Q&A: The Book “God Plays Dice”
The Book “God Plays Dice”
Question
Hello. I’m reading your book “God Plays Dice,” and there are several points in it that are plainly unclear to me. The main point I reached is on pages 50–52, where you discuss the source of mental processes and arrive at the conclusion that they could not have arisen from matter. My main problem is this: you don’t define what mental processes are, nor do you prove their existence. You seemingly assume that they exist and, in your view, could not have arisen from matter. I apologize for the layman’s question—I am not familiar with any such process, nor with any proof of its existence. Could you help me? The second issue that is plainly unclear to me is the discussion of the emergence of morality, and again your claim that morality cannot develop in an evolutionary way. I can’t understand that either. The simplest explanation for the emergence of morality is cooperation among different Homo sapiens individuals. It is very easy to understand how “moral” traits that increase cooperation are precisely the traits that improved the chances of survival and reproduction of those who carry them, and so became much more widespread over time. I cannot understand any other source for the emergence of morality. Regards, Ron Fishman, CPA
Answer
Can you prove the existence of the world? Or the existence of the wall in front of you? You simply see it, that’s all. The same is true of mental processes. Each of us experiences them directly, and there is absolutely no reason to try to prove their existence. Someone who does not accept their existence will not accept any other proof either, and in fact there is no point in talking to him.
As for morality, grounding it in evolutionary processes is the naturalistic fallacy. You can of course deny the existence of morality (just as you denied the existence of mental processes), but if you accept morality, there is no way to ground it in evolution. See here on the site in the fourth notebook, in the third section (under the “Miscellaneous” tab).
Discussion on Answer
Maybe you think it’s impossible, and I think it is possible. Someone who does not understand what a feeling of pain, sadness, fear, pride, love, thought, desire, and the like is, and needs a definition, is welcome to define it. And afterward, let him not forget to define the concepts he used in those very definitions, and so on ad infinitum. The same applies to sight: you can say that it’s not enough to say that I simply see, that’s all. So please define sight. Or are you also claiming that there is no such thing as sight?
By the way, you demand that I define the concept of mental processes, while at the same time you speak about them without defining them, and even make various claims about them. Strange, isn’t it?
If you want a definition of morality, I referred you to the fourth notebook in the third section.
No, it’s not enough to make do with the statement, “You simply see it, that’s all.” That is neither a proof nor a definition. I’m asking to start one step earlier: even if it can’t be proven, maybe it can be defined—what is morality, and what are mental processes?
By the way, there are many studies showing that various animals have “mental processes,” as I understand the term, at different levels of complexity, such as love, hatred, curiosity, a sense of humor, and so on—and that fits well with evolutionary theory.