1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanNon-purposive meaning what?
At the risk of drawing this out any further, some points for clarification please.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
1. Causation within the physical order is non-purposive.
Non-purposive meaning what?
2. The physical order is closed, and not influenced by anything outside.
Physical order meaning what?
3. All states su g not-physical exist? And if it does, how can it have any bearing on a closed physical system?
Here's a fairly concise explanation from The Philosophical Midwife at:
http://philosophicalmidwifery.blogspot.com/2006_02_01_archive.html
"The kind of randomness posited by D[arwinianism] is not of this sort. Rather it is the same in kind as, for example, the randomness of the path of a tornado. We say that the path of tornado is random not in the sense that it lacks a cause of any kind but rather in the sense that its path is non-purposive. What does this mean? It means this: the tornado's path is not a product of choice but rather comes about by the operation of 'blind' forces. One in the path of a tornado should not think that she has been singled out for retribution. Nor should she think that the tornado was sent her way by some malevolent agent. Rather the tornado's path, though perfectly predictable if one had but enough finely detailed information about it and the weather in its vicinity, was not the product of choice. On the contrary, its path and indeed its formation were the product of forces that operated with no knowledge of what they would bring about. These forces were in this sense 'blind' and 'non-purposive'."
Physical order meaning what?
Everything physical and physical-related.
If the physical order is closed, to what extent can anything not-physical exist? And if it does, how can it have any bearing on a closed physical system?
As seen in the parenthetical part of the sentence, some non-physical things obviously exist within the closed system of the physical order.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt seems to me that as a materialst, I have a questions over the last point then. I personally believe that there is nothing which is not physical, within or without the system.
[b]Non-purposive meaning what?
Here's a fairly concise explanation from The Philosophical Midwife at:
http://philosophicalmidwifery.blogspot.com/2006_02_01_archive.html
"The kind of randomness posited by D[arwinianism] is not of this sort. Rather it is the same in kind as, for example, the randomness of the path of a tornado. We say that the pat ...[text shortened]... e non-physical things obviously exist within the closed system of the physical order.[/b]
Originally posted by StarrmanThere is significant evidence to point that the physical affects both the psychological characteristics of the individuals and, by consequence, the moral judgments of said individual.
Extensions of a physical makeup at some minute level, having force values which, as yet, we have no understanding of.
Originally posted by PalynkaI'm suggesting that moral judgements and psychological characteristics are physical, on some currently unregistered level.
There is significant evidence to point that the physical affects both the psychological characteristics of the individuals and, by consequence, the moral judgments of said individual.
Originally posted by StarrmanAnd I'm agreeing that they are physical, but disagreeing on the unregistered part. That the knowledge is far from complete doesn't mean we shouldn't follow the evidence it provides.
I'm suggesting that moral judgements and psychological characteristics [b]are physical, on some currently unregistered level.[/b]
Originally posted by PalynkaOh, I misunderstood. Yes, I agree. I doubt we will see any massive improvement on the amount of evidence in our lifetimes though.
And I'm agreeing that they are physical, but disagreeing on the unregistered part. That the knowledge is far from complete doesn't mean we shouldn't follow the evidence it provides.
Originally posted by StarrmanWhat do you mean by 'what do you mean?' Point in time? 'You' generally, or me specifically? Mean: intent or average/median?
What do you mean by 'better'? More likely? More complete? Also, against what criteria?
As far as I can see it's the only description which should be considered.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf you can't lay your argument out in one carefully concieved post to start with I am not willing to answer questions I do not understand the impact of and how they fit into the parameters of your argument. If you are going to be obtuse and ill-defined, then fine, keep your debate. I'm done.
What do you mean by 'what do you mean?' Point in time? 'You' generally, or me specifically? Mean: intent or average/median?