It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Logical doesn't mean it makes sense to you....

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


If we view the universe as you have just described we shouldn't think consciousness was anything more than an illusion of complex biochemical reactions, but if it is an illusion we never should have found out that it was an illusion.

What is the "illusion of complex biochemical reactions"? It is complex biochemical reactions, just like if we made a self aware computer it would be complex electrical processes. If you mean consciousness would be an illusion in that case, I don't necessarily think that is true, quantum mechanics can allow very weird things to happen and with enough complexity I think it's possible for self aware consciousness to emerge from that without any fairy dust.


You've given them the intrinsic value of a rock, so whatever meaning you assign to them due to moral preference is kind of meaningless as well. Could you define the phrase "objective meaning"?

Well lets think in terms of different arrangements of matter... does a human have more meaning than a rock simply because our particles are arranged differently? Any given arrangement of particles doesn't have any more or less meaning than any other arrangement unless you want to believe there is some transcendental "objective meaning" associated with different arrangements. Of course when matter is arranged as a human then it has more meaning to other humans compared to a rock, but that's purely subjective and in the grand scheme of things there is no real meaning to anything. Also, I can accept the fact my existence doesn't have any more meaning than a rock, I don't need to know there's some higher objective meaning to give life my own meaning. If you see that as ultimately meaningless well that's your subjective belief.


I think the answer to that is clearly yes, human disagreement does not amount to subjectivity. Humans can disagree over the summation of simple integers that doesn't make the answer any less objective

I notice you didn't try to give an exact age, and I don't blame you' it's very hard and there's no clear cut answer, this isn't some simple integer math, you have to consider many different factors, such as how mentally developed is the person, maybe they're quite old but still mentally very young, or vice versa. Or maybe they're still quite young but their body has developed very quickly and their hormones create a strong urge for sex, a very large portion of sex offenders in the U.S. are actually minors because it's typically a felony for them to have sex. You cannot just say "it's wrong because they're under this age or it's ok because they're above this age, and that's all there is to it". Of course that's effective and efficient when it comes to law enforcement, but that doesn't capture the full complexity of the issue.
edit on 15/2/2017 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 02:32 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Good and evil are conceptual in nature, so any talk of measure or objectivity is meaningless. This is due to the fact that abstract concepts such as morality are subjective. Let's say I have a table I can estimate the middle of the table but it is most definitely not the exact center. Morality is like placing your finger in the middle and all others agree that is the center. The further one way or the other and you will have disagreement about whether it is center or not. Imaginary units of measurement.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 03:13 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You can use semantics to describe anything,when you start changing definitions to meet your own standards,you defy logic,what are they putting in these gamers energy drinks these days?



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 09:14 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder



What is the "illusion of complex biochemical reactions"? It is complex biochemical reactions, just like if we made a self aware computer it would be complex electrical processes.


This is the theory of consciousness as an emergent property of matter, but even if one takes this approach they must still affirm that each and every action and thought are predetermined by physical events inside and outside of your body. If this were actually true though, we should never have found out we had no choice, in the same way creatures in a land of darkness should never find out that it is dark. Invoking a general statement about QM isn't going to get us anywhere.




Well lets think in terms of different arrangements of matter... does a human have more meaning than a rock simply because our particles are arranged differently?


I've already told you that I agree with your position that on naturalism there would be no difference, but I have also explained to you that I don't think we should be able to register the difference between moral and amoral actions if such a world view were true.




Any given arrangement of particles doesn't have any more or less meaning than any other arrangement unless you want to believe there is some transcendental "objective meaning" associated with different arrangements. Of course when matter is arranged as a human then it has more meaning to other humans compared to a rock, but that's purely subjective and in the grand scheme of things there is no real meaning to anything.


No one has argued for the existence of objective meaning. I am not even sure what you mean by the term. I think you are equating objective meaning with intrinsic worth but I am not sure. Meaning normally refers to what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action. This is obviously subjective as I could say "Luke died yesterday", but that could be pigeon English for "Luke ate a hamburger." I think you are confusing meaning with value. There are two types of value. That is intrinsic and instrumental value. I believe human beings to be intrinsically valuable because I don't believe a human is just a complex arrangement of molecules, hence the reason smashing a rock with a sledge hammer isn't a moral issue, but smashing a baby with a sledge hammer is a moral issue. Now we are in agreement that if naturalism is true, then human beings have no intrinsic meaning and you can do as you please to them. That is nothing is forbidden.




I notice you didn't try to give an exact age, and I don't blame you' it's very hard and there's no clear cut answer, this isn't some simple integer math, you have to consider many different factors, such as how mentally developed is the person, maybe they're quite old but still mentally very young, or vice versa. Or maybe they're still quite young but their body has developed very quickly and their hormones create a strong urge for sex, a very large portion of sex offenders in the U.S. are actually minors because it's typically a felony for them to have sex.


I think its pretty obvious that no matter what justification you give, having sex with a 5 year old is unacceptable. My point here are there are ages that are clearly wrong, even though specific age someone is ready to have sex may vary..



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: ThoughtIsMadness




Good and evil are conceptual in nature, so any talk of measure or objectivity is meaningless.


Math is conceptual in nature, but it most certainly is objective....




This is due to the fact that abstract concepts such as morality are subjective. Let's say I have a table I can estimate the middle of the table but it is most definitely not the exact center. Morality is like placing your finger in the middle and all others agree that is the center. The further one way or the other and you will have disagreement about whether it is center or not. Imaginary units of measurement.


Does your inability to measure the center of the table precisely mean there is no center?



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Oldtimer2




You can use semantics to describe anything,when you start changing definitions to meet your own standards,you defy logic


Are you implying I did this?



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


This is the theory of consciousness as an emergent property of matter, but even if one takes this approach they must still affirm that each and every action and thought are predetermined by physical events inside and outside of your body. If this were actually true though, we should never have found out we had no choice

I'm not a believer in determinism, quantum mechanics makes it pretty clear that true randomness is an intrinsic property of nature, therefore our future isn't fated and that allows the scientific process to work without our experiments and measurements being predetermined, and consciousness can arise from complex non-deterministic processes.


I've already told you that I agree with your position that on naturalism there would be no difference, but I have also explained to you that I don't think we should be able to register the difference between moral and amoral actions if such a world view were true.

Humans are already very inept at registering the difference between moral and amoral actions and we disagree on many ethical issues. Some people actually cannot register the difference between right and wrong at all due to brain issues. Even if the bible was never written I'm quite certain we would all still form very strong opinions regarding morality, we don't need some external rule book to be capable of deciding what is right and wrong, we're perfectly capable of doing that ourselves.


There are two types of value. That is intrinsic and instrumental value. I believe human beings to be intrinsically valuable because I don't believe a human is just a complex arrangement of molecules, hence the reason smashing a rock with a sledge hammer isn't a moral issue, but smashing a baby with a sledge hammer is a moral issue. Now we are in agreement that if naturalism is true, then human beings have no intrinsic meaning and you can do as you please to them. That is nothing is forbidden.

The reality is there's nothing forbidding you from smashing a baby with a rock, but you choose not to do that because of your personal beliefs. We don't need a god to deem it an immoral action and decide smashing a baby with a rock is wrong, it's an immoral action from the perspective of most humans because we have the ability to empathize with the feelings of others.

Also you're getting into very sketchy territory talking about value in such a way, because intrinsic value is entirely subjective. For example what is the intrinsic value of gold, can you give me a number? What if I asked a human from the future who had technology capable of transmuting lead into gold, would he give the same answer? You're back to square one by saying humans have intrinsic value because how much value they have is entirely relative to who you ask and who you're asking about.

And it gets even worse when you start thinking about humans in terms of instrumental value. Does a human who is brain dead and will remain in a coma the rest of their life have any instrumental value since they cannot contribute anything to society and will only drain resources from society? Also, assuming the life of a human does have some objective value/meaning, does that automatically mean it's always immoral to take the life of a person, even under any circumstance at all?


My point here are there are ages that are clearly wrong, even though specific age someone is ready to have sex may vary..

You're still projecting your human beliefs as if they were objective. Just because most people would agree with you doesn't mean what you say is objectively true. Let me give you some better examples: suppose the mind of an adult is put into the body of a child using advanced technology available in the future, or suppose the mind of a child is put into an adult body, is it still clearly wrong in those circumstances? What about a mind placed into a synthetic body which looks like a child... what if the mind wasn't even human but a machine intelligence, would it depend on the age of the A.I.? What if it learned super fast and was smarter than all humans combined in the span of months?
edit on 15/2/2017 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

By the way I'm not trying to derail your thread, I'm finding this to be a genuinely interesting discussion, I hope you feel the same. I can respect your position and I don't expect it to change, but that doesn't mean I wont try to disprove it.
edit on 15/2/2017 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Rex282

haha that was an opinion.

Yes hahah....it is not ironic that your post of the logic of objective reasoning is colored by your unsubstantiated subjective opinion.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Sad that you've presented such a good argument but gotten nothing but jeer in return.

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." - Twain



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Bleeeeep

I gave him a compliment. I like it. I don't study logic.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Rex282

Is it not funny that you chose to pick something out of a reply to someone who posted a do while loop joke...your being a bit petty



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Bleeeeep

Its unfortunate. This site used to be filled with people who actually enjoyed intellectual discussion.



posted on Feb, 15 2017 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Bleeeeep

Its unfortunate. This site used to be filled with people who actually enjoyed intellectual discussion.


Most ATSrs still do, we just lose our courtesy while trying to get a point across.

Good points aren't worthy of counterpoints unless they're actually good points! The amount of replies in your thread gives merit to the OP, and even the apparent troll is usually just trying to contribute their respective 2 cents.

Getting everyone in the room to share a perspective, even on the most objective topics, is difficult.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I'm sorry, I thought we were having an intellectual discussion, or is it only intellectual when other people agree with you? The essence of true intelligence is being able to question ones own belief structures and not shelter ones self from opposing points of view. If you cannot give an adequate argument to my last post just admit it, don't act like it's my fault for not agreeing with you on everything.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 01:28 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder




I'm not a believer in determinism, quantum mechanics makes it pretty clear that true randomness is an intrinsic property of nature, therefore our future isn't fated and that allows the scientific process to work without our experiments and measurements being predetermined, and consciousness can arise from complex non-deterministic processes.


I am not sure these vague references to quantum mechanics are accurate. Maybe you could explain what it is you actually believe about human beings. On one hand you seem to want to view them as more than arrangement of molecules, and on the other hand you seem to want to view them as truly conscious agent. You can't have it both ways. You are being vague though so before I say anything more I'll let you explain.




Humans are already very inept at registering the difference between moral and amoral actions and we disagree on many ethical issues.


This is demonstrably false. I am still not convinced you actually read my argument. The classifactory device "moral" includes moral and immoral action. An "amoral" action would be an action that does not concern morality. Are you saying you cannot grasp that a person drinking a glass of water doesn't concern morality or ethics, while robbing a liquor store would concern morality and ethics? I think humans can make these distinctions rather easy.




Some people actually cannot register the difference between right and wrong at all due to brain issues.


This is completely speculative as it what I am about to say. If you watch interviews with killers like Dahmer and Bundy you'll find these gentlemen knew their impulses were not good. They just didn't care. If the body receives consciousness like a tv receives a satellite signal what you see occurring in the brain are simply correlated effects. So their odd neurology could simply be the fact that their souls or consciousness is odd.




Even if the bible was never written I'm quite certain we would all still form very strong opinions regarding morality, we don't need some external rule book to be capable of deciding what is right and wrong, we're perfectly capable of doing that ourselves.


Who has said you need the Bible to be written for morality to exists? I don't think one needs to have the Bible to know right from wrong, lets not make such large assumptions.




The reality is there's nothing forbidding you from smashing a baby with a rock, but you choose not to do that because of your personal beliefs. We don't need a god to deem it an immoral action and decide smashing a baby with a rock is wrong, it's an immoral action from the perspective of most humans because we have the ability to empathize with the feelings of others.


I am more certain you are not allowed to smash a baby with a rock than your position that it is just my own preference is sound. You see when I say "smashing babies with rocks is wrong or evil" I am making a truth claim. If one is to take it as a claim about my personal preference they have misunderstood me. Smashing babies with rocks is wrong irrespective of my opinion on the matter. I know this thru empathy and many other things, but if naturalism was true I never should have came to the realization that moral and immoral actions were even a possible category for an action to fall into. You cannot have counterfeit money without genuine currency. That is to say I can't even falsely assign an action to the category of "moral" or "immoral" actions unless such a thing actually exists.




Also you're getting into very sketchy territory talking about value in such a way, because intrinsic value is entirely subjective. For example what is the intrinsic value of gold, can you give me a number? What if I asked a human from the future who had technology capable of transmuting lead into gold, would he give the same answer?


I don't think gold is intrinsically valuable, and like I have said numerous times if there is no God you are right humans don't have intrinsic value either as humans would have entirely different natures on the two views of the world. This agreement of ours is part of the reason Craig replaces external standard of morality with God.




You're back to square one by saying humans have intrinsic value because how much value they have is entirely relative to who you ask and who you're asking about.


I think your misunderstanding the term intrinsic value. The value is based on the nature of the thing itself. My mentally disabled cousin and step-sister are equally as valuable as I am as they are both equally as human as I am. If we could add to intrinsic value, then the value is ultimately instrumental. I would simply say anyone who believes this is simply mistaken about fundamental aspects of reality namely that the existence of God and the nature of human beings.




And it gets even worse when you start thinking about humans in terms of instrumental value.


What do you mean by worse friend? You seem to be saying that thinking of human beings as something with intrinsic value is closer to some standard of thought that is "better". I think if you truly believed your world view you wouldn't make statements like this. You have to build a moral reality that simply doesn't exist for subjective morality to be true. What you should have said is "I don't like when people think about humans in terms of instrumental value." Indicative moral propositions are reserved for my world view, remember?




Does a human who is brain dead and will remain in a coma the rest of their life have any instrumental value since they cannot contribute anything to society and will only drain resources from society?


Depends on the situation. It may give comfort to a family member or something like that and therefore have some instrumental value for achieving comfort. or maybe someone is using their body as a sex toy every night. That works for instrumental value as well. If the person in the coma doesn't have intrinsic value, which ever purpose you leave him alive for is irrelevant. I mean even if the person has a will that says to pull the plug, if they have instrumental value for the creepy guy who wants to use a comatose person well who are you to remove something that has value to him.




Also, assuming the life of a human does have some objective value/meaning, does that automatically mean it's always immoral to take the life of a person, even under any circumstance at all?


No, because sometimes humans do things that infringe upon the God given rights of other human beings.




You're still projecting your human beliefs as if they were objective.


No I am simply basing my position on my moral experience. When I say it is not okay to have sex with preschoolers, in the moment I say that after hearing of something like the Franklin cover up, I know 100% that I was not making a claim about my desire or aversion to such an action, but rather I was saying human beings are morally obligated irrespective of their desires not to have sex with 5 year olds. The problem is not that I am projecting my human beliefs, but that you and I have fundamental disagreements about the nature of humankind.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 01:32 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I wasn't including you in that remark as what I was responding to was:



Sad that you've presented such a good argument but gotten nothing but jeer in return. "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." - Twain


I kind of thought the ones who were doing as this gentlemen said would know who they were.



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 01:49 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

i am amused that you avoided ACTUALLY using WLCs " argument " for gods existance



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 03:37 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


On one hand you seem to want to view them as more than arrangement of molecules, and on the other hand you seem to want to view them as truly conscious agent. You can't have it both ways. You are being vague though so before I say anything more I'll let you explain.

I believe that "truly conscious agents" can exist in terms of being self aware, but I don't view it as a deterministic process, the laws of QM indicate nothing is truly deterministic, but that doesn't mean we're more than a collection of particles. We're a collection of quantum mechanical particles which still obey very specific laws, even if those laws are some what strange and not intuitive.


An "amoral" action would be an action that does not concern morality. Are you saying you cannot grasp that a person drinking a glass of water doesn't concern morality or ethics, while robbing a liquor store would concern morality and ethics?

Sorry, once again I was interpreting amoral as immoral. Although I would argue that something as simple as drinking a glass of water could be immoral. What if it was the last reserves of water and that person has already had many glasses of water that day? Even something typically seen as a good thing, such as child birth, could be an arguably immoral act. What if abortion was made illegal world wide, then using a time machine you saw our planet die from the ravages of overpopulation a few hundred years later, would you come back and argue mothers should have a choice to kill their unborn babies if it could save our species?


If you watch interviews with killers like Dahmer and Bundy you'll find these gentlemen knew their impulses were not good. They just didn't care.

This I can agree with because I have watched some of those interviews, but those weren't the types of people I was talking about, I was talking about people with specific types of brain damage which prevent them from building complex ethical associations. Most killers have an ethical framework because they have lived a life, many had a completely normal childhood. They understand what they do is seen to be wrong by the majority of people and it might even seem wrong to themselves, but there's no reason a human cannot act against what they believe if they have other motivations which outweigh their sense of ethics.


Who has said you need the Bible to be written for morality to exists? I don't think one needs to have the Bible to know right from wrong, lets not make such large assumptions.

I predicted this response, but we both know it was an analogy for your external objective morality which is hard coded into the fabric of reality. There's very little difference, people look to the bible as an external source of ethics to tell them what is right and wrong, which is clearly not a very good way to develop ones morality unless you want to be a bigot. Yet many people place all their faith in the bible and believe it without question, proving my last point that people have a hard time deciding their ethical stand points and disagree a lot on what is wrong or right, especially when it comes to gray areas, we tend to seek out answers from external sources.


Smashing babies with rocks is wrong irrespective of my opinion on the matter. I know this thru empathy and many other things, but if naturalism was true I never should have came to the realization that moral and immoral actions were even a possible category for an action to fall into.

There's no reason you could not come to that conclusion if your brain was a complex information processing machine capable of integrating new information. The same thing would be true of a complex A.I., just because it's nothing more than electrical signals going through a circuit doesn't mean it must have no capacity to learn or build an understanding and opinion of the world around it. There's no reason a machine intelligence couldn't develop into an entity who has a strong respect for organic life if we treat it the right way during its early stages of life and show it love like we would show a human child.


I think your misunderstanding the term intrinsic value. The value is based on the nature of the thing itself.

The intrinsic value of a $100 note would be the value of the paper and ink, it's based on the actual physical composition of the thing, not the nature. The nature of the note would include things like the denomination and the collectability, so it's face value could be much higher than the intrinsic value. But of course intrinsic value is entirely subject, the value of ink and paper isn't set in stone. What I'm saying is, it's impossible to place any form of objective value onto any collection of particles, it's an entirely subjective exercise.


What do you mean by worse friend? You seem to be saying that thinking of human beings as something with intrinsic value is closer to some standard of thought that is "better".

No, I'm saying that attempting to assign any form of "value" to a human life is a completely futile exercise. Thinking of humans in terms of instrumental value is even worse than thinking in terms of intrinsic value because the life of a person is valued based on how much they can be used by others, which leads to all sorts of moral contradictions.


Depends on the situation. It may give comfort to a family member or something like that and therefore have some instrumental value for achieving comfort.

So the life of the person has a value proportional to how much their family comes to visit? Ok let me put this another way, what if the person was severely disabled, lived by themselves, and had a carer which despised their job... so the person is just sucking money from the welfare system and taking much more than they give, even if you factor in the happiness their existence gives to that one family memory who visits once a year. In other words, the personal clearly has a negative instrumental value, then according to your logic, would it then be ok to kill that person because their life has no positive value? This is where talking in terms of intrinsic and instrumental value will get you...


but rather I was saying human beings are morally obligated irrespective of their desires not to have sex with 5 year olds. The problem is not that I am projecting my human beliefs

No, the problem is you're making a general statement which doesn't always apply. Maybe there's a sentient species out there which develop into adults in just 5 years, would you try telling them they're too young for sex even though their bodies are completely mature and it's been their way of life for hundreds of years? What about an A.I. which learns super quickly and is smarter than all humans after 5 years? Or better yet, what if humans evolve into a super smart species where 5 year olds are much smarter than present day adults and they seek out sex at a very young age, does the problem then become that their body isn't developed enough, even if they enjoy it? What if they decide to transfer their mind into a synthetic body once hitting the age of 5 because they don't like being so smart but stuck in a child body?
edit on 16/2/2017 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2017 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

I did use it, but I phrased in such a way that hopefully people could see how it related to the standard meter bar syllogism. I only used it as a third example of a syllogism that is in valid form:

Craig's would look as follows:

1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2) Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3) Therefore, God exists


I have 5 premises because I showed the double negation premises which are normally implicit in a syllogism.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join