Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bobboau on December 29, 2010, 09:31:05 pm
-
http://fora.tv/2010/11/10/Sam_Harris_Can_Science_Determine_Human_Values#fullprogram
discuss.
-
If he weren't ragging on Islam so much I'd be behind him all the way.
-
why?
and you posted that two minutes after I posted it, either you've seen this already or you didn't even get to the guy giving the speech.
-
why?
and you posted that two minutes after I posted it, either you've seen this already or you didn't even get to the guy giving the speech.
Because selecting a single target suggests an ulterior motive. Islam-bashing is en vogue right now. I have little respect for someone trying to piggyback their idea through the door rather than get it in on its own merits (and it does have its own merits). Also: If you're going to say "I have an alternate method of determining morality better than religion" you can't limit yourself to showing it to be better than only one religion. You have to take them all on if you're going to be taken seriously.
And no, I've not seen this already, but the concept is one that's quite familiar to me. I'm watching it now.
-
Out of an 100 minute speech he focuses on Islam for an 11 minute segment 35 minutes in, he follows that up with 5 minutes focusing on Catholicism/Christianity. it's hardly his central point, he chose to focus on Islam at all expressly because it's a prime example of the failure of moral relativism, that is people let Muslims get away with **** they should not get away with (for example (my example) the rioting when ever someone draws a picture of Mohamed) because they are Muslims so it's ok.
-
I have to see this, but not now... too late round here already.
-
How can science handle the intangible when it has such trouble with the tangible?
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all
-
i see no problem, what that article shows is science correcting it's self.
-
scientific investigation based on rigorous, progressive movement towards the truth fails to immediately get everything right on the first try
goober demands end of science
as for the topic: we know where morality comes from (evolution, both biological and memetic) and what it's for (a selected mechanism to regulate societies); all that's left is investigation and parametrization
-
I didn't have the motivation to sit through the entire video at this moment, but the section on Catholicism I skipped to contained nothing but points that were either incredibly tired or nothing short of ill-founded. If the entire video is in the same style, I can't say that he's making a very cogent argument.
(And then he said "my colleague Richard Dawkins," and I pretty much lost all interest.)
Edit: Also, the article Goober linked is really fascinating stuff in its own right. Almost a bit eerie, even.
-
Well, looks like he agrees with me on pretty much everything he talked about. Smart chap!
Also, that's absolutely not the usual anti-intellectual anti-islam drivel and I wouldn't even say that it focuses on islam.
-
the answer is obviously simple, nuke the world, flatten the moral landscape.
-
the answer is obviously simple, nuke the world, flatten the moral landscape.
Quiet, you silly nihilist!
-
Noooooo, without vault-tec we are screwed.
-
How can science handle the intangible when it has such trouble with the tangible?
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all
Actually science HAS explained that one.
I seriously recommend reading Bad Science by Ben Goldacre. Especially the chapter on the Placebo Effect.
But since most of you won't. Here's a rebuttal of that piece (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=8987).
-
If that's too long to read, just visit this comic (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2075) for a general approach to follow.
-
it boggles my mind that there are people who think science can't touch certain areas while they're sitting here communicating with us on computers in a world that exists because of science
'those methodologies worked perfectly for all these 5132509341534 things that benefit me. but don't touch my beliefs, i'm a true believer! science is FLAWED'
the human brain and human morality are transparent and explicable. DEAL
-
as for the topic: we know where morality comes from (evolution, both biological and memetic) and what it's for (a selected mechanism to regulate societies); all that's left is investigation and parametrization
And a nuanced understanding that behaviour evolves at different rates and through varied mechanics that do not always fall within the general parameters of how strict biological evolution is understood (by the majority of people who accept the premise) to occur.
But yes, I agree, there is no need to invoke religion to give moral/ethical foundation.
-
right, social darwinism is clearly bollocks, and the way that culture and behavior spreads is never going to be perfectly mappable to the way biological evolution occurs
-
An interesting video, thanks for the link :yes:
Some things I have already thought before, but it planted some interesting questions in me, such as that example about people in general being more prone to help just one person at a time instead of multiple persons.
I find this to be correct even with my own behaviour, I can easily overlook the suffering of a lot of people and at the same time care a little more about just one.
I wonder if this true also for the kind of people that opens up a community kitchen or works for charity daily, or maybe they see it diferently.
-
I know I'd noticed that in myself a lot. I think it's because I figure I can make a substantial difference in one life, but the more you add, the less I can do.
-
perhaps it is because one human is a person, but more than one human are people. other people.
-
monkeysphere
dunbar's number
-
I can agree with both, personally when I'm presented with an opportunity to help someone I tend to "feel" before acting.
I ultimately give up on helping a lot of people because I feel I'll run out of strength or resources, therefor leaving me in a bad position.
This might sound terrible to you but I guess that's what we do...not every time but for the most part I'm always evaluating whether I'm capable of sustaining myself and at the same time helping others (I presume I do this unconsciously, not sure if that's just it... there's probably more going on).
Also, making an universal "acceptable behaviour" paper on which to foundate our future societies doesn't feel right either, the bible (and other sacred books of the same sort)... whether some like it or not, has been filling that part for the last centuries and not all things went smoothly IMO.
I think science can shed some light about how we behave and why we behave like that, probably it will even tell us how to improve some of our defects on regards of "humanism", but eventually it will be down to the person itself to determine whether to take one road or the other, we will just be more "educated" on the matter, just as what happened with religions.
-
most modern religions have figured out how to rationalize their way past the parts of their holy texts that would actually make a difference, can't imagine any replacement would do much better
-
you know it just occurred to me that this is just a way for scientists to get revenge for the whole concept of intelligent design. religion tries to pass itself off as a scientific theory, and science gets back by trying to scientifically define morality. i curious to see what kinda mud the bible thumpers try to sling back at science.
-
Sam Harris is a fool, commiting the natural fallacy. This has been discussed ad eternum elsewhere for a long time already, and I really find his arguments lacking.
One thing is to recognize observable phenomena, another entirely is to decide what to do with such information. This choice can be informed by science but not determined by it. Such is the mistake of scientism, and Sam Harris is just one of the latest naive people who ponder about these things.
This is the natural consequence of the secularization of the society. Philosophy and Science have been built as logical and empirical projects of knowledge of facts and patterns, while Religion was built as a moral nav buoy. Disregard for one second the religious question per se and focus on the historical anthropological questions. Science is about what is, Morality is about what should be - these questions are fully separated. I've spent many years pondering about this and the more I think about it, the less doubts I have about this Humean proposition - and Religion has been about "what should be", with its Kingdom of Heaven, its total utopia world where people should embrace themselves as brothers and always turn their cheek when provoked. The lack of this utopia is unsettling for some people.
We must understand these people's feelings. While such people do share some traditional religious utopian principles, for instance of Christianity, due solely to the fact that such people live embebbed in a society filled with such values, they do not recognize its foundations. If such people are obsessed with this void, they will try to erect those values they cherish in another way. But if they do not recognize any "supernatural" origin, they think that the natural "will have to do". And then the naturalistic fallacy ensues.
Thing is, such natural facts do not decide for us what is "best". Consider torture. We take that torture is bad, evil. Why? The natural observer will state, "because it creates suffering". Ok, but this is not enough. First, we have to establish that suffering is really bad. And there is no natural argument for this, the argument is purely subjective, based on our emotions. We abhor the idea of pain, and so we deem it as "bad". Naturalistic arguments only follow from this point on.
Of course, you might say, but don't we all deem "pain" as bad? Well, no. There are masochistic people out there, and we could even say that without pain, no gain, sometimes. So we cannot be extremist in this particularity. And different cultures with different traditions will regard and abhor many different things than we do. Ironically enough, this is a basic anthropological observation.
This is why I am a moral relativism, and no I won't "suck it". I should tell you though that "moral relativism" as a guide does suck. This because MR is no moral guide at all, only an empirical observation of a state of affairs, i.e. that morals are not absolute and are different from place to place, people to people, and there is no "higher" moral authority to obey. (Such is the obvious consequence of stripping out religion from your philosophy: the end of all absolutisms).
This means that when people get "irritated" at MR, is because they are trying to use oranges to make apple juice. Having established that morality does vary, we should also remind ourselves that it does exist. Values exist. And we must base them not on fallacious grounds, but on our collective desires. It's a tough conversation, and no doubt that some less socially capable scientists would like to solve it in a closed laboratory, but sorry that won't do. Morality is a very complex, chaotic, cultural activity and any attempt to use science to help us should always come with the caveat that any science paper won't solve any moral problem. We do. The choice is ours.
-
you know it just occurred to me that this is just a way for scientists to get revenge for the whole concept of intelligent design. religion tries to pass itself off as a scientific theory, and science gets back by trying to scientifically define morality. i curious to see what kinda mud the bible thumpers try to sling back at science.
Yes I do believe in this also. All in all, I find it a fight between two similar groups. While one is undoubtedly more intelligent and empirically capable than the other, they both lack any sense of restraint, and do believe that the core of their own tribes (Religion or Science) are fully capable of dictating morality. Sheer nonsense. Morality is what we do, our choices. This is entirely social, entirely political. Nor Science nor God has anything to do with it.
-
One thing is to recognize observable phenomena, another entirely is to decide what to do with such information. This choice can be informed by science but not determined by it.
Distinction without a difference. If the information you use to make the choice does not determine the choice then we have a word for that. It's "insanity".
Such is the mistake of scientism, and Sam Harris is just one of the latest naive people who ponder about these things.
You just called science an "ism". That pretty much proves right now that you're talking out of your ass. It's not an "ism", it's a "logy". The distinction is quite important. One is based on belief. One is based on fact.
This is the natural consequence of the secularization of the society. Philosophy and Science have been built as logical and empirical projects of knowledge of facts and patterns, while Religion was built as a moral nav buoy. Disregard for one second the religious question per se and focus on the historical anthropological questions.
So far, so good...
Science is about what is, Morality is about what should be - these questions are fully separated.
And you fall off the wagon with an artificial distinction. Science is not just about what is. It can also be about what should be. Physics has mathematically predicted things that it has not been able to prove at the time, and then usually gone out and proved them. It's not alone in this. Medical knowledge is driven by the concept that the human body should be a certain way, it's not, and we're going to find out why and fix it. Science is about observable reality, true, but it is also about being able to alter that reality for our benefit.
If you ever want morality to become real, science is all over that.
Thing is, such natural facts do not decide for us what is "best". Consider torture. We take that torture is bad, evil. Why? The natural observer will state, "because it creates suffering". Ok, but this is not enough. First, we have to establish that suffering is really bad. And there is no natural argument for this, the argument is purely subjective, based on our emotions. We abhor the idea of pain, and so we deem it as "bad". Naturalistic arguments only follow from this point on.
This is a lie.
We can demonstrably prove that pain makes the human body respond in ways that are not conducive to its continued functioning. We can demonstrably prove that torture will result in physical and psychological damages that inhibit the ability of human being to continue to operate in a normal fashion.
Of course, you might say, but don't we all deem "pain" as bad? Well, no. There are masochistic people out there, and we could even say that without pain, no gain, sometimes. So we cannot be extremist in this particularity. And different cultures with different traditions will regard and abhor many different things than we do. Ironically enough, this is a basic anthropological observation.
First, you reject the possibility that we can provide explanations for these as well, things that can be proved "naturalistically" to use your term. Which, quite frankly, we can. (And for the record, I doubt you actually understand masochism in the slightest since I've known a masochist or two and pain is typically a means to an end, not a valuable thing in itself.)
Second, you regard the existence of different traditions that abhor different things as somehow proving something. It does not; we are down to basic right and wrong now, not taboo foods. (And incidentally, taboo foods can be dealt with scientifically for sure since you can tell if eating or not eating something will hurt you.)
-
One thing is to recognize observable phenomena, another entirely is to decide what to do with such information. This choice can be informed by science but not determined by it.
Distinction without a difference. If the information you use to make the choice does not determine the choice then we have a word for that. It's "insanity".
How come? Your sentence does not make any sense, are you trying to voice some kind of Borg philosophy?
Here, I have an example for you. Imagine the following scenario. You know that jumping out the window will cause you to die (you are on the 100th floor). How does this information "determine" your choice of action? It doesn't. It only informs you of alternatives and consequences. You are the one to choose your course of action.
If you don't concede this basic point, I see staggering difficulties in our discussion ahead.
Such is the mistake of scientism, and Sam Harris is just one of the latest naive people who ponder about these things.
You just called science an "ism". That pretty much proves right now that you're talking out of your ass. It's not an "ism", it's a "logy". The distinction is quite important. One is based on belief. One is based on fact.
I didn't do such a thing. Go read about scientism which is a real phenomena, you are only showing historical and scientific philosophy ignorance. Scientism is not Science. Scientism is what happens when you got illiterate culturally yet brilliant scientists trying to poke where they shouldn't, over-confident due to their success at their own specific field. The worse offense is when scientists pretend they can "derive" ethics from basic physics, or at least imply such possibility. While, theoretically and assymptotically, I do agree with it (I see nothing but "naturalness" in the world), such a project is doomed to start due to the sheer immensety of the chaotic unknown variables that we would have to solve. To pretend that such derivations are "somewhat" knowledgeable is thus scientific inanity, hogwash, gibberish. It fails basic scientific criteria, such as falsification and verification.
Science is about what is, Morality is about what should be - these questions are fully separated.
And you fall off the wagon with an artificial distinction. Science is not just about what is. It can also be about what should be. Physics has mathematically predicted things that it has not been able to prove at the time, and then usually gone out and proved them. It's not alone in this. Medical knowledge is driven by the concept that the human body should be a certain way, it's not, and we're going to find out why and fix it. Science is about observable reality, true, but it is also about being able to alter that reality for our benefit.
You still do not understand the point. Science, if you want to define it in positivistic terms, is about the prediction of future observations. But you are confusing prediction with intentionality. One thing is to know that if I press a button a nuclear blast will destroy Moscow. A completely different one is if whether I should. This "should" can be informed, but that's all. For instance, "If you want to avoid nuclear war, you shouldn't press the button." But this depends upon if you want to avoid nuclear war or not.
Values can only be derived from values.
If you ever want morality to become real, science is all over that.
I can't even parse this. Morality is already real, I watch its irrationalities and rationalizations every day. It's a "mish mash" of gigantic proportions... but I guess that's the consequence of having 7 billion people on earth...
Thing is, such natural facts do not decide for us what is "best". Consider torture. We take that torture is bad, evil. Why? The natural observer will state, "because it creates suffering". Ok, but this is not enough. First, we have to establish that suffering is really bad. And there is no natural argument for this, the argument is purely subjective, based on our emotions. We abhor the idea of pain, and so we deem it as "bad". Naturalistic arguments only follow from this point on.
This is a lie.
We can demonstrably prove that pain makes the human body respond in ways that are not conducive to its continued functioning. We can demonstrably prove that torture will result in physical and psychological damages that inhibit the ability of human being to continue to operate in a normal fashion.
So what? You fail to demonstrate that we should not do this based on such conclusion. So you may prove that this may kill someone. You fail to show how this is "bad", which is what you are intented to show in the first place, remember? You are just assuming the conclusion, that hurting is bad because it can create more suffering, which is bad. This is insufficient material.
Of course, you might say, but don't we all deem "pain" as bad? Well, no. There are masochistic people out there, and we could even say that without pain, no gain, sometimes. So we cannot be extremist in this particularity. And different cultures with different traditions will regard and abhor many different things than we do. Ironically enough, this is a basic anthropological observation.
First, you reject the possibility that we can provide explanations for these as well, things that can be proved "naturalistically" to use your term. Which, quite frankly, we can. (And for the record, I doubt you actually understand masochism in the slightest since I've known a masochist or two and pain is typically a means to an end, not a valuable thing in itself.)
I did not say such a thing, I really advise you to read what I wrote better. There is a difference between "providing explanations" for a certain phenomena (and we can include in this phenomena moral decisions), and providing morality itself from this knowledge.
IOW, to know what made someone kill someone else does not and cannot tell us, per se, whether if such behavior is "bad" or "good". Do you understand? I feel that you are having deep problems in understanding this subtle difference. Read Hume on the subject, he was quite a remarkable philosopher.
Second, you regard the existence of different traditions that abhor different things as somehow proving something. It does not; we are down to basic right and wrong now, not taboo foods. (And incidentally, taboo foods can be dealt with scientifically for sure since you can tell if eating or not eating something will hurt you.)
It only shows that moralities differ, apart from some "basic" rights and wrongs. The fact that these basic "rights and wrongs" are somewhat consensual throughout the globe does not inform us that they are "good" morals too, you should be aware. We can discuss why this is the case later, if you wish.
-
How come? Your sentence does not make any sense, are you trying to voice some kind of Borg philosophy?
Did you actually read it? I'm not sure you did. It was very simple. I'm saying that if the "informed by science" does not make your decision obvious, then you are no longer responding to the world in a rational manner.
Now if you think that behaving in a rational manner is "Borg philosophy" then I'm pretty sure you've got bigger problems then simply trying to draw a non-existent distinction or two.
Here, I have an example for you. Imagine the following scenario. You know that jumping out the window will cause you to die (you are on the 100th floor). How does this information "determine" your choice of action? It doesn't.
It does. It means I'm not going to jump. It means you're not going to jump. It means that in crowd of several thousand people your odds of coming up with someone who knowing this will jump anyways are extremely slim. Because we don't want to die, because not wanting to die is what we are biologically programmed to do.
Jumping out the window is not a rational act, not an act that a sane person will do except in the greatest of extremes, presented with a fate even more horrible than that. (And there are few. Otherwise non-suicidal people statistically jump only in the face of being burned to death.)
Now, if you ran into someone who did decide to jump in that crowd, it is very likely you could scientifically prove that there is something wrong with them. We call it depression. It has symptoms, behavioral, physical. These are "naturalistic" explanations.
Prove me wrong, and then you may have actually managed to demonstrate something beyond shocking ignorance.
It only informs you of alternatives and consequences. You are the one to choose your course of action.
Why do you make a choice? This is province of science now. We can quantify why people would make choices. And if we can quantify why they make choices, we can influence them to make the choices we want. You can rant and rave and rail against it all you want, but this is cold hard fact. We have already discussed the reasons why one would, or would not, make the choice to jump out the window. We know how to make someone jump out the window. Yes, that person ultimately makes the choice themselves, but that's pointless because we know what choices they should make under certain sets of circumstances.
Now maybe you're sitting there in the lunatic gallery with the non-materialist neuroscientists. Maybe you're just clinging to that last hope that you are special. I don't know. I don't care. All I know is that you're shockingly wrong.
I didn't do such a thing. Go read about scientism which is a real phenomena, you are only showing historical and scientific philosophy ignorance.
Yes you did. You're doing it again. You're trying to cite history that shows you wrong (in that accusations of scientism are invariably proved hogwash by time) and bringing in philosophy which is of no relevance or value in discussion of whether, at this point in time, we have the tools to determine scientifically how a human being is supposed to behave.
Scientism is not Science.
No, it's snarl word of dubious value and even less meaning. You're the sort of person who would sit there in days of Galileo and demand to know how he is certain that his telescope shows what actually exists and that it is not deceiving him. You're dismissing out of hand entire fields of science such as psychology and sociology to dismiss the possibility that science can determine how humans ought to behave. It's patently ridiculous. That's what they do.
Science can do this. Maybe not quite yet, though I doubt that. But it can. And you deny the existence of whole fields dedicated to the very purpose so you can maintain that it cannot. It's complete bull****.
Scientism is what happens when you got illiterate culturally yet brilliant scientists trying to poke where they shouldn't, over-confident due to their success at their own specific field.
As culture has nothing to do with science, and should never have anything to do with science, what does cultural illiteracy have to do with being wrong?
The worse offense is when scientists pretend they can "derive" ethics from basic physics, or at least imply such possibility.
No one has made such a claim. This is a blatant straw man.
While, theoretically and assymptotically, I do agree with it (I see nothing but "naturalness" in the world), such a project is doomed to start due to the sheer immensety of the chaotic unknown variables that we would have to solve.
So now you demand absolute perfection from your moral system, something you have already stated your existing one does not and cannot provide, before you will back it. We can already predict human behavior with high degrees of confidence in many situations, and yet you claim this is not good enough somehow, that we must have perfection before we are able to devise morality.
Well in that case you'd better throw out every existing moral system because none of them meet that standard. Science is better-equipped to devise a moral system now than anyone else who has ever done so in the past, but you would deny them their shot at it because...?
To pretend that such derivations are "somewhat" knowledgeable is thus scientific inanity, hogwash, gibberish. It fails basic scientific criteria, such as falsification and verification.
You must know everything, or you know nothing. This is your stance, then? Here's a term you'll do well to learn: confidence level. You aren't talking like a scientist at all. You're talking like a priest.
You still do not understand the point. Science, if you want to define it in positivistic terms, is about the prediction of future observations. But you are confusing prediction with intentionality. One thing is to know that if I press a button a nuclear blast will destroy Moscow. A completely different one is if whether I should.
No. I'm saying we can predict whether you should because we know what the consequences will be. I'm saying we can predict whether you would, too.
This "should" can be informed, but that's all. For instance, "If you want to avoid nuclear war, you shouldn't press the button." But this depends upon if you want to avoid nuclear war or not.
And who among us aside from Nuke wants nuclear war? We are back, again, to basic biological impulses: when should we kill, when should we die. We can quantify what it will require to make you take certain choices, but you insist that this doesn't prove we know what you will choose. It's madness.
I can't even parse this. Morality is already real, I watch its irrationalities and rationalizations every day. It's a "mish mash" of gigantic proportions... but I guess that's the consequence of having 7 billion people on earth...
Morality is "what should be" in your words, not "what is", and thus (falsely) not the province of science. But if you are saying that morality is now, then I guess it is the province of science after all, hmm?
So what? You fail to demonstrate that we should not do this based on such conclusion. So you may prove that this may kill someone. You fail to show how this is "bad", which is what you are intented to show in the first place, remember? You are just assuming the conclusion, that hurting is bad because it can create more suffering, which is bad. This is insufficient material.
Now you're simply being willfully ignorant. Science can determine a normal. From that we can assign a "this performance is worse than normal" and a "this performance is better than normal" by simple means; does it do it faster or slower now? Can it do more or less? Is this more or less efficient?
And there you have it. What is. What should be. What should not be. Morality, in a nutshell.
I did not say such a thing, I really advise you to read what I wrote better. There is a difference between "providing explanations" for a certain phenomena (and we can include in this phenomena moral decisions), and providing morality itself from this knowledge.
No, there really isn't. If we can establish norms, if we can establish performance, then we can establish a morality based on what gives us the best performance.
IOW, to know what made someone kill someone else does not and cannot tell us, per se, whether if such behavior is "bad" or "good". Do you understand? I feel that you are having deep problems in understanding this subtle difference. Read Hume on the subject, he was quite a remarkable philosopher.
Philosophy has no place in this discussion. This is about science, and you need to have evidence. Get out.
-
Actually, Luis Dias is being completely self-consistent and logical in his discourse here. He is correctly pointing out that there is a distinction between the what and the why. He is a rational atheist, which is (ironically) a refreshing change from the irrational atheism that so often pervades the discussion on HLP and elsewhere.
Indeed, one cannot arrive at morality except through philosophy, whatever that may be. Science can only provide facts; it cannot provide reasons.
-
Indeed, one cannot arrive at morality except through philosophy, whatever that may be. Science can only provide facts; it cannot provide reasons.
So basically all that stuff I said about why or why not you will jump off the hundredth story doesn't exist. You reject categorically the fields of psychology, neuroscience, and sociology.
Got it.
-
So basically all that stuff I said about why or why not you will jump off the hundredth story doesn't exist. You reject categorically the fields of psychology, neuroscience, and sociology.
This is a nonsensical extrapolation that proves you either fail to recognize or fail to understand the distinction that Luis Dias and I have highlighted. As Luis said, you are confusing prediction with intentionality. Psychology, neuroscience, and sociology all describe what individuals and societies do, and they often predict what they will do. But they cannot prescribe what they should do.
And a simple change of context is sufficient to refute your "morality from norms" argument. Consider that in many African countries, society has been torn apart for decades by war, famine, government corruption, supply shortages, and disease. In those societies, orphans, AIDS victims, hunger, etc. ARE the norm. So following your argument, one would therefore conclude that attempts by various humanitarian relief organizations to change those norms are immoral.
-
Actually, I believe morality to be wholly in the realm of science, because when truth is based in science, it ceases to be philosophic, but instead becomes fact. Bear with me if you will.
I once read an article on genetic mapping. Strange as it may sound for a mere layman to be interested in it. The thing is, I only remember one part of the article, due to where my brain immediately went. They have uncovered a which gene determines whether you will be thrill junky. This brings to mind a great many possibilities, both in pure mainstream science, and philosophically. We have now linked a personality trait to genetics. Taken to the logical conclusion, all personality traits will have a foundation in genetics. The choice is whether or not we act on it. Albeit the urge to ride that wave coming toward me may be stronger in me than in someone who has the short form of this gene, but it is still my choice to ride it. The urge is there, and is strong in me with my obvious long form of this gene. Lucky for me, my lady has a great deal of good sense, or I could be in a huge amount of trouble.
Now what happens if there is a gene that dictates suicidal or homicidal urges? Are they more likely to act on those urges than someone who is not genetically inclined? I would think so. I also understand that most of this argument is conjecture, .
Indiana Jones said it best in Raiders of the lost Ark when he said "Archeology is the search for fact, if you want truth Philosophy is down the hall." I think that sometime in the future we will see those classes join, to a certain degree.
Science does have a place in morality, if the traits involved in dictating that morality are based in fact, as opposed to truth.
I know I am opening myself to getting slaughtered by both sides with this, I'll just ride that wave.
-
This is a nonsensical extrapolation that proves you either fail to recognize or fail to understand the distinction that Luis Dias and I have highlighted. As Luis said, you are confusing prediction with intentionality.
No, he's saying that intent is unpredictable. I'm saying that intent can be predicted and forced like any other variable. There is no special nature to intent that places it outside the bounds of science.
Psychology, neuroscience, and sociology all describe what individuals and societies do, and they often predict what they will do. But they cannot prescribe what they should do.
No? Why not? You cannot simply give me a blanket assertion, Goober. You have to tell me why. I say that if it can be described, then we can also prescribe it. Why am I wrong?
And a simple change of context is sufficient to refute your "morality from norms" argument.
Then you've invalidated only a third of the argument. You are trying to say that the rest of it, that we can proscribe morality based on whether something results in improved or degraded efficiency, or no effective change, didn't happen.
Well it was said. Where's your refutation?
Consider that in many African countries, society has been torn apart for decades by war, famine, government corruption, supply shortages, and disease. In those societies, orphans, AIDS victims, hunger, etc. ARE the norm.
But they do not exist in a vacuum. Come on man! Control groups! Eliminate as many variables as possible before you establish what's normal! You don't even know how science works and you're trying to tell me that it can't do something?!
-
Actually, Luis Dias is being completely self-consistent and logical in his discourse here. He is correctly pointing out that there is a distinction between the what and the why. He is a rational atheist, which is (ironically) a refreshing change from the irrational atheism that so often pervades the discussion on HLP and elsewhere.
Indeed, one cannot arrive at morality except through philosophy, whatever that may be. Science can only provide facts; it cannot provide reasons.
Given that you fully support the existence of a magic man in the sky based on myth and nonexistent evidence, I don't believe you have the moral authority to declare what is and is not rational.
-
Sam Harris is a fool, commiting the natural fallacy. This has been discussed ad eternum elsewhere for a long time already, and I really find his arguments lacking.
Umm, where is he committing the natural fallacy? What he's clearly saying is that when a religious whacko does something bad, it's bad and irrational because it doesn't achieve what even the whacko ultimately wants, which is human well-being. He's not saying it's bad just because he or science says it is, he's saying it's bad because it contradicts what the whacko himself is trying to achieve. That's not a naturalistic fallacy, that's saying that religious fanaticism is just a really poor tool for achieving the things religious fanatics claim they're trying to achieve, which, as with pretty much everyone else, is usually human well-being.
-
Indeed, one cannot arrive at morality except through philosophy, whatever that may be.
Of course one can. I'm one example, so feel free to interrogate me on my morals if in doubt.
Science can only provide facts; it cannot provide reasons.
Sure, but that obviously doesn't mean that one would need philosophy to have reasons or to explain them.
-
Well this thread got far more interesting in a hurry.
/me sits back and munches popcorn
-
There are some quips here that boil my blood, seriously. I have to self-restrain ;).
First of all, when you state that:
Philosophy has no place in this discussion. This is about science, and you need to have evidence. Get out.
you are implying several things. First, you are implying (and have throughout your pieces) that I am anti-science, because I dare to disagree with you. You hinted that I may even be insane, etc. I don't like that kind of tone. Second, you are implying an absurd thing: that we are here doing science. No, we are here debating things using logic and our knowledge. IOW, we are making philosophy here. It always strikes me as completely hipocritical for some people in the internet that I find (in blogs, forums, etc.) to make essays on how "Philosophy" sucks and is immaterial, completely oblivious to the fact that they "are" doing, or at least trying to do, philosophy. It's self-contradictory.
Third, I didn't know that you owned this thread like some dictator to order me around and tell me what to do, "get out".
If this kind of attitude of yours is not corrected, I will not answer more of your posts. Now to the core issues.
Let's get some things straight. I did not say that human behavior isn't predictable. Some of it is "somewhat" predictable, some of it isn't, but even conceding that it is, we are not finding out whether such behavior is GOOD or BAD. We are only finding out WHAT IT IS. To accuse me of being shockingly ignorant about the basic fact that we can diagnose "depression" is really irritating, because I can't find in my notes any passage that implies such inanity.
Now, I have used extreme examples in my case, and still in such cases we will find people who disagree "with the norm". This means that in any other less extreme example, we will find such choices completely dominated by desires, by emotions, etc., and they may differ completely person to person. Your solution to this problem is to call anyone who deviates from your norm as "insane". That's utterly Orwellian and I want no part in it.
And who among us aside from Nuke wants nuclear war? We are back, again, to basic biological impulses: when should we kill, when should we die. We can quantify what it will require to make you take certain choices, but you insist that this doesn't prove we know what you will choose. It's madness.
Either you are not reading well, or you are just poking straw mans after straw mans. What I will choose is besides the point. What you are able to predict in my behavior is also besides the point. We can begin a discussion about behavior and statistics another time, if you like but we are just deviating from the subject at hand. What the point is that even if you "predict" what I would do, this tells us ZERO, NADA, to whether if it is right or wrong to do so.
You say that morals are scientifically testable because you can observe, theorize and test our behaviors. This is important, but irrelevant. It does not tell us if such morals are bad or good. It merely describes them as they are. "Mr John didn't pursue love for mr. Joshua because he finds such love to be utterly immoral". Any paper deviating from this grammatical approach of "observation" and stating for instance "of course he was wrong, because homossexuality is perfectly ok" is already philosophical editorializing. How do you know that homossexuality is "perfectly ok"? You must first describe "ok" in a scientific testable manner.
Now you're simply being willfully ignorant. Science can determine a normal. From that we can assign a "this performance is worse than normal" and a "this performance is better than normal" by simple means; does it do it faster or slower now? Can it do more or less? Is this more or less efficient?
Yes, so there you go, it's Borg philosophy in a nutshell. Ok, I won't disagree, it is one possibility. If you really *credit*, favor, desire for efficiency, speed and quantity, then you may derive something from this. But in order to do this, you *must* have these desires first. Don't you see? What if what I desire is something less efficient, slower? What if I am happier living slower? Then I may reach entirely different conclusions from you.
Your solution to this problem is just saying "he's insane, throw him to the asylum". This is nihilism in a nutshell. Abusing the godwin's law for a moment, it eerily reminds me the nazi obsession for the purity of genes, as if a perfect gene could even exist. And then throwing to the dustbin any deviation from such perfection. Of course, in no time you'll have everyone but yourself in the dustbin...
You must know everything, or you know nothing. This is your stance, then? Here's a term you'll do well to learn: confidence level. You aren't talking like a scientist at all. You're talking like a priest.
You didn't understand. In order to find out whether if something is, in itself, RIGHT, I think you'd have to revolutionize the entire field of science to something quite different from today. This is not finding out if someone believes or behaves as if something is right, or finding out the majority of the population beliefs or behaviors.
I am utterly pessimistic about this exchange of ours. And until you drop this "you talkin like a priest" attitude, we will get nowhere.
-
Sam Harris is a fool, commiting the natural fallacy. This has been discussed ad eternum elsewhere for a long time already, and I really find his arguments lacking.
Umm, where is he committing the natural fallacy? What he's clearly saying is that when a religious whacko does something bad, it's bad and irrational because it doesn't achieve what even the whacko ultimately wants, which is human well-being. He's not saying it's bad just because he or science says it is, he's saying it's bad because it contradicts what the whacko himself is trying to achieve. That's not a naturalistic fallacy, that's saying that religious fanaticism is just a really poor tool for achieving the things religious fanatics claim they're trying to achieve, which, as with pretty much everyone else, is usually human well-being.
He is assuming that he *knows* what the whacko is trying to achieve. Claiming that everyone wants "human well being" may be a good generalization, a useful line and a good way to analyse things, but it is ultimately subjective and irrational. What exactly *is* human well being? Sam goes on to say in many places that well being is this and that, that we can measure it, etc. Sheer nonsense. He's just fooling himself. Yes, we can measure many chemicals and brain states, but to say that we can scientifically grip the entirety of what it means to be human, what it means to choose the things we do, etc., is just hubris to the highest degree.
The problem with these kinds of assertions is that they are followed up with "scientific reasons" why X is wrong and Y is right, without making the huge caveats that such "reasons" are nothing more than derivations from one value to another, informed by a prolonged equation of some sorts. And such first values are always assumed.
Now if this is the scope of what is intended: to create a web of science papers that inform us better about the factual consequences of adopting certain values, then I am all for it. To pretend however that such papers inform, per se what we should do is fallacious.
-
I say that if it can be described, then we can also prescribe it. Why am I wrong?
Wow. Just wow.
Ok. Bear with me. You can describe what a blue pencil does to a sheet of paper. Now use this description in order to describe what I should do with it, without invoking a single desire (desires are not "scientific reasons"). I'm waiting.
-
Actually, Luis Dias is being completely self-consistent and logical in his discourse here. He is correctly pointing out that there is a distinction between the what and the why. He is a rational atheist, which is (ironically) a refreshing change from the irrational atheism that so often pervades the discussion on HLP and elsewhere.
Indeed, one cannot arrive at morality except through philosophy, whatever that may be. Science can only provide facts; it cannot provide reasons.
Given that you fully support the existence of a magic man in the sky based on myth and nonexistent evidence, I don't believe you have the moral authority to declare what is and is not rational.
This was just rude.
-
Would you lot please keep it civil?
I'm actually enjoying the discussion. If it degenerates into an argument or if there is any further name calling bans will be handed out.
This was just rude.
As was the comment about irrational atheism.
-
you are implying several things.
This is The Internet. Don't deal in implication when you don't have the cues to be sure is pretty much rule number one.
First, you are implying (and have throughout your pieces) that I am anti-science, because I dare to disagree with you. You hinted that I may even be insane, etc. I don't like that kind of tone.
No such thing has been implied. I have stated that I do not believe you actually understand either of your subjects, morality or science.
Second, you are implying an absurd thing: that we are here doing science. No, we are here debating things using logic and our knowledge.
There are two problems with this statement. The first is that it's actually directly contradictory to what I've said. I have made references to outside sources (admittedly not specific) for scientific backing, not claimed we are doing it here. (Seriously, how the hell did you get that?)
The second is that logic is essentially expressible as math, and math is a science, so arguably we are. I wouldn't personally describe it that way, but there you go.
IOW, we are making philosophy here. It always strikes me as completely hipocritical for some people in the internet that I find (in blogs, forums, etc.) to make essays on how "Philosophy" sucks and is immaterial, completely oblivious to the fact that they "are" doing, or at least trying to do, philosophy.
I don't think philosophy sucks. This is a pretty tangent, but it's not relevant, so let me spell it out: philosophy is not an evidence-based subject and is not required to have any bearing on reality. It thus has nothing to offer to this discussion, because it will offer you no proof.
Third, I didn't know that you owned this thread like some dictator to order me around and tell me what to do, "get out".
This is called hyperbole. I think you might have been on The Internet long enough to become familar with it.
However, in simplest terms, if you refuse to actually engage with an argument, then yes, I think I am fully within my rights to tell you to get out of it. So far when I've asked you to prove that something isn't science, you've gone off on tangents about other subjects. The closest you've come to engaging with my point was actually a concession that anything of reality is science. Since morality is, by your admission, a real though intangible thing, it is also of science.
Let's get some things straight. I did not say that human behavior isn't predictable. Some of it is "somewhat" predictable, some of it isn't, but even conceding that it is, we are not finding out whether such behavior is GOOD or BAD. We are only finding out WHAT IT IS. To accuse me of being shockingly ignorant about the basic fact that we can diagnose "depression" is really irritating, because I can't find in my notes any passage that implies such inanity.
It would be good to read ahead on occasion, it might make your arguments more valid...
Now, I have used extreme examples in my case, and still in such cases we will find people who disagree "with the norm". This means that in any other less extreme example, we will find such choices completely dominated by desires, by emotions, etc., and they may differ completely person to person. Your solution to this problem is to call anyone who deviates from your norm as "insane". That's utterly Orwellian and I want no part in it.
This has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. I addressed your specific examples with that adjective, so you decide to extend it to any possible disagreement from the norm? That's a pure, blatant straw man. It's utterly deceitful.
For that matter, it doesn't seem to occur to you that insanity covers a myriad of different conditions. You seem to directly equate it with gibbering homicidal lunacy. There are lesser and less-dangerous forms. In fact, in my arguments I could well be considered tolerant in recognizing that while ultimately the belief in, say, a Flat Earth is by this point clearly a form of insanity, it does not necessarily impair functioning and thus it's not something that really needs to be corrected.
Either you are not reading well, or you are just poking straw mans after straw mans. What I will choose is besides the point. What you are able to predict in my behavior is also besides the point. We can begin a discussion about behavior and statistics another time, if you like but we are just deviating from the subject at hand. What the point is that even if you "predict" what I would do, this tells us ZERO, NADA, to whether if it is right or wrong to do so.
You seem to have lost part of the point. In fact, the key part. If we can predict the consequences of a nuclear war, does that have no moral authority at all? In fact, if we are biologically wired in a certain fashion that creates human morality as we understand it, does that have no bearing on this discussion?
On the contrary, it has everything to do with this discussion, because the fact we are wired a certain way does not make it the best way. There are any number of human biological functions that can kill you for no physically sound reason at all. Allergies come to mind.
All previous moral systems have not had the remotest chance to separate the biological imperatives from what is truly the most efficient method to get things done. That chance is here, now. The option should at least be explored, but you would tell me that this cannot be done, that it does not exist!
You say that morals are scientifically testable because you can observe, theorize and test our behaviors. This is important, but irrelevant. It does not tell us if such morals are bad or good. It merely describes them as they are. "Mr John didn't pursue love for mr. Joshua because he finds such love to be utterly immoral". Any paper deviating from this grammatical approach of "observation" and stating for instance "of course he was wrong, because homossexuality is perfectly ok" is already philosophical editorializing. How do you know that homossexuality is "perfectly ok"? You must first describe "ok" in a scientific testable manner.
I already did. You should really read ahead.
Yes, so there you go, it's Borg philosophy in a nutshell. Ok, I won't disagree, it is one possibility. If you really *credit*, favor, desire for efficiency, speed and quantity, then you may derive something from this. But in order to do this, you *must* have these desires first. Don't you see?
No. In simplest terms, you do not. The entire process of evolution refutes you, sir. Evolution is blind, undirected, and results over time in improved efficiency for your environment. We can wait for nature to take its course, if you like, but you will go there whether you want to or not.
Unless you think we are no longer subject to evolution? Basic biology does not apply? I really don't know what point you're trying to make here.
Don't you see? What if what I desire is something less efficient, slower? What if I am happier living slower? Then I may reach entirely different conclusions from you.
That's great, but your conclusions are utterly irrelevant in the face of facts. As I said, you're coming along for the biology ride whether you want to or not.
Your solution to this problem is just saying "he's insane, throw him to the asylum".
As noted above, this is patently untrue. It is a very poor generalization at best. That you threw in the reducto ad Hitlerum is merely icing on an ass-shaped cake.
You didn't understand. In order to find out whether if something is, in itself, RIGHT, I think you'd have to revolutionize the entire field of science to something quite different from today.
You claim, in other words, that truth does not exist. I propose a simple experiment. Take two food items and eat one. It is now true, if you followed the instructions, that you have one left. Truth exists after all.
You may be extremely uncomfortable with the search for quantifiable moral truth, but that does not and cannot (by your own admission) invalidate it.
without invoking a single desire (desires are not "scientific reasons").
There's your problem. It all comes down to this. They are. I refer you to Battuta back on the first page. The human mind is explicable. Your desires can be explained, and predicted, and influenced through the use of the science.
-
Noooooo, without vault-tec we are screwed.
Ghoulification > Experimentation
-
Sam Harris is a fool, commiting the natural fallacy. This has been discussed ad eternum elsewhere for a long time already, and I really find his arguments lacking.
Umm, where is he committing the natural fallacy? What he's clearly saying is that when a religious whacko does something bad, it's bad and irrational because it doesn't achieve what even the whacko ultimately wants, which is human well-being. He's not saying it's bad just because he or science says it is, he's saying it's bad because it contradicts what the whacko himself is trying to achieve. That's not a naturalistic fallacy, that's saying that religious fanaticism is just a really poor tool for achieving the things religious fanatics claim they're trying to achieve, which, as with pretty much everyone else, is usually human well-being.
He is assuming that he *knows* what the whacko is trying to achieve. Claiming that everyone wants "human well being" may be a good generalization, a useful line and a good way to analyse things, but it is ultimately subjective and irrational. What exactly *is* human well being? Sam goes on to say in many places that well being is this and that, that we can measure it, etc. Sheer nonsense. He's just fooling himself.
Human well-being is whatever you and the religious whacko would agree human well-being to encompass.
The problem with these kinds of assertions is that they are followed up with "scientific reasons" why X is wrong and Y is right, without making the huge caveats that such "reasons" are nothing more than derivations from one value to another, informed by a prolonged equation of some sorts. And such first values are always assumed.
Yep, no naturalistic fallacy there. He's not proposing creating values using science, he's assuming values.
Now if this is the scope of what is intended: to create a web of science papers that inform us better about the factual consequences of adopting certain values, then I am all for it. To pretend however that such papers inform, per se what we should do is fallacious.
Yes, and AFAICT he isn't pretending that. He's saying that fine, you have your values (which can be whatever), but science or a rational, scientific approach can inform you of how to most efficiently act according to those values or which approaches are actually harmful according to your values or perhaps contradictory.
Also at sometime around 0:20 he was (IMO) making the rather inverse point of an "ought" being a basis for every "if". You can't have an "if" without also an implicit "ought" telling how you should formulate your beliefs. If you say that it's raining outside then you're already including an "ought" in that; that is, the methodology of how you're supposed to know whether it's raining or not and how you should communicate that.
-
First, you are implying (and have throughout your pieces) that I am anti-science, because I dare to disagree with you. You hinted that I may even be insane, etc. I don't like that kind of tone.
No such thing has been implied. I have stated that I do not believe you actually understand either of your subjects, morality or science.
I was being generous. Still be aware, the feeling is mutual.
Second, you are implying an absurd thing: that we are here doing science. No, we are here debating things using logic and our knowledge.
There are two problems with this statement. The first is that it's actually directly contradictory to what I've said. I have made references to outside sources (admittedly not specific) for scientific backing, not claimed we are doing it here. (Seriously, how the hell did you get that?)
The second is that logic is essentially expressible as math, and math is a science, so arguably we are. I wouldn't personally describe it that way, but there you go.
Philosophy uses logic. To state that logic is science, therefore everytime we use logic we are doing science is just silly. You outright stated that if my point is a philosophical one, "get out". Well of course it is a philosophical one, it couldn't be anything else.
IOW, we are making philosophy here. It always strikes me as completely hipocritical for some people in the internet that I find (in blogs, forums, etc.) to make essays on how "Philosophy" sucks and is immaterial, completely oblivious to the fact that they "are" doing, or at least trying to do, philosophy.
I don't think philosophy sucks. This is a pretty tangent, but it's not relevant, so let me spell it out: philosophy is not an evidence-based subject and is not required to have any bearing on reality. It thus has nothing to offer to this discussion, because it will offer you no proof.
Ridiculous. It has everything to offer to the discussion, and yes it is a tangent. For science to "overcome" philosophy, you'd have to show robustly how the hell you can derive an ought from an is. I am not denying that you may some day do it. But for the time being, 2010, I have been utterly unaware of such successes. And it's not because I'm uninformed.
Third, I didn't know that you owned this thread like some dictator to order me around and tell me what to do, "get out".
This is called hyperbole. I think you might have been on The Internet long enough to become familar with it.
It's not called hyperbole, it's called rudeness.
However, in simplest terms, if you refuse to actually engage with an argument, then yes, I think I am fully within my rights to tell you to get out of it. So far when I've asked you to prove that something isn't science, you've gone off on tangents about other subjects. The closest you've come to engaging with my point was actually a concession that anything of reality is science. Since morality is, by your admission, a real though intangible thing, it is also of science.
Ridiculous. I've never avoided any of these things, and on the contrary, it is you who failed to show how to derive an ought from an is. This is also outright silly: "that anything of reality is science". It's not even wrong a sentence, and yet you claim that I said it. How more evidence anyone here requires that you are not understanding what I am saying? What I said was utterly different, that is, I was denying that there is anything more in the world than what's in it. I was denying the supernatural. That's all. To state however that "Reality" (what the hell is that anyway?) is "Science" is one of the most egregiously self-ignorant but outright religious statements any "science-lover" can say. No, reality isn't science. Reality is what it is, it's a metaphysical entity, and I have nothing with it, read Wittgenstein for once. Science is a human activity of gathering knowledge. That's all it is.
It would be good to read ahead on occasion, it might make your arguments more valid...
sigh...
Now, I have used extreme examples in my case, and still in such cases we will find people who disagree "with the norm". This means that in any other less extreme example, we will find such choices completely dominated by desires, by emotions, etc., and they may differ completely person to person. Your solution to this problem is to call anyone who deviates from your norm as "insane". That's utterly Orwellian and I want no part in it.
This has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. I addressed your specific examples with that adjective, so you decide to extend it to any possible disagreement from the norm? That's a pure, blatant straw man. It's utterly deceitful.
For that matter, it doesn't seem to occur to you that insanity covers a myriad of different conditions. You seem to directly equate it with gibbering homicidal lunacy. There are lesser and less-dangerous forms. In fact, in my arguments I could well be considered tolerant in recognizing that while ultimately the belief in, say, a Flat Earth is by this point clearly a form of insanity, it does not necessarily impair functioning and thus it's not something that really needs to be corrected.
It has everything to do with what you wrote, and your last paragraph is a testament to it. Because someone does not accept basic knowledge we do accept about the world, you are eager to classify such people as "insane". Now mind you, if you do so non-seriously and rethorically I'd approve. But to do it scientifically is too much of a stretch. It is orwellian. Specially when you equate Science with Reality! I mean wow.
You seem to have lost part of the point. In fact, the key part. If we can predict the consequences of a nuclear war, does that have no moral authority at all? In fact, if we are biologically wired in a certain fashion that creates human morality as we understand it, does that have no bearing on this discussion?
First question, no. Nothing at all. Data is data, moral interpretation of said data is fully dependant upon the observer. Second question is irrelevant. If we are hard-wired to do X does not teach us if doing X or Not doing X is good or evil. You say it yourself:
On the contrary, it has everything to do with this discussion, because the fact we are wired a certain way does not make it the best way. There are any number of human biological functions that can kill you for no physically sound reason at all. Allergies come to mind.
For instance, someone is hard-wired to indulge in sexual interaction every hour. Should he therefore comply with such hard-wirings, even if it costs him his friends, jobs, etc.? Evolution does not teach us what is "Right". Not even what "Works". It only teaches us what kind of hard-wiring behaviors were able to survive thus far. And some of those hard-wirings are not pleasant, but arguably they did some good job on keeping the human race alive until now.
All previous moral systems have not had the remotest chance to separate the biological imperatives from what is truly the most efficient method to get things done. That chance is here, now. The option should at least be explored, but you would tell me that this cannot be done, that it does not exist!
Oh no, methods of doing something do exist. You just failed to input what exactly is that "Something". Sam Harris defines said "Something" as "human well being". I deem that kind of thing utterly subjective and outright incomplete. Worse, it's circular. What is the best course of action? The one that will create well being. Best and Well are the same kind of stuff. What is well being? Who is in charge of defining what is "Best"? To me, I can think that the best is to extinguish the human race so that planet earth survives. Fortunately I do not think so, but there are people who do. For some, the "best" is to die in martyrdom and have sexual intercourse with 72 young ladies.
Yes, so there you go, it's Borg philosophy in a nutshell. Ok, I won't disagree, it is one possibility. If you really *credit*, favor, desire for efficiency, speed and quantity, then you may derive something from this. But in order to do this, you *must* have these desires first. Don't you see?
No. In simplest terms, you do not. The entire process of evolution refutes you, sir. Evolution is blind, undirected, and results over time in improved efficiency for your environment. We can wait for nature to take its course, if you like, but you will go there whether you want to or not.
So I take it that you find "Evolution" to be a "Good Thing". So your morals are "Whatever survives is good". So, for instance, if nazi germany had won the second world war, that would have been good, because it happened? This is sheer nihilism, sir.
Unless you think we are no longer subject to evolution? Basic biology does not apply? I really don't know what point you're trying to make here.
Yes I can see that you don't. You are free to see evolution in good light and state that evolution is your moral reference. It is not one that I choose, nor one that most respectable biologists do. Most of them are outright leftists because of this awareness. The liberal project is exactly one of negating the process of evolution and stop it altogether. Values such as "equality" for instance are outright anti-darwinian.
Don't you see? What if what I desire is something less efficient, slower? What if I am happier living slower? Then I may reach entirely different conclusions from you.
That's great, but your conclusions are utterly irrelevant in the face of facts. As I said, you're coming along for the biology ride whether you want to or not.
So I guess that because it is unavoidable, it is therefore good? For instance, I die some day. Everyone will die. One can even say that every life form we met will die. Thus this is utterly good? Is this your measure of goodness, the inevitability of it? So why even bother with morals? If what happens is what is good, why have any morals in the first place? Just follow the drill and no one gets hurt! You are drowing in contradictions.
For your consideration I find the state of affairs named "human condition" utterly disgusting and if there's anything we can do to alter it in a good direction we should just do so.
As noted above, this is patently untrue. It is a very poor generalization at best. That you threw in the reducto ad Hitlerum is merely icing on an ass-shaped cake.
wtv
You claim, in other words, that truth does not exist. I propose a simple experiment. Take two food items and eat one. It is now true, if you followed the instructions, that you have one left. Truth exists after all.
I'm not fond of the word Truth taken in its extreme fashion, ie. absolute truth. I can take truths. I just can't stand people professing Truths with capital T.
Still that was not what I was saying. I was saying that I don't think that Absolute Right exists. Which is something different. There are moral relativists who deny truth relativism.
You may be extremely uncomfortable with the search for quantifiable moral truth, but that does not and cannot (by your own admission) invalidate it.
Quantifiable? Really? How do you propose this shenanigan? Utilitarianism? Ah!
without invoking a single desire (desires are not "scientific reasons").
There's your problem. It all comes down to this. They are. I refer you to Battuta back on the first page. The human mind is explicable. Your desires can be explained, and predicted, and influenced through the use of the science.
Desires are not scientific reasons, just as rocks are not scientific reasons. You are confusing categories. Rocks can be observed rather simply, just as desires can. But if desires is what is grounding human moral values, to state that you can observe and even manipulate them, does not inform you if you should, it only informs you that person A is desiring X, and that you can, if you want, make him desire Y. But why would you want such a thing? Your own desires. It's turtles all the way down, mister. Your arguments boil to nothing more than smoke and mirrors unconvering nada. Nothing. Nihilism. Nietzsche warned us all about it, more than a century ago. And even after WW2 there are still people who don't get it.
-
Human well-being is whatever you and the religious whacko would agree human well-being to encompass.
At last, an agreement, except the insult part. Can't you leave him alone?
But I take it that you concede that if human well being is something we should agree on, then it has nothing scientific about it. It's about what we want.
Yep, no naturalistic fallacy there. He's not proposing creating values using science, he's assuming values.
He assumes too much.
Yes, and AFAICT he isn't pretending that. He's saying that fine, you have your values (which can be whatever), but science or a rational, scientific approach can inform you of how to most efficiently act according to those values or which approaches are actually harmful according to your values or perhaps contradictory.
Well, he does hints to more than that. And even accepting it, I'm rather suspicious of certain quantifications. Utilitarianism is dead.
Also at sometime around 0:20 he was (IMO) making the rather inverse point of an "ought" being a basis for every "if". You can't have an "if" without also an implicit "ought" telling how you should formulate your beliefs. If you say that it's raining outside then you're already including an "ought" in that; that is, the methodology of how you're supposed to know whether it's raining or not and how you should communicate that.
Absolutely. But I don't see that as reassuring to his thesis, much to the contrary.
-
(http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm56/HLPHades/ImageMacros/popcorn.gif)
-
Seriously, great thread. Luis is my new hero.
I do think it might help if we refocus on exactly what we're debating about, though. Because there have been enough tangents and refutations of refutations that I'm starting to get a bit lost.
-
Seriously, great thread. Luis is my new hero.
I do think it might help if we refocus on exactly what we're debating about, though. Because there have been enough tangents and refutations of refutations that I'm starting to get a bit lost.
Thanks. Perhaps that will do the trick. The main point, for me at least, is embebbed in the title. Sam Harris is less ambitious and more vague about this subject. But if you search for discussions about this matter, you'll see lots of backs and forths from a variety of intelligent people and Sam Harris himself. We could bring these up, but I am quite tired now, so I'll leave that kind of thing to anyone else.
The problem I have with NGTM is one of an entirely different worldview. So of course many other things will be brought up, because he assumes a lot of things that I don't, and perhaps vice-versa. He's a moral objectivist and a truth absolutist. Perhaps he himself is completely unaware of the arguments and problems that have been posed over the centuries on these positions. But from my point of view, his position has been obliterated somewhere around the nineteenth century. More or less at the same time that god died ;)
-
Human well-being is whatever you and the religious whacko would agree human well-being to encompass.
At last, an agreement, except the insult part. Can't you leave him alone?
Umm, what? I'm not talking about anyone in particular.
But I take it that you concede that if human well being is something we should agree on, then it has nothing scientific about it. It's about what we want.
No, it's not what we should agree on, it's what we agree on. And science has as much relevance to that as it has to our agreement on a scientific issue.
Yep, no naturalistic fallacy there. He's not proposing creating values using science, he's assuming values.
He assumes too much.
Uh, what? People got values. He assumes people got values. How's that assuming too much?
Yes, and AFAICT he isn't pretending that. He's saying that fine, you have your values (which can be whatever), but science or a rational, scientific approach can inform you of how to most efficiently act according to those values or which approaches are actually harmful according to your values or perhaps contradictory.
Well, he does hints to more than that. And even accepting it, I'm rather suspicious of certain quantifications. Utilitarianism is dead.
No, utilitarianism is great.
Also at sometime around 0:20 he was (IMO) making the rather inverse point of an "ought" being a basis for every "if". You can't have an "if" without also an implicit "ought" telling how you should formulate your beliefs. If you say that it's raining outside then you're already including an "ought" in that; that is, the methodology of how you're supposed to know whether it's raining or not and how you should communicate that.
Absolutely. But I don't see that as reassuring to his thesis, much to the contrary.
I think it's reassuring to his thesis in the sense that it shows that almost all people share underlying oughts, and that those oughts say that one should use reason and a scientific'ish approach to things.
-
This is the natural consequence of the secularization of the society. Philosophy and Science have been built as logical and empirical projects of knowledge of facts and patterns, while Religion was built as a moral nav buoy. Disregard for one second the religious question per se and focus on the historical anthropological questions. Science is about what is, Morality is about what should be - these questions are fully separated. (...)
Morality is not the sole domain of religion. You don't even need religion to derive morals and furthermore you can explain through game theory and evolution how those morals came to be.
Just something to ponder upon.
-
ghostavo is correct
philosophy is utterly immaterial to the discussion of almost everything. it is an exercise in masturbation based on the incorrect belief that humans can derive truths from assumptions using flawed heuristics.
science is the only domain of knowledge that has anything meaningful to say about morality. and what it says is that morality is a treaty: meaningful only because people agree to obey it, derived from evolution and memetic mutation in order to regulate stable societies.
there is no good or evil in the fabric of the universe, only mathematics.
-
But they cannot prescribe what they should do.
You are correct. You're just missing the discipline that you need to be talking about.
Evolution, genetics, and behavioural genetics prescribe what we should do. Behaviour is biologically evolved, not just learned. All human societies share similar moral codes (with large variation among them, granted, but the principles they describe are fundamentally the same) because we have evolved to function as a cooperative society. Altruism is quite literally coded into our DNA (as it is with a large number of our primate relatives).
One need not invoke philosophy to explain why we do and should do certain things. Behavioural genetics explains it more than adequately, in conjunction with the other disciplines you've named. Philosophy is akin to religion in many ways - it's a temporary attempt to explain things which we could not yet explain with science. Behavioural genetics is beginning to reach a point where philosophy is nearing its demise as a discipline taken even remotely seriously, because we are rapidly discovering a large number of other species share behavioural (and societal) traits that we have always previously described solely in the human domain. It's fairly clear that Mr. Dias there has some training or interest in philosophy, and while that's all well and good for him, philosophy still suffers from one enormous flaw:
No empirical evidence.
I can show you how behaviour evolves in conjunction (through at least four interaction types) with biology. No one can show me empirical evidence of any of the philosophical principles. It is a discipline based around descriptive and prescriptive ideas, not fact.
EDIT: Sorry Battuta, I added to my post after you replied.
-
that is truth
also
one of the fundamental aspects of human morality seems to be our willingness to do whatever we're told to do, right down to killing our fellow human beings. we are not people with hard cores of moral fiber; we are circuits who do what the environment tells us to. witness the milgram and zimbardo experiments.
grim stuff. explains the holocaust and the military.
-
that is truth
also
one of the fundamental aspects of human morality seems to be our willingness to do whatever we're told to do, right down to killing our fellow human beings. we are not people with hard cores of moral fiber; we are circuits who do what the environment tells us to. witness the milgram and zimbardo experiments.
grim stuff. explains the holocaust and the military.
Yeah, the empirical evidence for groupthink alone shoots the whole "individual innate moral fibre" argument right in the foot. Zimbardo's work was [horrific] genius, too - especially his own reactions to how the experiment was proceeding (he make an excellent video describing how it was his female graduate student that actually brought him back to reality).
-
whom i believe he was involved with somehow, right?
it's worth pointing out that there is a core group of people that seems resistant to paradigms like milgram or zimbardo. i'm open to the notion that religion and illusions of objective morality would help create people like that, though given the history of organized religion it's clear that in most cases they don't.
neither religion nor the notion of objective morality would exist if they didn't have some type of utility.
EDIDDENDUM: also, religion bashers should bear in mind that being religiously active can be very good for you. the actual tenets of the faith you're involved in don't matter - there is no evidence here of any god or supernatural force to bless you - but most faiths tend to gather in congregations, and having a big social network that supports you is very good for life expectancy and happiness.
of course being in an equally big and happy atheist club would probably do just as well.
-
Wow. Now I have little choice but to switch sides for a moment.
But they cannot prescribe what they should do.
You are correct. You're just missing the discipline that you need to be talking about.
Evolution, genetics, and behavioural genetics prescribe what we should do. Behaviour is biologically evolved, not just learned. All human societies share similar moral codes (with large variation among them, granted, but the principles they describe are fundamentally the same) because we have evolved to function as a cooperative society. Altruism is quite literally coded into our DNA (as it is with a large number of our primate relatives).
Saying that evolution, genetics, and behavioural genetics prescribe what we should do is redefining words. They don't tell us what we should do unless go silly and just say that the fact that our ideas of what we should do can be explained by evolution, genetics, and behavioural genetics is the same thing as evolution, genetics, and behavioural genetics telling us what we should do.
One need not invoke philosophy to explain why we do and should do certain things. Behavioural genetics explains it more than adequately, in conjunction with the other disciplines you've named.
Agreed.
Philosophy is akin to religion in many ways - it's a temporary attempt to explain things which we could not yet explain with science. Behavioural genetics is beginning to reach a point where philosophy is nearing its demise as a discipline taken even remotely seriously, because we are rapidly discovering a large number of other species share behavioural (and societal) traits that we have always previously described solely in the human domain. It's fairly clear that Mr. Dias there has some training or interest in philosophy, and while that's all well and good for him, philosophy still suffers from one enormous flaw:
No empirical evidence.
That's true of those parts of philosophy which try to explain things. For example ethics isn't (only) about explaining what and why and how we perceive good or evil, which are purely a matter of "is", but about what we ought.
Epistemology? Sure, empirical science can handle all that. Aesthetics? Why not. Political philosophy and ethics? Not really.
I can show you how behaviour evolves in conjunction (through at least four interaction types) with biology. No one can show me empirical evidence of any of the philosophical principles. It is a discipline based around descriptive and prescriptive ideas, not fact.
Yes, and likewise biology (etc) is a discipline based around facts, not prescriptive ideas.
Just out of curiosity: what would be your biology/genetics/behavioralscience -based non-philosophical answer to the question of why one should be altruistic? Let's say if we're in a situation where you'd like or need some help and I'd have seemingly nothing to gain by giving it. Is your only answer "because your biology will make you feel good if you do it"?
-
Just out of curiosity: what would be your biology/genetics/behavioralscience -based non-philosophical answer to the question of why one should be altruistic? Let's say if we're in a situation where you'd like or need some help and I'd have seemingly nothing to gain by giving it. Is your only answer "because your biology will make you feel good if you do it"?
That's an infinitely better answer than "because my invisible friend says you have to if you don't want to be tortured for eternity."
-
Just out of curiosity: what would be your biology/genetics/behavioralscience -based non-philosophical answer to the question of why one should be altruistic? Let's say if we're in a situation where you'd like or need some help and I'd have seemingly nothing to gain by giving it. Is your only answer "because your biology will make you feel good if you do it"?
the answer is simple - in the evolutionary long term it is:
"if engaging in an altruistic behavior increases my fitness, directly or indirectly" - for example, saving siblings at the cost of your own life can actually give you a better chance of passing on genes (via inclusive fitness) than saving your own life
as a result, tendencies towards altruism may evolve which lead to altruism in specific situations that would not actually cause a fitness benefit (for example, jumping on a grenade). these tendencies are very broad and cannot account for the details of specific situations; they are blind.
there's also the question of whether our cognitive abilities have partially uncoupled our behavior from fitness considerations and we're now just running on the dregs of eusocial adaptation
-
Just out of curiosity: what would be your biology/genetics/behavioralscience -based non-philosophical answer to the question of why one should be altruistic? Let's say if we're in a situation where you'd like or need some help and I'd have seemingly nothing to gain by giving it. Is your only answer "because your biology will make you feel good if you do it"?
the answer is simple - in the evolutionary long term it is:
"if engaging in an altruistic behavior increases my fitness, directly or indirectly"
How does helping you necessarily increase my fitness in other ways than possibly making me feel good? I wasn't talking about evolutionary long term.
-
Just out of curiosity: what would be your biology/genetics/behavioralscience -based non-philosophical answer to the question of why one should be altruistic? Let's say if we're in a situation where you'd like or need some help and I'd have seemingly nothing to gain by giving it. Is your only answer "because your biology will make you feel good if you do it"?
the answer is simple - in the evolutionary long term it is:
"if engaging in an altruistic behavior increases my fitness, directly or indirectly"
How does helping you necessarily increase my fitness in other ways than possibly making me feel good? I wasn't talking about evolutionary long term.
well the behavior originates in the evolutionary long term - maybe, probably - so that's where we need to look. same reason men think breasts are sexy and same reason gay people exist; it all comes down to evolution favoring it.
it's going to be difficult to have this conversation without a mutual background in evolutionary biology, but in a simplified sense, 'fitness' is a measure of how many offspring you can both produce and reasonably expect to survive to reproduce themselves. the offspring of your siblings and relatives also count because they share genes with you and that's all that matters to evolution.
when a behavior increases the probability that you or your offspring (remember offspring count for less) will survive to reproduce, it is selected for; we say it 'evolves'. so, altruistic self-sacrificing behavior will evolve if
1) on average, over the long run, it benefits a close relative more than it hurts your fitness
2) on average, over the long run, it benefits the social group or tribe you belong to in such a way that it increases the fitness of you or your relatives (even if you are dead); this is social group selection.
3) on average, over the long run, you can count on this act of altruism being repaid. in vampire bats, for example, the bats will share blood with each other because they are very reliable at paying each other back.
now there's an additional possible mechanism, which is not yet as well evidenced:
4) the behavior causes the group to survive and a trait of the group is that it teaches the behavior. for example, if a nation teaches its soldiers to jump on grenades to save their comrades, and this causes their soldiers to win wars, causing the nation to survive, causing it to continue teaching the grenade-jumping behavior, the meme coding for that behavior will evolve.
-
Just out of curiosity: what would be your biology/genetics/behavioralscience -based non-philosophical answer to the question of why one should be altruistic? Let's say if we're in a situation where you'd like or need some help and I'd have seemingly nothing to gain by giving it. Is your only answer "because your biology will make you feel good if you do it"?
the answer is simple - in the evolutionary long term it is:
"if engaging in an altruistic behavior increases my fitness, directly or indirectly"
How does helping you necessarily increase my fitness in other ways than possibly making me feel good? I wasn't talking about evolutionary long term.
well the behavior originates in the evolutionary long term - maybe, probably - so that's where we need to look. same reason men think breasts are sexy and same reason gay people exist; it all comes down to evolution favoring it.
it's going to be difficult to have this conversation without a mutual background in evolutionary biology, but in a simplified sense, 'fitness' is a measure of how many offspring you can both produce and reasonably expect to survive to reproduce themselves. the offspring of your siblings and relatives also count because they share genes with you and that's all that matters to evolution.
when a behavior increases the probability that you or your offspring (remember offspring count for less) will survive to reproduce, it is selected for; we say it 'evolves'. so, altruistic self-sacrificing behavior will evolve if
1) on average, over the long run, it benefits a close relative more than it hurts your fitness
2) on average, over the long run, it benefits the social group or tribe you belong to in such a way that it increases the fitness of you or your relatives (even if you are dead); this is social group selection.
3) on average, over the long run, you can count on this act of altruism being repaid. in vampire bats, for example, the bats will share blood with each other because they are very reliable at paying each other back.
now there's an additional possible mechanism, which is not yet as well evidenced:
4) the behavior causes the group to survive and a trait of the group is that it teaches the behavior. for example, if a nation teaches its soldiers to jump on grenades to save their comrades, and this causes their soldiers to win wars, causing the nation to survive, causing it to continue teaching the grenade-jumping behavior, the meme coding for that behavior will evolve.
You're still merely explaining why I'd perhaps help you, not why I should. Evolution explains why I'm the way I am, that is someone who'd probably want to help you, but not why I should do so. Also, all that talk about proliferating one's genes is especially odd considering that I specifically want to not do that.
Let's use this extreme example: we're in a space shuttle somewhere far away, the shuttle is malfunctioning, leaking air, or whatever, and that we'll certainly be dead in an hour. Meanwhile, you're seriously injured and in a lot of pain. I could give you pain medicine or otherwise make you more comfortable before we die. Why should I? Helping you wouldn't increase my fitness in any way. We can even assume that there's no way for anyone else to ever know that I helped you, so that I can't proliferate my good behaviour by setting a heroic example.
What's the non-philosophical answer to why I should help you in that situation? If there is none other than the fact that helping you would probably make me feel good then that's a case of biology/genetics/behavioralscience failing to provide me with an ought which philosophy can provide.
-
You're still merely explaining why I'd perhaps help you, not why I should.
the 'should' is inherent in the 'why': it is a behavior that on the macro scale produces stable self-propagating societies. do you consider that a good? probably, because considering it a good helps create stable self-propgating societies
Also, all that talk about proliferating one's genes is especially odd considering that I specifically want to not do that.
right, but you've inherited a bundle of traits shaped by the desire to do so; the fact that you don't want to reproduce is irrelevant, you've come to that conclusion using tools developed by a system whose fundamental algorithm is the ability to reproduce. you don't need to want to reproduce or even have the ability to in order to play by those rules.
Let's use this extreme example: we're in a space shuttle somewhere far away, the shuttle is malfunctioning, leaking air, or whatever, and that we'll certainly be dead in an hour. Meanwhile, you're seriously injured and in a lot of pain. I could give you pain medicine or otherwise make you more comfortable before we die. Why should I? Helping you wouldn't increase my fitness in any way. We can even assume that there's no way for anyone else to ever know that I helped you, so that I can't proliferate my good behaviour by setting a heroic example.
the reason why you will attempt to alleviate my suffering is that you possess mirror neurons and other evolved empathic systems that make you suffer pain when you see pain; these systems evolved because they gave a fitness advantage to those that possessed them, perhaps by rendering their groups more competitive
helping would not increase your fitness in any way but that's never the question you should ask, helping is driven by systems which evolved because over the long run at the macro scale they increased fitness
What's the non-philosophical answer to why I should help you in that situation? If there is none other than the fact that helping you would probably make me feel good then that's a case of biology/genetics/behavioralscience failing to provide me with an ought which philosophy can provide.
biology/genetics/behavioralscience provide you with an answer to why you should help me in that situation: because you are inclined to by systems which evolved because they provided a fitness advantage
if you are asking 'should those systems remain in place', you'll need to turn to another branch of science to answer that question - use game theory and social science to determine which behaviors lead to the outcomes you desire (for example, human survival or improved socioeconomic index)
philosophy can provide no answers because it is non-falsifiable and non-empirical; all philosophies are equally meaningless until they are applied and as soon as they are applied they become scientific and thus the domain of science
-
I think Battuta answered your responses to my post quite nicely, so I'll refrain from adding to it (for the sake of avoiding redundancy) unless further clarification is required =)
-
Actually, I believe the military has done extensive research on some of these subjects. War by Sebastian Junger touched on some of their findings when discussing such concepts as sacrificing one's life to save your fellow soldiers. It might be worth looking up some of the military's work since they seemed to have invested quite a bit of time and effort into figuring this stuff out.
edit> fixed a typo
-
I think Battuta answered your responses to my post quite nicely, so I'll refrain from adding to it (for the sake of avoiding redundancy) unless further clarification is required =)
but you're better at this!
fwiw i can see the point zookeeper's making - if science only explains why you're likely to act in a given why, not how you ought to act, then the ought is open to philosophy, but i think that a) social sciences and game science allow you to determine the best strategies in any given situation to achieve an outcome, and b) the question of which outcomes are good is answered by examining our own evolution and neural wiring
starslayer: i had the good fortune to work under jean decety, a neuroscientist/psychologist who studies empathy and specifically just that question of military behavior. fascinating stuff
-
You're still merely explaining why I'd perhaps help you, not why I should.
the 'should' is inherent in the 'why': it is a behavior that on the macro scale produces stable self-propagating societies. do you consider that a good? probably, because considering it a good helps create stable self-propgating societies
Also, all that talk about proliferating one's genes is especially odd considering that I specifically want to not do that.
right, but you've inherited a bundle of traits shaped by the desire to do so; the fact that you don't want to reproduce is irrelevant, you've come to that conclusion using tools developed by a system whose fundamental algorithm is the ability to reproduce. you don't need to want to reproduce or even have the ability to in order to play by those rules.
Let's use this extreme example: we're in a space shuttle somewhere far away, the shuttle is malfunctioning, leaking air, or whatever, and that we'll certainly be dead in an hour. Meanwhile, you're seriously injured and in a lot of pain. I could give you pain medicine or otherwise make you more comfortable before we die. Why should I? Helping you wouldn't increase my fitness in any way. We can even assume that there's no way for anyone else to ever know that I helped you, so that I can't proliferate my good behaviour by setting a heroic example.
the reason why you will attempt to alleviate my suffering is that you possess mirror neurons and other evolved empathic systems that make you suffer pain when you see pain; these systems evolved because they gave a fitness advantage to those that possessed them, perhaps by rendering their groups more competitive
helping would not increase your fitness in any way but that's never the question you should ask, helping is driven by systems which evolved because over the long run at the macro scale they increased fitness
What's the non-philosophical answer to why I should help you in that situation? If there is none other than the fact that helping you would probably make me feel good then that's a case of biology/genetics/behavioralscience failing to provide me with an ought which philosophy can provide.
biology/genetics/behavioralscience provide you with an answer to why you should help me in that situation: because you are inclined to by systems which evolved because they provided a fitness advantage
That's...circular reasoning. You're telling me I should help you because I want to help you. You're telling me that because my desire to help you is explainable by biology/genetics/behavioralscience, it means that biology/genetics/behavioralscience is telling me why I should help you. You're still not giving me a logical reason why I should help you (even in the above-mentioned kind of situations).
See, when I'm asking "why should I help you?", I'm asking you to explain to me why helping you would be a logical thing for me to do regardless of whether I'd like to help you regardless of whether I got a monkey brain or not - I'm not asking for an explanation of how the kind of monkey brain I possess evolved and what neurons are involved in producing the (arguably very compelling) sensation of "help fellow monkey, help fellow monkey!".
Wouldn't it be more accurate for you to say that there are no oughts, period? That when I'm asking you why I should help you, your answer is actually "you shouldn't, but luckily you do anyway"? That seems to be how you see it and it's pretty close to what I think as well, but I do think it's a big fallacy to try to equate that with "you should, because of mirror neurons".
-
i understand what you're saying, and you're right, I didn't do a great job of answering that, since you're correct that 'should' or 'ought' is not the same as 'why'
the reason you help me is because you want to help me, and the reason you want to help me is because in the distant evolutionary past, the people who didn't have traits that made them want to help in a situation like this were out-bred by those who did. i suppose there's no 'should' there. i'm not sure there's any meaning to 'should', because 'should' seems to imply 'should according to...', and all the possible values of 'according to' are moralities which evolved.
that's all. it doesn't feel like much, i'm sure, but that's all the meaning there is in the world: cause and effect. and yes, i'm not really sure i believe that there are 'thoughts'; i certainly don't believe in free will as some sort of acasual nucleus of independent action. i'm guessing we agree on that.
so i think i see that the nucleus of our disagreement these last few posts is simply the use of 'should'. i suppose i'd say that the way you should act is completely contingent on what you want the outcome to be, but the only way to know what the outcome to be is to look at past data and build a model, which is science; and the reasons you value certain outcomes over others are also rooted in science, namely our evolutionary past
i'd take a stab at answering this, then
I'm asking you to explain to me why helping you would be a logical thing for me to do regardless of whether I'd like to help you regardless of whether I got a monkey brain or not
i'd say that no braintype-agnostic, purely 'logical' answer is possible because the type of brain you have - monkey brain, fish brain, space brain, brain of pure thought - determines what you consider the 'good' outcomes to be, and that the way you ought to act in the situation is simply to achieve said good outcome
does that do a better job of things?
also, you and everyone else may be very interested in this (http://speculativeheresy.wordpress.com/2008/11/26/the-semantic-apocalypse/), by a writer who challenges me and who i am therefore fond of
-
ok, I have a small point I want to make, I haven't read all of the stuff that happened since this thread turned fun yet, so pardon me if this has been covered.
science is a rigorous method for determining fact, it is the only known way for you to be able to determine if a belief you have correlates with the physical world, and the physical world is the only realm which has thus far (somewhat circularly) been proven to exist within reality. So, science is the tool which you can used to determine if an assertion is within the realm of what we know of as real or not.
Now, it has been asserted that science can not tell you what you 'should' do. In the simplest of contexts this is true, however, if you were to state a goal, then science most certainly can tell you at least one way that you could accomplish this goal, or if said goal is not possible. Assuming a possible goal (which as mentioned in the previous sentience science can determine if a goal is possible or not) science can tell you which courses of action will be most efficient from the perspective of what ever variable involved you are interested, or even unequally weighted combinations of variables, which will result in the accomplishment of your goal.
Now you might be saying to yourself well he just changed the word 'should' with the word 'goal'. This is not true, if you flatly and unconditionally make the claim that science can not tell you what you should do then it effectively denies science's ability to predict, which is perhaps it's most import capability. So perhaps I have just pushed it back closer to where the true fundamental problem lies.
So let us go on one more step, let us assert the goal of determining a goal. Well, a goal is a end state that an entity or collection of entities would 'want' to accomplish or come asymptotically close to. So in order to accomplish our stated goal, we will need to define 'want', why would an individual or group of individuals 'want' something? fortunately as has been mentioned ad nausium in this thread there are entire fields of science dedicated to understanding the source of, and predicting desires both in individuals and groups of humans. So assuming that these fields of science are not complete dead ends we should be able to come up with goals that should correlate with the maximum number of people and conflict with the minimum. it is then a 'simple' matter of figuring out the optimal configuration of variables to fulfill these goals in the most efficient manner possible.
Science can tell us what we want, science can tell us if a given situation is closer to or further from one of the desired outcomes that maximizes these wants, or if that situation is likely to lead toward or away from one of these outcomes. Further science can tell us what we should do to get it, and what we should not do in order to avoid a state that we would not want.
so it seems to me that science should be perfectly capable of determining a moral system, and I would assert that it would produce one far more efficient than any of the one devised thus far.
-
i understand what you're saying, and you're right, I didn't do a great job of answering that, since you're correct that 'should' or 'ought' is not the same as 'why'
the reason you help me is because you want to help me, and the reason you want to help me is because in the distant evolutionary past, the people who didn't have traits that made them want to help in a situation like this were out-bred by those who did. i suppose there's no 'should' there. i'm not sure there's any meaning to 'should', because 'should' seems to imply 'should according to...', and all the possible values of 'according to' are moralities which evolved.
Yes, I agree with all that except perhaps the last bit. Our brains are so versatile and re-programmable that I think it's fair to say that people do develop moralities which are can't really be called a result of evolution as such. Just like (most of) the things you do cannot be attributed to your parents even though you couldn't have as much as existed without them, you can't really attribute all systems of morality which people come up with to evolution, even though obviously those systems of morality are developed with brains which evolved.
that's all. it doesn't feel like much, i'm sure, but that's all the meaning there is in the world: cause and effect. and yes, i'm not really sure i believe that there are 'thoughts'; i certainly don't believe in free will as some sort of acasual nucleus of independent action. i'm guessing we agree on that.
Yes, of course.
so i think i see that the nucleus of our disagreement these last few posts is simply the use of 'should'. i suppose i'd say that the way you should act is completely contingent on what you want the outcome to be, but the only way to know what the outcome to be is to look at past data and build a model, which is science; and the reasons you value certain outcomes over others are also rooted in science, namely our evolutionary past
Yes (except for the part I already disagreed above).
i'd take a stab at answering this, then
I'm asking you to explain to me why helping you would be a logical thing for me to do regardless of whether I'd like to help you regardless of whether I got a monkey brain or not
i'd say that no braintype-agnostic, purely 'logical' answer is possible because the type of brain you have - monkey brain, fish brain, space brain, brain of pure thought - determines what you consider the 'good' outcomes to be, and that the way you ought to act in the situation is simply to achieve said good outcome
does that do a better job of things?
Yes, and I more or less agree with that.
-
Yes, I agree with all that except perhaps the last bit. Our brains are so versatile and re-programmable that I think it's fair to say that people do develop moralities which are can't really be called a result of evolution as such. Just like (most of) the things you do cannot be attributed to your parents even though you couldn't have as much as existed without them, you can't really attribute all systems of morality which people come up with to evolution, even though obviously those systems of morality are developed with brains which evolved.
You're missing part of Battuta's point. The way a human brain develops anything, including morality, maps cleanly to an evolutionary process without being "evolution" as the term is used in biology. You are more than your biology, but the system of development used in biology is also valid for explaining how you adapt to environment.
-
i understand what you're saying, and you're right, I didn't do a great job of answering that, since you're correct that 'should' or 'ought' is not the same as 'why'
the reason you help me is because you want to help me, and the reason you want to help me is because in the distant evolutionary past, the people who didn't have traits that made them want to help in a situation like this were out-bred by those who did. i suppose there's no 'should' there. i'm not sure there's any meaning to 'should', because 'should' seems to imply 'should according to...', and all the possible values of 'according to' are moralities which evolved.
Yes, I agree with all that except perhaps the last bit. Our brains are so versatile and re-programmable that I think it's fair to say that people do develop moralities which are can't really be called a result of evolution as such. Just like (most of) the things you do cannot be attributed to your parents even though you couldn't have as much as existed without them, you can't really attribute all systems of morality which people come up with to evolution, even though obviously those systems of morality are developed with brains which evolved.
Everything we do and are is, one way or another, a product of our biology. This is what I'm getting at by pointing people to behavioural genetics. There is empirical evidence that the following processes all occur in nature (independently and in concert).
1. Genes determine behaviour directly.
2. Behaviour alters (and therefore determines) gene expression directly.
3. Environment directly alters gene expression.
4. Learning incorporates behaviour into memory, both neural and genetic (Lamarck's revenge, you might call this discovery... hello epigenetics). This incorporation can be passed to offspring.
5. Behaviour determines selection of organism's environment, and therefore genes can actually determine environmental selection (refer to point 1)
6. An organism's environment can alter it's behaviour, and indirectly change it's gene expression (refer to point 2)
This explanation is best captured (though not best understood, which is why I typed it out, by a simple diagram:
Genes <-> Behaviour <-> Environment <-> Genes
We are a product of these three things. Thus, our morality is produced by the synergistic effects of our genes, our environment (this includes learning and other people), and our behaviours. Two out of the three are governed by evolutionary processes.
You can't think of behavioural evolution in the same simplistic terms that biological evolution is taught, because evolution is taught only in its most basic form to the majority of people. The bulk of the information incorporated into evolutionary theory applies equally to biology and behaviour because they are both derived from the same sources.
So the simple answer is: your morality is not determined by individual thought, no matter how much we all like to think so. As it happens, free will is primarily an illusion as well.
-
On the subject of how altruism can show up from game theory (and related issues),more recommended reading:
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Cooperation-Robert-Axelrod/dp/0465021212
This has turned out to be one of those rare, extremely interesting threads, albeit very challenging... carry on!
-
[totally off-topic]Why is it that every time Battuta uses the word "heuristics," I wind up wincing? I read an article once about certain words that just "look ugly" to a particular person, and I think that's one of mine. It's the "eu" combination, I think. Same reason I'm not a big fan of French[/totally off-topic]
Also, I really don't want to get dragged into this particular conversation in the least, but it does strike me that ascribing the sorts of analytical processes to daily decisions that Battuta and Ryan have done in this thread seems to me to be, well...nothing short of boring. Ignorance really is bliss, so I think I'll stick with it and have fun.
-
and just like how you don't need to be a computer scientist or electrical engineer to receive the fruits of those fields in the form of the computer you are using, you don't need to spend your life working this out if you don't want to, it seems other people are already on it.
-
The difference here, though, is that I'd be rather interested in hearing from the computer scientists and electrical engineers about the particulars of their work, whereas the sorts of studies Battuta talks about seem like they'd be actively detrimental to my basic enjoyment of everyday life. But hey, to each their own. :p
-
does understanding that in a computer game you are not blowing up machinery and aliens, but rather manipulating a small collection of numbers in a low accuracy simulation which is displayed as a bunch of triangles with a procedural color pastern applied to it rendered onto a 2d bitmap which is used as the source for a lighted grid lessen your enjoyment of blowing up aliens in a video game?
I'm catching up now, BTW.
"The main point, for me at least, is embebbed in the title."
yeah I did that on purpose, and because it seems to have been rewarded with the effect I desired, I will continue to use it in the future.
OK, caught up, I am amazed at how well my post fit into this thread, it's almost like the discussion hadn't moved an inch in two pages.
-
does understanding that in a computer game you are not blowing up machinery and aliens, but rather manipulating a small collection of numbers in a low accuracy simulation which is displayed as a bunch of triangles with a procedural color pastern applied to it rendered onto a 2d bitmap which is used as the source for a lighted grid lessen your enjoyment of blowing up aliens in a video game?
No, but that's because said video game is a relatively-disposable piece of entertainment, not the foundations of the human condition itself. Like, I'm sorry, Battuta, but if I looked at my own regular daily thoughts and actions through the same filter that you seem to, I'd probably swiftly drive myself insane. I just couldn't handle it. More power to you if you can, but I'd rather not go down the road of breaking my thought processes down to binary code.
-
Mongoose, so understanding say.... physics drives you insane?
After all, it's the foundation of reality in which the human condition rests.
-
I'm sorry, Battuta, but if I looked at my own regular daily thoughts and actions through the same filter that you seem to, I'd probably swiftly drive myself insane. I just couldn't handle it. More power to you if you can, but I'd rather not go down the road of breaking my thought processes down to binary code.
Just curious- why is that? After reading the last few pages (late to the party, I know), 'tutta is simply explaining our thoughts (needs and desires) based on biology and environmental conditioning. Our thoughts, and the wants and desires that the last page has been discussing, have a basis in our brain chemistry which is directly molded by our biology. I would much prefer these processes to be understood- and therefore predictable- than unknown and uncertain.
I wish I could have participated in the discussion on the last page but I'm not that knowledgeable on the subjects at hand- the rebuttals are better left to the likes of 'ttuta and MP-Ryan.
-
Mongoose, so understanding say.... physics drives you insane?
After all, it's the foundation of reality in which the human condition rests.
Amusingly enough, the more we've learned about the modern branches of physics, the more we've come to realize that what we call "understanding" can only go so far. I think Feynman said it best: "Anyone who says that they understand Quantum Mechanics does not understand Quantum Mechanics." :p But to answer your question, no, studying basic physical laws doesn't make me uncomfortable in the least, because I consider them much more in the realm of abstractions. But being in a situation where you're always self-analyzing your every action, thinking to yourself, "Oh hey, I felt like donating money to that charity because behavioral evolution has conditioned me to perform social group altruism"? Yeah, pretty sure that'd drive me off the deep end.
Just curious- why is that? After reading the last few pages (late to the party, I know), 'tutta is simply explaining our thoughts (needs and desires) based on biology and environmental conditioning. Our thoughts, and the wants and desires that the last page has been discussing, have a basis in our brain chemistry which is directly molded by our biology. I would much prefer these processes to be understood- and therefore predictable- than unknown and uncertain.
Quite simply, it's because, unlike Ryan and Battuta, I'm of the firm belief that we are each more than a simple product of our physical biology. I believe that there is an intangibility to us, something that can't be explained away by performing a complete neural mapping and analysis of active brain chemistry. And in that context, for my own satisfaction in what I consider to be the purpose of my own life, I'd rather not delve down those paths myself.
-
We don't always need to self-analyze our every action, unless you also feel the need to analyze the physics around you.
Or do you go about walking everyday thinking "You know, I don't go about floating because of gravity, also, I can walk because of attrition, etc."? :P
-
Honestly, I think there's a little corner of my brain that does. :p
-
Of course we do. Every single time we learn something new, we apply it to daily routine.
For example, now I use to watch floors trying to determine how radioactive they could be. Fear Radon.
-
Fear Radon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AM0tIenSGk
Don't fear Radon, fear boredom.
-
Boredom hardly kills, though. :p
-
@NGTM-1R and MP-Ryan:
Yes, if he meant evolution in a wide sense (not just biological), then sure, I agree. We can indeed say that pretty much anything evolved, no problem there.
So the simple answer is: your morality is not determined by individual thought, no matter how much we all like to think so. As it happens, free will is primarily an illusion as well.
I don't see a contradiction there. I consider myself to have free will yet I'm also a determinist. I know my morality is a result of cause and effect with no magic to it, but that doesn't mean my morality isn't determined by my individual thought. My individual thought determines my morality, and my individual thought is both a result and limited by the physical world, evolution, genetics, whatever. All of those things fit together just fine if you ask me.
-
philosophy is utterly immaterial to the discussion of almost everything. it is an exercise in masturbation based on the incorrect belief that humans can derive truths from assumptions using flawed heuristics.
science is the only domain of knowledge that has anything meaningful to say about morality. and what it says is that morality is a treaty: meaningful only because people agree to obey it, derived from evolution and memetic mutation in order to regulate stable societies.
there is no good or evil in the fabric of the universe, only mathematics.
^This would be the prog rock opera to end all prog rock operas.
-
Yes, if he meant evolution in a wide sense (not just biological), then sure, I agree. We can indeed say that pretty much anything evolved, no problem there.
oh, you mean like the evolishinologistical theory of thermodynamics, chemistry and cosmology?
-
Yes, if he meant evolution in a wide sense (not just biological), then sure, I agree. We can indeed say that pretty much anything evolved, no problem there.
oh, you mean like the evolishinologistical theory of thermodynamics, chemistry and cosmology?
A what? I'm guessing the answer would be no, though.
-
I'm loving this thread so much, now... I'll go ahead and indulge myself by dropping the bomb:
So conscience basically a product of evolution?
Personally this is what bugs me the most, we can all talk about rights and wrongs for as long as we like, but if we're gonna start taking all that science says as fact (which I believe to be a smart move BTW) then we have to eventually wonder if our right-wrong concepts are based solely on evolution, genetics, or whatever else that might have changed those.
This is what troubles me the most, the fact that we can actually be what we are just because of evolution, and that there's nothing more, nothing at all.
It scares the **** out of me, cause I like to believe that we have conscience for something else rather than just being better survivors.
-
I'm afraid we have a conscience just to be better survivors.
Of course we now have cognitive capabilities and can decide what to do with ourselves. We're no longer tied to optimizing our fitness. We can decide that morality is important because we say it's important. So no reason to be scared.
-
I'm afraid we have a conscience just to be better survivors.
Of course we now have cognitive capabilities and can decide what to do with ourselves. We're no longer tied to optimizing our fitness. We can decide that morality is important because we say it's important. So no reason to be scared.
Does that count as "free will?" Sounds like it to me, if I understand what you're saying here.
-
I'm afraid we have a conscience just to be better survivors.
Of course we now have cognitive capabilities and can decide what to do with ourselves. We're no longer tied to optimizing our fitness. We can decide that morality is important because we say it's important. So no reason to be scared.
Does that count as "free will?" Sounds like it to me, if I understand what you're saying here.
What I mean is simply that units of cognitive information disseminated through language are increasingly a part of the networks we use to make decisions.
'Free will' as a nucleus of acausal purely arbitrary decisionmaking ability does not exist. 'Free will' as I think zookeeper might put it, the ability to make a decision based on the sum of our instincts, experience, history, instantaneous environmental factors, biology, and cultural context - with perhaps an element of pseudorandomness introduced by chaotic systems - probably does.
If you define 'free will' as the ability to make a different decision if all factors in a scenario are the same, no, it doesn't exist; but if you define free will as the ability to make the exact same decision every time all factors are the same, including factors which may be specific to you such as your own beliefs and experiences (but which were still derived causally), it's a concept perfectly compatible with the causal, empirical universe.
-
We're no longer tied to optimizing our fitness.
We are not?
The majority of us still choose the better option to increase our survivability.
Sure, we are choosing, but there's a cloaked hand behind our choices, every day we wake up and we can choose to have a nice breakfast or jump out of the window, and yet (for most of us) we don't even THINK about the second choice, see that, not even crossing my mind for a split second there.
-
We're no longer tied to optimizing our fitness.
We are not?
The majority of us still choose the better option to increase our survivability.
looooool
cite (you won't be able to)
it's of course still an influence, we're not going to make arbitrary decisions, but our moral systems are definitely not fitness-optimized because the timescales they operate on are far too short
-
We're no longer tied to optimizing our fitness.
We are not?
The majority of us still choose the better option to increase our survivability.
Sure, we are choosing, but there's a cloaked hand behind our choices, every day we wake up and we can choose to have a nice breakfast or jump out of the window, and yet (for most of us) we don't even THINK about the second choice, see that, not even crossing my mind for a split second there.
equally, pushing someone off the window ledge to decrease intraspecific competition for mates and noms doesn't cross our minds either (unless the person in question is an asshole)
-
I'm afraid we have a conscience just to be better survivors.
Of course we now have cognitive capabilities and can decide what to do with ourselves. We're no longer tied to optimizing our fitness. We can decide that morality is important because we say it's important. So no reason to be scared.
Does that count as "free will?" Sounds like it to me, if I understand what you're saying here.
Conscious decision making does not equate to free will, because such decisions are made within a context created by the biological parameters I've already discussed. Battuta is referring to conscious decision making.
Free will is traditionally thought as the ability to make ANY decision from the available pool of limitless possibilities and attempt to carry it out. It has a quasi-religious connotation because it is frequently used as an excuse for why a deity of choice permits bad things to occur. Free will in this sense, however, does not exist. I could no more choose to go out and massacre the inhabitants of my neighborhood than I could cause my physical form to spontaneously manifest on the moon - I have a conscience, personal morality, ability to comprehend potential outcomes, and conscious decision making ability. While conscious decision making (and self-awareness) permit every person the illusion of free will, the gene-behaviour-environment interactions I discussed earlier limit the pool of available choices from infinite to a very narrow subset based upon who we have become as people through those interactions in our evolutionary ancestry and our personal development from conception.
Thus, the illusion - "I could, but I won't because." The fact that humans are self-aware makes us think we aren't constrained in our behaviour, but the truth is that we are - morality and a conscience are two of the ways biology successfully masks our inability to choose from the infinite pool. We have evolved those two mental characteristics over time to allow us to function as a species with collective societies. What our social morality/conscience actually says to each individual is of comparatively little importance compared to the end product of formation of groups with similar morality. This is why that, among groups with a shared morality, individuals with different moral codes are often shunned, segregated, and in many societies outright killed - they challenge the social norms and cooperation of the group. That's also part of the reason why it is so difficult to force change in particular behaviours among religious groups (see: treatment of women in fundamentalist Islamic/Christian/Jewish cultures).
-
I'll cite myself, thank you.
Every day we wake up and we can choose to have a nice breakfast or jump out of the window, and yet (for most of us) we don't even THINK about the second choice, see that, not even crossing my mind for a split second there.
If that's not enough, then I'll ask why is it that the world population only seems to grow.
Now I'm starting to feel that tomorrow I might think just for a second on this other stupid option :p
-
Interesting perspective, thanks.
-
I'll cite myself, thank you.
Every day we wake up and we can choose to have a nice breakfast or jump out of the window, and yet (for most of us) we don't even THINK about the second choice, see that, not even crossing my mind for a split second there.
If that's not enough, then I'll ask why is it that the world population only seems to grow.
Now I'm starting to feel that tomorrow I might think just for a second on this other stupid option :p
failed
go back to this post and try again:
We're no longer tied to optimizing our fitness.
We are not?
The majority of us still choose the better option to increase our survivability.
looooool
cite (you won't be able to)
it's of course still an influence, we're not going to make arbitrary decisions, but our moral systems are definitely not fitness-optimized because the timescales they operate on are far too short
-
Agreed.
I cannot battle with you 'tutta :D
-
you're not wrong that of course our behavior is still influenced by our evolutionary heritage - nobody here would argue differently - but you're definitely wrong that every decision we make is fitness-optimized, because evolution doesn't work on the timescales our cognition does
-
'Free will' as a nucleus of acausal purely arbitrary decisionmaking ability does not exist. 'Free will' as I think zookeeper might put it, the ability to make a decision based on the sum of our instincts, experience, history, instantaneous environmental factors, biology, and cultural context - with perhaps an element of pseudorandomness introduced by chaotic systems - probably does.
Kinda. My main point is that my instincts, experience, biology etc define me; if I choose to not push you out the window then whatever brain activity it was that made me choose that is part of me, and therefore the choice was still internal (that is: mine), not forced upon me by external forces. If an external force causes me to do or not do something, then that external force doesn't constrain me, it changes me.
It's called compatibilism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism).
-
Yes. Though I'd add the qualification that all forces are ultimately 'external' in that the brain has no intrinsic information content beyond that provided by its DNA-coded structure. But I agree with what I think you're saying.
-
you're not wrong that of course our behavior is still influenced by our evolutionary heritage - nobody here would argue differently - but you're definitely wrong that every decision we make is fitness-optimized, because evolution doesn't work on the timescales our cognition does
To complete, as I sense this is not really understood by some judging from some of the replies, note that fitness doesn't necessarily mean survival.
-
It scares the **** out of me, cause I like to believe that we have conscience for something else rather than just being better survivors.
The alternative, that we were deliberately given one by an egocentric deity that spies on your sex life, scares the **** out of me more. :p
-
It scares the **** out of me, cause I like to believe that we have conscience for something else rather than just being better survivors.
The alternative, that we were deliberately given one by an egocentric deity that spies on your sex life, scares the **** out of me more. :p
just think of the universe as a giant reality tv show and it starts making sense
-
It scares the **** out of me, cause I like to believe that we have conscience for something else rather than just being better survivors.
The alternative, that we were deliberately given one by an egocentric deity that spies on your sex life, scares the **** out of me more. :p
just think of the universe as a giant reality tv show and it starts making sense
I think that's the scariest alternative yet proposed.
-
It scares the **** out of me, cause I like to believe that we have conscience for something else rather than just being better survivors.
The alternative, that we were deliberately given one by an egocentric deity that spies on your sex life, scares the **** out of me more. :p
just think of the universe as a giant reality tv show and it starts making sense
I think that's the scariest alternative yet proposed.
Worse then the universe being a dedicated server of the the Sims?
-
At least that wouldn't be as bad as the whole thing being a competitive StarCraft game.
-
Worse then the universe being a dedicated server of the the Sims?
Not nearly enough people have been walled inside their bathroom mysteriously for that.
-
Conscious decision making does not equate to free will, because such decisions are made within a context created by the biological parameters I've already discussed. Battuta is referring to conscious decision making.
Free will is traditionally thought as the ability to make ANY decision from the available pool of limitless possibilities and attempt to carry it out.
you see the problem I have with this definition of free will is that it effectively boils down to saying that free will equates to completely random, nonsensical behavior. I prefer to define free will as any rational decision making process which can come to any possible conclusion if given a proper stimulus. I do not think that free will is nesicaraly mutually exclusive with determinism, and it only makes since to say that they are if you define one as being the opposite of the other, which seems like a foolish way to define such things. unless your concept of free will is, as I said, complete randomness, then saying that it must be nondeterministic is just unfounded.
for further info (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism)
-
If I may make a small point regarding the goals of religion: originally (and it can still be witnessed in the religions of Mesopotamia and Egypt, as well as the old stories of the OT) religion was created to explain the world. Why things are the way they are (why the sky seems to touch the earth at the horizon, why there's fresh water coming out of the sea near Bahrain, why there's a Nile-flooding every year, etc.)
Using religion to instill morality is a later concept.
It's an evolution that's visible in the ancient texts and it's an evolution that is generally accompanied by an evolution of the way the deities behave. Usually they start out damn nasty (the gods of ancient Mesopotamia were not a nice bunch), only to mellow out as the concept of religion itself matures.
just as an aside.
-
At least that wouldn't be as bad as the whole thing being a competitive StarCraft game.
We're still in the "20 minutes no rush phase" .... just wait ;)
-
nuclear launch detected