## Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

### Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
- James' central tenet, which I've struggled to find exception to and yet have not, says that nothing exists unless it can affect something.
James idea is not falsifiable, so it is a safe assertion. This does not mean if is false, however it seems to me it is either tautological or speculation.

Yes, well it is falsifiable only using this computer he had said he had built, which generates virtual particles spontaneously based on the RM algorithms. I've been waiting to see that machine, "Jack", in action since 2012.

One advantage of VO is its falsifiability at every position. A falsifiable universal!

For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals

Jakob
ILP Legend

Posts: 5975
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

### Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
- James' central tenet, which I've struggled to find exception to and yet have not, says that nothing exists unless it can affect something.
James idea is not falsifiable, so it is a safe assertion. This does not mean if is false, however it seems to me it is either tautological or speculation.
"nothing exists unless it can affect something" is no different from 'no human can exists unless it breathes' i.e. stating the obvious within a 'common sense' framework.
That is a truism and tautology.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher

Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

### Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Nothing exists unless it CAN affect something, makes the possibility that many things exist which never affect something. The CAN part does make it unfalsifiable.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 7382
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Ecmandu wrote:Nothing exists unless it CAN affect something, makes the possibility that many things exist which never affect something. The CAN part does make it unfalsifiable.

... and it's certainly something James never said.
"Existence is that which has affect".
..... panta rhei .............................................

Mithus

Posts: 197
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 10:05 pm

### Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Mithus wrote:
Ecmandu wrote:Nothing exists unless it CAN affect something, makes the possibility that many things exist which never affect something. The CAN part does make it unfalsifiable.

... and it's certainly something James never said.
"Existence is that which has affect".

Well, then we run into this again...

So hypothetically, every existent has an affect, however, nothing has to be affected ?!?!
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 7382
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Please keep this nonsensical cult of “RM” out of my topic. It has nothing to do with my topic.
EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ

URUZ
Philosopher

Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

### Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Serendipper,

This may be a silly question but can there not be an objective interpretation?

No because that's essentially an observer-less observation and quantum physicists would love to get a hold of that in order to look without looking, but there is no such thing.

I do not understand this. Can you elaborate a bit more on it. For an observation to be made, must there not be an observer ~~ unless you are using the term *observer-less to mean something different?

There are no silly questions concerning objectivity since it's very difficult to get one's head around.

Graciousness.

You may ask other people for an objective view of a personal situation you may have and it will be more objective than your own assessment, but it's still subject to the limitation of the other person's ability to relate to you and your problem (among other things). The degree of objectivity is subject to the subject's tools of perception and internal biases.

Yes, this I can see and agree with but I am not understanding the connection between the above and an observer-less observation.

Does interpretation deal only with personal perception on our part?

A subject can only observe with the tools it has to observe (be affected by something). A photon, for instance, can only observe that which contains charge because that is the only means of affecting electromagnetic radiation. Dark matter has no effect on photons since dark matter contains no charge. However, dark matter does affect space which affects the path of light, but it doesn't affect the light directly.

I get this too. We can only work with who or what we are and how things affect us/our relationship to them.
One may say that human nature is also composed of dark matter (the unknown negative [not negative charge]) and dark energy which also affects *the path of light* (enlightenment/goodness) coming through us and into us. Dorky?
It is kind of like the human brain in a way. More is not known about it than is known about it.

Dark matter is only real to us in terms of gravity and, although we can learn more about dark matter by studying the interactions it may have on other elements, there is no way for us to objectively observe the dark matter because we do not possess the tools necessary to "see" it.

I understand this too. lol Perhaps my first question had more to do with facts/evidence, what we do know, when we observe something. So the term "interpretation" might not have anything to do with objectivity but with subjectivity or our own perception. Did that make sense to you?

Can there not be any real evidence or facts involved or seen in interpretation - meaning objectivity? I may not have expressed that well.

I suppose we can extrapolate and surmise what something may look like if we weren't there to look, but it's not real observation.

So what would You call it if not observation? You are sitting on a park bench, looking up at the sky, wondering if there could actually be Something called God. You are observing everything which brings you to this Question. Could you not then say that the question of God's reality becomes an observation, something to be looked at and observed?
I am not saying that I am right. I am just questioning.

Goethe said, and I agree, that thinking (deduction) is a tool of perception just like vision, smell, etc, so we may be able to piece together objective views by "virtual observation" (for instance, what the universe looked like at the moment of the big bang when viewed from outside the universe, whatever that means), but we can never be assured that we've considered all the information (in other words, we can't know what we don't know.)

I understand this. So what is it that my agnostic self is in actuality doing above from your point of view?

When you look at a cup, all you can perceive is a rather thin band of electromagnetic radiation emanating from it;

Wow! Can you teach me how to do this? I am not capable of perceiving that.
That would be quite awesome.

Light is just a higher-frequency radio wave or a lower-frequency xray and visible light is a sliver of the radiation that exists.

What you commonly call "heat" is really infrared radiation. What physicists call "heat" is all EM radiation since heat is energy in transport.

Birds can see tetrachromatically via a 4th cone that allows perception of ultraviolet radiation and, presumably, they have a neural network that allows conceptualization of a color such as ultra-orange, which does not exist to us. People wearing sunblock at the beach probably appear like they're wearing aluminum foil to birds due to the intense reflection of UV light.

Deer hunters should also be aware that deer can see UV light (blue and up) very well and although some pee dribble may not seem very real to us, it's like a light bulb to the deer. Deer are crepuscular, meaning they're most active at dawn and dusk in order to take advantage of the remaining UV light from the sun to pinpoint predator urine while also having the ambiance dark enough for predators to be at a relative disadvantage.

I did not know that. It is very interesting actually. I went deer hunting a few times with a boyfriend and I am so glad that he never found one to kill. But perhaps we honor the deer who's meat is at least eaten ~ better than to die of hunger and cold.

I suppose though that I was being a bit naive to think that I could actually SEE ~ When you look at a cup, all you can perceive is a rather [color=#400080]thin band of electromagnetic radiation emanating from it

I want to see that. How is it done? There is so much of THAT kind of magic in the universe. I would like to be able to experience more of it.

therefore, you cannot say you know everything about the cup, but only what you're "subjugated"/relegated to realize by virtue of your humble abilities as a human.

...or the humble but wonderful abilities of other humans such as archaeologists, historians, et cetera. On second thought, nothing so humble about those people ~ simply awesome!

Kind of like seeking out your ancestry. I suppose this is why we also have the Antique Roadshow.

I like that show

If only we could go back in time ~ I mean really back in time. I wonder where I would go first.
“How can a bird that is born for joy
Sit in a cage and sing?”
― William Blake

“Little Fly
Thy summers play,
My thoughtless hand
Has brush'd away.

Am not I
A fly like thee?
Or art not thou
A man like me?

For I dance
And drink & sing:
Till some blind hand
Shall brush my wing.

If thought is life
And strength & breath:
And the want
Of thought is death;

Then am I
A happy fly,
If I live,
Or if I die”
― William Blake, Songs of Innocence and of Experience

“No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.”
― William Blake

Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker

Posts: 15300
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

### Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Arcturus Descending wrote:

Here we see how valuing works.
The human brain values a specific range in the value-continuum, and only this valuing "affects" the human.
Thus, valuing is prior to "affectance";
back to you, Houston.

For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals

Jakob
ILP Legend

Posts: 5975
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

### Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Jakob wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:

Here we see how valuing works.
The human brain values a specific range in the value-continuum, and only this valuing "affects" the human.
Thus, valuing is prior to "affectance";
back to you, Houston.

Jakob,

Serendipper said: When you look at a cup, all you can perceive is a rather thin band of electromagnetic radiation emanating from it;

So please tell me where on the above graph does that lie? I am looking to actually see it on the cup.
Do we see it everyday and not think of it as the above? Is it called by another name? I am no scientist.

Aside from that, I am not so sure that "valuing is necessarily prior to affectance though it may be true that what we value does affect us - obviously.

I think that it can also be true that what affects or has an effect on us greatly can ALSO come to lead us to value something afterwards...at least when we have come to ultimately pay attention to IT.

Show me the Light!
“How can a bird that is born for joy
Sit in a cage and sing?”
― William Blake

“Little Fly
Thy summers play,
My thoughtless hand
Has brush'd away.

Am not I
A fly like thee?
Or art not thou
A man like me?

For I dance
And drink & sing:
Till some blind hand
Shall brush my wing.

If thought is life
And strength & breath:
And the want
Of thought is death;

Then am I
A happy fly,
If I live,
Or if I die”
― William Blake, Songs of Innocence and of Experience

“No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.”
― William Blake

Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker

Posts: 15300
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

### Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

encode_decode,

The observer becomes affected by what the observer sees - the act of observing has no affect on the observed << Is this more or less what you are saying?

So are you saying that that IS the case or are you just trying to mirror back his thought?
“How can a bird that is born for joy
Sit in a cage and sing?”
― William Blake

“Little Fly
Thy summers play,
My thoughtless hand
Has brush'd away.

Am not I
A fly like thee?
Or art not thou
A man like me?

For I dance
And drink & sing:
Till some blind hand
Shall brush my wing.

If thought is life
And strength & breath:
And the want
Of thought is death;

Then am I
A happy fly,
If I live,
Or if I die”
― William Blake, Songs of Innocence and of Experience

“No bird soars too high if he soars with his own wings.”
― William Blake

Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker

Posts: 15300
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

### Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Arcturus Descending wrote:Jakob,

Serendipper said: When you look at a cup, all you can perceive is a rather thin band of electromagnetic radiation emanating from it;

So please tell me where on the above graph does that lie? I am looking to actually see it on the cup.
Do we see it everyday and not think of it as the above? Is it called by another name? I am no scientist.

What do you mean? Dipsh was just pointing to the fact that most radiation isn't what we call "light". Light ranges from Red to Violet.
Infrared and Ultraviolet aren't nominally light anymore, just radiation, even though they move with the speed of light just as this select group of wavelengths that we can perceive using our visual sense.

Aside from that, I am not so sure that "valuing is necessarily prior to affectance though it may be true that what we value does affect us - obviously.

As Ive learned, our understandings of the term "valuing" are different.
You've never really looked into VO, which is totally okay, but as long as you know that when I say "valuing" I don't mean a conscious process.

(Ive always been evidencing that consciousness is a specific type of valuing. We can't be conscious without this consciousness revolving around and orienting on our specific objects of valuing - as Jung also said)

I think that it can also be true that what affects or has an effect on us greatly can ALSO come to lead us to value something afterwards...at least when we have come to ultimately pay attention to IT.

As I understand us, something can only affect us as a value.
Whenever we are affected, we are partial vs this being affected - this being partial is precisely what the being-affected is.

Show me the Light!

"Take it slow...
It is what it is cause we make it so...
go on break it
it aint sacred
its not holy
squeeze in it until it turns to guacamole"

Saying, all in time. You are well on course as far as I can tell.

The big question is: for what do we require the truth? Why are we worthy of it? Why would truth not be wasted on us? How can truth affect us?

We can receive truth when we are fully ready to put ourselves on the line for it, when we are capable of fully valuing it. Therefore "truth is a woman".

Not just any woman though.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides

Before the Light - Tree of Life Academy - Thought of a Rune (film by Pezer)

Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper

Posts: 7887
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

### Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

EIHWAZ PERTHO NAUTHIZ

ANSUZ

URUZ
Philosopher

Posts: 2049
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2015 12:14 am
Location: The topoi

### Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Jakob wrote:
Serendipper wrote:Being affected by something is what observation means.

Yet being observed is not what affectance means.

Apologies for the long delay.

I currently don't subscribe to the idea of cause and effect precisely because of the problem of how a cause influences an effect, therefore there are no things in my conception, but a continuum wherein borders and divisions join rather than separate. I believe "affectance" is an antiquated term relegated to the "cause and effect" era of philosophical progress. So rather than defining a thing to exist if it affects another thing, I'll say an arbitrarily delineated aspect of the one thing (the universe) exists if it's part of the continuum, which is saying the same thing really, but eliminating some of the semantic obstacles and conceptual objections with a dual-pronged approach (similar to classical and QM physics)

Atomos means un-cut-able. The universe is the only atom and there are no abstractions that could possibly interact with it or they would simply be included as part of the universe in the first place and therefore would not be considered abstractions.

So to bring it all together, something exists if it affects another thing which is another way of saying something exists if it is not really an abstract thing, but an aspect of the one thing and continuous with it. Observation and affectance are therefore synonymous with "continuous" in this context.

That raises an interesting question of how an All can exist if there is nothing outside the All in which to relate. How can there be an inside with no outside? There are many of those paradoxes, such as: it's objective truth that there is no objective truth; it's bad to think in terms of good and bad; we shouldn't think in terms of ought and should and so on. The lone object both cannot and must exist.

I believe an infinite regression is underpinning reality which is a result of a circularity of the dimensionless point-source of observation struggling to also be the object of observation (like a camera observing its own monitor). These paradoxes are a side-effect of the necessary conditions enabling existence. Self-observation seems logically impossible and therefore endeavors into reality are very much an exercise in chasing one's own tail... and that experience of the eternally-unknown is conditional to existence of a "now" and a "self" which are centered between the known and unknown.

Observation is a phenomenon of consciousness.

Well, what is consciousness? An organism and environment are each part of the organism-environment continuum. A nervous system is not a system at all without the interacting environment. So the "things" that exist are the "things" that are part of that continuum.

A billiard ball does not observe the ball that hits it, it just gets affected by it.

Being hit is not a discrete event. The balls do not actually touch, but the atomic forces interact in a smooth and continuous fashion as the ball approaches the other ball. There is no point in time where one could say the event of being hit started.

- James' central tenet, which I've struggled to find exception to and yet have not, says that nothing exists unless it can affect something.

Can or does? Very great difference.

Yes true. I probably didn't think when I typed, but certainly "can" supersedes "does" because it's important that an event be possible before supposing if it actually happened. So to answer the question... I don't think it matters because if something can interact, then it's part of the continuum of interactions. "Can" and "does" are synonymous in this context. Good catch though.

Nothing can exist in abstraction because it's a contradiction in terms since existence always implies existing: in, on, around, as a function of, as a part of, in relation to something else.

Moreover, abstractions affect just as concrete things - like concrete things, abstractions require a certain type of environment, in their case, a mind; and when they do exist therein, they affect things in this environment, this mind. And of course changes in the mind are electrochemical processes, which in turns influence the heavier and slower physical systems of the body, which in turn influences the even heavier and slower system of a habitat.

Here I think you're confusing abstract ideas to actual abstractions. Abstract ideas exist, but abstractions do not.

Jakob wrote:And how does that work, the affecting and being affected?

I have no idea other than they are part of the same continuum. The problem of causality that bogged Descartes down was: how does one thing affect another thing? (How does spirit affect the body if they are truly different things?) The answer must be that there are no separate things.

I agree, and we know through science that indeed they aren't. Even beyond the subatomic scale, where there is virtually only void, there are machinations, which affect and are affected by the way things play out on denser scales.

I think machinations still implies things affecting other things. Growing or flowing have better connotations.

I describe these machinations in terms of value-differences. Like in - vs + spin, for example, or underwater or atmospheric breathing, but even in vegetarian or meat eater - it works throughout all levels of causality. Values predicate the phenomenal appearance of beings, meaning that what they are is an interaction with themselves through their values - a being exists in time, and valuing is what binds one moment to the next.

What's a moment? It's an arbitrary abstraction of a continuum and abstractions do not exist, so there is nothing to bind together.

In these moments there is the appearance of a filled-inpicture, a being that is fulfilled, saturates its "essence" with a particular completion a set of reactions, a "behaviour" which it produces successfully. This being-through-time, this perpetual self-re-creating subtly interwoven with countless other such cycles ("orlog"; "dharma") is the reason for rituals in our lives, routines, habits, diets, and to break our patterns and rearrange them is dangerous, often we unwittingly throw all our energy and values into the wheels of machinations indifferent to our well-being. Structural integrity is not a matter of brute force, and yet it usurps brute force; like incorruptible gold is at the heart of all war, specific and contentious valuing paths that end up at similar states are at the heart of all contradictions which form the fabric of life. For a beast or plant to live, beasts and pants must die. Life is cycles, beings moving around each other so as to arrive back at themselves.

Yes I agree with the cycles determination since existence is contingent upon nonexistence.

Jakob wrote:Reality (rather than god) affects at the same time as it is being affected.

That seems logical to me. If A observes B and B observes A, then they hold each other up. If A and B are secretly the same, then I'm not sure how the origin of attention can be the focus of attention. How does a gun shoot down its own barrel? But if A and B are not secretly the same, then how do they affect each other? How does one universe communicate with another universe? It's a paradox!

I like this way of questioning. I won't lie, I do have the answer; but it is not only intellectual, but comprehensively existential. We can't engage the machinations of correspondence without fully engaging our own world of beauties and horrors - we can't escape the fact that this is reality, that philosophy isn't exempt from it. Though I suspect such a supposed exception must have been the appeal to men like Plato.

I can't think of a better way to experience reality. The past is what's known and the future is what's to be discovered.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 1352
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Arcturus Descending wrote:Serendipper,

This may be a silly question but can there not be an objective interpretation?

No because that's essentially an observer-less observation and quantum physicists would love to get a hold of that in order to look without looking, but there is no such thing.

I do not understand this. Can you elaborate a bit more on it. For an observation to be made, must there not be an observer ~~ unless you are using the term *observer-less to mean something different?

Yes an observation must have an observer.

But to take an objective view of the universe, you must be outside of the universe and not a part of it. You can't be part of the thing that you're observing or the thing you're observing will change due to the observation, consequently obscuring your view of what it would have looked like if you had not been a part of it.

This is hard to articulate.

I could ask you for an objective view of my life since I'm too close to it and can't see the forest for the trees. However, you can't give me a genuine objective view, but instead only a view through your subjective lens. You say "here is your problem as I see it." You cannot authoritatively say "Here is your problem."

There is no way to say what is good or bad because it would require a non-subjective view which is just not possible.

So someone could win a wad of money and you'd say "that's good."
Then they develop an opioid addiction ultimately resulting in death and you'd say "that's bad."

So was winning the money bad because they died because of it? Or was early death good because it was a fun ride? What does "good" even mean? Is it synonymous with longevity? Whoever lives the longest, wins? Concepts of good and bad are just abstractions fabricated by culture and bestowed with virtue, but intrinsically having none.

Inferior virtue is so obsessed with virtuousness that it's not virtue. Superior virtue isn't aware of itself, so it's virtue. Confucius or Lao Tzu some famous asian dude said that.

Can there not be any real evidence or facts involved or seen in interpretation - meaning objectivity? I may not have expressed that well.

I suppose we can extrapolate and surmise what something may look like if we weren't there to look, but it's not real observation.

Right and that's what we do: project and create a virtual point of observation. Physicists talk about the universe being smaller than an atom which means the point of observation is either outside the universe where "size" has no definition or the point of observation is inside the universe where the wavelength of light would be larger than the whole universe and couldn't possibly be observed. So, as Goethe said, we observe by deduction through virtual observation (I embellished the last bit).

So what would You call it if not observation? You are sitting on a park bench, looking up at the sky, wondering if there could actually be Something called God. You are observing everything which brings you to this Question. Could you not then say that the question of God's reality becomes an observation, something to be looked at and observed?

I like what Dionysius the Areopagite said: if anyone had seen God and understood what they had seen, what they had seen could not have been God, but some creature less than God. God can only be realized through agnosia - the non-conceptual knowledge. Obviously I can't say I know for sure, but I doubt God is anything that could be observed empirically or deductively.

I am not saying that I am right. I am just questioning.

Cool I like questions!

So what is it that my agnostic self is in actuality doing above from your point of view?

What self? You are not separate from everything else.

I want to see that. How is it done? There is so much of THAT kind of magic in the universe. I would like to be able to experience more of it.

Without eyes, there is no light. Eyes are tuned to a small band of radiation and that band is what we call light.

If you want to see inside your head, look outside. Everything you see is constructed inside your head based on information from the radiation of energy from charged particles.

If only we could go back in time ~ I mean really back in time. I wonder where I would go first.

November 5th 1955

MAGA!

7% GDP
4% unemployment
Hardly any debt.
50% actual average tax rate paid by those with incomes over $200k. Today: 2% GDP 4% unemployment Massive debt. 20% actual average tax rate paid by those with incomes over$200k.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 1352
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Fixed Cross wrote:
Dipsh was just pointing to the fact that most radiation isnt what we call light. Light ranges from Red to Violet. Infrared and Ultraviolet arent nominally light any
more just radiation even though they move with the speed of light just as this select group of wavelengths that we can perceive using our visual sense

It is called the Electromagnetic Light Spectrum which means that everything within it is light regardless of anything else. You could call it the
Electromagnetic Radiation Spectrum instead but that would be no more accurate as electromagnetic radiation and light are exactly the same
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker

Posts: 524
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

### Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

surreptitious75 wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
Dipsh was just pointing to the fact that most radiation isnt what we call light. Light ranges from Red to Violet. Infrared and Ultraviolet arent nominally light any
more just radiation even though they move with the speed of light just as this select group of wavelengths that we can perceive using our visual sense

It is called the Electromagnetic Light Spectrum which means that everything within it is light regardless of anything else. You could call it the
Electromagnetic Radiation Spectrum instead but that would be no more accurate as electromagnetic radiation and light are exactly the same

I like the term "radiation" since that's what's happening. Even reflection is actually re-radiation. Light (radiation) does not reflect.

Chlorophyll is green because it resonates strongly in the blue and red which produces a 180 degree phase shifted re-radiation that cancels the incoming wave in those colors, but not in the green. The green re-radiation is not 180 degrees shifted, so it is not cancelled by the incoming green light. The effect is seen as a green reflection off the molecule, but it's not reflection.

Chlorophyll evolved to take advantage of the high-energy blue light and some UV. Any frequencies higher than UV would vibrate the molecule apart (ie sunburns to our skin), so the color of plants was an artifact of optimal energy-harvesting of solar rays which is a product of the strength of the atomic bonds and the mass of the particles. Chlorophyll is also responsive in the red because that's the highest-energy light that penetrates to the forest floor. IR doesn't have the energy to power a plant and blue/UV can't penetrate.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 1352
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Serendipper wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
Dipsh was just pointing to the fact that most radiation isnt what we call light. Light ranges from Red to Violet. Infrared and Ultraviolet arent nominally light any
more just radiation even though they move with the speed of light just as this select group of wavelengths that we can perceive using our visual sense

It is called the Electromagnetic Light Spectrum which means that everything within it is light regardless of anything else. You could call it the
Electromagnetic Radiation Spectrum instead but that would be no more accurate as electromagnetic radiation and light are exactly the same

I like the term "radiation" since that's what's happening. Even reflection is actually re-radiation. Light (radiation) does not reflect.

Chlorophyll is green because it resonates strongly in the blue and red which produces a 180 degree phase shifted re-radiation that cancels the incoming wave in those colors, but not in the green. The green re-radiation is not 180 degrees shifted, so it is not cancelled by the incoming green light. The effect is seen as a green reflection off the molecule, but it's not reflection.

Chlorophyll evolved to take advantage of the high-energy blue light and some UV. Any frequencies higher than UV would vibrate the molecule apart (ie sunburns to our skin), so the color of plants was an artifact of optimal energy-harvesting of solar rays which is a product of the strength of the atomic bonds and the mass of the particles. Chlorophyll is also responsive in the red because that's the highest-energy light that penetrates to the forest floor. IR doesn't have the energy to power a plant and blue/UV can't penetrate.

i.e. all organisms develope to take advantage of their surroundings/maximise their chances of survival.

Humans have evolved to take advantage of other humans in order to maximise their chances of survival.. a moral human objective to be proud of, or a question of all fair game?

MagsJ
The Londonist

Posts: 17567
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

### Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

MagsJ wrote:i.e. all organisms develope to take advantage of their surroundings/maximise their chances of survival.

Yes but with one distinction: they don't change to survive, but survive because they changed.

Humans have evolved to take advantage of other humans in order to maximise their chances of survival.. a moral human objective to be proud of, or a question of all fair game?

If determinism is true, then there certainly is no such thing as morality.
If determinism is false, then randomness is true, so there is no morality.

Morality is often arrogance, egoism, and identification with self.

Ironically, morality is immoral in the same way that the difference between artificial and natural is an artificial distinction.

Philosophers and social psychologists have noted that pride is a complex secondary emotion which requires the development of a sense of self and the mastery of relevant conceptual distinctions (e.g. that pride is distinct from happiness and joy) through language-based interaction with others.[2] Some social psychologists identify the nonverbal expression of pride as a means of sending a functional, automatically perceived signal of high social status.[3] In contrast, pride could also be defined as a lowly disagreement with the truth. One definition of pride in the former sense comes from St. Augustine: "the love of one's own excellence".[4] A similar definition comes from Meher Baba: "Pride is the specific feeling through which egoism manifests."[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 1352
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Serendipper wrote:If determinism is true, then there certainly is no such thing as morality.
So, no one, for example, in a deterministic universe, is affected by ideas of the Good towards certain behaviors not others? That if a society has certain morals, these are not causes of behavior (and emotions and thoughts) and also effects of previous events, organisms, etc.

Do you mean that people following certain moralities are not really moral in a deterministic universe? I can see an argument there. But clearly moralities exist.

Morality is often arrogance, egoism, and identification with self.
How can something that does not exist be, only often, these other things? Further it seems like you are making a moralistic claim against the existence of morals. IOW it seems like, but I am not sure, you chose words generally associated with immorality to say what Morality often really is. But that argument undermines itself, since you are calling on the reader to say there is no morality since motives are often immoral. Which means that they and you must agree on what is moral for that argument to work. Which means in the very argument itself morality CAUSES certain conclusions and therefore exists in this universe. The reader makes moral judgments of those motives, decides they are bad, and so, is intended to agree that morality is not really there. A person using moral criteria which affects that persons thinking and perhaps even actions.

Ironically, morality is immoral in the same way that the difference between artificial and natural is an artificial distinction.
I can see arguing it is a false distinction, but not that it is an artificial one. I mean, at least if one does not want to be giving an example of what one is saying does not exist.

Philosophers and social psychologists have noted that pride is a complex secondary emotion which requires the development of a sense of self and the mastery of relevant conceptual distinctions (e.g. that pride is distinct from happiness and joy) through language-based interaction with others.[2] Some social psychologists identify the nonverbal expression of pride as a means of sending a functional, automatically perceived signal of high social status.[3] In contrast, pride could also be defined as a lowly disagreement with the truth. One definition of pride in the former sense comes from St. Augustine: "the love of one's own excellence".[4] A similar definition comes from Meher Baba: "Pride is the specific feeling through which egoism manifests."[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride[/quote]
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher

Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

### Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Serendipper wrote:If determinism is true, then there certainly is no such thing as morality.
So, no one, for example, in a deterministic universe, is affected by ideas of the Good towards certain behaviors not others?

If determinism is true, then there is no "one". No you, no me, no others.

Morality is often arrogance, egoism, and identification with self.
How can something that does not exist be, only often, these other things?

That question says a lot indeed. If there is no good and bad, but you insist that there is, then that's arrogance.

For example you assert a god and rules, then you've laid the groundwork for a system where you are above those who don't follow the rules of the non-existent god. The whole ideology is a game of one-upmanship.

Ephesians 2

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Salvation is a free gift that is thrust upon you. It's not contingent upon believing, wishing, hoping, or works, but faith, which is not-thinking about it. The only way to screw it up is in trying not to screw it up

"He who seeks to save his life, shall lose it."

Further it seems like you are making a moralistic claim against the existence of morals.

lol yeah that's the humor in it. There are a lot of paradoxes:

It is objectively true that there is no objective truth.
We shouldn't think in terms of ought and should.
Moderation in all things, including moderation.
No tolerance of intolerance.
All things must exist in relation to something else, except the totality.
All statements must be backed by empirical evidence, except this one.

(I *should* make a list)

IOW it seems like, but I am not sure, you chose words generally associated with immorality to say what Morality often really is. But that argument undermines itself, since you are calling on the reader to say there is no morality since motives are often immoral. Which means that they and you must agree on what is moral for that argument to work. Which means in the very argument itself morality CAUSES certain conclusions and therefore exists in this universe. The reader makes moral judgments of those motives, decides they are bad, and so, is intended to agree that morality is not really there. A person using moral criteria which affects that persons thinking and perhaps even actions.

Good point. I think it boils down to defining sin as "the assertion of illusion" and therefore defining yourself to exist (pride) is the only possible sin.

The proclamation that an illusion is real is not itself an illusion, so it doesn't undermine itself.

Virtue that is conscious of itself as virtue, is not virtue. Virtue that is not thoughtful of itself as virtue, is virtue. This is why I say the only innocent motivation is that of "fun" (which is lack of conscious motivation; it's just following nature without thought of action; purposelessness).

Why am I doing this? Because it's fun; no reason. I should be doing my chores, but I'm doing this because it's more fun.

Ironically, morality is immoral in the same way that the difference between artificial and natural is an artificial distinction.
I can see arguing it is a false distinction, but not that it is an artificial one. I mean, at least if one does not want to be giving an example of what one is saying does not exist.

We could say that morality is illusory then, but it's not as profound nor funny. Simply saying it's illusory doesn't conjure the idea that's it's bad to think in terms of good and bad. The distinction is that thinking in terms of good and bad is not itself illusory, but the good and bad are illusory; therefore it's bad to think in terms of illusions.

Philosophers and social psychologists have noted that pride is a complex secondary emotion which requires the development of a sense of self https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride

So the more "plugged into the matrix" you are (realize your self), the more proud you are (under illusion).
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 1352
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Morality exists in the same way that an Electrical Building Code exists.

A set of rules is established which describes the right way to wire the electrical system of a building. This is done in order to reduce the number of power failures, electrocutions and building fires.

The Electrical Building Code is objective in the sense that it either achieves the goal of reducing power failures, electrocutions and fires or it doesn't. Morality is objective in the same sense... it achieves a goal.

Is the Code the "only" possible Code? No. There are lots of codes which could achieve the goals. No doubt, some are better than others.
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 10926
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

### Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

phyllo wrote:Morality exists in the same way that an Electrical Building Code exists.

Both the code and the moral rules are instituted by authority; the only difference is we know precisely what the electrical code is, but we can't be so sure of moral rules. Morality is relative to the culture, but electricity is the same regardless.
Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 1352
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

The problem I see with stating morality doesn't exist, besides the self obvious refutation through contradiction, is that people want to apologize for a planet of people (including themselves) that wouldn't exist if the species had been moral... it's an ego defensive posture
Ecmandu
ILP Legend

Posts: 7382
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

### Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Ecmandu wrote:The problem I see with stating morality doesn't exist, besides the self obvious refutation through contradiction, is that people want to apologize for a planet of people (including themselves) that wouldn't exist if the species had been moral... it's an ego defensive posture

You're saying it's arrogant to claim morality doesn't exist? One feels morally superior to someone who believes in morality? I'm down with that.

Serendipper
Philosopher

Posts: 1352
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:30 pm

### Re: Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

Both the code and the moral rules are instituted by authority; the only difference is we know precisely what the electrical code is, but we can't be so sure of moral rules.
I take this to mean that you now agree that morality exists.

It's unclear to me what you mean by "can't be so sure of moral rules". You can go to someone "in authority" and he will tell you the rules and interpret the grey areas for you.
Morality is relative to the culture, but electricity is the same regardless.
Electrical Building Codes vary by jurisdiction which is essentially the same as cultural variations of morality. The Code doesn't describe "electricity" ... it states the rules for using electricity safely and effectively in a building. Morality states the rules of how to live "safely and effectively" in a society with other people.
phyllo
ILP Legend

Posts: 10926
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

PreviousNext