Science of Morality

[Tassman]

Of course that is just opinion Tass, the definition is arbitrary. How would a universe created by natural means differ from a universe created by a supernatural God? How could you tell, what could you compare it to?

You are the one who brought up logic, so just admit that you can not justify your position using the rules of logic.

is logically coherent, LFW is not.

No Tass, you claimed that the natural world was all that existed. It is up to you to demonstrate that that is so. If not retract that claim.

I did not say that. I said that the natural world is all we have substantive evidence of; we have no credible evidence on a non-natural universe. If you want to assert that more than the natural universe exists then the burden of proof rests with you.

In other words prove deductively that what you are determined to believe is true. Don't bother - you can't. Which only goes to the point, again, you believe it is so without logical justification.

That is not what I asked - are you saying that men never act illogically, that we are never determined to act or think illogically?

Really? Who was the one here that brought up the whole logic thing Tass? And point after point I have demonstrated that you hold positions that can not be justified logically. Sad really...

See above.

Ok so you can't show that if the immaterial effects the physical that science has the instruments or ability to detect this interaction.

Nope, all I have to show is that you can not demonstrate that all phenomena is open to science

[seer]

But again, that is not what I asked:How would a universe created by natural means differ from a universe created by a supernatural God? How could you tell, what could you compare it to?

So our definitions are necessarily arbitrary.

is logically coherent, LFW is not.

But LFW is not incoherent, at least not according to Dan Dennett, since not everything in the universe is determined. I posted this in our other thread:

"The model of decision making I am proposing, has the following feature: when we are faced with an important decision, a consideration-generator whose output is to some degree undetermined produces a series of considerations, some of which may of course be immediately rejected as irrelevant by the agent (consciously or unconsciously). Those considerations that are selected by the agent as having a more than negligible bearing on the decision then figure in a reasoning process, and if the agent is in the main reasonable, those considerations ultimately serve as predictors and explicators of the agent's final decision." (Brainstorms, p.295)


"This result is not just what the libertarian is looking for, but it is a useful result nevertheless. It shows that we can indeed install indeterminism in the internal causal chains affecting human behavior at the macroscopic level while preserving the intelligibility of practical deliberation that the libertarian requires. We may have good reasons from other quarters for embracing determinism, but we need not fear that macroscopic indeterminism in human behavior would of necessity rob our lives of intelligibility by producing chaos." (p.292)

http://www.informationphilosopher.co...phers/dennett/

I did not say that. I said that the natural world is all we have substantive evidence of; we have no credible evidence on a non-natural universe. If you want to assert that more than the natural universe exists then the burden of proof rests with you.

Yes you did, you said: Given that the natural world is all that exists.... So again I ask - demonstrate that this claim is true or retract it.

? Explain yourself.

Yes


This has nothing to do with what I asked. We are determined by antecedent causes to think and believe what we do. Do these forces ever causes us to think and believe false things? And to believe that these false things are true?


You are doing it again Tass, you are asking me to prove the immaterial using methods that would only apply to the material world. Along with the fact that we have no way of knowing, scientifically, if we could even detect when the immaterial interacts with the material.



Again an arbitrary definition, here is another definition: Dictonary.com: Phenomenon: An unusual, significant, or unaccountable fact or occurrence; a marvel.

So again demonstrate that all phenomena is open to science.

[Tassman]

But again, that is not what I asked:How would a universe created by natural means differ from a universe created by a supernatural God? How could you tell, what could you compare it to?

So our definitions are necessarily arbitrary.

But LFW is not incoherent, at least not according to Dan Dennett, since not everything in the universe is determined. I posted this in our other thread:

Yes you did, you said: Given that the natural world is all that exists.... So again I ask - demonstrate that this claim is true or retract it.

we have no such evidence of something other than the natural universe existing.Got it?

Yes

This has nothing to do with what I asked. We are determined by antecedent causes to think and believe what we do. Do these forces ever causes us to think and believe false things? And to believe that these false things are true?

You are doing it again Tass, you are asking me to prove the immaterial using methods that would only apply to the material world. Along with the fact that we have no way of knowing, scientifically, if we could even detect when the immaterial interacts with the material.

Again an arbitrary definition, here is another definition: Dictonary.com: Phenomenon: An unusual, significant, or unaccountable fact or occurrence; a marvel.

So again demonstrate that all phenomena is open to science.

[seer]

Nevertheless you have no clue, How would a universe created by natural means differ from a universe created by a supernatural God? How could you tell, what could you compare it to?



See there you go again, you have yet to prove where I was ever dishonest with my quotes. You were completely wrong on the Harris and Vilenkin claims. And you and Jichard are wrong here, you can read the quotes in the context. And Dennett makes one thing clear - not everything is deterministic.

we have no such evidence of something other than the natural universe existing.Got it?

But that is not what I asked - you claimed that the natural world was all that exists - I asked you to demonstrate that that is true. Or retract the claim.



Really Tass? This is what you have come to? A sad state of affairs.

So, again, why would anyone knowingly believe something that is untrue?

Tass do we ever believe things that are untrue (knowingly or not)?



And you can prove that it doesn't. Now what?



I gave an accepted definition of phenomena, but the point is you can not prove or demonstrate that all things are open to science. It is an article of faith on your part that it is.

[Tassman]

Nevertheless you have no clue, How would a universe created by natural means differ from a universe created by a supernatural God? How could you tell, what could you compare it to?

See there you go again, you have yet to prove where I was ever dishonest with my quotes. You were completely wrong on the Harris and Vilenkin claims. And you and Jichard are wrong here, you can read the quotes in the context. And Dennett makes one thing clear - not everything is deterministic.

Sigh!

But that is not what I asked - you claimed that the natural world was all that exists - I asked you to demonstrate that that is true. Or retract the claim.

other

Really Tass? This is what you have come to? A sad state of affairs.

Tass do we ever believe things that are untrue (knowingly or not)?

And you can prove that it doesn't. Now what?

I gave an accepted definition of phenomena, but the point is you can not prove or demonstrate that all things are open to science. It is an article of faith on your part that it is.

See above.

[seer]

But that is not the point Tass. The point is we have no reference, nothing to compare it to. You can not tell if this is a supernatural universe (created by extra natural means) or a natural one (created by natural forces).

other

No Tass, you claimed that the natural world was all that exists, and I quote; Given that the natural world is all that exists..... Just take that back and we can move on.


So your brain chemicals do cause you do believe that false things are true. I wonder what false things your brain is causing you to believe are true? How could you know?


Again, you can not demonstrate that all phenomena is open to science. It is an article of faith on your part.

[Tassman]

But that is not the point Tass. The point is we have no reference, nothing to compare it to. You can not tell if this is a supernatural universe (created by extra natural means) or a natural one (created by natural forces).

No Tass, you claimed that the natural world was all that exists, and I quote; Given that the natural world is all that exists..... Just take that back and we can move on.

In practical terms this is true. But the more nuanced version is what I said in #389: (and repeated several times since) that

So your brain chemicals do cause you to believe that false things are true. I wonder what false things your brain is causing you to believe are true? How could you know?

YOU to do anything because YOU are not separate from the totality of who you are. ALL your mental states are correlated with your brain states. The electrical or chemical stimulation of your brain invokes perceptions, memories, desires, and other mental states acquired over your lifetime.

SO, for the umpteenth time, YOU do not exist separately from your brain. YOU ARE your brain;YOU do not act upon your brain.

Again, you can not demonstrate that all phenomena is open to science. It is an article of faith on your part.

You cannot demonstrate that it isn't. The only testable phenomena are of the natural world, there are no testable phenomena for a hypothetical non-natural world. And claims pertaining to a supernatural world are notoriously contradictory, none can be verified because they're based upon subjective delusions and social acculturation.

Therefore, there is good reason to believe that the natural word is all that exists, and that all phenomena pertaining to it are open to science. And there's no good reason to believe that some form of non-natural world exists.

[37818]

YOU to do anything because YOU are not separate from the totality of who you are. ALL your mental states are correlated with your brain states. The electrical or chemical stimulation of your brain invokes perceptions, memories, desires, and other mental states acquired over your lifetime.

SO, for the umpteenth time, YOU do not exist separately from your brain. YOU ARE your brain;YOU do not act upon your brain.



You cannot demonstrate that it isn't. The only testable phenomena are of the natural world, there are no testable phenomena for a hypothetical non-natural world. And claims pertaining to a supernatural world are notoriously contradictory, none can be verified because they're based upon subjective delusions and social acculturation.

Therefore, there is good reason to believe that the natural world is all that exists, and that all phenomena pertaining to it are open to science. And there's no good reason to believe that some form of non-natural world exists.

Underling everything is an uncaused origin and uncaused existence. And that the uncausd precedes all things which have beginnings which we call natural. So if we suppose there to be only the natural, then the uncaused can only be precived as being natural, disallowing the concept of what ever the uncaused is to be beyond natural, that being supernatural as the concept.

[shunyadragon]

Underling everything is an uncaused origin and uncaused existence. And that the uncausd precedes all things which have beginnings which we call natural. So if we suppose there to be only the natural, then the uncaused can only be precived as being natural, disallowing the concept of what ever the uncaused is to be beyond natural, that being supernatural as the concept.

It is hypothetical conjecture that there is an uncaused origin and uncaused existence other than the simple physical nature and the natural law of our existence. It is unsound to propose an argument based on hypothetical conjecture.

[Tassman]

Underling everything is an uncaused origin and uncaused existence. And that the uncausd precedes all things which have beginnings which we call natural. So if we suppose there to be only the natural, then the uncaused can only be precived as being natural, disallowing the concept of what ever the uncaused is to be beyond natural, that being supernatural as the concept.

Apart from being off topic

[seer]

But again you can not demonstrate that this is a "natural" universe to begin with, so you can not say that features of the universe are natural - except arbitrarily.

YOU to do anything because YOU are not separate from the totality of who you are. ALL your mental states are correlated with your brain states. The electrical or chemical stimulation of your brain invokes perceptions, memories, desires, and other mental states acquired over your lifetime.

SO, for the umpteenth time, YOU do not exist separately from your brain. YOU ARE your brain;YOU do not act upon your brain.

Again, that is not the point. If you are determined to think and believe what you do how do you know that you are not determined to believe that false things are true?

Therefore, there is good reason to believe that the natural word is all that exists, and that all phenomena pertaining to it are open to science. And there's no good reason to believe that some form of non-natural world exists.

That again, is an article faith on your part you can not demonstrate that it is true.

[Tassman]

But again you can not demonstrate that this is a "natural" universe to begin with, so you can not say that features of the universe are natural - except arbitrarily.

The material world and its phenomena is the onlyno evidence of an immaterial universe outside of myth, fantasy and delusion.

Again, that is not the point. If you are determined to think and believe what you do how do you know that you are not determined to believe that false things are true?

That again, is an article faith on your part you can not demonstrate that it is true.

no good reason to believe that some form of non-natural world exists, so why believe in something with no credible evidence supporting it?

[seer]

The material world and its phenomena is the onlyno evidence of an immaterial universe outside of myth, fantasy and delusion.

The only way that this could be called a natural universe is if it had a natural source. We don't know if it had a natural source - the the question remains unanswered.



That makes no sense, since everything would be colored - your sense data, your experiences, how you process all this is equally determined. You could not know when you were determined to believe false things to be true.

no good reason to believe that some form of non-natural world exists, so why believe in something with no credible evidence supporting it?

There is good reason? That is completely subjective, you can not demonstrate your position. Please prove that that the natural world is all that exists.

[Tassman]

The only way that this could be called a natural universe is if it had a natural source. We don't know if it had a natural source - the the question remains unanswered.

That makes no sense, since everything would be colored - your sense data, your experiences, how you process all this is equally determined.

Of course it is. This is the process of decision-making in action. The notion of "YOU" (or your 'soul') presiding over it all and free from all restraints by others or by outside forces is false; this is dualism. The "YOU" you refer to is the whole process, i.e. the totality of your sense data and experiences, including your education and social acculturation etc, ALL of which informs your subconscious self.

You could not know when you were determined to believe false things to be true.

Back to 'fatalism' again!

Determinism does not mean that all events are inevitable, that they will happen no matter what we decide to do. Given that our mental states are part of the deterministic sequence of events as well, they play a crucial role in determining what will happen.

There is good reason? That is completely subjective, you can not demonstrate your position. Please prove that that the natural world is all that exists.

[seer]

Again, this is completely subjective Tass. Let me repeat - what would a universe created by a God look like as opposed to a universe created by a natural force? And God is no more a failed hypothesis than your various natural theories for creation. Of the dozen or so theories which one is correct? Which one has been demonstrated by prediction and physical evidence?

Of course it is. This is the process of decision-making in action. The notion of "YOU" (or your 'soul') presiding over it all and free from all restraints by others or by outside forces is false; this is dualism. The "YOU" you refer to is the whole process, i.e. the totality of your sense data and experiences, including your education and social acculturation etc, ALL of which informs your subconscious self.

Right and you can never know when you are determined to believe that false things are true.

Back to 'fatalism' again!

Determinism does not mean that all events are inevitable, that they will happen no matter what we decide to do. Given that our mental states are part of the deterministic sequence of events as well, they play a crucial role in determining what will happen.

It is not fatalism, it is simple determinism - where you have no control over what you think or do. You again are a sock puppet to antecedent conditions. And who knows where you are being determined to believe that false things are true - you certainly would not.



You dodged the question again Tass. You claimed that the natural was all that existed - please prove that claim.