In a purely materalist universe does love have any independent significance?

[Seli]

I know Scott, but I am, for all intents and purposes. Especially in emergent properties.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Castel,

Because I don't see what love, romantic or otherwise, adds to human existence if it is subjective. It's

Almost arguing for solopsism with regard to emotions. How can empathy exist if all emotions are purely subjective?

Seli,

Which is cool. These discussions would be really boring without people who hold different opinions.

[Castel]

Castel,

Because I don't see what love, romantic or otherwise, adds to human existence if it is subjective. It's

Almost arguing for solopsism with regard to emotions. How can empathy exist if all emotions are purely subjective?

People, by virtue of a shared biology or something, cannot have similar ideas about what love is? I mean, if empathy allows us to predict how certain humans react to certain emotions then surely there is some commonality?

[Galactus]

Nothing has any independent significance at all. It's all contingent upon the objects that exist.

[Galactus]

Castel,

Because I don't see what love, romantic or otherwise, adds to human existence if it is subjective. It's

Almost arguing for solopsism with regard to emotions. How can empathy exist if all emotions are purely subjective?

I think you're making two different propositions here actually, and not distinguishing them properly. There is such a thing as intersubjectivity. Things have meaning within the contex of communication. That does not mean it has any meaning outside the context of said communicating beings. (Not neccessarily *intelligent* beings per se)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Galactus,

So, between species it would be impossible to have empathy because of the lackmof communication? Dogs and Cats seem to do a fairly effective job of communicating with humans. If emotions are subjective inside of a given species how can we feel empathy for a wounded or sick dog or cat?

[TheLoneliestMonk]

Ser Scott,

I know you were directing that at Galactus, but we feel empathy with wounded dogs or cats because they are communicating that they are in pain, intentionally or not. I would argue that dogs absolutely communicate intentionally with humans, because of how closely their evolution is tied to us.

Also, in response to the OP, no, love is not more important than any other emotion to anyone but the person feeling it, and the person feeling it. That's ok. I don't need some supernatural validation.

My feelings are important to me because they are mine, and the feelings of loved ones are important to me because I love them, and the feelings of all people matter to me because we're all in this lot together in one way or another, and the pain of animals matters because they are living feeling beings as well.

How much I care about these things is internal. It is based on the values I have developed through my experience and I don't understand why I should require anything supernatural to explain or legitimatize them.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TLM,

You assume that if something is not spaco-temporal it must be "supernatural". Mathematics is non-spaco-temporal and yet it has objective reality.

[Sci-2]

TLM,

You assume that if something is not spaco-temporal it must be "supernatural". Mathematics is non-spaco-temporal and yet it has objective reality.

There's argument for that but AFAIK it's not something everyone agrees on.

To be precise, Linnebo defines mathematical Platonism as the conjunction of these three theses:

Existence: There are mathematical objects.

Abstractness: Mathematical objects are abstract.

Independence: Mathematical objects are independent of intelligent agents and their language, thought, and practices.

As we shall see, only the last thesis, Independence, is controversial, and whether one accepts all or only a subset of the above theses defines what sort of ontology one is willing to attribute to mathematical objects.

[TheLoneliestMonk]

Then, I guess I'd have to ask what you mean by "independent significance". I read it as "is it important outside the conscious experience," and in that case, since general importance is subjective, I would have to say either no, or important in relation to what?

[Eponine]

Seli,

I'm not a materialist. I also believe that mathematics shows that some non-spaciotemporal things can have existence and impact.

I'm going to go ahead and be a total asshole... aren't you like at a college freshman level of math? I remember you asking a while back about resources to learn math as an adult, and this statement feels like the kind of epiphany that a Philosophy or Psychology 101 student has, only yours came later.

How can empathy exist if all emotions are purely subjective?

What would non-subjective emotions look like on a species-wide scale?

[maarsen]

Emotions are a survival trait in that they allow humans , and animals, to respond quickly to stimuli, rather than using the brain to process the senses receive, thereby avoiding being eaten. Music, poetry and love are all part of human culture which is the greatest tool for survival that we have. Music is extremely important, as all human cultures have it, even though nobody can even hazard a guess as to why we have an appreciation for music. Our brains are wired to enjoy music. Love, same thing.

[Sci-2]

I'm going to go ahead and be a total asshole... aren't you like at a college freshman level of math? I remember you asking a while back about resources to learn math as an adult, and this statement feels like the kind of epiphany that a Philosophy or Psychology 101 student has, only yours came later.

The argument for Platonic Math doesn't really have anything to do with being good at math. [At least as far as I can see. Maybe HE could tell us differently.]

It's really about philosophy and thinking in a certain abstract way.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Eponine,

You aren't being an asshole when you say that because it is true. I've never said otherwise. However, do you have to be a mathmatician to discuss the metaphenomenon surrounding mathematical concepts?

[ThinkerX]

In their own way, the proponents of a purely materialistic universe are everybit as limited and rigid in their thinking as christian (or moslem) fundamentalists.

Time and again, on the CF site, I watched hard core christian fundi's deconvert...to hard core athiesm. No pauses at liberal christianity or deisiim or agnostism. Straight from one extreme to another. I attributed this, then and now, to internal psychology. These people really needed certainty at the cosmic level in order for their world to work, be it the biblical God or the iron laws of a godless universe.

Like christian fundi's, hard core materialists blind themselves or rationalize away things which do not synch with their worldview. Ultimately, despite all protests to the contrary, their world is limited.

[TheLoneliestMonk]

What things do hardcore materialists rationalize away?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TLM,

What things do hardcore materialists rationalize away?

The potential existince of things that are not spaco-temporal in nature. The possiblity of things existing naturally that we cannot see, touch, taste, hear, or smell.

[Sci-2]

What things do hardcore materialists rationalize away?

Morality....Qualia....

....and maybe Krippner's Dream Experiments. ;-)

[TheLoneliestMonk]

TLM,

The potential existince of things that are not spaco-temporal in nature. The possiblity of things existing naturally that we cannot see, touch, taste, hear, or smell.

Oh, ok. I wouldn't consider myself a hardcore materialist, but I do dismiss the unobservable. My meaning being that if it can't be observed, or it's effects observed, I assume it either doesn't exist or doesn't matter due to being ineffectual.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

TLM,

By that logic we should have rejected the possible existence of quantum particles. They can't be seen, touched, tasted, smelt, or heard. ;)