How The Scientific Worldview Reduces Should Claims

[konjunktion26]

science of today wouldn´t exist without philosophy of the past. knowledge comes from experience. the brain has limits. the mind has no limits. thanks for your attention @ mankind.

[CammieSpectrum]

@konjunktion26 I have alot of things to say about that, in fact. unfortunatelly I am super busy right now; I haven't made a video in a while because of this. my thought has progressed and seems to progress exponentially at times. this is just the beggining. please stay tuned :)

[maryamelsherif]

I like the couldnt & shouldnt arguement at the end. How many times have i heard someone say "shes just a bitch" or hes just an asshole" implying that they will NEVER change but at the same time saying he/she "shouldnt" have done whatever implying some choice or moral ambivalence or pricked conscience on the part of that accused person. I think maybe part of the problem is our limited understanding of how humans are or are not "special" compared to other organic or inorganic matter.

[CammieSpectrum]

We need a rationale for why we judge people for doing or beleiving stupid things(we think)...yet we do not judge the weather. both are determined, yet one is causally determined and the latter is teleologically determined(by reasons). 'You' don't control, for example, whether you believe UFO's are Alien Craft or whether you think your parents will be home at a certain time, because you have reasons for believing these things, that would need to be explained away for your mind to change

[CammieSpectrum]

We judge people's beleifs, as a mistake, even if we beleive they have no control over their beleifs, which they do not; but beleifs are not causally determined, but teleologically determined by the reasons that we give and can take into account. If not, then why do we give reasons for our beleifs and actions, if these are not the literal explanations of our actions, and not physical laws? therefore judgment has nothing to do with Determinism, but that it is Teleologically Determined

[maplebayou1]

I'm afraid you're confusing different levels. Even if we assume that the universe is fundamentally deterministic, it doesn't follow that human behavior must be inflexible. Even if the circumstances are identical, it is entirely possible to generate a completely different response from a completely deterministic program. How do you think the "random" setting on a DVD player works? The behavior of a program, or a person, is not constrained by the behavior of electrons.

[CammieSpectrum]

@maplebayou1 Randomizer Programs are Not really Random. and to be clear, I, personally, am not saying Charge Events in the brain are Inflexible, but that the electric law for Charge Events, as stated by Physicists, is Inflexible, like all Scientific Laws. and if Charge Events obey inflexible laws, then all the events in our brain are also inflexible,since they are entirelly made up of charges. otherwise their would be an exception to their law, which science doesn't allow for :)

[maplebayou1]

@CammieSpectrum That is precisely my point. Computer programs are intrinsically pseudorandom, i.e., deterministic, yet they are tremendously flexible and in fact unpredictable. If they weren't, they wouldn't be able to beat the best chess players in the world. Determinism at the level of electrons does not equate to rigidity at the level of behavior.

[CammieSpectrum]

@maplebayou1 Scientific Minds reduce Literal Flexiblity, which would mean Charge Events, would not follow a law, but are a Result, with a Default mode and an Exception mode, which comes more into play in the cell, and in the dendrites of nerve cells, than in the inorganic world/lab. and by exploiting this, the cell and our nerve cells are directed towards Results, in a form of Teleological Determinism. which is the other aspect to morality(goal directedness) that is reduced by scientific minds

[maplebayou1]

@CammieSpectrum There is nothing unscientific about goal-seeking, every homeostatic system is goal-seeking. This has no necessary connection with morality that I can see. A thermostat has a goal, a pendulum has a goal, a river has a goal. What do equilibria have to do with ethics? It seems to me that you have canonized the "scientific mind" into a caricature. Even on such basic questions as whether the universe is fundamentally deterministic, the scientific jury is very much out.

[CammieSpectrum]

@maplebayou1 Scientists would NOT say that human behavior or cell processes are being directed by goals, because they are saying it is directed by a hidden causal events(photons) obeying a rigid law. Contigent Goals, as explanations, and rigid laws, are conflicting theories. A should claim is saying that you should have pursued a different goal or way of accomplishing a goal. you could have acted otherwise physically, though not teleologically. please don't compare yourself to a thermostat :(

[maplebayou1]

@CammieSpectrum I don't know who these scientists are. Again I say that you are confusing levels. Because electrons moving through circuits obey “rigid laws” has no bearing on the flexibility of the program. It can be in the nature of an automaton or it can be extremely adaptive and quite unpredictable. If the program has multiple potential responses to identical stimuli, it has met your requirement that it “could have acted otherwise.”

[CammieSpectrum]

@maplebayou1 I'm not talking about the rigidity or flexibility of a program/object in the obvious sense that it can be configured/molded differently, but whether the rule for individual charge events themselves, can also 'change' depending on what result is trying to be accomplished; such that, you will sometimes get a 'different' outcome with the same initial conditions in a classical situation. Otherwise, you are simply judging initial conditions for not being different than they were

[maplebayou1]

@CammieSpectrum I suggest that you take a look at Dr. Robert Sapolsky's YouTube lecture "Emergence and Complexity."

[CammieSpectrum]

@maplebayou1 Even if you were correct about 'Should Claims' being Meaningful for a Rigid Sequence of Causal Events(including photon events), is that now you cannot pinpoint where in the causal chain responsibility lies. is it this causal event in this nerve cell...or is it in the previous nerve cell...or is it in the motor cell...or is it in the evnironment that started the chain? or the big bang? why is this link in the chain responsible rather than another? and why do we not judge weather?

[maplebayou1]

@CammieSpectrum "We" do not "judge" the weather for the same reason that we do not judge a dog or an infant to be guilty of murder even if it kills someone. It is because we do not believe these entities have the ability to abstract and therefore make moral judgments themselves. Making judgments as opposed to simply pursuing goals or responding to stimuli requires the realization that there is a realm of the abstract and a sense of one's abstract relations to the rest of the universe.

[CammieSpectrum]

@maplebayou1 What does your expression 'make moral judgments' mean? what is make mean? is it a causal event in the brain? is it a point in a broader rigid causal chain, including the environment? where is a moral judgment being made and what is it made of?' if it is all describale in terms of a rigid call chain of existence, then the moral judgment is part of this chain,as is all behavior and anythign that exists, and if so what's the difference between the behavior of weather and organism?,

[CammieSpectrum]

@maplebayou1 What does your expression 'make moral judgments' mean? what does 'make' mean? is it a causal event in the brain? is it an event in a broader rigid causal chain, the environment? where is a moral judgment being made & what is it made of?' If it is all describable in terms of a rigid causal chain of existence, then moral judgment are part of this chain,as is all behavior and anythign that exists, and if so, what's the difference between the behavior of weather and organism?

[maplebayou1]

@CammieSpectrum Causality can be examined at many different levels and the principles that apply to one don't necessarily apply to others. Because thoughts and emotions ultimately supervene on the dynamics of subatomic particles does not mean they follow the same rigid laws as subatomic particles. But you are raising some important issues. Is there an abstract realm distinct from the physical realm? What is material and what isn't? I don't see any evidence that materialists really know.

[maplebayou1]

@CammieSpectrum The other big question you seem to be driving at is whether the human mind can truly originate an idea.. I believe our ability to abstract enables us to go beyond recognizing a pattern to understanding the concept of a pattern. It allows us to make models of structures and processes, and importantly, ourselves, and be very proactive. We carry with us a virtual world which, to a great extent, frees us from the constraints suffered by other systems.

[timdb85]

If all is determined, this doesn't mean that material brains can't form thoughts about things having existed another way. And this doesn't mean that in a material universe there aren't material patterns that could be interpreted by an intelligent brain to imply what we call "statistics"; to an intelligent observer, there is in any moment the potential for things to happen another way, except when taking into account *all* factors.

[timdb85]

So subjectively and objectively it can be claimed that "should" exists materially.

Nonetheless, this video got a "like" from me! :)

[Quintessentguy]

This thinking demonstrates why you should read Ken Wilber, and others, who agree that scientific materialism is reductionist and can't possibly explain our world. No one except materialists argue that the moral world could possibly be explained by chemical reactions.

[CammieSpectrum]

@Quintessentguy Physics even reduces chemical reactions, to the laws they claim our governing them; They observe a pattern, which they beleive has no exceptions, they give a name for this pattern, which in their mind, somehow transforms the pattern into an explanation, when really it is just a description; What is the difference between a law and an induced pattern? they think describing how the process occurs, is the same as explaining the process.