Meaning in Science

[perrymiller821]

I suggest that philosophy is born out of man's search for meaning. Many scientist do well in this search. Yet, why do scientists, priests of the new age, have no grounding in ethics? Scientists are supposed to present dedication to knowledge. They are supposed to have a deep desire to learn the truth. They do, in fact, search diligently. That is the nature of scientists. But many of them apply a bit of fantasy, some aspects of the scientific method, and a lot of government money into ideas which have no premise. The belief that, Out of Chaos comes Order, holds no water. Those ideas offer only, jumped to, conclusions of ultimate meaninglessness. (Consensus in Science) is propaganda, because that consensus is taught as fact in schools. The consensus and conclusions of ultimate meaninglessness are nothing more than one of the dogmas of the Socialist religion. If they are believed, then a foothold into the mind is there and is very dangerous. Government schools teach children, Life doesn't matter, therefore subject your life to the state. The state will take such good care of you until you die a loathsome and meaningless death. I try to be very careful and make certain that what I think I know, isn't something else entirely. This requires intense focus on everything all the time. I can't just say, well we know this or that so therefore. That is intellectual laziness. The truth is we know next to nothing. I have to become fighting mad to activate the necessary recruitment of neurons to begin to accomplish the task of deciphering what is propaganda and what is reason. 

[ofd]

Quote

Yet, why do scientists, priests of the new age, have no grounding in ethics?

That's where you are wrong. Evolutionary psychology and game theory explain ethics.

[RichardY]

1 hour ago, ofd said:

That's where you are wrong. Evolutionary psychology and game theory explain ethics.

Is that glorified utilitarianism though?

2 hours ago, perrymiller821 said:

The belief that, Out of Chaos comes Order, holds no water.

Yes, but neither does Mathematics. Another perspective than Good or Evil. How can one make sense without the other though? I have been playing around with the idea of Substance Monism as a metaphysic. Where consciousness is an inherent property of matter, which is neither physical nor mental.

For example I would say a living gut has varying levels of consciousness, but is not conscious. A good deal of serotonin production takes place in the gut, the heart has nerves of it own. The human being I belief is also distantly related to the lamprey(bloodsucking fish), a sweet flesh supposedly, but then I wouldn't know.
 

2 hours ago, perrymiller821 said:

I have to become fighting mad to activate the necessary recruitment of neurons to begin to accomplish the task of deciphering what is propaganda and what is reason. 

I view it as one big joke, like bringing a flamethrower to ants.

[ofd]

Quote

Is that glorified utilitarianism though?

No, it's teleological reasoning, asking for the purpose. Eg, a heart expands and retracts so that blood can be pushed through the arteries and veins, so that oxygen and nutrients get to the cells, so you can procreate and make another heart. The main difference between say physics and biology is that biology deals with entities that procreate themselves. For this procreation there are rules different from physics (like sexual attraction) and you can judge how good organisms are at replicating themselves.

[RichardY]

52 minutes ago, ofd said:

 bNo, it's teleological reasoning, asking for the purpose. Eg, a heart expands and retracts so that blood can be pushed through the arteries and veins, so that oxygen and nutrients get to the cells, so you can procreate and make another heart. The main difference between say physics and biology is that biology deals with entities that procreate themselves. For this procreation there are rules different from physics (like sexual attraction) and you can judge how good organisms are at replicating themselves.

So would it be based more on memes? A fixed point or grouping, perhaps even "trust"? (Geneset preference?). Occasionally other organisms can become apart of the whole, I think mitochondria is one example. Although as I think I've said before what does being aware of various unconscious biases do?

Where as Utilitarianism, is more mechanical? I think also it can lead to the "coherence theory of truth" and double think.
 
"Like a flash you could miss him going by
No one knows quite how he does it
but it's true they say
He's the master of going faster. "  - "Faster" George Harrison

[ofd]

Quote

So would it be based more on memes?

Life is a game and evolution is the arbiter. If you have succeeded in passing on your genes you have won. There are no rules, everything is possible. Morality comes into play, when you are an eusocial animal within a group. The kind of morality that gives a group an advantage over other groups of the same species is better.

 

Quote

Although as I think I've said before what does being aware of various unconscious biases do?

Not much. You can be aware that most heterosexual men prefer women who appear to be fertile over women who don't have those attributes. You can be aware of it, but that doesn't mean that you can get rid off your attraction. The more the biases are connected with survival and sexual attraction, the harder it is to be aware of them and to try to overcome them.

 

Quote

I think also it can lead to the "coherence theory of truth" and double think.

The accurate representation of the enviroment in the minds of animal only plays a role within the same species. A cat perceives the enviroment in a different way than a monkey. This difference is due to biological differences which have been selected for. Neither the cat's or the monkey's perception is better, it's an adaption to problems the species have to overcome to procreate. Within the same species, tiny differences within perception may play a huge role when it comes to survival or passing on the genes.
That is also the reason why most mammals have a tendency to interpret signals in a false positive way. It's better for survival to err 99 times, to assume that there is a snake in the bushes and to be wrong than to have an accurate interpretation of signals. You may be dying once you have realized that there is indeed a snake in the bushes, while somebody who always assumes the worst case might survive.

[RichardY]

2 hours ago, ofd said:

Life is a game and evolution is the arbiter. If you have succeeded in passing on your genes you have won. There are no rules, everything is possible. Morality comes into play, when you are an eusocial animal within a group. The kind of morality that gives a group an advantage over other groups of the same species is better.

That would mean universal morality; morality being presumed to be universal to have any meaning, would only be possible through war, covert or open. Absolute morality.

"We must meet this threat with our valour, our blood, indeed with our very lives to ensure that human civilization, not insect, dominates this galaxy "Now and ALWAYS!!!" - Starship Troopers.

2 hours ago, ofd said:

Not much. You can be aware that most heterosexual men prefer women who appear to be fertile over women who don't have those attributes. You can be aware of it, but that doesn't mean that you can get rid off your attraction. The more the biases are connected with survival and sexual attraction, the harder it is to be aware of them and to try to overcome them.

Yes, I remember you mentioning the rider on the Elephant analogy of Johnathan Heidt. It's the not much that interests me, as even if it's not much, it  is still something that can be affected.

 

2 hours ago, ofd said:

The accurate representation of the enviroment in the minds of animal only plays a role within the same species. A cat perceives the enviroment in a different way than a monkey. This difference is due to biological differences which have been selected for. Neither the cat's or the monkey's perception is better, it's an adaption to problems the species have to overcome to procreate. Within the same species, tiny differences within perception may play a huge role when it comes to survival or passing on the genes.
That is also the reason why most mammals have a tendency to interpret signals in a false positive way. It's better for survival to err 99 times, to assume that there is a snake in the bushes and to be wrong than to have an accurate interpretation of signals. You may be dying once you have realized that there is indeed a snake in the bushes, while somebody who always assumes the worst case might survive.

The snake is in the bushes. The snake is not in the bushes. What snake.
"This is a picture of the inner party members. This is not a picture of the inner party members. What picture." O'Brien 1984

[ofd]

Quote

That would mean universal morality

How does that follow? Imagine you live in the rain forrest as hunter gatherers, then your morality will be different from people living in the arctic.

 

Quote

it  is still something that can be affected.

It takes some training in mindfulness, but then again, you will most likely one of the few people with that ability.

 

Quote

The snake is in the bushes. The snake is not in the bushes. What snake.

We are prone to false negatives.

[Jsbrads]

Scientists and everyone else in the larger society is not encouraged to consider morality or ethics, because they are actively trained not to by Leftist schools starting as little kids.

From a young age children are taught to be passive and defer to authority. They are also encouraged to assume their feelings are the arbiters of good and evil, not their minds. In fact, what is so surprising is how often individuals learn about ethics, a hold over from a more religious time perhaps. 

[RichardY]

On 7/15/2018 at 1:42 PM, ofd said:

Life is a game and evolution is the arbiter. If you have succeeded in passing on your genes you have won. There are no rules, everything is possible. Morality comes into play, when you are an eusocial animal within a group. The kind of morality that gives a group an advantage over other groups of the same species is better.

On 7/15/2018 at 4:04 PM, RichardY said:

That would mean universal morality; morality being presumed to be universal to have any meaning, would only be possible through war, covert or open. Absolute morality.

16 hours ago, ofd said:

How does that follow? Imagine you live in the rain forrest as hunter gatherers, then your morality will be different from people living in the arctic.

I would say that the differences are an effect of tribal custom, customs which maybe be opposed, or unknown to unencountered tribes, and which may not be in opposition. Morality however, must have universality about it, to have any meaning. Otherwise it's definition is purely subjective and has no wider content. The universality aspect though can exist as a potentiality, if not actuality. If morality however is presumed to be an absolute, dependent on various tribes vying for dominance, then the only way it can exist as a universal, is if constant war allows for the subjugation of less moral peoples, i.e the people's with low to no in group preference or opposing group preference. 
 

[barn]

15 minutes ago, RichardY said:

I would say that the differences are an effect of tribal custom, customs which maybe be opposed, or unknown to unencountered tribes, and which may not be in opposition. Morality however, must have universality about it, to have any meaning. Otherwise it's definition is purely subjective and has no wider content. The universality aspect though can exist as a potentiality, if not actuality. If morality however is presumed to be an absolute, dependent on various tribes vying for dominance, then the only way it can exist as a universal, is if constant war allows for the subjugation of less moral peoples, i.e the people's with low to no in group preference or opposing group preference. 
 

I like this argumentation because it simplifies to 'winners' vs. 'loosers' (... if I'm following properly) whereas there IS a 'precipice' and it's clear who makes it vs. who doesn't. (graduations are debatable but the boundaries are clear)

Same as in: playing tennis does not allow for playing baseball, nor 'Ulama'. I mean you can but then you've clearly lost all reputation and as a consequence morality for that matter...

Ulama

[ofd]

Quote

I would say that the differences are an effect of tribal custom, customs which maybe be opposed, or unknown to unencountered tribes,

The differences are an effect of the enviroment and evolution which selects for procreation. There is a simple way to verify my thesis. If it is true, then tribes living in different parts of the world which haven't heard from each other but do share a similar enviroment have a similar morality. That is, all nomadic people living in the desert will have the same moral outlook, more or less.

 

Quote

 Morality however, must have universality about it, to have any meaning.

The meaning is making it through.

 

Quote

Otherwise it's definition is purely subjective and has no wider content.

In morality anything goes. You can make up any rules you want to. If you get people to follow them and if they pass the test of time is another question. We'd like to use the just world fallacy to assume that morality is universal while in fact that doesn't matter in the large scale of things.

[RichardY]

1 hour ago, barn said:

I like this argumentation because it simplifies to 'winners' vs. 'loosers' (... if I'm following properly) whereas there IS a 'precipice' and it's clear who makes it vs. who doesn't. (graduations are debatable but the boundaries are clear)

Same as in: playing tennis does not allow for playing baseball, nor 'Ulama'. I mean you can but then you've clearly lost all reputation and as a consequence morality for that matter...

Ulama

More like "Manifest Destiny". I liked the Ulama link, for some reason that Aztec ball game came to mind, something about sacrificing the other team if they lost. 
 

1 hour ago, ofd said:

The differences are an effect of the enviroment and evolution which selects for procreation. There is a simple way to verify my thesis. If it is true, then tribes living in different parts of the world which haven't heard from each other but do share a similar enviroment have a similar morality. That is, all nomadic people living in the desert will have the same moral outlook, more or less.

There could be say cultural tab00's or customs that require you to help a weary traveller, crossing the Sahara for example. Customs which would be developed based around various environmental factors. However, if one tribe had a more integrated moral system, they maybe able to impose their way of thinking on others, through brute force and ignorance. What I'm thinking of, is a tribe of nomads can be morally relative as they are not fixed to anyone particular place. Where as a tribe with moral absolutism will be able to enslave others to a larger collective. That is they are able to articulate their moral absolutism, where as the moral relativists have no explanation but tribal idols, culture or tradition; they are in a less conscientious position, then those that provide some form of reason, fallacious or not.

1 hour ago, ofd said:

The meaning is making it through.

Take no prisoners aye?

1 hour ago, ofd said:

In morality anything goes. You can make up any rules you want to. If you get people to follow them and if they pass the test of time is another question. We'd like to use the just world fallacy to assume that morality is universal while in fact that doesn't matter in the large scale of things.

That would be moral relativism, I think it applies when people have not yet established the concept of universalism and operates on an inductive unconscious process.  I don't like to use the just world fallacy. Although if I were moral(not sure on that, if morality is a negative), I think it should be taken to a universal conclusion, as that is the only way it can have a conscious meaning.

[ofd]

Quote

Where as a tribe with moral absolutism will be able to enslave others to a larger collective.

You just described the rise of Islam.

Quote

That would be moral relativism, I think it applies when people have not yet established the concept of universalism

The debate about the universality of morals suffers because two different points are not distinguished: 1) Is there an absolute universal morality and 2) Should there be an absolute universal morality? The first point already is in dispute because people argue from different perspectives. Those who (a) claim that there is, for lack of a better word, an idealistic a priori universal morality but not all people follow it and the empiricists who (b) look around notice that not all share the same morality.

The people who adhere to 1) a) have to explain why human morality is different from other eusocial animals and what advantage it brings of having one ethical system instead of a plurality that are adapted to different circumstances and enviroments.

The people who follow 1) b) have it easier since they simply describes what happens and they also try to come up with theories why it happens that there are different moralistic systems (and why some points are common to all humans).

[RichardY]

15 hours ago, ofd said:

You just described the rise of Islam.

Yes I had that in mind. I wonder what edge they had in terms of their culture maybe morality that allowed them to overcome many other tribes and civilizations.

15 hours ago, ofd said:

The debate about the universality of morals suffers because two different points are not distinguished: 1) Is there an absolute universal morality and 2) Should there be an absolute universal morality? The first point already is in dispute because people argue from different perspectives. Those who (a) claim that there is, for lack of a better word, an idealistic a priori universal morality but not all people follow it and the empiricists who (b) look around notice that not all share the same morality.

1) I would say there is not an absolute universal morality.
2) and there can not be an absolute universal morality.

I think it is an example of the aforementioned false positive, sounds plausible, but is a red herring. Having said that, there still is morality, at the least to be able to structure, how one interacts with another.

Out of either a) an Idealistic apriori universal morality or an empirical morality. I would say morality is (b) empirical. What I have difficulty with is, if matter is all there is, and everything is determined(Hard Determinism, as if there could be another) then morality is false(Pinball Machine). Therefore, in order for there to be morality the underlying metaphysic must be a kind of Neutral Monism or Idealism. I find that Aristotelian Substance Monism sounds possible, but so does perhaps a kind of Nietzchean, Heraclitean flux. Or Subjective Idealism of George Berkeley, although David Hume seemed to refer to it as "fairyland", destroying the notion of probability.

15 hours ago, ofd said:

The people who adhere to 1) a) have to explain why human morality is different from other eusocial animals and what advantage it brings of having one ethical system instead of a plurality that are adapted to different circumstances and enviroments.

I don't take morality to be an absolute, although I don't think it is pluralistic or relative either, I think there can be a kind of pseudo moral relativism.

Although not an Idealistic apriori morality, having recently listened to George Berkeley "A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge". He does state that a large proportion of mankind are not reflective. And that various notions that many take for granted, he gives the example of a triangle, do not exist in reality.(I had a similar idea of that of a sphere, the centre point being infinitesimally small as to not exist). Where as Hume states something like while they don't exist, they are determinate, an oval being different from a square. Seeming to take a more brute force approach. "Reason alone cannot be a motive to the will, but rather is the slave of the passions.”

 

15 hours ago, ofd said:

The people who follow 1) b) have it easier since they simply describes what happens and they also try to come up with theories why it happens that there are different moralistic systems (and why some points are common to all humans).

I think morality must be empirical. As if it is dependent on an aproiri Idealistic Morality, what's stopping someone from saying they are moral when really they are not. There's no way to tell if what they say is what they do. I think to hold the notion yourself, is to be deluding yourself. A kind of moral cowardice, no skin in the game. What is interesting is what implications that has when morality is empirical.

Although wouldn't wisdom be more beneficial and then morality?
If we can not know or maybe in error, what is best regardless?

[Jsbrads]

Trying to cite Thomas Sowell here:

It would not be similar environment which would have similar morals, but lifestyle; therefore roaming herders even in different environments would share morals, be it dry warm environment, wet cold, mountainous, hilly, plains, etc.

But temporary valley herders, farmers and hunter/gatherers would all ascribe to differing moral systems. Human friction of this sort  happened in the US West all the time (and probably everywhere else in time and space where there was human strife due to two different types of moral codes bumping).

[ofd]

Quote

It would not be similar environment which would have similar morals, but lifestyle

The enviroment heavily influences the lifestyle.

[perrymiller821]

All I need for the point of my argument is that there is no verifiable premise of evolution. Evolution as an idea had to have a beginning, so there must be a premise somewhere. How many universities fully discuss this premise, account for all the possibilities we know of, and try to get close to truth? On the other hand, how many universities mention it briefly in a five minute segue leading to a masters degree in evolutionary psychology? To me, proving this premise to be possible is the most important aspect of evolution which could lead to an actual science. So, why not pursue that in earnest?

 

Here are some prerequisites for the existence of biology. Immeasurably complex genetic programming must enable not just one function, but a specific multifaceted set of functions, which are appropriate to the size of the cell in the existing world, and goldilocks conditions of the micro environment within the ever changing macro environment into which it is born.  For the sake of argument, I will assume that a glob of amino acids did form without any toxic right handed aminos in it. That glob had the ability to eat, defecate, breathe, sense, and do the innumerable stuff of life. Do amino acids and enzymes equal life? One little example of a single function of life is to be able to follow a specific set of behavioral instructions based on the principles of self preservation according to the specific situation of that particular cell within a particular environment. It must also be able to stay alive long enough to reproduce. Reproduction must be perfect and complete. Is that too complicated for chaos to handle?

 

Does (the number of perfectly sequenced amino acids manufactured by the earth or fall from the sky) divided by the (prerequisites for the existence of biology) approach the possibility of one, or does it approach the possibility of zero?

 

Instead of looking into it, and trying to understand it, evolution is taught as fact to everyone. And getting back to my original point, evolution is another very useful social engineering strategy to create the mindset of meaninglessness.

 

While I am on the subject of evolution, I have always wondered in my heart of hearts. What is life? Here is my example question.  We could speculate that the first cell had all of the necessary stuff of life and then electricity became the spark of life.

 

A dead body has the innumerable stuff of life, but where is life? Ok, Maybe the heart stopped beating. Why? Well, the spark of life was no longer there. The incomprehensible amount of stuff needed for life is right there. Where did it go? Where did it slip off to? Where did life go when lungs filled up with fluid? Discontinued existence was not due to a lack of electricity in that situation. My idea is that there is no single part of life that we can point to as life. Everything in, around, and in between has to be lined up with the stars in perfect harmony for life to exist and continue. But, I digress. Maybe that is a dead argument. I just wanted to point out that we don’t even know exactly what life is. I can imagine that life is as simple as a train taking off from a stop. The train horn blows. The wheels start turning, but wait. Trains are kind of complicated. Trains have to be engineered and built. Tracks have to be laid, and it has to have an energy source, etc.  Are random acts of chaos going to produce life and keep that first living thing alive long enough to reproduce perfectly? I suggest that there is a mindset of meaninglessness being taught in our education systems and evolution is part of that indoctrination. Also, finding 65 million plus year old bones with viable marrow tissue inside is just silly. 

[RichardY]

@perrymiller821

Sound a bit like Renfield from Dracula, with obsession about life.

---------------

He was interrupted by a word from the Professor, ‘How?’‘

By making them happen. Just as he used to send in the flies when the sun was shining. Great big fat ones with steel and sapphire on their wings. And big moths, in the night,
with skull and cross-bones on their backs.’ Van Helsing nodded to him as he whispered to me unconsciously,‘The Acherontia Atropos of the Sphinges, what you call the ‘Death’s-head Moth’?’ The patient went on without stopping, ‘Then he began to whisper.‘Rats, rats, rats! Hundreds, thousands, millions of them, and every one a life. And dogs to eat them, and cats too. All lives! All red blood, with years of life in it, and not merely buzzing flies!’ I laughed at him, for I wanted to see what he could do. Then the dogs howled, away beyond the dark trees in His house. He beckoned me to the window. I got up and looked out, and He raised his hands, and seemed to call out without using any words. A dark mass spread over the grass, coming on like the shape of a flame of fire. And then He moved the mist to the right and left, and I could see that there were thousands of rats with their eyes blazing red, like His only smaller.

He held up his hand, and they all stopped, and I thought he seemed to be saying, ‘All these lives will I give you, ay, and many more and greater, through countless ages, if you will fall down and worship me!’

-------------------------------------

So are you arguing for some kind of Immanent God?