The real discussion: Values (Humans)

by dhw, Tuesday, December 29, 2015, 21:33 (3250 days ago) @ romansh

dhw: I sometimes get the feeling that by reductionism you actually mean materialism... 
ROMANSH: If you mean can we apply reductionist methods to things that are immaterial and I suspect don't exist, I think you are right.
dhw: ...and what you mean by insights is the belief that all things can be traced back to material causes and effects. 
ROMANSH: With the possible exception of quantum phenomena, yes.
dhw: ...We would simply conclude that science will eventually prove that life, consciousness, psychic phenomena, emotional, aesthetic and mystic experiences will one day all be traced back to material causes. -ROMANSH: This of course is an assumption, but I would argue a very useful and I suspect accurate one. While the form of solipsism you are (seem to be) advocating is useful only in the sense that we should not be overly certain.-I don't suppose anyone would dispute the usefulness of scientific research into the material world, but I don't think material “usefulness” is the only value we should be considering. Our mysterious consciousness is linked to all kinds of subjective experiences (categories listed above) that are every bit as real and important to us in our daily lives as the material benefits from scientific research. The assumption that they are explicable in material terms may be accurate, but I am certainly not prepared to dismiss the hypothesis that there are phenomena beyond the scope of the material world as we know it.
 
ROMANSH: Having said that I don't have assume that pandimensional white mice are directing our evolution.-You constantly talk of assuming and assumptions. I prefer to talk of hypotheses, one of which is David's hypothesis of a universal intelligence directing evolution. I don't share it, but I don't dismiss it and I don't sneer at it, because I don't share your declared leanings towards materialism any more than I share his theism. -ROMANSH: And one more time ... science does not prove things. You should know better!
Agreed. I should have written: We would simply conclude that science will eventually convince everyone that life, consciousness etc. etc. My next comment still stands:-dhw: That in itself is a matter of faith, and so has no more current validity than the belief that there are a dozen or so dimensions, other universes, and/or other forms of being beyond those that we know (or think we know).
ROMANSH: Philosophers have questioned the validity of assuming that cause and effect are true and quite accurately point out there is no deductive method validating cause and effect. Having said that the inductive method (reductionism) has been really useful in moving what passes for knowledge forward.
What advances has assuming the reality of the immaterial brought forward dhw?
-Re usefulness, the response is the same as above, but I will be more precise: my love for my family and my friends, my delight in a Beethoven symphony, my acute awareness of the beauty and ugliness of the world around me, my fascination with the utter mystery of life and consciousness - these are all immaterial experiences which I share with a lot of other people and which are actually more real to me than quantum phenomena. For many people, God is also real. “Advances?” “Usefulness”? The subject of this thread is values, and I would suggest that the immaterial values of empathy, tolerance, patience, open-mindedness, and above all love for our fellow creatures are pretty useful, and if they were more widely practised our human society would ”advance” beyond all recognition. But if you want to confine the discussion to materialism as the key to knowledge, please explain how chemicals can produce consciousness, love and empathy.