Is there such a thing as morality or ethics?

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 17, 2021

Ethics, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, theism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Atheist broadcaster Matt Dillahunty now challenges neurosurgeon Michael Egnor: There is no way to know whether a moral doctrine represents any reality apart from belief:

Michael Egnor: You’ve agreed with me that there are people who act out of respect for an objective moral law.
Matt Dillahunty: I agree with you there are people who act that way because of their belief and whether they believe it’s objective or not is irrelevant. They can believe it’s subjective and still do it. [01:29:30]
Michael Egnor: So, you don’t believe that it’s objectively wrong, for example, to kill innocent people, or rape babies, or exterminate the Jews?
Matt Dillahunty: Hang on. We just went through a whole bunch of stuff and when you got to a point where it was exposed that you were wrong about what you said, you went back to: I don’t think it’s objectively wrong to rape people and kill babies. That’s not what we were just discussing. We were discussing altruism and whether or not there’s a justification for it.
Michael Egnor: Yeah. But it’s what we’re discussing now, Matt. My question is, is it objectively wrong to do certain things, outside of opinions? [01:30:00]
Matt Dillahunty: I’ve already answered this and I’m sorry that you don’t understand it. I will try one more time.
When you declare what a foundation of morality is, once that’s done, you can compare the consequences of various actions with respect to that foundation, with respect to that goal. That comparison can be objective in the same way that the rules of chess are ultimately arbitrary. They didn’t have to be that way. We made up the game. It is objectively against the rules for you to move your pawn forward four spaces at the beginning of the game. Now, you can say, is it objectively wrong? Well, no, we could have house rules, but we’re talking about these rules.
News, “8. Does morality really exist? If so, does it come from God?” at Mind Matters News

C.S. Lewis (1898–1963) certainly disagreed with Dillahunty in The Abolition of Man (1943), where he talks about the Tao that forms the basis of all human morality.

Takehome: Michael Egnor insists that a moral law exists independently of varying opinions. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, that has always been the traditional view worldwide.

The debate to date:

Debate: Former atheist neurosurgeon vs. former Christian activist. At Theology Unleashed, each gets a chance to state his case and interrogate the other. In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and broadcaster Matt Dillahunty clash over the existence of God.
A neurosurgeon’s ten proofs for the existence of God. First, how did a medic, formerly an atheist, who cuts open people’s brains for a living, come to be sure there is irrefutable proof for God? In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, Michael Egnor and Matt Dillahunty clash over “Does God exist?” Egnor starts off.
Atheist Dillahunty spots fallacies in Christian Egnor’s views. “My position is that it’s unacceptable to believe something if the available evidence does not support it.” Dillahunty: We can’t conclusively disprove an unfalsifiable proposition. And that is what most “God” definitions, at least as far as I can tell, are.
Egnor now tries to find out what Dillahunty actually knows… About philosophical arguments for the existence of God, as he begins a rebuttal. Atheist Dillahunty appears unable to recall the philosophical arguments for God’s existence, which poses a challenge for Egnor in rebutting him.
Egnor, Dillahunty dispute the basic causes behind the universe. In a peppery exchange, Egnor argues that proofs of God’s existence follow the same logical structure as proofs in science. If the universe begins in a singularity (where Einstein’s equations break down), what lies behind it? Egnor challenges Dillahunty on that.
Is Matt Dillahunty using science as a crutch for his atheism? That’s neurosurgeon Michael Egnor’s accusation in this third part of the debate, which features a continued discussion of singularities, where conventional “laws of nature” break down.
If the “supernatural” means “outside of conventional nature,” Michael Egnor argues, science routinely accepts it, based on evidence.
Dillahunty asks 2nd oldest question: If God exists, why evil? In the debate between Christian neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and atheist broadcaster Matt Dillahunty, the question of raping a baby was bound to arise.
Egnor argues that there is an objective moral law against such acts; Dillahunty argues, no, it is all just human judgment.
Does morality really exist? If so, does it come from God? Matt Dillahunty now challenges Michael Egnor: There is no way to know whether a moral doctrine represents any reality apart from belief. Michael Egnor insists that a moral law exists independently of varying opinions. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, that has always been the traditional view worldwide.

You may also wish to read:

Science can and does point to God’s existence. Michael Egnor: Natural science is not at all methodologically naturalist — it routinely points to causes outside of nature. If we are to understand natural effects, we must be open to all kinds of causes, including causes that transcend nature.

The Divine Hiddenness argument against God’s existence = nonsense. God in Himself is immeasurably greater than we are, and He transcends all human knowledge. A God with whom we do not struggle — who is not in some substantial and painful way hidden to us — is not God but is a mere figment of our imagination.

Atheist Claims about logical fallacies often just mean: Shut Up! In the recent debate, Matt Dillahunty accuses theists of “the fallacy of the argument from personal incredulity” because we examine his claims and find them incredible. What atheists fear most is having to explain themselves, and the invocation of fictitious “fallacies” is one of their favorite ways to evade scrutiny.

and

Theists vs. atheists: Which group has the burden of proof? Because Dillahunty refuses to debate me again, I’ll address his claim that atheists have no burden of proof in the debate over God’s existence in this post. Both atheists and theists make positive statements about the nature of the universe. If atheists shun the ensuing burden of proof, it should count against them.

Comments

Ram, you have by and large described functions of conscience. That does not answer to the legitimate authority of its rulings. That points to the is-ought gap and the only place it can be bridged post Hume's Guillotine, roots of reality. A brief note. KF PS: Sociopathy is probably better seen as benumbed or damaged conscience. The idea of being born without conscience, psychopathy, is much more controversial. Web MD: https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-difference >>A key difference between a psychopath and a sociopath [--> older psychological terminology] is whether he has a conscience, the little voice inside that lets us know when we’re doing something wrong, says L. Michael Tompkins, EdD. He's a psychologist at the Sacramento County Mental Health Treatment Center. A psychopath doesn’t have a conscience. If he lies to you so he can steal your money, he won’t feel any moral qualms, though he may pretend to. He may observe others and then act the way they do so he’s not “found out,” Tompkins says. A sociopath typically has a conscience, but it’s weak. They may know that taking your money is wrong, and they might feel some guilt or remorse, but that won’t stop their behavior. Both lack empathy, the ability to stand in someone else’s shoes and understand how they feel. But a psychopath has less regard for others, says Aaron Kipnis, PhD, author of The Midas Complex. Someone with this personality type sees others as objects he can use for his own benefit.>>kairosfocus_{November 10, 2021
November
11
Nov
10
10
2021
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT}

KF: Origenes [pardon], the focus of this thread is in the title, is there such a thing as morality or ethics. I will most humbly boil it down for you. There is human nature. Most humans have some notion of what is generally classified as "morality." (A small subset, the sociopaths, which comprise approximately 4% of the population, seem to lack this notion.) "Morality" is grounded in a couple of programmed impulses: "empathy" and "fairness." The precise manifestation of these programmed principles of human nature vary from person to person, due to congenital variables and cultural variables. So then, the answer appears to be, "yes." (How human nature became so programmed is a matter of debate. Some people think blind natural forces are responsible. Some believe an intelligent creator is responsible. The source is irrelevent for the purposes of the OP title question. ) Hope that helps. --Ramram_{November 10, 2021
November
11
Nov
10
10
2021
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT}

Origenes [pardon], the focus of this thread is in the title, is there such a thing as morality or ethics. I intervened as it was important to highlight the import of Ciceronian first duties and natural law; the marginalisation of which in academic and practical jurisprudence is a material factor in our civilisation's troubles. I have noted, that even objectors, to gain persuasive rhetorical traction cannot but appeal to same, making them inescapable, so inescapably true and so too self evident first principles. That is blatantly unpalatable to many so all sorts of objections have been manufactured, all of which implicitly appeal to said first duties of responsible reason. The key case is made, despite many denials and the like. As for your ever more tangential campaign against objectivity, I simply note that it has been abundantly shown, with mathematical entities tracing to { } --> 0 as key case, that objectivity, even on entities and states of affairs contemplated by minds, is conferred by successful warrant; which, is communicable and so in principle public. Such obviously extends to doubting one's self aware existence then recognising that it is the self-aware who doubt . . . which elicits the same recognition in the audience. That is enough, though I doubt it will currently be acceptable to you. I am content that the case has been adequately made and stands as record. KFkairosfocus_{November 9, 2021
November
11
Nov
9
09
2021
10:20 PM
10
10
20
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus
At this point, it is fairly clear that you are putting up rhetorical shields one after another to protect something core but vulnerable.
The point I make—only the subject himself has access to his own conscious self-awareness—is very well-known, widely understood and accepted. The fact that we do not have access to the consciousness of others, even has a name: the Solipsism Problem (aka the Problem of Other Minds). p.s. I am not arguining in favor of solipsism. Please don't start arguing against solipsism, as if that is my position. I am not a solipsist at all.Origenes_{November 9, 2021
November
11
Nov
9
09
2021
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT}

KF
... it is not the statement but the warrant that is relevant. As the human race is unified, the same warrant as described obtains.
Clarify please. What do you mean by "relevant"? And which "warrant as described" obtains?Origenes_{November 9, 2021
November
11
Nov
9
09
2021
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT}

Origines, it is not the statement but the warrant that is relevant. As the human race is unified, the same warrant as described obtains. At this point, it is fairly clear that you are putting up rhetorical shields one after another to protect something core but vulnerable. Likely tied to subjectivism and/or relativism. Those already fall of their own weight. KFkairosfocus_{November 9, 2021
November
11
Nov
9
09
2021
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: For clarity, let's suppose you meet an unknown adult person, let's call him John. John tells you: "I exist, I have conscious self-awareness." Suppose further that John adds: "I tried to doubt my existence, but then I realized that I had to exist in order to do that. So, then I was certain of my existence." Explain how you can conclude that John's statement is 'objective', that is, name the warrant you have of John having conscious self-awareness, besides John's testimony.Origenes_{November 9, 2021
November
11
Nov
9
09
2021
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

Origines, actually -- and much as LCD just pointed out -- no. There are at least two self-aware, self-moved agents present. First, the one who expresses doubt and recognition and the one hearing and seeing, who is also conscious of her or his own self-awareness and its import in light of the argument. Both mutually recognise and if say we have husband and wife with children, they have reason to know directly that they are of the same order of creature, and their children are an onward audience with the same report; there is utterly no good reason to entertain frivolous or desperate absurdities of zombie arguments. There is deep and far reaching, communicable warrant here. KFkairosfocus_{November 9, 2021
November
11
Nov
9
09
2021
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus LCD, that the local zone of the earth is apparently flat is objectively true
Discussion was about the Earth's shape not about a "local zone" on the Earth.
Origenes Subject X tells us that he has conscious self-awareness. It is not possible for us, to test/verify his claim. His word, his claim, is all we have—nothing else.
Nothing else? His word,his claim of subject x are decoded in your conscious self-awareness(subject y).Lieutenant Commander Data_{November 9, 2021
November
11
Nov
9
09
2021
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus,
again, the issue is warrant, which can attach to (…) self-aware experiences, intentionality, qualia etc. KF
So, conscious self-awareness, experienced & warranted only by subject X itself is ‘objective’— because warrant ... Note that all we have is subject X testimony. Subject X tells us that he has conscious self-awareness. It is not possible for us, to test/verify his claim. His word, his claim, is all we have—nothing else. Yet, according to Kairosfocus, who otherwise has a cynical approach towards claims by error-prone sinning subjects, this time the claim by subject X constitutes an “objective” truth. One cannot help but wondering when a subject is not considered to produce ‘objective truths’, and why.Origenes_{November 9, 2021
November
11
Nov
9
09
2021
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

LCD, that the local zone of the earth is apparently flat is objectively true; that the earth as a whole is flat is objectively false, i.e. the objective truth is earth is non-flat. Such was known by about 300 BC. KFkairosfocus_{November 9, 2021
November
11
Nov
9
09
2021
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus @579+, As you've noticed from the disingenuous, evasive, and derogatory replies, some of participants simply want to waste our time. At your (repeated) warnings, I'm terminating my discussion on the subject. I've made the foundation for my morality and ethics abundantly clear--what's been revealed to people who trust in the inspired Word of God. On the topic of the OP, identifying the source of one's morality and ethics is fundamental. Basing one's morality and ethics on personal preference is equivalent to having none. Thank you for your patience and tolerance despite all the abuse and accusations heaped on you. God bless you. -QQuerius_{November 9, 2021
November
11
Nov
9
09
2021
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

Origenes, again, the issue is warrant, which can attach to tangibles and intangibles, rocks, null sets, relationships, quantum phenomena, historical reports, testimony, sums with ticks and x's in elementary school, self-aware experiences, intentionality, qualia etc. KFkairosfocus_{November 9, 2021
November
11
Nov
9
09
2021
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

WJM, your root issue is back in 378 as I picked up in 392 and on. As for what you presented in your OP, that is what I responded to clip by clip. Further to this, I have found that you run afoul of a well known issue with monisms, which becomes self-referential and self-undermining. As for who said what, Bradley summarised the Kant-influenced, an issue that is still relevant today and applies by extension to views that end up implying that the in common physical world is in the end a delusion. KFkairosfocus_{November 9, 2021
November
11
Nov
9
09
2021
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

KF @584, If you're reading what I write, you're certainly not comprehending it.
To say the reality is such that our knowledge cannot reach it, is a claim to know reality...
Who said reality is something we cannot reach? Not me. You're the one that has placed "reality" in an unreachable position, not me. IOW, KF, the only way any of us can gain knowledge of reality, is if MRT/IRT is true. If knowledge of reality depends on accessing something external of mind and conscious experience - like some independent, external world - we're just out of luck, because there's literally no way to validate it, check it or even look at it.William J Murray_{November 9, 2021
November
11
Nov
9
09
2021
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

Origenes “I exist therefore you exist”, does not make any sense.
Well if doesn't make any sense what do you think you do when you send messages? To whom do you send messages, to yourself maybe ,because after your logic nobody else exist . :)
An example of two objective statements, which cannot both be true: 1. The earth shape is flat. 2. The earth shape is ellipsoid. For both statements there is warrant in the ‘real’ world, thus both are ‘objective.’ Arguably the second statement has better / more extensive warrant.
:) Wow, those statements can't be both true therefore can't be both objective .Can be both false /incomplete/biased therefore subjective but never can be both objective.Lieutenant Commander Data_{November 9, 2021
November
11
Nov
9
09
2021
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus:
warrant is intelligible and expressible in language, symbols, drawings etc, so it can be and is communicated, making it external to the original party providing the warrant and open to evaluation by others.
Sure.
Just so, I can write down how I doubt my self-aware existence but to do so rests on said self-awareness so once one is self aware that is undeniably and self-evidently real.
Indeed. We can both follow the same Descartian line of reasoning and both conclude “I exist”, however your conclusion “I exist” refers to your existence, and my “I exist” refers to my existence. Your existence obviously constitutes no warrant for my existence and vice versa. "I exist therefore you exist", does not make any sense. Why is it that I have to point out the obvious?Origenes_{November 9, 2021
November
11
Nov
9
09
2021
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT}

Jerry Here I offer simple definitions of ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ that IMHO make sense: The problem is they make sense.
Another one who have no clue .Lieutenant Commander Data_{November 9, 2021
November
11
Nov
9
09
2021
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

Jerry, there is that new thread on breakdown of a generation. KFkairosfocus_{November 9, 2021
November
11
Nov
9
09
2021
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

WJM, again, F H Bradley on Kant-related schemes that try to lock off knowledge of an external world:
We may agree, perhaps, to understand by metaphysics an attempt to know reality as against mere appearance, or the study of first principles or ultimate truths, or again the effort to comprehend the universe, not simply piecemeal or by fragments, but somehow as a whole [--> i.e. the focus of Metaphysics is critical studies of worldviews] . . . . The man who is ready to prove that metaphysical knowledge is wholly impossible . . . himself has, perhaps unknowingly, entered the arena . . . To say the reality is such that our knowledge cannot reach it, is a claim to know reality ; to urge that our knowledge is of a kind which must fail to transcend appearance, itself implies that transcendence. [--> this is the "ugly gulch" of the Kantians] For, if we had no idea of a beyond, we should assuredly not know how to talk about failure or success. And the test, by which we distinguish them, must obviously be some acquaintance with the nature of the goal. Nay, the would-be sceptic, who presses on us the contradictions of our thoughts, himself asserts dogmatically. For these contradictions might be ultimate and absolute truth, if the nature of the reality were not known to be otherwise . . . [such] objections . . . are themselves, however unwillingly, metaphysical views, and . . . a little acquaintance with the subject commonly serves to dispel [them]. [Appearance and Reality, 2nd Edn, 1897 (1916 printing), pp. 1 - 2; INTRODUCTION. At Web Archive.]
This has of course been pointed out many times over the years including above. KFkairosfocus_{November 9, 2021
November
11
Nov
9
09
2021
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

Here I offer simple definitions of ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ that IMHO make sense:
The problem is they make sense. Most people here don’t care about truth snd sense. By the way this was done previously above and on many other threads. See 277-284 above.jerry_{November 9, 2021
November
11
Nov
9
09
2021
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

KF @579 apparently doesn't understand what I said @574, because he is entirely within his mental experience, with no access to anything beyond that even in principle, utilizing his mental tools and mental experiences to try and make the case that mind is flawed and cannot be relied on unless we have reference to something that hypothetically exists external of mind. KF is fond of saying that the very way I argue indicates that I am appealing to some "duty" to truth; I showed how that cannot be the case. The irony here is, ever bit of KF's argument requires that he trust the very thing he claims cannot be trusted and leads to self-referential delusion: use something in mind to measure, validate and correct something in mind. There is no escaping it, so there we had better have access to our plumb-line and ruler tool kit in mind or else we're out of luck. To make his argument not self-defeating, KF would have to point to something outside of his mental/conscious experience. Good luck with that.William J Murray_{November 9, 2021
November
11
Nov
9
09
2021
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

WJM @574 Your post makes a very important point and I encourage everyone to read it in its entirety. It seems to me that Kairosfocus attempts to have an epistemology with a "objective" control-center situated outside his "error-prone" mind.
William J Murray: You cannot escape the prison of your own personal, conscious experience, KF., Unless you have the plumb-line and the ruler for debugging your mind in your mind, and unless you can distinguish between those tools and the flawed aspects of your mind, you’ve just invalidated everything you have to say.
Exactly on the mark.Origenes_{November 9, 2021
November
11
Nov
9
09
2021
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

Origines, warrant is intelligible and expressible in language, symbols, drawings etc, so it can be and is communicated, making it external to the original party providing the warrant and open to evaluation by others. Seven year olds are familiar with Teacher correcting their sums which represent mental operations on inherently abstract entities derivable from {} --> 0 via von Neumann's construction and extensions to Z, Q, R, C, R* etc and linked relationships structures etc. Just so, I can write down how I doubt my self-aware existence but to do so rests on said self-awareness so once one is self aware that is undeniably and self-evidently real. You as onlooker may ponder whether I am a robot etc, but on comparing how we are creatures of like order, will find to moral certainty that the argument is rooted in a truthful report of experience of inner life. This has been noted already, with all due respect you are just doubling down in unresponsiveness to the core point. Positing a zombie world is of course yet another implicitly self-referential absurdity. KFkairosfocus_{November 9, 2021
November
11
Nov
9
09
2021
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

WJM, it seems I need to draw out a little more of the exchange in the linked comment, as suggesting mislabelling diverts from the substantial issue, where in the comment I took from your UD OP and answered on points. I do for record, not to go through yet another tangential, needless exchange: https://uncommondescent.com/laws/should-we-recognise-that-laws-of-nature-extend-to-laws-of-our-human-nature-which-would-then-frame-civil-law/#comment-725627
>>Outlining A Functional Mental Reality Theory Posted on October 10, 2020 Author William J Murray Comments(34)>> 23: I take this to be a primary, in outline, source. >>By accepting the fundamental, unequivocal logical fact that our experiential existence is necessarily, entirely mental in nature, and accepting the unambiguous scientific evidence that supports this view,>> 24: The point of departure, taken as a summary thesis, [a] that reality is monist, here mind (presumably, with local centres of self-awareness as described and commented on); [b] that this defines “experience” as “entirely mental”; [c] scientific findings support this view. 25; Monist views all face the issue of reduction of diversity to the one actual reality without entailing a thesis of grand delusion for our sense of individuality. Materialistic monism as well as mind-monism. Brahman is Atman, etc too. 26: Where, if all experience is entirely mental, it is caught up in that circle, there can be no corroborating scientific evidence external to mind, esp if the self-aware centres doing the science at least as extensions of mind, are delusional. Science and its empirical findings collapse. >>we can move on to the task of developing a functioning and useful theory of mental reality.>> 27: Now, deeply problematical. >> I will attempt to roughly outline such a theory here, with the caveat that trying to express such a theory in language that is thoroughly steeped in external, physical world ideology is at best difficult. >> 28: If language makes it hard to say something, that may be a clue. >>Another caveat would be that, even though the categorical nature of the theory probably cannot be disproved (mental reality would account for all possible experiences,) some models might prove more useful and thus be better models.>> 29: Self-referential incoherence, tied to the principle of distinct identity [even as just a thought or symbol or chain thereof] is a reasonable criterion of falsity. >>IMO, the phrase “we live in a mental reality,” once properly understood, is realized as a self-evident truth. Self-evident truths cannot be “disproved.”>> 30: Self-evidence claim. 31: The self evident is understood by those of reasonable mature experience as true once stated due to the meaning of what is stated, as necessarily true of order 2 + 3 = 5 [e.g. spread your five fingers into a two and a three then cluster together again], and as such on pain of immediate, patent absurdity on attempted denial. 32: MRT, regrettably, has none of these characteristics. It is not a general consensus of mature persons, it is not suppressed by clinging to absurdities such as we see for those who despise the concept of objective truth and knowledge, etc. It is a member of a particular family of worldviews, subject to bristling with difficulties and so to facing comparative difficulties. 33: What is undeniably self evident is that we are self aware, and that such self-awareness is primary and the context in which we become aware of ideas and experiences, including of our in common world. So, casting hyperskeptical doubts on the ability to think truly, logically and with responsible warrant is self-referential and self-defeating. >>For any particular theory to even get off the ground, there must be a structure that can organize it into something comprehensible, testable (for usefulness), and which corresponds to current experience while making predictions and retrodictions.>> 34: Yes. >>There are at least two indisputable structures to mind and how it generates experience; logic and mathematics. These may be two different ways of expressing the same universal principle of mind.>> 35: Mathematics and linked logic are a part of our self-aware mindedness, along with perceptions, memories, surprises, incidents, etc. >> In this model, this “mathlogical” principle is that which takes a set of information and processes it into experience. I’m going to simplify the term and say it this way: experience is the algorithmic expression of a data set.>> 36: Algorithms are not self-justifying. GIGO obtains, and this is a doorway for grand delusion, obviously so on reductionism to a physical computational substrate [rocks have no dreams], but also the case for a mind-computer. For, algorithms are mechanisms of rule based stepwise succession, they are not rational inference. Process logic may obtain, but as need to debug warns, process is no more reliable than its source: garbage in, garbage out. >>The data set that the algorithm processes can be roughly stated as that set of data which represents the mental structures we identify as individuals.>> 37: GIGO again. Data and structure are not truth or even reliability. >> No two individuals are comprised by the exact same identity set or they would be the same person, which follows the logical principle of identity.>> 38: i of course note the appeal to distinct identity, i/l/o the OP etc. LNC and LEM are close corollaries, hence the power of issues of self-referential incoherence. 39: So far, the point is, we hold distinctive identities as our data sets and presumably algorithms differ. >>And so, no two people experience the same exact thing even though the algorithm follows the same rules for expression.>> 40: I assume this obtains for an algorithm in common, there is no reason why all algorithms in the local will be uniform. Algorithms, after all, are expressions of a special kind of data, that used to give the stepwise procedures to execute on other data. Where, some are self-modifying and presumably all are subject to chance. >> Two individuals can be connect to the some or even much of the same data, but not all of it.>> 42: This speaks to the in-common world. Of course, where it is a delusion, the issues of GIGO obtain. >>Note: there are infinite varieties of data sets because there is infinite information available that can be arranged an infinite number of ways.>> 43: Take this as, in principle unlimited. >>Innumerable individuals can have included in their individual data sets large blocks of arranged information which they are, essentially, sharing.>> 44: in common. 45: But, why not subject to chance, noise etc leading to potentially radical diversity. >>The algorithmic expression of such data blocks, even with innumerable individual variances of data not contained in the shared data block, could result in what we observe as a shared, external, physical world.>> 46: The grand, more or less in common delusion. >> In fact, it may be that the “external physical world” is a data block that acts as filtering information that other individual information is processed through – at least to a large degree.>> 47: Is the grand delusion in charge? >>And so, we experience what seems to be a consistent, shared “world” that is governed by logic and math.>> 48: Yup, moves from may to credibly is. GIGO rules, therefore. >>However, the model is fundamentally incomplete unless we bring in another fundamental quality of experience: free will.>> 49: Algorithms do not have rational, responsible freedom, a fundamental issue faced by AI. >>In this model, free will is precisely defined as the capacity to unilaterally, free of both the data and the algorithmic process, direct one’s attention.>> 50: The ghost in the machine, in effect an emergent property. Rabbit out of a non existent hat . . .
Just for record and to make my main concerns clear. KFkairosfocus_{November 9, 2021
November
11
Nov
9
09
2021
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

@Origenes Again, you are not allowed to fantasize definitions for subjectivity and objectivity, you may only accurately reflect the logic used with objective and subjective statements in common discourse, in defining subjectivity and objectivity. To say the earth is flat is wrong, because the picture of a flat earth does not correspond 1 to 1 with the shape of the actual earth. The logic of objectivity is to make a 1 to 1 corresponding model of a creation, forced by the evidence of it.mohammadnursyamsu_{November 9, 2021
November
11
Nov
9
09
2021
05:14 AM
5
05
14
AM
PDT}

@KF The right approach is to investigate the logic in common discourse, so you know what your position in practise is. So then you get an intellectual position that is perfectly consistent with your common discourse position, and from there you can negotiotate to new ideas. And creationism is the intellectual position that is perfectly consistent with the logic used in common discourse.mohammadnursyamsu_{November 9, 2021
November
11
Nov
9
09
2021
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT}

KF:
Again, I exist is warranted, which makes it not just a perception of an agent but tested and found so, in this case to utter certainty.
Allow me to insert some commentary in your sentence: I exist is warranted [Solely by the subject who makes the statement. There is exactly zero warrant for conscious experience in the physical world. Famously Chalmers conceives of an entire zombie world, a world physically indistinguishable from this world but entirely lacking conscious experience] which makes it not just a perception of an agent [Nope. The fact that the only warrant available is the subject/agent involved, makes it precisely "just a perception of an agent"] but tested [tested by the subject only] and found so, in this case to utter certainty [found to utter certainty by the subject involved only].Origenes_{November 9, 2021
November
11
Nov
9
09
2021
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT}

LCD:
Origenes: Both objective and subjective statements can be true or false.
Oh dear… :)
An example of two objective statements, which cannot both be true: 1. The earth shape is flat. 2. The earth shape is ellipsoid. For both statements there is warrant in the ‘real’ world, thus both are ‘objective.’ Arguably the second statement has better / more extensive warrant. --- p.s. Note that today several influential physicists have adopted the ‘Holographic principle’, which, assuming that holograms are flat, lends credence to statement numero uno.Origenes_{November 9, 2021
November
11
Nov
9
09
2021
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

KF said:
In short, you confirm my point that our localised sense of individual conscious mindedness is a manifestation of a grand in common mind, so that these centres with a sense of a common external world are grandly delusional. So, utterly untrustworthy.
Mislabeling a category of experience doesn't make one "delusional," any more than calling what we experience physically "matter" is rendered a "delusion" just because we find out there's no actual 'matter" to be found.
So, how can delusional local centre W claim to have any better insight into M than delusional centre K? On what principles of credibility that are independent of the spreading miasma of delusion?
First, your use of "delusional" here is inappropriate, as I've pointed out. W can claim to have better insight under and about M via logic and mutually accessible evidence. Is there some other way you use?
How the self-referential incoherence arises is thus seen. First, at the level of the local self-aware centres then by extension to the central mind having such in it. If buggy in the local, buggy. If buggy, untrustworthy.
So your argument here is self-defeating because the only thing you have to argue with or from is ... your local, individual mind of personal experience and thought. All experience - whether of a physical, mutual world, or logic, or memory, or imagination, occurs in your local, individual mind/consciousness. If you place the plumb line measurement for "debugging" your worldview anywhere external of your conscious/mental experience, you have absolutely no access to it if it exists. But, fortunately, we do have the plumb line/ruler available to us in our local mind/conscious experience: it's called logic, math, self-evident truths, and necessary truths that follow from self-evident truths, inescapable truths about our existence, etc. These are the internally accessible plumb line and rulers that necessarily exist for any sentient, conscious beings in any possible world. IF your claim is that if one aspect of our local mind is mistaken or flawed, then we cannot trust any part of it, you have just said you cannot trust your own mind, including the logic and reasoning you find therein. Postulating a world external of your conscious experience doesn't help, cannot help, because you've just indicted every aspect of your mind and thus every mental/conscious experience you have and how you think of it. You cannot escape the prison of your own personal, conscious experience, KF., Unless you have the plumb-line and the ruler for debugging your mind in your mind, and unless you can distinguish between those tools and t he flawed aspects of your mind, you've just invalidated everything you have to say. Your argument depends on you having internal access to those plumb-line debugging tools and being able to discern them from the flawed aspects of your own mind, and that has to occur entirely without access to anything external of what goes on in your local, individual mind, whether any world external of mind exists or not.William J Murray_{November 9, 2021
November
11
Nov
9
09
2021
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 21 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply