Sign in to follow this  
BaalChatzaf

A photograph of the 29 smartest people in the world

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

Then so are people.

--Brant

man qua man people

Moral principles are opinion,  not fact...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Moral principles are opinion,  not fact...

I'll take your word about your opinion being an opinion, not "fact."

Why not prove it? You know, factualize it.

--Brant

do something to support your asseverations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Moral principles are opinion,  not fact...

I don't get it, how you can be so deliberately dense. Is there something you did that was so profoundly evil, that you can't admit it? Moral principles are simple. This way is life, that way death. This way is heroism, that way disgrace This way is eyes and ears open, that way self-destruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we have a man (man).

His moral principles are opinions (but what about man?).

A man needs X because man--the concept man--needs Y (a moral code).

This is from man's conceptual consciousness--a man may stray.

Man is the human universal and includes all sexes and ages.

Man is the creation of conceptual consciousness. He exists only conceptually. Therefore man is not a "fact"?

Concepts are not facts? Yes they are--great! No they aren't--so what?

Let's degrade facts by confining them to physical phenomena.

It doesn't matter if the physical man might match up to the concept He created. Not if your epistemology excludes concepts. Go ahead. Try thinking with facts but not concepts. That thing over there. What is it? A chair? That's an opinion. The fact is it's a thing. Wait. What's a "thing"? It's an object. Wait, what's an "object"? Note the infinite regress. One opinion after the other after another. You see, there's no facts anywhere, only DOXA!

Facts are opinions. No opinions, no facts. There are wrong opinions and right (true) opinions. The latter are facts. Objective facts. (Pardon the redundancy.)

Concepts as a stolen concept. Yetch!

--Brant

reality is only an idea--there is no "fact" that is also "reality"--wanna deny reality?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't the smarter people have bigger heads? That would make college admittance and snap judgements about them simpler to manage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Peter said:

Why don't the smarter people have bigger heads? That would make college admittance and snap judgements about them simpler to manage.

My Dad had a "bigger head"--than I do. I'd say bigger than average. He had an IQ of 189.

Whatever that's worth. Anyone can opine on it.

--Brant

it got him into college--Antioch--without a high school diploma--where he knocked up my 150 IQ Mother and married her and begat my eldest sister who IQed at 140 then Patricia who was likely 165 then me on or about 130 and my surviving sibling who turned out to be a lot smarter than I gave him credit for and I've no idea of his but he and his wife do world-class things (The Marines wanted to make him an officer, but he said "No," likely saving his ass from death in Vietnam. But it's a wonder he survived a double malfunction free-fall parachute jump almost 50 years ago in Yugoslavia--that finally made him sensible [he sold his equipment])

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

I don't get it, how you can be so deliberately dense. Is there something you did that was so profoundly evil, that you can't admit it? Moral principles are simple. This way is life, that way death. This way is heroism, that way disgrace This way is eyes and ears open, that way self-destruction.

There are things I -consider- so evil  that I will not do them.  That is judgement and opinion.  I do not see how to derive  moral principles from the physical laws of nature.   Nature  does not care what we do or do not do.  Nature does not care period.  Nor can any moral principle positive or negative be inferred logically from the physical laws of nature.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Peter said:

Why don't the smarter people have bigger heads? That would make college admittance and snap judgements about them simpler to manage.

Human brains  run about 3 lbs in humans (give or take a little). Somewhere in the (1100 to 1500 gram range).   That is regulated genetically.  There is a fairly good numerical correlation between adult brain size and adult body (non-obese) body mass.  Whales have  bigger brains than humans  but the brain mass to body mass ratio is the about the same as for humans.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

There are things I -consider- so evil  that I will not do them.  That is judgement and opinion.  I do not see how to derive  moral principles from the physical laws of nature.   Nature  does not care what we do or do not do.  Nature does not care period.  Nor can any moral principle positive or negative be inferred logically from the physical laws of nature.  

Can you derive a man from the "physical laws of nature" (what is there besides nature)? And if you can do it for a man, why not man? Man is not physical; it's a concept.

If you can't verify the validity of your abstract thinking say so and end this hypocrisy. I can accept everything is only "judgment and opinion" but that includes all scientific conclusions in the human river of abstractions. What we have is gradations of knowledge from seemingly certain to tentative. The earth revolves around the sun and the moon revolves around the earth. That's pretty certain. Man needs morality because he is a conceptual thinker and has free will to deal with the choices available to him which can give him an extremely broad range of action. The question then is what morality and why? The reference is human nature. Can you derive human nature, in the broadest sense--from physical laws? And do you understand that the physical has no laws? Men have laws; they cover this and they cover that. Just men. Only men. Laws are abstractions.

--Brant

don't take the above personally; I'm not talking to you (I long ago gave up on that; you never really reply to me anyway); I'm only reacting or I'd sanction your inchoate palaver (you may take that personally or anything else you want to)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Can you derive a man from the "physical laws of nature" (what is there besides nature)? And if you can do it for a man, why not man? Man is not physical; it's a concept.

If you can't verify the validity of your abstract thinking say so and end this hypocrisy. I can accept everything is only "judgment and opinion" but that includes all scientific conclusions in the human river of abstractions. What we have is gradations of knowledge from seemingly certain to tentative. The earth revolves around the sun and the moon revolves around the earth. That's pretty certain. Man needs morality because he is a conceptual thinker and has free will to deal with the choices available to him which can give him an extremely broad range of action. The question then is what morality and why? The reference is human nature. Can you derive human nature, in the broadest sense--from physical laws? And do you understand that the physical has no laws? Men have laws; they cover this and they cover that. Just men. Only men. Laws are abstractions.

--Brant

don't take the above personally; I'm not talking to you (I long ago gave up on that; you never really reply to me anyway); I'm only reacting or I'd sanction your inchoate palaver (you may take that personally or anything else you want to)

 

Humans are clearly physically possible (we are here and that establishes our possibility)  but our existence is not a logical necessity.  If the Cosmos were  rewound   there is no guarantee that our kind or ilk  would emerge on the the replay.   So we are here by happenstance,  not by necessity.  If the asteroid that hit Earth 65 million years ago had missed by a hair  we probably would not be having this conversation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

There are things I -consider- so evil  that I will not do them.  That is judgement and opinion.  I do not see how to derive  moral principles from the physical laws of nature.   Nature  does not care what we do or do not do.  Nature does not care period.  Nor can any moral principle positive or negative be inferred logically from the physical laws of nature.  

Once more unto... "The physical laws of nature" (your dogmatic repetition is funny) are based on and derived from what?

Before arriving at "physical laws", there's a huge step which I've seen empiricists commonly miss:

Identity. Identification. Where do your "laws" emerge from, if not first here?

Then, like everything else in nature, an entity must act according to its own identity.

Man's consciousness has identity, as does a particular individual consciousness.

Next, one can ask of the state of that consciousness: miserable or fulfilled? (alive or dead?). Etc. Are these arbitrary identifications? Is "alive" a physical fact - or not? Does it have value, or not? Could you for once entertain Bob, that an objective, selfish morality is the direct causality of objective facts and value? So right - "a moral principle" is not "inferred logically from physical laws of nature" -- instead -- directly from the physical *identity* of nature, including one's own.

It's immaterial that "nature" evidently hasn't an iota of awareness and interest in what men do. It is not goal-directed. Man is and has to be, because man cares.

(As for what's called "normative ethics", I'm not that impressed with people self-congratulating their not harming others nor damaging others' values. Likewise, with moral rules, commandments and laws of conduct to other people. That's the most elementary, primitive ethics, for who becomes fully human without knowing that others suffer pain and loss, and how they come by it - often at other people's hands? Who can be that unaware and unself-aware to be dependent on such an ethics?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Humans are clearly physically possible (we are here and that establishes our possibility)  but our existence is not a logical necessity.  If the Cosmos were  rewound   there is no guarantee that our kind or ilk  would emerge on the the replay.   So we are here by happenstance,  not by necessity.  If the asteroid that hit Earth 65 million years ago had missed by a hair  we probably would not be having this conversation. 

So, the asteroid had free will?

--Brant

the morality of asteroids . . . ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

If the asteroid that hit Earth 65 million years ago had missed by a hair  we probably would not be having this conversation. 

What does the K-T extinction have to do with human evolution? (63 million years later first members of genus Homo appear) Are you claiming that modern humans evolved from rodents? Causes of extinctions and proliferations were multiple, including tectonic, eustatic, and volcanic.

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, anthony said:

Once more unto... "The physical laws of nature" (your dogmatic repetition is funny) are based on and derived from what?

Before arriving at "physical laws", there's a huge step which I've seen empiricists commonly miss:

Identity. Identification. Where do your "laws" emerge from, if not first here?

Then, like everything else in nature, an entity must act according to its own identity.

Man's consciousness has identity, as does a particular individual consciousness.

Next, one can ask of the state of that consciousness: miserable or fulfilled? (alive or dead?). Etc. Are these arbitrary identifications? Is "alive" a physical fact - or not? Does it have value, or not? Could you for once entertain Bob, that an objective, selfish morality is the direct causality of objective facts and value? So right - "a moral principle" is not "inferred logically from physical laws of nature" -- instead -- directly from the physical *identity* of nature, including one's own.

It's immaterial that "nature" evidently hasn't an iota of awareness and interest in what men do. It is not goal-directed. Man is and has to be, because man cares.

(As for what's called "normative ethics", I'm not that impressed with people self-congratulating their not harming others nor damaging others' values. Likewise, with moral rules, commandments and laws of conduct to other people. That's the most elementary, primitive ethics, for who becomes fully human without knowing that others suffer pain and loss, and how they come by it - often at other people's hands? Who can be that unaware and unself-aware to be dependent on such an ethics?).

That is all very nice.  Can you derive a moral code from the laws of physics?  A simple yes or no will suffice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

So, the asteroid had free will?

--Brant

the morality of asteroids . . . ?

No, but its course was affected by  quantum processes which are not deterministic.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

What does the K-T extinction have to do with human evolution? (63 million years later first members of genus Homo appear) Are you claiming that modern humans evolved from rodents? Causes of extinctions and proliferations were multiple, including tectonic, eustatic, and volcanic.

   

It means the dinosaurs would have lasted a bit longer  changing the event that led (in our time line) to the emergence  of mammals.  Our existence is an accident (of sorts)  not a necessary  and inevitable outcome of biological evolution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

That is all very nice.  Can you derive a moral code from the laws of physics?  A simple yes or no will suffice.

No (I said). From identity, yes.

As I see from you, the materialist-reductionist view of consciousness (logically) can't ascribe any identity to consciousness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, anthony said:

No (I said). From identity, yes.

As I see from you, the materialist-reductionist view of consciousness (logically) can't ascribe any identity to consciousness.

Consciousness is a process not a thing  and like any process it has its specific  nature. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Consciousness is a process not a thing  and like any process it has its specific  nature. 

Which is to say that the identity of consciousness amounts ~only~ to transitory processes. How can that be, to have perception without conceptual content?

"Two fundamental attributes are involved in every state, aspect or function of man's consciousness: content and action --- the content of awareness, and the action of consciousness in regard to that awareness".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

It means the dinosaurs would have lasted a bit longer  changing the event that led (in our time line) to the emergence  of mammals.  Our existence is an accident (of sorts)  not a necessary  and inevitable outcome of biological evolution. 

Well. Let me think about that. All evolution from single cell forward was more complexity, more adaptable. Makes me wonder what's next after Man?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anthony said:

Which is to say that the identity of consciousness amounts ~only~ to transitory processes. How can that be, to have perception without conceptual content?

"Two fundamental attributes are involved in every state, aspect or function of man's consciousness: content and action --- the content of awareness, and the action of consciousness in regard to that awareness".

Content is the electrochemical  state  of neurons. We are walking organic  computers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

Well. Let me think about that. All evolution from single cell forward was more complexity, more adaptable. Makes me wonder what's next after Man?

It is very hard to say.  It all depends on how the physical state of planet evolves. Whatever comes after is will be sufficiently well adapted to its local environment.  Evolution is not perfection.  Evolution tracks the environment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

It is very hard to say.  It all depends on how the physical state of planet evolves. Whatever comes after is will be sufficiently well adapted to its local environment.  Evolution is not perfection.  Evolution tracks the environment. 

Excellent, thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this