How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

[Compassionist]

How do we know what is right, and what is wrong? For example, I think it is wrong to be a herbivore or a carnivore or an omnivore, or a parasite. I think all living things should be autotrophs. I think only autotrophs are good and the rest are evil. However, I am not certain that my thoughts are right. Can herbivores, carnivores, omnivores, and parasites become autotrophs at will? If so, why don't they? If they can't become autotrophs at will, is it really their fault that they are not autotrophs?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #650]

This knowledge comes from intuition as well as from the outside.

How is that any different than me agreeing that one could argue that intuition/gut feelings/subconscious operations are an aspect/evidence of ITA's having said inbuilt knowledge? Access is not easy (and also not impossible) and requires the ITA in human form to look - not outside of itself in order to understand right and wrong as static objective realities, but inside of itself. Thus - perfectly subjectively yet still necessarily dependent upon learning and adapting as per the situation/circumstance re objectivity.

The bees don't intend to help other bees, they just follow their instincts. Male sharks don't intend to harm female sharks or use them for their means, they simply follow their instincts.

Therefore, your claim that objective morality is like math in that it exists as a fundamental reality in the universe has to be incorrect, otherwise we would see this throughout nature. We would observe free will in all living things.

Actions alone are not morality; morality also requires free will, knowledge and intention.

The better way to explain why humans have what other critters do not yet have, is that the human instrument was designed in a way of developing the awareness which allows for the ITA to have the means to override instinct and custom in order to act as an autonomous personality. and to do so without being thought of as a threat or an outsider by those still operating largely on instinct and rules of familiarity.

It is an empty claim which brings with it the problem of infinite regression and - if this moral source is also believed to be all benevolent, all knowing and all powerful, - the problem of evil.

With Natural Philosophy, both of those philosophical problems are not issues. Supernaturalism is what makes those philosophical problems.

And supernaturalism has perfectly good answers to those problems.

Feel free to table those "perfectly good" answers.

Natural Philosophy
(Re the problem of evil and the problem of infinite regress)
•Natural Philosophy has it that the Universal Mind has always existed and is physical and thus able to organize unorganized matter, into functional objects. Unorganized matter is a fundamental aspect of said Universal Mind and not a separate entity.
•Natural Philosophy has it that the Universal Mind is purposeful/intentional and the universe is in a constant state of development and re the human experience at this point in time (now) is at the very early stages of that universal development.
•Natural Philosophy has it the the ITA (Intentional Thinking Agent) within the human instrument is not meant to be contained within said instrument forever, but is utilizing said instrument as part of the process of the ongoing developing of personality and that the ITAs (minds) are not created by the Universal Mind but are an investment of the Universal Mind itself into forms and thus (whether in sharks, bees, humans, planets, stars or galaxies) are "children" of said Universal Mind.
•Natural Philosophy has it that death of form is natural and reasonable to the overall purpose of personality development and neither the result of sin or of punishment.
•Natural Philosophy has it that there is no inherent or fundament good or evil in the Universal Mind and that these traits are simply ideas formed through human experience which can be either useful or detrimental depending upon how the forming personalities of the ITA are responding within the uniqueness of their independent and interdependent situations and the choices made therein.

Why is physical evidence the only kind of evidence that makes a claim not empty?

Because it can be objectively verified, as with those points re Natural Philosophy mentioned above. One can point to the Universal Mind through observing the physical evidence of the universe of organized matter. Thus, there is no necessity to make up stories which involve some kind of creator mind outside of the physical universe and insist that a "non physical being" can organize matter (physicals stuff) into complex functionality.
With Natural Philosophy, all is done from within and there is no "without". All is physical and "non physical" does not exist, regardless of either materialism or supernaturalism insisting otherwise.

[The Tanager]

How is that any different than me agreeing that one could argue that intuition/gut feelings/subconscious operations are an aspect/evidence of ITA's having said inbuilt knowledge? Access is not easy (and also not impossible) and requires the ITA in human form to look - not outside of itself in order to understand right and wrong as static objective realities, but inside of itself. Thus - perfectly subjectively yet still necessarily dependent upon learning and adapting as per the situation/circumstance re objectivity.

The difference looks to me to be you saying it’s just inbuilt, where we must look within, and I’m saying it’s not only inbuilt, where we must have inner reflection as well as considering truths outside of our own subjective experiences.

Therefore, your claim that objective morality is like math in that it exists as a fundamental reality in the universe has to be incorrect, otherwise we would see this throughout nature. We would observe free will in all living things.

Why? Other beings don’t perform mathematical operations.

The better way to explain why humans have what other critters do not yet have, is that the human instrument was designed in a way of developing the awareness which allows for the ITA to have the means to override instinct and custom in order to act as an autonomous personality. and to do so without being thought of as a threat or an outsider by those still operating largely on instinct and rules of familiarity.

Why is that better? To override one’s instincts and customs, one shows a free will, analyzing knowledge, and intending to do what seems best to them.

Because it can be objectively verified, as with those points re Natural Philosophy mentioned above. One can point to the Universal Mind through observing the physical evidence of the universe of organized matter. Thus, there is no necessity to make up stories which involve some kind of creator mind outside of the physical universe and insist that a "non physical being" can organize matter (physicals stuff) into complex functionality.
With Natural Philosophy, all is done from within and there is no "without". All is physical and "non physical" does not exist, regardless of either materialism or supernaturalism insisting otherwise.

The claim “physical evidence is the only kind of evidence that makes a claim not empty” has no physical evidence to back it up. Therefore, under your logic, it is an empty claim.

As to the support for your Natural Philosophy, I find it very lacking. You don’t, you’ve shared the support, and we simply disagree. You think Christianity is made up stories and I think Natural Philosophy is made up stories. I’m not sure there is more to be said on that front between us.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #652]

The difference looks to me to be you saying it’s just inbuilt, where we must look within, and I’m saying it’s not only inbuilt, where we must have inner reflection as well as considering truths outside of our own subjective experiences.

The "difference" in that is evident in my willingness to do so - as exampled in my accounting for the alternate experiences re NDEs OOBEs I have agued for being relevant and pertinent to discussion and in mentioning these as real physical experiences people report, and your choosing to assume the somewhat Materialistic position that these experiences could be "illusions of physicality."

How is that "considering truths outside of our own subjective experience"? Frankly, it isn't, so practicing what one preaches is also an important thing to accomplish if one is to grow and learn.

Your choice in that was to simply assume something "could be" without explaining why one would have to agree with taking that position on the matter. Rather, like a materialist, you wanted evidence to support these reports were true and that the mind is a physical thing. Like a materialist, you want the evidence served up, but make no effort to study the reports and learn from them. The reports are evidence, and the mind has to be physical in order to be able to organise matter. Intransigence is not the same thing as considering truths outside of our own subjective experiences.

Therefore, your claim that objective morality is like math in that it exists as a fundamental reality in the universe has to be incorrect, otherwise we would see this throughout nature. We would observe free will in all living things.

Why? Other beings don’t perform mathematical operations.

That is not the point. Your claim was that morality like mathematics, is a fundamental aspect of reality. It doesn't matter which beings can or cannot do math. Humans able to be moral, does not mean that morality is fundamental to the universe, but like math, if what you claim is true, then morality should be able to be shown to be fundamental to the universe.

Until you do so, there is no reason why anyone has to agree with your belief-claim.

To override one’s instincts and customs, one shows a free will, analyzing knowledge, and intending to do what seems best to them.

To not override one’s instincts and customs, one shows a free will as well, analyzing knowledge, and intending to do what seems best to them. So what?

The claim “physical evidence is the only kind of evidence that makes a claim not empty” has no physical evidence to back it up. Therefore, under your logic, it is an empty claim.

If that were the case, all claims would be empty.

You were asked to table your claims.
My point was that claims involving non-physical beings, are empty of meaningful reason because the points of Natural Philosophy I mentioned show that there is no necessity for supernaturalist-based claims. Physical Nature is adequate to that task and answers those problems mentioned, to which you claimed supernaturalism answers. Your claim is empty, because it does not come with any supporting points.

As to the support for your Natural Philosophy, I find it very lacking.

Those points remain valid because what you "find lacking" isn't even specified, debated against, critiqued or debunked. The words "I find it very lacking" are without meaning.

You think Christianity is made up stories

Christianity itself isn't definable as far as the evidence goes. There are many versions, some so different to be disagreeable/in contradiction with others.
Rather, I think it likely that Christianity was made up by Greek-Roman influenced supernaturalists. What I think is made up, is the story that the creator is supernatural.

I think Natural Philosophy is made up stories.

What "stories" are you referring to? And what of those, do you think are "made up" and why do you think so?

I’m not sure there is more to be said on that front between us.

Certainly, I am satisfied it is simply a case of being intransigence on your part and not considering truths outside of your own subjective experiences and belief systems.

[The Tanager]

Those points remain valid because what you "find lacking" isn't even specified, debated against, critiqued or debunked. The words "I find it very lacking" are without meaning.

Come on. We both have previous posts where we have explained such beliefs. You summarized your conclusion without specifics, debates, critiques, debunkings; you just restated your conclusion of what’s gone on in previous posts. You are allowed to do that, but I’m not?

Certainly, I am satisfied it is simply a case of being intransigence on your part and not considering truths outside of your own subjective experiences and belief systems.

I’m more than ready to keep considering your beliefs and the reasons you believe them to be true. Let’s continue. If you are willing to consider truths outside of your own subjective experiences and belief systems, then respond to each of my 5 points below and let’s keep doing this. I'm not being intransigent.


1. Show that these claims are evidence of Natural Philosophy being true

The "difference" in that is evident in my willingness to do so - as exampled in my accounting for the alternate experiences re NDEs OOBEs I have agued for being relevant and pertinent to discussion and in mentioning these as real physical experiences people report, and your choosing to assume the somewhat Materialistic position that these experiences could be "illusions of physicality."

How is that "considering truths outside of our own subjective experience"? Frankly, it isn't, so practicing what one preaches is also an important thing to accomplish if one is to grow and learn.

Your choice in that was to simply assume something "could be" without explaining why one would have to agree with taking that position on the matter. Rather, like a materialist, you wanted evidence to support these reports were true and that the mind is a physical thing. Like a materialist, you want the evidence served up, but make no effort to study the reports and learn from them. The reports are evidence, and the mind has to be physical in order to be able to organise matter. Intransigence is not the same thing as considering truths outside of our own subjective experiences.

Disagreeing with you and those reports is not the same thing as being intransigent. I don’t just assume that these experiences are illusions of physicality and I don’t just assume they are true. I listen to the evidence and try to make the best sense of reality. I hope you do the same. I’ve looked at some reports, I’ve heard people who believe the reports make cases for them being true as well. And I’m still not convinced, whether that’s my fault or theirs or the evidence’s.


2. Show that minds have to be physical in order to interact with matter

As to the mind having to be physical in order to organize matter, where is your proof of that? Not shifting me to support the opposite view, but positive support for your view so you claimed it has to be the case?


3. Show that your definition of objective features of reality as being necessarily physical objects is true

That is not the point. Your claim was that morality like mathematics, is a fundamental aspect of reality. It doesn't matter which beings can or cannot do math. Humans able to be moral, does not mean that morality is fundamental to the universe, but like math, if what you claim is true, then morality should be able to be shown to be fundamental to the universe.

Until you do so, there is no reason why anyone has to agree with your belief-claim.

You said morality can’t be objective because, if it was, everything would have free will. That doesn’t logically follow. That’s what I responded to. You apparently see that this is true, because you’ve dropped that critique for the more general “prove it exists” kind of critique.

On that critique, as I’ve already said, your definition of “objective” (which you’ve seemingly switched to “fundamental” recently) rules out the possibility of morality being objective. A definition I’ve asked you to support and you won’t. Until you do so, there is no reason why I have to agree with you on that definition. But until we get “objective” straightened out, there is no reason for me to share my argument that morality is objective with you.

So, if you want this discussion to move forward on this, support your definition that “objective” features of reality must be physical objects.


4. Show why your explanation of human morality is (a) just about actions and (b) better than my explanation that says morality is more than just about actions.

To not override one’s instincts and customs, one shows a free will as well, analyzing knowledge, and intending to do what seems best to them. So what?

Remember the context of that part of our discussion. I disagreed with you that morality was just about actions. I said morality was about the actions of moral agents (who necessarily have free will, knowledge, and intention). You then said you had a better way to explain morality in humans: designed in a way to develop awareness to override instinct and custom to act as an autonomous personality. I then said your “better way” sounds like it requires free will, knowledge, and intention in such a development, so it sounds like the same thing I’m describing, not a better way. I’m saying your “better way” sounds the same as mine and is a system that is more than “morality is just about actions”.


5. Show that only physical evidence counts as non-empty support for a claim

If that were the case, all claims would be empty.

Only if physical evidence is the only kind of evidence that we have. Why do you think that is the case?

You were asked to table your claims.
My point was that claims involving non-physical beings, are empty of meaningful reason because the points of Natural Philosophy I mentioned show that there is no necessity for supernaturalist-based claims. Physical Nature is adequate to that task and answers those problems mentioned, to which you claimed supernaturalism answers. Your claim is empty, because it does not come with any supporting points.

You stack the deck against me. You say my claim is empty and then ask me for supporting points, but they have to be physical or it will be empty support. I am questioning that initial principle you are using. It is obviously faulty because it is self-defeating. Therefore, to have a rational conversation, you have to throw that principle out. You can either defend the principle as not self-defeating, or why being self-defeating isn’t a bad thing, drop the principle, or choose intransigence in the face of my critique.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #654]

This:

You say my claim is empty and then ask me for supporting points, but they have to be physical or it will be empty support.

Is related to this:

I’m saying your “better way” sounds the same as mine

Re your first quote, you don't have to provide physical evidence and I have never said that all evidence must be physical. I continue to maintain that philosophical points can be tabled as evidence which can then be examined and critiqued and that without such being tabled their is not evidence to examine and so the table remains empty of any such evidence.

Re your second quote, Natural Philosophy (the main points re this interaction and subject matter) were tabled. They are "better" in the sense that they have been table - can be examined and critiqued.

If you feel that what I have tabled places supernaturalist philosophy at a disadvantage, then I accept the critique that Natural Philosophy adequately explains everything Supernaturalism is based upon, without having to agree and indeed showing why it is not necessary to agree that any supernatural creator Intentional Thinking Being has to exist outside of this universe or be responsible for the existence of this universe.

As I have explained already, minds have to be physical in order to organize and interact with organized matter and that there is no evidence for the philosophical claims from supernaturalism and materialism that minds are "non-physical" and have to be so in order to "explain" why minds cannot be easily seen or measured as "objects".

Re alternate experiences minds have, your saying you have "looked at some reports", heard people who believe the reports make cases for them being true and you are "still not convinced", is not only news to me, but lacks specific critique as you remain silent on why you are "still not convinced" so that alone is not enough by any stretch to be considered anything other than unsubstantial opinion on your part. You give the reader/debater nothing to work with.

[The Tanager]

1. Show that these claims are evidence of Natural Philosophy being true

Re alternate experiences minds have, your saying you have "looked at some reports", heard people who believe the reports make cases for them being true and you are "still not convinced", is not only news to me, but lacks specific critique as you remain silent on why you are "still not convinced" so that alone is not enough by any stretch to be considered anything other than unsubstantial opinion on your part. You give the reader/debater nothing to work with.

I’ve shared some reasons, even in this thread when you talked about how they are evidence for Natural Philosophy. The argument seemed to me to be that we should take them for what they claim unless we have evidence otherwise, which I think is an attempt to shift the burden of supporting your positive argument. That is reason enough to me to reject your case here.

Now, you can claim that’s not what happened and I misunderstood (or accuse me of evil motivations), and that may be true, but if it is, then just restate your case more clearly and let’s analyze it. Or you can stop this from being a rational conversation and just say you already gave the reasons and choose intransigence.


2. Show that minds have to be physical in order to interact with matter

As I have explained already, minds have to be physical in order to organize and interact with organized matter...

You keep saying they have to be, but you don’t show why they have to be. If you think you have, I missed it or misunderstood it, so please try again. That’s what the non-intransigent would do.


3. Show that your definition of objective features of reality as being necessarily physical objects is true

I’m not sure you saw this part, since you didn’t seem to respond to it. I’ll share it again:

“…your definition of “objective” (which you’ve seemingly switched to “fundamental” recently) rules out the possibility of morality being objective. A definition I’ve asked you to support and you won’t. Until you do so, there is no reason why I have to agree with you on that definition. But until we get “objective” straightened out, there is no reason for me to share my argument that morality is objective with you.

So, if you want this discussion to move forward on this, support your definition that “objective” features of reality must be physical objects.” Or you can be intransigent about this.


4. Show why your explanation of human morality is (a) just about actions and (b) better than my explanation that says morality is more than just about actions.

You missed/ignored this part as well, it looks to me. Do you think morality is more than just about actions? At first you said it wasn’t. But then it seemed that your believed it was, since you shared your belief that humans were designed in a way to develop awareness to override instinct and custom to act as an autonomous personality, which seems to me to bring in free will, knowledge, and intention alongside actions. I just need clarification because I’m confused on what you are claiming and if that is or is not “morality is just about actions”.


5. Show that only physical evidence counts as non-empty support for a claim

Re your first quote, you don't have to provide physical evidence and I have never said that all evidence must be physical.

In post 651 I asked you “why is physical evidence the only kind of evidence that makes a claim not empty?” You didn’t say “No, physical evidence isn’t the only kind of evidence,” you answered “Because…”. That implies a “Yes, it is”. You then went on to say “all is physical” in Natural Philosophy and that non-physical doesn’t exist. This is very confusing to now say that non-physical evidence can exist for claims.

[William]

Natural Philosophy
(Re the problem of consciousness, the problem of evil and the problem of infinite regress)

•Natural Philosophy has it that the Universal Mind has always existed and is physical and thus able to organize unorganized matter, into functional objects. Unorganized matter is a fundamental aspect of said Universal Mind and not a separate entity.

•Natural Philosophy has it that the Universal Mind is purposeful/intentional and the universe is in a constant state of development and re the human experience at this point in time (now) is at the very early stages of that universal development.

•Natural Philosophy has it the the ITA (Intentional Thinking Agent) within the human instrument is not meant to be contained within said instrument forever, but is utilizing said instrument as part of the process of the ongoing developing of personality and that the ITAs (minds) are not created by the Universal Mind but are an investment of the Universal Mind itself into forms and thus (whether in sharks, bees, humans, planets, stars or galaxies) are "children" of said Universal Mind.

•Natural Philosophy has it that death of form is natural and reasonable to the overall purpose of personality development and neither the result of sin or of punishment.

•Natural Philosophy has it that there is no inherent or fundament good or evil in the Universal Mind and that these traits are simply ideas formed through human experience which can be either useful or detrimental depending upon how the forming personalities of the ITA are responding within the uniqueness of their independent and interdependent situations and the choices made therein.

As to the support for your Natural Philosophy, I find it very lacking.

The points made are more than adequate re solving the problems of consciousness, of evil and of infinite regress and deserves more than a sentence of opinion.

Supernaturalism has perfectly good answers to those problems.

Perhaps (if you can), please provide your own bullet-points for your particular Supernatural Philosophy which solves those problems. I will then examine those and critique the points if I can, and will do so with more than a sentence of opinion.

[The Tanager]

0. Natural Philosophy solves the problems of consciousness, evil, and infinite regress

Why is physical evidence the only kind of evidence that makes a claim not empty?

Because it can be objectively verified, as with those points re Natural Philosophy mentioned above. One can point to the Universal Mind through observing the physical evidence of the universe of organized matter. Thus, there is no necessity to make up stories which involve some kind of creator mind outside of the physical universe and insist that a "non physical being" can organize matter (physicals stuff) into complex functionality.
With Natural Philosophy, all is done from within and there is no "without". All is physical and "non physical" does not exist, regardless of either materialism or supernaturalism insisting otherwise.

[The claim “physical evidence is the only kind of evidence that makes a claim not empty” has no physical evidence to back it up. Therefore, under your logic, it is an empty claim.]

As to the support for your Natural Philosophy, I find it very lacking.[You don’t, you’ve shared the support, and we simply disagree. You think Christianity is made up stories and I think Natural Philosophy is made up stories. I’m not sure there is more to be said on that front between us.]

The points made are more than adequate re solving the problems of consciousness, of evil and of infinite regress and deserves more than a sentence of opinion.

I didn’t say the bolded text above against your claim that Natural Philosophy solves those problems. That's taking my words out of their context, which I provided above, including previous posts in that chain of response. Nothing in those quotes that we responded back and forth to are about those three problems. That was a different part of our conversation.

Now, if Natural Philosophy is true, then I agree that consciousness, the absurdity of calling anything evil, and an infinite regress don’t seem to be problems. The problem is that I don’t think your reasons for believing Natural Philosophy is true are good ones. I was reiterating that as a summary of my view because you also reiterated a quick summary of Natural Philosophy’s conclusions.

Perhaps (if you can), please provide your own bullet-points for your particular Supernatural Philosophy which solves those problems. I will then examine those and critique the points if I can, and will do so with more than a sentence of opinion.

This is the kind of thing I’ve been talking about in discussing things with you; how our approaches are so different that I’m not sure we aren’t just wasting our time trying to discuss things together. In my last post I addressed five issues for you to clarify my misunderstandings of your view on each issue or for you to further support your view. Did you address any of them? No, not one. You ignored those real questions of mine seeking understanding and truth, then asked me to prove something else.

Now, I think there might have been a mix up of cultures there. Perhaps you are British? In America, when someone says to table those points, they mean to postpone talking about them. That’s what I understood when you asked me to table my perfectly good answers to the problems of evil and infinite regress. But I just learned that the British would use “table” to speak about presenting points for discussion. I thought you were asking me to not talk about Christianity’s solutions for the above problems. Please clarify.

As to my solutions, if you want me to share them, I’m going to need you to have a show of good faith because we’ve had too many conversations end up with me feeling that you've stopped addressing the points I feel are important and taking up other talking points instead that seem unimportant to me. Perhaps you feel the same. If so, then let’s make sure we both continue addressing all the points we each feel are important and answering them directly. So, if you show good faith that you are seeking understanding and truth by responding to all five issues I mentioned (even if you need to ask clarifying questions because you don't see the relevance), then I will add this issue to our discussion and share what I see as perfectly good solutions to those problems from Christianity.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #658]

So, if you show good faith that you are seeking understanding and truth by responding to all five issues I mentioned (even if you need to ask clarifying questions because you don't see the relevance), then I will add this issue to our discussion and share what I see as perfectly good solutions to those problems from Christianity.

And will you do so, without using my replies as a means of going off on a tanagent?
If not, then I see no reason why you can't just share this knowledge you claim to have, without my even having to reply to those "five issues" you mentioned.

[The Tanager]

And will you do so, without using my replies as a means of going off on a tanagent?
If not, then I see no reason why you can't just share this knowledge you claim to have, without my even having to reply to those "five issues" you mentioned.

Okay, so it is clear that we can't continue discussing things here. What you call tangents, I think are the central facets of an on-topic discussion and what you think is central, often seem like tangents to me. I offered that we cover everything both of us think are central, but you want to focus on only what you deem central. I believe discussions need to be two-way with mutual respect for each other and what we find central, so that we each are heard. I hope you have a wonderful day and find all truth on your journey.