Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If the mere possibility that someone could come to the conclusions I have is so confusing and uncomfortable to you that you are arguing with yourself that you don't have to listen to me rather than arguing with me at all ... what are you doing here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I think that sums up behavior just fine,
No it does not. Behavior is only part of the things an alive thing does. Your heartbeat is not a behavior though it is a biological process. In fact arguably plants do not have behaviors at all but they inarguably have biological processes.
You specifically as a human being behave as your biology and environment have shaped you to behave. You cannot help but to be what you are. What life has made of you through perfectly natural undirected deterministic forces. Inevitably becoming yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
What is the physical processes of life?
Anything to stave off uncomfortable understanding.
It is all the things an alive thing does. Metobolizing energy and chemical processes mostly. It's the things we do and a tree does and a flatworm does but that a rock doesn't.
Man you really don't want to have this conversation do you? Obdurate. Intractable. Obtuse. Adversarial. Obstructive.
If the mere possibility that someone could come to the conclusions I have is so confusing and uncomfortable to you that you are arguing with yourself that you don't have to listen to me rather than arguing with me at all ... what are you doing here?
Created:
Posted in:
The physical processes of life + the circumstances in which life finds itself = all the stuff life does, is and thinks.
That's kind of cumbersome why don't we shorten it to biology + environmental factors = behavior.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I mean the physical processes of life when I say biology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Nihilism isn't a behavior it is a philosophical model which gives no actionable data. But yes those too are a product of biology + environmental factors.
Biology + environmental factors = beliefs.
Biology + environmental factors = opinions.
Biology + environmental factors = ideas.
Biology + environmental factors = principles.
Nothing else is needed. Biology + environmental factors = reason (as in cause not capital r Reason) enough.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
We have cause to. That is why we as humans have subjective reasons for it but there is no larger capital r Reason.
Biology + environmental factors = behavior.
It's not like there is a step missing or anything this is a pretty simple equation. Please which of the three concepts involved is hard to understand?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I’m asking, why does the principle of conduct exist in the first place?
There does not appear to be any cause beyond the sheer forces of evolutionary biology at work on a social species with specialized intelligence and nuanced conceptual communication. NO REASON. Also not random. CAUSAL.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Even with living organisms what reason is there to believe there is any morality (as zedvictor4 defined considering you piggybacked off our discussion)?
Did he define it differently than myself? Not surprising considering the subjective nature of the subject matter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Even with living organisms what reason is there to believe there is any morality?
Please be very clear what you are asking. Are you asking what reason there is to believe that people act according a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society?
Or something else?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Maybe to a separate question, biology has nothing to do with why some have personal feelings, tastes or opinions in regards to subjective morality.
Let us return to the original question and I will try to be more accurate and specific.
Maybe to a separate question
Firstly congratulations to me for knowing you so well inso little time. Amazing that you ticked off every box on the list btw.
, biology has nothing to do with why some have personal feelings, tastes or opinions in regards to subjective morality.
Biology is the primary reason any organism does anything. People have evolved morality because it gives us an evolutionary advantage.
It is the mechanism of morality. Without living organisms there is no reason to believe there is any morality. In fact how can there be with no mind and if a mind is required then morality is an abstraction not an existent "thing" in and of itself.
Morality is contingent upon moral actors. Humans are the only moral actors we agree exists therefore morality is contingent upon humans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
My mistake thank you for the correction.THERE ISNO SHOULD when discussing what IS.
Created:
Posted in:
That makes no sense, one minute your acknowledging a should and the next your not, make up your mind.
You brought up should
I personally don't think it is a matter of what we should do but rather what we actually do.Well your not the one asking the question, I am.
See.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
So what context were you referring to when you saidIt doesn't matter if humans SHOULD reflect the universe in its apparent inability to care
The context of observable demonstrable reality and in that context there is no should or shouldn't.
Is and ought are like water and oil. They just will not mix.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Don’t act slow now, I’ve made it abundantly clear what the question was, the question isSHOULD we reflect the universe in its all apparent inability to care?
In regards to what goal or subjective standard? SHOULD is meaningless without context.
SHOULD mosquitoes suck blood? Well I don't know of they should but they do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Well your not the one asking the question, I am.
So you are asking my subjective opinion?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
our observations support the proposition that humans care and do not support the proposition that the universe does.No one’s disputing that but I’m SOLELY asking in regards to should.
And I'm telling you that even if we SHOULD we DON'T so I'm not sure what difference it would make or what your point is.
I personally don't think it is a matter of what we should do but rather what we actually do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Are you conceding that we SHOULD reflect the universe in its all apparent inability to care?
No i am not I am saying it doesn't matter one way or the other when our observations support the proposition that humans care and do not support the proposition that the universe does.
Should=/=does
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I meant in the uncaring sense not in the no mind sense.
It doesn't matter if humans SHOULD reflect the universe in its apparent inability to care if we DON'T reflect the universe and just go ahead and care any way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No, because humans have a mind chain links don’t.
Immaterial. Besides the point. A non issue.
It doesn't matter if humans SHOULD reflect the universe in its apparent mindlessness if we DON'T reflect the universe and just go ahead and have minds any way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
There is definitely a difference in how I and Secular see subjective morality - I believe there are objective ways to frame our morality,
I don't think we are as different as you imagine. Once we agree on a SUBJECTIVE standard we can make OBJECTIVE statements based in that standard.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
it makes sense that we should reflect the universe,
Just as much as a chain link SHOULD reflect a whole chain.
You are making a distinction without a difference.I didn’t say that humans reflect the universe, I said that we should
Created:
Posted in:
Must you two keep banging your heads against an obtuse wall?But there is a micronic* chance they may decide to actually engage!
*self edit
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Must you two keep banging your heads against an obtuse wall?
But there is a moronic chance they may decide to actually engage!
Created:
Posted in:
What if I asked both. then what?
Maybe to a separate question, biology has nothing to do with why some have personal feelings, tastes or opinions in regards to subjective morality.
Ok so which is it? I answered both questions to the best of my ability even if the answer to one us that neither of us is capable of knowing and we should not believe in things if we don't actually know are true.
You seem to be moving the goal post from asking both questions to only asking the question for which NEITHER of us has or can have an adequate answer for.
considering if we’re extensions of the universe it makes sense that we should reflect the universe, I’ve said this before.
Reverse composition fallacy. That a steel link is part of a chain doesn't necessarily mean that it reflects the utility, purpose, properties or usefulness of a chain when taken as a whole.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Maybe to a separate question, biology has nothing to do with why some have personal feelings, tastes or opinions in regards to subjective morality.
Nope it is just the mechanism which leads to this outcome. There probably isn't any particular reason why. We just happened to have developed that way because physics work the way they do and there isn't really a reason for that either
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I believe if there is no reason for something then that thing makes no sense.
Then it is entirely possible (and indeed it appears to be the case) that nothing makes sense outside of human endeavors and that these only "make sense" in the context of human endeavors and not on a larger cosmic scale. Which is not the same as saying we cannot learn about our local expression of spacetime in the sense that we can determine patterns and physical laws and describe them so that we can collectively work on turning them to accomplish our own subjective goals.
I am absolutely willing to accept and would find it completely unremarkable if nothing "makes sense" to the universe and the cosmos at large since that requires a mind and there is no evidence to support that the universe or the cosmos possesses a mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Care to go for the trifecta and change the subject now?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
IF you INTRACTABLY believe that there IS a reason for EVERYTHING...No, I believe if there is no reason for something then that thing makes no sense.
This is a pretty clear answer. It tells you what I believe and why. I therefore predict that you will take some exception to my answer on a semantic or definitional level or that you will move the goal post or that you will change the subject.
Nailed it again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
This is a pretty clear answer. It tells you what I believe and why. I therefore predict that you will take some exception to my answer on a semantic or definitional level or that you will move the goal post or that you will change the subject.
One does not logically follow from the other.Oh yeah? Then give me ONE example of something that makes sense with no reason for it whatsoever.
Moving the goal post. Nailed it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
One does not logically follow from the other.Oh yeah? Then give me ONE example of something that makes sense with no reason for it whatsoever.
IF you INTRACTABLY believe that there IS a reason for EVERYTHING despite there being no evidence that this is the case this would be an exercise in futility.
ESPECIALLY if you are conflate cause with reason.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
subjective morality makes no sense because there’s no reason for it,
One does not logically follow from the other.
Also even if we attribute reason (and therefore by implication agency) to the universe (or some keeper of the universe at the very least) it still doesn't explain why things exist only how. All that changed is the mechanism by which everything exists. Attributing agency doesn't tell us anything about the MOTIVATIONS of the agent.
Also also we know that biology is at the very least the mechanism "chosen" whether there is agency involved or not so biology isn't in question agency is. Of the two propositions it is agency that must be demonstrated not biology. If my answer is biology and you ask why is there life at all my answer becomes I don't know and have no reason to suspect there even is a reason.
This is a pretty clear answer. It tells you what I believe and why. I therefore predict that you will take some exception to my answer on a semantic or definitional level or that you will move the goal post or that you will change the subject.
If this is about winning (and for me it isn't but I am getting the sense that it is for you) I "win" either way. Either my prediction will prove correct or you will engage my actual argument rather than simply pretending that the argument isn't clear to you.
Let's find out together.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Well the biological reason is that in a system of survival of the fittest if your species is evolved to cooperate the group that cooperates the best is by definition most fit. We cooperate because less cooperation makes you less successful.
The question why is there a biological mechanism in the first place, well if the is a reason beyond the laws of physics and evolution acting predictably then weas humans don't have access to it l. Like to the point where it is indistinguishable from there being NO REASON WHATSOEVER beyond just unguided natural processes.
In other words the answer to why there is mechanism at all on a larger scale the answer most in keeping with occum's razer is that there just isn't a reason at all. It's like asking why does anything exist at all. The answer is we don't know and there isn't even really any cause to suspect there is a reason in the first place.
You may now continue your discussion with z.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
why do people develop these things?
You need to be very clear about what you are asking here. You need to be clear on whether you are asking about the biological mechanisms that lead to humans developing systems over acceptable behavior or are you asking why the mechanisms exist in the first place and where they came from.
If you are not clear about which question you are asking you cannot reasonably object if someone answers the wrong one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I've never witnessed a spirit or a ghost or a god or any supernatural force screw in a lightbulb. Can any supernatural force effect reality visibly and directly like that and if so how many god(s) does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
so what would cause people to choose to reject God despite this threat if not free will.
Argument from incredulity and begging the question. The simple answer is if not some free will then something else. Perhaps a lack of evidence to support the proposition.
An all knowing God would pour out perfect justice on anyone including Judas
This would not appear to be the state of affairs in the observable universe and since that is all we can observe it is by necessity the only thing we can draw reasonable conclusions from. If we observe unjustice we must conclude that no all powerful all just being is enforcing any justice.
As you pointed out such a being would necessarily lead to just outcomes one hundred percent of the time.
If your counter argument relies on any factors that exist outside the observable universe like some afterlife or a reap and sow style system of magical checks and balances your first step by necessity would be to demonstrate any such proposition you personally favor and if you cannot demonstrate it to concede that belief in a perfect cosmic hall monitor is unreasonable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
Our experiences are open to interpretation, i'm sure many people have drawn conclusions based on experience that have proven to be wrong down the road. Forced belief in anything would not be a genuine belief.
Sufficient evidence leaves me with no option but to believe and an absence of sufficient leaves me unable to. It is not a choice in the way you mean it. One cannot simply will oneself to belief. We must be convinced.
IF convinced = coerced THEN all beliefs are "forced".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
do you use your free will to reject Christ?
While I don't pretend to speak for Stephen this for me at least misses the point. I do not choose to reject anything. In fact I have no choice but to reject equally any proposition which cannot be adequately demonstrated. You do not choose to be believe something you must be convinced. You are not the author if your own beliefs. Your experiences have authored them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
Making a final choice to be with God does not make a person a robot, free will may well exist in heaven but in the case of the Christian, they have made the choice to worship God before entering heaven.
If they are then unable to change their minds then they have lost their free will... if they ever had it.
None of us deserve Gods grace, it is a gift, but a gift is meaningless if it is not accepted.
IF the creation is flawed the one most personally responsible IS the creator.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
God can and does do whatever He pleases, and he has a plan in place to end hunger and suffering to those who choose his grace.
Oh I see innocent starving children deserve it. That's a relief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
Those in heaven will have already used their free will to choose to worship and obey and love God, so free will will possibly not be needed.
So it's ok if we are robots in heaven? Wow hope they don't make me go... if in fact I am not already a robot.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
A. "By staying true to your views".....Views are undoubtedly subjective, therefore a moral view is a subjective view.B. Therefore you have subjective principles.Objectivity is only really applicable to provable facts.....Nonetheless I still hold that any internal data management and output is inherently subjective.
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Well not even society necessarily but sure we can use that standard in a much as it can even be determined.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
What would you say makes an action 'necessary?
Well strictly speaking determinism renders all action that actually occurs "necessary" but indulging personal greed doesn't appear to be necessary for the greater good by any definition that I'm aware of.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
If you truly believed this you wouldn’t continue to engage in this banter.
I might if I thought there were a slim possibility that you might actually engage or if I were just winding you up.
Which do you imagine is the case I wonder?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No it’s not, let’s say your dealing with a lunatic whose goal is to kill 100 people are you willing to be transigent in regards to your views and say he meet you halfway with 50?
Appeal to consequences fallacy
I sure hope not, same thing applies here, I refuse to negotiate with a bunch of looneys, miss me with that.
Groundless ad hominem attack.
I would suggest you familiarsize yourself with the more common logical fallacies in order to avoid them but since
I would suggest that you are being deliberately intransigent in respect of a cause.That’s how I stay true to my views.
It would be a pointless exercise.
For you as much as for us.
May I suggest you get a new hobby? One you are actually willing and able to participate in perhaps?
I hear you can play checkers without anyone bringing up any faults in the logical structure of your beliefs that might lead you to being confused and uncomfortable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
No, not regardless of its soundness if I a sound argument refutes mine then I would accept it at face value but so far that hasn’t happened.
This statement is directly contradicted by this sentiment.
I would suggest that you are being deliberately intransigent in respect of a cause.That’s how I stay true to my views.
This makes offering sound logical arguments a pointless exercise.
For you as much as for us.
May I suggest you get a new hobby? One you are actually willing and able to participate in perhaps?
I hear you can play checkers without anyone bringing up any faults in the logical structure of your beliefs that might lead you to being confused and uncomfortable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I would suggest that you are being deliberately intransigent in respect of a cause.That’s how I stay true to my views.
This makes discussion of definitions pointless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
I would suggest that you are being deliberately intransigent in respect of a cause.That’s how I stay true to my views.
Then you are not actually interested in honest discussion. If you intend to reject any argument that contradicts your current view regardless of its soundness then this is a pointless exercise.
For you as much as for us.
May I suggest you get a new hobby? One you are actually willing and able to participate in perhaps?
I hear you can play checkers without anyone bringing up any faults in the logical structure of your beliefs that might lead you to being confused and uncomfortable.
Created: