Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 5,644 - 5,655 of 6,170
Irina "I'm trying to imagine a starfish"
See, that's the problem. You are still failing to distinguish between the way you think about a thing and the properties of the thing itself. If a sentient being who developed a concept of counting and developed some sort of concept of 5 thinks about or describes starfish, then certain properties of that starfish will correlate to the concept of 5 and the starfish can be said to have 5 legs. 5 is a concept we use to describe certain properties of the starfish and not a part of the starfish itself. It wouldn't be very useful if it existed within the starfish because we could not abstract it and compare it with other phenomenon that correspond to our concept of 5, or contract it with things that correspond to our concept of 4, or use the logical tools created within or various system of mathematics to draw conclusions and make predictions. Without sentient beings with the concept of 5, starfish would have the same DNA, and the same body. They just would not have need to count legs nor be described as having 5. The legs are on the starfish. The concept of legs, and of 5, are in your head. See the difference?
Perhaps you remember reading a few years back about the people who only count "one, two, many"? http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6303. This Brazilian tribe described in the article has no numbers above two. I don't mean they count in base two. I mean to them, a starfish has many legs, as does a dog. It's the same starfish, and many legs is accurate. to them it is just "many" and they have no reason to distinguish any other number. The starfish is the same whether we say it has five legs or many legs. The starfish doesn't care. The way we describe something does not change the physical reality. Sentient beings who want to make more accurate observations, deductions and predictions may argue a number system with 5 is a more useful tool for doing such things (and it is) but without sentient beings there are no numbers much less a specific number like 5.
All of that ignores the fact the a concept such as "evil' is distinguishable in many ways from a logical system such as math or language. Again, if evil exists outside of human perceptions and abstract thought, then how do we scientifically test it? How do we generate useful hypothesis and discover objective properties of evil outside of our own value systems?
Posts 5,644 - 5,655 of 6,170
Bev writes:
Change the base of your number system from ten to 2 and there is no 5.
Sure there is. It's just that you would now be calling it "101".
The
numeral "5" would no longer be in use, but the number 5 would still exist, and 2+2 would still equal 4, although we would write that as 10+10=100.
Let's say that everyone on an airplane believes that (in binary) 10+10=111 (i.e., 2+2=7). In fact, the plane's computer is wired in accordance with that idea. That plane is going to crash, even 'for them'.
Sure there is. It's just that you would now be calling it "101".
The
numeral "5" would no longer be in use, but the number 5 would still exist, and 2+2 would still equal 4, although we would write that as 10+10=100.
Let's say that everyone on an airplane believes that (in binary) 10+10=111 (i.e., 2+2=7). In fact, the plane's computer is wired in accordance with that idea. That plane is going to crash, even 'for them'.
Bev writes [message 5643]:
Human values are abstract like math but the choice of values and definitions remain subjective because you will not get people to agree to use the same definitions and value system
You are probably right that people will never completely agree about morals, but then, when I say that there is an objective truth about morals, I mean that certain moral claims are true whether or not anyone believes them. So the fact that people disagree is irrelevant.
Not that I want to ague too much about the meaning of words. If you want to define "subjective" to mean "disagreed about", then fine, I agree that morals is 'subjective' in your sense of the word. I will, however, coin the word "abjective", meaning something whose truth is independent of people's belief in it, and I will claim that moral truths are abjective.
Who knows? If the Nazis had won the war, everyone might eventually have come to believe that the holocaust (which would have been carried out to the last Jew, Slav, etc.) was a good thing. But it would still have been a bad thing.
You are probably right that people will never completely agree about morals, but then, when I say that there is an objective truth about morals, I mean that certain moral claims are true whether or not anyone believes them. So the fact that people disagree is irrelevant.
Not that I want to ague too much about the meaning of words. If you want to define "subjective" to mean "disagreed about", then fine, I agree that morals is 'subjective' in your sense of the word. I will, however, coin the word "abjective", meaning something whose truth is independent of people's belief in it, and I will claim that moral truths are abjective.
Who knows? If the Nazis had won the war, everyone might eventually have come to believe that the holocaust (which would have been carried out to the last Jew, Slav, etc.) was a good thing. But it would still have been a bad thing.
Hey! What happened to all you others? What is this, "High Noon"? You have slunk away with your tails between your legs to let Bev and I battle it out? Cowards! [snorts in disgust]
Irina, you are missing the distinction between the logical tools use to derive sound conclusions from data and the data itself. There is a physical world that is true--objectively true whether people exist or not. That plane will crash if it takes the wrong path. Some algorithms will be useful in determine a good path, but the algorithm is only useful in so far as it has good data fed into it and it describes some sort of relationship to the outside world (physics). "Evil" is not like the plane. It exists only as a concept.
If all sentient beings disappeared, the earth would still be here, existing without anyone to think of 5 or evil. There may still be elements and relationships some people would argue correspond to 5 in some way (or would do if they existed) but there is no physical 5ness. To say 5 exist in another base by another name is to say that the same concepts may be called one word in a given language (hello) and by another word in another languages (hola) but mises the point that both were made up by people. Sure, both terms mean the same thing to the people using them, but without people there would be no hello. Without people there would be no 5. Without people there would be no evil.
At least with math and language, people can agree to certain rules and conventions so that they can both be useful tools in the world. They are only good within the system created, however, and the outcome is only good if the chosen rules correspond to whatever aspect of he physical world we need to apply that tool to in order to use it. "Evil" may have it's uses as a concept, but it is more subjective because there is no logical system within which it operates (such as math or language) and there are many loose and changing definitions and no consistent rules in the study of evil.
If evil physically exists, independently of people or subjective judgments we should eb able to scientifically test it, like physics. What evidence would, in your mind, negate the independent existence of "evil" outside of human existence? How do we test it to reject the null hypothesis?
If all sentient beings disappeared, the earth would still be here, existing without anyone to think of 5 or evil. There may still be elements and relationships some people would argue correspond to 5 in some way (or would do if they existed) but there is no physical 5ness. To say 5 exist in another base by another name is to say that the same concepts may be called one word in a given language (hello) and by another word in another languages (hola) but mises the point that both were made up by people. Sure, both terms mean the same thing to the people using them, but without people there would be no hello. Without people there would be no 5. Without people there would be no evil.
At least with math and language, people can agree to certain rules and conventions so that they can both be useful tools in the world. They are only good within the system created, however, and the outcome is only good if the chosen rules correspond to whatever aspect of he physical world we need to apply that tool to in order to use it. "Evil" may have it's uses as a concept, but it is more subjective because there is no logical system within which it operates (such as math or language) and there are many loose and changing definitions and no consistent rules in the study of evil.
If evil physically exists, independently of people or subjective judgments we should eb able to scientifically test it, like physics. What evidence would, in your mind, negate the independent existence of "evil" outside of human existence? How do we test it to reject the null hypothesis?
[comes onstage with negligee and top hat]
Bev writes:
Without people there would be no 5.
If there were no people, how many legs would a starfish have?
Bev writes:
If there were no people, how many legs would a starfish have?
Irina, if there were no people (or sentient beings) there would be no need to describe the starfish or quantify it. There would be no counting or need for it. It would just be.
Psi, I meant to ask you, in the video, was the bot, remote controlled, running through a preset sequence, or using some sort of algorithm to determine it's next movement? Was there a person playing sounds through it's speakers or was there some speech synthesizer involved? More details!
Psi, I meant to ask you, in the video, was the bot, remote controlled, running through a preset sequence, or using some sort of algorithm to determine it's next movement? Was there a person playing sounds through it's speakers or was there some speech synthesizer involved? More details!
I'm trying to imagine a starfish with no particular number of legs...
If the starfish had the same DNA as starfish have now, and nothing abnormal happened, it would end up with five legs, I should think!
And I would imagine that there would be two kinds of charge, and two magnetic poles...
If the starfish had the same DNA as starfish have now, and nothing abnormal happened, it would end up with five legs, I should think!
And I would imagine that there would be two kinds of charge, and two magnetic poles...
Irina: If the starfish had the same DNA as starfish have now, and nothing abnormal happened, it would end up with five legs, I should think!
Here, you take this orange! I insist.
The closest field of study to Theology is Physics, I think. Things happen for some reason. Eventually you have to name the reason based on faith, and that (yes, even atheism) is called religion.
Here, you take this orange! I insist.
The closest field of study to Theology is Physics, I think. Things happen for some reason. Eventually you have to name the reason based on faith, and that (yes, even atheism) is called religion.
See, that's the problem. You are still failing to distinguish between the way you think about a thing and the properties of the thing itself. If a sentient being who developed a concept of counting and developed some sort of concept of 5 thinks about or describes starfish, then certain properties of that starfish will correlate to the concept of 5 and the starfish can be said to have 5 legs. 5 is a concept we use to describe certain properties of the starfish and not a part of the starfish itself. It wouldn't be very useful if it existed within the starfish because we could not abstract it and compare it with other phenomenon that correspond to our concept of 5, or contract it with things that correspond to our concept of 4, or use the logical tools created within or various system of mathematics to draw conclusions and make predictions. Without sentient beings with the concept of 5, starfish would have the same DNA, and the same body. They just would not have need to count legs nor be described as having 5. The legs are on the starfish. The concept of legs, and of 5, are in your head. See the difference?
Perhaps you remember reading a few years back about the people who only count "one, two, many"? http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6303. This Brazilian tribe described in the article has no numbers above two. I don't mean they count in base two. I mean to them, a starfish has many legs, as does a dog. It's the same starfish, and many legs is accurate. to them it is just "many" and they have no reason to distinguish any other number. The starfish is the same whether we say it has five legs or many legs. The starfish doesn't care. The way we describe something does not change the physical reality. Sentient beings who want to make more accurate observations, deductions and predictions may argue a number system with 5 is a more useful tool for doing such things (and it is) but without sentient beings there are no numbers much less a specific number like 5.
All of that ignores the fact the a concept such as "evil' is distinguishable in many ways from a logical system such as math or language. Again, if evil exists outside of human perceptions and abstract thought, then how do we scientifically test it? How do we generate useful hypothesis and discover objective properties of evil outside of our own value systems?
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar