@Terrapin Station @tim wood

I'm trying to follow this discussion. I thought I understood what was going on, but maybe not. Tim - can you clarify this:

@Terrapin Station Don't be obtuse. Take seeing. You don't see the tree, instead light is incident on your eyes, and then other things happen, resulting in what you and most folks call perception. All of which the tree has nothing to do with. You don't see the tree. — tim wood

When you said this, were you stating your position - OR - were you giving an illustration of what you perceive to be Terrapin's position (presumably in an attempt to demonstrate that his ideas are incorrect)?

BTW - and this goes out to both of you - I would not object if the level of invective came down a few notches . . . . :smile:

@tim wood @Terrapin Station
Somehow this discussion of illegal drugs has morphed into a discussion that maybe should go under the Philosophy of Mind category.

But as long as we’re here, I’ll jump into the waters - hopefully I can clarify them instead of muddying them.

The crux of the difference here (as I’m seeing it) is that Tim is asserting that mental activity is ultimately based in the physical world, whereas Terrapin is asserting that there is something fundamentally different about mental activity.

I'm with Tim on this, and here's my reasoning:

We already have machines that can measure mental activity - albeit at a very crude level. Will these machines advance to the point where we can measure mental activity at such a fine granular level that we can distinguish pleasurable physiological responses from un-pleasurable ones? That remains to be seen, but in my opinion this is possible.

So while the statement “Coffee ice cream is good” is clearly a subjective opinion, the statement “Tim Wood likes coffee ice cream” is a description of a measurable/observable state of affairs - namely that when Tim consumes coffee ice cream it produces a physiological response that Tim describes as 'liking'.

Of course I could be wrong. It could be that there is some unknown factor that will prevent us from ever measuring mental activity at that fine level of granularity. We can speculate that perhaps there is some quantum mechanical thing going on - and any attempt to measure mental activity at this level of granularity alters the very thing we’re trying to measure.

If I have misrepresented either of you, please gently correct me. . . . :smile:

@tim wood
I'd like to go back to our earlier conversation about exceeding the speed limit. If I followed you correctly you said (or at least implied) that speeding was not immoral because people typically do not deliberately speed, it's more of an unconscious decision - likely you are going along with the flow of traffic.

To be moral is to accept being a member of a community, many communities. It is to accept the obligation to the other, as they accept a similar obligation to you. — tim wood

Ahh, so on your basis, either way, the law always involves morality. — THX1138
Yes. Always and absolutely. — tim wood

But given that the laws are collectively decided upon by the community, when you speed you are violating the collective decision that exceeding the speed limit is dangerous not only to yourself but to other fellow citizens on the road. Is it as dangerous as taking heroin? I don't have an answer to that - and in any case it's irrelevant. The community has made the decision that speeding is illegal, and you must accept that obligation. And there is clearly no moral obligation requiring you to speed under normal circumstances.

So it seems to me that if you want to be consistent in your approach, then you must conclude that exceeding the speed limit is immoral.

Yes, as to illegality. As to harm, I'm agnostic on marijuana. . . etc — tim wood

It seems that we are introducing a new variable into the original question - namely that the immorality of drug taking depends on the level of self harm it might inflict on a person (along with any collateral damage to society).

You seem to be saying that occasional recreational marijuana use appears to be non-harmful and thus it is morally OK to consume marijuana - provided you do so in a place where it is legal.

However - and please correct me if I'm misrepresenting you - you appear to be saying that it is immoral to consume certain drugs even if they are legal.

E.g., in your viewpoint is it immoral to consume heroin in a country where it is legal - say Portugal?

Leaning either way? — tim wood

I promise you that at some point in the conversation I will give my take on this and give you the opportunity to critique it. But right now I'm still trying to fully understand your position. It may seem like some of my questions come across as implied criticisms, but that is not my intent - at least not at this stage of the conversation. :smile:

Anyway, can we review your last comment/question - I did not quite follow what you were saying:

And, if you were in a country in which all drugs were legal, would there then be anything wrong with taking such drugs? If there is no law against and nothing else wrong, then it seems to be a choice of no moral significance. But is that an accurate representation of how it is taking them? — tim wood

On Monday December 10, 2012, the private consumption of marijuana was legalized in Colorado. So, as I understand your position, at 11:55 PM on Dec 9, 2012 it was immoral to consume marijuana and then at 12:01 AM it was no longer immoral. Or to put it another way, the immorality has nothing to do with the drug usage, but is only linked to it's illegality.

Am I accurately getting your position? Or am I getting this wrong and your position is that marijuana usage is immoral even if it is legal?

If you cannot understand that even the 'physicality of atoms' depends on the utility of that concept for humans, we will fail to communicate. — fresco

The words/language that we use to describe objects - and (however it works) the thoughts underlying them - do indeed depend on the utility of the concepts.

But our thoughts cannot change the underlying physicality of objects or atoms. The moon existed before humanity (and there were no observers), it existed when the early Greeks thought of the moon as the goddess Artemis, it exists today now that people have walked around on it, and it will exist in the future even if humanity self destructs and there are no observers (as we seem to be doing). But none of this changed or will change any of the atoms comprising the moon. The utility of our concepts - or the absence of any concepts - of the moon have had no impact on the physicality of the atoms that comprise the moon.

If this is naive realism, then I'm content with that label. I'll let you have the last word - which I will read. In the meanwhile I think I'll have a cup of water heated to a temperature of 180 degrees Fahrenheit suffused with coffee molecules.

BTW - just on a personal note, I don't know if it was deliberate, but I appreciate that in our exchanges you expressed yourself in plain language.

But now you. In the US, taking illegal drugs, moral? Immoral? Is there any way it can be moral? — tim wood

I don't have an answer to this - I'm still trying to figure it out. That's why I'm asking questions. :smile:

Speed limits are not so simple - a whole separate topic. — tim wood

What are the criteria for deciding which laws fall into a separate topic? Many people would consider taking certain drugs under certain situations to fall into the same category as exceeding the speed limit.

Note how the 'thinghood' of 'knife' is being negotiated according to its contextual utility.
It is my assertion that all 'things' are contextually defined and potentially subject to negotiation. You discard naive realism when you realize that. — fresco

I did not see any negotiation going on.

The punk's mental attitude changed when he realized he had picked the wrong people to rob. Sue's attitude changed in that she realized that Dundee could handle himself in the big city.

But the underlying "thinghood" of the knife did not change. It was exactly the same object both when it was hidden and after it was revealed, it did not somehow morph from a small knife to a big knife.

Of course the usage/meaning of words changes with context. Well know example is "John shot some bucks". What exactly went on? Did John go hunting or did John lose some money at Las Vegas? We need context to determine the meaning. But the underlying "reality" (AKA "objective truth", AKA "state of affairs", etc, etc) of what occurred to John did not change.

Naive realism is the default mode for seamless coping. You don't need to work at it. — fresco

What other modes are there?

Closer than most on TPF. As to a rule that might require a person to break a law, that's a tough one, nor can I think of one, outside of a situation of war or an equivalent. — tim wood

Here's a follow up question - but if you're uncomfortable divulging personal information I would not hold it against you for not answering.

Have you ever deliberately broken a law? Have you ever knowingly exceeded the speed limit or jaywalked?

Just here I'll mention that it's been my position that a) it is immoral to break the law, but that it is possible that a higher or greater morality or rule attends breaking it. I — tim wood

Tim - Apologies if this question was already asked and answered - I read through the discussion but did not see it.

If I'm following you, then there may be reasons for breaking a particular law if a higher or greater morality or rule attends breaking it, but in this particular case - illegal drugs - there is no such higher or greater morality that requires you to break it (as would be, say, in the situation of not telling the Nazis that you have hidden a Jewish escapee fro a concentration camp.)

Am I representing you correctly - or am I at least close?

Sorry, but for me ' existence' is merely a word like any other whose meaning/import is embedded in its context of usage, therefore I cannot argue for its non linguistic viability. The non philosophical contexts of its usage involve disputes about 'utility', which for the purposes of naive realistic posturing replace utility with the word 'existence' instead as though the disputed concept were independent of an observer.
Now once we entertain philosophical contexts of usage, I assert that 'existence' presupposes at least an element of naive realism. — fresco

It’s a tough job being a naive realist. All that posturing - it takes a lot out of a person.

Why just this morning I made breakfast. I ground up some coffee beans, made the coffee, poured some cold cereal in a bowl, added skim milk, ate it - and I also drank some coffee. And in all of this I did not once use any words whose meaning was embedded in it’s context of usage.

Dang it, all that posturing was hard work. I need a nap.

Yes

Now is there a 'mind-independent and language independent world'? No one knows — EricH

I think it couldn't be more obvious that there is, and I see the view that it's a problematic question as pretty juvenile if not infantile (if I'm being honest rather than trying to be PC and not hurt anyone's feelings). — Terrapin Station

I could have been clearer there. When I said 'no one knows', I meant that - at least to my knowledge - it cannot be proven philosophically/logically (or any other way) with absolute certainty.

That said, I have not seen any other explanation that makes any sense. In particular I do not philosophically commune with these notions that existence is some sort of language construct.

As far as I can tell we are on the same side - at least for this discussion.

I cannot philosophically commune with the idea of an 'observer independent world' even though we obviously operate, moment to moment, on that basis as though there were. — fresco

If I'm following, you move about the world and interact with it on the basis that there is an 'observer independent world'. You just don't philosophically commune with it?

Actually, now that I think about this, I'm sort of in agreement. I also do not philosophically commune with the idea of an 'observer independent world'. I simply accept that this is by far the only rational explanation for the way things are.

Yes. We obviously unconsciously 'engage with our environment' as well, just like other non verbal species. — fresco

From where I'm sitting it appears that you are using the word "environment" in the same way that most people user the word "existence". Please note that there are other substitutes for the word "existence". 'Reality', 'the universe", 'state of affairs', 'mind-independent and language-independent world', 'things in their own right', etc, etc.

Now is there a 'mind-independent and language independent world'? No one knows . We don't even know if this is the correct question to ask. But it is a rational choice to believe this. It simply means that you accept the evidence as presented to your mind by your physiological capabilities. And yes, we know that our senses can be fooled, but we also know how to determine this.

As you put it in another msg:

Common species physiology tends to imply large areas of agreement which we tend to call 'objects'. — fresco

For the word 'objects', substitute the word 'existence' or any of the other synonyms.

Also- and just for the record - besides unconsciously engaging with my environment? I also engage with my environment consciously. Or at least it certainly seems that way to me :smile:

Of course believers would not admit to the 'utility' argument, anymore than a naive realist would admit it equally applying to 'the existence of trees' ( or 'rocks', or any other 'thing')!
From a philosophical pov, the term 'naive realist' neatly avoids 'confusion'. — fresco

I'm not following you. I'm suggesting that you come up with a different word for "existence" in these philosophical pov discussions to avoid confusing it with the generally accepted usage.

Perhaps you can come up with something better, but for starters, maybe psv-existence?

The OLP situations I raise are ephemeral context bound episodes.
The post structuralist view recognizes that transience and seeks to generalize about them. — fresco

At the risk of extending this discussion far beyond its original bounds, given (among many other things) the on-going history of most major religions to impose their belief systems on non-believers, I do not consider these situations to be ephemeral; they are essential components of many of mankind's past & current conflicts.

But if a relative view is taken, we can validly say 'God exists for believers' because the concept has utility for their interactions..And 'God does not exist for atheists' because the reverse is true. The consequences (i.e.what matters) of this relativity view are that atheists' seeking to argue against 'God's existence' on the basis of 'evidence' are barking up the wrong tree. — fresco

No deeply religious person would agree with this definition/usage of the word existence. No fundamentalist Christian would ever say "I use the word God because the concept has utility in my interactions with other religious folk". When they say "God exists' they are using - or attempting to use - the word exists in the same sense as "The tree exists".

Now if - in the context of these philosophical discussions - you want to use the word existence differently than the average person, that may be a valid point of discussion. But it seems to me that instead of using the word existence, perhaps it would be clearer to came up with a new/different word (neologism) to avoid confusion.

Its not a question of 'belief'. Its a fundamental later phenomenological pov which follows Kant's non accessibility of noumena and therefore discards 'noumena' as vacuous, and which accepts Nietsche's rejection of any difference between 'description' and 'reality'. It is also supported by Maturana's argument that all we call 'observation' essentially involves 'languaging'. — fresco

Could/would you please re-phrase that answer in plain language? Thanks.

There is no one universal order that underlies all language. — Fooloso4

FYI - There's an interesting debate about this in the linguistics community: https://dlc.hypotheses.org/1269

Are you seeing that as controversial? If x is a state of affairs, then x isn't impossible. That seems fairly obvious, no? — Terrapin Station

Sure, but then what we're describing isn't actually a state of affairs — Terrapin Station

As far as I can tell we're in agreement on both points. However, my powers of persuasion are insufficient/inadequate when it comes to convincing AJJ of this.

I think if a state of affairs can be described as impossible then it can be described as false. Either way your describing something that isn’t true. — AJJ

It appears that you are using a different definition of state of affairs than others are. Here is Terrapin's:

Basically states of affairs are relations of existent things, as well as properties of existent things. Things exist, they have properties, and they are situated in certain (dynamic) ways with respect to other existent things. Those are states of affairs. — Terrapin Station

Given this definition, any state of affairs cannot be described as impossible because there ain't no such thing as an impossible state of affairs.

You can make statements/propositions about hypothetical states of affairs in ways that are contradictory and/or false.

If the cat is not sitting on the mat then it’s false that the cat is sitting on the mat. — AJJ

We agree.

The “something” there is the state of affairs of the cat sitting on the mat. — AJJ

I'm not getting this. If the cat is explicitly not sitting on the mat, then it cannot be the state of affairs that the cat is sitting on the mat. The state of affairs is that the cat is not sitting on the mat.

Substitute the word “reality” for “Truth” if you like. In that case something that is false would be so because it is not part of “reality”. But “reality” there just refers to the objective Truth. — AJJ

We all agree that a proposition/statement about reality can be false. I'm not understanding what you mean when you say "something that is false". How can a "something" be false? Can you give an example?

Can a thing be false and thus part of the capital F False? — EricH

No - it just wouldn’t be part of the Truth. — AJJ

I'm a plain language person, so what I'll be saying next may not be as precise in philosophical terminology as others might put it.

The words true & false are opposites in semantic meaning, you cannot have one without the other.

However, if I'm following you, the word False (capital F) has no functional usage. This then implies that the word Truth (capital T) has no counterpart. As such, it seems like you could substitute the word "reality" or the phrase "state of affairs" for the word Truth (capital T).

AJJ - I know this is not an easy thing to comprehend - it took me a while to wrap my head around what Terrapin & S are saying.

Things that are true are part of the Truth, not the other way around. — AJJ

Can a thing be false and thus part of the capital F False?

My view is that statements and propositions are true when they correspond to things that are capital T True. — AJJ

Would you that statements and propositions are false when they correspond to things that are capital F False?

I apologize in advance if this comes across as personal criticism, but to assume that our advanced simian brains are remotely capable of dealing with these issues is an act of hubris.

It’s only in the last 400 years or so that the scientific method has started to uncover the workings of the universe. We’ve only known about the big bang for under 100 years - and even today there are huge gaps & inconsistencies in our knowledge.

If history is any guide, it is likely that our current explanations about the universe & reality will - at a minimum - be proven partially wrong - i.e., only correct under certain conditions.

Or for all we know, all our current knowledge may be completely wrong. The entire observable universe could be a pimple on a much larger reality.

If humanity can succeed in not destroying itself, it may be possible that sometime in the (near? distant?) future we will evolve to the point where maybe we can ask the right questions.

But please don’t let me hi-jack this thread. I enjoy reading these back & forth discussions; I just hope that everyone accepts that we don’t know what the heck we’re talking about.