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 5,654 - 5,665 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?
Clerk, If you define religion as a means of transforming the mundane into the sacred, then atheism is not a religion. If you define it as a opinion as to the existence or non existence of god(s) it might be. Theology, like all claims of the supernatural and like evil, relies on faith or some other way of knowing and cannot be tested scientifically in the same way physics can. This distinction is very important.
What I mean is that atheism requires a leap of faith just as much as theism does. You can't prove or disprove God's existence. (I know, "you can't prove a negative." But you can't.) I don't mean to say that atheists all get together Tuesdays and worship nothing.
Why do I think Theology and Physics go together? Because once you get back to the Big Bang or whatever we're onto now (okay, I'm a Medievalist, not a Physicist), there's still the question of where did that stuff (energy and/or matter) come from? In any proof, there always has to be a given to start with, and if you keep going back and back and back, eventually you hit a wall. You have to assume one thing or another. In other words, you have to have faith. The two Physicists I actually know agree. And the younger of the two was raised by two very good, sweet and intelligent atheists. But he's doing post doc work at Los Alamos and RTP* and has independently come down to God -- not a religious man per se, but a theist nonetheless.
*In NC, Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill
Any theists out there, if you want to channel some energy (as in pray, I guess) that my partner Kaye gets through a five-hour cancer surgery today with flying colors, I would be grateful. Duke has done studies suggesting that prayer helps even when the person doesn't know they're being prayed for and the pray-er doesn't know the pray-ee. So I'm rambling now before we head out to the hospital because I'm nervous as hell.
Posts 5,654 - 5,665 of 6,170
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?
Clerk, If you define religion as a means of transforming the mundane into the sacred, then atheism is not a religion. If you define it as a opinion as to the existence or non existence of god(s) it might be. Theology, like all claims of the supernatural and like evil, relies on faith or some other way of knowing and cannot be tested scientifically in the same way physics can. This distinction is very important.
Science may not be the only tool we can use to make sense of the world or learn about the human condition, but if you are going to claim any objective truth outside your own experience and opinion, it is hard to do so without science. To claim one god is real and others are not, or to claim there is/are no god(s), or to claim, as I do, that nobody really knows and it's a crap shoot are all points of view you may think of as religious but none of these claims generate useful hypothesis that can be tested in the natural physical world and therefor any objective claim to the ultimate truth is highly questionable at best.
Science may not be the only tool we can use to make sense of the world or learn about the human condition, but if you are going to claim any objective truth outside your own experience and opinion, it is hard to do so without science. To claim one god is real and others are not, or to claim there is/are no god(s), or to claim, as I do, that nobody really knows and it's a crap shoot are all points of view you may think of as religious but none of these claims generate useful hypothesis that can be tested in the natural physical world and therefor any objective claim to the ultimate truth is highly questionable at best.
Bev writes:
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.
But which property of the starfish will correlate? Its 5-leggedness! If a sentient being looks at a (normal) spider, 5-leggedness will not correlate. If starfish aren't really 5-legged, why would 5-leggedness correlate better than 8-leggedness?
Is there some other property - let's call it "gribbility" -- that a starfish has that makes sentient beings like me think it is 5-legged? If so, what is gribbility, and how does it differ from 5-leggedness?
Can't we say the same of gribbility itself -- that it's not really intrinsic to the starfish, but that the starfish has some property which, when a sentient being ponders it, makes the starfish appear 5-legged at first, and then, after more pondering and greater conceptual sophistication, not 5-legged but gribbilish? We could call this property "hypergribbility". So the starfish is not really 5-legged, and not even really gribbilish, it is hypergribbilish. But wait! As we become even more sophisticated, we realize that the starfish is not really hypergribbilish, it is just that when a sentient being of a certain level of sophistication considers it, it has a property which correlates with hypergribbility.
If you stop this process at any point, you are still stuck with objectivity, aren't you? Let's say that a starfish isn't really 5-legged, but it really has properties which correlate with 5-leggedness when a sentient being ponders it. Well, is that objectively true, are we going to say that it doesn't really have properties that correlate with 5-leggedness, it only has properties that, when a sentient being considers it, correlate with having properties that correlate with 5-leggedness... and off we go. Since no matter how many steps you take, you are stuck with objectivity, why bother to take even the first step?
I appeal to Occam's razor: the simplest explanation for the fact that starfish so often appear to be 5-legged is, that they are 5-legged!
If they don't really have any definite number of legs, how do they get around?
Did tyranosaurs not have 2 eyes until we discovered their fossils?
and the starfish can be said to have 5 legs.
What's the difference between saying that something has five legs and saying that it can be said to have 5 legs?
But which property of the starfish will correlate? Its 5-leggedness! If a sentient being looks at a (normal) spider, 5-leggedness will not correlate. If starfish aren't really 5-legged, why would 5-leggedness correlate better than 8-leggedness?
Is there some other property - let's call it "gribbility" -- that a starfish has that makes sentient beings like me think it is 5-legged? If so, what is gribbility, and how does it differ from 5-leggedness?
Can't we say the same of gribbility itself -- that it's not really intrinsic to the starfish, but that the starfish has some property which, when a sentient being ponders it, makes the starfish appear 5-legged at first, and then, after more pondering and greater conceptual sophistication, not 5-legged but gribbilish? We could call this property "hypergribbility". So the starfish is not really 5-legged, and not even really gribbilish, it is hypergribbilish. But wait! As we become even more sophisticated, we realize that the starfish is not really hypergribbilish, it is just that when a sentient being of a certain level of sophistication considers it, it has a property which correlates with hypergribbility.
If you stop this process at any point, you are still stuck with objectivity, aren't you? Let's say that a starfish isn't really 5-legged, but it really has properties which correlate with 5-leggedness when a sentient being ponders it. Well, is that objectively true, are we going to say that it doesn't really have properties that correlate with 5-leggedness, it only has properties that, when a sentient being considers it, correlate with having properties that correlate with 5-leggedness... and off we go. Since no matter how many steps you take, you are stuck with objectivity, why bother to take even the first step?
I appeal to Occam's razor: the simplest explanation for the fact that starfish so often appear to be 5-legged is, that they are 5-legged!
If they don't really have any definite number of legs, how do they get around?
Did tyranosaurs not have 2 eyes until we discovered their fossils?
What's the difference between saying that something has five legs and saying that it can be said to have 5 legs?
People disagree about things. There are two (and no doubt more) ways of responding to this fact:
1. We can say that there is a truth to the matter, but that people are fallible.
2. We can say that eveyone has their own reality so that everyone is always right.
I go for option 1.
1. We can say that there is a truth to the matter, but that people are fallible.
2. We can say that eveyone has their own reality so that everyone is always right.
I go for option 1.
Would you ride in an airplane that was designed, built, and piloted by people who went for the second option?
Irina, you are mixing apples and oranges, and there are more than two ways to look at things. If we are asking a question about the physical world, such as how to build an airplane, then we use science to determine the best answers we can with the data available at the time. If we are asking a question about ethics, it is impossible to escape the subjective nature of morality at the base of any postulate asserted.
People are limited by their perceptions and ability to process information. We are effected by factors such as biology, education and beliefs. Although there is an objective outside world full of airplanes and starfish, we can only understand it subjectively. We developed abstract tools such as language, math, logic and science to help us better understand this outer world separate from our self awareness, and to communicate our understanding to each other. We also developed abstract concepts to help us make sense of our emotional and social connections and interdependence. The farther we get way from science and the physical world the more we rely on subjective values and experiences (even shared values and experiences). That is not to say the subjective experience is not valuable or valid (especially as a basis for ethics). I would argue the best parts of being human are subjective by nature and cannot be reduced to words.
If I am building an airplane, I rely on science to give me the "truth" based on the known data at the time and the best conclusions derived from it. This truth is as close to absolute "right and wrong" as I as human can get but it is dependent on the information available. If the evidence changes, my understanding of the outer world changes. In matters of the outer world, I stick to science, which gives me truth "until further notice".
There are abstract conclusions that can be said to be logically true if you accept certain premises. The conclusions can be said to be true or false only in relation to the a priori premises asserted. For example, if I take the premise that "Good is to maximize the benefit for the greatest number" I get different results than if I define good as "Seek pleasure, avoid pain". The same act may be good under one system and bad in another. There is no way to objectively determine which premise is "true" because it is asserted as a concept, not as a part of the natural world. Therefore what is good or evil may be different from person to person, time to time, or culture to culture, and can only be judged true or false relevant to those premises assumed.
If we are talking about planes, I chose science. If we are talking about ethics, there is no way to say which premise is more scientific, whose values are more valid, and whose personal experiences are worth more. To do that, you would have to appeal to the supernatural or divine in some way. I prefer to be subjective.
People are limited by their perceptions and ability to process information. We are effected by factors such as biology, education and beliefs. Although there is an objective outside world full of airplanes and starfish, we can only understand it subjectively. We developed abstract tools such as language, math, logic and science to help us better understand this outer world separate from our self awareness, and to communicate our understanding to each other. We also developed abstract concepts to help us make sense of our emotional and social connections and interdependence. The farther we get way from science and the physical world the more we rely on subjective values and experiences (even shared values and experiences). That is not to say the subjective experience is not valuable or valid (especially as a basis for ethics). I would argue the best parts of being human are subjective by nature and cannot be reduced to words.
If I am building an airplane, I rely on science to give me the "truth" based on the known data at the time and the best conclusions derived from it. This truth is as close to absolute "right and wrong" as I as human can get but it is dependent on the information available. If the evidence changes, my understanding of the outer world changes. In matters of the outer world, I stick to science, which gives me truth "until further notice".
There are abstract conclusions that can be said to be logically true if you accept certain premises. The conclusions can be said to be true or false only in relation to the a priori premises asserted. For example, if I take the premise that "Good is to maximize the benefit for the greatest number" I get different results than if I define good as "Seek pleasure, avoid pain". The same act may be good under one system and bad in another. There is no way to objectively determine which premise is "true" because it is asserted as a concept, not as a part of the natural world. Therefore what is good or evil may be different from person to person, time to time, or culture to culture, and can only be judged true or false relevant to those premises assumed.
If we are talking about planes, I chose science. If we are talking about ethics, there is no way to say which premise is more scientific, whose values are more valid, and whose personal experiences are worth more. To do that, you would have to appeal to the supernatural or divine in some way. I prefer to be subjective.
What I mean is that atheism requires a leap of faith just as much as theism does. You can't prove or disprove God's existence. (I know, "you can't prove a negative." But you can't.) I don't mean to say that atheists all get together Tuesdays and worship nothing.
Why do I think Theology and Physics go together? Because once you get back to the Big Bang or whatever we're onto now (okay, I'm a Medievalist, not a Physicist), there's still the question of where did that stuff (energy and/or matter) come from? In any proof, there always has to be a given to start with, and if you keep going back and back and back, eventually you hit a wall. You have to assume one thing or another. In other words, you have to have faith. The two Physicists I actually know agree. And the younger of the two was raised by two very good, sweet and intelligent atheists. But he's doing post doc work at Los Alamos and RTP* and has independently come down to God -- not a religious man per se, but a theist nonetheless.
*In NC, Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill
Any theists out there, if you want to channel some energy (as in pray, I guess) that my partner Kaye gets through a five-hour cancer surgery today with flying colors, I would be grateful. Duke has done studies suggesting that prayer helps even when the person doesn't know they're being prayed for and the pray-er doesn't know the pray-ee. So I'm rambling now before we head out to the hospital because I'm nervous as hell.
Bev:
Well, I'm sure that is true 'for you'. But 'for me', starfish have five legs and it is wrong to torture babies just for fun.
Well, I'm sure that is true 'for you'. But 'for me', starfish have five legs and it is wrong to torture babies just for fun.
Bev:
You wrote:
If we are asking a question about ethics, it is impossible to escape the subjective nature of morality at the base of any postulate asserted.
You have said this a number of times, but can you present any evidence in favor of it?
You have argued from the diversity of ethical opinions, but if that argument were any good, it would also show that science is purely subjective, since people have had various different opinions on scientific questions. For example, Newton thought that light was a stream of particles, while Huyghens thought it was a wave.
Do you have any other evidence in favor of the view that ethics is irreducibly subjective, or is it just a matter of faith with you?
You wrote:
You have said this a number of times, but can you present any evidence in favor of it?
You have argued from the diversity of ethical opinions, but if that argument were any good, it would also show that science is purely subjective, since people have had various different opinions on scientific questions. For example, Newton thought that light was a stream of particles, while Huyghens thought it was a wave.
Do you have any other evidence in favor of the view that ethics is irreducibly subjective, or is it just a matter of faith with you?
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar