What Is Man?

[JimL]

Yes Jim, but the "outside" must be filtered or processed by the subjective mind. So yes reality exists, but you/we only know it be subjective experience. So when you suggest that the subjective is somehow untrustworthy then you must logically apply that to all experience, since all is subjective.

No, you subjectively know objective reality, but the subjective knowledge of it that you have is not just imagination, it doesn't come from your mind, it isn't internally produced, its source is the external objective reality itself. Our direct and immediate observation of that objective reality only conveys to us its outward appearance, space, time, stars, planets, flora, fauna etc etc, ,its inner nature is hidden, but we can still uncover its inner nature through scientific investigation. It doesn't matter that the data is translated neuronally, because the data itself is objectively derived, not subjectively created. The reason for not trusting your subjective experience alone, is because you don't directly experience the hidden underlying nature of reality, you only experience directly and immediately its outward appearance. But that you subjectively process the objective data doesn't in any way negate the authenticity of its reality.

That was not the point here. How do you know, or can you logically show, that the non-rational forces of nature didn't programme you to believe that false things are true. Or that true things are false.

Because we are not programed. I think you are confusing determinism with a sort of programing. That the universe may be deterministic by nature doesn't mean that it was programed, it just means that determinism is the nature of its physical state as would be all the things produced within and of itself. The rational forces of nature, that being us, are able to discern truth, not because we are programed, but because we are rational. Determinism doesn't negate rationalism.

That is an assumption. The forces of evolution did not create you to learn or understand, they could care less about learning or understanding.

Its not a case of evolution caring, evolution is merely the term that we use to describe the underlying process of adaptation and change.

[Tassman]

To Jim:

Yes Jim, but the "outside must be filtered or processed by the subjective mind. So yes reality exists, but you/we only know it be subjective experience. So when you suggest that the subjective is somehow untrustworthy then you must logically apply that to all experience, since all is subjective.

No, you subjectively know objective reality, but the subjective knowledge of it that you have is not just imagination, it doesn't come from your mind, it isn't internally produced, its source is the external objective reality itself. Our direct and immediate observation of that objective reality only conveys to us its outward appearance, space, time, stars, planets, flora, fauna etc etc, ,its inner nature is hidden, but we can still uncover its inner nature through scientific investigation. It doesn't matter that the data is translated neuronally, because the data itself is objectively derived, not subjectively created. The reason for not trusting your subjective experience alone, is because you don't directly experience the hidden underlying nature of reality, you only experience directly and immediately its outward appearance. But that you subjectively process the objective data doesn't in any way negate the authenticity of its reality.

Jim, all this business about the "outside must be filtered or processed by the subjective mind"he thinks it is. But, as you say regarding the objective universe: "its source is the external objective reality itself", and this can be substantiated by replicable empirical verification. Whereas, seer's subjective experience of the alleged spiritual world cannot.

[Tassman]

Neither have you - well except that you are advancing nothing other than faith-based, rather than religion-based, claims. You've ignored the study that does provide evidence for free will, and in declaring that there is no free will, you are claiming faith in your own abilities, greater than those of the researchers themselves, to properly assess the results of experiments that tend to support your faith-claims.

[Tassman]

Again, do you believe the above because it is true or because you were determined to?

It is true that the convention in philosophy is for the burden of proof to rest upon the person asserting a claim. And it is YOU who is asserting the claim, against ALL the evidence, that we have autonomous Free-Will. So, to support your claim, you need to say: "At what point, during our evolutionary journey from blue/green algae through to Homo sapiens, did we extricate ourselves from the implacable causal chain of this deterministic universe?" If you cannot answer the question then you have not met the burden of proof.

That does not answer the question. I'm not claiming that you don't make decisions or choices, I'm asking how rationality is possible when we have no control over what we believe or the conclusions we come to. You have yet to show how that is possible.

It is more than possible. We, along with our intelligent primate cousins, demonstrably make effective, rational decisions all the time. What YOU have to show is that they are a consequence of autonomous Free-Will and not part of our interaction within the determined universe.

Why not? It follows that you can easily justify any immoral behavior. Perhaps that is your real motive,

after all who knows what the laws of nature predetermined you to believe or think.

We DO know; it's instinctive. We have evolved with the naturally selected qualities of altruism, reciprocity and the predisposition to accept the rules of the group. This is the basis of human morality and its precursors are found among other higher animals as well, which reinforces that morality is a natural phenomenon not divine revelation. these evolved social instincts long pre-date the invention of gods and their rules.

You can dismiss anything you like, it is meaningless since you have no choice in what you believe, or the conclusions you come to.

it does not imply that we don't make choices or that our choices and efforts are causally impotent. Determinism is consistent with the fact that our deliberation, choices and efforts are part of the causal process - Stanford Encyclopedia.

Conversely, there is nothing to support your belief in autonomous Free-Will other than you "feel" as though you are making free choices, which is the very definition of having the illusion of Free-Will - as is posited by most experts in the field.

[seer]

No, you subjectively know objective reality, but the subjective knowledge of it that you have is not just imagination, it doesn't come from your mind, it isn't internally produced, its source is the external objective reality itself.

That is correct Jim, you can only subjectively know reality. And my ability to act freely in most cases is no more imaginative than my self-awareness. Both rely on my personal subjective experience. As does my experience of reality. So why should I doubt it?

Because we are not programed. I think you are confusing determinism with a sort of programing. That the universe may be deterministic by nature doesn't mean that it was programed, it just means that determinism is the nature of its physical state as would be all the things produced within and of itself. The rational forces of nature, that being us, are able to discern truth, not because we are programed, but because we are rational. Determinism doesn't negate rationalism.

Jim of course determinism undermines rationality because you don't believe things because they are true, but because you were determined to, truth doesn't enter the picture. If it is all determined then there is no control. You could just as well be predetermined to believe that false things are true and that true things are false. Agai, how would you know?

Its not a case of evolution caring, evolution is merely the term that we use to describe the underlying process of adaptation and change.

And this underlying process knows nothing of truth, nor does it aim for truth, nor does it aim to create creatures that discern truth.

[seer]

It is more than possible. We, along with our intelligent primate cousins, demonstrably make effective, rational decisions all the time. What YOU have to show is that they are a consequence of autonomous Free-Will and not part of our interaction within the determined universe.

Again Tass, you agree that you don't have a choice in what you believe to be true or not. So it logically follows that you could be determined to believe false things to be true, or true things to be false. Where EXACTLY am I off? After all the evolutionary process doesn't aim for, or care about, truth.

By “moral behavior” you presumably mean the behaviour you imagine your fictitious deity wants, which coincidentally usually coincides with what you or your community wants. The history of so-called morality under the auspices of your imaginary deity has been shocking, e.g. the Southern Baptist Convention’s support of slavery according to their interpretation of biblical injunctions – to give but one of endless examples of self-serving biblical 'morality'.

This is great, not only are you not responsible for your immoral behavior, there is actually no immoral behavior in your worldview! Like I said I can see why you are attracted to determinism!

[Tassman]

Again Tass, you agree that you don't have a choice in what you believe to be true or not. So it logically follows that you could be determined to believe false things to be true, or true things to be false. Where EXACTLY am I off? After all the evolutionary process doesn't aim for, or care about, truth.

This is great, not only are you not responsible for your immoral behavior, there is actually no immoral behavior in your worldview!

Can you read, seer: Once again: Our moral values and behavior is instinctive. We have evolved with the naturally selected qualities of altruism, reciprocity and the predisposition to accept the rules of the group. This is the basis of human morality and its precursors are found among other higher animals as well, which reinforces that morality is a natural phenomenon not divine revelation. These evolved social instincts long pre-date the invention of gods and their alleged rules.

Like I said I can see why you are attracted to determinism!

Ah, smug religious judgmentalism at its most typical!

One is to empirically verified facts, such as the causally determined nature of the universe, because they are demonstrably true, not because one likes them. Conversely, you reject demonstrably true facts, not because they are wrong but because they conflict with your unevidenced, religious presuppositions.

[seer]

The evolutionary process of adaptation and change is an integral part of the objective universe itself; it is objectively and verifiably true.

If you mean by “truth” notions about alleged eternal spiritual values, then you are correct. The Laws of Nature don't care about such things; they are not goal or value driven. But spiritual values have nothing to do with reality; they are primitive, pre-scientific attempts to explain the otherwise inexplicable occurrences in a frightening universe in terms of powerful gods and their rules.

Then the laws of nature did not create us to be truth seekers, nor did they care if we were truth seekers. So where this ability to know and understand truth come from? And I'm not speaking of "spiritual values." I'm speaking of truths, like 1+1=2.

I notice that you once again have avoided dealing with the key question regarding autonomous Free-Will. You insist we have it but are unable to say how or when we extricated ourselves from the implacable causal chain of this deterministic universe and acquired it. Therefore, your notion of autonomous Free-Will can be dismissed as unsubstantiated.

But Tass, I have told you a dozen times. I'm a Christian and dualist, I am not limited to seeing everything in a materialistic, deterministic model. Having said that, I already suggested that our intelligence can lift us our of that model. A monkey does not think in concepts or abstracts. He may build a nest by instinct, but we can create an abstract shelter in our minds and act on that. A dog doesn't understand long term consequences of certain acts - we do and can adjust our behavior based on that abstract understanding.

Can you read, seer: Once again: Our moral values and behavior is instinctive. We have evolved with the naturally selected qualities of altruism, reciprocity and the predisposition to accept the rules of the group. This is the basis of human morality and its precursors are found among other higher animals as well, which reinforces that morality is a natural phenomenon not divine revelation. These evolved social instincts long pre-date the invention of gods and their alleged rules.

Wait, so there is immoral behavior according to you? But does it really matter since we have no choice in whether we act immorally or not. I have to hand it to you Tass, that is a great way to dismiss your guilt.

Ah, smug religious judgmentalism at its most typical!

One is “attracted” to empirically verified facts, such as the causally determined nature of the universe, because they are demonstrably true, not because one likes them. Conversely, you reject demonstrably true facts, not because they are wrong but because they conflict with your unevidenced, religious presuppositions.

Yes it is a fact that you have formed a world view that let's you off the hook for any and all immoral behavior. Kudos bro!

[JimL]

That is correct Jim, you can only subjectively know reality. And my ability to act freely in most cases is no more imaginative than my self-awareness. Both rely on my personal subjective experience. As does my experience of reality. So why should I doubt it?

I think that you are purposly ignoring or misrepresenting what I said seer. I did not say that the subjective knowledge coming from the objective reality and subjective imagination are one and the same thing. They are not! The former is verifiable and dependent upon an objective source, the latter is not, and free will has not, as of yet, been objectively substantiated. The reason you should doubt it is because the objective evidence that we have, at least to this point, discounts it. Your ability to act may not be imaginative, but that your actions are free is only an assumption for which you can provide no evidence other than "subjective experience" or "its the way i feel".

Jim of course determinism undermines rationality because you don't believe things because they are true, but because you were determined to, truth doesn't enter the picture. If it is all determined then there is no control. You could just as well be predetermined to believe that false things are true and that true things are false. Agai, how would you know?

No, we believe things because they make sense, because they are logical. It is no different in either case, the truth is objective whether we come to it freely/randomly or deterministically.

And this underlying process knows nothing of truth, nor does it aim for truth, nor does it aim to create creatures that discern truth.

The underlying process, i.e. evolution, knows nothing seer, it is not a mind, it is a process. Discerning the truth is to discern the process wherein the truth lives.

[JimL]

Jim, all this business about the "outside must be filtered or processed by the subjective mind"he thinks it is. But, as you say regarding the objective universe: "its source is the external objective reality itself", and this can be substantiated by replicable empirical verification. Whereas, seer's subjective experience of the alleged spiritual world cannot.

Would that i could articulate my position as well and as concisely as you articulate my position. Thanks Tass.

[seer]

I think that you are purposly ignoring or misrepresenting what I said seer. I did not say that the subjective knowledge coming from the objective reality and subjective imagination are one and the same thing. They are not! The former is verifiable and dependent upon an objective source, the latter is not, and free will has not, as of yet, been objectively substantiated. The reason you should doubt it is because the objective evidence that we have, at least to this point, discounts it. Your ability to act may not be imaginative, but that your actions are free is only an assumption for which you can provide no evidence other than "subjective experience" or "its the way i feel".

Well no Jim, even leaving the subjective objective argument, science is no where near proving that we don't have free will. Again, if they can not even figure out how or even why in principle, one of the main features of human rationality, self-awareness came about then sorry - science is in no position to make any claim. Never mind the fact that science is often wrong. And again, you discount the subjective way too much - your consciousness experience, your self-awareness, is completely subjective.

Again from Harris:

The problem, however, is that no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world.[6] Physical events are simply mute as to whether it is “like something” to be what they are. The only thing in this universe that attests to the existence of consciousness is consciousness itself; the only clue to subjectivity, as such, is subjectivity. Absolutely nothing about a brain, when surveyed as a physical system, suggests that it is a locus of experience. Were we not already brimming with consciousness ourselves, we would find no evidence of it in the physical universe—nor would we have any notion of the many experiential states that it gives rise to.

No, we believe things because they make sense, because they are logical. It is no different in either case, the truth is objective whether we come to it freely/randomly or deterministically.

But you already agree that the evolutionary process did not create us to be logical, that the process does not aim for such things.

The underlying process, i.e. evolution, knows nothing seer, it is not a mind, it is a process. Discerning the truth is to discern the process wherein the truth lives.

OK, so let me get this right - we were created by a process that cares nothing for truth, logic, rationality or even survival yet it created creatures that do care for all these things? Really? To me that is like saying that a river can rise about its source.

[JonathanL]

Would that i could articulate my position as well and as concisely as you articulate my position. Thanks Tass.

I have Tassman on ignore, so I wouldn't have seen this unless you quoted him, and wouldn't have bothered to reply in the first place. But since I happened to see this, I might as well reply.

Tassman's and your objection that "external objective reality" can be substantiated by "replicable empirical verification" while the subjective experiences that seer has of the spiritual world can not, is to put it mildly, complete hogwash. First of all, people have spiritual experiences daily all over the globe, so it's not like spiritual experiences cannot be repeated, if you look at them at a sufficiently general perspective. I.e you might not be able to repeat the same exact spiritual experience that another person has gone through, but there are definitely traits at the more general level that spiritual experiences have in common with each other.

Secondly, and more importantly, the only knowledge you have of this so called "replicable empirical verification" is filtered through your mind, and as such what you have access to is not an objective verification, but a subjective experience of an (alleged) verification. Add to the fact that what these empirical verifications actually are, namely subjective experiences of the external (alleged) objective reality with the only differences between these experiences and other experiences of the external reality being that the former can be repeated while the latter can not, and you're left with the embarrassing situation of trying to prove that there is an external objective reality by referring to a subset of experiences of that external objective reality and arbitrarily deciding that these experiences somehow verifies the existence of an external reality. What you're doing is not much different from the people who try to verify the truthfulness of the Bible by using the Bible itself. The difference being of course that the Bible is a collection of books, and not a single book, while we only have access to only a single physical reality, which means that the degree of circularity in the process of trying to prove the Bible by using the Bible is actually lower than the degree of circularity in trying to use subjective experiences of the external world in order to verify the objectivity of the external world.


tl;dr/ Methods of verification that rely on repeatable empirical tests are not meant to prove the objectivity of the external world, but rather presuppose the objectivity of the external reality. Using these methods in order to prove the objectivity of the external world is paramount to misusing them.

[seer]

Secondly, and more importantly, the only knowledge you have of this so called "replicable empirical verification" is filtered through your mind, and as such what you have access to is not an objective verification, but a subjective experience of an (alleged) verification. Add to the fact that what these empirical verifications actually are, namely subjective experiences of the external (alleged) objective reality with the only differences between these experiences and other experiences of the external reality being that the former can be repeated while the latter can not, and you're left with the embarrassing situation of trying to prove that there is an external objective reality by referring to a subset of experiences of that external objective reality and arbitrarily deciding that these experiences somehow verifies the existence of an external reality. What you're doing is not much different from the people who try to verify the truthfulness of the Bible by using the Bible itself. The difference being of course that the Bible is a collection of books, and not a single book, while we only have access to only a single physical reality, which means that the degree of circularity in the process of trying to prove the Bible by using the Bible is actually lower than the degree of circularity in trying to use subjective experiences of the external world in order to verify the objectivity of the external world.

Exactly...

[JimL]

I have Tassman on ignore, so I wouldn't have seen this unless you quoted him, and wouldn't have bothered to reply in the first place. But since I happened to see this, I might as well reply.

Tassman's and your objection that "external objective reality" can be substantiated by "replicable empirical verification" while the subjective experiences that seer has of the spiritual world can not, is to put it mildly, complete hogwash. First of all, people have spiritual experiences daily all over the globe, so it's not like spiritual experiences cannot be repeated, if you look at them at a sufficiently general perspective. I.e you might not be able to repeat the same exact spiritual experience that another person has gone through, but there are definitely traits at the more general level that spiritual experiences have in common with each other.

First off, you can not empirically verify anyones subjective experiences, and the claims of spiritual experiences are not empirical verification of the experience itself, they are empirical verification of the claims made. Do you see the difference?

Secondly, and more importantly, the only knowledge you have of this so called "replicable empirical verification" is filtered through your mind, and as such what you have access to is not an objective verification, but a subjective experience of an (alleged) verification.

When you say that the knowledge or data is filtered through your mind, you are admitting to your belief that your mind is not the source of the data that it filters, which means that it is a subjective verification of an objective reality.

Add to the fact that what these empirical verifications actually are, namely subjective experiences of the external (alleged) objective reality with the only differences between these experiences and other experiences of the external reality being that the former can be repeated while the latter can not, and you're left with the embarrassing situation of trying to prove that there is an external objective reality by referring to a subset of experiences of that external objective reality and arbitrarily deciding that these experiences somehow verifies the existence of an external reality.

Except for the fact that there are specific differences in each of our particular internal models of reality as compared to the consensus reality that we all agree on. Color blindness for example: You may see the house as red while i see it as blue, but we will both agree that the door is open. There are many more examples, animals for instance subjectively experince the objective reality differently than we do. In other words our subjective perceptions of reality may somewhat differ, but in contrast the consensus reality concerning the objective world is shared.

What you're doing is not much different from the people who try to verify the truthfulness of the Bible by using the Bible itself. The difference being of course that the Bible is a collection of books, and not a single book, while we only have access to only a single physical reality, which means that the degree of circularity in the process of trying to prove the Bible by using the Bible is actually lower than the degree of circularity in trying to use subjective experiences of the external world in order to verify the objectivity of the external world.

Thats rather funny Chrawnus. You have a small collection of books, a small portion of physical reality, and all we have is the entirety of physical reality to verify truth. That doesn't even make sense on its face. Besides if it were books that made the difference, there are many more books about the truth of existence written from a scientific perspective than there are of your biblical account. I guess we win. The only consensus reality agreed upon concerning the bible is that there is a book called the bible.

tl;dr/ Methods of verification that rely on repeatable empirical tests are not meant to prove the objectivity of the external world, but rather presuppose the objectivity of the external reality. Using these methods in order to prove the objectivity of the external world is paramount to misusing them.

As above, the objectivity of the external reality is evident in the differences in each of our particular subjective experiences of it as well as in our consensus experiences. We don't all agree on everything, but we all agree on the essentials. We all agree on whether or not the door is open!

[Tassman]

To Jim:

Well no Jim, even leaving the subjective objective argument, science is no where near proving that we don't have free will. Again, if they can not even figure out how or even why in principle, one of the main features of human rationality, self-awareness came about then sorry - science is in no position to make any claim. Never mind the fact that science is often wrong. And again, you discount the subjective way too much - your consciousness experience, your self-awareness, is completely subjective.

Well yes it is. Outside of Theology very few argue a case for Libertarian Free-Will for the good reason that the scientific facts don't support it.

Most physicists agree that, given the state of the universe at one time, a complete set of laws inevitably governs both the future and the past. In short we live in a deterministic universe. And since all living creatures in this universe interact with each other and with other objects in it, determinism must hold true for animals and people as well.

IF you want to exempt human behaviour and claim that humans alone, of ALL creatures, have autonomous Free-Will you need to say where and how in the evolutionary tree it developed? This you have conspicuously failed to do despite numerous requests. Thus you have no argument.