Tom Caylor wrote:
> On Mar 8, 4:14 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 3/9/07, Tom Caylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>>>> You could replace "love" with "chocolate" and "God" with "the
>>>>> fairy". You can claim that while the reason people like chocolate can
>>>>> explained in terms of chemistry, physiology, evolutionary biology
>>> etc., only
>>>>> the chocolate fairy can give ultimate meaning to the chocolate eating
>>> Actually if all we're talking about is first-person experience and
>>> personal tastes, then there would be cause for alarm if someone is
>>> claiming that there's some normative rules governing them. I agree:
>>> How could any such normative rules ever be verified as being the
>>> "right" way of interpreting things? Not! This is not what I am
>>> talking about. You need to look at the *whole* control loop in order
>>> to be able to talk about sharable 3rd person meaning.
>>> Personal feelings of "oo that's good" or "bleah" are fine for what
>>> they are, but are they sufficient as the total input into our decision
>>> making system? Without real morality the answer *must* be yes. As in
>>> Russell Standish's post, the answer *must* be that "whatever I
>>> *happen* (for no reason that I need to worry about) to feel is good
>>> stuff, is good stuff". Marquis de Sade with no escape.
>> It's not just personal tastes, but also second order feelings about the
>> tastes. Consider the importance attached to the Japanese tea ceremony, for
>> example. If there is a strong feeling in the tea ceremony participant that
>> they are not just engaging in a cultural quirk but doing something of
>> profound significance, this does not mean there is a supernatural source for
>> this significance. Psychological factors are necessary and sufficient to
>> explain it, and to explain morality as well.
>> Stathis Papaioannou
> It seems that you are missing my point. I will better explain my
> point about "the whole control loop". Personal tastes and second
> order feelings about the tastes are all on the *input* side of our
> system of consciousness. But the input is not the whole system.
> Instead of saying "are personal feelings sufficient as the total input
> into our decision making system?" I should have said "are personal
> feelings (and other interpretations of inputs) sufficient to make up
> our decision making system", actually our whole system of
> Here a diagram would be useful. The reductionist tendency seems to be
> to lump all of consciousness into the "input interpretting" box and
> "explain it" in terms of smaller parts making up an autonomous
> machine. Hence, now that it is all explained and we are a machine,
> there is no room for real morality and we can do whatever we want. (I
> think I heard an Amen! from Brent.)
> That's fine for those of us who are older and have one foot still back
> in the days when our parents believed in something that was based on
> ultimate meaning and reality. Hence we know what we want. But what
> about the future generations? The big question for them is, "What are
> we supposed to want?"
Wrong question. The question is what do you want? What's going to be a life
well lived? What epitaph do you want on your tombstone?
>We answer, "Whatever you want!" See the
Yes - you're going around in circles because you think you need "ultimate
purpose" to have any purpose at all.
By lumping everything into the "input interpretting" box
> and explaining it, we have left the "output creating" box totally
No, I want to create things. I get a lot my satisfaction in life by creating
things. It's part of what I want.
"My best advice to anyone who wants to raise a happy, mentally healthy child
is: Keep him or her as far away from a church as you can."
---- Frank Zappa
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at