Philosophy Now Forum

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 19, 2022 12:08 pm I think this is non-sense.

Then ignore it.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Feb 19, 2022 2:52 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 19, 2022 12:08 pm I think this is non-sense.

Then ignore it.

Okay.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 19, 2022 2:43 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 19, 2022 8:32 amthere's nothing to see here.

You read Penfield's book?

No. I read the extended passages you posted, which presumably summarised Penfield's work and showed why he reached his conclusion. They indicated nothing of value in defence of dualism - just arguments from ignorance. If they impress you, please explain why you think I'm wrong.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 19, 2022 11:49 amMichael Egnor...has an axe to grind

Irrelevant.

Not so. It goes to credibility. A crazy advocate of intelligent design - which is unscientific nonsense that no respectable natural scientist should touch - is likely to give Penfield's work a dodgy spin. And his invocation of classical and medieval dualism as an astonishingly accurate precursor to 'modern' neuro-science just ices the cake. We're dealing with cranks.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 19, 2022 9:04 pmI read the extended passages you posted, which presumably summarised Penfield's work and showed why he reached his conclusion. They indicated nothing of value in defence of dualism - just arguments from ignorance.

Thank goodness you're not a physician.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 19, 2022 9:43 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 19, 2022 9:04 pmI read the extended passages you posted, which presumably summarised Penfield's work and showed why he reached his conclusion. They indicated nothing of value in defence of dualism - just arguments from ignorance.

Thank goodness you're not a physician.

Thank goodness many or most physicians are rational, skeptical scientists.

Come to an agreement and acceptance of the definitions for the words 'morality', 'objective' and 'subjective', then you will FIND and SEE what thee ACTUAL Truth COULD BE in regards to whether 'morality', itself, is 'objective' or 'subjective', or BOTH. Which some of 'you', by the way, probably have NEVER even considered could be a POSSIBILITY.

But, then some of 'you', adult human beings, do have, and HOLD ONTO, some very SPECIFIC definitions, which you REFUSE wholeheartedly to LOOK AT and CHANGE.

The 'problem' here is ACTUALLY VERY SIMPLE and EASY to SOLVE.

But PLEASE FEEL FREE to carry on as you have been for 153 pages now in this forum, and for countless years in human history.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 7:09 am Come to an agreement and acceptance of the definitions for the words 'morality', 'objective' and 'subjective', then you will FIND and SEE what thee ACTUAL Truth COULD BE in regards to whether 'morality', itself, is 'objective' or 'subjective', or BOTH. Which some of 'you', by the way, probably have NEVER even considered could be a POSSIBILITY.

But, then some of 'you', adult human beings, do have, and HOLD ONTO, some very SPECIFIC definitions, which you REFUSE wholeheartedly to LOOK AT and CHANGE.

The 'problem' here is ACTUALLY VERY SIMPLE and EASY to SOLVE.

But PLEASE FEEL FREE to carry on as you have been for 153 pages now in this forum, and for countless years in human history.

Instead of complaining, why not try to offer helpful alternative definitions?

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 12:49 pm

Age wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 7:09 am Come to an agreement and acceptance of the definitions for the words 'morality', 'objective' and 'subjective', then you will FIND and SEE what thee ACTUAL Truth COULD BE in regards to whether 'morality', itself, is 'objective' or 'subjective', or BOTH. Which some of 'you', by the way, probably have NEVER even considered could be a POSSIBILITY.

But, then some of 'you', adult human beings, do have, and HOLD ONTO, some very SPECIFIC definitions, which you REFUSE wholeheartedly to LOOK AT and CHANGE.

The 'problem' here is ACTUALLY VERY SIMPLE and EASY to SOLVE.

But PLEASE FEEL FREE to carry on as you have been for 153 pages now in this forum, and for countless years in human history.

Instead of complaining, why not try to offer helpful alternative definitions?

I have NEVER 'complained'. So, instead of ASSUMING, I suggest you CLARIFY, FIRST.

NO 'definitions' have been offered. So, I can NOT 'try to' offer alternative definitions.

Also, I was speaking on a GLOBAL scale, as well as just in this forum or thread scale.

But the definition I USE for the word:

Morality'; principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

'Subjective'; are one's views.

'Objective'; are EVERY one's agreed upon and accepted views.

So, 'morality' is 'subjective' AND 'objective'. And, how to make 'morality' 'objective' WAS done by just finding what 'it' IS that EVERY one AGREES WITH and ACCEPTS in relation to principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong, or good and bad, behavior.

Examples of 'morality'; Is it all right to eat meat or is it wrong? And, if it is all right, then what type of meat is it all right to eat?

Examples of 'moral subjectivity'; It is all right to eat. It is wrong to eat meat. It is all right to eat lamb. It is wrong to eat lamb.It is all right to eat pork. It is wrong to eat port. It is all right to eat cows. It is wrong to eat cows. It is all right to eat whales. It is wrong to eat whales. It is all right to eat human bodies. It is wrong to eat human bodies.

An example of 'moral objectivity'; Eating meat, when it is NOT necessary, is NOT an all right behavior. This is because EVERY one could agree with this.

If ANY one wants or needs ANY further CLARIFICATION here, then, AGAIN, I suggest just asking for CLARITY, BEFORE you even BEGIN to ASSUME absolutely ANY thing.

But, if ANY just DISBELIEVES or just DISAGREES with what I have said, and wants to REMAIN with their BELIEFS or DISAGREEMENT/S, then feel FREE to do whatever you want to do with this IRREFUTABLE INFORMATION PROVIDED here.

And, AGAIN, once 'you', adult human beings, come to an AGREEMENT and ACCEPTANCE of the definitions for the words 'morality', 'subjective', and 'objective', then what IS found and discovered is that 'morality', itself, is BOTH 'subjective' AND 'objective', and WHEN 'morality' is 'objective', then ALL of 'you' can BEGIN to START living in Peace, and in Harmony, with ONE ANOTHER, together as One.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 6:55 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 19, 2022 9:43 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Feb 19, 2022 9:04 pmI read the extended passages you posted, which presumably summarised Penfield's work and showed why he reached his conclusion. They indicated nothing of value in defence of dualism - just arguments from ignorance.

Thank goodness you're not a physician.

Thank goodness many or most physicians are rational, skeptical scientists.

Um... I don't think so.
Doctors are too busy following diagnosis and treatment algorithms to be skeptical.
The science is behind the medicine and not so much up front. That is why GPs are so piss poor at specualtion and understanding ideopathic disease; a word they use too much as it looks like a diagnosis when in fact it's little more than giving up.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 4:01 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 6:55 am

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Feb 19, 2022 9:43 pm

Thank goodness you're not a physician.

Thank goodness many or most physicians are rational, skeptical scientists.

Um... I don't think so.
Doctors are too busy following diagnosis and treatment algorithms to be skeptical.
The science is behind the medicine and not so much up front. That is why GPs are so piss poor at specualtion and understanding ideopathic disease; a word they use too much as it looks like a diagnosis when in fact it's little more than giving up.

Okay. I don't recognise this characterisation of the GPs I've known, including my brother.

Diagnoses and treatments are informed by empirical evidence. I prefer that to irrational belief in substance dualism, for which there's no evidence.

But we speak as we find.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 1:26 pm
But the definition I USE for the word:

Morality'; principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

'Subjective'; are one's views.

'Objective'; are EVERY one's agreed upon and accepted views.

You're free to use words any way you like. But I'd guess you can't find a dictinary definition of objectivity that calls it 'every one's agreed upon and accepted views'. That ain't how English speakers use that word. We use it mean something like 'concern for what actually is the case - for the facts - regardless of anyone's opinion'.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:51 am You're free to use words any way you like. But I'd guess you can't find a dictinary definition of objectivity that calls it 'every one's agreed upon and accepted views'. That ain't how English speakers use that word. We use it mean something like 'concern for what actually is the case - for the facts - regardless of anyone's opinion'.

That's precisely how I am using it in pointing out that morality is objective.

It is actually the case. It is a fact that morality exists.

That is exactly the way we use the word when say that gravity is objective too.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:36 am my brother.

Give him a copy of Penfield's book.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:36 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 4:01 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 6:55 am
Thank goodness many or most physicians are rational, skeptical scientists.

Um... I don't think so.
Doctors are too busy following diagnosis and treatment algorithms to be skeptical.
The science is behind the medicine and not so much up front. That is why GPs are so piss poor at specualtion and understanding ideopathic disease; a word they use too much as it looks like a diagnosis when in fact it's little more than giving up.

Okay. I don't recognise this characterisation of the GPs I've known, including my brother.

Diagnoses and treatments are informed by empirical evidence. I prefer that to irrational belief in substance dualism, for which there's no evidence.

Yes, but with doctoring its more about a deductive process than inductive. Science has to procede from the unknown, medicine unfolds towards known diseases.

But we speak as we find.

I know a scientist working with epigenetics, who continually complainst that her brother who is a doctor is too narrow minded to do science.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:16 pm

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 22, 2022 9:36 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Feb 21, 2022 4:01 pm

Um... I don't think so.
Doctors are too busy following diagnosis and treatment algorithms to be skeptical.
The science is behind the medicine and not so much up front. That is why GPs are so piss poor at specualtion and understanding ideopathic disease; a word they use too much as it looks like a diagnosis when in fact it's little more than giving up.

Okay. I don't recognise this characterisation of the GPs I've known, including my brother.

Diagnoses and treatments are informed by empirical evidence. I prefer that to irrational belief in substance dualism, for which there's no evidence.

Yes, but with doctoring its more about a deductive process than inductive. Science has to procede from the unknown, medicine unfolds towards known diseases.

But we speak as we find.

I know a scientist working with epigenetics, who continually complainst that her brother who is a doctor is too narrow minded to do science.

It's not only some medics who have fallen in with 'shut up and calculate'.