Materialists......

[UndercoverElephant]

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

~~ Paul

It was never supposed to be alternative mathematics - not for my uses anyway. So there never was a change of heart. Its purpose was always symbolic. It has been deliberately misinterpreted by lots of people because they like to attack straw men rather then actually thinking about what I am trying to communicate: "Never mind the meaning, let's concentrate on nit-picking."

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Humanity.

Case closed.

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

It wasn't even a very good cheap shot, since you appear to be agreeing with me.....

 

[UndercoverElephant]

What is the will of a hammer?

~~ Paul

It doesn't have one.

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

Would it make it less painful for you if I used the terms "being and nothing" instead?

Or are you going to claim that all of the people throughout the history of philosophy who have argued that being and nothing are two parts of a dual-component concept are as sadly mistaken as Geoff is?

 

[Tricky]

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

Taking care of the poor? It is the species preservation instinct. (More survive, better for the species. Obviously, this is not necessarily true in many cases, yet our morals often have us taking care of them anyway. Must be instinct.)

Sacrificing yourself for another? Species preservation instinct. (Your instinct is to protect, even if you don't always think it out logically whether you life or the person you are protecting is more important.)

Rooting out injustice? Species preservation instinct. (You try to keep your species clean of memitic diseases, even if you may not be clear on what injustice actually is).

Each one of those cases shows that morality evolves to protect the species, even if it does show that we may get confused about what is actually protecting the species, just as the mother tiger may be confused by affectionate piglets.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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

It's no explanation at all. Penrose says that quantum gravity effects in microtubules leads to consciousness. How? Why is this any more complete than "coalitions of synchronized neurons leads to consciousness"?

Methinks it's better just because it taps into the mysterious world of quantum mechanics, which shall be used to explain everything mysterious.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It was never supposed to be alternative mathematics - not for my uses anyway. So there never was a change of heart. Its purpose was always symbolic. It has been deliberately misinterpreted by lots of people because they like to attack straw men rather then actually thinking about what I am trying to communicate: "Never mind the meaning, let's concentrate on nit-picking."

Well, you fooled me. I could have sworn you were talking about an underlying mathematical foundation to existence.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Taking care of the poor? It is the species preservation instinct.

There is no such thing as "species preservation instinct" in evolutionary biology. It does not exist, therefore it is not an evolutionary explanation for human morality.

Try again.

More survive, better for the species.

Methinks you need to go and study evolution......

The closest evolutionary theory gets to this is "group selection". But group selection does not and cannot apply at the species level.

Sacrificing yourself for another? Species preservation instinct. (Your instinct is to protect, even if you don't always think it out logically whether you life or the person you are protecting is more important.)

Rooting out injustice? Species preservation instinct. (You try to keep your species clean of memitic diseases, even if you may not be clear on what injustice actually is).

Each one of those cases shows that morality evolves to protect the species.....

Except your "species preservation instinct" is an evolutionary fairytale. No such thing exists.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Would it make it less painful for you if I used the terms "being and nothing" instead?

Or are you going to claim that all of the people throughout the history of philosophy who have argued that being and nothing are two parts of a dual-component concept are as sadly mistaken as Geoff is?

Yes, I would be happier with words, if, as you claim, this whole thing was only symbolic to begin with.

materialism (+) idealism (=) neutral monism (=) nothing (=) being

Is that it? If so, could you define (+) and (=), too?

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Well, you fooled me. I could have sworn you were talking about an underlying mathematical foundation to existence.

~~ Paul

You have got two things confused. I have spoken about an undelying mathematical foundation to existence when I am asked what "ultimate reality" or "neutral stuff" refers to. But most of the time I respond with "0 = 1 + -1" it is because I am being asked about the relationship between idealism, materialism and neutral monism. I hope you can see these are different issues, although related.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Yes, I would be happier with words, if, as you claim, this whole thing was only symbolic to begin with.

materialism (+) idealism (=) neutral monism (=) nothing (=) being

Is that it? If so, could you define (+) and (=), too?

~~ Paul

(+) = "and" or "together with"
(=) = "is indistinguishable from"

There are two things mixed up in your version of the equation - two different symbolic uses of 0.

(1) Materialism together with idealism is indistinguishable from neutral monism.
(2) The totality of everything (as described by neutral monism) is indistinguishable from the void.

 

[hammegk]

What is the will of a hammer?

~~ Paul

To exist, reacting and/or not reacting to it's environment within the limits its' current configuration allows (an evolutionary dead-end, so to speak).

That is, the same will a materialist has ('bio-life' is a more useful and eventful configuration; add a neural system, and Wow!).

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

There is no such thing as "species preservation instinct" in evolutionary biology. It does not exist, therefore it is not an evolutionary explanation for human morality.

There are various theories of interdemic or group selection. Some of these are concerned with selection within an entire species. It's a fledgling area of evolutionary study.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

To exist, reacting and/or not reacting to it's environment within the limits its' current configuration allows (an evolutionary dead-end, so to speak).

I did not know that a hammer has a will to exist.

~~ Paul

 

[UndercoverElephant]

There are various theories of interdemic or group selection.

As I have pointed out three times.

Some of these are concerned with selection within an entire species.

Did you mean that some of them lead to speciation? If so, that is not the same thing. Tricky claimed there was something called "species preservation instinct". This is a total fantasy. It is not supported by group selection theory (which is itself very borderline and controversial). Neither is it supported by group selection leading to speciation. How can behaviour leading to speciation be claimed as "species preservation instinct"? It appears to be the opposite.

 

[nescafe]

It wasn't even a very good cheap shot, since you appear to be agreeing with me.....

or mabye I should not post to these forums before I have had my coffee.

 

[hammegk]

I did not know that a hammer has a will to exist.

~~ Paul

In its' non-life configuration, the will resides in it's component parts -- quark, lepton, boson level at minimum -- probably at atomic & molecular levels as well.

 

[Tricky]

There is no such thing as "species preservation instinct" in evolutionary biology. It does not exist, therefore it is not an evolutionary explanation for human morality.

Try again.

In that case you cannot argue that there is such a thing as "motherhood instinct" in evolutionary biology. Therefore, mothers protecting young in other species must be moral behavior. You can't have it both ways, Geoff.

Methinks you need to go and study evolution......

Actually, I have. I have a BS in biology. It doesn't mean that I am correct, just that you'll have to do better than merely calling me ignorant.

The closest evolutionary theory gets to this is "group selection". But group selection does not and cannot apply at the species level.

If group selection does exist (and admittedly, it is controversial), then it can perfectly well apply as species, subspecies and even cline level. In fact, it would have to.

Except your "species preservation instinct" is an evolutionary fairytale. No such thing exists.

Is this the best you can do? Sorry Geoff, your attempt to separate humans from animals merely shows your anthropocentricism. We all react to the same forces and there are animals that are enough like us to share the same controlling factors.

We're just animals with bigger brains. Don't be too proud of it.

 

[I less than three logic]

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

What about the 1986 incident where a young boy, Leven Merritt, was knocked unconscious after he fell 15 feet into a gorilla enclosure at the Jersey zoo. Jambo, a silver-back gorilla, stood guard over the boy and even gently stroked the boys back. I saw a video of the incident on some documentary recently, I believe it was on animal planet. I tried searching for a video online, but was unsuccessful. I did find a short wikipedia article on the gorilla though, and a copy of the documentary on amazon. Of course, you're welcome to attempt your own search for the video online.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

In that case you cannot argue that there is such a thing as "motherhood instinct" in evolutionary biology.

Eh?

Motherhood instinct is absolutely required if you are going to pass on your genes. On very rare occasions the instinct "goes wrong". What usually happens is that an infertile female adopts an orphan. This is not moral behaviour, it is entirely instinctive. So, yes, I can indeed argue that there is such a thing as motherhood instinct, I can also argue that it has an evolutionary explanation and I can also argue that it is not an example of a moral action. What, exactly, do you think is the problem here?

Actually, I have. I have a BS in biology. It doesn't mean that I am correct, just that you'll have to do better than merely calling me ignorant.

You are wrong in this case.

If group selection does exist (and admittedly, it is controversial), then it can perfectly well apply as species, subspecies and even cline level. In fact, it would have to.

Please point to either research or theory which supports this claim. I have never heard of any.

Is this the best you can do? Sorry Geoff, your attempt to separate humans from animals merely shows your anthropocentricism. We all react to the same forces and there are animals that are enough like us to share the same controlling factors.

Except for the fact that humans alone have language, symbolic thought and the capacity to reason......

We're just animals with bigger brains. Don't be too proud of it.

Our brains are considerably smaller than those of the great whales or that of an elephant. Size of brain is not what matters the most. What matters in this case is language, symbolic thought and the capacity to reason. NO animal apart from humans has these things. The great apes and a few other creatures show the very first inklings of it, nothing more. Only in hominids did mental capacity become the primary evolutionary driving force.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

What about the 1986 incident where a young boy, Leven Merritt, was knocked unconscious after he fell 15 feet into a gorilla enclosure at the Jersey zoo. Jambo, a silver-back gorilla, stood guard over the boy and even gently stroked the boys back. I saw a video of the incident on some documentary recently, I believe it was on animal planet.

I already gave a similar example with a bonobo and a baby bird. Yes, there are examples from the animal kingdom of the first beginnings of things like empathy and moral behaviour. But I do not believe bonobos and gorillas could understand "right and wrong".