2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

Vegan message board for support on vegan related issues and questions.
Topics include philosophy, activism, effective altruism, plant-based nutrition, and diet advice/discussion whether high carb, low carb (eco atkins/vegan keto) or anything in between.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
Post Reply
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

Post by brimstoneSalad »

AMP3083 wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 12:11 am Maybe Brian can confirm this with me, but basically we're promoting self-reliance (individuality/consciousness/wisdom) while you guys promote science and logic. We do not dismiss the latter entirely, however, without science, without philosophy, without religion, we would all have to rely on our own conscience, our own experiences for "Truth", whatever it may be.
That may be a fair characterization.

The thing is, the very criticism you have been leveling at the idea of objective morality I believe applies much more so to your world view.
The more we rely on science and logic to the exclusion of individual intuition (I wouldn't call it wisdom, because true wisdom is to realize your intuition is flawed and seek better methods), the more people the world over can arrive at consensus through argument, instead of reach stalemates of faith which are resolved through violence instead.
AMP3083 wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 12:11 am Brim, I believe this is the backbone of your position - the materialist worldview. For you, something must be "tested", "experimented" or require a "method" for it to (objectively) exist.
And wouldn't the world be a more peaceful place if everybody saw it that way? Nobody would fight over religion, fueled by blind faith. Instead, we would all remain agnostic until presented with evidence, and then when presented with evidence we could unify to solve problems.
AMP3083 wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 12:11 am But this is a self-imposed boundary that limits you to only see the things that fit these parameters. It's a self-fulfilling one because it only accepts as evidence those very things that it claims are the only things to exist.
It's self imposed because anything else leads to chaos, and precludes both knowledge of truth and rational discourse. Faith or spiritual "gnosis" and intuition are not reliable means of knowing and they breed conflict: each person with personal conviction based on feeling that the other is wrong, but lacking the evidence to convince the opponent of it through dialogue.

Your solution seems to be to try to take away the conviction by questioning all reality as subjective, but that does not take away the potential for people to be convicted of their own whims or commit violence on behalf of those whims.
Your stance against fundamentalist Islamic terrorism would argue something like:

"If you want to promote fundamentalist Islam and kill unbelievers, go for it, that's your subjective ethics. You are not wrong or a bad person. I will try to convince you otherwise by sharing my opinion because I don't personally like what you're doing, particularly as you are trying to kill me and my family, and if you like my opinion more you can change, but that's just my personal opinion no better or worse than yours. Otherwise I have no argument. I can not call your actions objectively wrong or immoral, because that's only my opinion. You are doing right by your own ethics. I will only say you are wrong if you say what you're doing is objectively good, rather than good based on your moral framework."

Whereas my argument is much more robust. I do claim the person is doing wrong, and I can back it up with extensive logical debate, not just my opinion which can be easily discarded. I can deconstruct the religion, from scripture to metaphysics, and I can substitute an objective moral framework that shows how this behavior is unethical.

From a practical perspective, your method is simply unpersuasive.
Give me the ear of a fundamentalist, and I will change his or her mind. You'll exchange opinions, and then either kill or be killed because these people are too entrenched to be swayed from their very strong subjective experiences (even if they admit they're subjective) to yours.
AMP3083 wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 12:11 am It is up to people to explore this mystery within themselves, an individual basis thing.
Some of those people will end up peaceful, and others will end up religious zealots and kill people. Whereas with the method I'm promoting the outcome is much more reliable. You end up with altruists or hedonistic nihilists; not fundamentalists following their own truths.
AMP3083 wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 12:11 am The person heavily invested in science cannot use science to explore the mystery of their inner being.
That's not really true; we have neuropsychology.

If you want to explore random biases non-rigorously you can do that in your free time, but it's not something that benefits humanity; all that is, is digging up bias and psychosis which can have dire consequences.

I'm not saying that meditation is useless, but people need to remain grounded by reality to avoid committing atrocities.
but one of the things i've learned for sure, through my own experience, is that reality is far more complicated, and far more beautifully strange, than any science or religion has ever managed to fully comprehend or articulate."
Try quantum physics out for size.
The author of that quote is clearly not a scientist, nor does McKenna understand science.

I'm getting the impression that this McKenna is something of a new-age cult leader, and you two have been indoctrinated. If this is a big deal, I may have to spend some time debunking him. What's his following like?
User avatar
AMP3083
Junior Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 2:43 pm
Diet: Meat-Eater

Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

Post by AMP3083 »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 2:24 amI do claim the person is doing wrong, and I can back it up with extensive logical debate
Yeah, and where did that get us? 11 pages of just debate.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 2:24 amFrom a practical perspective, your method is simply unpersuasive.
Unpersuasive? Well, this might frighten you a little bit, Brim, but you haven't persuaded two people in this thread. If Jebus was correct in claiming that your position "makes perfect logical sense" and it's "easy to understand" -- if he means this objectively -- then it shouldn't fall on deaf ears. Every scientist and mathematician who have the slightest familiarity with veganism should instantly be vegan right now. That's not the case though, is it?
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 2:24 amI'm getting the impression that this McKenna is something of a new-age cult leader, and you two have been indoctrinated. If this is a big deal, I may have to spend some time debunking him.
Hhhhhhnnnnnnnggggg! Almost a low blow there, sir. Well, you've got a billion things to say, so I'm sure you could debunk him. New thread?

What Has Science Overlooked?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdaCTcC4RXo

Let's Talk About Science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnFFZrnVMi8

My Take On Science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBS1BCwAiRs

Science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TERFfGQaW0

What Is Science?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYhTHs60eZ0

Science vs. Reality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MQGy1smtH8

Science Is An Art
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-_Qnyubjng

The UFO's Are Eroding Faith In Science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbhLFwJT93s

Terence McKenna vs. Stephen Hawking vs. Straight Science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hxi8rEJtNQ

Religion & Science In A Nutshell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fli4h6sJqnQ

Science Doesn't Deal With Subjective Experience
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygQyy2icYh8

BONUS: What If UFO's Appeared On Earth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MjX4D6uOzI
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

Post by brimstoneSalad »

AMP3083 wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 3:42 am Yeah, and where did that get us? 11 pages of just debate.
Not all mine, and part with one person and then repeated with another.
Ultimately, most of it was about whether there is an objective reality at all, to conclude that you guys don't necessarily put as much stock in logic as you aught to. ;)
Now that Brian is adopting necessary assumptions about logic, for purposes of debate, the conversation can continue more smoothly.

You remember the first time I presented the argument you didn't have any counter points.
If somebody does not have a foundational motivating principle of either rationality OR morality, there's very little to leverage.

This is actually quite rare. Most people are rather easily convinced to logic IF they want to be moral, and most people already want to be moral, and just have the wrong idea of it.
And if they're already logical otherwise, it's even easier.
AMP3083 wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 3:42 am Unpersuasive? Well, this might frighten you a little bit, Brim, but you haven't persuaded two people in this thread.
How would this be frightening? This is an ongoing conversation, and Brian only just started to understand my point.
Of course, these things play out much faster in person where misunderstandings can be corrected more quickly.

As far as I'm concerned, the discussion is finally just beginning after a bunch of tangents.
AMP3083 wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 3:42 am If Jebus was correct in claiming that your position "makes perfect logical sense" and it's "easy to understand" -- if he means this objectively -- then it shouldn't fall on deaf ears.
Hopefully it won't, but an essential part of learning is unlearning. You two seemed to have come into the conversation with some assumptions about what my position was going to be, and Brian in particular argued against those assumptions where in fact there was no disagreement.

Now that Brian has unlearned some of the assumptions he made about my position, I think he's starting to understand it.
I will concede that this is an unusual approach, because most people do not approach this topic logically. And where they do, methods like #NameThatTrait are much more common, but do not apply to aberrant approaches to ethics (from relativism to Randian Objectivism).

That was part of, I think, my first post. I explained where those approaches fail, but where I tackle the disagreement on what morality is.
AMP3083 wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 3:42 am Every scientist and mathematician who have the slightest familiarity with veganism should instantly be vegan right now. That's not the case though, is it?
Not all vegans argue for it logically, and not all rational people have devoted the time to extensive contemplation on the issue. I do not expect people to just come upon these arguments on their own with five minutes of consideration. This approach has been honed over years, in my case.

I'm surely not the only one who makes such arguments, but you would be lucky to run into them often without careful searching. If you swam in skeptical vegan circles you might bump into similar arguments now and then, but it would take time.

Believe it or not, I used to be in your shoes, and I used to believe more or less what you believe now.

AMP3083 wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 3:42 am Hhhhhhnnnnnnnggggg! Almost a low blow there, sir. Well, you've got a billion things to say, so I'm sure you could debunk him. New thread?
The question would be how many followers he has, and how many Google searches would bring people here from such a debunking. :)
User avatar
DarlBundren
Senior Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:59 pm
Diet: Vegetarian
Location: Southern Europe

Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

Post by DarlBundren »

AMP3083 wrote:McKenna himself would often profess similar words.
It's always dangerous to love the person more than the ideas. That's how cults are born. I don't know if Terence was really an expert in his field, but even if that were the case, it would not give him the right to pontificate about things outside his field of expertise. We all appreciate some of the intellectual contributions of Albert Einstein, but we don't have a theory of Einsteinism.
When you turn the man into a god, rationality goes out of the window.
brimstoneSalad wrote:The question would be how many followers he has, and how many Google searches would bring people here from such a debunking.

I don't know how many followers he has, but he had something to say about a wide range of topics - it's not the first time I hear his name. He was a friend of Rupert Sheldrake's, by the way, the parapsychologist we briefly discussed on the other thread. The guy whose Ted talk has been watched 1,222,726 times.
BrianBlackwell
Junior Member
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 9:37 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

Post by BrianBlackwell »

Good day, everyone! Brim, you will be happy to hear that I am at my computer today (rather than my phone), so I can manage a bit more quoting and directly addressing the points made in the previous posts.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Mon May 22, 2017 10:56 pm Where do you think the subjectivity creeps in? Through the imperfection of science?
The system is conceived subjectively and wholly concerns subjective phenomena (more on Bob in a moment). There is no element of objectivity anywhere within the entire endeavor (more on chefs below). The reason why I say it's close is because it seems to mimic objectivity by being logically organized (and by sheer volume of effective applications), but a doppelganger does not inherently share the same qualities as the thing it mimics.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Mon May 22, 2017 10:56 pm Would you agree that it's the "most objective" or "least subjective", and to that extent, if a rational person is to choose from among various ethics, this would be the most rational to select if all other biases are removed?
In the absence of a more compelling system, yes. However, due to the fact that it is still subjective, it is susceptible to competition; were it objective, it would have no such weakness, as its objective nature would be the factor that permits the removal of bias. If my subjective religious beliefs outweigh the prescribed ethics in my own mind (i.e., I value them more) then it could be edged out, because it does not command assent as objectivity does. (Again, I hope you understand how I use these terms "necessarily compel" and "command assent" -- I do not mean them in the absolute, as they are dependent upon a person's commitment to acting in accordance with logic, and deferring to objectivity).
brimstoneSalad wrote: Mon May 22, 2017 10:56 pm A value itself is subjective, but the fact that Bob has X value is objective.
What we're dealing with is not personal values here, but respect for the objective facts of others holding subjective values.
For the sake of argument only (since nobody truly knows what Bob likes besides Bob), let's say the fact that Bob likes chocolate is objective. The fact is not what's being addressed by ethics, but rather the content of that fact (the value itself). Every subjective notion is a fact in the sense that the person has it, and regardless of what the actual content of that notion is, that fact is the same across the board. It is the same fact, whether it is applied to your favorite Pokemon, or your preferences about life and death. If ethics were addressing this fact, it would be devoid of specific content entirely. It is not addressing this fact, it is addressing the subjective value to which the fact refers.

If our ethics are dependent upon the content of others' values (e.g., don't kill Bob because Bob does not want to die), not only is it subjective in the abstract (as per the above argument), but it is subjective in the most pragmatic way possible -- it is a direct function of what others value, and values are as shifting as the desert sands. They shift within the individual, between individuals, with time, with location, with culture, etc. How can a system dependent wholly upon shifting subjective phenomena be deemed objective? Objectivity is "the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, ideas, opinions and imaginings" -- clearly this system would not fit this description.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Mon May 22, 2017 10:56 pm And there is no value without sentience. A sentient being has interests, and values things. Without sentient beings, there are no values to value, so morality can only be practiced with respect to sentient beings (past, present, and future).
This is an interesting topic for another discussion. Can there be ethics relative to the Earth itself, if the Earth is not thought to be sentient (some do believe the Earth is sentient, so that would obviate the question)? How about ethics relative to unearthing burial grounds to build condos? Does this ethics refer only to the people left behind, or does it somehow relate to the people buried; a respect for the non-sentient dead themselves? Do we owe something to historical monuments, or great achievements like the Sistine Chapel, or the Great Wall of China? Are we unethical if we deface or destroy these things? There is a sense that we would be, but if so, why? We probably shouldn't get into this now, but it's something to ponder on our own.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Mon May 22, 2017 10:56 pm An arbitrary or subjective "morality" like egoism, may instruct a person to only value his or her own values.
An objective one instructs us to respect the values of others.

...Do you understand the distinction between the subjective "Chocolate is delicious" and the objective "Bob thinks/finds chocolate delicious"?
This is a crucial point. It is by this means that we translate the subjective into the objective.

We can plot the objective skill of the chef by analyzing the relationship of his works to the tastes of those who experience them.
In reality, it may never be possible to satisfy everybody, but a chef who is objectively better will satisfy more people.
Whether the system only takes one person's values into account (their own, in this example), or the values of millions of people, the fundamental quality of the system (relative to the objective/subjective question) is unaffected. I have described science's "objectivity" as a consensus of subjective experience, and argued that no amount of subjective experience will equate to objectivity, just as no amount of oranges will make an apple pie. The same applies here. There must be an inherently objective ingredient. Degree or quantity does not come into play regarding objectivity; it is a qualitative question, and that quality is simply present, or it is not.
BrianBlackwell
Junior Member
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 9:37 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

Post by BrianBlackwell »

AMP3083 wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 12:11 am
Maybe Brian can confirm this with me, but basically we're promoting self-reliance (individuality/consciousness/wisdom) while you guys promote science and logic. We do not dismiss the latter entirely, however, without science, without philosophy, without religion, we would all have to rely on our own conscience, our own experiences for "Truth", whatever it may be.

Well yes, I certainly subscribe to the "primacy of individual experience", as you well know. It is a curious irony that this point-of-view places us in the awkward position of often having to argue against perspectives based on science, philosophy, religion, etc., when actually it has nothing to say about these things in particular (it is difficult to make this understood, as the required argumentation has all the trappings of anti-science rhetoric, etc.). The basic point is that all of these things reside within individual experience, and most of the time is spent trying to wrangle them back into that pen. They cannot rightfully be made to supercede individual experience, being wholly contained within it.

It is like making an argument against darkness -- darkness does not have an inherent existence of its own; it is merely the absence of light. Darkness really has no right to exist as an independent concept. Similarly, objectivity has no known existence of its own, and so the argument is basically a refutation of an absurdity, regardless of its particular expression.

One of my favorite quotes from McKenna is that science's position is essentially "Give us one free miracle, and we'll explain the rest." Hahaha But this is coming from a man with a healthy respect for science. It says it all, insofar as it acknowledges that despite everything that happens afterward, there is an unknown, an uncertainty, at the very foundation of the endeavor. This necessarily taints the entire project. The quote was made in reference to the Big Bang in particular, but it's analogous to the inescapable subjectivity at the root of all scientific conclusions.
User avatar
AMP3083
Junior Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 2:43 pm
Diet: Meat-Eater

Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

Post by AMP3083 »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 4:24 amThe question would be how many followers he has, and how many Google searches would bring people here from such a debunking. :)
It's up to you. How badly do you want to debunk him?
DarlBundren wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 6:01 amIt's always dangerous to love the person more than the ideas. That's how cults are born. I don't know if Terence was really an expert in his field, but even if that were the case, it would not give him the right to pontificate about things outside his field of expertise. We all appreciate some of the intellectual contributions of Albert Einstein, but we don't have a theory of Einsteinism.
When you turn the man into a god, rationality goes out of the window.
What was it about my quote that triggered this assumption? I'm just saying I agree with the guy.
Last edited by AMP3083 on Wed May 24, 2017 12:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
DarlBundren
Senior Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2015 4:59 pm
Diet: Vegetarian
Location: Southern Europe

Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

Post by DarlBundren »

AMP3083 wrote:What was it about my quote that triggered this assumption? I'm just saying I agree with the guy.
I was under the impression that you liked him more than his ideas. That you weren't quoting him because he's a credible source on a specific topic, but because he's a guy you like. Glad to know this is not the case. It's easier to dicuss ideas rather than people.
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

Post by NonZeroSum »

You might already know this but I'll just say it anyway, if you click 'quick links' in the top left corner, you'll see a drop down list, 'Active topics' is an easy way to see what current conversations are going on on the forum.
http://philosophicalvegan.com/search.php?search_id=active_topics
AMP3083 wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 1:46 pm
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 4:24 amThe question would be how many followers he has, and how many Google searches would bring people here from such a debunking. :)
It's up to you. How badly do you want to debunk him?
Terence McKenna: Language Is Best Used To Lie (AMP3083 video)
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3191
BrianBlackwell wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 12:46 pm One of my favorite quotes from McKenna is that science's position is essentially "Give us one free miracle, and we'll explain the rest."
Scientists' interest in the paranormal
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1195&start=10
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
BrianBlackwell
Junior Member
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 9:37 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: 2 Questions About Logical Inconsistency & Morality

Post by BrianBlackwell »

DarlBundren wrote: Tue May 23, 2017 2:21 pm I was under the impression that you liked him more than his ideas. That you weren't quoting him because he's a credible source on a specific topic, but because he's a guy you like. Glad to know this is not the case. It's easier to dicuss ideas rather than people.
Oh, don't revise your impression, you were right the first time -- McKenna's not a credible source on any topic. Hahahaha. I'm half joking with this; the man is more intelligent, eloquent, curious, respectable, passionate and experienced than many who have been quoted far more often. He's also incredibly grounded, considering the "far-out" nature of the topic he usually concerns himself with.

The reason I make the joke is because he does not make assertions from a position of authority, but rather offers suggestions, ponderings, and far more questions than answers. He would be the first to tell you that you shouldn't take his word for anything, but to look into it for yourself.

For that reason, I think it would be hard to get a foothold for debunking him. That being said, he has a firm grasp on the topics he's discussing, and to hear him speak is often an experience of intellectual poetry, without any of the pretense. He's one of a kind, to be sure, and he has his following, but he's nowhere near assertive enough to inspire a cult. Not to mention, he's dead :?
Post Reply