others that the brain acts as a quantum computer, and that quantum coherence is related to consciousness in a fundamental way.

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v61/i4/p4194_1

 

So my question is still valid. What quantum effect should there be in our brain, that has an important effect on our conciousness?


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Kazuya wrote:   So my

Kazuya wrote:

 

So my question is still valid. What quantum effect should there be in our brain, that has an important effect on our conciousness?

I never claimed that conciousness was quantum mechanical only that the issue was undecided. So you and I can trade citations all day long, subsequently proving my point. 


Kazuya
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-11-22
User is offlineOffline
Vessel wrote: That the

Vessel wrote:
That the survival of a given species is desirable for that species is something that is inherent to the given species.

Well, that's your definition. You simply define that it is inherent. But nobody needs to go with your definition, there is no magic thing that says so. Morality is man-made. And because it is man-made, I can always come up with a morality system, that is complety the opposite of yours.

Vessel wrote:
Kazuya wrote:
Imagine, the observed species is a babaric nazi society, that just hasn't yet developed the ability to enslave the whole universe.

A society is not a species. If the species was a species whose survival was somehow benefited by barbarism (which would almost certainly not be a social species as barbarism seems to be counter productive to societies and social species need socities) then I am sure their good and evil would differ greatly from human's good and evil.

I got the feeling that you misunderstood me. My point is not that our values would differ from theirs. My point is, that it is not nessecarily desirable that they survive. When you say now, that it is desirable from their point of view, then you again just define it this way. What if it is not desirable in their value system? Just think of a society (It doesn't matter if I use species or society, because a species can form a society) that believes all other living things must be killed as fast as possible, in order to gain happiness in the afterlife. And from that they derive their agenda, that any member may not become older than a certain age and any foreigner, who does not obey this rule, must be saved (killed) for his own good.

 

Those members would look forward to be killed. In fact, some chrsitians look forward to the apocalypse. From there it is not far, to say: let's lend god our hand and cause the apocalypse, so anybody can enjoy our fabulous lord. YAAAAYYYYYY!

Vessel wrote:
Kazuya wrote:
Just regarding this statement. Assuming that there is an objective morality. If our perception is always subjective, does it really matter if there is an objective morality or not?

Certainly it does, just as the fact that our perception of reality relies on subjective intepretation does not render the existence of objective reality irrelevant.

So what's the effect of that objective morality that nobody can perceive? I mean, if there is no effect then it doesn't matter.


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: This all

wavefreak wrote:

This all strikes me as a dance around the obvious.

So what should the rape of a 5 year old be called? Why do we need volumes of behavioeal science to classify it? Behaviors don't exist? Then the entire body of law is useless as it prosecutes a mirage.

Does evolution exist? There is no "object" like a quark. Is evolution real? Evolution is a process. Why can a process be real but not a behavior?


I'm a bit late here, but this happens to be a topic I'm really interested in.
First, I'd like to point you to this page on the first 100 aphorisms of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations.

He looks at the roots of language and what defines meaning.
The suggestion is that to understand language we should observe how we use it in real life. Now your statement here seems to think that social concepts should share properties with physical concepts like 'existence'.
Why? Why should it be a 'thing'?
When we say 'hello', are we using our words to refer to a 'thing' or does the word have a different purpose in this case.

I think the difference is that 'evil' can be used like a noun.
There seems to be a wide assumption in our language that nouns can only be validly used to refer to physically existing things.
We refer to numbers as nouns.
When you were taught to count, were you shown objects and told "that's a 1" or were you simply taught how to use number concepts correctly, i.e. count in the correct order, add correctly.
Concepts of the mind are also noun-like concepts (e.g. beliefs and desires) that don't appear to be physical existents.

Using language can be equated to playing a game, and the rules will depend on the game that we are playing. Sometimes the noun is used to refer to an existing object. Sometimes it plays a different purpose. Anyway, I'll be interested in your thoughts on the link.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
GAH! More to read. I'll

GAH! More to read. I'll take a look at it. That's one reason all this stuff is both fascinating and frustrating. Every question seems to spawn ten more. Hence the popularity of reductionism.


Kazuya
Posts: 21
Joined: 2007-11-22
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: I never

wavefreak wrote:

I never claimed that conciousness was quantum mechanical only that the issue was undecided. So you and I can trade citations all day long, subsequently proving my point.

Well, may I remind you of your post?

wavefreak wrote:
Also, "thinking" happens on a small enough scale that eliminating quantum mechanics from it's underlying mechanisims seems short sighted.

You made that statement, so the burden of proof is yours to show that thinking has to be explained with quantum mechanics. Regarding that I explained you why the scale is actually not small enough, you actually need to come up with a quantum mechanical effect in the brain that has an impact on our neuronal net. Otherwise, it is perfectly fine to describe neuronal nets with simply classic physics and mathematics. Both, your posts and your cited article give no evidence that a quantum level approach is needed.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Kazuya wrote: wavefreak

Kazuya wrote:
wavefreak wrote:

I never claimed that conciousness was quantum mechanical only that the issue was undecided. So you and I can trade citations all day long, subsequently proving my point.

Well, may I remind you of your post?

wavefreak wrote:
Also, "thinking" happens on a small enough scale that eliminating quantum mechanics from it's underlying mechanisims seems short sighted.

You made that statement, so the burden of proof is yours to show that thinking has to be explained with quantum mechanics. Regarding that I explained you why the scale is actually not small enough, you actually need to come up with a quantum mechanical effect in the brain that has an impact on our neuronal net. Otherwise, it is perfectly fine to describe neuronal nets with simply classic physics and mathematics. Both, your posts and your cited article give no evidence that a quantum level approach is needed.

"Seems short sighted" is not the same as "is short sighted". I made no positive claim. Last I checked there wasn't even a universally agreed upon definition for conciousness.

What I find interesting is that you can "remove" the macro from the micro but you can't remove the micro from the macro. Quantum mechanics holds everything together. I could in principle remove galaxies one by one from the unvierse up until there was only one, then stars from the last one, then planets, alll the way down the scale. But remove quantum mechanics and it all goes poof.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Kazuya wrote: Vessel

Kazuya wrote:

Vessel wrote:
That the survival of a given species is desirable for that species is something that is inherent to the given species.

Well, that's your definition. You simply define that it is inherent. But nobody needs to go with your definition, there is no magic thing that says so. Morality is man-made. And because it is man-made, I can always come up with a morality system, that is complety the opposite of yours.

But, if my definition of morality having an actual objective basis is the correct definition then good and evil do exist. So, if this is the case, then if your definition does not coincide with my definition then your moral system would not coincide with actual morality. I can make up my own reality, too. If it does not coincide with actual reality this does not mean that actual reality does not actually exist. It simply means that my made up reality is incorrect.

As to the continued existence of a species being good for that species, that is not something that I just make up. It is axiomatic. Explain to me how not continuing to exist can be good for a species. It can't, because there would be nothing for it to be good for.    

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
Kazuya wrote:
Imagine, the observed species is a babaric nazi society, that just hasn't yet developed the ability to enslave the whole universe.

A society is not a species. If the species was a species whose survival was somehow benefited by barbarism (which would almost certainly not be a social species as barbarism seems to be counter productive to societies and social species need socities) then I am sure their good and evil would differ greatly from human's good and evil.

I got the feeling that you misunderstood me. My point is not that our values would differ from theirs. My point is, that it is not nessecarily desirable that they survive.

For them it is desirable that they survive.  

Quote:
When you say now, that it is desirable from their point of view, then you again just define it this way. What if it is not desirable in their value system?

Your begging the question of morality being subjective here. Whether or not they consider it desirable from their societal value system has nothing to do with whether it is actually good for them or not. It is not good for them because it is desirable from their point of view, but because it is necessarily desirable for them if they are to exist, whether they consider it to be or not. If their value system was contrary to what is good for them that would not change what is good for them. They would surely meet with extinction.

Quote:
Just think of a society (It doesn't matter if I use species or society, because a species can form a society)

But a society requires a species. What is good for a given society may not be good for a species, but without the species there could be no society so we must primarily consider what is good for the species if we are to consider what is good for the society, or more accurately, what a good society is. 

Quote:
that believes all other living things must be killed as fast as possible, in order to gain happiness in the afterlife.

What they believe is true has no bearing on what is true. If they believed this there would be none of the society left to believe it. What they consider good for them would therefor be obsolete and irrelevant. 

Quote:
And from that they derive their agenda, that any member may not become older than a certain age and any foreigner, who does not obey this rule, must be saved (killed) for his own good.

One, or a society, can have an agenda that runs contrary to what is good for the species. I do not dispute this. One can even create a moral system off the top of their head. But this does not mean that their moral system is actually good for them, or that their moral system is actually moral. 

 

Quote:
Those members would look forward to be killed. In fact, some chrsitians look forward to the apocalypse. From there it is not far, to say: let's lend god our hand and cause the apocalypse, so anybody can enjoy our fabulous lord. YAAAAYYYYYY!

But being that there is no afterlife we can obviously see that such a moral system is not good. 

Quote:
Vessel wrote:
Kazuya wrote:
Just regarding this statement. Assuming that there is an objective morality. If our perception is always subjective, does it really matter if there is an objective morality or not?

Certainly it does, just as the fact that our perception of reality relies on subjective intepretation does not render the existence of objective reality irrelevant.

So what's the effect of that objective morality that nobody can perceive? I mean, if there is no effect then it doesn't matter.

The same as the effect of that objective reality nobody can perceive. We work through ways of coming to perceive it as best we can and work from that best possible understanding. 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


marcusfish
Superfan
marcusfish's picture
Posts: 676
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak

wavefreak wrote:
marcusfish wrote:
wavefreak wrote:
An apple falling from a tree is evidence of gravity.

The rape of a 5 year old is evidence of what? I suggest that it is evidence of evil. Occam's Razor. Why do we need some convoluted explanation that uses biochemical imbalances and evolutionary pressure? The simplest explanation is that it is evil.

The principle Occams Razor does not suggest that the simplest explanation is the one using the fewest words. It suggests that the issue should be examined with the fewest assumptions possible.

Evil, as has been discussed at length, is a subjective description of actions based purely on personal perception. Attempting to sum up the question at hand with an assumption is actually farthest from Occams Razor.

The physical and psychological damage done to the victim is objective, not subjective. How is it in any way subjective?

You said that the rape is evidence of evil. I am saying, agian, that evil is a purely subjective idea.  Your opinion that evil exists is not sufficient for a base assertion. Hence, adding it to the equation is farthest from Occams razor.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

At any rate philosophy itself seems to be a sort of play toy....fine for purposes of amusement but having no actual utility. I had a rather useless discussion about the nature of reality with fellow forum member BMcD who appeared to be a "desciple" of Descartes.

The premises that were shared with me about reality were the constant questioning of perception, ...self-perception, perception of the world around us, etc Everything she maintained was possibly a delusion and therefore no solid assertions about reality should be considered valid. We went 'round and 'round until finally I grew weary of the whole exercise.

My view of reality is quite pragmatic and more along the lines of Philip K. Dick..."Reality is that which when you stop believing in it doesn't go away."

Philosphy in general seems never to deal with obvious attributes but prefers to veer off onto to some undefinable tangent...and stay there forever.

a)My first name is Bill. Not a 'she'. Eye-wink

b)I did not say nothing should be considered valid. In fact, many times I said that since I can only interact with the world as my perceptions define it, I must consider it valid when interacting with it. What I said was that nothing can be considered indubitable. Nothing is beyond doubt. Everything can, and periodically should, be questioned. This is the one of the central concepts behind the scientific method.

Quote:
If I gave an example of evil behaviour, ...such as skinning a live human being... why would anyone be compelled to question the harmful and malicious nature of that act ? If anyone were to literally question whether human vivisection was not evil then at the very least I would consider them to be a sociopath and incapable of moral judgment.

Considering the many cultures that have practiced human sacrifice over the centuries, it wouldn't surprise me much if one was found that like to skin the sacrifices. Vivisection's not unknown, either. All those tales of human sacrifice that involves pulling out the still-beating heart? That's vivisection (cutting them open to display their innards while they're still alive) of a sort. And those societies didn't consider such acts evil.

If someone favors the idea of an absolute morality, then no doubt such actions likely would be considered evil, and those societies immoral. But your assumption that failing to consider such things evil is sociopathic is demonstrably false. Strictly, given the societal acceptance of such things, objecting to such behavior as a member of that society would be sociopathic.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Kazuya wrote:

Kazuya wrote:

Vessel wrote:
That the survival of a given species is desirable for that species is something that is inherent to the given species.

Well, that's your definition. You simply define that it is inherent. But nobody needs to go with your definition, there is no magic thing that says so. Morality is man-made. And because it is man-made, I can always come up with a morality system, that is complety the opposite of yours.

But that's not an issue of morality at all. From a biological standpoint, the survival of a given species is the primary goal of that species. Screw good, evil, moral, or immoral, from the standpoint of the species, which is not a societal construct, but a biological one, the survival and continuance of the species is paramount. It is so desirable that all other goals (if there even were other goals from a biological standpoint), added together and multiplied by infinity, would still come in second.

Kazuya wrote:
I got the feeling that you misunderstood me. My point is not that our values would differ from theirs. My point is, that it is not nessecarily desirable that they survive.

Biologically, it is to them. No matter what their higher brain functions say.

Quote:
When you say now, that it is desirable from their point of view, then you again just define it this way. What if it is not desirable in their value system?

Their value system is irrelevant. Biology doesn't care if you like cresents, crosses, or calculators. However the first one of their race got born, hatched, meiosed, budded, or what have you into existence, from the standpoint of the species, there is nothing more important than that that species continue to reproduce.

Quote:
Just think of a society (It doesn't matter if I use species or society, because a species can form a society) that believes all other living things must be killed as fast as possible, in order to gain happiness in the afterlife.

See, there's your mistake. You're working in different terms and claiming they're interchangeable. They're not.

The New York Yankees win the World Series. They decide (however stupidly) that they don't ever want anyone to ever win the World Series again. So they decide to try to kill off Major League Baseball. The New York Jets and the NFL decide they want the land in the Bronx that Yankee Stadium occupies, so they decide to help.

Killing off Major League Baseball, no matter how desirable it might be to the Yankees, is not desirable to Major League Baseball. Killing of Major League Baseball, no matter how desirable it is to the NFL, remains undesirable to MLB. Even if every human being on the planet decided that Major League Baseball should die, it would STILL not be in the interests of Major League Baseball. Period.

No matter how nihilistic the goals of a society might be, it is desirable, and in fact, is the primary goal of a species to continue to exist. One might even say it is the raison d'etre for the species. A species exists in order to continue existing.

In fact, I'll go a step further and give you the answer to one of those Grand Questions of the Universe, the one everyone knows and most folks refuse to accept:

The Meaning of Life is Life. Why are we here? To be here. Morality, biologically speaking, is always secondary to mortality.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote: But that's not

BMcD wrote:

But that's not an issue of morality at all. From a biological standpoint, the survival of a given species is the primary goal of that species. Screw good, evil, moral, or immoral, from the standpoint of the species, which is not a societal construct, but a biological one, the survival and continuance of the species is paramount.

 

And how is it that societal issues are not part of biological evolution. This smacks of the dualism that posits the existence of a soul. You cannot separate our society from our biology. We are what we are precisely because our biology evolved this way. A peacock waving it's feathers is biology, but a model strutting down a runway is society? A weaver bird builds a fancy nest and a yuppy buys a McMansion. A ram locks horns with a rival and the U.S. bombs Iraq.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote: See, there's

BMcD wrote:

See, there's your mistake. You're working in different terms and claiming they're interchangeable. They're not.

The New York Yankees win the World Series. They decide (however stupidly) that they don't ever want anyone to ever win the World Series again. So they decide to try to kill off Major League Baseball. The New York Jets and the NFL decide they want the land in the Bronx that Yankee Stadium occupies, so they decide to help.

Killing off Major League Baseball, no matter how desirable it might be to the Yankees, is not desirable to Major League Baseball. Killing of Major League Baseball, no matter how desirable it is to the NFL, remains undesirable to MLB. Even if every human being on the planet decided that Major League Baseball should die, it would STILL not be in the interests of Major League Baseball. Period.

No matter how nihilistic the goals of a society might be, it is desirable, and in fact, is the primary goal of a species to continue to exist. One might even say it is the raison d'etre for the species. A species exists in order to continue existing.

In fact, I'll go a step further and give you the answer to one of those Grand Questions of the Universe, the one everyone knows and most folks refuse to accept:

The Meaning of Life is Life. Why are we here? To be here. Morality, biologically speaking, is always secondary to mortality.

And I would go on to say that this is what we are addressing when we ask moral questions and form moral systems, whether we realize it or not. There is a what's good and what isn't that exists in relation to our species. One of those goods is stable societies as we are a social species. This is how societies play a part in moral understandings. We need to get along to survive.

When we ask whether or not a particular act is good we are asking a question that is referencing something with the term good. We have evolved to view these type of questions from a particular perspective, that of our main goal, survival. That we may not have the objective perspective necessary to infallibly say act X is a good act and act Y is evil does not mean that there is not a fact of the matter. And just because we must create moral systems and answer moral questions from a subjective viewpoint does not mean that there isn't an objective moral value for any particular act. We can attempt to find this value in the same way we attempt to ascertain what objective reality is from our subjective viewpoint of reality. 

What I get from those who say morality is subjective is that moral questions have no answers removed from any particular persons perspective, which makes me wonder where they think we get the questions. What do they think we are attempting to determine when we consider whether or not a particular act is good? Is it arbitrary? Or aren't we making reference to something? Certainly we aren't just considering societal norms when categorizing acts. If that were the case we would have no basis by which to think any act that was considered by our society to be good might not actually be so. We could say that we don't consider it good from our subjective viewpoint, but if we aren't referencing anything with the term good then we aren't saying anything that should be of importance to anyone else. 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
BMcD

BMcD wrote:
ProzacDeathWish wrote:


Considering the many cultures that have practiced human sacrifice over the centuries, it wouldn't surprise me much if one was found that like to skin the sacrifices. Vivisection's not unknown, either. All those tales of human sacrifice that involves pulling out the still-beating heart? That's vivisection (cutting them open to display their innards while they're still alive) of a sort. And those societies didn't consider such acts evil.

 

But does the fact that this behavior is practiced on a large scale alter it's fundamental character ?  For example if a single Jeffrey Dahmer practicing his necrophilia is considered
"bad" does a million Jeffrey Dahmers make it any less "bad" because now it has become the rule and not the exception ? Is it just a numbers game, anything can be transformed if it is supported by the status quo ?

I am familiar with a much more recent example of human vivisection from WW 2.  The Japanese had a chemical / biological warfare division referred to as Unit 731.  Their common practice was to perform their dissections upon living victims. 

Perhaps they did not consider it to be an act of evil ( in spite of the obvious element of incredible suffering and lack of empathy) but would their perception alter the fact that their behaviour would still easily conform to the concept of human cruelty..or should we now redefine and question what constitutes cruelty ?

Hypothetically speaking, if every person on Earth were to embrace pedophilia would you alter what I presume to be your own moral objection to sex with children, and embrace it as moral ? If not then please explain.

ps, sorry for mis-identifying your gender.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: And how

wavefreak wrote:

And how is it that societal issues are not part of biological evolution. This smacks of the dualism that posits the existence of a soul. You cannot separate our society from our biology. We are what we are precisely because our biology evolved this way. A peacock waving it's feathers is biology, but a model strutting down a runway is society? A weaver bird builds a fancy nest and a yuppy buys a McMansion. A ram locks horns with a rival and the U.S. bombs Iraq.

 

I never said it wasn't part of the greater whole, that our decisions and societies aren't shaped by evolution and biology. Rather, they are ephemera. They are the difference between whether a bird eats this worm or that one: In the end, as long as the bird breeds, the decision is moot.

As long as we continue to breed, biology cares not whether we pay for it in dollars, rubles, yen, or love and devotion. Only that we breed. 

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: But

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

But does the fact that this behavior is practiced on a large scale alter it's fundamental character?

No, but it does alter whether the behavior is sociopathic.

Societies can be immoral, too.

Quote:
I am familiar with a much more recent example of human vivisection from WW 2. The Japanese had a chemical / biological warfare division referred to as Unit 731. Their common practice was to perform their dissections upon living victims.

Perhaps they did not consider it to be an act of evil ( in spite of the obvious element of incredible suffering and lack of empathy) but would their perception alter the fact that their behaviour would still easily conform to the concept of human cruelty..or should we now redefine and question what constitutes cruelty?

Re: Redefining cruelty. I'd prefer we don't. Eye-wink But as far as the activities of Unit 731 go, consider: This was a small group, within a larger society. Maybe those few didn't consider it an act of evil. Maybe (more likely) they considered it a necessary evil. (ie: "Sure, it's morally not on stable footing, but it's the service of a greater cause: nationalism.&quotEye-wink

Quote:
Hypothetically speaking, if every person on Earth were to embrace pedophilia would you alter what I presume to be your own moral objection to sex with children, and embrace it as moral ? If not then please explain.

Well, first, let's point out that marriage as young as 12 (and I don't mean legal arrangements, I mean actual 'ok, here's your wife' marriage) hasn't been exactly uncommon in our history. I'd say age of consent itself has a lot to do with a society and how it prepares its young to be sexually mature.

But assuming you're talking about 'gimme that eight-year old' type pedophilia, no, I wouldn't change my views to consider that moral. I'd rather be sociopathic.

As I said, I'm of the belief that societies can be immoral, too.

Quote:
ps, sorry for mis-identifying your gender.

No worries, just clearing it up. 

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
BMcD wrote: wavefreak

BMcD wrote:

wavefreak wrote:

And how is it that societal issues are not part of biological evolution. This smacks of the dualism that posits the existence of a soul. You cannot separate our society from our biology. We are what we are precisely because our biology evolved this way. A peacock waving it's feathers is biology, but a model strutting down a runway is society? A weaver bird builds a fancy nest and a yuppy buys a McMansion. A ram locks horns with a rival and the U.S. bombs Iraq.

 

From your earlier post:

Quote:

from the standpoint of the species, which is not a societal construct, but a biological one, the survival and continuance of the species is paramount.

 

The survival of the human species is irrevocably linked to the society in which we live. Without this society we wouldn't have global warming and nukes.  If we don't succesfully manipulate the societ, we may not survive.

 

I never said it wasn't part of the greater whole, that our decisions and societies aren't shaped by evolution and biology. Rather, they are ephemera. They are the difference between whether a bird eats this worm or that one: In the end, as long as the bird breeds, the decision is moot.

As long as we continue to breed, biology cares not whether we pay for it in dollars, rubles, yen, or love and devotion. Only that we breed.


BMcD
Posts: 777
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Which is a perfect example

Which is a perfect example of society's interests (over the last hundred years, for example) not serving the species' interests.

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid