Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[popeye1945]

There is only one way, the conscious subject from his/her experiences/meanings, bestows said meaning upon a meaningless world, the said objective world. Repeat, the only way!

If you see a footprint, you infer the existence in that location of the being that made it. Yes that inference is in the mind of the subject and yes it is based on their prior experience (of what causes footprints). But it would be wrong to say that the subject bestows that meaning on the world. The meaning corresponds to something in reality, and the subject apprehends that truth by reason.

It is not incorrect to attribute the objective world to the experiences/meanings that are the property of the conscious subject. One does not perceive ultimate reality; one experiences ultimate realities effects upon biology through the alteration it makes to us. So, we do not experience reality, we project the alteration made to our biologizes called experience/meanings, then most probably forget in the moment our own projections. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. It was Spinoza who pointed out how we come to know the world of objects, that being the objects affects in altering our biology. Spinoza was a man of his time, before Einstein's basic equation that proved matter and energy are two aspects of one thing. He understood that we know the world of objects due to the altering effect of objects on our biological consciousness. Apparent reality, our everyday reality is then, a biological readout. We project our own apparent reality out of our experiences of the energies around us, which are both life-sustaining and life-negating.

If it's a human footprint and not an elephant footprint then it is objectively true that a human was there. (It may also be true that an elephant was there, but in the absence of evidence we can't know that).
It is possible to mis-perceive (e.g. to see a partial elephant footprint and think it's a human footprint). Our apprehension of the objective world can be wrong.
[/quote]

Our perception of our apparent reality- speaking of life in general- depends upon the biology experiencing it, like biologizes will experience/acquire meanings that another biology does not. Just as we can experience an elephant or a man, we can experience the after-effects of their past presence. Other biologizes would not discern these things. Apparent reality is not reality, it is what we experience of the outer energies around us altering our biologizes. In other words, apparent reality is composed of the effects of ultimate reality upon us.

[Lagayascienza]

That is an interesting way of looking at it, popeye1945[/mention. It reminds me of the way modern day Idealists such as Hoffman and Kastrup see things. And it may well be true. But could we ever know? I must read Spinoza. People here often mention him.

[Lagayascienza]

Aghhh... Sorry about the red. I forget to close the end-mention bracket. Maybe one of the mods can fix it for me.

[popeye1945]

Good_Egg, I'm not sure what the above has to do with the question of what would make morality objective, but it does sum up the default realist position very nicely - that is, the idea that knowledge of the world stems from empirical investigation and that, from such investigation, we can justifiably infer certain things about unobservables - for instance, in the above example we can infer a human's previous presence by a foot print even though the human who made the footprint is no longer present. Tied to this is the idea of mind independence, that is, the footprint is there whether we see it or not and, unless we erase it, will still be there when we cease to look at it. This is not to say that what we see is not colored or filtered through our social and environmental contexts. For example, a hunter-gatherer will likely be better at spotting animal footprints or be able to infer the recent passing of an animal by a bent twig whereas such things might go completely unnoticed by a city dweller. And our social context can certainly color our moral thinking. For example, for a woman to go out with face uncovered in Muslim country might be considered immorality, and adultery might be an offence that could get her stoned to death whereas, in the West, such stoning would amount to murder of the cruelest kind and lead to life imprisonment or even the death penalty for the perpetrators. I am appalled by the punishments handed out in Muslim countries for what we in the West find unremarkable or normal behavior. Unfortunately, I cannot show objectively that they are wrong. I just subjectively deplore them and feel intensely that they are barbarous, unjustified and extremely wrong.

Lagayscienza.

Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Our identity is formed after birth through our identity being formed through the context we find ourselves within, context defines. Cultures are a context for the anonymous entity born into the world, and will define the psyche of the individual. Cultures have an evolutionary development which changes slowly through time, that is why the desert religions are so bad, because the mythology has been concretized through the written world, and cannot change, which makes it unnatural. The nature of the world is change itself, life that cannot change must perish. These religions of the past are the wisdom and ignorance of our ancestors formulating a context of limited wisdom and profound ignorance, when measured against the present and a future. These contexts these cultures arose and developed in a hodge podge manner; they arose out of chaos. The emotions that these old mythologies seem to govern reason in their believers and, personal opinion, are detrimental to our continued existence, it is reason filtered through chaos, little wonder these differing mythological artifacts are at odds within the modern world.

[popeye1945]

"God-shaped hole"..But the monogod was a later concept than gods of place, gods of natural processes, and ancestor gods. Creator god seems to have coincided with agriculture and land ownership in the fertile crescent and for a long time coexisted with the older gods of place and others who required sacrifices and prayers of supplication.
Burial of the dead and afterlife don't necessarily coincide with a creator god. or any other god.

I can only describe how I came to this view. I was reading 'The Neanderthal Enigma' by James Shreeve - where he describes the sudden occurrence of artefacts in the archaeological record 50,000 years ago, that imply a truly human mode of thought. Before then, he says - nothing but stone hand axes, unchanged for two million years. After, suddenly, cave paintings, jewellery, improved tools, burial of the dead - evidence of thinking. Shreeve says, there's no great climate upheaval, or change in cranial capacity associated with this dramatic - and momentous change in behaviour. So how do we explain it?

I speculated that it was conceptual evolution; that humans who made hand axes, made a conceptual leap by asking: 'Who made me?' - 'Who made the world?' and began making things as a means to rehearse and explore this idea. I think the archetypal god is a Creator God, and that other concepts of god are developments from this original archetype. Because, when one considers the Watchmaker Argument - it's an implication inherent to any designed thing; even things like flattened grass, or broken reeds, or an animal carcass that shows evidence of other hunters in the area, they are pressing up against the concept of a relation between artefact and an implied artificer all the time. I do not see how we get to ancestor gods, or gods of natural process, before we get to Creator - because making things, and artefacts as evidence of intent, and apparent design in nature all force this particular conceptual development.

Your argument for a "conceptual leap* is psychological and prejudiced regarding the superiotiy of man over all other species.
Do you think a human "conceptual leap" is uncaused?
Is a wild predator's "conceptual leap " uncaused?
I have lived beside many dogs, of comparatively brainy breeds, and one horse, and not one of their conceptual leaps has been uncaused.

Argue for a creator god or for God if you will, but if you please don't try to smuggle Him into the room .No living species or any individual of any living species acts without cause for action. Prehistoric sapiens, we may safely presume, paid attention to what was relevant in his life to the effect that generalising from experience did not presume any pancreator.

God, to be brief, was a political move which was embedded in early Middle Eastern history.

I'm terribly sorry if it offends your dog to suggest human beings have a qualitatively distinct mode of thought. But come dinner time, give him a tin opener and see how he gets on!

You have the wrong end of the stick on my arguments regarding God. I'm agnostic. I don't know if God exists or does not. I'm not making an argument for the existence of God. I'm explaining the occurrence of the concept of God in evolutionary history, and how that concept was employed politically, to unite hunter gatherer tribes.

I am saying it was a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw - and suggesting, speculatively, that the concept of God could have inspired human beings to evolve a qualitatively distinct mode of thought.

It's something of a relief that your disagreement is based in such a comprehensive misunderstanding of what I'm saying! Thank you for making yourself clear! I can only endeavour to do the same!

My dog lacks hands so cannot use a tin opener. However he can use his paws to cause his toy to eject desirable food. Moreover, an ape has been observed creatively using planks of wood to bridge a pond of water.

I say "creatively" where you say "conceptual leap". You attribute the creative event to some uncaused idea. What caused the idea? You attribute the cause thus:- "to unite hunter gatherer tribes".
True, Muhammad used the Abrahamic concept of God 's supremacy to unite warring Arabian tribes . Muhammad was a resounding success in that initiative conceptually, politically, militarily, and financially. Muhammad was a trader and it stands to reason his first incentive was to facilitate trade in Arabia. I mention Muhammad in order to show creativity, i.e. conceptual leaps, don't arise spontaneously but are embedded in preexisting and actual ways of life. There is no God-shaped hole in human psychology; and similarly there is no creative dog toy -shaped -hole in dog psychology. Nor is there a creative Use of Planks -shaped -hole in ape psychology.

Use of practical and conceptual tools can't happen unless the animal in question can abstract an attribute from e.g.Abrahamic God, e.g. food dispensing toy, and e.g. wooden planks.
Human language evolves by way of metaphor ,that is to say adoption of new symbols . Other species lack the vocal anatomy that allows humans to voice these new symbols. You mention cave paintings and jewellery and these too symbolise ideas and some ornaments also are credited with magic powers including in the present day, notably in religious rituals such as ornate weddings and ornate funerals. Again, humans have hands with thumbs which enable humans to make stuff that other species cannot make. There is no mystery here-----no mysterious something in the human psyche.

Hi Blinda!

I think it comes down to, does the individual's context evoke the potentials of the individual, it is a sad case that in most instances the context of the individual does not, but like evolution itself, there are some winners, and so, the eons roll on, life continues.

[Lagayascienza]

Good_Egg, I'm not sure what the above has to do with the question of what would make morality objective, but it does sum up the default realist position very nicely - that is, the idea that knowledge of the world stems from empirical investigation and that, from such investigation, we can justifiably infer certain things about unobservables - for instance, in the above example we can infer a human's previous presence by a foot print even though the human who made the footprint is no longer present. Tied to this is the idea of mind independence, that is, the footprint is there whether we see it or not and, unless we erase it, will still be there when we cease to look at it. This is not to say that what we see is not colored or filtered through our social and environmental contexts. For example, a hunter-gatherer will likely be better at spotting animal footprints or be able to infer the recent passing of an animal by a bent twig whereas such things might go completely unnoticed by a city dweller. And our social context can certainly color our moral thinking. For example, for a woman to go out with face uncovered in Muslim country might be considered immorality, and adultery might be an offence that could get her stoned to death whereas, in the West, such stoning would amount to murder of the cruelest kind and lead to life imprisonment or even the death penalty for the perpetrators. I am appalled by the punishments handed out in Muslim countries for what we in the West find unremarkable or normal behavior. Unfortunately, I cannot show objectively that they are wrong. I just subjectively deplore them and feel intensely that they are barbarous, unjustified and extremely wrong.

Lagayscienza.

Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Our identity is formed after birth through our identity being formed through the context we find ourselves within, context defines. Cultures are a context for the anonymous entity born into the world, and will define the psyche of the individual. Cultures have an evolutionary development which changes slowly through time, that is why the desert religions are so bad, because the mythology has been concretized through the written world, and cannot change, which makes it unnatural. The nature of the world is change itself, life that cannot change must perish. These religions of the past are the wisdom and ignorance of our ancestors formulating a context of limited wisdom and profound ignorance, when measured against the present and a future. These contexts these cultures arose and developed in a hodge podge manner; they arose out of chaos. The emotions that these old mythologies seem to govern reason in their believers and, personal opinion, are detrimental to our continued existence, it is reason filtered through chaos, little wonder these differing mythological artifacts are at odds within the modern world.

So, popeye1945, would you say that your position is closer to metaphysical Realism or to metaphysical Idealism? Or is it something in between or something distinct from either?

[Lagayascienza]

And, popeye1945, I also meant to also ask how your metaphysical position plays out with respect to your understanding of morality?

[popeye1945]

Good_Egg, I'm not sure what the above has to do with the question of what would make morality objective, but it does sum up the default realist position very nicely - that is, the idea that knowledge of the world stems from empirical investigation and that, from such investigation, we can justifiably infer certain things about unobservables - for instance, in the above example we can infer a human's previous presence by a foot print even though the human who made the footprint is no longer present. Tied to this is the idea of mind independence, that is, the footprint is there whether we see it or not and, unless we erase it, will still be there when we cease to look at it. This is not to say that what we see is not colored or filtered through our social and environmental contexts. For example, a hunter-gatherer will likely be better at spotting animal footprints or be able to infer the recent passing of an animal by a bent twig whereas such things might go completely unnoticed by a city dweller. And our social context can certainly color our moral thinking. For example, for a woman to go out with face uncovered in Muslim country might be considered immorality, and adultery might be an offence that could get her stoned to death whereas, in the West, such stoning would amount to murder of the cruelest kind and lead to life imprisonment or even the death penalty for the perpetrators. I am appalled by the punishments handed out in Muslim countries for what we in the West find unremarkable or normal behavior. Unfortunately, I cannot show objectively that they are wrong. I just subjectively deplore them and feel intensely that they are barbarous, unjustified and extremely wrong.

Lagayscienza.

Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Our identity is formed after birth through our identity being formed through the context we find ourselves within, context defines. Cultures are a context for the anonymous entity born into the world, and will define the psyche of the individual. Cultures have an evolutionary development which changes slowly through time, that is why the desert religions are so bad, because the mythology has been concretized through the written world, and cannot change, which makes it unnatural. The nature of the world is change itself, life that cannot change must perish. These religions of the past are the wisdom and ignorance of our ancestors formulating a context of limited wisdom and profound ignorance, when measured against the present and a future. These contexts these cultures arose and developed in a hodge podge manner; they arose out of chaos. The emotions that these old mythologies seem to govern reason in their believers and, personal opinion, are detrimental to our continued existence, it is reason filtered through chaos, little wonder these differing mythological artifacts are at odds within the modern world.

So, popeye1945, would you say that your position is closer to metaphysical Realism or to metaphysical Idealism? Or is it something in between or something distinct from either?

I have not thought of a category for my thoughts, certainly they would be considered metaphysical by most.

[popeye1945]

And, popeye1945, I also meant to also ask how your metaphysical position plays out with respect to your understanding of morality?

My views on morality and how it arises is more dependent upon our everyday reality, as morality is a necessary outcome of social interactions. In order for morality to arise, there must first be the identification of oneself with other-selves. Only then will compassion arise for others, and compassion is the seed of all morality. No identification with, no compassion, no morality. I believe it involves an expanded concept of the self, personally, I have no problem seeing another self in other creatures. The psychopath, I do not believe in some sense he even identifies with other humans, the lack of compassion for other creatures is apparently typical of the psychopath, which even as a child made me weary of adults of this nature.

[Lagayascienza]

And, popeye1945, I also meant to also ask how your metaphysical position plays out with respect to your understanding of morality?

My views on morality, and how it arises is more dependent upon our everyday reality, as morality is a necessary outcome of social interactions. In order for morality to arise, there must first be the identification of oneself with other-selves. Only then will compassion arise for others, and compassion is the seed of all morality. No identification with, no compassion, no morality.

Yes, that makes sense to me. One needs to appreciate first that others have feelings like one's own and be able to imagine oneself in the other's shoes, for morality to have any meaning. In terms of core human morality, I think evolution instilled that ability in us because empathy promoted cooperation which aided the survival of small groups of hunter-gathers out on the savanna - it promoted the propagation of our genes.

I believe it involves an expanded concept of the self, personally, I have no problem seeing another self in other creatures. The psychopath, I do not believe in some sense he even identifies with other humans, the lack of compassion for other creatures is apparently typical of the psychopath, which even as a child made me weary of adults of this nature.

Yes, cruelty to animals always made me feel sick. There were boys at my school who thought it was great fun to torment animals. I can't say for sure that they were psychopaths, but quite a number of them have ended up in jail.

[Mercury]

My dog lacks hands so cannot use a tin opener. However he can use his paws to cause his toy to eject desirable food. Moreover, an ape has been observed creatively using planks of wood to bridge a pond of water.

I say "creatively" where you say "conceptual leap". You attribute the creative event to some uncaused idea. What caused the idea? You attribute the cause thus:- "to unite hunter gatherer tribes".
True, Muhammad used the Abrahamic concept of God 's supremacy to unite warring Arabian tribes . Muhammad was a resounding success in that initiative conceptually, politically, militarily, and financially. Muhammad was a trader and it stands to reason his first incentive was to facilitate trade in Arabia. I mention Muhammad in order to show creativity, i.e. conceptual leaps, don't arise spontaneously but are embedded in preexisting and actual ways of life. There is no God-shaped hole in human psychology; and similarly there is no creative dog toy -shaped -hole in dog psychology. Nor is there a creative Use of Planks -shaped -hole in ape psychology.

Use of practical and conceptual tools can't happen unless the animal in question can abstract an attribute from e.g.Abrahamic God, e.g. food dispensing toy, and e.g. wooden planks.
Human language evolves by way of metaphor ,that is to say adoption of new symbols . Other species lack the vocal anatomy that allows humans to voice these new symbols. You mention cave paintings and jewellery and these too symbolise ideas and some ornaments also are credited with magic powers including in the present day, notably in religious rituals such as ornate weddings and ornate funerals. Again, humans have hands with thumbs which enable humans to make stuff that other species cannot make. There is no mystery here-----no mysterious something in the human psyche.

I'm aware of animal intelligence - signing apes, puzzle solving crows etc, but it's not a patch on human intelligence. And this is what Shreeve is saying. Human intelligence is not just more of the same, it's qualitatively distinct, and furthermore, there isn't a record of fumbling attempts toward artefacts that demonstrate a truly human mode of thought. It occurred very suddenly - the same stone hand axes for two million years, and then bang, out of nowhere, improved tools, cave paintings, jewellery, burial of the dead etc. This was 50,000 years ago. The Abrahamic religions are 1800 BC - 500 AD. Very recent in evolutionary terms.

Do you imagine, say the Mesopotamian civilisation in the Euphrates/Tigris valley 10,000 years ago, didn't have a God? Of course they did, because God was necessary to multi-tribal social organisation; an objective authority for moral laws common to all. Otherwise, how do two hunter gatherer tribes - each ruled by alpha males, join together? One tribe can kill the males and kidnap the females of another tribe, but they can't cooperate unless there's an objective authority for law. Any dispute over sex or food is liable to dissolve the fledgling society into its tribal components unless the dispute can be settled with respect to authoritative moral code agreed to by all. That's religion.

Do you understand the Watchmaker Argument? Dawkins restates it in The Blind Watchmaker - from Parsons in Natural Theology 1802, who was restating Cicero - the ancient Roman scholar. We can well imagine the idea goes back much further than that; that people saw an appearance of design in nature, and inferred the existence of a designer. That is what I mean by a 'God shaped hole in the sky.' I'm saying this idea would have been self evident to those capable of a truly human mode of thought - which, according to Shreeve, occurs around 50,000 years ago. (I am aware this dating is disputed. That older artefacts claiming to demonstrate human intelligence have been discovered since. Precise dates don't matter to my argument.)

You're absolutely right to talk about magic charms and such; and you have to wonder why the heightened sense of superstition, if it isn't from a paranoia we're being watched by a creator God, if they were not trying to discover the means - or pretend to, the power of Creation? The archetypal God is a Creator God; an explanation for evidence of design in nature. Otherwise a rock is just a rock, a cloud is just a cloud. Instead, even now, our psychology is wildly superstitious, like it's built on a superstitious foundation. We have to train people to overcome it, again and again in subsequent generations. It's for these reasons I speculate that what Shreeve calls 'the creative explosion' - was a consequence of a basic tool using human animal, making a leap by asking 'Who made me? Who made the world?' - inferring a concept of a Creator and being thrown into a world of superstition, auspices and portents!

Anyway, I've banged on long enough - so will close. But just want to remind us both where we came in:

Belindi wrote: ↑January 13th, 2024, 6:37 am
When we personified God then God became objective. In other words, we make reality all up without exception.

Mercury wrote:
In my view, objective reality exists - and has a God shaped hole in it in terms of first cause, and apparent design. Subjectivism is massively over-emphasised in Western philosophy for political reasons; freeing the state - historically based on the divine right of Kings, from responsibility to scientific truth.