Western Materialism

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's not the issue being discussed.

It is in the point that was being made.

The social sciences will also show that social parasitism works quite well for a clever social parasite. So it becomes a moral issue which of these modes of being we will choose. Collectivism results in the most good for the most people, but parasitism results in the greatest immediate good for the individual(s) that practices it.

I'm talking about the collective. When doing such studies, we don't have a specific person in mind. It's about a "blue print" for your generic anonymous human.
A social parasite ruins it for the others. So that "blue print" doesn't work.

The whole idea of such blue-prints is that they are applicable to anyone, not just the select few.
And humans being a social species, the "hapiness index" of the individual is thereof directly linked to the "happiness index" of the rest of the group.

It's a dilemma that science cannot resolve for us because science is amoral.

I started out by saying that first you require a desired end point and that then science can inform you on the path you should take to achive said end-goal.
Yes, science is amoral. I never said otherwise.

My point is only that science can inform you on how to best achieve your end-goal. Regardless of that end-goal being moral or immoral.
Now if the question is if science can inform us on how to be moral, then again my answer is "yes".

For to be moral, you have to understand the consequences of your actions and decisions.
And what better way is there to find out what those are then science?

Can theology or philosophy inform me of the long-term consequences of cocaine abuse on my bio health, my mental health, my social relations, etc?
I say no. Can science? I say yes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Uhhh.....

We have developed notions of disorders such as melancholia before science was even a concept.

That disorder was noticed by philosophers.

Yes, before science was standardized, it was one and the same. I'm aware of that. I don't live in a vaccuum.

But that's more then 3 centuries ago. Today, science is much better equipped to tackle these things then "philosophy" ever was.
It's called progress.

 

[Rival]

Yes, before science was standardized, it was one and the same. I'm aware of that. I don't live in a vaccuum.

But that's more then 3 centuries ago. Today, science is much better equipped to tackle these things then "philosophy" ever was.
It's called progress.

If I take away the corner-stone of your house, will your house stand?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I give up.

I'm really trying to understand. But no clear answers are forthcoming.

Perhaps we do indeed need to start over.

What is it that Krauss can't do or understand that he could do or understand if he were to care more about philosophy?

And try not the answer the question with another question this time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It’s hardly straw manning, to point out that science has given us both the H bomb and the iPhone.

I'ld dare say that the iPhone was more damaging to civilization then the H-bomb though. lol

And that, faced with all this creative and destructive potential, it’s up to us to decide what to do with them (and the waste their production generates).

Sure. Did I say otherwise?

But I get it; you’re a True Believer,

"true believer" of what?

filled with the passionate intensity of the zealot. There is only the One True Faith, and apostasy must be smashed. Good luck with that.

???

 

[Rival]

I'm really trying to understand. But no clear answers are forthcoming.

Perhaps we do indeed need to start over.

What is it that Krauss can't do or understand that he could do or understand if he were to care more about philosophy?

And try not the answer the question with another question this time.

Do you really not grasp it?

Science needs a decent, life-affirming philosophy to underpin it for ethical reasons.

It needs it for the same reason we still argue whether it were right to drop the bombs on Japan, or perform medical experiments on dogs. Science alone would tell us nothing about whether performing vivisections on animals is right or wrong. In fact, if it gives us helpful results the logical conclusion seems to be it was the right thing to do. Yet a life-affirming moral philosophy would tell you not to perform vivisection on animals, no matter how useful to scientific understanding it may be. It's the same with modern issues like testing products on animals.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, because we cannot quantify qualia.

I would still enjoy the taste of cheese regardless nuclear war.

And in fact, people have often used small pleasures to help dealing with bigger problems, i.e., tea drinking. That's definitely in my culture.

View attachment 82118​

To use your own words: "i give up".


Just one more thing: when would you be happier?

1. when enjoying blue stilton together with your healthy wife and circle of friends after coming home from work with a nice pile of money in your savings account?
or
2. in the situation I described for you?


As for your picture, i'ld think she would also be happier sipping that tea at a table IN her kitchen instead of on top of the rubble of what remains of it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, because we cannot quantify qualia.

I think I understand why we are talking past eachother.

You are talking about the experience of things.
I'm talking about the nature of experience.

 

[Rival]

To use your own words: "i give up".


Just one more thing: when would you be happier?

1. when enjoying blue stilton together with your healthy wife and circle of friends after coming home from work with a nice pile of money in your savings account?
or
2. in the situation I described for you?


As for your picture, i'ld think she would also be happier sipping that tea at a table IN her kitchen instead of on top of the rubble of what remains of it.

She would, but the tea is giving her comfort in a trying time. The whole notion of 'comfort foods' is party to this, really.

 

[Rival]

I think I understand why we are talking past eachother.

You are talking about the experience of things.
I'm talking about the nature of experience.

We cannot quantify either. Unless by the nature of experience you mean tea won't give as much pleasure in a trying time as in a good one, but this is still a subjective judgement.

 

[RestlessSoul]

She would, but the tea is giving her comfort in a trying time. The whole notion of 'comfort foods' is party to this, really.

What she is doing, is facing calamity with serenity.

She has no control over the events impacting on her life, but she does have some control over her response to those events. Her home, and perhaps her entire life, is in ruins but she is philosophical about that. Philosophy wins.

 

[F1fan]

I am here posting on RF because something in the order of 10^80 particles of bayronic matter (plus similar quantities of dark matter, and all the forces acting on them) in the past light cone of this event, have, from my unique perspective, converged on this moment. I am a part of all that, as connected and inseparable from the entire cosmos, as I am from the air in my lungs and the sun on my face. And so are you. The distinctions you draw in your mind between your inner and outer worlds, between the object, the observer, and the act of observation, between yourself and the world within and without you, are illusions caused by your limited perspective.

If you want to get steamy eyed, we all exist today from the basic material (hydrogen and helium) of the universe as the Big Bang expanded. That cloud of gas became us through natural mechanisms. That's pretty cool. You, your loved ones, your beloved pets, the grass in your yard, Charlie Manson, flesh eating bacteria, all came from the same basic cloud of gas and are connected.

So to answer why I bother posting on RF, you would first need to answer why it is that the universe goes to all the bother of existing.

I see this question asked and I can't make sense of it. To ask any question honestly a humans should be confident that an answer can be found. This question isn't one of them. It assumes intent, and assumes an answer that suggests a human is seeking comfort despite living in an indifferent universe. A related question, that doesn't get asked, is why the Covid virus bothers infecting you once you breathe in enough to get you sick. Does it have a choice?

So, why materialism? Because it gives us a platform of knowledge that we can use to keep us safe. Materialism is shown all around us in a way that helps us live safer and longer. What has the alternative done to make life better, apart from soothing anxiety and fear through illusion? There's a good question for you.

 

[Heyo]

I disagree. Here's the way I see it...

The thing is that reality works a certain way. If you are going to use the same starting point (as Newton and Leibniz did, starting from the base-10 math that was already present), then naturally you will end up with at least similar, and most likely the same, way to describe / model the same phenomenon.

You don't need base 10 maths, any system will do as the laws of mathematics are universal.

Take Pythagoras for example. A² + B² = C²

This models the relationship between the sides of a triangle. There is only one way to describe it accurately.
What is universal here is not the math language imo. It's rather the relationship between the sides of a triangle.

Pythagoras didn't "discover" the math. He discovered how the sides of a triangle relate to one another. And he merely used the math language we humans have developed, to express that relationship.

It's not the math that is universal. It's the relationship between the sides of the triangles that is.

That is maths (or more precisely, geometry). A triangle is an abstract object. But the relations between the sides and angles can be studied just like physical objects can be. You can formulate hypothesis (in mathematics "conjectures") and you can test them. And in Math you can even prove them. Forms and numbers are fundamentally different from constructs like money, which really are invented and only exist by consensus.

 

[F1fan]

When National Socialist scientists in Germany decided throwing disabled children into the gas vans was the right thing to do for the nation (not to mention cutting costs of care) what where they missing?

I would say the human values taught by their religion, which was mostly Catholic and Lutheran. I always wonder how religions fail like this when they promise so much.

What's interesting is that ethics in science were not really a global consideration until after WW2. Jacob Bronowski decided to go into ethics after touring the ruins of Hiroshima, and understanding that there needs to be discussion about the application of results in science so that it helps humanity, and limits harm. Even the history of psychology is frought with experiments on humans and animals that would be crimes today. Ethics had to reform attitudes in science so that it could focus on both understanding how the universe works, and serving humanity.

Just like with the National Socialists, and big corporations, we see power and monet persuade some scientsits to work for aims that pose a threat to humanity and the future, and that's where it becomes the duty of citizens to elect representatives in government to manage and regulate business and the application of results in science.

 

[F1fan]

I'm asking you why you think philosophy can't answer the questions!

We know philosophy can answer questions. The answers aren't automatically correct just because they are philosophical.

This is a philosophical question that science can't answer, being undertaken by scientists.

Do you agree that the dilemma needs philosophical, not a scientific, solution?

The fact that you seem to take it as a 'DUH of course it's wrong' kind of question exposes your naïve view. It is not clearly wrong to many people.

Why is it wrong?

Do you seriously believe science can answer for human morality?

Scientists can. You make it sound as if scientists are unable to ponder moral questions and have answers. What qualifies a philosopher over a scientist to present answers to moral dilemmas? It's not as if philosophers agree with each other.

 

[Rival]

We know philosophy can answer questions. The answers aren't automatically correct just because they are philosophical.

Scientists can. You make it sound as if scientists are unable to ponder moral questions and have answers. What qualifies a philosopher over a scientist to present answers to moral dilemmas? It's not as if philosophers agree with each other.

I'm not suggesting they can't. I'm saying that when they ponder these issues they are engaging in philosophy, not science. Of course answers aren't correct just because they come from philosophical discussion, all I'm saying is the discussion itself is needful if science is to be ethical.

 

[F1fan]

You don't need base 10 maths, any system will do as the laws of mathematics are universal.

That is maths (or more precisely, geometry). A triangle is an abstract object. But the relations between the sides and angles can be studied just like physical objects can be. You can formulate hypothesis (in mathematics "conjectures") and you can test them. And in Math you can even prove them. Forms and numbers are fundamentally different from constructs like money, which really are invented and only exist by consensus.

Right. If they had decided 720 degrees instead of 360 degrees we would have the same results in the end.

 

[F1fan]

I'm not suggesting they can't. I'm saying that when they ponder these issues they are engaging in philosophy, not science.

Arguably debate is philosophy. You seem really, really motivated to promote philosophy. Are you getting a kickback?

The thing is there is no standards in philosophy as there is in science, so the decisions made in philosophy are not necessarily correct or incorrect as they are subjective and related to the mind that makes its own assumptions and value assignments.

Of course answers aren't correct just because they come from philosophical discussion, all I'm saying is the discussion itself is needful if science is to be ethical.

And this is a norm. We talk. And we talk some more. And some talk is immoral and irrational, yet still philosophy. The National Socialists comes to mind as someone brought them up. They had a philosophy. The Confederate States of America had their philosophy. Both had to be resolved through war.

 

[Rival]

Arguably debate is philosophy. You seem really, really motivated to promote philosophy. Are you getting a kickback?

The thing is there is no standards in philosophy as there is in science, so the decisions made in philosophy are not necessarily correct or incorrect as they are subjective and related to the mind that makes its own assumptions and value assignments.

And this is a norm. We talk. And we talk some more. And some talk is immoral and irrational, yet still philosophy. The National Socialists comes to mind as someone brought them up. They had a philosophy.

Yes, I want to promote philosophy to those who believe science is better because it can apparently give concrete answers (which it can't) and has somehow usurped philosophy, as though they are doing the same thing, which of course they aren't.

Some people here seem determined to relegate philosophy to second class because it gives no solid answers, but it is the only tool we have to discuss the ins and outs of morality, justice, ethics and so on. No other tool can do this. So yes, philosophy is just as important. The NS had a philosophy; they didn't just wake up one day and decide to murder a bunch of people, they thought it out. Philosophies can be good or bad, as can science experiments, medications and so on. We need both to be able to make informed decisions about ethics and practice. Nurses are obliged to take ethics courses - i.e., a philosophy course. Not discussing philosophy at all would be the biggest issue. When we debate with Nazis over who is right and wrong, we are engaged in a philosophical debate.

I think we mostly agree here, tbh.

 

[John D. Brey]

I mean the 'Gods don't exist because I can't see them', 'People who believe in ghosts are stupid' types. Very common in the UK.

The picture of science of which I have so far only hinted may be sketched as follows. There is a reality behind the world as it appears to us, possibly a many-layered reality, of which the appearances are the outermost layers. What the great scientist does is boldly to guess, daringly to conjecture, what these inner realities are like. This is akin to myth making.

Karl Popper, David Miller's, Popper Selections, p. 122.​

John