8 Year Olds, Free Will, and Baptism

[mrmarklin]

On 8/25/2020 at 12:32 AM, Meadowchik said:

(In your reply you have put your remarks inside the box quoting me. I fixed it here, though.)

Anyhow, no, LDS are not expected to chose every righteous path. We've been clearly taught that sometimes we must chose between two good paths, so that argument does not work.

 

Simply not true. 
 

Im done here. 

[pogi]

10 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I entered the discussion by pointing out free will is an illusion.  It matters not if morality can be objectively verifiable on that proposition anyway.  

That proposition has profound implications on morality though, and those implications deserve to be addressed. 

[pogi]

15 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Sure, but that's an adaptation. My point is that something that is good and righteous in my life is not acceptable in an LDS life. So if I were to convert, I couldn't bring "the good" I already have and let the LDS church add to it. "The good" I can bring with me has to already match up with the LDS church's good. Again, Hinkley's statement sounds nice, but it doesn't really mean what it sounds like. What really happens is that a convert keeps what good matches the LDS good, discards the rest, and then the LDS church adds to the convert. Maybe like this:

LDS church has: A C E G I

Non-LDS has: A B C D

Non-LDS converts, bring his good. The only good allowable, however, are: A C (B and D have to be jettisoned, because they don't match).

LDS church adds on, so now convert has: A C E G I, etc.

Now, obviously from the LDS church point-of-view, what the non-LDS person thought was good really wasn't, like the rosary, so it's not really a good that the convert is bringing. But that's exactly my point. Hinkley's statement is misleading.

Ok, this is a bit of a tangent from the thread, ha  

I think Hinkley meant what he said, and converts do bring much good from their cultures and previous beliefs with them.  Sure, in some regards their perspectives of what is good evolves through the process of conversion, and some things that were good and righteous are left behind, but not everything.  When you say "what the non-LDS person thought was good, really wasn't" isn't really an accurate portrayal of what we believe either.  Because a person evolves spiritually, doesn't mean that previous steps were not good.  They may indeed have been critical to the spiritual developmental process.  That would be like saying it is bad for a baby to say "wawa" before saying "water".  I think we would all agree that "wawa" is a good step in the developmental process.  Once the baby learns how to say "water" however...things change.  I hope this doesn't come across as derogatory comparing other faiths to baby steps, but lets face it, we all believe that our religion is better and more spiritually evolved than the next in one way or another, or we would convert to something else. 

Other good things absolutely are carried over without any need for development.  Contemplative prayer is one example of something I have adopted from your faith, that is an example of a good that a Catholic convert might bring with them.

Here is a better way to look at it:

LDS church: ACEGI

Non-LDS has: ABCDH

LDS church adds on EGI, and convert brings D and H, and drops the B.  Not because the B was "bad", but because their perspective has evolved beyond it.  

Edited August 26, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

11 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Why would you get stuck thinking physical health is axiomatically a subject for science but morality is not?

Morality deals with "values".  Values are not objective.  To suggest that values belong to, and can be used by, the natural sciences as a foundation to prescribe objectively true moral conduct for humans which have no free-will (or even a self), is really a confused position to take. 

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by pogi

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

Simply not true. 
 

Im done here. 

Wow. President Oaks talks about life choices frequently being between one good and another in this talk: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2019/05/35oaks?lang=eng

I don't recall the church teaching that we must chose every good path. Do you have a source for that?

[stemelbow]

39 minutes ago, pogi said:

Morality deals with "values".  Values are not objective.  To suggest that values belong to, and can be used by, the natural sciences as a foundation to prescribe objectively true moral conduct for humans which have no free-will (or even a self), is really a confused position to take. 

 

I'd suggest you're simply being too dogmatic, seemingly closing your mind to the possibility that previous assumptions about morals should be held.  I linked a couple of things for Mr. Bukowski.  I'd recommend them.  Perhaps reading a couple of books might get our over the hump of this issue.  I'd agree with your other point that it has huge implications.  As far as I can see the implications are all positives, in favor of the view I espouse.  I'd also suggest it's not a confused position.  It seems confused because there are some huge presumptive mounds to get over.  

[pogi]

42 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'd suggest you're simply being too dogmatic, seemingly closing your mind to the possibility that previous assumptions about morals should be held.  I linked a couple of things for Mr. Bukowski.  I'd recommend them.  Perhaps reading a couple of books might get our over the hump of this issue.  I'd agree with your other point that it has huge implications.  As far as I can see the implications are all positives, in favor of the view I espouse.  I'd also suggest it's not a confused position.  It seems confused because there are some huge presumptive mounds to get over.  

What am I being dogmatic about?  Scientific Objectivity?  Objectivity is the cornerstone of natural science.  Objectivity is dogmatic by nature.

You haven't supplied me with a working definition of objective morality to close my mind to.  If you can't demonstrate that morality can be objective, then you have failed to demonstrated that it belongs to science.

This is the best you offered:

Quote

 that which promotes well being is a moral good.

That is not objective.  Not even close.  That definition will not work as an objective foundation for morality.   

I later responded:

Quote

Ok, come talk to me when we have a universal and objective measure of well-being, as well as a universally acceptable definition and objective measure for "pleasure".

To which you replied:

Quote

Why must you stick on an objective measure of well-being.

Sigh.

Once again, come talk to me when you have a working definition for objective morality, until then, I am not closing my mind to anything.  You haven't given me anything to close my mind to.  

Until then, morality belongs to the soft sciences, where it currently resides. 

Edited August 26, 2020 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Why would you get stuck thinking physical health is axiomatically a subject for science but morality is not?  At some point in every field of science we throw in an assumption and no one blinks an eye.  Someone attempts the same with morality and everyone gets stuck, afraid to proceed.  

So we should abandon science and get as fat as we can, smoke and drink ourselves into oblivion because objective science can teach us nothing about our health.

I disagree 

And on is/ought, Please give me a reference to where Sam Harris takes this on in a philosophical context in a notable philosophical Journal, or where he references Hume's argument directly.

The problem as I see it is in the philosophy of language and that he is missing a category, or language game distinction.

Where does he address that allegation?

It appears that his his most egregious mistake so surely he has discussed it thoroughly, if he still takes himself to be a philosopher even after all his training in neuroscience.

What degree does he have a neuroscience?

Does he address the mind-body problem in a philosophical way? Could you give me a reference to that please?

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Does he address the mind-body problem in a philosophical way? Could you give me a reference to that please?

What do you mean by the "mind-body problem"?

I don't know if this is what you are referring to, but to Harris, the mind is the body.

 

 

[stemelbow]

36 minutes ago, pogi said:

What am I being dogmatic about?  Scientific Objectivity?  Objectivity is the cornerstone of natural science.  Objectivity is dogmatic by nature.

A syllogism put forward by Sam Harris on this matter:  

Quote

 

Premise 1:

Morality and values depend on the existence of conscious minds, and specifically, on that fact that various minds can experience various forms of well being and suffering in the universe.

Premise 2:

Conscious minds and their states are a natural phenomena, of course, fully constrained by the laws of nature whatever these end up being in the end.  

Conclusion:

Therefore there must be right and wrong answers to the questions of morality and values that potentially fall within the purview of science.  

 

There's no doubt assumption to take, as there is in any scientific proposition.  For instance, you assume that values can't be objective.  So which premise shall be addressed?  

[stemelbow]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So we should abandon science and get as fat as we can, smoke and drink ourselves into oblivion because objective science can teach us nothing about our health.

I disagree 

And on is/ought, Please give me a reference to where Sam Harris takes this on in a philosophical context in a notable philosophical Journal, or where he references Hume's argument directly.

The problem as I see it is in the philosophy of language and that he is missing a category, or language game distinction.

Where does he address that allegation?

It appears that his his most egregious mistake so surely he has discussed it thoroughly, if he still takes himself to be a philosopher even after all his training in neuroscience.

What degree does he have a neuroscience?

Does he address the mind-body problem in a philosophical way? Could you give me a reference to that please?

 

You can look up Sam Harris' profile.  But yes he considers himself a moral philosopher.  

I think Pogi gave a good little, and comical in some ways, view of how the mind-body problem may not be quite the problem we assume.  The mind is not different than the brain.  It simply is what the brain (you know that part of the body) is doing.  If the brain functions based on something that is not the brain, then the problem may persist.  But if the brain is just functioning, then what is the problem?

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

What do you mean by the "mind-body problem"?

I don't know if this is what you are referring to, but to Harris, the mind is the body.

 

 

Yes I know. There is no immaterial matter, and even spirit is matter.

I read that somewhere.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

25 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You can look up Sam Harris' profile.  But yes he considers himself a moral philosopher.  

I think Pogi gave a good little, and comical in some ways, view of how the mind-body problem may not be quite the problem we assume.  The mind is not different than the brain.  It simply is what the brain (you know that part of the body) is doing.  If the brain functions based on something that is not the brain, then the problem may persist.  But if the brain is just functioning, then what is the problem?

The problem is the logic. I've said this many times here. I stole it from Nagel.

The description of a electrochemical reaction at a certain point in the brain cannot match the description or experience of "Bukowski is sad"

One is describing the actual experience of what it is to be sad, while the other describes a physical state.

One is a first person account and the other is a third-person account.

As Hume showed all we can do is show a correlation between a physical state and an emotional state not causation.

And yet like Hitchens, and all the others, they discuss a magical world which cannot be experienced. It's Cartesian dualism.

They cannot get outside the box, that every observation is within someone's mind, which is interpreting the data.

There is no such thing as objectivity, and every moment of Our Lives we are interpreting something that we cannot see, because we wear interpretive glasses and cannot see things as they are.

There is only confirmation that others are experiencing what appears to be the same thing as we are experiencing.

But that is beyond communication. We literally cannot describe it because we cannot see it.

So if matter is spirit and spirit is matter you can describe everything as spirit, instead of describing everything as matter.  Same difference.

It's A=A all the way down.

It just depends on what "A"you have to be looking at at the moment.

It's all the same stuff with the Dennett and the boys.

None of them get it.

And they and they write popular errors in the New York Times, seeking fame and fortune 

And then Hitchens admits to we have a conscience, and throws it all away in 2 seconds.

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

A syllogism put forward by Sam Harris on this matter:  

There's no doubt assumption to take, as there is in any scientific proposition.  For instance, you assume that values can't be objective.  So which premise shall be addressed?  

I have to say, I like Sam Harris.  I think he is brilliant and can be profound at times.  But this is nonsensical.  

This syllogism doesn’t even address scientific objectivity sremelblow.
 

An afterlife could “potentially” fall within the preview of science too.  That doesn’t make it scientific.  Until morality can be objectively measured and defined, it is not a hard science. Period.

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

I have to say, I like Sam Harris.  I think he is brilliant and can be profound at times.  But this is nonsensical.  

This syllogism doesn’t even address scientific objectivity sremelblow.
 

An afterlife could “potentially” fall within the preview of science too.  That doesn’t make it scientific.  Until morality can be objectively measured and defined, it is not a hard science. Period.

How does one get experimental data about the afterlife?

[pogi]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

How does one get experimental data about the afterlife?

At present, they don’t.  I was simply saying that science is not, in principle, opposed to the idea of an afterlife, but until it can be studied scientifically, it is not scientific - just like morality.   Science isn’t opposed to the idea in principle, it just isn’t a question of science.

Edited August 26, 2020 by pogi

[stemelbow]

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

I have to say, I like Sam Harris.  I think he is brilliant and can be profound at times.  But this is nonsensical.  

This syllogism doesn’t even address scientific objectivity sremelblow.
 

An afterlife could “potentially” fall within the preview of science too.  That doesn’t make it scientific.  Until morality can be objectively measured and defined, it is not a hard science. Period.

This is one aspect of his position.  I'm presenting it as a means to a discussion.  If you want Sam Harris' full view you can read The Moral Landscape.  You can find youtube videos too.  

On the topic of free will he also wrote a book on Free Will that I think is pretty conclusive--there's no free will.  It's an illusion.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

This is one aspect of his position.  I'm presenting it as a means to a discussion.  If you want Sam Harris' full view you can read The Moral Landscape.  You can find youtube videos too.  

On the topic of free will he also wrote a book on Free Will that I think is pretty conclusive--there's no free will.  It's an illusion.

Well, you can’t accuse me of “closing my mind” to any argument that you have made.  You can’t even give me a definition of objective morality that would be suitable for scientific purview.  Do I really need to read an entire book to get a simple definition, or does he just skirt around the issue and make nonsensical syllogisms like the one above?  
I do intend to read his book though, out of curiosity.

Edited August 26, 2020 by pogi

[stemelbow]

36 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The problem is the logic. I've said this many times here. I stole it from Nagel.

The description of a electrochemical reaction at a certain point in the brain cannot match the description or experience of "Bukowski is sad"

but scanning a brain can tell us when one is sad.  That's the point.  If the brain is simply functioning, there is no proof we have a spooky unseen something, like spirit, there operating.  The brain simply operates and each of those movements in the brain, though largely out of our control, are just happening.  A product of evolutionary processes, sure.  But they are happening.  It seems you are left to conclude brain activity is not determining our mood, or thoughts or action.  But that's a simple assumption we need not hold to.  

36 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

One is describing the actual experience of what it is to be sad, while the other describes a physical state.

One is a first person account and the other is a third-person account.

As Hume showed all we can do is show a correlation between a physical state and an emotional state not causation.

And yet like Hitchens, and all the others, they discuss a magical world which cannot be experienced. It's Cartesian dualism.

They cannot get outside the box, that every observation is within someone's mind, which is interpreting the data.

There is no such thing as objectivity, and every moment of Our Lives we are interpreting something that we cannot see, because we wear interpretive glasses and cannot see things as they are.

There is only confirmation that others are experiencing what appears to be the same thing as we are experiencing.

But that is beyond communication. We literally cannot describe it because we cannot see it.

So if matter is spirit and spirit is matter you can describe everything as spirit, instead of describing everything as matter.  Same difference.

It's A=A all the way down.

It just depends on what "A"you have to be looking at at the moment.

It's all the same stuff with the Dennett and the boys.

None of them get it.

And they and they write popular errors in the New York Times, seeking fame and fortune 

And then Hitchens admits to we have a conscience, and throws it all away in 2 seconds.

It feels like you just jumped all over the place.  

[Ahab]

On 8/25/2020 at 7:15 AM, stemelbow said:

Good in the sense of morality is well being.  DOes it further well being for anyone if the parent physically abuses his children?  If no, then we can say, without much room to wonder, it is not good to beat your child, in spite of what Christian scripture teaches. 

I would like to see some "scientist" use the scientific method to determine what "abuse"actually is and then determine whether or not any form of discipline furthers the well being of a child, rather than see someone make a statement like the one you just made.

On 8/25/2020 at 7:15 AM, stemelbow said:

Religious morality is listening to an unknown God to set rules. 

i don't believe anyone is in favor of listening to any person they do not know.  Some people know God while some other people do not.

On 8/25/2020 at 7:15 AM, stemelbow said:

Humanism would rely on our sense of morality, decided through pursuing well being-decided through, as much as possible, scientific methods. 

I agree, and listening to people who have been through similar experiences as they share what they have learned is a part of the scientific method.

On 8/25/2020 at 7:15 AM, stemelbow said:

Its not good to abuse children because it can cause trauma, and psychological problems.  

And anyone who has already learned that can testify and attest to that fact.

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

Well, you can’t accuse me of “closing my mind” to any argument that you have made.  You can’t even give me a definition of objective morality that would be suitable for scientific preview.  Do I really need to read an entire book to get a simple definition, or does he just skirt around the issue and make nonsensical syllogisms like the one above?  
I do intend to read his book though, out of curiosity.

More than willing on my end to accommodate.  If you don't like the syllogism what specifically is the problem?  I"m asking which premise is not true?  I can't see how it can be considered nonsense, as you offer.  Saying something that makes sense is just nonsense, doesn't really address the something, nor further the argument.  

I'd start with Free Will.  Really short, really quick easy read.  

[Ahab]

On 8/25/2020 at 8:56 AM, pogi said:

"Scientific objectivity is a characteristic of scientific claims, methods and results. It expresses the idea that the claims, methods and results of science are not, or should not be influenced by particular perspectives, value commitments, community bias or personal interests, to name a few relevant factors."  

And so when we see so-called scientific claims that show biased perspectives we can conclude that those claims are not scientific claims even though they claim to be.

On 8/25/2020 at 8:56 AM, pogi said:

An objective study also requires the results to be independently verified by an unbiased third party.  

Subjective evidence = "my foot hurts", or "I am saved!"  It can't be verified by an unbiased third party.

Objective evidence = "my heart rate is 100 BPM", or "The Church of Jesus Christ has ____ baptized members"  It can be verified by an unbiased third party. 

Show me an unbiased person or an unbiased perspective and I'll show you something else that doesn't really exist.

[pogi]

40 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If you don't like the syllogism what specifically is the problem?  I"m asking which premise is not true?

There is nothing wrong with either premise.  It is the conclusion that is problematic.

Quote

 

Premise 1:

Morality and values depend on the existence of conscious minds, and specifically, on that fact that various minds can experience various forms of well being and suffering in the universe.

Premise 2:

Conscious minds and their states are a natural phenomena, of course, fully constrained by the laws of nature whatever these end up being in the end.  

Conclusion:

Therefore there must be right and wrong answers to the questions of morality and values that potentially fall within the purview of science.  

 

1) Morality depends on conscious minds.

2) Well-being is entirely subjective and differs from person to person. 

3) Conscious minds are a natural phenomena fully constrained by the laws of nature

Therefore:

Morals and values fall within the purview of scientific objectivity - "potentially".  What???  How???  He is not really making any logical link here.

Morals and values cannot be said to be objectively true or false, or right or wrong.   We can study the natural laws which cause different people to have different subjective values.  We can study different parts of the brain responsible for those values.  We can study how to trigger those values in the brain.  That all belongs to the hard sciences and is objective.  But science cannot answer if those morals and values are "right" or "wrong".   In fact if nature determined it, then how could any value or moral be said to be morally and objectively wrong?  That is nonsensical.

 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

34 minutes ago, Ahab said:

And so when we see so-called scientific claims that show biased perspectives we can conclude that those claims are not scientific claims even though they claim to be.

Show me an unbiased person or an unbiased perspective and I'll show you something else that doesn't really exist.

I agree that no one is unbiased.  That is why science takes strict measures to account for it and block bias with double blind studies etc.  How do you propose to set up a double blind study to objectively study the concept of salvation? 

Edited August 26, 2020 by pogi

[Ahab]

Just now, pogi said:

I agree that no one is unbiased.  That is why science takes strict measures to account for it and block bias with double blind studies etc.  How do you propose to set up a double blind study to prove the concept of salvation? 

Asking the blind to prove they or others can be saved sounds like an exercise in futility to me.  Even if a blind person was saved others would say he was biased and if he was not saved it would just mean he did not know or just had not done what it takes to be saved.  Salvation has a lot to do with what happens after we die, don't cha know, and many of us just haven't died yet so we haven't experienced the total effects of salvation.