Leader

Bye, I don't argue with subjectivists. It's pointless. Your pathology prevents you from admitting your wrong because all that is necessary for you to be right is for you to think your right thereby completing the chain of anti-logic.

__________________

Praxus

I'm going to start a seperate thread on this topic, join in if you wish.

Praxus

He does not seem to be a leftist, but a misguided Nietzschian, or at worst a Kantian.

Bulgaroctonus

Now we enter my field. First of all, I am by no means a subjectivist. In fact, morals seem so subjective that thet are nonsensical to me.

I will lay out my ideas in two simple ways, both of which have their grounding in science.

The human body is a collection of sub-atomic particles. In fact, thats all existence is. Every single thing in the Universe can be described (or in the case of modern physics postulated) according to a quantum mechanical probabilistic framework.

Even you taking the action of typing you response was a product of certain neurological processes within your brain. These processes can be understood as nothing more than the interrelation of matter and energy. Those thoughts are dictated by physical laws.

This leads logically to a scary possibility for most people. If humans are nothing more than complex physical systems under the control of physical laws (or probability more correctly), how can we ever have free will. Think about it, it certainly isn't our own will that moves the tiny protons and electrons that make our body. Action is determined by thought, thought by neurons, but neurons don't 'think' they simply fire or stay inert. No sir, all of human history is the playing out of subatomic particles set in motion by the big bang, or whatever origin the universe had.

This means that since no human can be ultimately held responsible for their actions, all moral systems collapse. In order for a human to be praised or blamed for an action, they had to have undertaken it of their own free will.

If you still think I'm pathological, just run my ideas past your nearest physics/biology/philosophy professor.

Furthermore, even if we had free will, a moral system requires several illogical conclusions. If all actions are the movement of particles, then in order to assign morality to an action, we have to assign a moral value to a chemical reaction. Essentially, we'd be blaming sub-atomic particles for behaving as they do. Its nonsensical. To attribute one set of reactions with a kind of moral value, and another reaction with a different value is illogical.

All more statements are neither true nor false. They cannot be dealt with scientifically since they deal only with our own preferences, not objective facts.

For example, which do think corresponds to reality? F=ma (Force equals mass times acceleration, Newton's Second Law) or "killing is wrong."

Leader

Oh I think he's lefty alright

Leader

Talk to Praxus he has the patience for this kind of discuss. I do not.

Bulgaroctonus

I will, I hope you at least understand that my position is not pathological, but instead the logical conclusion of modern science, disquieting though it may be to some.

Bulgaroctonus

Where's the thread?

Leader

No I'm not going to recognize it as a "logical conclusion of modern science." Neither I’m I going to argue it with you because I’ve already had the discussion numerous times and don’t see the point in going over it again.

Bulgaroctonus

Well, then I suppose we must agree to disagree.

Praxus

The fact that man is volitional is self-evident. There is something within the nature of the material that makes up our mind that allows for volition. We do not know exactly what that is, but it does not negate the fact that man is capable of choice. What you must also keep in mind, is that we are our brain. When a neuron fires telling your arm to move, it is you who is firing that neuron (because you are your brain).

In the first part of this statement, you claim the following logic is based upon the presumption of free-will. Yet in the following statements you talk about assigning "a moral value to chemical reaction", implying that our choices are implied by the nature of the particles making up our mind. This is quite dishonest.

If you would like to address this specific issue, I will create a specific thread for it.

Both.

Leader

yep

Bulgaroctonus

The mere illusion of free will does not mean it actually exists. Intuition is often a poor guide, after all many of us would still think the Earth is flat and is the center of the Universe.

I think modern physics does trump self volition, and quite effectively at that. Every human body is a physical system. At its most fundamental level, it is composed of sub-atomic particles. These particles obey a certain probabilistic framework not human volition, that of quantum mechanics. Where can we insert free will?

Conciousness is a property inherent to the brain.

I will give you the following example to explain my ideas. If a river were conscious, it would probably imagine that it flowed to the sea because of its own choices. In fact, the river flowed according to very specific parameters (namely the gravity and the contours of the landscape).

Human consciousness can be thought of as a river, flowing from birth to death. One thought leads to another, simply occuring because of events that preceded it and in its time fading away. In fact, the river can be traced back through to our ancestors, and forward into our descendants.

But this not to say that a river cannot be mighty!

Praxus

What if I were to say to you that my existence is self-evident, would you disagree?

Things act as they do, because it is in their nature to do so (the law of identity). It is not based on probability. Quantum mechanics is also incomplete to say the least, as it allows for contradictions; see Schrodinger's Cat.

I agree. So is volition.

Bulgaroctonus

You can certainly exist without free will, it doesn't advance your argument. A rock exists.



Schrodinger's Cat is an extension of something called the observer phenomenon, in which the very fact that we are watching something also changes it. Alright, that's also an outgrowth of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which states that the velocity and the position of a particle cannot be known at the same time. None of this contradicts my argument. Just because quantum mechanics is incomplete does not invalidate it.

Also, the "law of identity"? That doesn't sound like science.

No, you don't seem to understand me. Volition is the very convincing illusion of choice. When in fact our actions are determined by probability.