So morality can’t applied to all contexts, and so in that sense it can’t be absolute.
I’m not sure how to answer this. What do you mean by “absolute”.
In the same sense you used to deny the existence of absolute morality.
Does this make physical reality absolute to you?
Using that defintion, morality isn’t as absolute as physical reality. Morality then only applies to self-reflective level-3 intelligence (cf that comment of mine).
But why do you believe that everything happens within the context of physical reality?
Mental phenomena and physical phenomena are in two different domains. Human beings exist in both due to “God” (who, for our purpose, does nothing else, so there is no way to test God empirically). In this view, God is the absolute context, while the physical reality isn’t.
So is there any convincing reason why I should think that the physical reality instead of God is absolute, other than the fact that many clever people think that way.
I don’t want to believe in an absolute system based on the majority opinion.
Is there anything absolute according to your defintion?
I’m not sure how to answer this. What do you mean by “absolute”.
In the same sense you used to deny the existence of absolute morality.
In the sense of “deny” as in “refuse to accept the truth of it”, I did
not deny the existence of absolute morality, I disproved it under a
certain meaning of absolute. You have yet to show flaws in my
reasoning or to counter with an alternate meaning of absolute where
absolute morality is valid.
Your original question “Is there anything absolute according to your
defintion?”. I need to rephrase this in terms of my definition of
absolute; “Is there anything that has meaning in all contexts?”. This
is to avoid the confounding alternate senses of the word absolute.
The answer is no. This is because I can always find or generate a
specific context that does not provide meaning to anything proposed to
have meaning in all contexts. For most cases I could simply use
electrons as the context. For example, electrons don’t have property
X, or are not influenced by X. X is meaningless to electrons. For the
few cases where this fails I could use algebra. Algebra doesn’t
contain a meaning for X.
… Morality then only applies to self-reflective level-3
intelligence (cf that comment of mine).
This allows us to get rid of the word absolute and to rephrase the
problem as “Can the same morality be applied to all possible cases of
level-3 intelligences.”.
For the common meaning of morality I think that this simply can’t be
done. As I’ve been saying, its all about context.
But why do you believe that everything happens within the context of
physical reality?
Ideally I don’t hold beliefs about anything that happens outside of
physical reality. If you notice beliefs of that nature point them
out and I’ll reconsider them. You should feel free to always assume
that I don’t believe that my claims apply outside the physical
universe.
So is there any convincing reason why I should think that the
physical reality instead of God is absolute...
I can’t answer this question directly for several reasons. I don’t
know what would convince you. In your current context you may simply
be unconvincible. Also, I’ve actually argued that nothing is
absolute for a specific meaning of absolute, so I’m not inclined to
now argue that physical reality is absolute.
However, I will try to say something about the belief in God so that I
may learn something from your response.
The God hypothesis is indistinguishable from other stories that people
have made up and could make up. This leads to the conclusion that God
exists in the same way that Sherlock Holmes exists.
For example you might say “God created the universe. The existence of
the universe is proof of God.” I will respond, “Frud is a tuna
sandwich I once made that had a special property, it created the
universe, past and future. The existence of the universe is proof of
Frud.”
Every claim you make about God, I can make about a not-God. I can
also state my counter claim in a way that makes it about an
innumerable number of not-Gods. Every additional claim that you make
about God leaves you with a single God, but allows me to multiply the
innumerable not-Gods that collectively satisfy the same conditions.
Every piece of evidence that supports God also supports not-God, but
supports vastly more not-Gods than God. For any level of precision the
likelihood of God being true rounds to 0, and the likelihood of not-God
rounds to 1. This a general problem with non-scientific hypotheses.
So if you wish to believe in God, you will need to do so in the
absence of evidence. In your context you might even find practical
benefits from such a belief.
A rough answer your original question; you should believe in
physical reality over God, because God appears to exist as a story,
and physical reality appears to actually exist.
Using that defintion, morality isn’t as absolute as physical reality.
Again, as I said, under your definition of absolute, which is that reality is absolute, I agree with your disapproval of my belief in absolute morality since morality is of a different quality than reality.
Our physical reality appears to be the common context that everything shares within our universe.
Your definition of absolute is plausible, but I do not share it. I think that mental phenomena exist independently from the physical world.
What makes me believe it? If I believe that mental phenomena vanish without the natural world, I could equally believe that the natural phenomena vanish without my mind (or “mental world”). To believe that one provides the context for the other is, I believe, an arbitrary choice. Therefore, I believe in their independent existence.
Concerning God. For many people, the God hypothesis is more than just to believe that the universe is created by some distant creator who does nothing else. God also intervenes into the world. So it is possible to test God’s existence empirically. And for many Christians, this is apparently happening. Spend enough time with them, and they will tell you fantastic stories.
Again, as I said, under your definition of absolute, which is that
reality is absolute, I agree with your disapproval of my belief in
absolute morality since morality is of a different quality than
reality.
We are not connecting entirely on these points. I have in fact claimed
explicitly that nothing is “absolute”. I also said in my previous
post:
Also, I’ve actually argued that nothing is absolute for a specific
meaning of absolute, so I’m not inclined to now argue that physical
reality is absolute.
So I’m surprised that this point did not come across.
To clarify, I am saying that physical reality appears to be the common
context that everything shares within our universe. This context
however only has meaning at a specific level of abstraction, the
physical level. There are other levels of abstraction (contexts) for
which reality has no meaning, just as there are contexts for which
morality has no meaning.
Our physical reality appears to be the common context that
everything shares within our universe.
Your definition of absolute is plausible, but I do not share it. I
think that mental phenomena exist independently from the physical
world.
This is not the definition of absolute that I have been working with.
I will restate it. Something that is “absolute” has meaning in all
contexts. I don’t think physical reality qualifies. If you reread my
previous comments with that in mind we might come closer to a common
understanding of this conversation.
What makes me believe it? If I believe that mental phenomena vanish
without the natural world, I could equally believe that the natural
phenomena vanish without my mind (or “mental world”). To believe
that one provides the context for the other is, I believe, an
arbitrary choice. Therefore, I believe in their independent
existence.
This is interesting, lets split this out to a new thread, I’ll post
a specific reply later.
For many people, the God hypothesis is more than just to believe
that the universe is created by some distant creator who does
nothing else. God also intervenes into the world.
My argument holds for that case as well.
So it is possible to test God’s existence empirically.
For this to be done, the God hypothesis will need to be updated to
make specific predictions and to exclude alternate explanations. As
it stands the current hypothesis can’t be tested scientifically.
And for many Christians, this is apparently happening. Spend enough
time with them, and they will tell you fantastic stories.
I have spent that time and I am familiar with the stories. However,
attribution of specific outcomes to God in retrospect falls prey to
the argument that I made. For example I can attribute the same
outcomes to Frud.
Given that I experience God or anything supernatural empirically and I can reasonably exclude that I am suffering from hallucinations, then it is more probable for me to believe that the phenomena was supernatural rather than an improbable quantum mechanical phenonemon. Maybe what I call God is actually Frud. Maybe God “is a tuna sandwich I once made that had a special property, it created the universe, past and future.” I don’t expect to realise all of God’s properties from a single experience.
Predictive power is not always required. Historians have quite a problem predicting things based on what they read on Caesar. You can’t thus say that there are no historical facts (fact as factual as in “objective” news reporting).
You point out a context that does not require predictive power, but you have not shown that this context is equivalent to testing for God’s existence empirically. Without a common context, your example is irrelevant to the issue.
I don’t get you. What is your understanding of “testing for God’s existence empirically?”
Well draq, I’m removing myself from all threads of our conversation
both current and proposed. I don’t see enough benefit for me to go on.
I can’t be sure that you read my comments with enough care for you to
understand and appropriately respond. You missed points that I made
repeatedly and explicitly.
I’ve pulled apart several of your ideas and demonstrated their
problems. You didn’t responded directly to my claims, you didn’t
show flaws in my reasoning. Generally in debate this means you
conceded the point.
You seldom answered my direct questions. This made it very difficult
for me to understand your point of view.
Instead your responses were indirect and included new claims or
questions. These responses lead away from the topic at hand. You
appeared to avoid any conversation that would actually shed light on
your beliefs and allow them to be sorted into true/useful or
false/harmful.
From our conversation and your other comments I have concluded that
you generally aren’t distinguishing between stories and reality, and
are resistant to doing so. This gives me low confidence in your
ability to come to sound conclusions.
In the same sense you used to deny the existence of absolute morality.
Using that defintion, morality isn’t as absolute as physical reality. Morality then only applies to self-reflective level-3 intelligence (cf that comment of mine).
But why do you believe that everything happens within the context of physical reality?
Let me present you the Cartesian view (cf Mind-body dichotomy):
Mental phenomena and physical phenomena are in two different domains. Human beings exist in both due to “God” (who, for our purpose, does nothing else, so there is no way to test God empirically). In this view, God is the absolute context, while the physical reality isn’t.
So is there any convincing reason why I should think that the physical reality instead of God is absolute, other than the fact that many clever people think that way. I don’t want to believe in an absolute system based on the majority opinion.
In the sense of “deny” as in “refuse to accept the truth of it”, I did not deny the existence of absolute morality, I disproved it under a certain meaning of absolute. You have yet to show flaws in my reasoning or to counter with an alternate meaning of absolute where absolute morality is valid.
Your original question “Is there anything absolute according to your defintion?”. I need to rephrase this in terms of my definition of absolute; “Is there anything that has meaning in all contexts?”. This is to avoid the confounding alternate senses of the word absolute.
The answer is no. This is because I can always find or generate a specific context that does not provide meaning to anything proposed to have meaning in all contexts. For most cases I could simply use electrons as the context. For example, electrons don’t have property X, or are not influenced by X. X is meaningless to electrons. For the few cases where this fails I could use algebra. Algebra doesn’t contain a meaning for X.
This allows us to get rid of the word absolute and to rephrase the problem as “Can the same morality be applied to all possible cases of level-3 intelligences.”.
For the common meaning of morality I think that this simply can’t be done. As I’ve been saying, its all about context.
Eliezer Yudkowsky’s Baby Eating Aliens highlights clashing moralities.
Ideally I don’t hold beliefs about anything that happens outside of physical reality. If you notice beliefs of that nature point them out and I’ll reconsider them. You should feel free to always assume that I don’t believe that my claims apply outside the physical universe.
I can’t answer this question directly for several reasons. I don’t know what would convince you. In your current context you may simply be unconvincible. Also, I’ve actually argued that nothing is absolute for a specific meaning of absolute, so I’m not inclined to now argue that physical reality is absolute.
However, I will try to say something about the belief in God so that I may learn something from your response.
The God hypothesis is indistinguishable from other stories that people have made up and could make up. This leads to the conclusion that God exists in the same way that Sherlock Holmes exists.
For example you might say “God created the universe. The existence of the universe is proof of God.” I will respond, “Frud is a tuna sandwich I once made that had a special property, it created the universe, past and future. The existence of the universe is proof of Frud.”
Every claim you make about God, I can make about a not-God. I can also state my counter claim in a way that makes it about an innumerable number of not-Gods. Every additional claim that you make about God leaves you with a single God, but allows me to multiply the innumerable not-Gods that collectively satisfy the same conditions.
Every piece of evidence that supports God also supports not-God, but supports vastly more not-Gods than God. For any level of precision the likelihood of God being true rounds to 0, and the likelihood of not-God rounds to 1. This a general problem with non-scientific hypotheses.
So if you wish to believe in God, you will need to do so in the absence of evidence. In your context you might even find practical benefits from such a belief.
A rough answer your original question; you should believe in physical reality over God, because God appears to exist as a story, and physical reality appears to actually exist.
Again, as I said, under your definition of absolute, which is that reality is absolute, I agree with your disapproval of my belief in absolute morality since morality is of a different quality than reality.
Your definition of absolute is plausible, but I do not share it. I think that mental phenomena exist independently from the physical world.
What makes me believe it? If I believe that mental phenomena vanish without the natural world, I could equally believe that the natural phenomena vanish without my mind (or “mental world”). To believe that one provides the context for the other is, I believe, an arbitrary choice. Therefore, I believe in their independent existence.
Concerning God. For many people, the God hypothesis is more than just to believe that the universe is created by some distant creator who does nothing else. God also intervenes into the world. So it is possible to test God’s existence empirically. And for many Christians, this is apparently happening. Spend enough time with them, and they will tell you fantastic stories.
Personally, I don’t believe in God.
We are not connecting entirely on these points. I have in fact claimed explicitly that nothing is “absolute”. I also said in my previous post:
So I’m surprised that this point did not come across.
To clarify, I am saying that physical reality appears to be the common context that everything shares within our universe. This context however only has meaning at a specific level of abstraction, the physical level. There are other levels of abstraction (contexts) for which reality has no meaning, just as there are contexts for which morality has no meaning.
This is not the definition of absolute that I have been working with. I will restate it. Something that is “absolute” has meaning in all contexts. I don’t think physical reality qualifies. If you reread my previous comments with that in mind we might come closer to a common understanding of this conversation.
This is interesting, lets split this out to a new thread, I’ll post a specific reply later.
My argument holds for that case as well.
For this to be done, the God hypothesis will need to be updated to make specific predictions and to exclude alternate explanations. As it stands the current hypothesis can’t be tested scientifically.
I have spent that time and I am familiar with the stories. However, attribution of specific outcomes to God in retrospect falls prey to the argument that I made. For example I can attribute the same outcomes to Frud.
What I meant to say is “morality is absolute as reality.” I hope that clears everything.
Given that I experience God or anything supernatural empirically and I can reasonably exclude that I am suffering from hallucinations, then it is more probable for me to believe that the phenomena was supernatural rather than an improbable quantum mechanical phenonemon. Maybe what I call God is actually Frud. Maybe God “is a tuna sandwich I once made that had a special property, it created the universe, past and future.” I don’t expect to realise all of God’s properties from a single experience.
I don’t get you. What is your understanding of “testing for God’s existence empirically?”
Well draq, I’m removing myself from all threads of our conversation both current and proposed. I don’t see enough benefit for me to go on.
I can’t be sure that you read my comments with enough care for you to understand and appropriately respond. You missed points that I made repeatedly and explicitly.
I’ve pulled apart several of your ideas and demonstrated their problems. You didn’t responded directly to my claims, you didn’t show flaws in my reasoning. Generally in debate this means you conceded the point.
You seldom answered my direct questions. This made it very difficult for me to understand your point of view.
Instead your responses were indirect and included new claims or questions. These responses lead away from the topic at hand. You appeared to avoid any conversation that would actually shed light on your beliefs and allow them to be sorted into true/useful or false/harmful.
From our conversation and your other comments I have concluded that you generally aren’t distinguishing between stories and reality, and are resistant to doing so. This gives me low confidence in your ability to come to sound conclusions.