Scientists and Atheists Should be Moral Absolutists

[moving finger]

Hi Les

What you call my “assumption” about my experience I would say is instead acceptance since I have nothing to work with but my consciousness.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Acceptance. Assumption. One may choose to call it what one wishes, but at the end of the day one assumes the veracity of one's experiences.

Surrendering to your nature is vastly different from assuming things that are NOT needed to be assumed in order to contemplate reality.

What is your “nature”? Are you assuming things again? Or maybe just accepting things? Or perhaps you think there is a difference?

I believe our moral inclinations do have a rational source, which is genetic. We have evolved to be moral animals, because morality usually “works well” within a social group of intelligent agents. This explains the emergence of a basic “feeling of morality”, and explains why it would be hard-wired into our behaviour. But these feelings have evolved to apply within small social groups, and I believe the further step of applying such moral rules to the entirety of humanity is an intellectual (or possibly in some cases an affectational) step.

Why would you believe that now? Have you found the genes that produce moral inclinations?

Why would one believe anything? Because it provides a rational and objective explanation which fits the facts. If you have evidence which shows this hypothesis is possibly incorrect, or even if you have an alternative explanation which is equally rational and equally fits the facts then I am sure we would love to hear it…. Would you like to offer one that we could discuss?

In fact there is a completely rational explanation for your beliefs in this case. In a separate thread I have agreed that human moralising is probably often a combination of an intellectual exercise and an affective exercise (some agents will lean more towards affectation, some more towards intellectualisation).

Rational explanations are not proof!

No hypothesis is “proof”.
Nobody can “prove” that any particular scientific hypothesis or theory is “right”. Nobody can “prove” that quantum mechanics is “right”, or that general relativity is “right”. The best we can ever do is to show that our hypothesis is both rational and that it fits the facts. If you have evidence which shows this hypothesis is possibly incorrect, or even if you have an alternative explanation which is equally rational and equally fits the facts then I am sure we would love to hear it…. Would you like to offer one that we could discuss?

I could equally claim that you seem obsessed with intuitive insights. You seem to have an a priori belief that your subjective experiences during meditation are telling you something fundamental about reality which cannot be rationally explained. I would say this belief of yours is getting in the way of you objectively evaluating reality.

Really? Why would you say that? What do you know about the experience that can be attained in stillness? Are you speaking from experience or are you trying to win a debate. Besides, you are the one who has already made up his mind that genetics is causing morality without the evidence! So who’s objectivity has been compromised here?

Do you have an argument?
I have suggested the basis of a rational hypothesis, viz that basic feelings and beliefs of morality would be expected to emerge as natural and dominant strategies in intelligent social agents as a normal and straightforward consequence of evolution by natural selection.
I am happy to discuss objectively the validity of this hypothesis.
If you believe there is evidence that this hypothesis does not fit the facts then please do present your evidence.
If you believe you have an alternative rational hypothesis which also fits the facts then please do present it here.
Unfortunately, subjective intuitive insights, and “experiences attained in stillness”, do not count as either rational or objective arguments, unless one can rationalize and objectify them.

Best Regards

 

[Les Sleeth]

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Acceptance. Assumption. One may choose to call it what one wishes, but at the end of the day one assumes the veracity of one's experiences. . . . . What is your “nature”? Are you assuming things again? Or maybe just accepting things? Or perhaps you think there is a difference?

You are being clever. There is a difference between acceptance of the way something as consciousness "works," and assuming. You can blur the distinctions if you want, but it is little more than sophistry. If water freezes when the temperature is low enough, that's the way it works. If water were aware, it wouldn't have to "assume" it freezes, it just does. Consciousness likewise doesn't have to assume anything to accept how it works, it only need recognize it's own workings. After all, we, as consciousness, have lived every moment of our lives "working" as consciousness does.

Why would one believe anything? Because it provides a rational and objective explanation which fits the facts. If you have evidence which shows this hypothesis is possibly incorrect, or even if you have an alternative explanation which is equally rational and equally fits the facts then I am sure we would love to hear it…. Would you like to offer one that we could discuss?

I am and have been discussing it! I believe something because of what I have experienced, or other's I trust (such as empiricial observations done in science). Relying on my pool of experience, and that of others' I trust, I reason about things. I don't need a "rational" explanation to justify things when experience for me is what establishes certainty (i.e., not reason). Reason I how I communicate, how I work with another's mind to help him understand, or to understand what he is trying to say. It is also a way I logically extend from facts (observed reality) to hypothesize. But in no way do I think reason gives certainty about anything unexperienced.

Now, how much more clearly can I say it?

If you have evidence which shows this hypothesis is possibly incorrect, or even if you have an alternative explanation which is equally rational and equally fits the facts then I am sure we would love to hear it…. Would you like to offer one that we could discuss?

?

If you believe there is evidence that this hypothesis does not fit the facts then please do present your evidence.

Do you have an argument?

If you believe you have an alternative rational hypothesis which also fits the facts then please do present it here.

This tactic is getting old. I've argued my point all along, that morals "transcend" reason when one begins to act out of sincerity (recall that the transcend question was what you yourself posed, and why I endeavored to offer an opinion to begin with). You disagree, fine. But stop acting like I have said nothing and am making no point like some moron who doesn't even know what debate he's in.

I have suggested the basis of a rational hypothesis, viz that basic feelings and beliefs of morality would be expected to emerge as natural and dominant strategies in intelligent social agents as a normal and straightforward consequence of evolution by natural selection.

And I said, believe what you want. You got things all nice and neatly in place. I don't think you, or anyone who knows me, will find me lacking in the ability to reason. I merely have learned an advanced way to feel, which you admittedly know nothing about; because of what I've learned, I prioritize that advanced sensitivity over reason in terms of how I am generally conscious. When it is time to reason, I temporarily give reason the priority, but it's not how I live my life overall. On the question of morality, I have stated that I think they work better out of feeling sincere than they do working out of rationality. Once again I ask, how much more clearly can I say it?

You know, there was a time I was a hardcore rationalist, a vehicle of pure reason (or tried to be). Looking back I think it made me stiff, robotic, and not fully alive. So it is from choice I am conscious the way I am, and not from never trying alternatives.

Unfortunately, subjective intuitive insights, and “experiences attained in stillness”, do not count as either rational or or objective arguments, unless one can rationalize and objectify them.

Fortunately, your proclamations about what is and isn't allowed mean little. One can reason rationally from any experience if the experience is real. You just don't know, and won't bother to find out, if the experience realized in stillness is real. I hope you aren't so egocentric you think we all must be bound by your limitations! Everything known may not fit your nice, neat, tidy little set of explanations. Everything known may not be subject to being objectified. Some things you may have to know for yourself alone. Is that so horrible?

 

[moving finger]

Hi Les

at the end of the day one assumes the veracity of one's experiences

You are being clever. There is a difference between acceptance of the way something as consciousness "works," and assuming. You can blur the distinctions if you want, but it is little more than sophistry. If water freezes when the temperature is low enough, that's the way it works. If water were aware, it wouldn't have to "assume" it freezes, it just does. Consciousness likewise doesn't have to assume anything to accept how it works, it only need recognize it's own workings. After all, we, as consciousness, have lived every moment of our lives "working" as consciousness does.

You seem to be assuming that your interpretation of "how consciousness works" is the correct interpretation. You may choose to call this assumption your "acceptance" of how consciousness works in order to try and avoid being accused of making assumptions, but this doesn’t change the fact that you are assuming your interpretation is correct.

Why would one believe anything? Because it provides a rational and objective explanation which fits the facts. If you have evidence which shows this hypothesis is possibly incorrect, or even if you have an alternative explanation which is equally rational and equally fits the facts then I am sure we would love to hear it…. Would you like to offer one that we could discuss?

I don't need a "rational" explanation to justify things when experience for me is what establishes certainty (i.e., not reason). Reason I how I communicate, how I work with another's mind to help him understand, or to understand what he is trying to say. It is also a way I logically extend from facts (observed reality) to hypothesize. But in no way do I think reason gives certainty about anything unexperienced.

I have never said that reason gives “certainty” about anything (in fact I’ve said just the opposite), and I dispute that you have access to certainty through experience.

The issue is not about “justifying things”, it is about finding reasonable and rational explanations for things. Perhaps you really do believe that your pet explanation does not need to be rational – that is your prerogative. For my part, if I am offered two explanations, one rational and one irrational, I would choose the rational one every time.

This tactic is getting old. I've argued my point all along, that morals "transcend" reason when one begins to act out of sincerity (recall that the transcend question was what you yourself posed, and why I endeavored to offer an opinion to begin with). You disagree, fine. But stop acting like I have said nothing and am making no point like some moron who doesn't even know what debate he's in.

And what, pray, is wrong with an “old tactic”? The only important issue in any philosophical debate is whether the tactic is logically valid or not.

The point I am making is that there is a rational explanation which fits the facts (the “basic morals result from evolution by natural selection” hypothesis, viz that basic feelings and beliefs of morality would be expected to emerge as natural and dominant strategies in intelligent social agents as a normal and straightforward consequence of evolution by natural selection). I agree that the mere existence of an hypothesis is no proof of truth (but science is not about the proof of truth). All I am asking is, if you disagree with this hypothesis, that you present the rational reasons why you disagree. Is this unreasonable?

I have suggested the basis of a rational hypothesis, viz that basic feelings and beliefs of morality would be expected to emerge as natural and dominant strategies in intelligent social agents as a normal and straightforward consequence of evolution by natural selection.

And I said, believe what you want.

Interesting. Is this really supposed to be a rational argument?

You know, there was a time I was a hardcore rationalist, a vehicle of pure reason (or tried to be). Looking back I think it made me stiff, robotic, and not fully alive. So it is from choice I am conscious the way I am, and not from never trying alternatives.

Are you suggesting that rationalists are not “fully alive”?
Would you care to provide a rational argument that supports such a belief?

You know, there was a time when my reactions were based on emotion, intuition and feeling, and I rejected rationalism (or tried to). Looking back, I think it made me pretentious, wishy-washy, ephemeral, insubstantial and evasive. So it is from choice that I am conscious the way I am, and not from never trying alternatives…….duhhhhh …..So what?

I hope you aren't so egocentric you think we all must be bound by your limitations!

The feeling is reciprocated 100%. I also hope that you are not so egocentric you think we must all be bound by your limitations?

But this is hardly a rational argument, is it?

Everything known may not fit your nice, neat, tidy little set of explanations.

Nor may it fit yours. The point is that the only basis for rational debate is rational debate. If you think there is any other basis for rational debate apart from rationality then please do explain.

Everything known may not be subject to being objectified. Some things you may have to know for yourself alone. Is that so horrible?

Not horrible at all. But if everything is subjective, there isn’t much point in discussing it with someone else, is there? If one wishes simply to “know for oneself alone” that is fine, but in that case how can one expect anyone else to participate?

Good luck with your assumptions.

Best Regards

 

[Les Sleeth]

Hi Les


You seem to be assuming that your interpretation of "how consciousness works" is the correct interpretation. You may choose to call this assumption your "acceptance" of how consciousness works in order to try and avoid being accused of making assumptions, but this doesn’t change the fact that you are assuming your interpretation is correct.


I have never said that reason gives “certainty” about anything (in fact I’ve said just the opposite), and I dispute that you have access to certainty through experience.

The issue is not about “justifying things”, it is about finding reasonable and rational explanations for things. Perhaps you really do believe that your pet explanation does not need to be rational – that is your prerogative. For my part, if I am offered two explanations, one rational and one irrational, I would choose the rational one every time.


And what, pray, is wrong with an “old tactic”? The only important issue in any philosophical debate is whether the tactic is logically valid or not.

The point I am making is that there is a rational explanation which fits the facts (the “basic morals result from evolution by natural selection” hypothesis, viz that basic feelings and beliefs of morality would be expected to emerge as natural and dominant strategies in intelligent social agents as a normal and straightforward consequence of evolution by natural selection). I agree that the mere existence of an hypothesis is no proof of truth (but science is not about the proof of truth). All I am asking is, if you disagree with this hypothesis, that you present the rational reasons why you disagree. Is this unreasonable?


Interesting. Is this really supposed to be a rational argument?


Are you suggesting that rationalists are not “fully alive”?
Would you care to provide a rational argument that supports such a belief?

You know, there was a time when my reactions were based on emotion, intuition and feeling, and I rejected rationalism (or tried to). Looking back, I think it made me pretentious, wishy-washy, ephemeral, insubstantial and evasive. So it is from choice that I am conscious the way I am, and not from never trying alternatives…….duhhhhh …..So what?


The feeling is reciprocated 100%. I also hope that you are not so egocentric you think we must all be bound by your limitations?

But this is hardly a rational argument, is it?


Nor may it fit yours. The point is that the only basis for rational debate is rational debate. If you think there is any other basis for rational debate apart from rationality then please do explain.


Not horrible at all. But if everything is subjective, there isn’t much point in discussing it with someone else, is there? If one wishes simply to “know for oneself alone” that is fine, but in that case how can one expect anyone else to participate?

Good luck with your assumptions.

Best Regards

To all of that I say, you could use a little sincerity.

 

[Mickey]

I haven't noticed that scientists tend to not believe in laws of morality. Then, maybe that's because I've spent most of my time around economists.

Economics supports the notion that non-coercive systems of resource exchange are more efficient. Therefore, economists will often take a moral ground, based on observation, that coercion is immoral.

Similarly, economists who believe that losses due to coercion are worth it in the long run for certain circumstances may take a moral ground for additional support of that belief.

Further, economics relies on scarcity (i.e. finite supply), which makes it non-theistic, since with God all things are available and possible. According to religion, you can get all you ever need by praying for it. In economics, you have to buy it or work for it.

Traditional Protestants only have their characteristic "work ethic" because they don't have to work for salvation. Because their salvation is already taken care of, they no longer have religious barriers to creating a modest upper middle class fortune. It's a little ridiculous, when you think about it.

Anyway, I think those in the hard sciences still have moral absolutes, whether they are conscious of them or not. I bet they all agree that one must have some impartial knowledge of the universe, that one must hold their theories hostage to observation, that it's a good thing to find ways to make technology affordable and a bad thing to be sloppy.

The really good morals are so short and simple that we adapt them into our group psychology. (However, certainly not everything adapted into our group psychology is really good).

 

[moving finger]

To all of that I say, you could use a little sincerity.

and you could focus a little less on being disrespectful, and a little more on the issues of the thread

Best Regards

 

[Rade]

...Economics supports the notion that non-coercive systems of resource exchange are more efficient. Therefore, economists will often take a moral ground, based on observation, that coercion is immoral...

Perhaps we can say that coercion is the absolute root of all evil ?

 

[loseyourname]

Is not coercion a huge source of moral behavior, though? We use it both to teach our children how to behave morally and to induce moral behavior in adult citizens.

 

[arildno]

Well, but does "root of all evil" signify that everything that comes out of coercion is evil, or does it rather signify that all evil stems from coercion?

 

[Rade]

Is not coercion a huge source of moral behavior, though? We use it both to teach our children how to behave morally and to induce moral behavior in adult citizens.

Yes, but are these really examples of coercion ? If a child is about to hit another child with a bat and I use force to stop them--have I used coercion ? If society forces drunk driver to watch videos about harm of drinking has society used coercion ? To me, coercion is action taken when one uses another by force and without permission as a means to ones own end. This seems to follow the post by Micky where it was stated that "Economics supports the notion that non-coercive systems of resource exchange are more efficient. Therefore, economists will often take a moral ground, based on observation, that coercion is immoral". Thus, in a capitalist society a coercive system of resource exchange is evil because society is using individual capitalist, with force and without permission, as a means to society ends. Communists thus love coercion and find no immorality within the act.

 

[Rade]

Well, but does "root of all evil" signify that everything that comes out of coercion is evil, or does it rather signify that all evil stems from coercion?

The first because many forms of evil do not stem from coercion--the second is covered by the statement "evil is the root of all coercion". Thus we find the two truth statements:
1. everything that comes out of coercion is evil
2. all coercion stems from evil

 

[moving finger]

Is not coercion a huge source of moral behavior, though? We use it both to teach our children how to behave morally and to induce moral behavior in adult citizens.

Coercion underscores secular law.

"Do as the law says or you will be punished!"

When a society judges you right or wrong, it judges you NOT against your moral code of ethics (whatever that might be), but against a consensus moral code of ethics accepted by that society, and any enforcement of that code of ethics in the form of punishment is simply a form of coercion - it is an attempt to modify not only your behaviour but also the behaviour of others, such that you conform to that code in future.

All completely rational, and all completely deterministic.

Best Regards

 

[neurocomp2003]

I think to study morality scientifically("to claim there are absolute laws") would require one to delve into every science involved in the study of an individual and a society...from physics to biology, from the inner workings of the brain to the environmental(cultural or geophysical) factors that influence that brain.

This would require every individual or a substantial number of individuals to document everything they and their offspring do in life...how they are raise d, what they have eaten, where they live, whom they interact with etc

Unfortunately our society is not setup this way and i don't think ever will be capable of doing such a long term project,after all we are individuals.
Also the task of verifying data(real/fake) will be an enormous task itself, again after all we are individuals hoping that our own beliefs are right.

Thus the enormous permutations that would exist in studying morality would not make it an [drawing a blank ?absolute?] science ...ah forget it...would not make it science.

 

[moving finger]

I think to study morality scientifically("to claim there are absolute laws") would require one to delve into every science involved in the study of an individual and a society...from physics to biology, from the inner workings of the brain to the environmental(cultural or geophysical) factors that influence that brain.

...

Thus the enormous permutations that would exist in studying morality would not make it an [drawing a blank ?absolute?] science ...ah forget it...would not make it science.

The entire notion of "absolute laws of morality", and the illusion that we can find such laws via reductionist science, is misguided. Moral and ethical rules are emergent properties of social structures, they are not fundamental laws built into the microstructure of physics. Like most emergent phenomena, they arise from particular configurations of micro-states, and as such are not simply dependent on the individual properties of the micro-states involved, but are more dependent on the particular configurations that those states adopt. This "configuration-space" is truly enormous, and the emergent properties of such a space are not reducible to some simplistic reductionist notions in terms of the basic laws of morality.

In essence, the problem is the same with trying to identify the reductionist micro-states of consciousness - another misguided enterprise, because consciousness like morality is an emergent phenomenon which depends for its existence NOT on particular physical properties of individual microstates, but rather on the emergent properties of particular configurations of microstates.

The dream of finding the basic physical laws of morality is as nonsensical as the dream of finding the source of consciousness in individual "consciousness neurons" in the brain - it's reductionism gone mad.

Best Regards

 

[Mickey]

Is not coercion a huge source of moral behavior, though? We use it both to teach our children how to behave morally and to induce moral behavior in adult citizens.

Well, I think this is a huge problem. Actually, I think it's the biggest one we have.

I support non-coercive methods of schooling (e.g. Montessori, unschooling) and fully abhor the conventional state-sponsored alternatives. The culture of manipulation we have towards young people is unnecessary and eventually works against their interests, which are no less legitimate than our own.

I believe basic morality can be discovered independently and naturally by curious people, if perhaps not immediately. Children are universally gifted with curiosity, but it's stifled by our attempts to hurry and forcefully moralize them. Adults have a social problem when it comes to interacting with young people. We prejudge them as lesser individuals and ignore their strengths in favor of worrying about their weaknesses.

I am disturbed by the way we seem to treat children like a different species, even poor and diseased children in impoverished nations. Have you noticed the similarities with the popular image of an alien? Short, very skinny, pale and sickly small-mouthed individual with big eyes and deformed head, often naked? The physicist Fred Alan Wolf believes that abduction experiences are actually psychological manifestations of our fear of needy children and the growth of technology. It's by far the most interesting approach to the UFO abduction issue I've ever heard before.

Anyway, I do believe it's a bigger problem than the Iraq war or anything else, because children are the future. That reasoning is cliche now, unfortunately, but it's a simple undeniable fact. Society's plans for the future are irrelevant if we alienate our young people.

Perhaps it's because I'm at that time in life. I just finished college a little while ago, and it's come to the point where I reflexively don't trust educators anymore. I went to a Montessori school when I was very young, and since then, schooling at all levels seems to have been nothing but a demand for obedience.

Even in the Economics department, the professors don't understand that non-coercive methods can be applied inside a course as well as the marketplace. My macro professor said to his class that undergraduates can't be trusted with the freedom to learn independently, since they'll just go out and party all the time. The really sad part was that I seemed to be the only one who felt deeply insulted.

 

[moving finger]

My macro professor said to his class that undergraduates can't be trusted with the freedom to learn independently, since they'll just go out and party all the time. The really sad part was that I seemed to be the only one who felt deeply insulted.

It's a sad fact of life that not everyone has the same value system that you do. Maybe if everyone went to Montessori schools then we would all turn out with similar value systems, maybe not. Who knows? But at the moment it would be grossly socially irresponsible to remove the coercive secular law enforcement system from society - it's a necessary part of the social framework that keeps many people (at least mostly) honest.

Best Regards

 

[neurocomp2003]

In essence, the problem is the same with trying to identify the reductionist micro-states of consciousness - another misguided enterprise, because consciousness like morality is an emergent phenomenon which depends for its existence NOT on particular physical properties of individual microstates, but rather on the emergent properties of particular configurations of microstates.

Moving FIngers: I will agree with you that its about studying emergent phenomenon. As you put it Emergent Phenomenons arise because of "particular configurations of microstates", the science of studying emergent phenomenon(N-body problems,Cellular Automata, Flocks&boids etc) thus is about researching how these configurations result from a lower scale fundamental and how the configurations themselves EVOLVE or FLOW based on the lower scale properties. This type of reductionist approach is not just about studying a single fundamental and what types of properties it has, but also how it interacts with other fundamentals,how modular regions interact and how the system as a whole(N-body,("particular configurations of microstates") ) acts based on these fundamental principles.
Putting it in better words. "Consciousness may depend only on these configuratoins but these configurations depend on their underlying fundamental's properties.

 

[moving finger]

Moving FIngers: I will agree with you that its about studying emergent phenomenon. As you put it Emergent Phenomenons arise because of "particular configurations of microstates", the science of studying emergent phenomenon(N-body problems,Cellular Automata, Flocks&boids etc) thus is about researching how these configurations result from a lower scale fundamental and how the configurations themselves EVOLVE or FLOW based on the lower scale properties. This type of reductionist approach is not just about studying a single fundamental and what types of properties it has, but also how it interacts with other fundamentals,how modular regions interact and how the system as a whole(N-body,("particular configurations of microstates") ) acts based on these fundamental principles.
Putting it in better words. "Consciousness may depend only on these configuratoins but these configurations depend on their underlying fundamental's properties.

I don't necessarily agree. A particular (emergent) type of property of a configuration might NOT depend on the micro-physical components of that configuration - there might be many possible ways to construct a configuration with the same types of emergent properties, but based on very different micro-physical components. Sometimes the configuration (the way those components are put together) is more important in determining some types of emergent properties than the actual micro-physical nature of the components themselves.

Example : A Car. What property about an object makes it a "car"? It is not necessarily anything to do with the micro-physical nature of the components used to build the car - it is more to do with the configuration of those components, and how they inter-relate in a functional (rather than physical) sense.

I believe the same is basically true of consciousness, and of morality.

Best Regards

 

[neurocomp2003]

moving finger: But how will you analyze going from one configuration to another configuration. For example going from one emotional state to another? Let us assume as you have said that there are many configurations for being angry...how will you as the external researcher analyze the next state? Is it feeble to try?For your example of the car, I guess what this example brings out...is the Question of what is fundamental to the "concept" that's being study. Or how does one decide what is fundamental to the "concept". Again as an example the car, the fundamentals would probably be 4 rolling things(physical property) attached by a body containing seats and perhaps controlled by some gearing mechanism(physical property)

That example would lead us to asking what are the fundamentals to studying morality and consciousness. Are the terms morality and consciousness the fundementals? Or are the emotional states & Langauge fundamentals? If Langauge is a fundamental...then how does one learn a language, how does the brain allow individuals to learn to speak different languages and how do these individuals interact speaking different languages?

I will have to agree with an implied argument of yours that one may not need to analyze the lowest form of a fundamental(smallest reduction) in a system...because pertaining to Consciousness, I am trying to become an AI researcher where my fundamental is Neural Nets not the chemistry or physics(though i would require physics in my environment as input/output to the AGENTS for training).
I would like to point out THOUGH that should I see "errors" in my models, one option is to go to a lower scale(eg consciousness example->molecular activity) and try to understand why my models are wrong, by understanding flow in those lower level properties

And i think this last comment applies to the study of consciousness and morality. After all depending on how you view the brain and consciousness it is a multidisciplinary field.

 

[neurocomp2003]

moving finger: i also forgot to ask, Do you think sound/vision/Action have any relevance to consciousness or are they completely separate from it? Same for morality.

 

[moving finger]

moving finger: But how will you analyze going from one configuration to another configuration. For example going from one emotional state to another? Let us assume as you have said that there are many configurations for being angry...how will you as the external researcher analyze the next state? Is it feeble to try?

Are you talking about researching the states from the 3rd person perspective (ie a researcher researching the manifestations of someone else's states of anger), or are you talking about researching the states from the 1st person perspective (ie a researcher researching the manifestations of her own states of anger)?

For your example of the car, I guess what this example brings out...is the Question of what is fundamental to the "concept" that's being study. Or how does one decide what is fundamental to the "concept". Again as an example the car, the fundamentals would probably be 4 rolling things(physical property) attached by a body containing seats and perhaps controlled by some gearing mechanism(physical property)

I disagree - and this may cut right to the heart of our differences. "rolling things" and "gearing meachanism" are functional properties/concepts as opposed to physical properties. Yes it is true that a functional concept must be physically instantiated as a physical object, but there are many different ways to make "rolling things" from lots of different physical components - the essential property that makes them "rolling things" is NOT their micro-physical make-up, it is their configuration and function.

That example would lead us to asking what are the fundamentals to studying morality and consciousness. Are the terms morality and consciousness the fundementals? Or are the emotional states & Langauge fundamentals?

Some theories of emergence posit that there ARE no fundamentals - that we can always decompose whatever we think is fundamental into "lower levels". If this is true, then all we can do is to take an arbitrary level and start from there.

If Langauge is a fundamental...then how does one learn a language, how does the brain allow individuals to learn to speak different languages and how do these individuals interact speaking different languages?

One learns a language largely by mimicry, by copying others. I'm not sure what relevance your other questions have to the topic here, but I could attempt answers if you are interested.

I will have to agree with an implied argument of yours that one may not need to analyze the lowest form of a fundamental(smallest reduction) in a system...because pertaining to Consciousness, I am trying to become an AI researcher where my fundamental is Neural Nets not the chemistry or physics(though i would require physics in my environment as input/output to the AGENTS for training).

We agree here. I don't believe that emergent properties such as intelligence or consciousness necessarily have anything to do with the hardware on which they are "run" - just as a software program can run (in principle) on different makes and models of computer hardware (Apple's can emulate PCs and PCs Apples).

I would like to point out THOUGH that should I see "errors" in my models, one option is to go to a lower scale(eg consciousness example->molecular activity) and try to understand why my models are wrong, by understanding flow in those lower level properties

Possibly, just as if one finds errors in one's software, one may also possibly think of checking out the hardware to see if it is a hardware problem (but 99 times out of 100 it's a software problem).

Best Regards

 

[moving finger]

moving finger: i also forgot to ask, Do you think sound/vision/Action have any relevance to consciousness or are they completely separate from it? Same for morality.

I think consciousness (at least the biologically-instantiated kind as we know it) requires a certain amount of sensory input (phenomenal experience) (in the form of audio, video, tactile, taste, smell etc inputs) in order to develop in the first place. I find it hard to believe that someone who was brought up in a completely sense-deprived fashion from birth could develop a properly functioning consciousness (I hope nobody ever tries the experiment!). Why? Because we are not born with fully programmed consciousness, and sensory input is really the only way that the brain has of "programming itself".

But once consciousness is fully developed within an individual, I don't think it is essential to maintain sensory input in order to maintain consciousness (though it may be essential if one wants to maintain sanity!)

As for morality - I believe morals are basically rules for social interaction (morality makes no sense in a society of one) - thus it stands to reason that morals cannot exist without some kind of sensory input (otherwise how could there be social interaction?).

Best Regards

 

[neurocomp2003]

moving finger: The first question, I meant to be in the 3rd person(external).
I'm sorry for asking...but what was the argument about again? Its 6am and I'm alittle tired to reread all that was type, i get lost in my own thoughts hehe. Still up because I'm excited about starting graduate school.

As for the second post of yours. Once the consciousness has developed through childhood and you remove the brain from its adult body(also unethical), do you believe that consciousness will still exist or function?

I had a point somewhere with all the questions but its incoherent to me now.

One Final Question. If indeed morals are shaped by sensory input, does it imply that morals depend on how the "individual" brain or consciousness is wired? and can possibly dictate how an individual handles future external stimuli?

It has been a fun discussion your posts were well written.

 

[moving finger]

moving finger: The first question, I meant to be in the 3rd person(external).

I think that is relatively easy - as long as one understands that one can never get 1st person information about the "phenomenal experience" from a 3rd person viewpoint. All one can do is to study consciousness "from the outside" as it were - study the neural correlates of phenomenal experineces, and study the behavioural aspects and reports of conscious agents.

I'm sorry for asking...but what was the argument about again? Its 6am and I'm alittle tired to reread all that was type, i get lost in my own thoughts hehe. Still up because I'm excited about starting graduate school.

uhhhh, what argument?

As for the second post of yours. Once the consciousness has developed through childhood and you remove the brain from its adult body(also unethical), do you believe that consciousness will still exist or function?

If you could keep the brain alive, yes I believe consciousness would continue to exist (it might be a very traumatic experience for the consciousness though)

One Final Question. If indeed morals are shaped by sensory input, does it imply that morals depend on how the "individual" brain or consciousness is wired? and can possibly dictate how an individual handles future external stimuli?

I believe morals are simply beliefs about how we think we ought to behave - these beliefs are acquired and developed mainly in childhood, but I think some of them (at least the basic tendencies such as "killing another person is wrong") may be hardwired also (in the genes).

Certainly our moral beliefs determine how we react to external stimuli - especially where these stimuli concern other people.

Best Regards

 

[ecolitan]

Let me begin by clarifying some of the matters which I have found to be objectionable in the first post.

It seems to me that atheists are often atheists because their minds are dominated by logic - much like scientists (which is why a good fraction of scientists are atheists).

I would propose that scientists are most like atheists in that they both share a sceptical viewpoint with respect to their beliefs, only accepting ideas which have sufficient evidence to support them.

But science is predicated on one primary/core article of faith/belief: that the universe obeys fixed laws and if we're smart enough, we can figure out what they are. I.e., scientists believe there are absolute physical laws that govern the universe.

This is a misrepresentation of the position of scientists. While I accept that some scientists might believe that there are absolute physical laws, this generalisation cannot be applied to all scientists. The goal of science is to provide as accurately as possible, a description of our physical reality which is able to be falsifiable by experiment. Scientists make use of the scientific method when acquiring new knowledge, whereby we postulate hypotheses to explain natural phenomena and design experimental studies to test the predictions for accuracy.

The end result of the scientific method is never an absolute physical law. The best a scientist can believe in is a testable description which has not been disproved.

Why do scientists/atheists not extend their belief in the existence absolute laws of science to the existence of absolute laws of morality?

Because scientists do not believe in the existence of absolute laws of science this question can now be disregarded, however by bearing in mind the fact that scientists have to acquire knowledge by the application of the scientific method we can further build an argument against the case of scientists believing in the existence of absolute laws of morality.

A scientist would have to observe the already existing properties of morality, postulate a description of the phenomena observed and then experiment to attempt to falsify the description. Again, even at its best the scientific method applied to morality will fail to provide any absolute laws for the scientist to believe in.

 

[moving finger]

This is a misrepresentation of the position of scientists. While I accept that some scientists might believe that there are absolute physical laws, this generalisation cannot be applied to all scientists. The goal of science is to provide as accurately as possible, a description of our physical reality which is able to be falsifiable by experiment. Scientists make use of the scientific method when acquiring new knowledge, whereby we postulate hypotheses to explain natural phenomena and design experimental studies to test the predictions for accuracy.

I don't fully agree. Science is predicated on the existence of regularities in nature (if there were no regularities at all then science as we know it would be both meaningless and impossible). What we refer to as "laws" (of nature or physics) are simply human attempts to describe those regularities. The only reason why a scientist can reasonably expect that natural phenomena can be explained by hypotheses is because these regularities (described by laws) exist.

The end result of the scientific method is never an absolute physical law. The best a scientist can believe in is a testable description which has not been disproved.

Again I disagree. The end result of the scientific method is some form of coherent and consistent and reproducible description/explanation of the regularities in nature - and laws are nothing more nor less than human attempts to formalise a description of these regularities. Hence science is indeed all about "discovering" physical laws.

Because scientists do not believe in the existence of absolute laws of science this question can now be disregarded, however by bearing in mind the fact that scientists have to acquire knowledge by the application of the scientific method we can further build an argument against the case of scientists believing in the existence of absolute laws of morality.

As explained above, this conclusion is incorrect. Scientists do indeed believe in the existence of regularities in nature, and since the laws of nature are nothing more nor less than a human description of those regularities, it follows that scientists believe in the existence of laws of nature.

A scientist would have to observe the already existing properties of morality, postulate a description of the phenomena observed and then experiment to attempt to falsify the description. Again, even at its best the scientific method applied to morality will fail to provide any absolute laws for the scientist to believe in.

Not necessarily. If the scientific method provides evidence of regularities then the normal scientific approach would be to propose an hypothesis in an attempt to "explain" these regularities. Such an hypothesis may involve proposed "laws" of nature. Once the hypothesis is proposed, it is then open to further experiment to attempt to show that the hypothesis is false. This, in a nutshell, is scientific method.

Best Regards

 

[Pythagorean]

my bias: I'm a weak athiest, i can neither confirm nor deny the existence of a god/gods. I'm also training to be (or am?) a scientist. I don't believe in absolute laws. In fact, I was led to believe that quantum and probability wave functions were key indications that things aren't as absolute as Newton would have wanted them to be. In fact, I was just reading in my mechanics (by lymen) book how he found difficulty with the fact that his three principles weren't attached to any particular coordinate system, whereas today we view this as a cool thing about it, or at least that's how I'm taught to percieve it, because it allows flexibility)

Rather, He wants people to believe in Him based on faith alone - and faith by definition does not require "good evidence".

I'm curious about this. Why is faith so important to God? Does this imply a sort of narcissism. I suppose we were made in his image and he's said to be a jealous god as well, so it would make sense in the end, but he seems to be a tyrranical god (add the fact that you go to hell and live an eternity of misery if you don't do things his way).

I'm also a pluralist though. That is, I believe all religions are equally valid, and this is only one religion.

As for morales, I don't find them to be absolute either. Case by case. For the most part, killing, stealing, rape, assault are all terrible things and I can only see where killing and stealing might be excusable from here (in extrenious situations), 'here' being a relatively safe country in modern times.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I'm curious about this. Why is faith so important to God? Does this imply a sort of narcissism. I suppose we were made in his image and he's said to be a jealous god as well, so it would make sense in the end, but he seems to be a tyrranical god (add the fact that you go to hell and live an eternity of misery if you don't do things his way).

It has been remarked by many people that God, as presented in the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) has serious self-image problems. He requires constant reaffirmations of loyalty and uses his super powers to massacre people who don't toe his line.

Jesus's Father, in the New Testament, is more subtle, but every now and then Jesus has to admit the old ogre is still in there ("Don't fear people on Earth who can kill your body; fear the One who can destine your soul to eternal fire" or close to that - off the top of my head).

And if you have concluded, on sufficient evidence, that God exists, then that God is of your making; he is the conclusion you drew, defined by the properties you accepted. But this is no better than carving a graven image out of wood or stone; it is your workmanship, not the transcendent CREATOR OF ALL. So to really believe in ol' Jehovah, you have to have no rational reason to do so!

 

[MeJennifer]

It has been remarked by many people that God, as presented in the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament) has serious self-image problems. He requires constant reaffirmations of loyalty and uses his super powers to massacre people who don't toe his line.

Such attributed qualities of a God are really the hopes, fears, wishes, mentality etc of the people believing in this God which they project onto their God.

 

[Pythagorean]

And if you have concluded, on sufficient evidence, that God exists, then that God is of your making; he is the conclusion you drew, defined by the properties you accepted. But this is no better than carving a graven image out of wood or stone; it is your workmanship, not the transcendent CREATOR OF ALL. So to really believe in ol' Jehovah, you have to have no rational reason to do so!

yes, even as a weak athiest, I've come to the conclusion that God exists... in the minds of men. Millions of men. He is powerful indeed, regardless of whether he created us, or man created him.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I hate to be a nitpicker, but atheist is spelled A-THE-IST; A means "not" in Greek, THE is from theos, meaning "god". and IST means believer, so an a-the-ist is one who does not believe in (any) god.

 

[russ_watters]

This is a misrepresentation of the position of scientists. While I accept that some scientists might believe that there are absolute physical laws, this generalisation cannot be applied to all scientists. The goal of science is to provide as accurately as possible, a description of our physical reality which is able to be falsifiable by experiment. Scientists make use of the scientific method when acquiring new knowledge, whereby we postulate hypotheses to explain natural phenomena and design experimental studies to test the predictions for accuracy.

The end result of the scientific method is never an absolute physical law. The best a scientist can believe in is a testable description which has not been disproved.

You're misunderstanding what I said. I did not say that the end result of the scientific method is an absolute set of laws. Indeed, the scientific process is endless. Another way of saying that the universe operates according to fixed laws is to say simply that the universe operates in a consistent manner. By this, I mean an experiment performed tomorrow will yield the same results as an absolutely identical experiment performed today.

If scientists didn't believe that the universe operated according to fixed laws, then there would be no point to the pursuit of science because no theory could ever be expected to be useful. Something discovered today would not necessarily hold true tomorrow.

 

[Evo]

yes, even as a weak athiest, I've come to the conclusion that God exists... in the minds of men. Millions of men. He is powerful indeed, regardless of whether he created us, or man created him.

You're not an atheist then, you're agnostic, someone that believes there is a possibility that a god could exist. Are you trying to say that you personally don't believe in a god but realize that others do? If so, that has nothing to do with being an atheist, agnostic, or theist.

See the definition of weak and strong atheism, you are not, by what you said a weak atheist.

It is common to distinguish between two different kinds of atheism.

Weak atheism or negative atheism — a lack of belief in the existence of gods or deities.

Strong atheism or positive atheism — a positive belief that no such entities as gods or deities exist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism

 

[moving finger]

my bias: I'm a weak athiest, i can neither confirm nor deny the existence of a god/gods. I'm also training to be (or am?) a scientist. I don't believe in absolute laws.

Do you believe in the existence of regularities in nature?
If your answer is "yes", then human (natural/physical) laws are nothing more nor less than a human attempt to describe these regularities. If we are then to ask whether these regularities are "absolute" (as opposed to being contingent) is (it seems to me) not a question that can be answered (and is thus not a scientific question).
If your answer is "no" then you'll have a hard time doing any science.

I'm curious about this. Why is faith so important to God?

Good question. If God were around to answer the question then this would contradict the assumption that God wishes us to have faith rather than have His/Her existence proven to us. Sort of Catch-22. Nice way for a theist to avoid the requirement of proving anything though. And if God does not in fact exist, the assumption that God wishes us to have faith rather than have His/Her existence proven to us would be consistent with the absence of any evidence of His/Her existence.

Best Regards

 

[moving finger]

yes, even as a weak athiest, I've come to the conclusion that God exists... in the minds of men. Millions of men. He is powerful indeed, regardless of whether he created us, or man created him.

Does this make God a meme? Perhaps one of the most powerful and successful memes of all time.

Best Regards