Re: Humanism in 2006


"Joseph H" <joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1138219701.279648.37600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Scott wrote:
>> "Joseph H" <joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1138138476.264690.251740@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > Scott wrote:
>> >> "Joseph H" <joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> news:1137969346.650375.166760@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >
>> >> > Scott wrote:
>> >> >> "Joseph H" <joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:1137805923.240764.155750@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Scott wrote:
>> >> >> >> "Joseph H" <joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> >> >> news:1137701702.078409.326940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Roger Johansson wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> Mani Deli wrote:
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > > I
>> >> >> >> >> > >believe the scientific-method all too often channels us
>> >> >> >> >> > >down
>> >> >> >> >> > >a
>> >> >> >> >> > >particular form of only-verifiable knowledge to the
>> >> >> >> >> > >exclusion
>> >> >> >> >> > >of
>> >> >> >> >> > >a
>> >> >> >> >> > >wider understanding, and appreciation, of the complex
>> >> >> >> >> > >nature
>> >> >> >> >> > >of
>> >> >> >> >> > >existence.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> > Biology tells us more about the complex nature of
>> >> >> >> >> > existence
>> >> >> >> >> > than
>> >> >> >> >> > any
>> >> >> >> >> > mystical speculation or spiritual mumbo jumbo.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> We probably need som knowledge about history and the
>> >> >> >> >> psychology
>> >> >> >> >> of
>> >> >> >> >> religion to understand "the complex nature of existence".
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I wonder about that. I think religion, as you suggest below,
>> >> >> >> > more
>> >> >> >> > often
>> >> >> >> > than not muddies the nature of existence. My point, really,
>> >> >> >> > was
>> >> >> >> > that
>> >> >> >> > we
>> >> >> >> > need to know about religion to understand the complex nature
>> >> >> >> > of
>> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > human being. Why this need for belief? Why the wish for value?
>> >> >> >> > Why
>> >> >> >> > the
>> >> >> >> > attraction for mysticism? Will rational solutions always play
>> >> >> >> > second
>> >> >> >> > fiddle to the lure of magic and the transcendant? I hope not.
>> >> >> >> > My
>> >> >> >> > hope
>> >> >> >> > for the future is dependent on our eventually firming up on an
>> >> >> >> > acceptance and valuation of our unique place in nature and our
>> >> >> >> > potential as the eyes and ears and the voice of the universe.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "unique place in nature... as the eyes and ears and the voice of
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> universe"? You see? Anthropomorphism. There is no unique place
>> >> >> >> in
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> universe. The universe is relative.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Relative, relative...that still doesn't mean that we can't have a
>> >> >> > unique place. What possible relevance is "relative" to that? .
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If existence is meaningless as atheists scientists believe then
>> >> >> your
>> >> >> "unique
>> >> >> place" is fantasy and only exists in your mind.
>> >> >
>> >> > I am an atheist, but I do not believe existence is meaningless -
>> >> > which
>> >> > is not to say that I believe that there is an inherent meaning in
>> >> > life.
>> >> > Confused? Let me explain: I feel that the search for meaning is
>> >> > linked
>> >> > with a pre-modern mindset, one that cannot conceive of existence
>> >> > without either a creator or some preset "scientific" dialectic or
>> >> > progress. I think even many atheists find it difficult to free
>> >> > themselves of these preconceptions. There's always a hankering after
>> >> > inbuilt purpose. I don't believe in any such purpose. For me the
>> >> > inquiry is pointless. But to say that something has no inherent
>> >> > meaning
>> >> > or purpose is not to say that it is "meaningless" That particular
>> >> > word
>> >> > has a pajoritive connotation. It adds something to the neutrality of
>> >> > the earlier observation. To say something is without inherent
>> >> > purpose
>> >> > is not to say that it is without value. Life for most of us is full
>> >> > of
>> >> > value. We cling to it for....dear life! Also, in a wider sense, we
>> >> > are
>> >> > part of a process. An event occurred some billions of years ago -
>> >> > and
>> >> > our existence is a consequence of that event. In my view it is a
>> >> > far-reaching consequence. After some twelve billion years of
>> >> > ceaseless
>> >> > permutation matter - within our brains - has finally been configured
>> >> > in
>> >> > a way that allows knowledge of and reflection on the entiure
>> >> > process. I
>> >> > say, therefore, that we are the mind of matter. It is not, of
>> >> > course,
>> >> > literally true. Matter is not an entity with a mind. But it is true
>> >> > to
>> >> > say that we possess the only known configuration of matter with the
>> >> > properties we associate with "mind". Because of this I also say that
>> >> > we
>> >> > are unique. I still can't say how this can be seen as mystical. It
>> >> > might well be wrong. There may be other beings with minds out there.
>> >> > So
>> >> > what? We are definitely unique on this planet; we are unique in the
>> >> > solar system; and we seem to be unique in this corner of the
>> >> > universe.
>> >> > How far do we have to go before we cease to be unique? Where does
>> >> > mysticism enter into this simple observation?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
>> >>
>> >> http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2004/feature2.htm
>> >> "It is almost irresistible for humans to believe that we have some
>> >> special
>> >> relation to the universe, that human life is not just a more-or-less
>> >> farcical outcome of a chain of accidents reaching back to the first
>> >> three
>> >> minutes, but that we were somehow built in from the beginning.. It is
>> >> hard
>> >> to realize that this all [i.e., life on Earth] is just a tiny part of
>> >> an
>> >> overwhelmingly hostile universe. It is even harder to realize that
>> >> this
>> >> present universe has evolved from an unspeakably unfamiliar early
>> >> condition,
>> >> and faces a future extinction of endless cold or intolerable heat. The
>> >> more
>> >> the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems
>> >> pointless." -
>> >> Steven Weinberg.
>> >
>> > Sorry, sorry.......just to make a few things a little clearer.
>> >
>> > I don't believe that we have any special relation to the universe. The
>> > universe certainly doesn't "know" of our existence and we most
>> > definitely owe our existence to an immeasurable chain of accident and
>> > circumstance. But then, so do gold and oil and rubber...and all of
>> > these have been discovered to possess particular properties which do
>> > immense service to us as a species. My claim is that we also possess
>> > particular properties, capabilities, in our case - not because nature
>> > ordained it so but because of a particular series of events or crises
>> > in the past that favoured these capabilities. Regardless of how the
>> > universe began and how it is going to end we still at this moment in
>> > time possess these capabilities. I say, of course, that we are the mind
>> > of matter. It is a ludicrous claim, is it not? No, not really. Matter,
>> > as we know it, has, I'm sure, taken countless forms since the beginning
>> > of our universe. It just so happens that the matter lodged in our
>> > brains displays the properties and capabilities we associate with mind.
>>
>> What is *mind*? Is their *really* such a thing? And if so, is there such
>> a
>> thing as free will?
> Oh, Scott, don't do such a thing to me! I never said mind existed. I
> spoke of the capabilities etc associated with...the thing we
> call...mind. And free will...another dungeon from which no person will
> EVER emerge. Look at the world around you, Scott. Love that world!
> Don't dungeonise!

What's the pont in ethics if you have no fee choice?

http://www.naturalism.org/freewill3.htm
Most people, of course, are content to thus stipulate, and so don't yet see
science as any threat to the traditional notion of personal responsibility.
But to the extent that such individuals start to feel the reach of
scientific explanation, and start to grasp our growing ability to predict
and control both physiology and behavior, they might begin to question the
sovereignty of the soul. At that point they may begin to join the ranks of
those who, in seeing the explanatory power of materialism, recognize its
implications for our moral status. After all, if the human self - the brain,
plus whatever parts of the body one might consider essential to the self -
is through and through a function of environment and heredity, on what basis
does anyone deserve anything?

To make this clearer, consider that from a materialist standpoint there is
no sense in which you could have done other than what you did in a
particular situation, given your motives and personality. The brain and body
are a dynamic system interacting with the environment. If all conditions,
internal and external, were reset to be the same, the same behavior would
result, barring various sorts of indeterminacy. Not that such a resetting is
ever a possibility, of course, but the point still holds: what determines
behavior is the interaction of a unique set of internal and external
circumstances, not an internal, freely willing agent separate from such
circumstances. This holds from the moment of birth until death, so that the
behavioral trajectory of a person, including the formation of character, is
best conceived of as a highly complex, multi-factor function unfolding on
its own. There is no need or room for a controlling, non-physical entity
which could take credit or blame for the outcome.

Many, even among the materialist persuasion, find such a picture distinctly
unpalatable. Some will attack the hard determinism of such a view, pointing
out that there may well be gaps in the causal chains which lead from
genetics and environment to character and behavior. They cite various sorts
of indeterminacy, at the quantum level perhaps, or that derived from the
stochastic complexity of the brain, all of which might prevent simple
determinism from holding sway. The responsible agent, they suggest, finds
room where strict causality breaks down.

The difficulty here, however, is that there is no reason to give someone
credit or blame for actions resulting from a random process, even if that
process is inside the body. Because it was random, the person can't claim
that they deliberately originated the act, and responsibility, after all,
has to do with being such an originator. The upshot, then, is that both
determinism and indeterminism fail to support the traditional notion of
moral responsibility, the notion that we exist as agents who choose behavior
from the standpoint of a stable character and motives, but agents whose
character and motives are in some important respect self-created,
independent of our causal histories.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Humanism in 2006
    ... >> Scott wrote: ... > science as any threat to the traditional notion of personal responsibility. ... > genetics and environment to character and behavior. ... The responsible agent, they suggest, finds ...
    (talk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Humanism in 2006
    ... >>> Oh, Scott, don't do such a thing to me! ... >> genetics and environment to character and behavior. ... The responsible agent, they suggest, finds ... >> that they deliberately originated the act, and responsibility, after all, ...
    (talk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Will the revamped Starjammers appear in Conquest?
    ... the very reason you don't care is the very reason I'm ... family and the original core X-Men (Scott, Hank, Bobby and Warren) ... it's to directly defend the school. ... to supporting character status in all books, ...
    (rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe)
  • Re: Emma Frost and Scott Summers...
    ... about Emma Frost and Scott Summers. ... characterization of Jean Grey in X-Men First Class and the prior ... very big deletion, Emma seems a more appealing, relatable character. ...
    (rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe)
  • Re: AMC multiple actor sighting
    ... Becca was a friend of Dixie and her family from Pigeon Hollow. ... sadly even remember when they introduced her character. ... Scott was of course ... I just remember her being so virginally sweet and morally she ...
    (rec.arts.tv.soaps.abc)