Ouroboros Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 I think you understand my question. Naturalism only produces what is. How do we even get to the concept of morality? How can we define morality in naturalistic terms? How does the purely physical brain chemistry produce something metaphysical like deciding what is "good" behavior and what is "bad" behavior? Eh... That I don't think is a problem at all. I see morality and understanding of "good" and "bad" has evolved, both genetically and through memes, through time. Morality is a matter of the best rules for a game, and the purpose of the game is survival. If a species of animals suddenly had a "kill everything that moves" gene, they would kill each other and no individual or at the best only one individual would survive, and hence the species would die out. You know the rule "don’t kill" applies even to the animals, and we would have to say they have morals too. For instance lions do not run around and kill each other. Only out of necessity would they do such a thing, but so does humans. We kill in defense or to take territory or to get food, or sometimes even to get the pretty girl, and we do this even if we consider "killing" in general morally bad, and we simultaneous accept certain kinds of killing, i.e. war, capital punishment etc. So I have no problem that morality, ethics and the idea of what we consider (in the context of humanity's view of life) good or bad being part of evolution. It’s just a question of game theory. There you have a naturalistic explanation of morality. -edit- Take chess for instance. There are certain rules, which can be equated to physical laws and nature. The pawns are the individuals. And the players are the "minds" or the "intelligence" for each individual. Now, one player can move his pieces as fast as he can forward and take as many of the opponents pieces as soon as he can, but he won't win, he will lose. So over time, people learn to play smart in Chess. That knowledge develops in the player, not because of a supernatural source, but of the simple logic of survival. The same goes for morality. (Except for some stupid moral codes that have nothing to do with life, survival or necessity, but those can be explained by the meme virus called religion, and has its roots in how to control of people.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 I see what you're saying. You mean metaphysical in the sense of how thought is a result of process in the physical world, not supernatural, but only as a meta-level on top of the "processor" (the brain). Just like MS Windows (may Nahweh have mercy on our souls) is a meta-level *stuff* on top of the hardware, CPU etc. I think you understand my question. Naturalism only produces what is. How do we even get to the concept of morality? How can we define morality in naturalistic terms? How does the purely physical brain chemistry produce something metaphysical like deciding what is "good" behavior and what is "bad" behavior? I actually attempted to give an answer for this question, but to reiterate, morality is created through living in a social environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 Cosmology/Cosmogony:1) Principle of Causality -- All scientific knowledge is based on the principle of cause and effect. Every finite effect in the universe had a beginning and requires an equal or greater cause. No, that's the principle of motion and Newton's 3rd Law of Motion. 2) Principle of Analogy (Uniformity) -- This principle allows for the concept of forensic science. When we repeatedly observe empirical cause and effect relationships without exception, we can use the principle of analogy to apply what we know in the present to singularities in the past. Yes? 3) Second Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Decay) -- This is the foremost law of science. It is the most universally observable law in the universe. We can't escape it (my body is living proof). Thermodynamics isn't about decay. Einstein's general theory of relativity demonstrated a beginning to the universe. Up until 1917, Einstein assumed the universe was eternal. When his theory showed the universe was expanding, that meant if it was worked backwards, it had a beginning. Einstein did not like the concept of the universe having a beginning, so he plugged a cosmological constant into his equation to keep the universe infinite. It was later admittedly his biggest blunder (he divided by zero). Einstein's theory has been empirically proven several times. No, it doesn't indicate it had a beginning, it indicated a point in time where everything was scrunched together into a singularity where all physical laws break down. It's impossible for scientists to go further back in time than the planck epoch, except as guessing. Let's leave it there for now. Give me the best theory that supports the first principle, the most universal law of science, and all of the evidence. I look forward to reading your posts. Something exists and has always existed. This something is Necessary and Eternal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infotheorist Posted March 17, 2007 Author Share Posted March 17, 2007 No, it doesn't indicate it had a beginning, it indicated a point in time where everything was scrunched together into a singularity where all physical laws break down. I wouldn't say that the laws break down. What are the physical laws of nature? They are descriptions. There may be another law at work, but I don't necessarily agree that they break down. When flying on an airplane, you don't need to walk out of the plane to find out if gravity has broken down. Other laws have taken over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infotheorist Posted March 17, 2007 Author Share Posted March 17, 2007 1) Principle of Causality -- All scientific knowledge is based on the principle of cause and effect. Every finite effect in the universe had a beginning and requires an equal or greater cause. No, that's the principle of motion and Newton's 3rd Law of Motion. You may not agree with Aristotle, but it is still the self evident truth that all of our scientific knowledge is based on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 No, it doesn't indicate it had a beginning, it indicated a point in time where everything was scrunched together into a singularity where all physical laws break down. I wouldn't say that the laws break down. What are the physical laws of nature? They are descriptions. There may be another law at work, but I don't necessarily agree that they break down. When flying on an airplane, you don't need to walk out of the plane to find out if gravity has broken down. Other laws have taken over. You're appeal to science, then your rejection of what that same science says regarding the priors of the Big Bang event is a little ironic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted March 17, 2007 Share Posted March 17, 2007 1) Principle of Causality -- All scientific knowledge is based on the principle of cause and effect. Every finite effect in the universe had a beginning and requires an equal or greater cause. No, that's the principle of motion and Newton's 3rd Law of Motion. You may not agree with Aristotle, but it is still the self evident truth that all of our scientific knowledge is based on. It's not a self-evident truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 I realized "every finite effect in the universe had a beginning and requires an equal or greater cause" doesn't really sound right. Does the "equal or greater" means energy, force, size or what? When a war is started, the cause could be the insanity of a leader, does it mean insanity is greater than war? I don't know, it just doesn't sound eligible, and definitely not scientific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 I realized "every finite effect in the universe had a beginning and requires an equal or greater cause" doesn't really sound right. Does the "equal or greater" means energy, force, size or what? When a war is started, the cause could be the insanity of a leader, does it mean insanity is greater than war? I don't know, it just doesn't sound eligible, and definitely not scientific. I agree, I think it's kinda dumb to say "equal or greater cause". There are two types of beings: Necessary and Contingent Necessary beings are that which are independent of other existants in order to be. They are also a required condition in order for something else to be. Contingent beings are that which could have been, but do not have to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 I agree, I think it's kinda dumb to say "equal or greater cause". And thinking even more about it, the nuclear reactions in the sun are caused by much smaller interactions between extremely small particles and each reaction in itself isn't enough to be a sun, but all together are. So the cause (nuclear fission) isn't as great as a sun, but combined it is. There are two types of beings: Necessary and Contingent Necessary beings are that which are independent of other existants in order to be. They are also a required condition in order for something else to be. Contingent beings are that which could have been, but do not have to be. Oh. I can tell you said something really deep there, but I have to contemplate on it. The martini I had before kind of numbed the few cells that still work in my brain and I always had a hard time with these "necessary beings"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 While you are contemplating: Being: Anything that exists (abstract or material) Existant = Any individual Being Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 If something had an 'equal or greater' cause, would that mean that everything that happens is equal to or less than the things that came before, meaning that no event can have a greater impact than what came before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 Dhampir, that's where I'm going too with my thoughts. Does it mean that what our current knowledge is equal or lesser than the previous generation? Does it mean that the old philosophers back in those days knew more than us? Where the heck did they get the knowledge from then? God? Does it mean that the knowledge and arguments we have to support atheism was given by god through a revelation? Hmm... I think greater things can come out from smaller things. --edit-- Asmiov, you are sooo confusing me right now, but I'm sure you do it on purpose! --edit-- Lets see. Being = anything that possibly could exist, but not necessarily does so. (Unicorn, Human) Existant = a being that really does exist. (Human, but not Unicorn) Did I get you right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 Asmiov, you are sooo confusing me right now, but I'm sure you do it on purpose! --edit-- Lets see. Being = anything that possibly could exist, but not necessarily does so. (Unicorn, Human) Existant = a being that really does exist. (Human, but not Unicorn) Did I get you right? It must be the alcohol. I'm just stating that Being and Existant are synonymous, and defining what I mean by using those terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infotheorist Posted March 18, 2007 Author Share Posted March 18, 2007 Uh no I don't, but for the sake of discussion give me an example of something you think can be known with 100% certainty and I'll think about it. Sorry, I guess I missed this question earlier. I am 100% certain of my existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infotheorist Posted March 18, 2007 Author Share Posted March 18, 2007 You're appeal to science, then your rejection of what that same science says regarding the priors of the Big Bang event is a little ironic. I didn't know science had proven that the scientific laws break down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infotheorist Posted March 18, 2007 Author Share Posted March 18, 2007 For this reason there will be no universal rational morality that humans can make for themselves. What is the standard by which we call one thing "good" and another thing "bad" in terms of morality? As soon as we say one something is good and something as bad, we are comparing it to a standard. If the "good" thing is closer to the standard than the "bad" thing, what is the standard that is used? Does that standard change? If we are just part of a blind molecular process, how is it that we can rise above that process and say that some aspects are evil and some are good? Atoms are just atoms. Sorry, I am still having a hard time figuring out how we get from what is (description) to what ought to be (presription). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 Uh no I don't, but for the sake of discussion give me an example of something you think can be known with 100% certainty and I'll think about it. Sorry, I guess I missed this question earlier. I am 100% certain of my existence. Ahh...the whole Decarte "I think therefore I am" But even then, how do we know ANY of this is real. But can I even be sure that I am thinking, or perhaps that is just an illusion as well. of course it could be argued that there must be a "self" that exists for an illusion to fool me in the first place. however, "I think therefore I am" is in fact built on certain principals of logic, and while I agree that those principals are most likely true...I cannot be certain of that. To be certain of my own existence I would have to believe the laws of logic are some immutable force....which I don't Have you ever studied Buddhism? Buddhists believe the self is an illusion. I think perhaps you are exaggerating my position somewhat though. When I say I am certain of nothing, that doesn't mean that I constantly doubt everything. I recognize that there are many things that so close to 100% certain of that it practically makes no difference. For instance, While I admit that I don't know for certain there is not God, I'm just about as certain of it as I am that there is no such thing as Unicorns or Dragons. While my fantasy book reading nerdy self, might wish that dragons exist, I am also almost completely certain they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 For this reason there will be no universal rational morality that humans can make for themselves. What is the standard by which we call one thing "good" and another thing "bad" in terms of morality? As soon as we say one something is good and something as bad, we are comparing it to a standard. If the "good" thing is closer to the standard than the "bad" thing, what is the standard that is used? Does that standard change? If we are just part of a blind molecular process, how is it that we can rise above that process and say that some aspects are evil and some are good? Atoms are just atoms. Sorry, I am still having a hard time figuring out how we get from what is (description) to what ought to be (presription). Sorry, but it almost seems as if you trying to be obtuse here, I've tried to explain several times that good and bad are defined by society....in other words society is the standard.... and no it its not absolute and yes it does change. If you study history you will see that standards have indeed changed. Think about it, good and bad are just words, English words at that. They are defined with a particular meaning, not because of some unchangeable law, or divine being, but because our language, which has evolved over 1000's of years from more simple languages, has defined these words. Our ideas of good and bad are nothing more than the results of the experimentation of the various human cultures that have existed throughout the last 20 or 30 thousand years. People realize that certain ways of acting cause culture to thrive and continue and other ways of acting cause society to crumble and fail. You are saying you have a hard time figuring out our thinking, but likewise I am having a hard time figuring out the need to mystify morality and turn it in to something magical or otherworldly. Morality isn't really "rising above the process" but simply another aspect of the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted March 18, 2007 Share Posted March 18, 2007 Infotheorist, I know its a bit disconcerting to one who hopes for a God, but morality is not the place to find possible traces of God. Morality is nothing more than a description of interactive behavior among social animals. This behavior is directed primarily by emotions that compel certain behaviors and inhibit others. The basis of all this is the ability to choose which apparently even the lowly amoeba can manage. Single cell organisms can rudimentary make choices between the good and the bad. They have to at least be able to distinguish between food and poison. I read something recently that I can't find at the moment that described how slime mold individuals take on a few different roles in the colony depending on environmental changes. These roles, some of which involve dying, give the group a better chance to survive. Sponges are colonies of individuals that organize for the good of all. If you grind up a live sponge the cells will reorganize. These are some indications that even social behavior has a primitive background. Other social animals also show some level of moral behavior such as sharing the protection of the young. This moral cooperation is especially evident among primates andmonkeys even have police. It is patent non-sense to assert that the lessor comes from the greater, when evidence to the contrary abounds. Self organization is a property of matter. All that is needed is a flow from an area of dense energy to an area of less dense energy and matter will organize. Simple example: tornado. Considering how quarks and gluons are supposed to have come together to form other basic bits of atoms, one might even hazard the idea that organization is the first principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 You're appeal to science, then your rejection of what that same science says regarding the priors of the Big Bang event is a little ironic. I didn't know science had proven that the scientific laws break down. Considering that the scientific laws formed after the Big Bang event occured, I would say they break down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 Considering that the scientific laws formed after the Big Bang event occured, I would say they break down. Another way of saying it is; the physical laws didn't exist "before" the Big Bang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 I know its a bit disconcerting to one who hopes for a God, but morality is not the place to find possible traces of God. Morality is nothing more than a description of interactive behavior among social animals. This behavior is directed primarily by emotions that compel certain behaviors and inhibit others. The basis of all this is the ability to choose which apparently even the lowly amoeba can manage. Good way of putting it. Hence God can't be moral, since he doesn't have anyone to interact with to show his morality. He/She/It doesn't have a moral responsibility to anyone or anything. If God doesn't have morality, how can he be the source of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infotheorist Posted March 20, 2007 Author Share Posted March 20, 2007 When we say something is good and something is bad, we say the good is closer to the standard. Before socity developed the standard and people just acted naturally (naturalism), how did they determine what was closer to the standard that wasn't there yet? I keep trying to push the process back to when naturalism meant just behaving and not knowing to behave otherwise (as one ought to). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infotheorist Posted March 20, 2007 Author Share Posted March 20, 2007 Morality is nothing more than a description of interactive behavior among social animals. I see what you are saying about animals making decisions, but I don't really understand how a decision for survival is the same as me being polite to my neighbor because of my moral code. Can I ask you a personal question? Do you have your own personal moral standard by which you live? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts