[barmar]

gwnn, on 2014-May-26, 11:19, said:

Steve Shives, another one of my favourite youtubers, made 5 good points just this week in this video about the Ten Commandments:

https://www.youtube....h?v=fDh0k--TNNY

And to show that he's an equal opportunity mocker, he also has "5 Stupid Things About Atheists".

https://www.youtube....h?v=-uAR4nb3TLg

[blackshoe]

barmar, on 2014-May-26, 20:51, said:

And to show that he's an equal opportunity mocker, he also has "5 Stupid Things About Atheists".

https://www.youtube....h?v=-uAR4nb3TLg

Heh. I like this guy!

[mike777]

gwnn, on 2014-May-25, 10:51, said:

That there is consciousness is not a contentious issue. The only question is, what exactly is it? Many people think (covertly) that there is a homunculus inside their Cartesian theatre, taking wholly autonomous decisions. When pressed on how this does not lead to an infinite regression (ever smaller homunculi but each with the same function as the next larger), they either shrug, or say with disdain "it just doesn't OK? The soul is a magic place, and your fancy pants logic need not apply! Besides, quantum mechanics! So I don't have to define or describe any of these terms, it is just magic." No, sorry, if you explain an slippery concept as consciousness with a completely mysterious and undefined concept as the "immaterial soul," you have done worse than nothing. The only viable route is to explain consciousness as an emergent property of a nearly infinite ensemble of non-conscious elements. Anything other than that, as far as I'm concerned, is just woowoo.

I strongly disagree. Consciousness is indeed a very contentious issue. the fact does it even exist is contentious.

The fact that you don't agree surprises me.

I note over the years in discussing the "singularity" I have tended to try and by pass the entire issue.

--------------------------------------------------
"Where is the outrage from religious moderates? Idaho Homopobia"

In any event going back to the OP as I noted, yes those of us that believe in God have tended to not know the ten C. We at times forget the importance of Love, the importance of Grace. It is difficult.


MikeH, if you cannot even agree that the ten commandments strongly influenced our laws and morality, that ends the discussion. Of course there are more ancient texts, you may want to actually study them rather than just quote them.

In any event given we cannot show that "Consciousness" exists let alone define and measure it as a source of morality I move on.

Nonsense

This shows the extremes that some go to.
------------------


Again if you accept that man is fully nature.100% nature, and morality is fully a part of nature, 100% nature, fair enough. I do agree that it makes sense that all things man made then are fully part of nature.

At some point the discussion devolves to is morality all relative or are there absolutes. Is there such a thing as absolute morality? Or is morality something that is in constant evolution?
--------------

I note even in my lifetime the definition of murder and rape, heinous crimes has changed drastically.

[mikeh]

mike777, on 2014-May-26, 22:09, said:

At some point the discussion devolves to is morality all relative or are there absolutes. Is there such a thing as absolute morality? Or is morality something that is in constant evolution?
--------------

I note even in my lifetime the definition of murder and rape, heinous crimes has changed drastically.

It seems to me to be obvious that morality is at least largely a social construct: a behaviour that is the result of inherited characteristics, bearing in mind that in this usage, 'inherited' is not limited to genetic inheritance but includes indoctrination in values by our parents and other authority figures.

How much is hard-wired by evolution and how much is a purely learned behaviour, from environmental (nurture?) is a question beyond my pay grade or skill set.

However, we see morality in the behaviour of other animal species....as best as we can interpret such behaviour. We also see moral values that are broadly shared across cultures (the fat man test) yet other values are widely divergent across cultures and over time within cultures, and genetic inheritance can't account for that. A thought experiment makes that plain. Take a child away from parents who believe in one set of values and raise the child, in ignorance of her adopted status, in a different culture, and it seems obvious that the child is unlikely to somehow inherit the birth parents' values.

All of this means that there seems to be no reason to think that there are any 'absolute' moral codes out there, somehow written into the universe. Belief in absolute morality seems, to me, to be based on the same mix of conceit and fear that makes people believe in a god that cares about humans. I confess I am bewildered by how reluctant so many people seem to be to face the glorious and awesome reality of our existence as the product of the universe as it is: why so many people settle into such a tiny concept of a universe created (and never, ever, wonder how that happened) by a god.

We create our own goals, our own values, our own purposes, and we shortchange and limit ourselves to an appalling degree when we bind ourselves to the power structures that are religions. We are, I firmly believe, capable, as a species and as individuals, of far greater things than religions allow, with their tawdry image of humans as creations of a god.

[gwnn]

mike777, could you point me to any philosopher, psychologist, neuroscientist, theologian, etc, even on the fringe, who argues that (grown, healthy) human beings are not conscious? This definition is a good start, as far as I'm concerned:

dictionary.com said:

awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

Did anyone ever seriously argue that he himself is unaware of his own existence? Did they manage to write a whole book without using the word "I" or "we?"

There are people who argue that "consciousness is an illusion" but that is not at all the same as saying "consciousness does not exist."

As for how to test for it, for example, doctors have the Glasgow Coma Scale. http://en.wikipedia....sgow_Coma_Scale

[gwnn]

barmar, on 2014-May-26, 20:51, said:

And to show that he's an equal opportunity mocker, he also has "5 Stupid Things About Atheists".

https://www.youtube....h?v=-uAR4nb3TLg

Yes, that was a great video, this is definitely up there and I recognise myself more than a bit in it

He has a bunch of good ones about stuff he likes a lot (Superman, baseball, wrestling, ...), even himself

[mike777]

gwnn, on 2014-May-27, 00:04, said:

mike777, could you point me to any philosopher, psychologist, neuroscientist, theologian, etc, even on the fringe, who argues that (grown, healthy) human beings are not conscious? This definition is a good start, as far as I'm concerned:


Did anyone ever seriously argue that he himself is unaware of his own existence? Did they manage to write a whole book without using the word "I" or "we?"

There are people who argue that "consciousness is an illusion" but that is not at all the same as saying "consciousness does not exist."

As for how to test for it, for example, doctors have the Glasgow Coma Scale. http://en.wikipedia....sgow_Coma_Scale

There are so many I will let you find them.

I note even you don't provide a definition and measurement that is standard accepted...

you don't know that?

---


granted I tend to avoid the entire discussion....I mean it may exist. I JUST CANNOT PROVE IT, to forums standards

If it does exist that means so much towards AI and the singularity.

[mike777]

speaking of morality if something kills 100K per year every year after year yet is legal is that moral?
If something kills a million year after year yet is 100% legal and we all do it?


morality is well I don't know


1.2 million in auto related deaths, every year

[gwnn]

mike777, on 2014-May-27, 01:28, said:

There are so many I will let you find them.

I can't find any. Can you help?

Quote

I note even you don't provide a definition and measurement that is standard accepted...

you don't know that?

I said already that it is a slippery concept. Any one definition will likely lead to strange exceptions. It is more a case of "know it when you see it." A rock is not conscious. An amoeba likewise not. Humans are, for the most part. Cats? Whales? 2-year olds? Who knows? That will necessitate a detailed discussion and careful definition of our terms.

You are incorrect on both counts that I don't provide a definition or a measurement (when you quote my 100-word post). I gave a dictionary definition that I said I consider to be a good starting point and for the measurement I gave you the Glasgow Coma Scale which is widely used by doctors worldwide, as far as I know.

[mike777]

mikeh, on 2014-May-27, 00:02, said:

It seems to me to be obvious that morality is at least largely a social construct: a behaviour that is the result of inherited characteristics, bearing in mind that in this usage, 'inherited' is not limited to genetic inheritance but includes indoctrination in values by our parents and other authority figures.

How much is hard-wired by evolution and how much is a purely learned behaviour, from environmental (nurture?) is a question beyond my pay grade or skill set.

However, we see morality in the behaviour of other animal species....as best as we can interpret such behaviour. We also see moral values that are broadly shared across cultures (the fat man test) yet other values are widely divergent across cultures and over time within cultures, and genetic inheritance can't account for that. A thought experiment makes that plain. Take a child away from parents who believe in one set of values and raise the child, in ignorance of her adopted status, in a different culture, and it seems obvious that the child is unlikely to somehow inherit the birth parents' values.

All of this means that there seems to be no reason to think that there are any 'absolute' moral codes out there, somehow written into the universe. Belief in absolute morality seems, to me, to be based on the same mix of conceit and fear that makes people believe in a god that cares about humans. I confess I am bewildered by how reluctant so many people seem to be to face the glorious and awesome reality of our existence as the product of the universe as it is: why so many people settle into such a tiny concept of a universe created (and never, ever, wonder how that happened) by a god.

We create our own goals, our own values, our own purposes, and we shortchange and limit ourselves to an appalling degree when we bind ourselves to the power structures that are religions. We are, I firmly believe, capable, as a species and as individuals, of far greater things than religions allow, with their tawdry image of humans as creations of a god.

MikeH raises a great topic of discussion. Thank you.

Over the years I have discussed morality as a social construct here in the forums.

I have stolen...err borrowed... err learned so much on this very topic from Boghossian.

Fear of Knowledge
Epistemic knowledge and the explanation of belief.

"...there is a way of things that are independent of human opinion
We are capable of arriving at a belief about how things are that is objectively reasonable, binding on anyone capable of appreciating the relevant evidence regardless of their social or cultural perspective..."

I understand many forum members may find these notions difficult, it is a mistake that
recent philosophy has uncovered powerful reasons for rejecting them.

[Winstonm]

This today from Reuters:

Quote

Pakistan woman stoned to death by family for marrying man she loved

....Even those that do result in a conviction may end with the killers walking free. Pakistani law allows a victim's family to forgive their killer.

But in honor killings, most of the time the women's killers are her family, said Wasim Wagha of the Aurat Foundation. The law allows them to nominate someone to do the murder, then forgive him.

"This is a huge flaw in the law," he said. "We are really struggling on this issue."

I would venture that the families who commit "honor killings" do not view those actions as immoral. Quite the contrary. So any claim of these being immoral acts is simply a majority decision not based on any absolute standard but on cultural mores.

Personally, I find the action offensive, abhorrent, ridiculous, and ignorant - but I cannot unequivocally claim the action "wrong" - but it certainly seems wrong to me - but I was not born into that Pakistani family.

If morality were absolute, wouldn't the understanding of such be equitable instead of what occurs in reality, i.e., essentially a voting process of what is right and what is wrong?

[mikeh]

gwnn, on 2014-May-27, 00:04, said:

mike777, could you point me to any philosopher, psychologist, neuroscientist, theologian, etc, even on the fringe, who argues that (grown, healthy) human beings are not conscious? This definition is a good start, as far as I'm concerned:


Did anyone ever seriously argue that he himself is unaware of his own existence? Did they manage to write a whole book without using the word "I" or "we?"

There are people who argue that "consciousness is an illusion" but that is not at all the same as saying "consciousness does not exist."

As for how to test for it, for example, doctors have the Glasgow Coma Scale. http://en.wikipedia....sgow_Coma_Scale

The GCS is a screening tool intended to allow ER personnel, and paramedics at an accident scene, to quickly assess the degree, if any, of a lack of consciousness or an impaired sense of consciousness. It really doesn't do very much: it is a crude instrument that can be applied within a minute or two. It isn't used to investigate what consciousness is.

I understand that there are a number of studies out now that demonstrate that a very wide range of animals other than humans possess a degree of self-awareness...far beyond apes, dolphins etc. IIRC, possibly even pigs...ie some of the animals we raise and slaughter for food.

[mikeh]

mike777, on 2014-May-27, 01:49, said:

MikeH raises a great topic of discussion. Thank you.

Over the years I have discussed morality as a social construct here in the forums.

I have stolen...err borrowed... err learned so much on this very topic from Boghossian.

Fear of Knowledge
Epistemic knowledge and the explanation of belief.

"...there is a way of things that are independent of human opinion
We are capable of arriving at a belief about how things are that is objectively reasonable, binding on anyone capable of appreciating the relevant evidence regardless of their social or cultural perspective..."

I understand many forum members may find these notions difficult, it is a mistake that
recent philosophy has uncovered powerful reasons for rejecting them.

What has that got to do with morality?

As I understand Boghossian, and I confess I do not read much philosophy, his big issue is how we arrive at 'knowledge'. Morality isn't about what exists. It isn't 'knowledge',it is a construct applied to what we think reality to be, telling us whether something is 'good' or 'bad', desirable or undesirable. That value assessment may follow on from our determination of what is real, but isn't the same at all.

Boghossian, I gather, claims that while we are blind to how we construct our image of what is, there remains a sense in which there is an objective reality...presumably we sometimes get glimpses of it.

I don't see how one equates acceptance that there is some absolute objective reality to the universe with the notion that there is some absolute objective moral underpinning to the universe.

I may be wrong about this, since I haven't paid much attention to Boghossian, but I think you may be conflating two separate ideas.

[gwnn]

mikeh, on 2014-May-27, 08:51, said:

The GCS is a screening tool intended to allow ER personnel, and paramedics at an accident scene, to quickly assess the degree, if any, of a lack of consciousness or an impaired sense of consciousness. It really doesn't do very much: it is a crude instrument that can be applied within a minute or two. It isn't used to investigate what consciousness is.

I understand that there are a number of studies out now that demonstrate that a very wide range of animals other than humans possess a degree of self-awareness...far beyond apes, dolphins etc. IIRC, possibly even pigs...ie some of the animals we raise and slaughter for food.

I never said that the GCS does a lot or will reveal deep insights on the nature of consciousness but only that it is a way of measuring (partially subjectively, of course) whether any given human being is conscious. mike777 seems to think that it is impossible to measure it. I disagree, at least to some point.

[nige1]

mikeh, on 2014-May-27, 00:02, said:

We also see moral values that are broadly shared across cultures (the fat man test)

I googled "fat man test" and got http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/. Thanks Mike! great fun

[barmar]

gwnn, on 2014-May-27, 00:04, said:

There are people who argue that "consciousness is an illusion" but that is not at all the same as saying "consciousness does not exist."

What is an illusion other than perceiving something that doesn't actually exist? I'm pretty sure I've read at least one book on consciousness whose conclusion is that consciousness doesn't really exist (it might have been the one I quote from below).

Of course, discussing this raises paradoxes. Saying something like "We're not conscious, we just think we are" begs the question of how non-conscious beings could "think" something. Can zombies really have a meaningful debate?

The general problem with defining consciousness precisely is that it's most likely an epiphenomenon. That's why we can't find specific neurons that are responsible for it, it's an emergent property of the complex interactions between many neural processes.

You also have to be very careful, because the word has a number of different senses, and it's easy to mix them up. To quote from Susan Blackmore's book "Consciousness: An Introduction":

Quote

Part of the problem is that the word 'consciousness' is common in everyday language, but is used in different ways. For example, "conscious" is often contrasted with "unconscious", and is taken as more or less equivalent to "responsive" or "awake". "Conscious" is used to mean the equivalent of knowing something, or attending to something, as in "She wasn't conscious of the crimes he'd committed" or "He wasn't conscious of the rat creeping up quietly under his desk." In addition, consciousness is used to mean the equivalent of "subjectivity" or personal experience, and this is the sense in which it is used throughout this book.

The coma scale is used to measure the first kind of consciousness, not the sense that comes up in philosophical discussions.

[Winstonm]

barmar, on 2014-May-28, 10:14, said:

What is an illusion other than perceiving something that doesn't actually exist? I'm pretty sure I've read at least one book on consciousness whose conclusion is that consciousness doesn't really exist (it might have been the one I quote from below).

Of course, discussing this raises paradoxes. Saying something like "We're not conscious, we just think we are" begs the question of how non-conscious beings could "think" something. Can zombies really have a meaningful debate?

The general problem with defining consciousness precisely is that it's most likely an epiphenomenon. That's why we can't find specific neurons that are responsible for it, it's an emergent property of the complex interactions between many neural processes.

You also have to be very careful, because the word has a number of different senses, and it's easy to mix them up. To quote from Susan Blackmore's book "Consciousness: An Introduction":

The coma scale is used to measure the first kind of consciousness, not the sense that comes up in philosophical discussions.

Before anyone can discuss existence, a working definition of "exist" is required. Do ideas exist or is existence limited to only concrete objects, seen or unseen? If ideas exist then god must, too, exist as god is an idea, a notion. Does the color red exist or is it a description of an event, a process involving light and rods and cones and optical nerves, etc?

[gwnn]

Barmar: I'll let Susan Blackmore herself explains what I meant.

Quote

We must be clear what is meant by the word 'illusion'. An illusion is not something that does not exist, like a phantom or phlogiston. Rather, it is something that it is not what it appears to be, like a visual illusion or a mirage. When I say that consciousness is an illusion I do not mean that consciousness does not exist. I mean that consciousness is not what it appears to be. If it seems to be a continuous stream of rich and detailed experiences, happening one after the other to a conscious person, this is the illusion.

So it was probably not her book! And there are two types of consciousness philosophers distinguish: one is access consciousness that is (roughly speaking) solving concrete tasks, like hide from predators or make plans for money to be won on the stock market, and there is phenomenal consciousness that is kind of a je ne sais quoi, since it does not feel like all our consciousness is is information processing. Phenomenal consciousness is indeed a contentious issue and as far as I know it is not properly defined. I read Dan Dennett who thinks it is just a deus ex machina and careful examination will render all of its roles to be indistinguishable from higher and higher level of information processing. Doctors measure something similar to access consciousness since they are asking people to solve simple problems such as 'wink if you can hear me.' In principle, there is no essential difference between a small fish hiding somewhere when it senses a predator coming and John trying to devise a proper wording of break-up speech to avoid getting fired by the Sarah's father. It is simply a more abstract task to be solved. I like this Dan Dennett talk, it's 1 hour long and relatively easy to follow:
https://www.youtube....h?v=AaCedh4Dfs4

Still, saying that phenomenal consciousness is non-existent does in any way put consciousness as a concept in doubt. It does put the magical, sacred concept of an immaterial soul in doubt but having no immaterial soul does not render us are non-conscious beings.

[gwnn]

As for being difficult to define or measure, I agreed with that already, but that is the same in many related concepts. Take for example the concept of life. Certainly a guy walking down the street is alive and certainly a speck of dust is not alive. Where do you draw the line, though? There are all sorts of boundary regions at either end of life. Clinical death, legal death, information-theoretic death are all possible boundaries (let's not get into when life starts, if at all possible!). Measuring for life is more of a Star Trek concept, although of course you can test for symptoms of life such as heat signatures or
a pulse, but there are certainly warm corpses and bodies without a pulse that can be resuscitated (and life forms without a pulse). You are not gonna find a simple, clean definition of life like you can maybe find for length or mass*. Yet does this really mean that life does not exist? Would anyone seriously defend that claim? It seems like a lot of this is people trying to define things when most people would be able to identify them most of the time without the Holy Grail of a clinically precise definition.

*-although every definition we have of anything will ultimately be circular, just go and play with a dictionary, start with a concept and look up the definition and later every word of every subsequent definition, and you will not come out of the circle since there is no axiomatic basis of any language, and even if there were, one can still whine that one did was not consulted on what whether one agreed with that particular system of axioms. This kind of whine never seemed to be much to me but can appear convincing in certain contexts.

[blackshoe]

gwnn, on 2014-May-28, 14:17, said:

…there is no axiomatic basis of any language…

I have no idea what this means. Can you explain?