Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 9:46 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 9:29 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 7:06 am
It would make no difference whatsoever. In the exact same way, it would make no difference if science established the objectivity of morality.

Knowledge doesn't work like that. Humans don't work like that.

Learning amounts to an actionable change in behavior, not a change of mind.

Now that I know that "the essence of all life is the same, differing only in structure and form." - I have absolutely no idea what to do with this information; or how to adapt my behavior in response to it.

You say it would make no difference believing you have not been previously been programmed, that is naive. Science would not prove morality is objective because it is not.

Q.E.D

Science has already proven that morality is objective. Yet you (and many scientists) still believe that morality is subjective.

So it makes no difference.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 9:29 am It is a human sensibility that humanity has made manifest in the world, in other words, it is meaning bestowed upon a meaningless world. As to your theory of education, I think you need to ponder that a bit. Your statement of having absolutely no idea what to do with this new information is not surprising, transformation would come through cultural programming, as in the past would be done to you. The realization of an alternative to way of being in the world would be a saner approach to life and the environment.

The alternative to objective morality is no whatsoever. I don't think you want that alternative.

Meaning bestowed upon a meaningless world.
Morality bestowed upon an amoral world.

What's the difference?

The term objective is a derivative of object, and objects have no property of meaning or knowledge, that is why in the absence of a conscious subjective subject, the world is utterly meaningless. Biological consciousness experiences, and this is knowledge and meaning that once possessed by the conscious subject, the conscious subjective subject is in the position to attribute/bestow that meaning or meanings upon the meaningless world.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 9:55 am The term objective is a derivative of object, and objects have no property of meaning or knowledge

Says you. The subject.

My computer (an object for sure!) contains knowlede and meaning. I know because I put them there.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 9:55 am , that is why in the absence of a conscious subjective subject, the world is utterly meaningless.

Says you. Thes subject.

Except the meaning we place in books, photos, music, computers and all the other ways we use to record our memories.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 9:55 am Biological consciousness experiences, and this is knowledge and meaning that once possessed by the conscious subject, the conscious subjective subject is in the position to attribute/bestow that meaning or meanings upon the meaningless world.

In the absence of a conscious subjective subject you wouldn't be talking about this world. You'd be talking about a world absent of conscious subjective subjects.

Not sure how you (a conscious subjective subject) could ever know anything about a world other than this one.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 9:57 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 9:55 am The term objective is a derivative of object, and objects have no property of meaning or knowledge

Says you. The subject.

My computer (an object for sure!) contains knowlede and meaning. I know because I put them there.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 9:55 am , that is why in the absence of a conscious subjective subject, the world is utterly meaningless.

Says you. Thes subject.

Except the meaning we place in books, photos, music, computers and all the other ways we use to record our memories.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 9:55 am Biological consciousness experiences, and this is knowledge and meaning that once possessed by the conscious subject, the conscious subjective subject is in the position to attribute/bestow that meaning or meanings upon the meaningless world.

In the absence of a conscious subjective subject you wouldn't be talking about this world. You'd be talking about a world absent of conscious subjective subjects.

Not sure how you (a conscious subjective subject) could ever know anything about a world other than this one.

You really just need to ponder what's been said a little longer.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 10:09 am You really just need to ponder what's been said a little longer.

Yes, you do.

I've done all the pondering - let me know when you catch up

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 10:11 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 10:09 am You really just need to ponder what's been said a little longer.

Yes, you do.

I've done all the pondering - let me know when you catch up

Will do!

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 9:57 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 9:55 am The term objective is a derivative of object, and objects have no property of meaning or knowledge

Says you. The subject. My computer (an object for sure!) contains knowledge and meaning. I know because I put them there.

Yes, says me, as a subjective biological consciousness. The computer contains a code you understand, the computer has no understanding, is not conscious and in your absence, its code or codes are utterly meaningless.


, that is why in the absence of a conscious subjective subject, the world is utterly meaningless.
[/quote]

Says you. The subject. [/quote]

Again yes, as a conscious subject, in the relationship between subject and object, the object has no experience/knowledge/meaning, only a conscious subject has the properties necessary for all the above.

Except the meaning we place in books, photos, music, computers and all the other ways we use to record our memories. [/quote]

All the above-mentioned is meaningless without you.

Biological consciousness experiences and this is knowledge and meaning that once possessed by the conscious subject, the conscious subjective subject is in the position to attribute/bestow that meaning or meanings upon the meaningless world.
[/quote]

In the absence of a conscious subjective subject, you wouldn't be talking about this world. You'd be talking about a world absent of conscious subjective subjects. [/quote]

Subject and object stand or fall together, take one away, and the other ceases to be. In other words, in the absence of a conscious subject there is no world of objects on a SUBJECTIVE LEVEL. Take the object away and consciousness ceases to be, reality or apparent reality is their unity.

Not sure how you (a conscious subjective subject) could ever know anything about a world other than this one.
[/quote]

As it stands you are quite right, we can only know the world subjectively. That, however, does not mean that our apparent reality is any more than a biological readout, a biological interpretation of the energies that surround us. The world of objects is biologically dependent, just as there is no sound or color in the real world, there are no objects in the real world, there are but the relations between energy forms.

My apologies, I sometimes get nasty when I'm over tired. Again, my apology!!

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 8:30 pm Yes, says me, as a subjective biological consciousness. The computer contains a code you understand, the computer has no understanding, is not conscious and in your absence, its code or codes are utterly meaningless.

I don't know about that premise.

If I ask my wife to turn on the lights - she does it.
If I ask Amazon Alexa to turn on the lights - she does it.

What reasons do you have to believe that there is difference in their respective understandings?

Meaningless; or meaningful - from where I am looking its code makes it respond to my words similar to the way other humans do.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2023 8:09 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 8:30 pm
Yes, says me, as a subjective biological consciousness. The computer contains a code you understand, the computer has no understanding, is not conscious and in your absence, its code or codes are utterly meaningless.

I don't know about that premise. If I ask my wife to turn on the lights - she, does it.
If I ask Amazon Alexa to turn on the lights - she, does it.
What reasons do you have to believe that there is difference in their respective understandings?
Meaningless; or meaningful - from where I am looking its code makes it respond to my words similar to the way other humans do.

Your wife understands why she turns off the light, the computer does not. A computer is still an inanimate object having no consciousness. It is a matter of information placement and retrieval with the computer, and the retrieved information would be utterly meaningless without your conscious understanding of said information. It is true that we just assume consciousness of other people by the way they behave in a similar way to ourselves, but others are to us largely objects in our outer world. As you walk down the street in a busy city, among a multitude of people, are they much more to you than objects that you might dump into?

This is getting a little off topic however; the premise is if science could prove that the essence of all life is one and the same, differing only in structure and form, how would the formations of future religions/mythologies then take form, would they still include the supernatural characters of the human imagination?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 9:46 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 9:29 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2023 7:06 am
It would make no difference whatsoever. In the exact same way, it would make no difference if science established the objectivity of morality.
Knowledge doesn't work like that. Humans don't work like that.
Learning amounts to an actionable change in behavior, not a change of mind.
Now that I know that "the essence of all life is the same, differing only in structure and form." - I have absolutely no idea what to do with this information; or how to adapt my behavior in response to it.

You say it would make no difference believing you have not been previously been programmed, that is naive. Science would not prove morality is objective because it is not.

Q.E.D

Science has already proven that morality is objective. Yet you (and many scientists) still believe that morality is subjective.

That is quite impossible, provide materials to back it up, there aren't any.

It is a human sensibility that humanity has made manifest in the world, in other words, it is meaning bestowed upon a meaningless world. As to your theory of education, I think you need to ponder that a bit. Your statement of having absolutely no idea what to do with this new information is not surprising, transformation would come through cultural programming, as in the past was done to you. The realization of an alternative to way of being in the world would be a saner approach to life and the environment.
[/quote]

Meaning bestowed upon a meaningless world.
Morality bestowed upon a moralless world.
What's the difference?
The alternative way of being would simply be an alternative way of being. There would be nothing sane; or insane about it.
[/quote]

I disagree, in a saner world there would be no climate crisis, no mass extinction due to over populations and habitat destruction, all of which will and does lead to war. A more compassionate mindset would mean less violence in general.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 11:24 pm How would future religions/mythologies develop if science could establish that the essence of all life is the same, differing only in structure and form. Let your imaginations take free range.

You have to define 'essence' and "life" first.

• Essence (Latin: essentia) is a polysemic term, that is, it may have significantly different meanings and uses. It is used in philosophy and theology as a designation for the property or set of properties or attributes that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity. Essence is contrasted with accident: a property or attribute the entity or substance has contingently, without which the substance can still retain its identity. -WIKI

We have to consider whether the 'essence' is in the philosophical-realism or anti-philosophical realism sense?
If taken in the philosophical realism, i.e. as absolutely mind-independent, then such an essence is a non-starter for scientific reality.

• Life is a quality that distinguishes matter that has biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from matter that does not, and is defined by the capacity for growth, reaction to stimuli, metabolism, energy transformation, and reproduction.[2][3] Various forms of life exist, such as plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria. Biology is the science that studies life. -WIKI

Re essence in the anti-philosophical sense,
Science has already verify and justify the essence of life as the DNA molecule.
Thus, no DNA, no question of 'life'.

Even with the above, there is no significant changes to theistic religions and mythologies because theists do not trust science as justifying truth in the above elements of life.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 4:44 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 11:24 pm How would future religions/mythologies develop if science could establish that the essence of all life is the same, differing only in structure and form. Let your imaginations take free range.

You have to define 'essence' and "life" first.

We can try that, but we all know life is different from non-life and the word itself is not the thing. There is but one biology and that is a carbon based biology. Apparently, going by modern science, the instance of the first self-replicating molecule was the first instance of life and we are all ancestors of that first instance, and DNA would seem to indicate we are all related. As Carl Sagan was fond of saying, we are cousins to the trees, made of the same stuff, arranged into a different order. Life is what you are, life is what you eat, and it seems ever renewing without losing that spark of life through the generations, so we know what life is, and what life is not.

• Essence (Latin: essentia) is a polysemic term, that is, it may have significantly different meanings and uses. It is used in philosophy and theology as a designation for the property or set of properties or attributes that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity. Essence is contrasted with accident: a property or attribute the entity or substance has contingently, without which the substance can still retain its identity. -WIKI

[/quote]

You can play with semantics if you like, science today tells us all is energy, so, let just say that life in general is of a particular energy form endowed with certain characteristics no-life forms do not have, and call the essence of that energy form life itself.

We have to consider whether the 'essence' is in the philosophical-realism or anti-philosophical realism sense?
If taken in the philosophical realism, i.e. as absolutely mind-independent, then such an essence is a non-starter for scientific reality. [/quote]

All is energy, but the forms that manifest for us life forms as objects are not of the same nature as are characteristic of life forms, the distinction is obvious.

• Life is a quality that distinguishes matter that has biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from matter that does not, and is defined by the capacity for growth, reaction to stimuli, metabolism, energy transformation, and reproduction.[2][3] Various forms of life exist, such as plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria. Biology is the science that studies life. -WIKI

Re essence in the anti-philosophical sense,
Science has already verified and justified the essence of life as the DNA molecule.
Thus, no DNA, no question of 'life'. [/quote]

We can agree I think that the condition of life is a particular one whether it be considered DNA or a certain energy form.

Even with the above, there is no significant changes to theistic religions and mythologies because theists do not trust science as justifying truth in the above elements of life.
[/quote]

Well, we are actually not interested in the old superstitions, but wondering if humanity took a realistic look at his own origins would the future religions/mythologies be more reasonable. Would these religions/mythologies be better suited to living in harmony with our own natures as in relation to nature in general. A rational approach, as opposed to an irrational approach.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 7:41 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 4:44 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2023 11:24 pm How would future religions/mythologies develop if science could establish that the essence of all life is the same, differing only in structure and form. Let your imaginations take free range.

You have to define 'essence' and "life" first.

We can try that, but we all know life is different from non-life and the word itself is not the thing. There is but one biology and that is a carbon based biology. Apparently, going by modern science, the instance of the first self-replicating molecule was the first instance of life and we are all ancestors of that first instance, and DNA would seem to indicate we are all related. As Carl Sagan was fond of saying, we are cousins to the trees, made of the same stuff, arranged into a different order. Life is what you are, life is what you eat, and it seems ever renewing without losing that spark of life through the generations, so we know what life is, and what life is not.

• Essence (Latin: essentia) is a polysemic term, that is, it may have significantly different meanings and uses. It is used in philosophy and theology as a designation for the property or set of properties or attributes that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity. Essence is contrasted with accident: a property or attribute the entity or substance has contingently, without which the substance can still retain its identity. -WIKI

You can play with semantics if you like, science today tells us all is energy, so, let just say that life in general is of a particular energy form endowed with certain characteristics no-life forms do not have, and call the essence of that energy form life itself.

We are doing philosophy, thus we have to be very rigoristic and precise.

Energy is fundamental to all of reality and things including life and those that are non-life.
But DNA is specific only to life.
Therefore the essence of life is DNA.

We have to consider whether the 'essence' is in the philosophical-realism or anti-philosophical realism sense?
If taken in the philosophical realism, i.e. as absolutely mind-independent, then such an essence is a non-starter for scientific reality.

All is energy, but the forms that manifest for us life forms as objects are not of the same nature as are characteristic of life forms, the distinction is obvious.

Note my point above,
DNA is specific to life.

• Life is a quality that distinguishes matter that has biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from matter that does not, and is defined by the capacity for growth, reaction to stimuli, metabolism, energy transformation, and reproduction.[2][3] Various forms of life exist, such as plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria. Biology is the science that studies life. -WIKI

Re essence in the anti-philosophical sense,
Science has already verified and justified the essence of life as the DNA molecule.
Thus, no DNA, no question of 'life'.

We can agree I think that the condition of life is a particular one whether it be considered DNA or a certain energy form.

Not when it is deliberated philosophically in the most refined sense.

Even with the above, there is no significant changes to theistic religions and mythologies because theists do not trust science as justifying truth in the above elements of life.

Well, we are actually not interested in the old superstitions, but wondering if humanity took a realistic look at his own origins would the future religions/mythologies be more reasonable. Would these religions/mythologies be better suited to living in harmony with our own natures as in relation to nature in general. A rational approach, as opposed to an irrational approach.

The issue is psychological [life] not physics [energy].
When we understand the precise psychological and biological processes that underlies all religions [theistic or non-theistic] and mythology, we can begin to wean them off humanity to enable all to be moral competent, rational and wise.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 7:52 am

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 7:41 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 4:44 am
You have to define 'essence' and "life" first.

We can try that, but we all know life is different from non-life and the word itself is not the thing. There is but one biology and that is a carbon based biology. Apparently, going by modern science, the instance of the first self-replicating molecule was the first instance of life and we are all ancestors of that first instance, and DNA would seem to indicate we are all related. As Carl Sagan was fond of saying, we are cousins to the trees, made of the same stuff, arranged into a different order. Life is what you are, life is what you eat, and it seems ever renewing without losing that spark of life through the generations, so we know what life is, and what life is not.

• Essence (Latin: essentia) is a polysemic term, that is, it may have significantly different meanings and uses. It is used in philosophy and theology as a designation for the property or set of properties or attributes that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity. Essence is contrasted with accident: a property or attribute the entity or substance has contingently, without which the substance can still retain its identity. -WIKI

You can play with semantics if you like, science today tells us all is energy, so, let just say that life in general is of a particular energy form endowed with certain characteristics no-life forms do not have, and call the essence of that energy form life itself.

We are doing philosophy, thus we have to be very rigoristic and precise.

Energy is fundamental to all of reality and things including life and those that are non-life.
But DNA is specific only to life.
Therefore the essence of life is DNA.

We have to consider whether the 'essence' is in the philosophical-realism or anti-philosophical realism sense?
If taken in the philosophical realism, i.e. as absolutely mind-independent, then such an essence is a non-starter for scientific reality.

All is energy, but the forms that manifest for us life forms as objects are not of the same nature as are characteristic of life forms, the distinction is obvious.

Note my point above,
DNA is specific to life.

• Life is a quality that distinguishes matter that has biological processes, such as signaling and self-sustaining processes, from matter that does not, and is defined by the capacity for growth, reaction to stimuli, metabolism, energy transformation, and reproduction.[2][3] Various forms of life exist, such as plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria. Biology is the science that studies life. -WIKI

Re essence in the anti-philosophical sense,
Science has already verified and justified the essence of life as the DNA molecule.
Thus, no DNA, no question of 'life'.

We can agree I think that the condition of life is a particular one whether it be considered DNA or a certain energy form.

Not when it is deliberated philosophically in the most refined sense.

Even with the above, there is no significant changes to theistic religions and mythologies because theists do not trust science as justifying truth in the above elements of life.

Well, we are actually not interested in the old superstitions, but wondering if humanity took a realistic look at his own origins would the future religions/mythologies be more reasonable. Would these religions/mythologies be better suited to living in harmony with our own natures as in relation to nature in general. A rational approach, as opposed to an irrational approach.

The issue is psychological [life] not physics [energy].
When we understand the precise psychological and biological processes that underlies all religions [theistic or non-theistic] and mythology, we can begin to wean them off humanity to enable all to be moral competent, rational and wise.

OK, we'll use your term for essence DNA, but I believe DNA is more the mechanics of the life processes, however, seeing as the word is not the thing and you know life as conscious experience, possibly we can get on with it. Hopefully, the realization that the essence of life across the board is one and the same, it will in its effect, trash humanity egocentricity. Perhaps essence could be formulated in, consciousness is life, life is consciousness.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 8:22 am OK, we'll use your term for essence DNA, but I believe DNA is more the mechanics of the life processes, however, seeing as the word is not the thing and you know life as conscious experience, possibly we can get on with it. Hopefully, the realization that the essence of life across the board is one and the same, it will in its effect, trash humanity egocentricity. Perhaps essence could be formulated in, consciousness is life, life is consciousness.

Not merely the mechanics of life.

On further thought it could be RNA instead of DNA.

DNA is specific to genes.
No RNA, DNA, no genes = no life.

Not all life [single-celled] can be attributed with 'consciousness' as generally understood.

popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sun May 21, 2023 8:22 am OK, we'll use your term for essence DNA, but I believe DNA is more the mechanics of the life processes, however, seeing as the word is not the thing and you know life as conscious experience, possibly we can get on with it. Hopefully, the realization that the essence of life across the board is one and the same, it will in its effect, trash humanity egocentricity. Perhaps essence could be formulated in, consciousness is life, life is consciousness.

We can have dna in a vial. Is that life?
https://www.bio-rad.com/en-se/education ... 1121004124
It seems the essence of life is something more than DNA. On earth life certainly all has DNA, unless there is a not yet found organism with just RNA. But DNA alone is not life. It must be active in very complicated processes with other organic compounds in an organism that.....and ending that sentence might complete the essence of life.

(also if we discovered organisms,say somewhere else in the universe or remnants on Mars, say, we'd call it life even if it didn't have dna).

I think VA's sense of the essence is both incomplete and misleading. Incomplete because DNA is not enough, though I see he now added RNA, but misleading because life may indeed be based around other complicated processes with DNA. Scientists will not, for example, refuse to call something life if it doesn't have DNA YET shows certain qualities.