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

[Pattern-chaser]

It's not a level playing field. Besides, as I say, factories should be responsible for - and pay for - pollution mitigation. If cleaning up their pollution - rather than leaving it to the public purse - prevents a company from making a profit, then it was a faulty business model relying on shonky practices to gain commercial advantage.

You can't seem to grasp the point: CO2 emissions are not "their pollution." They are YOUR pollution.

No, they're simply pollution. The blame for who put them there is not relevant to the need to take them away again, or otherwise neutralise the effect they have. The OP asks us to focus on (possible) solutions, not who's to blame for the problems. I think the latter is a serious distraction, don't you?

[GE Morton]

What's the difference between polluting the air and polluting the water? They look like exactly the same thing to me. Different pollutants, yes, but no significant difference that I can see...?

Well, in the first place, CO2 is not an atmospheric pollutant, in the ordinary sense of that word. It is a natural component of the Earth's atmosphere (and of the atmospheres of other planets as well), and has always been present in the atmosphere, at varying concentrations. Indeed, the Earth's entire biosphere depends upon it being present.

And, second, it is not toxic for any terrestrial organisms, in concentrations occurring in the Earth's atmosphere over the last several million years. Most people, I think, would consider those differences significant.

[GE Morton]

Is there no meaning to Nature, climate or to Earths development?

No. The only meaning anything has is that which some sentient creature bestows upon it.

A recent study showed that rocks on earth developed the first photosynthesis by which the earth obtained oxygen that enabled life to arise. It started hundreds of millions of years before the first organic life forms existed.

(2021) Non-classical photosynthesis by earth's inorganic semiconducting minerals
Our work in this new research field on the mechanisms of interaction between light, minerals, and life reveals that minerals and organisms are actually inseparable. ... producing hydrogen and oxygen from water
https://phys.org/news/2021-01-non-class ... cting.html

Rocks and minerals may not be 'meaningless'.

That is interesting, but such facts don't confer "meaning" upon anything.

[Steve3007]

I see the emission of greenhouse gases as a completely different issue from something like the dumping of toxic chemicals in a lake, or other kind of pollution.

What's the difference between polluting the air and polluting the water? They look like exactly the same thing to me. Different pollutants, yes, but no significant difference that I can see...?

Well, in the first place, CO2 is not an atmospheric pollutant, in the ordinary sense of that word. It is a natural component of the Earth's atmosphere (and of the atmospheres of other planets as well), and has always been present in the atmosphere, at varying concentrations. Indeed, the Earth's entire biosphere depends upon it being present.

And, second, it is not toxic for any terrestrial organisms, in concentrations occurring in the Earth's atmosphere over the last several million years. Most people, I think, would consider those differences significant.

I agree with GE Morton on the above. In addition, it's a completely different situation because a company polluting a lake (or the air) with a toxic chemical is not the same as the company mining a fuel and selling that fuel to its customers who then burn it, producing CO2. If we were to regard that CO2 as a pollutant and then say "the polluter pays" what does that actually mean? Does it mean we all have to reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2 to pre-industrial levels by un-driving our cars? Should we be condemning Thomas Newcomen for inventing the steam engine 300 years ago?

As I've said, I'm not a fan of the language of blame and guilt in a situation like this. I don't blame our ancestors for discovering this very useful energy-dense fuel under the ground. I don't even really blame the resulting oil companies for trying to keep pumping and selling the stuff, when they're legally allowed to do it and customers want to buy it. If we have a problem to solve, and if the free market can't solve that problem, and it therefore requires actions by governments (legislation and taxes), I'm in favour of considering what actions, if any, we think governments ought to take in order to incentivise both producers and consumers to act in ways that we think will help to address the problem. For the purpose of solving problems like this, I'm in favour of treating both oil companies and their customers simply as players in a market who will react according to their interests.

[psyreporter]

Is there no meaning to Nature, climate or to Earths development?

No. The only meaning anything has is that which some sentient creature bestows upon it.

I would not agree with that assertion. When it concerns the question whether morality is of substance outside the scope of subjective experience, it concerns the question whether ‘meaning’ (as in “the meaning of life”) is applicable on a fundamental level (a priori or “before value”).

The following logic provides evidence that ‘meaning’ is applicable on a fundamental level.

The simplest departure from pure randomness implies value (meaningful pattern). This is evidence that all that can be seen in the world – from the simplest pattern onward – is value.

A reference:

(2018) Is the Universe a conscious mind?
It turns out that, for life to be possible, the numbers in basic physics – for example, the strength of gravity, or the mass of the electron – must have values falling in a certain range. And that range is an incredibly narrow slice of all the possible values those numbers can have. It is therefore incredibly unlikely that a universe like ours would have the kind of numbers compatible with the existence of life. But, against all the odds, our Universe does.

Here are a few of examples of this fine-tuning for life:

The strong nuclear force has a value of 0.007. If that value had been 0.006 or 0.008, life would not have been possible.
https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-ex ... d-for-life

A meaningful pattern (value) is necessarily signified by perception on a fundamental level (a pattern can only derive significance by perception). This implies that a valid descriptor for the origin of value is ‘pure meaning’ or 'good per se' (good that cannot be valued) which is evident by the following logic:

• the origin of patternness (meaningful pattern) cannot be a pattern
• the origin of patternness is necessarily meaningful and thus is to be considered ‘pure meaning’ because a deviation from that concept would result in a pattern
• a pattern is signified by perception

Conclusion: perception-as-signifier must precede a pattern on a fundamental level because as signifier it represents ‘pure meaning’ that cannot be a pattern. This implies that ‘meaning’ is applicable on a fundamental level and that morality is to be considered to be of substance beyond the scope of subjective experience.

Origin of life: 'good per se'

Consciousness is a manifestation of the origin of life and consciousness can only manifest itself on the basis of information provided by the senses. Therefore, to explain the origin of consciousness is to explain the origin of sensing.

Sensing requires a ‘qualitative distinguish-ability’ which is provided for by ‘valuing‘. It is not possible that consciousness (and thus subjective experience) would exist before the senses.

The origin of valuing cannot be value (meaningful pattern) by the simple logical truth that the origin of something cannot be itself.

By the nature of value, valuing requires a distinguish-ability which it logically appropriates from what can be indicated as ‘good per se’ (good that cannot be valued).

The origin of life is therefore established to be ‘good per se‘ (pure meaning).

Purpose of life: 'good per se'

What preceded life on a fundamental level logically lays beyond it from the perspective of an individual. Therefore, the origin of life is also the purpose or goal of life. This logic implies that when one is to consider a purpose of life as ground for morality or moral consideration, it necessarily is bound to the origin of life, which was established to be ‘good per se’ (pure meaning).

The purpose of life is therefore established to be ‘good per se‘ (pure meaning).

Based on the preceding logic, ‘good’ and ‘truth’ are necessarily of substance as precursor to any value in the world and a meaning of life is applicable on a fundamental level (a priori or “before value”).

It has been established that morality is of substance beyond the scope of subjective experience.

Do you agree with the above logic? If not, can you mention a part that is invalid?

A recent study showed that rocks on earth developed the first photosynthesis by which the earth obtained oxygen that enabled life to arise. It started hundreds of millions of years before the first organic life forms existed.

(2021) Non-classical photosynthesis by earth's inorganic semiconducting minerals
Our work in this new research field on the mechanisms of interaction between light, minerals, and life reveals that minerals and organisms are actually inseparable. ... producing hydrogen and oxygen from water
https://phys.org/news/2021-01-non-class ... cting.html

Rocks and minerals may not be 'meaningless'.

That is interesting, but such facts don't confer "meaning" upon anything.

Well, considering that without it life may not have been able to develop, or not as efficiently, it may indicate that meaning in rocks and minerals on behalf of 'life' or Nature's bigger whole could be applicable. The mere possibility is quite something when it concerns rocks and minerals.

[GE Morton]

The following logic provides evidence that ‘meaning’ is applicable on a fundamental level.

The simplest departure from pure randomness implies value (meaningful pattern). This is evidence that all that can be seen in the world – from the simplest pattern onward – is value.

Well, no. Patterns have nothing to do with value --- they are all (intrinsically) value-free. And whether any particular has value depends upon whether it proves to be of value to someone, to some sentient creature. It will then have whatever value that creature assigns to it.

[A reference:

(2018) Is the Universe a conscious mind?
It turns out that, for life to be possible, the numbers in basic physics – for example, the strength of gravity, or the mass of the electron – must have values falling in a certain range. And that range is an incredibly narrow slice of all the possible values those numbers can have. It is therefore incredibly unlikely that a universe like ours would have the kind of numbers compatible with the existence of life. But, against all the odds, our Universe does.

Those facts are all true, but are not evidence that the universe is conscious, or that it has value. Moreover, the claim that it is "unlikely" that physical constants have the values they do is unfounded; there is no evidence upon which to calculate that probability. You can only calculate probabilities, or "likelihoods," when you have a number of similar events to observe. Since the only universe we can observe is the one we live in, claims about its likelihood are vacuous.

[GE Morton]

Purpose of life: 'good per se'

What preceded life on a fundamental level logically lays beyond it from the perspective of an individual. Therefore, the origin of life is also the purpose or goal of life.

Sorry, but that is a non-sequitur. X may be the cause of Y, but that doesn't imply that Y is the "purpose," or "goal," of X. E.g., lightning may cause a forest fire, but that doesn't imply that the "goal" or "purpose" of lightning is to cause fires. Goals and purposes imply intent, and only sentient creatures have intentions.

Nor is anything "good per se." "Good" is a pseudo-property assigned to things by people (and perhaps other sentient creatures) to denote things THEY find desirable, appealing, useful, or which further some interest or goal of theirs. Propositions declaring something to be good, without specifying for what or for whom they are good, are meaningless.

[psyreporter]

The following logic provides evidence that ‘meaning’ is applicable on a fundamental level.

The simplest departure from pure randomness implies value (meaningful pattern). This is evidence that all that can be seen in the world – from the simplest pattern onward – is value.

Well, no. Patterns have nothing to do with value --- they are all (intrinsically) value-free. And whether any particular has value depends upon whether it proves to be of value to someone, to some sentient creature. It will then have whatever value that creature assigns to it.

The indicated value is the meaning that is necessarily applicable when it concerns the potential for a pattern to be possible (the quality that is involved). Without the aspect value, a pattern simply would not be possible.

Value would be 'meaning in retro-perspective'.

[A reference:

(2018) Is the Universe a conscious mind?
It turns out that, for life to be possible, the numbers in basic physics – for example, the strength of gravity, or the mass of the electron – must have values falling in a certain range. And that range is an incredibly narrow slice of all the possible values those numbers can have. It is therefore incredibly unlikely that a universe like ours would have the kind of numbers compatible with the existence of life. But, against all the odds, our Universe does.

Those facts are all true, but are not evidence that the universe is conscious, or that it has value. Moreover, the claim that it is "unlikely" that physical constants have the values they do is unfounded; there is no evidence upon which to calculate that probability. You can only calculate probabilities, or "likelihoods," when you have a number of similar events to observe. Since the only universe we can observe is the one we live in, claims about its likelihood are vacuous.

Well, one can argue that for probability to be possible, one cannot pose that its origin is pure randomness since pure randomness is equal to 'nothing' and is deprived of meaning. Therefore, the concept value is necessarily applicable.

Probability implies meaning as precursor to the value that it amounts to in a retro-perspective.This is evidence that morality is of substance outside the scope of subjective experience.

[psyreporter]

Purpose of life: 'good per se'

What preceded life on a fundamental level logically lays beyond it from the perspective of an individual. Therefore, the origin of life is also the purpose or goal of life.

Sorry, but that is a non-sequitur. X may be the cause of Y, but that doesn't imply that Y is the "purpose," or "goal," of X. E.g., lightning may cause a forest fire, but that doesn't imply that the "goal" or "purpose" of lightning is to cause fires. Goals and purposes imply intent, and only sentient creatures have intentions.

Nor is anything "good per se." "Good" is a pseudo-property assigned to things by people (and perhaps other sentient creatures) to denote things THEY find desirable, appealing, useful, or which further some interest or goal of theirs. Propositions declaring something to be good, without specifying for what or for whom they are good, are meaningless.

When it concerns the origin of existence (the origin of life), then a special situation arises in which what preceded that what came into existence, has nothing else beyond it then its origin. Namely, before it 'was', there was only its own origin, thus, what lays beyond it from its own perspective (after it came into being) is its origin. The logic is then very simple that only its own origin can be its purpose or goal.

When the origin of life is 'pure meaning' (good per se), then that would also be the purpose of life, and thus, the ground for morality would be bound to the origin of life.

With regard 'good per se' not being possible. The logic in my previous post provided simple reasoning:

1) the origin of the potential for a pattern cannot be a pattern but is necessarily meaningful.

Do you agree?

2) the origin of the potential for a pattern is to be considered 'pure meaning' because it is to be considered meaningful but cannot be a pattern.

Do you agree?

3) pure meaning is synonym for 'good per se' (good that cannot be valued)

Do you agree?

[GE Morton]

The indicated value is the meaning that is necessarily applicable when it concerns the potential for a pattern to be possible (the quality that is involved). Without the aspect value, a pattern simply would not be possible.

Well, that is a tough proposition to parse, but it suggests you don't know the meaning of the word value. And while I have no idea what might count as a "potential for a pattern to be possible," the phrase seems to suggest that patterns would not be possible without some "potential" for a pattern. Which is tautologically true, but hardly informative or explanatory. For any state of affairs X there must have been a potential for X, but the only way we can know that potential existed is that X exists --- which tells us nothing interesting about X. And, of course, that some realm of phenomena has a potential for patterns, or exhibits a pattern, has nothing to do with values.

Well, one can argue that for probability to be possible, one cannot pose that its origin is pure randomness since pure randomness is equal to 'nothing' and is deprived of meaning. Therefore, the concept value is necessarily applicable.

Well, you don't seem to understand what "random" means, either. No, "random" does not mean or imply "nothing;" it simply means, "unpredictable." For example, since we can't predict when a particular radium atom will fission, we say that the such events occur randomly. Or, since we can't predict which ping-pong ball will be drawn from the lottery barrel, we say the winner was chosen randomly. Randomness is not a property of the universe, or of anything in the universe, or of any conceivable universe. It is only a property of our predictive abilities with respect to certain phenomena.

Probability implies meaning as precursor to the value that it amounts to in a retro-perspective.This is evidence that morality is of substance outside the scope of subjective experience.

Well, no. Probability has nothing to do with meaning or value. It is simply a calculation of the frequency which a given event among a set of possible events occurs.

[GE Morton]

When it concerns the origin of existence (the origin of life), then a special situation arises in which what preceded that what came into existence, has nothing else beyond it then its origin. Namely, before it 'was', there was only its own origin, thus, what lays beyond it from its own perspective (after it came into being) is its origin. The logic is then very simple that only its own origin can be its purpose or goal.

Well, you're just repeating the mistake you made in your previous post, which I answered. You're describing a cause-and-effect relationship between two things, and then equating the cause with a purpose or goal. Those are not the same; and that events have causes does not imply any purpose or goal. As I said, the latter terms imply intentions, and only sentient creatures have intentions. Atoms and molecules have no intentions (as far as we can determine); their behaviors are not "goal directed."

When the origin of life is 'pure meaning' (good per se), then that would also be the purpose of life, and thus, the ground for morality would be bound to the origin of life.

There is no "pure meaning" (a "meaning" being the significance of something to a sentient creature), nor any "good per se." Propositions asserting such things are non-cognitive and meaningless.

1) the origin of the potential for a pattern cannot be a pattern but is necessarily meaningful.

Do you agree?

I agree that potentials are not patterns, and while "X implies a potential for X" is verbally meaningful, it says nothing informative (because it is a tautology).

2) the origin of the potential for a pattern is to be considered 'pure meaning' because it is to be considered meaningful but cannot be a pattern.

Do you agree?

No, because "pure meaning" is a vacuous phrase. Like propositions asserting value, propositions asserting meaning are only cognitive if a subject --- a sentient creature --- is specified. E.g.,"X is meaningful," or "X is valuable," are only cognitive if X is meaningful to or valued by someone.

[psyreporter]

Well, that is a tough proposition to parse, but it suggests you don't know the meaning of the word value. And while I have no idea what might count as a "potential for a pattern to be possible," the phrase seems to suggest that patterns would not be possible without some "potential" for a pattern. Which is tautologically true, but hardly informative or explanatory. For any state of affairs X there must have been a potential for X, but the only way we can know that potential existed is that X exists --- which tells us nothing interesting about X. And, of course, that some realm of phenomena has a potential for patterns, or exhibits a pattern, has nothing to do with values.

The assertion is that, while it may be unknown what the origin is of the 'potential for a pattern', it can be implied that is necessarily meaningful. On that basis, whatever the origin of the indicated potential may be, it can be said that the descriptor 'pure meaning' (or 'good per se') is applicable, which can serve as a ground for the argument that morality is of substance outside the scope of subjective experience (i.e. that a 'meaning of life' is applicable on a fundamental level, "before value" or "before the potential for a pattern to be possible")

Well, one can argue that for probability to be possible, one cannot pose that its origin is pure randomness since pure randomness is equal to 'nothing' and is deprived of meaning. Therefore, the concept value is necessarily applicable.

Well, you don't seem to understand what "random" means, either. No, "random" does not mean or imply "nothing;" it simply means, "unpredictable." For example, since we can't predict when a particular radium atom will fission, we say that the such events occur randomly. Or, since we can't predict which ping-pong ball will be drawn from the lottery barrel, we say the winner was chosen randomly. Randomness is not a property of the universe, or of anything in the universe, or of any conceivable universe. It is only a property of our predictive abilities with respect to certain phenomena.

Probability implies meaning as precursor to the value that it amounts to in a retro-perspective.This is evidence that morality is of substance outside the scope of subjective experience.

Well, no. Probability has nothing to do with meaning or value. It is simply a calculation of the frequency which a given event among a set of possible events occurs.

Random is not equal to unpredictable. When there is probability, there is a deviation of 'pure randomness' and that means value (meaningful pattern). With regard pure randomness being equal to nothing, that would be so by the assertion that pure randomness would be deprived of meaning and thus cannot consist of a pattern. Without a pattern, there is nothing.

[psyreporter]

Well, you're just repeating the mistake you made in your previous post, which I answered. You're describing a cause-and-effect relationship between two things, and then equating the cause with a purpose or goal. Those are not the same; and that events have causes does not imply any purpose or goal. As I said, the latter terms imply intentions, and only sentient creatures have intentions. Atoms and molecules have no intentions (as far as we can determine); their behaviors are not "goal directed."

For a goal or purpose to be meaningful, it cannot be predetermined because then it would be a deterministic functionality at most. Therefore, a goal of life/existence cannot originate from an 'intention' by an individual.

The goal or purpose that is indicated, is based on the idea that free will is applicable in Nature. Within the context of free will, morality would facilitate goal directedness aligned with what 'ought to be', of which it is argued based on the provided logic, that that is to be considered of substance outside the scope of subjective experience.

No, because "pure meaning" is a vacuous phrase. Like propositions asserting value, propositions asserting meaning are only cognitive if a subject --- a sentient creature --- is specified. E.g.,"X is meaningful," or "X is valuable," are only cognitive if X is meaningful to or valued by someone.

The argument is that on a fundamental level, the origin of the potential for a pattern to be possible, is necessarily meaningful but cannot be a pattern, and thus that on a fundamental level, meaning is applicable as precursor to value (as precursor to anything that amounts to 'physical reality').

Your argument did not disprove that logic.

The term 'cognitive' was not used. For something to be conceived of it must have existed beforehand. It is said by the logic, that before a pattern is possible, meaning is to be considered applicable (of substance), which implies that meaning (as 'pure' meaning) is pre-cognitive.

[Sy Borg]

As I said, I think apportioning blame for CO2 emissions doesn't help.

Children, there's no sense blaming.

Actually, there is. It's called looking baldly at the situation and describing it. Courts do it all the time. Unlike courts, I am not trying to change a situation, only describe it, and I think there is value in acknowledging the reality of situations, even if some find it unpalatable or unhelpful.

The fact is that fossil fuel companies have been sucking on the public teat for about thirty years too long thanks to their lobbying.

There was once a case for fossil fuel subsidies, but that is long gone. Why didn't they prepare for clean-up costs that were 100% certain to come their way? Instead they did not save or prepare (other than politically) and they profiteered, figuring that they could wrangle subsidies to pay for their clean up when the political pressure on their activities made BAU untenable.

Do you think that individuals and companies should clean up their own waste? Or do you think the taxpayers should foot company clean-up bills as they are currently doing? Or should only individuals have the responsibility to clean up their own waste?

[Sy Borg]

It's not a level playing field. Besides, as I say, factories should be responsible for - and pay for - pollution mitigation. If cleaning up their pollution - rather than leaving it to the public purse - prevents a company from making a profit, then it was a faulty business model relying on shonky practices to gain commercial advantage.

You can't seem to grasp the point: CO2 emissions are not "their pollution." They are YOUR pollution.

No, they're simply pollution. The blame for who put them there is not relevant to the need to take them away again, or otherwise neutralise the effect they have. The OP asks us to focus on (possible) solutions, not who's to blame for the problems. I think the latter is a serious distraction, don't you?

According to GE Morton, it's the consumers' responsibility to pay for all removal of waste generated by the private sector.

What responsibilities do companies have? According to GEM, all companies should be completely free of all restraints under libertarianism.

Libertarians claim to be seeking freedom for people but they effectively advocate the opposite. Rather, he see people as the natural underlings of powerful unregulated companies. That's why he advocates for the masses to continue being duped by major companies - with their rubbery taxes, subsidies and regulatory inaction on infractions.