Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

On the other hand...

True as compared to its own goals. Going back to the idea of "blue" -- it is certainly true, in an abstract sense, that there is a certain wavelength of light that we call blue. But the measurement of that wavelength does not, in Cartesian terms, objectively exist. The notion of "wave," is equally subjective. Therefore, we are measuring one abstract concept with another. The frame of reference is our own interests. I'd say that scientists had better leave truth to the philosophers and instead talk about whether something is useful. Is it true that Jupiter is a planet and Pluto is not? That's not what scientists care about. They care about whether it is useful to classify Jupiter and Pluto differently.

 Manchu wrote:
True as compared to its own goals. Going back to the idea of "blue" -- it is certainly true, in an abstract sense, that there is a certain wavelength of light that we call blue. But the measurement of that wavelength does not, in Cartesian terms, objectively exist. The notion of "wave," is equally subjective. Therefore, we are measuring one abstract concept with another. The frame of reference is our own interests. I'd say that scientists had better leave truth to the philosophers and instead talk about whether something is useful. Is it true that Jupiter is a planet and Pluto is not? That's not what scientists care about. They care about whether it is useful to classify Jupiter and Pluto differently.

Why should we be regarding these sociological constructs in Cartesian terms? Why is it you are utterly dismissive of physicalism as 'absurd'?

Because phsyicalism itself is another result of Cartesian duality.

 Manchu wrote:
Because phsyicalism itself is another result of Cartesian duality.

Expound?

Phsyicalism is a derived form of metaphysical naturalism and is therefore nondualism.

Please explain how nondualism is dualism?

 Manchu wrote:
True as compared to its own goals. Going back to the idea of "blue" -- it is certainly true, in an abstract sense, that there is a certain wavelength of light that we call blue. But the measurement of that wavelength does not, in Cartesian terms, objectively exist. The notion of "wave," is equally subjective. Therefore, we are measuring one abstract concept with another. The frame of reference is our own interests. I'd say that scientists had better leave truth to the philosophers and instead talk about whether something is useful. Is it true that Jupiter is a planet and Pluto is not? That's not what scientists care about. They care about whether it is useful to classify Jupiter and Pluto differently.

But the only useful notion of truth is that of a sufficiently accurate abstraction, whether you're talking about notions of physical objects* or more nebulous ideas**, as nothing can be conveyed in anything but an abstract manner of one degree of accuracy or another, and inherently depends on subjective interpretation by the observer, which may have a smaller or lesser impact depending on the standardization of the abstraction at hand and their own conformity to/knowledge of said standard (which would itself inherently be an abstract idea subject to their own interpretation to one degree or another, of course).

For scientists, usefulness only comes into the picture in the sense of whether or not a category or system is actually necessary and useful, with the ordering of things into categories/by systems only considering where a given thing most accurately fits.

*As nothing but an object itself can be a perfectly true and accurate representation of itself, any other representation sacrifes degrees of resolutions to one extent or another.

**Such as philisophical notions, for one, which can thus not be perfectly and genuinely true*** when conveyed due to the vagaries of even formalized language and the necessary differences between their creator and any observer.

***Even in the sense of being perfectly accurate representations of the idea itself, to say nothing of the abstractions and comprises necessary for it to originate/exist in a human mind at all, or commment on whether the idea was even accurate to start with.

 azazel the cat wrote:
This thread reeks of Kant.

How? Kant's answer to OP's question would be ''when the situation has changed enough that it's necessary to use a different maxim to obtain a universally valid answer''.

Admit you just like to bash on Kant. Which is admirable, of course, but in it's time and place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:


Please explain how nondualism is dualism?

By the great power of making stuff up.

I would consider this question unanswerable since there isn't a universal definition of right and wrong. As such, the best answer is "maybe", But I will go out on a limb and say "definitely maybe".

If a 'wrong' action can be justified,was it even wrong in the first place?

This thread is neither exploding in angry rants nor locked. It's been a dull weekend in the OT forum.

Do what you feel is right.
Apologise if it isn't.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:
Maybe 2 responses so far in this thread have much of anything to do with the topic. I mean true, OP's threads are often...questionable, but still. Mods must be sleeping.

That's probably because there was already a thread about this from the same poster a few days ago, albeit with different wording.

Frazzled's motto: right, wrong, I'm the guy with the boom stick.

OK my real motto is "family is the only thing that matters.* The rest of the world can burn."
*And I have a boom stick.

'Can doing wrong ever be justified?'

Only if you're Richard B. Riddick.

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

It's about the suitability of an action to the situation, and the accuracy of the motivations for said actions to reality. I believe I explain it a bit clearer in my post on this page, though as I'm typing on a keyboard roughly the length and width of one of my thumbs (with a screen that only shows me the first half of any line I'm typing while typing it) trying to explain in better detail isn't an appealing option at the moment.

Your first explanation was clear enough. You're talking about a vague sort of consequentialism. And, seemingly, assuming a neutral frame of reference according to which value is established. On the whole that isn't a bad way to run your life because its pretty easy to eliminate neutrality and insert personal bias; but on a more profound level its basically just a handwave to all of morality.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Because phsyicalism itself is another result of Cartesian duality.

Expound?

Phsyicalism is a derived form of metaphysical naturalism and is therefore nondualism.

Please explain how nondualism is dualism?

Physicalism is certainly dualistic. It slides the definitions around to seem otherwise. Generic modernity splits the world into things that exist subjectively and things that exist objectively. Physicalism is nothing more than claiming that the only "real" kind of existence is objective and that objective means material. Even on your own terms, there are more things that phsyical things. Happiness, for example, is a thing. You'd likely call it a "construct." To the extent it is real, I suppose you'd say, it is merely some chemicals interacting in the brain. Nevertheless, it is a class of thing. Physicalists just define this class of things as "nonexistent" instead of subjective.

 Manchu wrote:
Happiness, for example, is a thing. You'd likely call it a "construct." To the extent it is real, I suppose you'd say, it is merely some chemicals interacting in the brain. Nevertheless, it is a class of thing. Physicalists just define this class of things as "nonexistent" instead of subjective.

You just presented two means by which a physicalist would define happiness as existent.

 Frazzled wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Necroshea wrote:
Maybe 2 responses so far in this thread have much of anything to do with the topic. I mean true, OP's threads are often...questionable, but still. Mods must be sleeping.

That's probably because there was already a thread about this from the same poster a few days ago, albeit with different wording.

Frazzled's motto: right, wrong, I'm the guy with the boom stick.

OK my real motto is "family is the only thing that matters.* The rest of the world can burn."
*And I have a boom stick.

Word brah!

@dogma: That's sort of the problem -- with physicalism, there's no difference between explaining a phenomenon and explaining it away.

 Manchu wrote:
@dogma: That's sort of the problem -- with physicalism, there's no difference between explaining a phenomenon and explaining it away.

But that's the point. By explaining a phenomenon it is no longer inexplicable, it simply "is". It doesn't go away, it just lacks mystery.

Well, the intellectual sort of mystery. There will always be a distinction between experience and knowledge.

 Manchu wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Because phsyicalism itself is another result of Cartesian duality.

Expound?

Phsyicalism is a derived form of metaphysical naturalism and is therefore nondualism.

Please explain how nondualism is dualism?

Physicalism is certainly dualistic. It slides the definitions around to seem otherwise. Generic modernity splits the world into things that exist subjectively and things that exist objectively. Physicalism is nothing more than claiming that the only "real" kind of existence is objective and that objective means material. Even on your own terms, there are more things that phsyical things. Happiness, for example, is a thing. You'd likely call it a "construct." To the extent it is real, I suppose you'd say, it is merely some chemicals interacting in the brain. Nevertheless, it is a class of thing. Physicalists just define this class of things as "nonexistent" instead of subjective.

Good grief that's a slippery and unstable platform.

Yes, so we explain happiness under physicalism as a result of the human brain undergoing a chemical process due to stimuli it interprets as positive. Nonexistant constructs vs subjective unknowables of the mind is the very reason physicalism is nonduality. You can claim it belongs to duality all you want, but the majority (sculpting our reality again) believe otherwise and therefore, you're wrong. In the same way that I can't claim the elephant seal belongs to the bird family, until the majority believe it and it becomes true...

You would explain, from the cartesian stance you've been carrying here and in the animal rights/bullfighting thread, happiness as being entirely 'of the mind' and not immediately understandable or 'knowable' by science, in the same way you were citing human rights as existing in some state beyond the definable or measurable state.

So you can claim all you want that physicalism belongs to Cartesian and it just doesn't fit, because it is actually an opposing school, it specifically targets and dismisses dualism as a construct and instead places it's stance firmly in the singular position of the 'mind as brain'. Physicalism relies on the eventual explanation of everything by science and understanding as real or having a real or solid explanation, your Cartesian claim the mystery of 'the other' as it's dominion.

We can explain happiness as a construct of society built around the chemical reactions taking place in the brain in response to stimuli.

We can explain human rights as a construct of society built around the sociological needs of a growing society, drawn up from enshrining needs of the physical into protected status in the society's set rules. And they are indeed very very mutable.

It's not really a matter of opinion, but of history and argument. Historically, physicalism is only possibly because of Cartesian duality. As a matter of argument, physicalism is nothing more than a very poor shift in definitions. All you've done is tell me I'm wrong because you and your imaginary majority say so. I might buy (because I would have to) that kind of argument if you and a gang of brownshirts were busting into my house at night but in this world of text you're going to have to give an actual counterargument. As I mentioned to dogma, "explaining" happiness as chemical reactions is not really explaining happiness at all except to the extent that you are saying (as you do about everything that is not made of atoms or energy) that it doesn't exist.

 dogma wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
@dogma: That's sort of the problem -- with physicalism, there's no difference between explaining a phenomenon and explaining it away.

But that's the point. By explaining a phenomenon it is no longer inexplicable, it simply "is". It doesn't go away, it just lacks mystery.

The issue isn't a lack of mystery; it is a lack of sensible meaning. When I ask about happiness, I'm not asking about dopamine. The physicalist insists that my question is therefore meaningless. Nothing has been explained. If anything, mystery has been generated, namely the mystery of why the word (comprised of things like happiness) apparently does not exist except in a sense that is not ordinarily apparent (as chemicals, or atoms, or leptons).

 Manchu wrote:
It's not really a matter of opinion, but of history and argument. Historically, physicalism is only possibly because of Cartesian duality. As a matter of argument, physicalism is nothing more than a very poor shift in definitions. All you've done is tell me I'm wrong because you and your imaginary majority say so. I might buy (because I would have to) that kind of argument if you and a gang of brownshirts were busting into my house at night but in this world of text you're going to have to give an actual counterargument. As I mentioned to dogma, "explaining" happiness as chemical reactions is not really explaining happiness at all except to the extent that you are saying (as you do about everything that is not made of atoms or energy) that it doesn't exist.

 dogma wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
@dogma: That's sort of the problem -- with physicalism, there's no difference between explaining a phenomenon and explaining it away.

But that's the point. By explaining a phenomenon it is no longer inexplicable, it simply "is". It doesn't go away, it just lacks mystery.

The issue isn't a lack of mystery; it is a lack of sensible meaning. When I ask about happiness, I'm not asking about dopamine. The physicalist insists that my question is therefore meaningless. Nothing has been explained. If anything, mystery has been generated, namely the mystery of why the word (comprised of things like happiness) apparently does not exist except in a sense that is not ordinarily apparent (as chemicals).

Happiness: The enjoyable result of the release of chemicals into the brain, reducing stress or discomfort and bringing about a positive sense in the individual. Also, a word created to explain this chemical reaction as an 'emotion'.

Emotion: Various behavior and perception shifting effects on the human brain, to wide ranging outcomes, brought about by stimuli promoting the release of various chemicals into the brain.

You can claim that's not 'sensible', science is not here to placate your constructed sensibility. You can also claim that it's 'very poor' and again, science is not here to meet your personal criteria, it exists to answer questions and explain, you can choose to reject it's explanation and it will still have explained the reason.

You can also use a wide ranging vocabulary and cite philosophy all you want and you're still saying, basically, that the earth is flat because despite being shown evidence to the contrary, you choose to believe something else that you or someone else has said. You are choosing belief over science, you are choosing the spoken idea over the physical and presented fact.

MGS, I should clarify that I have no problem with science. I think it is awfully useful. I just don't think it's the only tool in the human tool box. And I think the issue of human existence in the world takes more tools.

Please then clarify what exists in the human experience that we need to explain that science does not already cover adequately?

I read this thread while listening to college radio.

I had to get the mood RIGHT!

I read this thread then realized I wanted to start a revolution, just so I could smoke cigars while dressed in a gaudy uniform.

I think the only way to answer this question in a meaningful way would require right and wrong to be placed inside of a particular philisophical view point. As it stands you might as well ask what color is infinity or what does thursday taste like.

 Frazzled wrote:
I read this thread then realized I wanted to start a revolution, just so I could smoke cigars while dressed in a gaudy uniform.

That does sound like fun, doesn't it? I don't know the answer but some people say it's only a matter of time.

And just think of all the guns! Oh (Creator Figure) I'd probably go into shock.

 xole wrote:
I think the only way to answer this question in a meaningful way would require right and wrong to be placed inside of a particular philisophical view point. As it stands you might as well ask what color is infinity or what does thursday taste like.

That'd be a daft question, we all know thursdays taste yellow.

There is only one"truth" and that is the human right of surviving women.

Lying to a women is never wrong , in fact it is expected.

This philisophical viewpoint is known as survivalism.

So many big words and concepts hurt my brain.
I'll just leave this link :

http://m.youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?feature=related&v=X5cQcmAtjJ0

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
This thread reeks of Kant.

How? Kant's answer to OP's question would be ''when the situation has changed enough that it's necessary to use a different maxim to obtain a universally valid answer''.

Admit you just like to bash on Kant. Which is admirable, of course, but in it's time and place.

1. Thank you for ruining what I considered to be a halfway decent pun.
2. I admit as much all the damned time. The only reason "Kant sux" isn't my sig is because I didn't want my sig to be so negative.

 Frazzled wrote:
I read this thread then realized I wanted to start a revolution, just so I could smoke cigars while dressed in a gaudy uniform.

Mission accomplished.