It’s the common atheist mantra that we’re all atheists, but atheists are atheists to one more god than most people. My skepticism is similar, which is why I’m both skeptical of the underlying assumption scientists make, Parapsychological or otherwise. Keep in mind that everyone’s metaphysic is based on one free miracle, even physicalism. Physicalism is not at all a complete metaphysic, and also requires a free miracle in its premise.
(2017-11-02, 02:39 PM)Iyace Wrote: [ -> ]But then morality and meaning are ipso facto real tangible things.
Depends what you mean by "real" and "tangible".
If you think that they are "existing" outside of the physical processes, that is your misunderstanding of the physicalist position.
Quote:Put it this way: a storm is caused by a combination of physical factors. The combination of those physical factors give rise to ephiphenomena like wind, which themselves can be independently measured and observed. What you’re saying then, isn’t internally consistent. You’re saying a set of physical processes can give rise to an intangible and immeasurable set of physical stuff. The only way to keep it consistent is by saying meaning is objective and independently accessible.
The first step is to try and set aside notions of "epiphenomena" and "giving rise to". The second step is to be a bit more imaginative around the properties of the physical, and develop a broader view of what it might be capable.
(2017-11-02, 09:39 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Depends what you mean by "real" and "tangible". If you think that they are "existing" outside of the physical processes, that is your misunderstanding of the physicalist position.
The first step is to try and set aside notions of "epiphenomena" and "giving rise to". The second step is to be a bit more imaginative around the properties of the physical, and develop a broader view of what it might be capable.
I don’t need to be more imaginative, considering in physicalism what is physical is thoroughly defined. It is that can be measured and observed. This is my point with physicalism. You actually need to contradict it to make it consistent, which is a bad metaphysic. I shouldn’t have to get creative with labeling things just so physicalism can be consistent and rational. The burden of proof is on the physicalist to prove that those intangible and immeasurable things are measurable and tangible. I shouldn’t have to start cleverly labeling things and give you more free miracles just to get your metaphysic to work.
(2017-11-02, 09:50 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]I'm struggling with this too... I'm no philosopher, and I don't use any labels like 'materialism' etc... but it seems important, because what your saying isn't making sense to me. For instance, where does this come from... "You’re saying a set of physical processes can give rise to an intangible and immeasurable set of physical stuff."? Is it some sort of philosophical position?
I’m referencing what malf’s revised creed said about morality and ethics.
(2017-11-02, 09:48 PM)Iyace Wrote: [ -> ]I don’t need to be more imaginative, considering in physicalism what is physical is thoroughly defined. It is that can be measured and observed. This is my point with physicalism. You actually need to contradict it to make it consistent, which is a bad metaphysic. I shouldn’t have to get creative with labeling things just so physicalism can be consistent and rational. The burden of proof is on the physicalist to prove that those intangible and immeasurable things are measurable and tangible. I shouldn’t have to start cleverly labeling things and give you more free miracles just to get your metaphysic to work.
Take it or leave it. We appear to have reached the "monkey brain" issue again.
(2017-11-02, 10:04 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]that they were subjective? but... I didn't get how Malfs sentence leads to your interpretation "You’re saying a set of physical processes can give rise to an intangible and immeasurable set of physical stuff."? I don't understand why 'subjective' leads to that?
Because subjective doesn’t make sense in that context. Subjective in that context means ‘ based on a special combination of physical mechanisms, morality will arise based on that combinations properties ‘. That’s the natural conclusion from that argument. Morality and ethics would then need to be measurable, much like the higher order properties of molecular velocity ( wind ) is measured independent of molecularly measurement.
(2017-11-02, 10:20 PM)Iyace Wrote: [ -> ]Because subjective doesn’t make sense in that context. Subjective in that context means ‘ based on a special combination of physical mechanisms, morality will arise based on that combinations properties ‘. That’s the natural conclusion from that argument. Morality and ethics would then need to be measurable, much like the higher order properties of molecular velocity ( wind ) is measured independent of molecularly measurement.
Maybe it would help if you presented your notions of how we interact with morality and meaning. Seeing a better (more philosophically or logically consistent?) model may help more clearly focus my error.
(2017-11-02, 10:38 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]I'm still struggling to understand why use of subjective leads to your interpretation "You’re saying a set of physical processes can give rise to an intangible and immeasurable set of physical stuff."? I don't understand why 'subjective' leads to that? I know you say it is so... but I don't understand why.
For instance, I might say that a route through, and position in, what we understand in spacetime may be considered to be the result of a process, and that result may be an individual perspective... 'subjective'. Yet the processing (by which the process leads to a result) may still be shared.
You seem to be suggesting that individuals cannot have an individual experience, whilst also being part of a group...
So how do you intent to measure ethics? I’m not taking aim at the word subjective, I’m taking aim at the concept that you can sweep away the fact that ethics isn’t physical by calling it subjective. The intention wasn’t to say that ethics are ‘ based on a point of reference ‘. It was to say morality and ethics are ephiphenomena to physical processes hides the problem of having to explain them in term of physicalism ( you can’t )
(2017-11-02, 10:44 PM)Iyace Wrote: [ -> ]So how do you intent to measure ethics? I’m not taking aim at the word subjective, I’m taking aim at the concept that you can sweep away the fact that ethics isn’t physical by calling it subjective. The intention wasn’t to say that ethics are ‘ based on a point of reference ‘. It was to say morality and ethics are ephiphenomena to physical processes hides the problem of having to explain them in term of physicalism ( you can’t )
I think you need to be careful here. "Ethics" is simply a word, a human construct that tries to describe certain aspects of human behaviour. I'm thinking this is a category error.