Materialists......

[UndercoverElephant]

Well, Geoff, we still don't have a clear definition of "will". We know it's not random, and we know it's not deterministic, but that's it. The rub is, we don't even know if such a thing is possible.

And you're not likely to be convinced by any arguments I could supply. You don't know it's impossible either.

"Anything else" is also problematic, because if you look at it a certain way, there IS nothing else as far as the universe goes. But I don't think the universe "self-exists" if there's something (i.e. the oft-mentionned singularity) that is necessary for it.

I've already explained that if the Universe depends on a singularity then you are awfully close to claiming it depends on a necessary being or on infinity. There's really not much difference here.

Only SOME versions of God.

All the ones that are important. I'm not particularly interested in the Gnostic "demiurge".

Zero and infinity are two different concepts.

Which does not prohibit me from equating them, or claiming they are two component parts of a dual-concept.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

But any and all decisions HAVE to be based on something. Different countries and cultures have different moralities, sometimes drastically so.

The reverse has already been argued a few posts ago.

If there was some sort of universal, objective morality, you'd expect more uniformity, no ?

There is plenty of uniformity. It's just not a global uniformity. I have not been defending any absolute morality.

I'm sure a lot of animals would disagree.

Really, which animals are capable of understanding and talking?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I thought you might say that. The problem is, it seems entirely logically possible that something could exist that just copied the outward behaviour of a human being. Even if we allow that some human actions are not deterministically controlled and are the result of "free will" the p-zombie could give the appearance of free will by substituting randomness.

You cannot substitute morality with randomness and expect nobody to notice the difference.

 

[nescafe]

How many other animals can you think of that act morally?

Under the correct circumstances, any of the great apes.

 

[Tricky]

Sorry about that, but I have no better way to answer the question. If you cannot see a correspondence between...

Materialism
Neutral Monism
Idealism

...and...

1
0
-1

...then you aren't looking hard enough.

Or perhaps it only makes sense to you. Like Lyndale who used to post here saying he saw demons in his basement wall and wondered why we couldn't see them, even though he pointed out repeatedly that they were there. Or like a Christians who says, "Of course there is proof of God, just look at a tree!"

It seems more likely to me that you are trying too hard to force large meanings into tiny spaces.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Okay. Now you've lost me.

Ok, I'll explain it again - since various other people who have had it explained to them before do not seem be able to recall the explanation and are deliberately misinterpreting my statement as having something to do with mathematics.

Paul is trying to claim that materialism, idealism and neutral monism are equivalent. He is partly right and partly wrong. If you want to transpose them onto a body of knowledge which is entirely scientistic then they are equivalent. This means that any one of them could be true and we would still get exactly the same scientific results - science cannot distinguish between them (even though many materialists are absolutely convinced that science has confirmed materialism). However, as soon as you get beyond the scientistic way of understanding reality you should be able to see that these three monisms are related to each other in a very specific way.

Neutral monism can be thought of as containing the other two monisms. This came out very clearly in a thread I started describing neutral monism. During the course of that thread the position I was defending was alternately called "Idealism with a dress on" and "Materialism in a bow-tie". One person even called it "Idealistic materialism". In the past it has also been called "Materialistic idealism." It is none of the above. Neutral monism is neutral, but can be specified in such a way that is complex enough to encompass both materialism and idealism in such a way as they cancel each other out. That is why I use the notation "0 = 1 + -1" to explain the relationship. 1 and - 1, in this equation, cancel each other out and leave an entity (0) which can be thought of as containing both of them.

The same procedure is not possible for materialism and idealism, which is why they are not equivalent.

http://forums.philosophyforums.com/comments.php?id=2826&highlight=geoff23

Idealism is just the other side of physicalism. Physicalism is correct in pointing out how hopelessly wrong idealism is to deny the reality of non-mind things. Idealism is correct in pointing out how hopelessly wrong physicalism is to deny the reality of minds. And dualism, well, it makes the mistakes of both the physicalists and idealists by denying that minds and non-minds have anything to do with each other.

Neutral monism is not equivalent to materialism, idealism or dualism because it makes none of the above mistakes.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Under the correct circumstances, any of the great apes.

Please give an example, and explain why the action is moral and not just an extension of evolutionarily-dependent self-interest.

 

[Tricky]

Please give an example, and explain why the action is moral and not just an extension of evolutionarily-dependent self-interest.

Sometimes female animals will take other species to nurse. You say that's instinct and therefore evolutionary? Then I put to you that a strong case can be made that all human morality can be said to be evolutionary too.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

It seems more likely to me that you are trying too hard to force large meanings into tiny spaces.

Maybe I am........but there's always a chance the materialists here will learn to think outside of the tiny box into which they have constricted their thought processes.....

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

0 = 1 + -1.

Logical proofs usually involve definitions and premises and stuff.

If you allow any terms which actually refer to your mind to slip through, you've got a problem.

Yes, if they refer to some sort of dualistic mind.

It really does require that minds don't exist, and there really isn't any way of properly expressing mental terms using physical ones.

Nonsense.

Yes. It's [Penrose's proposal] not illogical.

That's because it isn't a complete explanation of the problem at hand.

~~ Paul

 

[chriswl]

You cannot substitute morality with randomness and expect nobody to notice the difference.

Then it follows that human moral behaviour can not be modelled in terms of deterministic behaviour and randomness. Yes, exactly, I can hear you saying. But how do you then reconcile this with the observations of science?

Your argument, so far, has been that free will can map onto some quantum processes, thus allowing it not to contradict the observations of empirical science. Free will, as experienced "from the inside" would be more than just randomness, but to an external observer it would appear as randomness, that is it could not be predictable by any laws.

From the "outside" human moral behaviour must appear as a mixture of determined and random behaviour. In fact all behaviour must, we cannot directly see free will. Thus all human behaviour can be simulated.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Sometimes female animals will take other species to nurse. You say that's instinct and therefore evolutionary?

That is absolutely evolutionary. It is the motherhood instinct taking over.

Then I put to you that a strong case can be made that all human morality can be said to be evolutionary too.

Go on then......(try to do it without feeding the assumptions "materialism is true" or "determinism is true" into your reasoning).

 

[nescafe]

Zero and infinity are two different concepts.

Which does not prohibit me from equating them, or claiming they are two component parts of a dual-concept.

True, but that does not mean your equating actually means anything or is a good metaphor. It is just as trite as claiming that becuase 2 + 3 = 5, therefore Discordianism is the one true religion/philosophy/metaphysic.

I suspect that (at least) Tricky, Paul and I will continue to poke fun and/or throw our hands up in dispair at your numerological games.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Nonsense.

Nonsense. (yawn)

That's because it isn't a complete explanation of the problem at hand.

It's the most complete explanation that anyone is yet to propose.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

How many times do I have to tell people it is a symbolic device and not a piece of alternative mathematics?

It isn't? When did that change of heart occur?

~~ Paul

 

[nescafe]

Please give an example, and explain why the action is moral and not just an extension of evolutionarily-dependent self-interest.

Humanity.

Case closed.

[ETA that yes, it was a cheap shot.]

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Your mistake is assuming free will is a human attribute. "Will" is the attribute of all that exists and/or ~exists.

What is the will of a hammer?

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Then it follows that human moral behaviour can not be modelled in terms of deterministic behaviour and randomness. Yes, exactly, I can hear you saying. But how do you then reconcile this with the observations of science?

I see no reason why there is a contradiction. Which observation of science do you think I have a difficulty reconciling with? I can see none.

Your argument, so far, has been that free will can map onto some quantum processes, thus allowing it not to contradict the observations of empirical science. Free will, as experienced "from the inside" would be more than just randomness, but to an external observer it would appear as randomness, that is it could not be predictable by any laws.

From the "outside" human moral behaviour must appear as a mixture of determined and random behaviour. In fact all behaviour must, we cannot directly see free will. Thus all human behaviour can be simulated.

Except as you've already said, what appears to science as randomness may not actually be random when you take your scientistic blinkers off. You cannot replace will with randomness and expect the same result.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Which does not prohibit me from equating them, ...

It most certainly does, unless you have alternate definitions of zero and infinity.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

True, but that does not mean your equating actually means anything or is a good metaphor. It is just as trite as claiming that becuase 2 + 3 = 5, therefore Discordianism is the one true religion/philosophy/metaphysic.

I suspect that (at least) Tricky, Paul and I will continue to poke fun and/or throw our hands up in dispair at your numerological games.

Ok, I'll explain it again - since various other people who have had it explained to them before do not seem be able to recall the explanation and are deliberately misinterpreting my statement as having something to do with mathematics.

Paul is trying to claim that materialism, idealism and neutral monism are equivalent. He is partly right and partly wrong. If you want to transpose them onto a body of knowledge which is entirely scientistic then they are equivalent. This means that any one of them could be true and we would still get exactly the same scientific results - science cannot distinguish between them (even though many materialists are absolutely convinced that science has confirmed materialism). However, as soon as you get beyond the scientistic way of understanding reality you should be able to see that these three monisms are related to each other in a very specific way.

Neutral monism can be thought of as containing the other two monisms. This came out very clearly in a thread I started describing neutral monism. During the course of that thread the position I was defending was alternately called "Idealism with a dress on" and "Materialism in a bow-tie". One person even called it "Idealistic materialism". In the past it has also been called "Materialistic idealism." It is none of the above. Neutral monism is neutral, but can be specified in such a way that is complex enough to encompass both materialism and idealism in such a way as they cancel each other out. That is why I use the notation "0 = 1 + -1" to explain the relationship. 1 and - 1, in this equation, cancel each other out and leave an entity (0) which can be thought of as containing both of them.

The same procedure is not possible for materialism and idealism, which is why they are not equivalent.