Richard Dawkins and Rowan Williams debate religion this week
Discussion
TheHeretic said:
I'm not making an assumption. I am merely working with what I have. I can only use my senses with what they tell me. I see an object. I can touch an object. I can feel the texture of an object, I can see the texture. I can see the colour of it. I can feel the weight of it. I can smell it. These are all different inputs telling me the same thing, that said object is there. If I were to dismiss that then I may as well just jump off a cliff, (that may or may not be material). You seem determined to place on a level playing field the material, and the immaterial, regardless of whether either exist. I really don't understand how you will happily dismiss the inputs you are receiving, whilst seemingly blindly accepting that with which you are receiving absolutely zero input for. That zero input is apparently telling us, (or not), that God exists, mind does not exist, fairies exist, we are part of a simulation, there is only one of us, there are none of us, and any other input free idea you care to come up with. These are only here because they are ideas that require absolutely zero input, or evidence, and seemingly rely on evidence free assumption. The material may well be n illusion, but with it at least we have an input telling us about what it may be, (back to the object).
That is where I struggle. Making stuff up because it is unfalsifiable is not my cup of tea.
your making assumptions constantly - see, hear, taste, smell, touch - yes they all build up apparent patterns with which you become familiar but not once will any connection be made to prove the object for the subject - hence why we're stuck at perceptionsThat is where I struggle. Making stuff up because it is unfalsifiable is not my cup of tea.
all you can know is that your experience (which may be a false memory
) is that you perceive an apparent world in a particular way - as before - perceptions representing the world accurately or at all? colour in a blind man's world etcmattnunn said:
TheHeretic said:
Morality IS an opinion.
No it's not, and you repeating it isn't going to convince anybody you're right. By any philisophical or even literal definition I've ever seen morality isn't about just about individuals deciding what to do...Online dictionary says...
mo·ral·i·ty/məˈrælɪti, mɔ-/ Show Spelled [muh-ral-i-tee, maw-] Show IPA
noun, plural mo·ral·i·ties for 4–6.
1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
unless we are believing in stone tablets passed down from your god
there is no objective morality whatsoevermattnunn said:
TheHeretic said:
Morality IS an opinion.
No it's not, and you repeating it isn't going to convince anybody you're right. By any philisophical or even literal definition I've ever seen morality isn't about just about individuals deciding what to do...Online dictionary says...
mo·ral·i·ty/məˈrælɪti, mɔ-/ Show Spelled [muh-ral-i-tee, maw-] Show IPA
noun, plural mo·ral·i·ties for 4–6.
1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
Jinx said:
mattmurdock said:
That doesn't mean that these morals are objective though, as history has shown that the morals of society will move based on collective opinion, and so there is nothing to suggest that the currently agreed 'moral standard' will not move in the future.
It means that the likelihood is that the "morals" are not moral. As Aristotle's theories on motion were replaced by Newton who has been replaced by Einstein. Aristotles thoeries applied to certain situations but were disproved by Newton whose theories applied to more situations who has been found lacking by Einstein whose thoeries apply to even more situations (but break down at sub atomic levels) . Same way morals are shown to be wrong as our understanding grows. To merely say societal opinion is moral is to stick with Aristotle's theories of motion.
None of this in any way suggests there is some objective moral truth that physically exists and to which our observations and hypotheses on morality are currently our best explanation. Morality is a construct of human reasoning and ingenuity, but it has no natural basis. No other creature displays morality in the way we do - wolves are not moral or immoral when they hunt prey, they are simply wolves hunting prey. Humans choose to invest emotional weight to decisions in order to facilitate social interaction and the preservation of the human race, not because there is some natural set of moral standards which we are all aspiring to.
pork911 said:
your making assumptions constantly - see, hear, taste, smell, touch - yes they all build up apparent patterns with which you become familiar but not once will any connection be made to prove the object for the subject - hence why we're stuck at perceptions
all you can know is that your experience (which may be a false memory) is that you perceive an apparent world in a particular way - as before - perceptions representing the world accurately or at all? colour in a blind man's world etc
That is not an assumption. I clearly state that it is an input may well be an illusion, but it is all I have to work with. Again, as I said, these are the ONLY inputs I have. You immaterial inputs give zero input at all. all you can know is that your experience (which may be a false memory
) is that you perceive an apparent world in a particular way - as before - perceptions representing the world accurately or at all? colour in a blind man's world etcTheHeretic said:
pork911 said:
your making assumptions constantly - see, hear, taste, smell, touch - yes they all build up apparent patterns with which you become familiar but not once will any connection be made to prove the object for the subject - hence why we're stuck at perceptions
all you can know is that your experience (which may be a false memory) is that you perceive an apparent world in a particular way - as before - perceptions representing the world accurately or at all? colour in a blind man's world etc
That is not an assumption. I clearly state that it is an input may well be an illusion, but it is all I have to work with. Again, as I said, these are the ONLY inputs I have. You immaterial inputs give zero input at all. all you can know is that your experience (which may be a false memory
) is that you perceive an apparent world in a particular way - as before - perceptions representing the world accurately or at all? colour in a blind man's world etcpork911 said:
mattnunn said:
TheHeretic said:
Morality IS an opinion.
No it's not, and you repeating it isn't going to convince anybody you're right. By any philisophical or even literal definition I've ever seen morality isn't about just about individuals deciding what to do...Online dictionary says...
mo·ral·i·ty/məˈrælɪti, mɔ-/ Show Spelled [muh-ral-i-tee, maw-] Show IPA
noun, plural mo·ral·i·ties for 4–6.
1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
unless we are believing in stone tablets passed down from your god
there is no objective morality whatsoeverOk, say I'm playing cricket, I'm batting, I'm on 99, ball comes in and just as I move to strike a fly lands on the umpires nose he gets distracted and the ball flies off into the slips and is caught. Now only I know for certain if that ball clipped the edge of my bat, shout of "howzat" ring loud in the umpires ears, the pressure is upon him, the rules of the game, the law, is clear and his duty to uphold, but what's not clear here is my duty, as a gentlemen of course I should walk, but as a sportsman I have a responsibility and duty to my team mates, to not work could essentially be construed as a lie, but for an unmpire to make a decision without knowing the facts, likewise...
This is a moral quandry, where the rules, ettiquette or laws come from is an irrelevance assuming they're adopted and understood.
mattnunn said:
pork911 said:
mattnunn said:
TheHeretic said:
Morality IS an opinion.
No it's not, and you repeating it isn't going to convince anybody you're right. By any philisophical or even literal definition I've ever seen morality isn't about just about individuals deciding what to do...Online dictionary says...
mo·ral·i·ty/məˈrælɪti, mɔ-/ Show Spelled [muh-ral-i-tee, maw-] Show IPA
noun, plural mo·ral·i·ties for 4–6.
1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
unless we are believing in stone tablets passed down from your god
there is no objective morality whatsoeverOk, say I'm playing cricket, I'm batting, I'm on 99, ball comes in and just as I move to strike a fly lands on the umpires nose he gets distracted and the ball flies off into the slips and is caught. Now only I know for certain if that ball clipped the edge of my bat, shout of "howzat" ring loud in the umpires ears, the pressure is upon him, the rules of the game, the law, is clear and his duty to uphold, but what's not clear here is my duty, as a gentlemen of course I should walk, but as a sportsman I have a responsibility and duty to my team mates, to not work could essentially be construed as a lie, but for an unmpire to make a decision without knowing the facts, likewise...
This is a moral quandry, where the rules, ettiquette or laws come from is an irrelevance assuming they're adopted and understood.
TheHeretic said:
pork911 said:
the imput is exactly the same - you assume it relates to something i don't
How is the immaterial input exactly the same? What is that input?Another question, if we do throw out all our reasoning abilities, and senses, then what exactly are you left with?
the perceptions are identical - you say they are OF something I ask how you know?
the existence or otherwise of a material world of whatever quality doesn't alter the perceptions in any way
pork911 said:
use of the word input is of course predicated on there being a material world as is much of our language
the perceptions are identical - you say they are OF something I ask how you know?
No. Not at all. If you are going to suggest that out mind is immaterial, then why do the inputs to it have to be material? All I am saying is whatever the input is with regards to our senses, and how we process that, there is actually data there. This weight, that size, this speed, and so on. That is the data this material or immaterial input is saying to our apparently immaterial mind. So all I am asking is what input is the immaterial giving us? What are we finding out/being told about the immaterial? What do we have to work with, so to speak. As I explained, illusion or not, the inputs I get from 'reality' give me I formation, and I can work with it. I cannot do the same when it comes to these other things. the perceptions are identical - you say they are OF something I ask how you know?
TheHeretic said:
pork911 said:
use of the word input is of course predicated on there being a material world as is much of our language
the perceptions are identical - you say they are OF something I ask how you know?
No. Not at all. If you are going to suggest that out mind is immaterial, then why do the inputs to it have to be material? All I am saying is whatever the input is with regards to our senses, and how we process that, there is actually data there. This weight, that size, this speed, and so on. That is the data this material or immaterial input is saying to our apparently immaterial mind. So all I am asking is what input is the immaterial giving us? What are we finding out/being told about the immaterial? What do we have to work with, so to speak. As I explained, illusion or not, the inputs I get from 'reality' give me I formation, and I can work with it. I cannot do the same when it comes to these other things. the perceptions are identical - you say they are OF something I ask how you know?
the data is immaterial - which may or may not relate accurately or at all to the material (if there is any)
pork911 said:
so you agree the material world is only an assumption
the data is immaterial - which may or may not relate accurately or at all to the material (if there is any)
*sigh* It may be an assumption, but only as far as 'there are no fairies' is an assumption. Never mind. It seems that you will do your damnedest to not answer a question. Even assuming everything we ever experience is immaterial, including us, the point I make about data still stands. It seems you cannot even take a 'assuming everything is immaterial' question either. the data is immaterial - which may or may not relate accurately or at all to the material (if there is any)
Never mind... It seems you cannot, or refuse to answer a question directly related to the notion you put forward. I'll file that under 'unreliable premise', and move on.
Philosophy. It's like scrabble, only infinitely more tedious.
Here's another question... If we cannot trust anything... Does that include all your thoughts about everything being untrustworthy? How do we know we aren't being fed these thoughts by angry mice? Where will it end? You can take this unfalsifiable, ridiculous position wherever the hell you want, and be free to assert it in weak arguments. You can justify anything based entirely on that premise. Ridiculous.
Edited by TheHeretic on Tuesday 19th February 20:30
TheHeretic said:
Here's another question... If we cannot trust anything... Does that include all your thoughts about everything being untrustworthy? How do we know we aren't being fed these thoughts by angry mice? Where will it end?
This. IMO common sense trumps flaky argument every time.Let's start with the creationists. Beat them with the deuce!
Do you like what I did there?
TheHeretic said:
pork911 said:
so you agree the material world is only an assumption
the data is immaterial - which may or may not relate accurately or at all to the material (if there is any)
*sigh* It may be an assumption, but only as far as 'there are no fairies' is an assumption. Never mind. It seems that you will do your damnedest to not answer a question. Even assuming everything we ever experience is immaterial, including us, the point I make about data still stands. It seems you cannot even take a 'assuming everything is immaterial' question either. the data is immaterial - which may or may not relate accurately or at all to the material (if there is any)
Never mind... It seems you cannot, or refuse to answer a question directly related to the notion you put forward. I'll file that under 'unreliable premise', and move on.
Philosophy. It's like scrabble, only infinitely more tedious.
Here's another question... If we cannot trust anything... Does that include all your thoughts about everything being untrustworthy? How do we know we aren't being fed these thoughts by angry mice? Where will it end? You can take this unfalsifiable, ridiculous position wherever the hell you want, and be free to assert it in weak arguments. You can justify anything based entirely on that premise. Ridiculous.
Edited by TheHeretic on Tuesday 19th February 20:30
there is a great assumption in believing perceptions are of something else and further assumptions in how accurate those perceptions may be
since you are a big fan of definitions please define the material world and explain the link between that and your perception of it without relying on any assumption
pork911 said:
there is no assumption at all in saying all i have to go on is my experience
there is a great assumption in believing perceptions are of something else and further assumptions in how accurate those perceptions may be
since you are a big fan of definitions please define the material world and explain the link between that and your perception of it without relying on any assumption
Thing is pork, by taking that stance, you render any debate on the subject meaningless. Without an agreed common framework, interactions between entities in your world have no commonality or meaningful shared experience.there is a great assumption in believing perceptions are of something else and further assumptions in how accurate those perceptions may be
since you are a big fan of definitions please define the material world and explain the link between that and your perception of it without relying on any assumption
You are essentially saying that without assumption nothing other than what you directly experience is relevant or can be proved to exist independent of your perception, and that perception itself is not trustworthy. If everyone believed that to be 'true', then it would be impossible to have meaningful interactions with your perceptions and formulate any predictable outcomes for your perceptions. You may as well sit in one room all day, rocking gently and muttering to yourself.
As we clearly can formulate predictable outcomes for shared perceptions, the only rational explanation is that there is a shared reality that we all inhabit, and then it becomes a matter of formulating the best tools to describe that shared reality based on our shared perceptions. So far those tools have served us well, and have also shown no evidence that this shared reality contains any need for a immaterial 'mind' outside of the physical brain.
Thought experiments are all well and good, but the fact we are having this conversation, on technological devices that function according to shared perceptions that obey externally 'provable' physical phenomena, renders the idea that there is no material world a moot point.
mattmurdock said:
Thought experiments are all well and good, but the fact we are having this conversation, on technological devices that function according to shared perceptions that obey externally 'provable' physical phenomena, renders the idea that there is no material world a moot point.
No it doesn't it just gives rise to the whole synthesised reality, simulation hypothesis and Matrix argument.The fact we share a generic perception of reality doesn't make it any more real or material. We all share various qualia when we watch a movie together, we all want Harry Potter to win the battle with he should shall not be named, we engage constructively and socially in many things that aren't materially real, thoughts, ideals, aspirations... We don't know that the perception of reality and universal knowledge aren't just one of these qualia.
mattmurdock said:
Scientific theories are best explanations of physical phenomena - our observations of the universe and the way it is made up are (assuming we are not inventing it entirely in our heads - the only rational assumption) our attempt to describe our objective reality. As Einstein demonstrated, even our objective reality can be subjective in places based on the way we observe it.
None of this in any way suggests there is some objective moral truth that physically exists and to which our observations and hypotheses on morality are currently our best explanation. Morality is a construct of human reasoning and ingenuity, but it has no natural basis. No other creature displays morality in the way we do - wolves are not moral or immoral when they hunt prey, they are simply wolves hunting prey. Humans choose to invest emotional weight to decisions in order to facilitate social interaction and the preservation of the human race, not because there is some natural set of moral standards which we are all aspiring to.
It was an analogy - given historically we judge the actions of our ancestors against our own set of morals and frequently find them wanting have our morals developed (as has science by testing and re-assessing) or merely random moral differences?None of this in any way suggests there is some objective moral truth that physically exists and to which our observations and hypotheses on morality are currently our best explanation. Morality is a construct of human reasoning and ingenuity, but it has no natural basis. No other creature displays morality in the way we do - wolves are not moral or immoral when they hunt prey, they are simply wolves hunting prey. Humans choose to invest emotional weight to decisions in order to facilitate social interaction and the preservation of the human race, not because there is some natural set of moral standards which we are all aspiring to.
Explain the purpose of emotional weight? Given wolves are highly social animals and you attest they act amorally on what basis would emotional investment in decisions come to be? We are animals are we not? Is there some innate knowledge that we are somewhat less than we could be driving us to review our decisions or are we merely deluded animals scrambling to justify our pathetic little existence?
mattnunn said:
No it doesn't it just gives rise to the whole synthesised reality, simulation hypothesis and Matrix argument.
The fact we share a generic perception of reality doesn't make it any more real or material. We all share various qualia when we watch a movie together, we all want Harry Potter to win the battle with he should shall not be named, we engage constructively and socially in many things that aren't materially real, thoughts, ideals, aspirations... We don't know that the perception of reality and universal knowledge aren't just one of these qualia.
If I may be so bold, that is complete nonsense. In order to discuss Harry Potter's success (or lack thereof), one has to accept either that the author of the original idea exists as a material entity external from both of us, or that a material mechanism to simulate the author of the original idea exists external from both of us. Otherwise it simply would not be possible for us to have a shared experience of said idea.The fact we share a generic perception of reality doesn't make it any more real or material. We all share various qualia when we watch a movie together, we all want Harry Potter to win the battle with he should shall not be named, we engage constructively and socially in many things that aren't materially real, thoughts, ideals, aspirations... We don't know that the perception of reality and universal knowledge aren't just one of these qualia.
The only other rational position would be to say that either you or I do not exist, and as I am pretty sure I exist then I would be forced into the position that you, this forum, the internet and the author of Harry Potter are all inventions of my fertile imagination, and I am the only entity that really exists in the whole of reality. Cogito ergo sum and all that.
I have to believe that anyone that holds the position that we do exist as separate entities, but that there is no shared material reality, hasn't really thought it through, or is holding that position just for the joy of the argument.
mattmurdock said:
mattnunn said:
No it doesn't it just gives rise to the whole synthesised reality, simulation hypothesis and Matrix argument.
The fact we share a generic perception of reality doesn't make it any more real or material. We all share various qualia when we watch a movie together, we all want Harry Potter to win the battle with he should shall not be named, we engage constructively and socially in many things that aren't materially real, thoughts, ideals, aspirations... We don't know that the perception of reality and universal knowledge aren't just one of these qualia.
If I may be so bold, that is complete nonsense. In order to discuss Harry Potter's success (or lack thereof), one has to accept either that the author of the original idea exists as a material entity external from both of us, or that a material mechanism to simulate the author of the original idea exists external from both of us. Otherwise it simply would not be possible for us to have a shared experience of said idea.The fact we share a generic perception of reality doesn't make it any more real or material. We all share various qualia when we watch a movie together, we all want Harry Potter to win the battle with he should shall not be named, we engage constructively and socially in many things that aren't materially real, thoughts, ideals, aspirations... We don't know that the perception of reality and universal knowledge aren't just one of these qualia.
The only other rational position would be to say that either you or I do not exist, and as I am pretty sure I exist then I would be forced into the position that you, this forum, the internet and the author of Harry Potter are all inventions of my fertile imagination, and I am the only entity that really exists in the whole of reality. Cogito ergo sum and all that.
I have to believe that anyone that holds the position that we do exist as separate entities, but that there is no shared material reality, hasn't really thought it through, or is holding that position just for the joy of the argument.
It's not permanent, but neither is this "material" world.
You have to accept this as it's obviously the case, and in doing so you also have to accept that the world which you call material and real could also be a construct of imagination.
Follow the white rabbit.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff