The real discussion: Values (Humans)

by dhw, Friday, January 01, 2016, 16:07 (3247 days ago) @ romansh

dhw: ...but I don't think material “usefulness” is the only value we should be considering. 
ROMANSH: I am not sure why the "usefulness"? What is your point? I did not use the word.-You wrote:”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.” Later: “the inductive method (reductionism) has been really useful in moving what passes for knowledge forward.” Since we're discussing values, I don't see why you are querying your own criterion of usefulness and my response to it.-dhw: 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.
ROMANSH: This is an article of faith of course. 
I might agree we experience consciousness but I am far less convinced of its usefulness than you are. [...] Take away the material I am totally dubious of its existence.-Strangely, you have changed my “real and important” to “useful” - the word you challenged above! I do not think my conscious (and to me very real) love for my family, for instance, is an ”article of faith”, and I do consider it useful, since love leads to happy relationships. You may be right, however, that it will disappear when we die.-dhw: 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: And I am certainly not prepared to dismiss the hypothesis as hogwash.
the claim that there are [may be] phenomena beyond the scope of the material world is of course completely untestable by definition! And how do these immaterial concepts interact with the world. immaterially? Should I take Douglas Adams' concept of hyper-intelligent pandimensional white mice seriously? I would argue about as seriously as cosmic universal intelligences.-I don't understand this at all. If you are NOT prepared to dismiss the hypothesis as hogwash, why do you put Adams' mice on a par with David's universal intelligence? Immaterial concepts such as ideas, ambitions, principles may be translated into material actions, but that does not endow them with physicality.
 
dhw: 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. 
ROMANSH: Frankly I would not count David's universal intelligence as a hypothesis. -Hypothesis: “An idea that is suggested as an explanation for something, but that has not yet been proved to be true” (Longman). “Yet” is a problem, as it suggests proof is possible, but I can't think of a better term. “Assumption” = “something that you think is true although you have no definite proof” (Longman), which cannot be applied to the agnostic view of hypotheses concerning the existence or non-existence of a universal intelligence.-dhw: I don't share it, but I don't dismiss it and I don't sneer at it...-ROMANSH: I must admit I can't take David's deeply held position seriously. -There are aspects I can't swallow either, but I take very seriously the argument that life and the mechanism for evolution are too complex to have arisen by chance.
I shall telescope our remaining exchanges for the sake of brevity:-dhw: “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...
ROMANSH: I would argue they are not immaterial ... but very material. -You switched from values back to materialism! OK. By ”material” I understand physical. The source may be physical, and there may be physical manifestations, but you cannot touch empathy, tolerance etc., or analyse them under a microscope or in a test tube. You wrote: “I could get material responses from various physical aspects of these thoughts and feelings that originate in the brain.” Yes, you can examine the brain's activity, but you cannot tell whether this is the producer or the product of the immaterial phenomena. -dhw: ...if you want to confine the discussion to materialism as the key to knowledge, please explain how chemicals can produce consciousness, love and empathy.-ROMANSH: consciousness - illusion
love - oxytocin
empathy - mirror neurons
how? ... evolution-If you are think oxytocin is a synonym for love, or an injection of it would bind you emotionally to the first woman you laid eyes on, and that evolution explains how a peptide hormone which causes the uterus to contract and the mammary glands to release milk also creates an emotion that transcends any physical description I can think of, then so be it.-ROMANSH: Let me tell you a story ... after my son died eight years ago I experienced intense grief, as one would expect.[...] -I can imagine nothing worse than losing a child. I can only sympathize, and admire both you and David for finding ways to cope with the grief.