Socrates's Question
-
So you believe that if God commands you to kill others for fun, it will become Right?
and do you believe that the only reason something is right or wrong is because God said so? Is there no other reason?
Listen. There is a reason I used "creator" instead of "God". These do not bring the same perceptions. God brings the perception of an entity that decides as it sees fit. Which is true, but not the way you are taking it. The creator, knows humans inside and outside (having created them...), and is the entity deciding our core logic.
Back to the software analogy - we are the hardware, the Quran is the most updated and secure version of the software.
Now, change "God" to "creator". If the creator wished us to kill others for fun, it would be built into our core logic. No question about that. So, if the creator intended that, we wouldn't be on here talking, we would be out there fighting, because to us, it feels right. Every good programmer (not me) will recognise that low level-functionality belongs exactly there - at the low level. Differentiating between right and wrong makes us human, not animals.
Keep in mind the difference between those two terms. Creator emphasises Allah in the Quran, who guides us both through our very own nature (hardware), and by messages of goodness (software). God is a meaningless noun, and is associated with holy books. Creator is a meaningful noun that cannot be associated specifically to a holy book, but to the entire universe.
So, if our programmer decides we should be programmed to kill for fun, we WILL kill for fun, not because a book tells us to, but because it is our nature.
Got that?
-
Yes. But I am not asking what is in our nature. I'm not asking whether killing people for fun is in out nature, but whether it is right or wrong.
Are you saying that whatever that is built in our nature is right?
Something that feels right isn't necessarily right.
The reality isn't changing, what's changing is our perception of reality. Morality has to do with reality, not it's perception. So killing people for fun is wrong, regardless of what our creator has programmed us to do. -
Yes. But I am not asking what is in our nature. I'm not asking whether killing people for fun is in out nature, but whether it is right or wrong.
Are you saying that whatever that is built in our nature is right?
Something that feels right isn't necessarily right.
The reality isn't changing, what's changing is our perception of reality. Morality has to do with reality, not it's perception. So killing people for fun is wrong, regardless of what our creator has programmed us to do.Incorrect. It is EXACTLY perception. Think about it. You must have seen a negative photo. You would say that it was "wrong" based on your perceptions of reality. When you look at an object and see it in colour, it is because you are programmed to see it in those colours. Why not infra-red or gamma rays? Some animals see in infra-red. Other animals don't see - they smell. Snakes smell by literally tasting the air (hence the repeated tongue sticking). Why do they do that, when it would be easier to simply see in colour like us? Because it is programmed into them, over millions of years of adaptation. A colour blind person sees a very different world to you. A blind person sees no world. Maybe someone can be born who sees a negative world. Thus, they would percieve a source of red light as white light minus red, instead of white light minus all that isn't red. There are also colours beyond our perception. Nobody says those are "wrong".
Likewise, you have hot or cold. In reality, there is no "hot or cold". In actual reality, it's movement, and nothing else. No magical heat energy - just a particle moving from A to B and back, repeatedly. The faster it goes, the more "hot" it is. On a large scale you don't feel "hot or cold", but when it comes to it as microscopic, all the combined vibrations are picked up and processed as "heat or cold". Again, programmed behaviour. Why? Because "hot" objects emit harmful radiation, and they transfer their movement to you, in turn damaging you.
Then we have hearing. Why are low frequency sounds deep and booming, whereas high frequency sounds are narrow and tinny? Again, our perception, programmed into us by a creator (it doesn't matter whether you believe in God or not, the term creator is used here to mean whatever caused us to end up as today). Why not the other way round?
Now, to answer your post
A) Moral relativism. Reality.
B) Define nature. The definition of "nature" I used here is "the innate sense of right and wrong confirmed through logic and reasoning".
C) There is a difference between desire and nature.
D) It is your perception of right and wrong programmed into you. Just like you see red as red, not as yellow, or black, or grey. Just as deep, booming sounds are low-pitched, and not high pitched. There is a purpose behind it.
Regardless, God never commands us to do this rubbish, at least, in the Quran.
-
Okay, so you would say that harming others (in any way) is wrong because we have been programmed that way?
If we were programmed another way, harming people would be a good thing?
But that doesn't change the reality of things. That doesn't change the fact that you are harming people.If you're going to change morality, you have to change reality itself. Agree?
Likewise, you have hot or cold. In reality, there is no "hot or cold". In actual reality, it's movement, and nothing else. No magical heat energy - just a particle moving from A to B and back, repeatedly. The faster it goes, the more "hot" it is. On a large scale you don't feel "hot or cold", but when it comes to it as microscopic, all the combined vibrations are picked up and processed as "heat or cold". Again, programmed behaviour. Why? Because "hot" objects emit harmful radiation, and they transfer their movement to you, in turn damaging you.
And if our perception doesn't comply with reality, then we can change our ideas as we learn more. We didn't know about microscopic bacteria back in the middle ages. Now we do. That has changed the way we live and take care of ourselves.
Which shows us that a certain perception isn't programmed into us, it is learned. We LEARN to percieve in certain ways based on what we've been taught.
The only constant is reality itself.So again, do you agree that to change morality, we would have to change reality itself?
-
Okay, so you would say that harming others (in any way) is wrong because we have been programmed that way?
If we were programmed another way, harming people would be a good thing?
But that doesn't change the reality of things. That doesn't change the fact that you are harming people.If you're going to change morality, you have to change reality itself. Agree?
Circular logic. What you are doing is judging the second perception by your own. Your own perception is NOT reality. Remember the example of heat and coolness. There is NO SUCH THING as heat energy and cool energy. When something is hot, it is simply vibrating very, very, very fast. Likewise, there is no such thing as "morality" in real life. Reality just "is". Simple as that. There are no rules to it, physics aside - anything goes.
When you stab someone through the chest, what are you doing? You are driving a mass of atoms to push aside a larger mass of atoms. Nothing more. It just so happens that the creator has programmed that when these atoms are moved in any such way, they move other atoms and trigger electrical impulses, and the larger mass feels pain - which does not exist in reality, because it is only a series of chemical exchanges. In computing, what are you doing? You are driving electrons around an electrical circuit - nothing more, nothing less. It is simply the arrangement of these that happens to make us sentient, just as the arrangement of silicon in a PC makes it live. No such thing as a soul. Modern neurology is very great, and Socrates or Plato had no access to it. Nowadays, this is common information and there is no excuse for psuedo-spirituality.
So, to change morality, we change perception, NOT reality. Reality has no tie to morality whatsoever. If you witnessed the aforementioned stabbing of the chest, what would happen is a bunch of light particles enter your eyes, and trigger an insane amount of chemical reactions in quick succession (i.e. determinism). The arrangement in which this occurs is our "hardware", and the shape of the final stages (i.e. the mind) is determined by our "software", what we have become accustomed to. Hence, drugs like Ritalin and Prozac upset the balance and cause people to become suicidal. Those reactions however, you would have percieved as emotions and such - but all they were, are reactions. No spirituality, just incredibly complex and powerful microcomputers doing their business. In effect, there is an abstraction layer (google) between the physical body and what we percieve as emotion/thought/mind. Comparing humans to computers is a very useful analogy. Ever seen a speed camera work? Your watching of a murder is how a speed camera watches a speeding moron.
Which shows us that a certain perception isn't programmed into us, it is learned. We LEARN to percieve in certain ways based on what we've been taught.
The only constant is reality itself.Exactly. Your perception of morality is not constant either.
So again, do you agree that to change morality, we would have to change reality itself?
As said, morality has absolutely no relation to reality. Reality is related to tangible things - physical laws, not spiritual/conceptual. So one can make murder percieved as righteous, but will you ever outrightly negate gravity? Not in an eternity. THAT is changing reality.
-
-
Peace Gentlemen,
God created everything including right and wrong. But God did not create any robots. He gave humans what's called Choice or Free Will. And there it goes all along.
I'm still at the grassroot level.
Have a great day folks.
Peace
Bring your proof from the Quran. I used to believe in "free will" but neither the Quran nor reality attests to it.
-
Circular logic. What you are doing is judging the second perception by your own. Your own perception is NOT reality. Remember the example of heat and coolness. There is NO SUCH THING as heat energy and cool energy. When something is hot, it is simply vibrating very, very, very fast. Likewise, there is no such thing as "morality" in real life. Reality just "is". Simple as that. There are no rules to it, physics aside - anything goes.
I think you might be confusing issues here.
In our reality, there is such a thing as hot and cold. There is such a thing as pain. These things are real.
When we hurt someone, we cause them pain, and because we wouldn't want someone to cause pain to us, we shouldn't do the same to someone else. That's why hurting people is wrong.
Not only that, when we kill others, we are killing people of our own species, which means from an evolutionary point of view, we aren't doing the right thing either, because we're retarding the growth of our species.In nature, there aren't any rules. Nature here meaning physical laws. Yes, if we look at the world that way, there is no right and wrong. Everything just is.
But to humans, morality is part of reality, and we must obey that morality at least to an extent to be successful.It doesn't matter if there is spirituality involved or if it is just a bunch of chemical reactions, emotions are a reality.
They are not an illusion just because you can explain them (you are not explaining them away). Pain and pleasure are very real.
If you shut someone in a freezer, they WILL feel cold, and they WILL freeze to death. It doesn't matter what is happening on the microscopic stage.Ever seen a speed camera work? Your watching of a murder is how a speed camera watches a speeding moron.
can you use this example to explain what you're saying?
oh, and free-will exists, I recommend the book "Freedom Evolves."
-
You said simply that "morality is related to reality", there is your notion dispelled. I am not dismissing morals, but morals are from perception and programming, not from reality. The examples you gave are ALL perception, even the evolutionary point of view - there is no such thing as a "forward path" in evolution (even Darwin said that, IIRC).
As for the speed camera, simple. The speed camera has eyes, a brain and a mouth. When someone speeds, the information enters its eyes. The specific arrangement of light/whatever rays it sends out makes a picture of a car. The way the speed camera is built, when it percieves a speeding car, it is programmed to "gasp" and feel shock, i.e. recognise the speeding car, and react to the speeding car by taking a picture (one would commit the details of a murder to memory). It thus speaks and reports it to the authorities - the police download their files and rip off taxpayers for more speed cameras ()).
So, the speed camera has built in morals. It recognises speeding as a grave sin and acts as a reflex against it, just as shock at a murder is a reflex. BUT - the speed camera's "morals" can be changed - it can be programmed to only photograph the fastest speeders (gravest murders) or ignore legitimate speeders such as police (war). It can also be taught to only photograph those going under the limit, instead of over - an example of skewed morals.
As for free will, no. That needs true randomness. On the book, wiki says the exact opposite. No real "free will". In fact, the author's sentiments are in line with the Quran (853).
You were the same person advising someone to "follow reality". Why the sudden shift? Is it the sign of a creator that keeps you away?
-
When did I say we mustn't follow reality?
The camera is programmed to react to speeding, but I don't get how you're equating that to morals.
Do we even mean the same thing by "morality?"
Just because we are programmed to react to something in a certain way, doesn't mean that it is morally right to do so.
I may be conditioned to think that murder is a good thing, but that doesn't mean murder becomes morally right (even for me).
Morality is related to reality. Okay, maybe my evolution example wasn't that great, but still.
It is a universal principle that hurting others for no good reason is wrong.
That is not because of perception, but because of something that is biologically programmed into us it seems, or maybe it's something else.
But if it is programmed into us (from birth that is), it doesn't make it "not real." It's still very real. -
This is going around in circles. Reality is very simple - it is materialism, everything physical, everything tangible, that obeys the laws of physics.
Just because we are programmed to react to something in a certain way, doesn't mean that it is morally right to do so.
I may be conditioned to think that murder is a good thing, but that doesn't mean murder becomes morally right (even for me).This is a completely circular argument. You are using Perception A to judge Perception B and then prove Perception A is correct, when if you looked through Perception B, it would be perfectly fine. If every human had Perception B - that murder was fine, and you had Perception A, you would be shipped to a mental facility (actually, they would just kill you )).
Morality is related to reality. Okay, maybe my evolution example wasn't that great, but still.
It isn't. Period.
It is a universal principle that hurting others for no good reason is wrong.
No it isn't. It's a social principle.
That is not because of perception, but because of something that is biologically programmed into us it seems, or maybe it's something else.
That IS perception. There is no "soul" or "spirituality" and new-age rubbish is exactly that. Perception is shaped by your physical composition, which is why many, many, many drugs have the effects they do. Magic mushrooms will trigger spiritual experiences, Ritalin will make you suicidal, ecstasy will make you love everyone, and LSD will just destroy you. Alcohol will make things look more attractive, and exaggerate your own perception, leading some to believe they are stronger than they really are (and also turn them extremely aggressive). No spiritual or other junk science can explain the effects of drugs like these, simple as that.
The reason you still hold onto the "soul" is because of this "abstraction layer" that just makes it seem as if physical and spiritual are separated, because of the ridiculously complex nature of things - spiritual comes from the physical, and the physical alone. Compare software and hardware, this is similar. In about 100 years, we will probably be programming in gramatically perfect English (or whatever is around at that time). It would seem as if you write a few sentences and out comes a program - but this isn't the case, at the low level, it still has to be translated into machine code - in our sense, particles. It would seem as if it happened by pure magic, but is it? Never. The Quran warns against magic and explains that it is pure trickery. Here is no exception.
But if it is programmed into us (from birth that is), it doesn't make it "not real." It's still very real.
It doesn't make it real whatsoever. It is still perception alone. The simple fact is, some people see pink dinosaurs routinely and communicate with the dead, what makes your perception of reality greater than theirs? Can you explain? Aside from majority consensus?
Either way, programming = perception.
-
That IS perception. There is no "soul" or "spirituality" and new-age rubbish is exactly that. Perception is shaped by your physical composition, which is why many, many, many drugs have the effects they do. Magic mushrooms will trigger spiritual experiences, Ritalin will make you suicidal, ecstasy will make you love everyone, and LSD will just destroy you. Alcohol will make things look more attractive, and exaggerate your own perception, leading some to believe they are stronger than they really are (and also turn them extremely aggressive). No spiritual or other junk science can explain the effects of drugs like these, simple as that.
Totally understand that. I'm not promoting new age spirituality rubbish, and I never brought up the idea of soul.
This is a completely circular argument. You are using Perception A to judge Perception B and then prove Perception A is correct, when if you looked through Perception B, it would be perfectly fine. If every human had Perception B - that murder was fine, and you had Perception A, you would be shipped to a mental facility (actually, they would just kill you Roll Eyes).
Haha that's right.
But my question is, is it even possible for everyone to think murder is right? When I said we are innately moral, I wasn't talking about a supernatural soul, I was talking about a biological trait very much like eyes and hands and feet.And even if "perception B" was the majority opinion, would that make it right?
Sure, most people would believe that it is, but that doesn't make it so.I'm not talking about supernatural stuff here, I'm talking about reality. People seeing pink elephants is not reality. And reality is not dependent upon majority opinion, you should know that.
It doesn't make it real whatsoever. It is still perception alone. The simple fact is, some people see pink dinosaurs routinely and communicate with the dead, what makes your perception of reality greater than theirs? Can you explain? Aside from majority consensus?
If I can scientifically verify what I see, then yes, I can certainly say my perception of reality is greater. I'm typing on a keyboard right now. I know that the keyboard exists because the keys I hit show up on the screen. If I ask someone to touch it for me, they will be able to touch it. I can use all five of my senses to percieve it (in case one is faulty). I can bring in an animal and make it touch it (just in case all humans have gone mad). There are many ways to verify reality.
As humans, part of our reality is that we all want to be happy. I don't care what you call that, it's part of reality, it's part of our psyche and you can't program it out no matter what you like (notice the lack of the words "new age" and "soul". And the way we work, we do this thing called "role playing" where we put ourselves in someone else shoes. We do this when communicating all the time to know how to say something to someone. And because of this quality of ours, we want others to feel what we want to feel.
Plus we are social animals (Aristotle said so!), and we like to spend time with other humans. That's another reason why we have evolved this system of morality.
Like free-will and language, the concept of morality is uniquely human, and it's very real, not just a hallucination.Reality is not materialism. Something doesn't have to be an object to be real. An idea is a very real thing, a word is a real thing, even emotions are real. Again, it doesn't matter if they are complex chemical reactions or not, they still exist!
No it isn't. It's a social principle.
So? How does that make morality any less real? I just don't get you.
Oh, and the author of that book, he believes that free-will does exist, but not because of a supernatural soul (like religious scriptures put it), but because of the way humans have evolved. He likens it to language. We started out like animals, but slowly we have evolved this ability to make decisions independent to our emotions and beliefs.
Either way, programming = perception.
Okay, please define morality, programming, and perception, if you don't mind.
If I'm annoying you we can end this, I've got no problem with that. But we have a disagreement here and I would like to know why it's there.
I can't touch, see, hear, or taste this disagreement, but I think it's real. P -
Peace to all,
So Lobster, you say you would believe if you can scientifically verify something, you also said people seeing pink elephants is not reality, well what is this?
http//images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/9/9a/Not_Pink_Elephants.png/500px-Not_Pink_Elephants.png
Kurt
-
Peace to all,
So Lobster, you say you would believe if you can scientifically verify something, you also said people seeing pink elephants is not reality, well what is this?
http//images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/9/9a/Not_Pink_Elephants.png/500px-Not_Pink_Elephants.png
Kurt
Nicely painted how you did that ;D
-
Is something right because the Gods command it, or do the Gods command something because it is right?
Well, if you agree with the former, then you're plain wrong, because there is just too much wrong with it.
So the only valid choice is the latter part of the question. God commands certain actions because they are right.
So God doesn't create right and wrong, God, through His infinite wisdom, recognizes the right and wrong, and commands us to do it.
So morality and God are seperate.
I don't get how, from this...^^^
....you jumped to this...
So we can learn about right and wrong without God.And then you try to protect yourself quickly with...
p.s. I'm not trying to criticize the quran here, or trying to get God out of the equation...
Actually, you're 'trying' real hard, to do exactly that. Just because you said you're not, doesn't mean it's so (Just to clarify; I don't mean you're doing it intentionally).I said this to you before, and I'll say it again, Lobster... without GOD, there is no we, there is no learn, there is no 'right'/'wrong'.
Peace.
PS - Thanks for sharing the Socrates story, I have no clue about that stuff. http//i28.photobucket.com/albums/c236/zenje/smilies/dunce.jpg