Gee, with that Toilet Issue illuminated, now I know why Compass Watches that glow in the dark sell so well in that market.

The thing that fries me about Islam are the Rules. The thing that fries me about Christians are their arrogance and ignorance.

I'll bet 99% of Christians cannot answer these two questions:

1) What was Jesus name? (hint: not Jesus)

2) Who is the second most important Prophet to Islam?

Same Answer. Joshua bin Joseph

Last Question:

If you were going to write a book about the Son of God, why does no one care to get his name right?

And what frightens you more, that Bush is lying about his religious beliefs or he really does believe that it is humanity's job to 'use up the resources of the earth' or Jesus (Joshua) will not return.

Oddly enough I believe in some univeral all binding energy-thing. But I've studied every religion I can get my hands on and most get tied up in the bullshit. People would rather "Be Right" than realize they can never know the truth and all we can do by studying the Creation (science) is to better know a possible Creator. This is why I love the Tao Te Ching. The first paragraph says "we can never really know the answers, but here are some hints we've found"

Thanks Norm!

it doesn't seem so hard. look out the window. if you see mecca, face it. if you don't see mecca, look at the rest of the earth to figure out where mecca would be BEHIND the earth. face that.

actually, it seems easier to face mecca when you are in space then when you are on the ground. you can actually SEE mecca for a lot of the time!

“In the world everything is as it is, and does what it does, in it no value exists; if it did it would have no value.” -- Ludwig Wittgenstein

This quote is one of the many pop-up quotations that appear on your site. I think you have missed Wittgenstein’s idea in the above quote. The idea is that value is immaterial and thus untenable “in the world.” Value is within metaphysics which is “what is beyond the material” and Wittgenstein denies metaphysics “AS A TENABLE DISCOURSE.” This is quite different from denying that there is a state that is beyond the material.

Further, this site is rife with value judgements. I agree with most all of the politics that are expressed on this site with the exception of the crusade for atheism (as expressed in scientific materialism v.s. religion and, on a lesser note, metaphysics). If you truly believe in the materialism you evangelize. You must take into account that your “opinions” and “values” are immaterial and untenable.

To say that our involvement in the war with Iraq is wrong is immaterial. To say that our involvement in the war is that of an “aggressive agent” is material. The action is in relative proportion to any and all other action. A virus cannot be seen as WRONG in the world, it is simply doing what it’s doing. Now if you say that your value judgement it is a question of respecting life you must ask yourself, “What is the difference, in proportion to ALL life in the universe, between the expenditure of life that is committed when you eat a bowl of salad, in order to survive, compared to killing over 100,000 Iraqis, to insure the safety of your oil reserves. The difference is relative and inconsequential in a material world.

You can’t contain a logical and TENABLE discussion of the value of our actions within the scope of the material.

While we might not need organized religion to tell us what we should or should not do. We DO NEED VALUE JUDGEMENTS. And those judgements will always be debatable because they lie beyond the material.

Funny, the Islamic Studies prof's name is Godlas (Godless). I wonder if he catches flak for that :-)

What do you do if you happen to be at the antipode of Mecca? Do you look straight down into the Earth? Does the whole enterprise require tunnel vision?

Russell, First, I'm not sure why you would assume that because you read a quotation on my site that I necessairly agree with it. Wittgenstein's writing is complicated for sure, but don't see why a materialist can't simply create his own value system. It's an interesting distinction you make between the material and immaterial. You seem to be equating normative statements (those with value judgments) with non-material and the material with descriptive (non-value statments) Your example for the normative is saying our role in Iraq is wrong is normative, while the statement our role in the war is that of an " aggresive agent" is descriptive, but I don't think it quite works. I can make a normative statment about something that is material, as in you should boil water if you want to cook pasta, clearly a normative statement about something material, in fact I think it fair to say all normative judgments are material in the sense that the brain produces them I could also describe something that is non-material. God is omnipotent , or spirits hang around in this world because they dont know they are dead. Both examples of descriptive statements that are non-material.

Norm, Russel,

Thanks for your comments. It is a pleasure to read arguments that truely seek to illuminate each other and those around them. This is so very rare today.

As for the non-material nature of ghosts, a difficulty emerges: what if the event that exposes a ghost's presence is never repeated? This could be likened to an abusive parent whispering a single horrible statement to a 12 year old girl. She can tell everyone it happened but if he never does it again or in front of anyone else, who is to say she is speaking the truth?

Also, Tesla did not have an osciliscope but instead used his body to intuitively measure current. This proves that some people have sensitivites beyond others that can lead to unexpectedly, scientifically, advanced revelations into the nature of our world.

Is it then possible that some can sense things beyond our current science (in this case 'ghosts') that may someday be included as additional 'laws'?

Thanks, and plz excuse typos, am very tired...

Hey Norm, I was referring to the quotes that appear in grey bars at the opening of your site. I assume you put them up there for a reason. Wittgenstein’s quote caught my eye as it seemed to be used to counter the idea of religious morality as a value. Which is correct only in terms of assuming Witt did not believe in a deism. But the greater role of that thought in his discourse has more to do with the establishment of how thinking and language processes are a closed system, outside of the world.

What my idea is, as an individual who believes that moral or ethical values are a product of biological instinct in things composed of “grey meat” i.e. the brain, what is the basis of these normative values to that individual? Claiming a normative statement, that is establishing a norm, is an arbitrary act if one believes that all we do and think is a result of chemical impulses within a bunch of tissue. One could look at all the despicable acts of humans as one looks at a virus “simply doing what it does.” Thus, why establish norms at all? If you know that they are merely chemical or instinctual, why live by them? By killing your neighbor because you want his house or invading a country because you want thier oil, at best you are acting against a small reaction of energy and particles in your head. And, more likely, there is a biological reason for your actions as the ability to go against nature simply wouldn’t be possible.

The idea of the “beyond the material” is that there is something more going on that is not held within the boundaries of the physical. The entire history of humans reasoning this off to God, a soul or crystal power or magic etc. is the struggle with establishing a normative or material quality to something that is not quantifiable; untenable.

Hey Norm,

Thanks. I find the debate between science and spirituality very important. I find myself, of course, somewhere in the middle.

That (the ghost story) is a great example of certain instances where their are limits of ever really knowing whether someone is “telling the truth” or whether someone believes they are telling the truth, but in fact have been deceived by their own mind.

I guess I am vulnerable to jibes like “ghosts?” by positing the idea that their is an essence to consciousness that is not physical. But their is an extremely long history of serious philosophical thought that deals with this essence (that leads well into the present)... and if you said “what about ghosts?” at any given lecture about, say Levinas or Buber, my guess is you would be politely asked to leave.

I like the Tesla example. I do think their is an incredible amount of materialistic explanations for (almost) all of the mysteries in the universe.

(Ohh, by the way, you haven’t addressed my question on how you can, logically, resolve the arbitrary assignation of values question that seems to be the case if you believe we are all simply meat puppets.)

Russel,

Thanks again.

Tonight we just got out of E3 (big game show) and I got to chat with my two favorite friends. One of them was offered the chance to do Telemetry for Space Ship One and used to be an active out of body expirimentor. The other explores (looking deeply into the evidence) alternate energies, power, pyramids, you name it. He gives it all a shake simply to keep his mind flexible.

I say this so you know I don't hang out with gullible kooks, but instead with men who have conducted logical experiments that most wise men avoid for fear of public humiliation.

Anyhow, we were discussing the essence of Man. We are a hive animal that has a distinct 'individual' association. This, by itself, can create stable societies that flourish only if a common rule of behavior can be established between individuals. Bees have similar rules but those appear to be more hard coded than men, and therefore bees are less adapable to immediate changes in environment. Bees also have intricate communication, but do not appear to be the 'metaphoric' creatures we are. That is, we tend to think in terms of 'this thing is like that thing' and bees tend to think of a thing as itself.

Because of this, we are rather more complex in the way we transmit our lessons of acceptable behavior and they are more apt to change based on physical location and condition. (nomadic tribes have less of an idea of Property, so Theft is less of a crime) We use our maliable language to transmit the successful bahviors to our children. This becomes customs and religions and we teach in parables.

We are also rogues that tend to buck the authority we find when we are teenagers. This breeding societies to quickly adapt to new conditions. Older people tend to be 'stuck in thier ways' and prosthetize thier wisdom often 'keeping the kids in line'. Young children absorb information/customs instantly.

If you overlap these characteristics as three generations living in a village together, you will see a very stable and yet adaptable model that will tend to survive horrible catastroprophies. Horror brings out hte best in men.

Although we wit at comptuers all day, we have within us the inate instincts to be hunters and gatherers should our society/technology break down. Want proof?

When you walk into your kitchen and open the fridge or cabinet even though you are not hungry, you are in 'Gathering Mode'. You go where food is and collect it when you have nothing else to do. Women tended to gather 80% of the food. A lot of fruits, tubers, berries. It is a good traight to pick these when they are ripe, often red. Modern women are highly susseptable to Red SALE Signs. The list goes on (men knowing sprots stats but forgetting birthdays, women and the oral tradition, men cooperating to a goal dispite differences, women multitasking, peopel find small things with big eyes cute (keeps us from throttling crying children)let me know if you want other explainations)

As meat puppets we are animals that observe a highly complicated social structure that is largely preprogrammed and interpretted by our local experience. This may be seen by some as Religion (the organization of laws, not specifically Theism) others as Morals (observed to be 'logical'), but again, this is our metaphoric mind at work, seeing 'faces in the clouds', adapting our instinct to meet our mindset.

In the end, values are largely preprogrammed.

Russel, I also believe that anything 'supernatural' (that is real) could someday be explained/described by Science. It may take a Tesla to describe these and push like hell to get funding to build machines to measure these events reliably (ie: oscilliscopes instead of his fingers). Unfortunately, Tesla's backers were motivated by profit. My experiences with these events have been constant my entire life and defy logical explaination. They do seem to follow patterns, however, so there is hope.

Thanks Norm! (will get TypeKey this weekend)

PS: I find it fun that this discussion was about Norms. smile

Russell,

You simply restated your argument. You have a very reductionist view of what it means to be a materialist. Take a computer program for instance at it's core it is nothing more than binary 0's and 1's but certainly there is more to consider if for instance you looked at something like html. Just saying it is 1's and 0's misses an important part of the story don't you think? There are any number of natural ethical systems that are neither arbitrary or require supernatural explanations. here for example I particularly like Hume's ideas scroll down to the fourth paragraph.

russell, morality isnt always arbitrary. there are reasons people have thought up to choose which things to value. for example, there is utilitarianism. i recognize this is a choice, so if you are trying to say there are no moral absolutes i would agree with that, but i dont think this is the same as saying morality is arbitrary.

and when you talk about the number of deaths caused by the iraqi invasion being inconsequential and relative, i disagree. it has consequences at the scale my environment is at.

if you want to do away with morality entirely, you are left with self-interest, and i dont think the iraq invasion helped america (nor me) there either.

i suppose you are arguing that this is what happens anyways ("A virus cannot be seen as WRONG in the world, it is simply doing what it’s doing.")?

if so, i think it is only true to an extent, though that extent is larger than most people realize.

Hey Norm,

“At the center of the debate is the issue of whether there are enduring philosophical problems about the nature of reality, and truth, and about value, for example, or just the more concrete, contingent, but still significant problems that individuals and societies encounter in the business of living.”

This is a paragraph I pulled from the link you supplied. I should add to my earlier point about Wittgenstein -- that his refusal to engage in any metaphysical dialogue was a question of efficiency, following in the steps of American Pragmatism. A general agreement that there are things that can’t be logically addressed so let’s focus on what can be logically addressed. Which is not saying “what can’t be logically addressed doesn’t exist, because it can’t be logically addressed.”

The paragraph on Ethics in Naturalism is great and I am just a stubborn, romantic bugger and I see it as just explaining a process (Great with the HOW not with the WHY).

The question I pose is not one of “show me your proof” it is only what is condition of an individual’s thoughts who believes ethical and moral inclinations are all and only physical manifestations? Knowing that the “Moral Process,” and, much more importantly, Love is a biological imprint geared to the survival of the species, why, as an INDIVIDUAL are you compelled to adhere to it? Wouldn’t you think it silly to simply obey a chemical secretion? Do you have a choice “in the matter?”

If you are depressed and you receive a booster of serotonin, while the effects last are you drugged or are you, equivocally, not depressed?

Let’s put it another way. We have reached a level of technology that we can create very sophisticated computer programs that can respond and interact with people by collecting data on their body temperature, heart rate, voice inflection etc.. The computer’s responses can be programmed to have “feelings”, that is respond to interactions like “don’t shout at me” or whatever. Now we are just very sophisticated computer programs housed in a collection of tissue... do we have an obligation to act ethically and morally towards our less sophisticated, metal brother-in-programmed-arms? If we reach a point in technology when we can create very convincing copies of a human (like a cyborg or something). Does it have the same moral rights and obligations?

Hey Norm,

Just to be clear, I'm a goof who believes in something about us that is of a spiritual nature (for lack of a better term). And any of the cold, relative examples I posed concerning the war in Iraq were to illustrate a point. I think the war is brutal and atrocious. 100,000 Iraqi lives lost is not relative in my mind. It’s a monstrous tragedy.

My apologies. It appears I've been conversing with three people, not just Norm. Hey Craig. Hey fbdio...

Sorry for the multiple postings Norm.

Just one more thought. If I'm humbly honest, I guess I'm just not satisfied with the idea that I "do the right thing" based on my species/biological "hard drive" executing "programs" uploaded by species social norms. It bugs me almost as much as "Do the right thing because God says so (AND you go to Heaven!!!)"...

Thanks for all your ideas!

Inwit//What do you do if you happen to be at the antipode of Mecca? Do you look straight down into the Earth?//

Laughing my little ass off! Thanks Inwit :-D

Dr House takes on the rest of the crew. The secret is out. The Dr House Character was based on Norm Jenson :)

Russell, It looks like you're itching for a discussion of free will. I'll pass on that, suffice it to say that I'm a compatibalist. Now to your questions about cyborgs, robots, whatever you want to call them the answer is yes. The same moral rights and obligations. If you haven't read Rodney Brooks book, Flesh and Machines let me recommend that you get a copy.

Hey Norm, Fair enough. I'll check out that book. You have a lot of Dennet postings, so I assume you've read him. If you haven't read Dennet's "Elbow Room" (speaking of free will) I highly suggest it. Much better than "Conciouness Explained", which reads like stereo instructions. As you may have guessed, I don't like where Dennet is ultimately going, but the ride is very enlightening and interesting.

Thanks for the conversation...