Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Consequentialist,

But doesn't the evolutionary analysis of altruism show that...

Here's Wiki on enlightened self-interest:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest

It may help you.

Or not.

[Outrider]

I guess what I'm getting at is the difference between what Dawkins means when he says altruism. And what the people who came up with the word meant by it.

Is there a difference, or is there simply a deeper understanding? The people who developed the idea of altruism had no concept of evolutionary biology or its influence on behavioural traits. Furthermore, our increased understanding of the complexity of reality means that we are increasingly aware that there are no 'limited consequences'; chaos theory demonstrates that there are unintended consequences of all actions, and that inestimably small events can have immense subsequent events. Our attempting to codify those into black and white 'good' and 'bad' in isolation doesn't show that Dawkins is wrong, just that he's attempting to account for our deeper understanding.

After all Krauss et all changed the meaning of ''Nothing'' in order to eliminate necessity of God.( That is called sleight of hand....But in New Atheist speak translates as ''Jolly Good Form''.)

No, Krauss didn't change the meaning of 'nothing', he just showed that what people thought was nothing actually is a constantly bubbling potential. Did Maxwell change the definition of nothing when he demonstrated that it has magnetism in it? Did Einstein change the meaning of nothing when he showed that gravity would warp it? It's not 'redefinition', it's increased understanding.

You know... progress. The same sort of 'redefinition' that means we use antibiotics and soap to fight infectious diseases rather than prayers and exorcisms. Disease wasn't redefined, but our understanding of it was.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But surely as reasonable people we should drop whatever is redundant and as you point out here that is morality. How can we think of right and wrong when nothing is really right or wrong? What is it we are focussing on?

And how does all that square with a real evolved morality.

Also because we are calling different things morality, the only problem is deciding which one deserves the title. So it looks that I mean morality and you mean behaviour.

[Outrider]

But surely as reasonable people we should drop whatever is redundant and as you point out here that is morality. How can we think of right and wrong when nothing is really right or wrong? What is it we are focussing on?

We think of right and wrong in a number of ways, searching for something that works. Increasingly we're tending towards models of least harm, most benefit (with the associated difficulties of calculating complex and subjective ideas like that) and moving away from rigid and often arbitrary social conventions, religious dogma and authoritarian dictats. It's a work in progress, though - perhaps it always will be.

And how does all that square with a real evolved morality.

Evolved behaviours, and our inherited tendencies and squeamishness, inform our understanding, but we still have to decide whether their effectiveness overrides or undermines our determination of whether we're going to consider them 'moral', just as we still have to determine if we're going to be beholden to them or override them.

Also because we are calling different things morality, the only problem is deciding which one deserves the title. So it looks that I mean morality and you mean behaviour.

It looks like morality is a particular subset of behaviour, but then it looked to me like that was the case before as well.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is there a difference, or is there simply a deeper understanding?

Or is it linguistic piracy, linguistic totalitarianism and an attempt to bury the original meaning in an act of philosophical imperialism.

We have cause to suspect this

Vis Dennett on consciousness, Krauss et all on changing the definition of Nothing  and perhaps Dawkins on Altruism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

But surely as reasonable people we should drop whatever is redundant and as you point out here that is morality. How can we think of right and wrong when nothing is really right or wrong?

You make this mistake a lot. Morality is just as much "real" as aesthetics or language are real. What you're trying to say is "absolute", as if the absence of it somehow nullifies the fact. It's just an argmentum ad consequentiam resting on a false premise. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It looks like morality is a particular subset of behaviour, but then it looked to me like that was the case before as well.

But there is a problem with this. It is easy to put behaviour as the set since that is observed in a certain way and by a certain method. How do we place morality into that set as a subset? How is morality observed without changing the definition to fit?

[Outrider]

Or is it linguistic piracy, linguistic totalitarianism and an attempt to bury the original meaning in an act of philosophical imperialism.

If we're never going to change the understanding of words, why discuss? Why learn? Why enquire? Why suppose that one particular person's view of one particular interpretation of 'altruism', determined centuries ago and uninformed by literally centuries of philosophical, political, sociological, scientific and linguistic work is inviolate?

We've updated our understanding of any number of things, from the sun to our understanding of consciousness - and have more or less work to do on continuing those explorations - why is altruism somehow stuck in the past? We define 'altruism' as a 'Latin' word, yet Latin itself developed over several centuries of use, and 'altruism' had to go through at least two distinct variations of French on its way to us, both of which probably had developments of their own.

Users of those languages would have been interpreting 'altruism' according to their own cultural influences all through that period - to try to pitch 'altruism' as an unchanging rock of meaning through that is no more valid than those people who tried to suggest that 'marriage' was an inviolate concept that had remained unchanged for millennia.

Language moves on, words get co-opted for new uses, and old uses get expanded or dimished or altered as our culture and/or understanding moves on, moves forward, moves backwards or just moves.

We have cause to suspect this

Vis Dennett on consciousness, Krauss et all on changing the definition of Nothing  and perhaps Dawkins on Altruism.

I'm not that au fait with Dennett's view on consciousness, but I've addressed Krauss and Dawkins.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Irrationalist,

You make this mistake a lot. Morality is just as much "real" as aesthetics or language are real. 

How real do you think that is?

(This'll be good)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If we're never going to change the understanding of words, why discuss? Why learn? Why enquire? Why suppose that one particular person's view of one particular interpretation of 'altruism', determined centuries ago and uninformed by literally centuries of philosophical, political, sociological, scientific and linguistic work is inviolate?

We've updated our understanding of any number of things, from the sun to our understanding of consciousness - and have more or less work to do on continuing those explorations - why is altruism somehow stuck in the past? We define 'altruism' as a 'Latin' word, yet Latin itself developed over several centuries of use, and 'altruism' had to go through at least two distinct variations of French on its way to us, both of which probably had developments of their own.

Users of those languages would have been interpreting 'altruism' according to their own cultural influences all through that period - to try to pitch 'altruism' as an unchanging rock of meaning through that is no more valid than those people who tried to suggest that 'marriage' was an inviolate concept that had remained unchanged for millennia.

Language moves on, words get co-opted for new uses, and old uses get expanded or dimished or altered as our culture and/or understanding moves on, moves forward, moves backwards or just moves.

I'm not that au fait with Dennett's view on consciousness, but I've addressed Krauss and Dawkins.

O.

Dawkins maybe unless he insists that only his definitions are valid, Krauss no IMHO.

[Outrider]

But there is a problem with this. It is easy to put behaviour as the set since that is observed in a certain way and by a certain method. How do we place morality into that set as a subset? How is morality observed without changing the definition to fit?

Any set definition is, to a degree, arbitrary, they are determined by the purpose of the enquiry. Here we're looking at whether understanding that some of our instincts which in previous times had been considered 'good' were products of evolution, and whether that somehow undermines our understanding of them as 'good'. Some will define them as 'good' because of their effect, some because of their intent, but they won't be classified at all unless someone acts on them. In that act they become behaviours, and so that 'morality' influence is pitched against all the other behavioural influences.

That's why I'd consider morality a subset of behaviour, in this context, but you're more than welcome to explain a different rationale and conclusion, if you're using one?

O.

[Outrider]

Dawkins maybe, Krauss no IMHO.

I don't see the difference, really. We had an understanding, and a word for it. Our understanding has moved on, and so our understanding of what that word implies has changed. Whether the word in question is 'altruism' or 'nothing', the process is the same. Where is the difference?

O.

[Enki]

Vlad,

Squeezing objective stuff like harm into the subjective must be dangerous in itself don't you think?

It depends whether you think harm is objective. We generally arrive at similar conclusions, but there are many times that we don't. For instance, were the Catholic nuns who asked a person I know well to seek forgiveness from God simply because she was pregnant out of wedlock, doing harm or good? They thought they were doing good. I think they were causing harm.

For instance when it becomes opinion people might think it's not harmful to terminate a life or a limb. Or it's oK Tuesday but not Wednesday.

The idea of terminating a life is exactly such a case. There are situations, I would suggest, when it is quite morally acceptable to terminate a life, ignoring, of course your trite suggestions here. You might well disagree with me but whence comes the morality here? We might both have opposing views, which suggests very clearly to me that our morality is a product of our minds.

Similarly evolution is a physical process If these structures are laid down by evolution then they must be physical or real structures.
Again it seems as though you are trying to integrate two opposing ideas.

Evolution is a physical process, true, but the physical make up of our brains is surely part of that. There is pretty obviously a great deal of evidence that our thoughts are the result of physical brain activity. So, unless you think there is some sort of spiritual dimension, our thoughts, our compassion, our anger etc. are all squarely based upon the physical. So, for me, I can't see a problem here.

On another matter who is more fit to talk about issues on right or wrong. Someone who believes something is wrong or someone who thinks it might be wrong on Friday but if you think it's right then that's OK?

I think you need to take this up with some of your religious associates here. I believe that certain religious people think that certain actions taken on the Sabbath are morally wrong, but the same actions performed on other days of the week are morally correct. leave me out of it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Neologist,

How is morality observed without changing the definition to fit?

You don't need to: your definition isn't the definition.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Consequentialist,

How real do you think that is?

Real enough to be functionally useful.

(This'll be good)

It was.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't see the difference, really. We had an understanding, and a word for it. Our understanding has moved on, and so our understanding of what that word implies has changed. Whether the word in question is 'altruism' or 'nothing', the process is the same. Where is the difference?

O.

You are discounting linguistic imperialism. Which is naïve (because of Krauss IMHO) and a little hypocritical vis the conflict definition of marriage. Where a new definition seeks destruction of an old definition.

Dawkins, Krauss and Dennett to me seek to impose their definitions and destroy all other ideas and definition.IMHO. Memetics is a case in point since it is an exercise in the subduction of other sociological ideas in the interest of the New Atheist portfolio.

[Enki]

More, more.............................. keep it coming.

No, you've had enough for one day. Find out for yourself.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Consequentialist,

Real enough to be functionally useful.

It was.

Great I shall have it tattooed on my armse.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Neologist,

You don't need to: your definition isn't the definition. Hillside his here looking every inch like Antonio DanBarearse in leather boots , epee, and Tricorn hat.

There, corrected it for you.

[Outrider]

You are discounting linguistic imperialism.

Of course I am, that's what I'm arguing against - you're attempt to determine that an old understanding of altruism should be retained inviolate because... it used to be that way?

Which is naïve (because of Krauss IMHO)

You still haven't explained why, which is making it difficult for me to see why you don't agree.

and a little hypocritical vis the conflict definition of marriage. Where a new definition seeks destruction of an old definition.

A fail to see how 'marriage is between two people, who can be but don't have to be one man and one woman' some how 'destroys' a definition of 'marriage is between one man and one woman, except when it isn't but that's OK because that's in the Bible so it's different'. It's a modification, it's an update, it's an expansion, but destruction? Have there suddenly been no heterosexual couples marrying because the definition has been destroyed? I'm pretty sure the churches would have highlighted that loss of revenue by now.

Dawkins, Krauss and Dennett to me seek to impose their definitions and destroy all other ideas and definition. IMHO.

They make their case, and you're welcome to make yours. I'll admit, Dawkins confrontational style doesn't always lend itself to debate, he can come across as quite lecturing, but there are equally stilted communicators on all sides. Krauss seems, to me at least, to be quite open to discussion; the problem there is that it's a lot less of a subjective opinion, we've got measurements to show quantum fluctuations in otherwise 'empty' space: 'nothing' is potential, it's not a zero point.

Memetics is a case in point since it is an exercise in the subduction of other sociological ideas in the interest of the New Atheist portfolio.

Ah, 'New Atheist' - old atheism with less shame and more megaphones. Any sociological movement, any scientific movement, any religious movement is - in part - an attempt to gain credence for their definition of words. If you can control what words mean, you can control what people mean when they think, and therefore start to influence what they think. That's what debate is - trying to change what people think, by clarifying or codifying or defining words and inviting criticism of what words mean. That's one of the engines that drives that linguistic development, that and coming up with entirely new concepts that need to be fitted into an old language structure.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course I am, that's what I'm arguing against - you're attempt to determine that an old understanding of altruism should be retained inviolate because... it used to be that way?

You still haven't explained why, which is making it difficult for me to see why you don't agree.

A fail to see how 'marriage is between two people, who can be but don't have to be one man and one woman' some how 'destroys' a definition of 'marriage is between one man and one woman, except when it isn't but that's OK because that's in the Bible so it's different'. It's a modification, it's an update, it's an expansion, but destruction? Have there suddenly been no heterosexual couples marrying because the definition has been destroyed? I'm pretty sure the churches would have highlighted that loss of revenue by now.

They make their case, and you're welcome to make yours. I'll admit, Dawkins confrontational style doesn't always lend itself to debate, he can come across as quite lecturing, but there are equally stilted communicators on all sides. Krauss seems, to me at least, to be quite open to discussion; the problem there is that it's a lot less of a subjective opinion, we've got measurements to show quantum fluctuations in otherwise 'empty' space: 'nothing' is potential, it's not a zero point.

Ah, 'New Atheist' - old atheism with less shame and more megaphones. Any sociological movement, any scientific movement, any religious movement is - in part - an attempt to gain credence for their definition of words. If you can control what words mean, you can control what people mean when they think, and therefore start to influence what they think. That's what debate is - trying to change what people think, by clarifying or codifying or defining words and inviting criticism of what words mean. That's one of the engines that drives that linguistic development, that and coming up with entirely new concepts that need to be fitted into an old language structure.

O.

What Krauss wants us to define or understand nothing as is actually already defined as something. That is both sleight of hand and insulting intelligence and linguistic imperialism.

Dawkins I'm not sure although it is clear that memetics is an operation to bring the non Darwinian sociology and anthropology under the ambit of Darwinism IMHO.

Then there was the edge exercise in future redefinition of science. Any self respecting scientist would have thrown themselves under an atheist bus rather than be party to that exercise.

How are New Atheists different from the old atheists oh, the intellectual and linguistic imperialism I guess.

[Outrider]

What Krauss wants us to define or understand nothing as is actually already defined as something. That is both sleight of hand and insulting intelligence and linguistic imperialism.

No, it genuinely isn't. A vacuum - what was originally meant by 'nothing' is in a state of quantum flux, it constantly has semi-substantial elements manifesting and collapsing within it.

Dawkins I'm not sure although it is clear that memetics is an operation to bring the non Darwinian sociology and anthropology under the ambit of Darwinism IMHO.

I think there a number of people who are looking at the inputs to sociology and anthropology and recognising that an evolutionary understanding adds those fields; whether that will ultimately bring them entirely under the auspices of evolutionary biology is doubtful, but then we are rapidly approaching the point where the classic distinctions between fields of science are blurring and crossing over. Dawkins is reporting those elements of modern sociology and anthropology that relate to his speciality, I don't see that as a deliberate attempt to take them over, just his slant on them from his area of expertise.

Then there was the edge exercise in future redefinition of science. Any self respecting scientist would have thrown themselves under an atheist bus rather than be party to that exercise.

I've no idea what that is - a quick google-search didn't come up with anything. Any link I can check out?

How are New Atheists different from the old atheists oh, the intellectual and linguistic imperialism I guess.

How is announcing an idea to undermine the establishment 'imperialist'? How is expanding our understanding of what 'moral' entails 'imperialist' but autocratic dictat that 'this is what it used to mean and therefore this is what it must always mean' not 'imperialist'?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, it genuinely isn't. A vacuum - what was originally meant by 'nothing' is in a state of quantum flux, it constantly has semi-substantial elements manifesting and collapsing within it.

Your just shuffling now. Since we've known that a vacuum has electromagnetic radiation in it for decades now and whenever Krauss deviates us from the idea of nothing he is back into something which has long been described as ''something.''

Which leaves the question why something and not nothing rather untouched.

Unless of course we are taken in by the sleight of hand.

[Outrider]

Your just shuffling now. Since we've known that a vacuum has electromagnetic radiation in it for decades now and whenever Krauss deviates us from the idea of nothing he is back into something which has long been described as ''something.''

Which leaves the question why something and not nothing rather untouched.

Unless of course we are taken in by the sleight of hand.

So what 'nothing' are you taking about? We've known vacuum's had em radiation in them since Maxwell's time, yes, but when they wrote tales about gods making the universe from nothing they didn't even know about vacuums, let alone em radiation.

Not that the EM radiation is all that relevant, given that it's incidental to the quantum flux effect.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So what 'nothing' are you taking about? We've known vacuum's had em radiation in them since Maxwell's time, yes, but when they wrote tales about gods making the universe from nothing they didn't even know about vacuums, let alone em radiation.

Not that the EM radiation is all that relevant, given that it's incidental to the quantum flux effect.

O.

The nothing is Zilch, Nada, the complete absence of something, anything.
If nothing is something then it isn't nothing is it.

I do not dispute that what physics describes as a vacuum is not nothing. Who did? Krauss presents a straw man argument.
But accepting that nothing is something?

Besides accepting what must be the ultimate turdpolish negates Courtiers reply because the Emperor is wearing something.

Oh how New atheism has collapsed in on it's self....Non Apocalpse anyone.