Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So. aside from Mystic's on-going insistance that DNA was intellegently designed, can I conclude that no one here is interested in arguing against the existence of objective moral precepts (more or less as outlined by Sam Harris)? Do you all simply accept his position?
Nah . . . just trying to get all you fundies on both sides (like you and your buds) to open up their minds to the reality. The existence of our intelligence, codes and designs in life, period . . . (irrespective of how you prefer to believe they manifest) . . . is more than sufficient evidence of an intelligent universe . . . in preference to an unintelligent and chaotic one.
Let's try this one more time:
Did some intelligent designer have to design the intelligent desiger?
If not, then in whatever way you accept the brute fact of the existence of a highly complex intelligent designer, couldn't you apply this same way of thinking to accept the brute fact that brute reality might be such that intelligence could evolve naturally? Or, to put it another way: If it is possible for intelligence to exist up-front as a brute fact, then why isn't it just as possible that intelligence could naturally evolve from whatever is the fundamental stuff of existence?
So. aside from Mystic's on-going insistance that DNA was intellegently designed, can I conclude that no one here is interested in arguing against the existence of objective moral precepts (more or less as outlined by Sam Harris)? Do you all simply accept his position?
The primary argument against this exercise in futility is that your premise contradicts your desired conclusion. Eliminate your premise and it is easy to accept the scientific search for the objective morals that would therefore EXIST. But to imply that they do NOT exist and then presume to engage in a scientific search for them is just stupid.
Did some intelligent designer have to design the intelligent desiger?
If not, then in whatever way you accept the brute fact of the existence of a highly complex intelligent designer, couldn't you apply this same way of thinking to accept the brute fact that brute reality might be such that intelligence could evolve naturally? Or, to put it another way: If it is possible for intelligence to exist up-front as a brute fact, then why isn't it just as possible that intelligence could naturally evolve from whatever is the fundamental stuff of existence?
Let's try this one more time:
Why on earth would you assume as your preferred brute fact an unconscious, unintelligent, undesigned Source of consciousness, intelligence and design . . . especially when you have no idea what the "fundamental stuff of existence" is and no Source for the universal field whose parameters define our reality??? Whereas . . . a Cosmic Consciousness is a perfect explanation for the Source of the universal field, the non-material substrate for our consciousness, and the composition of the dark energy and matter that comprise 95+% of the universe.
So. aside from Mystic's on-going insistance that DNA was intellegently designed, can I conclude that no one here is interested in arguing against the existence of objective moral precepts (more or less as outlined by Sam Harris)? Do you all simply accept his position?
No, we soundly rejected his bone-headed reasoning, which appears to be a lot of "new world" order mumbo-jumbo.
First, he's trapped in the lunacy that morality can only stem from religious doctrines or teachings. I've already proven morality does not need to based on religious doctrines or teachings and that morality would exist whether religion exists or not.
I don't murder because some god thing says not to, rather I don't murder because there is no benefit. If I murder someone and then their family slays me or the State executes me, how exactly do I benefit from that?
And I don't see anything scientific about his position.
In the end, it will be people who make the interpretation as to what is or isn't moral, and that isn't scientific at all.
His comment's the show can be summarized as, "We want to steal all of the natural resources in Afghanistan but we can't because the Taliban and the other several thousand tribes and clans have different morals than we do and that makes it difficult for us, so we should force them to adopt our morality to make it easier for us to steal the resources."
No, we soundly rejected his bone-headed reasoning, which appears to be a lot of "new world" order mumbo-jumbo.
First, he's trapped in the lunacy that morality can only stem from religious doctrines or teachings.
Did you look at either of the video's I posted? Sam Harris is an atheist (some call him a "rabid" anti-religious atheist) and he is saying exactly the opposite of what you seem to think he saying.
Why on earth would you assume as your preferred brute fact an unconscious, unintelligent, undesigned Source of consciousness, intelligence and design . . . especially when you have no idea what the "fundamental stuff of existence" is and no Source for the universal field whose parameters define our reality??? Whereas . . . a Cosmic Consciousness is a perfect explanation for the Source of the universal field, the non-material substrate for our consciousness, and the composition of the dark energy and matter that comprise 95+% of the universe.
You didn't even try to answer my question, but I will try to answer yours.
First: Keep in mind that you and I are on almost the same page concerning the brute fact that some form or aspect of experience is fundamental to reality. I accept a roughly pan-experientialist solution to the hard problem of consciousness. I, however, follow Whitehead in distinguishing between CONSCIOUSNESS as a high-level, highly-complex form of experience, thus I accept the notion of unconscious or pre-conscious experience, but I do NOT accept the idea that experience itself somehow emerges from non-experiential, purely objective particles or forces.
Second: I make a distinction between experience and intelligence. Consciousness is a high-level form of experience, and thus I suspect that consciousness is always intelligent to some degree, but I would say that not all experience is intelligent, and not all conscious experience is intelligent to the degree that it could purposefully DESIGN something. I would accept that dogs are conscious to some degree, but they don't design stuff.
All of the scientifically accepted empirical evidence of which I am aware supports the idea that consciousness and intelligence emerge from non-conscious, non-intelligent systems. I do not consider a fertilized human egg to be either conscious or intelligent (although, like all matter, it may be "experiential" in a sense that I won't try to explain in any detail here). This blob of cells will eventually become conscious and intelligent, but it does not start out that way. Humans evolved from the materials of the earth, but there is no evidence that intelligence existed on or in the earth prior to the evolution of conscious creatures. The mere existence of intelligence now does not count as very strong evidence that intelligence has always existed.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we could demonstrate a plausible sequence of natural events starting from the basic materials that are thought to have existed on the early earth (carbon atoms, oxygen atoms, nitrogen atoms, etc.) and ending with simple self-replicating organisms. In other words, suppose we are able to observe the self-organization of DNA under laboratory conditions by simply combining the right materials in the right environment. (By "self-organization" I am simply referring to the spontaneous formations of complex patterns - such as we see when water molecules spontaneously form patterns of frost on a window). If scientists are able to do this (and I suspect they WILL eventually be able to do this), then would you still insist that DNA had to be intelligently designed? Do patterns of frost have to be intelligently designed?
Why can't brute, fundamental experience evolve from non-intelligent to intelligent in some way roughly analogous to the way in which the non-intelligent molecules of a fertilized human egg grow into an intelligent creature?
You didn't even try to answer my question, but I will try to answer yours.
Yes I did . . . post#53.
Quote:
First: Keep in mind that you and I are on almost the same page concerning the brute fact that some form or aspect of experience is fundamental to reality. I accept a roughly pan-experientialist solution to the hard problem of consciousness. I, however, follow Whitehead in distinguishing between CONSCIOUSNESS as a high-level, highly-complex form of experience, thus I accept the notion of unconscious or pre-conscious experience, but I do NOT accept the idea that experience itself somehow emerges from non-experiential, purely objective particles or forces.
Understood . . . but your analysis doesn't go deep enough . . . as indicated by your continued use of such euphemisms for ignorance as "emerges."
Quote:
Second: I make a distinction between experience and intelligence. Consciousness is a high-level form of experience, and thus I suspect that consciousness is always intelligent to some degree, but I would say that not all experience is intelligent, and not all conscious experience is intelligent to the degree that it could purposefully DESIGN something. I would accept that dogs are conscious to some degree, but they don't design stuff.
Take your focus off the VERB design because it conflates the concept with as yet unprovable premises that belong to the category of BELIEFS ABOUT . . . and just acknowledge the noun. We clearly disagree about the premises conflated with the verb . . . but there can be no disagreement about the noun.
Quote:
All of the scientifically accepted empirical evidence of which I am aware supports the idea that consciousness and intelligence emerge from non-conscious, non-intelligent systems. I do not consider a fertilized human egg to be either conscious or intelligent (although, like all matter, it may be "experiential" in a sense that I won't try to explain in any detail here). This blob of cells will eventually become conscious and intelligent, but it does not start out that way. Humans evolved from the materials of the earth, but there is no evidence that intelligence existed on or in the earth prior to the evolution of conscious creatures. The mere existence of intelligence now does not count as very strong evidence that intelligence has always existed.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we could demonstrate a plausible sequence of natural events starting from the basic materials that are thought to have existed on the early earth (carbon atoms, oxygen atoms, nitrogen atoms, etc.) and ending with simple self-replicating organisms. In other words, suppose we are able to observe the self-organization of DNA under laboratory conditions by simply combining the right materials in the right environment. (By "self-organization" I am simply referring to the spontaneous formations of complex patterns - such as we see when water molecules spontaneously form patterns of frost on a window). If scientists are able to do this (and I suspect they WILL eventually be able to do this), then would you still insist that DNA had to be intelligently designed? Do patterns of frost have to be intelligently designed?
+Think about the inextricable relationship between intelligible and intelligent while focused on the noun . . . "design." Until you outgrow your penchant for accepting euphemisms for ignorance as if they were explanations . . . this discussion will never get beyond the superficial level at which you currently engage this topic intellectually. "Self-organization" explains nothing . . . it is an observation. Spontaneous explains nothing . . . it is an observation. These types of non-explanation explanations masquerade as scientific and obfuscate the analysis . . . allowing you to ignore the deeper issues and the assumptions and premises embedded within them.
Quote:
Why can't brute, fundamental experience evolve from non-intelligent to intelligent in some way roughly analogous to the way in which the non-intelligent molecules of a fertilized human egg grow into an intelligent creature?
Do you even recognize the many non-existent but implied explanations in your vocabulary? You do not merely accept the necessity for brute facts at the mandatory level of origins . . . your vocabulary is peppered with them at many levels subsequent to that. The completely unique (among matter and energy) phenomenon of intelligence, "self" and thought cannot originate from a universe devoid of it . . to use your favorite euphemism: "spontaneously." We cannot even measure it or detect it directly . . . yet its impact in the universe is undeniable. Only energy forms can have a transformative impact in the universe. . . therefore its existence as a form of energy cannot be disputed . . . only denied as illusion. Illusions can have no impact on anything.
Did some intelligent designer have to design the intelligent desiger?
And the reason I ask is this: If you can plausibly take intelligence itself as fundamental then why can't I plausibly take a pre-intelligent qualitative (experiential) chaos as fundamental? Why couldn't the fundamental elements of a primordial qualitative chaos begin to exhibit intelligent behavior?
Intelligent behavior is part of the "easy" problem - we already know the basic principles by which randomly arranged elements following simple rules can collectively exhibit infinitely complex collective behaviors. If these complex behaviors are the behaviors of fundamentally experiential reality then why can't we say that these behaviors are examples of intelligence occurring where previously there was no intelligence (there was just pre-intelligent experiential chaos).
Does every instance of a pattern occurring in any sort of material necessarily imply an intelligent designer who designed the pattern?
No, we soundly rejected his bone-headed reasoning, which appears to be a lot of "new world" order mumbo-jumbo.
First, he's trapped in the lunacy that morality can only stem from religious doctrines or teachings. I've already proven morality does not need to based on religious doctrines or teachings and that morality would exist whether religion exists or not.
So aside from Mircea, who completely misunderstood Sam Harris's position, and MysticPhD, who is utterly lost in a metaphysical muddle, does everyone else here agree with Harris's claim that we can, in principle, (and perhaps soon in practice) scientifiically investigate the nature of objective moral precepts?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
