Conquer Club

kuthoer wrote:Stalin, stick to the only subject which is " Can science define morality". Morality is taught or forced upon us by the community we live in. What's acceptable in Colorado "possession of a certain quantity of marijuana" would land you in jail in Texas.

Are scientists part of the community? Does some of the knowledge disseminated from community members stem from the scientific approach?

If so, then we can see how science indirectly defines morality.

Cntd: granted, I don't believe in the idea of 'good' and 'bad' either, so we can't really call those bad consequences. They're just consequences. However, I resent being bothered by loonies and their Disney ideas about how the world 'should' be as I go about my life, minding my own business. Moralisers are a pain in the ass.

Gillipig wrote:It can possibly determine what most people consider to be moral, that is we can use it to measure the frequency of held moral values in the human population, but it can't determine what is objectively moral, and that is largely because there is no absolut morality. Morality is subjective and even though one might think of reasons to why it's good that we follow a strict moral codex, it doesn't mean that it's anything other than make believe. A make believe with good consequences is still make believe.

kuthoer wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

kuthoer wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:stealing money from future generations with no plan on paying them back and purposefully leaving them holding the bag is immoral.

How much they are stealing can be measured

Sorry Phats, but you have to be more specific. Yes money can be measured, but Republicans stealing the nation's wealth for the benefit of the wealthy is approved by The Lord Jesus Christ.

I wasn't talking about Republicans though, not sure you understood what I said well enough to have a clear opinion about what I said.

My point stands so far: Non-voluntary redistributioning of wealth from the future generation that is not even born yet is immoral, and the level of that specific immorality can be measured.

btw sorry for calling your attempts to label and define me as 'Stewarts', i should have been calling them 'Mahers'

Wait a second....aren't the Republicans redistributing the wealth from the working class to the top 1% the last 30 years or so?

Apart from rhetoric has the Democrats not been doing the same thing?

Na, the Democrats have been quite spineless when trying to get their message thru. Besides Democrats (Corporate types) have been already bought and sold. They need another Ted Kennedy to point out (loud and clear) that the average American worker has already lost the economic /class war to the fabulous rich class.

The Republican are more united to portray everyone outside the top 1% as being takers and that the rich are all knowing.

This is immoral and the Democrats need to start playing hardball and show how the working class have been losing ground economically compared to the uber-rich who have enrich themselves at the expense of all others.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

kuthoer wrote:Stalin, stick to the only subject which is " Can science define morality". Morality is taught or forced upon us by the community we live in. What's acceptable in Colorado "possession of a certain quantity of marijuana" would land you in jail in Texas.

Are scientists part of the community? Does some of the knowledge disseminated from community members stem from the scientific approach?

If so, then we can see how science indirectly defines morality.

Yes Stain, scientists are part of the community, but measuring or defining morals by scientific means can't be done.

Those who have autism or some type of mental illness who have problems with recognizing right from wrong may be help with therapy or chemical additives, could be helped by "scientific advancements"

As some of the other posters have said, morality is a figment of imagination. Strictly a human nature that can't be defined by science.

kuthoer wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

kuthoer wrote:Stalin, stick to the only subject which is " Can science define morality". Morality is taught or forced upon us by the community we live in. What's acceptable in Colorado "possession of a certain quantity of marijuana" would land you in jail in Texas.

Are scientists part of the community? Does some of the knowledge disseminated from community members stem from the scientific approach?

If so, then we can see how science indirectly defines morality.

Yes Stain, scientists are part of the community, but measuring or defining morals by scientific means can't be done.

Those who have autism or some type of mental illness who have problems with recognizing right from wrong may be help with therapy or chemical additives, could be helped by "scientific advancements"

As some of the other posters have said, morality is a figment of imagination. Strictly a human nature that can't be defined by science.

Definition != measuring.

Defining includes determining what is and what isn't X. Science plays an influential role due to its products of research (knowledge) from which humans apply to moral decisions and from which stems their defining morality.

kuthoer wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

kuthoer wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:stealing money from future generations with no plan on paying them back and purposefully leaving them holding the bag is immoral.

How much they are stealing can be measured

Sorry Phats, but you have to be more specific. Yes money can be measured, but Republicans stealing the nation's wealth for the benefit of the wealthy is approved by The Lord Jesus Christ.

I wasn't talking about Republicans though, not sure you understood what I said well enough to have a clear opinion about what I said.

My point stands so far: Non-voluntary redistributioning of wealth from the future generation that is not even born yet is immoral, and the level of that specific immorality can be measured.

btw sorry for calling your attempts to label and define me as 'Stewarts', i should have been calling them 'Mahers'

Wait a second....aren't the Republicans redistributing the wealth from the working class to the top 1% the last 30 years or so?

If you can explain to me how that process works, I would consider conceding your point. How do, as you said, Republicans redistribute the wealth of the working class to the top 1%?

kuthoer wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

kuthoer wrote:Stalin, stick to the only subject which is " Can science define morality". Morality is taught or forced upon us by the community we live in. What's acceptable in Colorado "possession of a certain quantity of marijuana" would land you in jail in Texas.

Are scientists part of the community? Does some of the knowledge disseminated from community members stem from the scientific approach?

If so, then we can see how science indirectly defines morality.

Yes Stain, scientists are part of the community, but measuring or defining morals by scientific means can't be done.

Those who have autism or some type of mental illness who have problems with recognizing right from wrong may be help with therapy or chemical additives, could be helped by "scientific advancements"

As some of the other posters have said, morality is a figment of imagination. Strictly a human nature that can't be defined by science.

So science can't define abstracts? I'm trying to work out exactly what it is about morality that you think science has no access to.

Cognitively speaking, we interchange abstracts and literal concepts all the time. Time is a literal thing, but our understanding of temporal physics is purely conceptual. Science can't define exactly WHY time works how it does, but we can define the length of a second or a minute or an hour. We also tend to think of time as a spatial line - a second is "shorter" than a minute. Yet temporal measurement and definition is well established within science, and you wouldn't claim that science can tell us nothing about the objective reality of time. Gravity is a literal thing, but we don't understand WHY gravity works, we just define the situations that cause it and how to predict the measurable effects, etc.

Our morality is shaped by us observing the world around us and forming mental conceptions just like time and gravity. Moral problems and dilemmas can be entirely expressed in terms that are, at least in theory, accessible to science. So while we may not be able to define the essence of morality, like we cannot yet define the essence of time or the essence of gravity, I don't see any reason why we should say that it's impossible for science to be able to access morality and define it for all practical purposes. Can you give me an example of a moral problem that exists purely in the abstract, conceptual space of our minds without any reference to or influence on actual, measurable reality?

If your only interest is a definition, not comprehension, then you might as well use theology.

crispybits wrote:Time is a literal thing

Wrong adjective and no it's not. Time is an abstract.

-TG

Nah its a clock:)

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

crispybits wrote:Time is a literal thing

Wrong adjective and no it's not. Time is an abstract.

-TG

How we think about time is abstract, but there is an objective reality of time - or are you saying we actually experience everything in our whole lives all at once and our brain turns that into something that seems to take 60-90 years (for most of us)?

mrswdk wrote:If your only interest is a definition, not comprehension, then you might as well use theology.

My interest is in understanding a thing based on the reality of the thing, not based on opinions about the thing. Any physicist is free to form and express an opinion on the essence of time or gravity, but they aren't declared "right" until they have proved that their conception matches the objective reality.

I'm saying there's only the interactions of matter. The billiard ball bounces off one ball and takes 2 seconds to reach another only because of the distance of separation. The ball travels faster or slower (speed being a corollary of time) depending on the force delivered to it, however we perceive the effects of force and displacement as something which can be measured by seconds.

If two billiard balls are launched for the same destination, one with half the velocity of the other, the faster one reaches the destination sooner- this is obvious to our perception. But they both reach the same destination while traveling different paths in space time.

Remember, space IS time. We only label it space-time because "time" is fundamental to our perception.

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:I'm saying there's only the interactions of matter. The billiard ball bounces off one ball and takes 2 seconds to reach another only because of the distance of separation. The ball travels faster or slower (speed being a corollary of time) depending on the force delivered to it, however we perceive the effects of force and displacement as something which can be measured by seconds.

If two billiard balls are launched for the same destination, one with half the velocity of the other, the faster one reaches the destination sooner- this is obvious to our perception. But they both reach the same destination while traveling different paths in space time.

Remember, space IS time. We only label it space-time because "time" is fundamental to our perception.

-TG

So... time is relative and is related to speed and space/distance, but... how does that make time only abstract and not at all "literal"?

crispybits wrote:

mrswdk wrote:If your only interest is a definition, not comprehension, then you might as well use theology.

My interest is in understanding a thing based on the reality of the thing, not based on opinions about the thing. Any physicist is free to form and express an opinion on the essence of time or gravity, but they aren't declared "right" until they have proved that their conception matches the objective reality.

And as there is no objective morality for you or others to match your theories to, whatever you say about morality can only be opinion and nothing more.

mrswdk wrote:

crispybits wrote:

mrswdk wrote:If your only interest is a definition, not comprehension, then you might as well use theology.

My interest is in understanding a thing based on the reality of the thing, not based on opinions about the thing. Any physicist is free to form and express an opinion on the essence of time or gravity, but they aren't declared "right" until they have proved that their conception matches the objective reality.

And as there is no objective morality for you or others to match your theories to, whatever you say about morality can only be opinion and nothing more.

Exactly, as this thread is living proof that some of these "science proves everything" posters are just a figment of their imagination.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:I'm saying there's only the interactions of matter. The billiard ball bounces off one ball and takes 2 seconds to reach another only because of the distance of separation. The ball travels faster or slower (speed being a corollary of time) depending on the force delivered to it, however we perceive the effects of force and displacement as something which can be measured by seconds.

If two billiard balls are launched for the same destination, one with half the velocity of the other, the faster one reaches the destination sooner- this is obvious to our perception. But they both reach the same destination while traveling different paths in space time.

Remember, space IS time. We only label it space-time because "time" is fundamental to our perception.

-TG

So... time is relative and is related to speed and space/distance, but... how does that make time only abstract and not at all "literal"?

We perceive the difference between two paths as time. But objectively, outside of a human mind, time is not real. It's difficult to even describe without using units of time.

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:I'm saying there's only the interactions of matter. The billiard ball bounces off one ball and takes 2 seconds to reach another only because of the distance of separation. The ball travels faster or slower (speed being a corollary of time) depending on the force delivered to it, however we perceive the effects of force and displacement as something which can be measured by seconds.

If two billiard balls are launched for the same destination, one with half the velocity of the other, the faster one reaches the destination sooner- this is obvious to our perception. But they both reach the same destination while traveling different paths in space time.

Remember, space IS time. We only label it space-time because "time" is fundamental to our perception.

-TG

So... time is relative and is related to speed and space/distance, but... how does that make time only abstract and not at all "literal"?

We perceive the difference between two paths as time. But objectively, outside of a human mind, time is not real. It's difficult to even describe without using units of time.

-TG

With that standard, can you claim that anything is real? If not, then I don't see how that's a useful standard.

What other concepts (like distance, velocity, etc.) are easy to describe without units of measurement (or even vague units)? e.g. that house is bigger than that one, this question took less time to think about than writing a 30 page paper, etc. In other words, time can be described well enough, so what's so seemingly elusive or 'unreal' about it?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:I'm saying there's only the interactions of matter. The billiard ball bounces off one ball and takes 2 seconds to reach another only because of the distance of separation. The ball travels faster or slower (speed being a corollary of time) depending on the force delivered to it, however we perceive the effects of force and displacement as something which can be measured by seconds.

If two billiard balls are launched for the same destination, one with half the velocity of the other, the faster one reaches the destination sooner- this is obvious to our perception. But they both reach the same destination while traveling different paths in space time.

Remember, space IS time. We only label it space-time because "time" is fundamental to our perception.

-TG

So... time is relative and is related to speed and space/distance, but... how does that make time only abstract and not at all "literal"?

We perceive the difference between two paths as time. But objectively, outside of a human mind, time is not real. It's difficult to even describe without using units of time.

-TG

With that standard, can you claim that anything is real? If not, then I don't see how that's a useful standard.

What other concepts (like distance, velocity, etc.) are easy to describe without units of measurement (or even vague units)? e.g. that house is bigger than that one, this question took less time to think about than writing a 30 page paper, etc. In other words, time can be described well enough, so what's so seemingly elusive or 'unreal' about it?

I was merely responding to crispybits' assertion that science can define the objective reality of time- it can't. We can define a system which is central to human thinking and a means to understanding the environment, but it isn't an object composed of atoms. Time is a powerful abstract. [edit: hmm, much like crispybits' morality, I suppose?]

As for other units, the difference is matter. It's tangible. Or, at least, a function of matter (gravity, energy, charge, etc.).

-TG

I haven't bothered reading the thread, but I'm assuming BBS is saying morality is objective? Right?

He's saying your face is objective.

-TG

Your mother's face is objective.






































Objectively covered in my semen! Am I right fellas?!

Maybe I didn't say it clearly enough TG.

I did not mean that science can define the objective reality of time (in fact I clearly said they haven't done so yet - though I don't believe there's any impossible barrier to doing so in the future). I meant that we can use abstracts like time in perfectly scientific ways in order to access truths about the universe around us. The point was that just because something is an abstract does not preclude it from being scientifically studied, defined, quantified, measured, tested, etc etc. For another example causality is an abstract, there is not a single causality particle anywhere in the universe. yet causailty is a fairly fundamental scientific principle (above the quantum scale).

When I say "can science define morality?" I'm not saying "can science point to a particle or waveform or other thing that we can name morality?". That would be a fairly stupid question. I'm more asking it like I would ask the question "can economics define a recession?" or "can neuropsychology define a schizophrenic episode?". I'm looking to science not as a dictionary, but as an operator manual.

Morality comes from the latin word mores which means customs. Over time customs change so as custom changes so does morality. Sometimes laws reflect that morality sometimes it doesn't. Science is based on observation. Through observation you can measure, define, theorize, etc. Science is outside of the realm of morality in only that it observes. In a sense, science does define morality and it goes under the name of philosophy and to some extent psychology as all this comes from the mind.

If you want some manual to morality then I suggest you study Buddhism and how it deals with the mind. You can also look at Modular Theory of Mind and the evolution of our mind. Some call it Evolutionary Psychology.