What is love?

[rocketdodger]

These are undeniable aspects of reality that exist non-spatially, but can and do interact with time/space, as do morals.

No, there are not.

All we know of are interactions between spatial aspects -- the ideas of these non-spatial aspects is nothing more than our minds forming a "connexion" between states of the spatial world around us.

If you dispute this, then try to give meaning to any non-spatial aspect without completely depending on spatial aspects. Go ahead and try it.

 

[JoeEllison]

Where? You mean you think everything that exists has to have a spatial location?
Where is E=MC2? Where is history? Where is remorse? Where are multiplication and division? Where is gravity? Where are the rules of chess?
These are undeniable aspects of reality that exist non-spatially, but can and do interact with time/space, as do morals.

I missed this here... another example of the Chair Fairy. Concepts don't have a location, they are descriptions of physical events, objects, actions, etc. There's nothing complex about it, unless you are trying to insert some religious/spiritual stupidity to the mix. This is an example of why Occam's Razor is so useful... when you add unnecessary elements, as you have done, your description of reality becomes less elegant and less useful, and creates more questions than it answers.

 

[plumjam]

No I do not doubt that. What I doubt, and this is why I asked you the question, is that you could provide evidence that such a thing is limited to people with the religious sense -- namely, because there are many atheists who are very good people and there are many religious who are very bad people.
Or you could say, for instance, that the bad people don't have it, even though they are religious, and that the good people do have it, even though they are atheists ("confused" atheists I suppose you would say), but let's be honest, you might as well claim anything if "because I say so" is your method of proof.
You offered an analogy comparing the religious sense to the sight sense. It is a horrible analogy, and you know it, and that is why you are sidestepping my question: can you provide examples of externally observable abilities that people with religious sense have and those without it lack?

I would guess that there are few people who are entirely without any religious sense.. in the same way that there are few people who are totally blind, totally incapable of discerning morality, or totally incapable of aesthetic appreciation.
It's a scale, if you like. Your demand for externally observable abilities is well... I think destined to go down a very predictable route on this forum. At the lower end of the scale there is heightened compassion, empathy, a sense of connection to and identification with the rest of reality, joy, peace of mind.. up towards the higher end of the scale (which in any population only a very very small minority attain) there are some of the externally observable abilities you would like, such as paranormal abilities like the ability to leave the body at will, to read minds, to know the spiritual situation of others and what is needed to help them along, physical manifestations such as stigmata and incorruption,... however, these physically verifiable manifestations are generally not the point of spiritual life, they are more side-effects, and to concentrate too much on their attainment is universally discouraged by the genuine spiritual masters.
If you want all this stuff put in a laboratory for you, you'll probably be disappointed seeing as they are so rare. If you want to learn about them read up about the lives of the saints and mystics in the world's great religions.
However, I doubt you'll do this, because in your mind these things will be "just anecdotal."

 

[plumjam]

No, there are not.

All we know of are interactions between spatial aspects -- the ideas of these non-spatial aspects is nothing more than our minds forming a "connexion" between states of the spatial world around us.

If you dispute this, then try to give meaning to any non-spatial aspect without completely depending on spatial aspects. Go ahead and try it.

Where is awareness?

 

[H'ethetheth]

My head hurts now.

I think what I was saying is that he was factually correct, but the implications of that fact were not what he thought. At least, that's my perception. ,)

And my bad for not paying attention to whom I was talking.

Love the new avatar, BTW.

Thanks, and no problem. I haven't posted a lot for a long while.

Do you really need to ask this? Would it be your argument that moral perception doesn't exist? We can all (apart from some people with mental problems) perceive good/bad in either real or imaginary moral situations. Call it conscience if you like, though other useful words could be of use in this realm, such as compassion and empathy.

I don't need to ask it, but yes, I really want to. The phrase presupposes that there is something to perceive, and that it is something that objectively exists. If I wouldn't want to ask it, why do you suppose I did? I'm not that childish.

Where? You mean you think everything that exists has to have a spatial location?
Where is E=MC2? Where is history? Where is remorse? Where are multiplication and division? Where is gravity? Where are the rules of chess?
These are undeniable aspects of reality that exist non-spatially, but can and do interact with time/space, as do morals.

Actually, I can point you pretty accurately to where all these things are in space. But since you answer my questions with mostly questions, let me ask you this: How does one tell the difference between a world where objective universal morals are perceived with differing accuracy, and one where everybody has his own random morals hard-wired into their brains? Or maybe God tells every single one of us a different story, because he keeps forgetting what he said last time, like with Moses and his 10 (or so) commandments.
Any suggestions how to decide?

 

[JoeEllison]

Where is awareness?

Where is "chairness"?

 

[H'ethetheth]

Where is "chairness"?

I thought it was called chairity.

 

[plumjam]

Actually, I can point you pretty accurately to where all these things are in space. But since you answer my questions with mostly questions, let me ask you this: How does one tell the difference between a world where objective universal morals are perceived with differing accuracy, and one where everybody has his own random morals hard-wired into their brains? Or maybe God tells every single one of us a different story, because he keeps forgetting what he said last time, like with Moses and his 10 (or so) commandments.
Any suggestions how to decide?

The idea of morals being 'hard-wired' into the brain is not compatible with the quite radical changes in individual morality that can and do take place during the course of individual lives. People see the error of their ways, and use their free will in order to attempt to improve morally.
This is more compatible and explicable within an understanding that morality is a matter of perceiving objective moral realities which exist outside of the individual, via the conscience. The more conscious attention the individual gives to the conscience the more likely their moral perception is to improve. If you don't believe me test it against your own life experience.

 

[H'ethetheth]

The idea of morals being 'hard-wired' into the brain is not compatible with the quite radical changes in individual morality that can and do take place during the course of individual lives. People see the error of their ways, and use their free will in order to attempt to improve morally.

Fair enough, I'll give you a scenario very much closer to what I actually believe is going on. A scenario where everyone has part of his morals hardwired into the brain, and the reat is learned through interaction with other people. Can you distinguish that from your scenario?

This is more compatible and explicable within an understanding that morality is a matter of perceiving objective moral realities which exist outside of the individual, via the conscience.

And here's where my problem is. How would you go about evaluating the truth of this statement?

The more conscious attention the individual gives to the conscience the more likely their moral perception is to improve. If you don't believe me test it against your own life experience.

Could this not also be because the more conscious thought you give to the suffering you may cause, the more you see it could happen to you, triggering the hardwired reactions? Is there a way to distinguish the two? And in case you're wondering, I'm not being smug, I'm genuinely interested in your views on this.

 

[dglas]

I didn't want to reveal it, but I guess I have to. Like most other skeptics, I have this non-5-senses perception that almost no one else has. You see, people trying to pretend they are especially enabled to perceive things that aren't there, have a kind of chartreuse elan or aura around them, in particular, and it follows up all the tendrils of their being as they extend themselves into the public realm. This means that many posts glow a kind of jaundice yellow. For the most part, this is okay. Most people think they have special access to knowledge that others don't, but Plumjam's posts actually make me adjust the tint and brightness on my monitor. If it's really strong, it takes hours to dissipate. I printed one of his posts out one time and used it as a flashlight. I wish more people had my "insight;" we could use Plumjam's posts as safety badges for bicyclists and pedestrians...

Sometimes Plumjam's posts keep me awake at night. The blinding neon tentacles stretching from my computer screen frighten me...

 

[H'ethetheth]

...into winning powerball?

ETA: Ooooh! My post of the upside-down beast!

 

[dglas]

...into winning powerball?

ETA: Ooooh! My post of the upside-down beast!

Hey! This is serious! Rilly, rilly. Serious.

 

[plumjam]

Fair enough, I'll give you a scenario very much closer to what I actually believe is going on. A scenario where everyone has part of his morals hardwired into the brain, and the reat is learned through interaction with other people. Can you distinguish that from your scenario?

So morals are somehow divided between being in the brain and being outside of the brain. Are remorse, pity, empathy, altruism, shame, compassion, kindness, hate, jealousy in the brain or outside of it? Are some of them in the brain and some not? If so which ones and why?
Is remorse 62% in the brain and 38% outside of it? What determines these percentages? Are they the same percentages for each brain?
I could go on, but you get the picture.
'Hardwiredness' misunderstands what morality is. A determined hardwired action is not a moral action. A moral action is only moral because it is done consciously, freely, and intentionally.
If you're talking about hardwiredness you aren't talking about morality, you're talking about instincts, reflexes and the like.

And here's where my problem is. How would you go about evaluating the truth of this statement?

By living.

Could this not also be because the more conscious thought you give to the suffering you may cause, the more you see it could happen to you, triggering the hardwired reactions? Is there a way to distinguish the two? And in case you're wondering, I'm not being smug, I'm genuinely interested in your views on this.

You can imagine all kinds of scenarios in which people object to immoral actions perpetrated against others which couldn't possibly happen to themselves. A man who had already freely chosen to be vasectomised could well object to the forced sterilisation of others, such as the mentally handicapped.
I don't think that's the way we really, in an everyday sense, object to immoral actions. If I see someone being beaten up by a gang I don't think 'if I don't intervene here the same thing might happen to me in the future'. In fact, my very act of intervening would increase the probability of the same thing happening to myself by a few thousand percent. You intervene in the fight because your conscience tells you that what is happening is wrong. At least that is the evidence presented to me by my own experience of life. Is it not yours too?

 

[rocketdodger]

up towards the higher end of the scale (which in any population only a very very small minority attain) there are some of the externally observable abilities you would like, such as paranormal abilities like the ability to leave the body at will, to read minds, to know the spiritual situation of others and what is needed to help them along, physical manifestations such as stigmata and incorruption

If I ever come across a person that can do any of that, plumjam, I might convert. Do you think that will happen? It hasn't so far.

If you want all this stuff put in a laboratory for you, you'll probably be disappointed seeing as they are so rare.

You mean nonexistent? Why are they so rare that reliable sources never witness it?

However, I doubt you'll do this, because in your mind these things will be "just anecdotal."

Because that is what they are?

If a whole bunch of my friends and I told you we could walk through walls, would you believe us?

 

[rocketdodger]

Where is awareness?

What is awareness?

Here is one definition (from wikipedia) -- according to it, awareness is, like I said, only a "connexion" between spatial aspects.

"awareness comprises a human's or an animal's perception and cognitive reaction to a condition or event"

Where is gravity? Where is love? Where are any of the myriad ideas humans have come up with to help them relate aspects of their surroundings? The answer is nowhere, because they are not a thing, they are a relation between things.

 

[AkuManiMani]

What is love?

Baby, don't hurt me.

Don't hurt me, no more.

 

[JoeEllison]

I thought it was called chairity.

Chairitudinalism?

 

[blobru]

Blobru,
how do you know that the magnet is positively repulsed by the other magnet, rather than positively attracted to the non-magnet i.e. to that-which-is-not-the-other-magnet?
You don't. There's no way you possibly could know that.

Yes there is. Mark positions A and B an inch apart. Obtain two magnets whose fields extend more than an inch. Place one magnet at A by itself. Observe there is no force (except friction) influencing its lateral movement. Place the other magnet by itself at B. Observe the same. Thus we observe no prior attraction to "that-which-is-not-the-other-magnet".

Now place the two magnets at A and B, like poles adjacent. Observe the force pushing them apart. This is magnetic repulsion. Each magnet repels the other as their fields overlap. It is not attraction to "that-which-is-not-the-other-magnet". For we've already observed that doesn't exist for these magnets at A and B. The only thing that's changed for each magnet is its proximity to the other. Therefore, the force of repulsion we observe is the magnets repelling each other, not the magnets being attracted to "that-which-is-not-the-other-magnet", to use your phrase.

All that happens is that you observe a movement in a magnet. Calling it repulsion or attraction is just a matter of choosing words. It's just as logical to say that magnet A is attracted to NotmagnetB more than it is attracted to magnet B.

No. The gradeschool science experiment outlined above proves it is not, for the reasons given. The logic of "magnet A is attracted to NotmagnetB more than it is attracted to magnet B" is demonstrably unsound; i.e., it's wrong.

So it's a matter of words, and a black hole of semantics and pedantry.

It's science, and a beacon of fair method and rationality.

if you want to continue spending your time arguing the toss about magnetic repulsion in a thread about love, that's your call. Seems like a monumental waste of time to me.

I agree.

Meher Baba is a monumental waste of time.

But you chose to link to him as an infallible authority, after sneering at others' attempts to define love.

I have pointed out, as patiently and as simply as I'm capable, why Baba is wrong in his assertion that "the forces of repulsion are in truth... things [being]... more powerfully attracted to some other things." I don't think it's too difficult to understand. As I've said, this material is usually covered around fourth grade.

So your link to Baba's thoughts on love proves he was wrong. He made mistakes. He wasn't infallible. As long as he's wise enough to admit the truth, that he made mistakes, that he's human like everybody else (we know of), what's the big deal?

Plumjam, in debates you like to accuse atheists of lockstep obedience to their presumed masters: Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens. Others have accused you of creating a straw man by this. Well, here's your chance to prove your opinions are not all in lockstep obedience with your presumed master: Meher Baba.

Will you take it? Will you admit the obvious, that Baba 'the infallible' did in fact make a mistake?

Or is it all about lockstep obedience: faith, faithful straw man, Baba's straw dog?

It's your call.

 

[plumjam]

Yes there is. Mark positions A and B an inch apart. Obtain two magnets whose fields extend more than an inch. Place one magnet at A by itself. Observe there is no force (except friction) influencing its lateral movement. Place the other magnet by itself at B. Observe the same. Thus we observe no prior attraction to "that-which-is-not-the-other-magnet".

Yawn.
That-which-is-not-the-other-magnet is equally present in all directions so there is no reason for the magnet to be attracted in any particular direction, thus it remains immobile, until the-other-magnet comes close, at which point that-which-is-not-the-other-magnet is not equally present in all directions and thus the magnet could equally well be described as being attracted in the direction with the largest quantity of 'that-which-is-not-the-other-magnetness'.
So it's just a matter of conventional descriptions. The conventional description is that the magnet is repulsed by the other magnet, but it would be just as logical to describe it as the magnet being attracted to not-magnetness.
For reasons of not being long-winded the former description is the accepted convention. Not for any other reason.

If you can't see this I'm sure you'll keep banging on. But it's getting boring.

 

[JoeEllison]

Yawn.
That-which-is-not-the-other-magnet is equally present in all directions so there is no reason for the magnet to be attracted in any particular direction, thus it remains immobile, until the-other-magnet comes close, at which point that-which-is-not-the-other-magnet is not equally present in all directions and thus the magnet could equally well be described as being attracted in the direction with the largest quantity of 'that-which-is-not-the-other-magnetness'.
So it's just a matter of conventional descriptions. The conventional description is that the magnet is repulsed by the other magnet, but it would be just as logical to describe it as the magnet being attracted to not-magnetness.
For reasons of not being long-winded the former description is the accepted convention. Not for any other reason.

If you can't see this I'm sure you'll keep banging on. But it's getting boring.

It is just a matter of making up stupid things, something you are a great fan of. Forget real scientists, with real intelligence and evidence.

You prefer some moron who makes up stupidity, because stupidity that no intelligent person accepts makes you feel special. Your problem is not with evidence, your problem is with feelings of inferiority in the face of people smarter than you.