What is the appeal of "objective morality"

[BadBoy]

I cannot attach the word "maximal" to suffering without the associated concept of ordinality - this state is worse than that state and better than this other state. Not in the sense that I can't make such statements at all, or that they don't have any meaning, but that they do not have meaning in the same way I would handle numbers. I would not say, "I'll take a pound of misery please, so I can have 5 pounds of happiness later." - for whatever unit we use (is it utils?).

There are also too many subjective dimensions involved, not all of which are visible, and some of which change the nature of the others when they become visible. Some even have a self-fulfilling prophecy aspect about them.

However, I am largely unfamiliar with the arguments of utilitarianism, so I expect this ground has been covered better than I could do.

Just to give an example: Would it be moral (based on Harris' ideas about well-being) to pursue a path with a 100% chance of visiting the maximum worst state for some period for a 40% chance of gaining a state better than I am in now, for some unspecified period of time? And, if I do the calculation incorrectly, should I feel guilty about it?

The mathematization just doesn't work for me. If I know that killing everyone on the planet yields the lowest level of suffering - no humans, so no suffering - but also the minimal amount of well-being, how am I to understand this?

What makes the whole thing really strange is that we are asked to evaluate where we are against some hypothetical, a hypothetical that may even be impossible to achieve. How could we ever have a "worst" state (or a "best") so long as even the impossible is there for us to imagine?

Plus, the worst state may be unavoidable. Some day I will die. On that day, I will have arrived at the worst possible state (subjectively) for me. Does this mean my death is the most immoral thing of all? And, if I cannot avoid it, why bother with all the day-to-day stuff? Do moral choices accumulate somehow? It seems odd to think that 40 years of a high level of well-being somehow mitigates the next 20 spent suffering (or some other mix).

It's all very muddled in my mind.

I see your point, but I don't parse his idea in the same way you do.

I understand it as more of a thought experiment to illustrate how morality can be grounded and manifest in the natural world. That there are advantages to being altruistic. It's not a formula for working out what is the correct moral choice in any given scenario, and that each choice has to be analyzed and that is exactly what we very often do. I think Leumas post explains it quite well

Science can investigate and even assign morality because it all can be analyzed and investigated rationally and scientifically to evaluate what would be the best choices if one is trying to maximize overall human happiness and minimize miserable decisions (e.g. religion) that are made by illogical, ill-informed, people who are only trying to maximize their chances of entry into magical realms at the expense of the wellbeing of humanity.

For example, in more enlightened and progressive communities we no longer condone slavery. As far as I can see we have evolved socially to understand that it is not good to own another human being. Where did that come from? Where's the moral absolute that says this and why didn't it exist 2000 years ago?

The point is the Romans kept slaves because they thought it was o.k. morally to do so at some level (natural order of things?). They didn't make a decision to just "be bad" and go against some moral absolute written in the sky or on a stone. Slavery was just accepted. You were not a bad person to keep slaves.

Just as the poor girl in the Maldives that was about to be stoned for getting pregnant while not married was considered morally acceptable to their government.

 

[IanS]

There are some non-moral objective norms that I think we would all accept, a few of which I mentioned up-thread. I've reworded the second one to avoid the unnecessary appearance of conditionality.

(1) It is better to believe truth that falsehood, generally speaking.
(2) One ought to do what is necessary to bring about the ends he is committed to.
(3) One ought not, insofar as it is possible, accept an inconsistent set of beliefs.

I think that each of these statements is objective, not conditional on one's desires, and true. They apply to all rational beings, regardless of any subjective features, such as desires, wants, preferences, etc.

I think you are very obviously wrong - all your above examples certainly do depend entirely upon the individuals personal "desires". Take each one in turn -

"(1) It is better to believe truth that falsehood, generally speaking."

First of all, that statement actually admits that this is a human "belief" to begin with! You are talking about someone's personal "belief". And what anyone believes is a subjective matter, their "belief" is not an objective thing, far less is the belief certain to be actually true.

And then you say that is "better" .... "better" for what purpose? Again that is an entirely personal subjective notion in which you have failed to state what the individuals aim is when he/she says they are taking a "better" course of action ... "better" for what purpose or aim of that individual?

And even after that you have the two extremely ill-defined notions of what that same hypothetical individual thinks is "true" or "false" ... and those again are most certainly personal beliefs by that individual ... he or she only believes anything to be "true" or "false".

So that first example is packed from end to end with the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

OK, lets look at the next example -

"(2) One ought to do what is necessary to bring about the ends he is committed to."

That's exactly what I said ... but as soon as you state what that aim is, i.e. what you say he/she is "committed to" as an end they wish to "bring about", then it's clearly open to science to say whether the individual is doing something sensible to bring about that particular end/outcome, or not.

But your statement is not by any means correct anyway. Because it says the person "should do what they believe is necessary" to bring about some unstated end/outcome. But that is clearly not true! They certainly should not always do whatever they think is "necessary", if what they believe to be the necessary procedure is lethally undesirable (and that's again entirely only their subjective opinion anyway!). OK, I really can't be bothered to go on with this ... your examples are clearly entirely the opposite of what you are trying to claim, and not remotely objective things devoid of the persons subjective beliefs ... on the contrary they are absolutely packed with those personal subjective beliefs.

... what you are doing, in every example, is trying to formulate a semantic dodge by the selective use of certain words, and the selective omission of all manner of essential qualifying statements.

You need to produce a genuine example of anything at all that is claimed to be a real thing (as distinct from anyone's mere thoughts or claimed beliefs), that is inherently beyond the capacity of study and explanation by science ... I asked you that question before, but I think your reply was yet more evasive semantics ; it was certainly not any kind of genuine answer.

I only ask you that question because just on the face of things, off the top of my head, I cannot actually think of any real event or process that is inherently outside the possible remit of science to study even in principle. So -

- can you please provide a clear example of any real event or process (or any other such adjective that you wish to use), that is inherently incapable of being studied and explained scientifically?

 

[PixyMisa]

I think you are very obviously wrong - all your above examples certainly do depend entirely upon the individuals personal "desires".

Exactly. Not only are those statements not objectively true, they're not even objectively meaningful.

 

[David Mo]

Three important precisions:
1. An intersubjective agreement is not an objective reason. We can agree with a norm by emotive (not rational) reasons.
2. Violence, herd instinct, egotism, etc. also are evolutionary products. Nature provides us with both cooperative and aggressive impulses. Nature is morally neutral. The natural empathic impulses can be a base to implement moral decisions. But moral decisions are different to natural impulses.
3. Even if we have natural impulses to some moral actions (empathic) this doesn’t mean that we ought to obey these impulses at any circumstance. Any system of moral imposes (unnatural) restrictions to our sexual impulses. Some people think that we have to resist sexual impulses always. This is a moral question that we cannot resolve with any scientific argument.
Therefore:

Sam Harris has an easy-to-understand method of addressing morality, which I will paraphrase here: Compare two hypothetical societies. In one of them, everyone is suffering immensely. Death, torture, and rape run rampant. In the other one, everyone's life is extremely pleasurable. Everyone is happy, productive, and cooperative. From this, we can further imagine a gradient of "societal value" that every real-world community must rest upon. We can also infer that certain actions will have an effect on how a community moves upon that continuum. For example, terrorism and disease will move us closer to the "bad side," whereas curing diseases and ending wars will move us closer to the "good side." We can label these actions immoral and moral respectively. And that's not just a matter of opinion. These are predictable real-world results that can be analyzed scientifically.

Harris’s argument is not scientific, but analytical: he just says how people use the word “good/moral” in a wide community. See my point 1 above. But this consensus is artificial because is based on ideal circumstances.

Some objections:
1. The same words often mean different things to different people. “Terrorism” is a good example.
2. It is not true that everybody think that torture is bad in all circumstances. Remember Guantanamo.
3. In the real world our moral values interact in dialectical manner. This is to say that freedom is opposed to security, competition to cooperation, individualism to community, straightness to compassion, social justice to freedom, and so on. Imaginary states without any conflict between them are utopic. Not scientific.

When you analyse with more precision the alleged “hypothetical” moral state you see that this image lacks coherence and what the people call “moral” begins to be more and more ambiguous. This is not “easy-to-understand” in anyway.
And it has nothing to do with science. We are in the field of philosophy.

 

[Belz...]

I won’t waste my time expecting you to support this conclusion. You can’t.

This again? You steadfastly refuse to educate yourself on cognitive science and then proudly declare that it can't explain anything, presumably because, if it did, it would challenge your beliefs.

You've been presented with the evidence and reasoning before, but you've ignored it. No one can be expected to give you the benefit of the doubt anymore.

 

[David Mo]

There are some non-moral objective norms that I think we would all accept, a few of which I mentioned up-thread. I've reworded the second one to avoid the unnecessary appearance of conditionality.
(1) It is better to believe truth that falsehood, generally speaking.
(2) One ought to do what is necessary to bring about the ends he is committed to.
(3) One ought not, insofar as it is possible, accept an inconsistent set of beliefs.

I think that each of these statements is objective, not conditional on one's desires, and true. They apply to all.

I don't think so. (1) was denied by Nietzsche; (2) was denied by Montaigne; (3) was denied by Camus. These normative sentences are denied by some kinds of scepticism. Therefore they are not evident by themselves.

Finally, science still has a limited role in norms that are conditional. You've expressed these as hypothetical statements, but they can also be represented in syllogistic form, with one example below.

I want to bring about X.
Doing Y is necessary in order to bring about X.
Therefore, I ought to do Y.
​

We can see here that the conclusion is dependent on two premises. Science is the best method we know for coming up with reliable data about the second premise, but science really doesn't play any role in the first premise. Thus, this argument isn't really a scientific argument, since it contains features that are outside the scope of science. Nonetheless, science plays an important role in reliably figuring out what we ought to do, because science is extremely good at determining causal relations.

On this, I agree.

 

[David Mo]

- can you give any example of what you would call moral behaviour, that is inherently beyond any scientific investigation?

-

Excuse me, but I think your question is not well targeted. Science has a lot of things to say about the moral behaviour. I understand “moral behaviour” as the kind of behaviour that is managed by a categorical order or a system of rules about the rightness, final good, etc. Psychology, sociology, neuroscience, etc. can explain why and how we adopt a moral behaviour. They also can explain if our factual assumptions combined by the moral imperatives are true or false. And science also can evaluate the coherence of our system of moral beliefs.

The problem with science (rationality) and moral lies in the properties and the justification of the sentences. Scientific sentences are justified by truth value. But moral principles are justified by the force of an imperative (orders, commandments) “You ought to do X” is not true or false; it is imperative or it is not.

- can you please provide a clear example of any real event or process (or any other such adjective that you wish to use), that is inherently incapable of being studied and explained scientifically?

Perhaps I have not explain it correctly.

NO. There is not any event or process that is inherently incapable of being studied and explained scientifically.

But the justification of an imperative is not question of events or processes (only). We can agree on facts (events, processses) and disagree on what we have to done.

"Ought to" is not equal to "is".

 

[phiwum]

I think you are very obviously wrong - all your above examples certainly do depend entirely upon the individuals personal "desires". Take each one in turn -

"(1) It is better to believe truth that falsehood, generally speaking."

First of all, that statement actually admits that this is a human "belief" to begin with! You are talking about someone's personal "belief". And what anyone believes is a subjective matter, their "belief" is not an objective thing, far less is the belief certain to be actually true.

And then you say that is "better" .... "better" for what purpose? Again that is an entirely personal subjective notion in which you have failed to state what the individuals aim is when he/she says they are taking a "better" course of action ... "better" for what purpose or aim of that individual?

And even after that you have the two extremely ill-defined notions of what that same hypothetical individual thinks is "true" or "false" ... and those again are most certainly personal beliefs by that individual ... he or she only believes anything to be "true" or "false".

So that first example is packed from end to end with the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

I'm a bit confused by much of what you say here.

Let's start with your comments about belief. Each of us has different beliefs, of course, but this norm is about what we ought to believe. I think that every rational being accepts this norm, because I think an essential feature of rationality is aiming to believe what is true.

Let's look at your complaint about true and false. You're right that you and I may differ on which beliefs are true or false, because we have incomplete knowledge and faulty reasoning, but truth itself is objective. A belief is true if it expresses actual features of the world around us (not a very good definition of truth, but it will do for now). This fact is independent of whether we know it is true or not.

What the norm expresses is that we all prefer that the things we believe are accurate representations of the world. It doesn't say that we are infallible in judging whether this is so, but that this is what we aim for.

Finally, "better for what purpose?" Simply better. I can't believe that you need a reason to believe truth over falsity. I think that, even if there is some claim which has no practical advantages, I would prefer to believe the truth about that claim rather than otherwise.

Are you seriously saying that you are indifferent about whether your beliefs are true or false, all other things being equal?

OK, lets look at the next example -

"(2) One ought to do what is necessary to bring about the ends he is committed to."

That's exactly what I said ... but as soon as you state what that aim is, i.e. what you say he/she is "committed to" as an end they wish to "bring about", then it's clearly open to science to say whether the individual is doing something sensible to bring about that particular end/outcome, or not.

But your statement is not by any means correct anyway. Because it says the person "should do what they believe is necessary" to bring about some unstated end/outcome. But that is clearly not true! They certainly should not always do whatever they think is "necessary", if what they believe to be the necessary procedure is lethally undesirable (and that's again entirely only their subjective opinion anyway!). OK, I really can't be bothered to go on with this ... your examples are clearly entirely the opposite of what you are trying to claim, and not remotely objective things devoid of the persons subjective beliefs ... on the contrary they are absolutely packed with those personal subjective beliefs.

I think you misread that. It says that one should do what is necessary. I didn't mention belief about necessary means, but necessity itself. (To be sure, perhaps mentioning belief is better.)

It is implicit in the statement of that norm that if the necessary means are too onerous, then one ought to give up the end to which he is currently committed. Nothing in the norm requires that we do not change our commitments no matter what.

... what you are doing, in every example, is trying to formulate a semantic dodge by the selective use of certain words, and the selective omission of all manner of essential qualifying statements.

You need to produce a genuine example of anything at all that is claimed to be a real thing (as distinct from anyone's mere thoughts or claimed beliefs), that is inherently beyond the capacity of study and explanation by science ... I asked you that question before, but I think your reply was yet more evasive semantics ; it was certainly not any kind of genuine answer.

I only ask you that question because just on the face of things, off the top of my head, I cannot actually think of any real event or process that is inherently outside the possible remit of science to study even in principle. So -

- can you please provide a clear example of any real event or process (or any other such adjective that you wish to use), that is inherently incapable of being studied and explained scientifically?

Each of these are examples, and I stand by them.

The logical rules of inference are also examples. We do not gain faith in Modus Ponens, for instance, by looking at examples in which the application appears valid. No observation adds certainty to the validity of Modus Ponens.

 

[phiwum]

Exactly. Not only are those statements not objectively true, they're not even objectively meaningful.

I don't understand why you think they're not meaningful. Please elaborate.

I also don't understand why you think they're not objectively true. I think it is the aim of every rational being to come to true beliefs, insofar as it is possible to do so. I don't think any rational being is indifferent on believing truth or falsity.

 

[phiwum]

I don't think so. (1) was denied by Nietzsche; (2) was denied by Montaigne; (3) was denied by Camus. These normative sentences are denied by some kinds of scepticism. Therefore they are not evident by themselves.

Can you elaborate on the denials you refer to?

Thanks.

 

[marplots]

I see your point, but I don't parse his idea in the same way you do.

I understand it as more of a thought experiment to illustrate how morality can be grounded and manifest in the natural world. That there are advantages to being altruistic. It's not a formula for working out what is the correct moral choice in any given scenario, and that each choice has to be analyzed and that is exactly what we very often do. I think Leumas post explains it quite well.

I don't have a problem with this part, since the "aboutness" of moral reasoning does draw from the facts available to us and that picture can be made fuller by scientific investigation. But I see it as input into the moral decision, not the answer to a moral question.

For example, in more enlightened and progressive communities we no longer condone slavery. As far as I can see we have evolved socially to understand that it is not good to own another human being. Where did that come from? Where's the moral absolute that says this and why didn't it exist 2000 years ago?

I am a relativist, so I don't think there is an objective morality to turn to.

The point is the Romans kept slaves because they thought it was o.k. morally to do so at some level (natural order of things?). They didn't make a decision to just "be bad" and go against some moral absolute written in the sky or on a stone. Slavery was just accepted. You were not a bad person to keep slaves.

Just as the poor girl in the Maldives that was about to be stoned for getting pregnant while not married was considered morally acceptable to their government.

Slavery and stoning are examples I assume you use because you expect everyone to agree that they are morally abhorrent. But under Harris' recipe, you would first have to figure out the consequences for overall well-being that flow from those acts, and only then decide if they were moral.

You might find, for instance, that slavery and stoning actually generated an improvement in overall well-being. I'd suppose that at least some of the practitioners thought enough of these things to keep doing them.

If that seems like too much, as I read Harris, he would also advocate a temporary moral good from slavery, provided it was necessary (or even likely in a Bayesean sense) to lead to an improved state. That's a problem.

In fact, I'm starting to think his formulation is a very good argument against objective morality, because I can't get it to work, and it should work if objective morality were true.

I wonder what Harris would respond to this challenge?
"I cannot be happy in a world where slavery is allowed, even if it is permitted for the greater good."

If morality is relative and ranked by each of us in our own frame of reference, it's not going to sum nicely. In fact, I think it's common enough for someone to have four out of five (for example) "good" things and not be any better off than if they had three.

Is someone who kills a dozen people more morally tainted than someone who only kills ten? Is it the same jump as between two and zero?

ETA: I think I agree with Massimo Pigliucci critique of Harris here (scroll down for the article): http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-02-02/

 

[annnnoid]

I will bow out at this point.

When one encounters a frothing loon who has not the self awareness to even spell the name of their interlocuters correctly, well, one must either disengage or be honest. Honesty is not an option. Were I to speak my mind, I would buy a ban in very short order.

Congratulations. You have managed to convince yourself that you have won again. Your lack of integrity is utterly intact.

Can you explain what you think those quotes prove?

Here’s a trick question tsig: If I have a complicated question about neuroscience do I ask…

- tsig
- abaddon
- a neuroscientist

It is ok to say we don't know, yet. However to say we will never know is to know more that you can possible know.

…and where did I say we will never know? But…in case it has escaped your notice… one of the things cognitive science is about is exactly that: ‘knowing’. What does it mean to ‘know’ something? It is not just that there does not exist any clear understanding of the answer…there doesn’t exist any understanding period. It is a complete and utter mystery… but you do it all the time.

So…on the one hand it is a complete and utter mystery…and on the other hand it is the exact opposite (cause if it was as much of a mystery to you as it is to science you sure wouldn’t be doing it…would you)! How do you suppose those two opposing conditions are reconciled?

But it’s not just you. Every scientist on the planet HAS to conclude (just like Leumas HAS to conclude) that every moment of every day they are 100% of something which their discipline has absolutely no ability to ultimately explain.

To try an link mental cognition to gods and religion is just playing god of the gaps, as another poster has just said.

Where am I linking cognition to gods and religion. Faith is faith. It’s just as much of a mystery as everything else. Denial is also denial.

You say we have choice. If we don't know where a thought comes from, how can you assert that. For all you know our thoughts are injected into us from a higher being that enjoys puppetry.

“I am the captain of my soul, the master of my destiny.”….that’s how.

You are grasping at straws. There is absolutely no evidence at all for a universal objective morality and certainly none that could be attributed to a higher being.

The evidence for a universal objective morality is everywhere all-the-time. The evidence is the simple fact that the vast majority of men / women respond similarly to similar challenges and conditions. We have shared values. There is, IOW, much more that unites us than divides us. No one has the slightest idea where any of this comes from, but the majority sure do agree that this is what happens.

As for where it actually does come from….well, it most indisputably did NOT come from us (or did you create you?). Meaning, it comes from somewhere else. Given that science currently hasn’t a clue what a ‘you’ is and where it comes from, it is quite reasonable to characterize that ‘somewhere else’ as a higher authority since it creates you.

Or would you characterize ‘something’ that creates / uncreates you as a ‘lower authority’?

People who claim that there are things that do not come under the purview of science want to confound and confuse with linguistic legerdemain and puffs of semantic smoke under which to materialize their wishful thinking and illusions.

…and yet, Leumas, you (and, presumably…science) continue to avoid the questions. Your record so far is 0 and 8. Not looking good for you Leumas. Does kind of undermine your credibility when you keep frothing that science can answer everything… but it cannot answer any of this:

Provide a scientific explanation for ‘you’….keeping in mind that there doesn’t exist a scientist on the planet who has a clue how your brain creates ‘you’.

…and since that seems way out of your league (and that of science…so far), simply provide a definitive scientific explanation for how you created that post.

…and if that is too difficult…simply provide a definitive scientific explanation for how you produced ONE letter.

…just one letter Leumas. Surely your magnificent science can manage one…measly…letter!

Inevitably you will fail to answer these questions (not least of all because no one can). So it seems that there are, in fact, vast areas over which science currently has no clear domain.

This again? You steadfastly refuse to educate yourself on cognitive science and then proudly declare that it can't explain anything, presumably because, if it did, it would challenge your beliefs.

You've been presented with the evidence and reasoning before, but you've ignored it. No one can be expected to give you the benefit of the doubt anymore.

Where have I ever argued that cognitive science can’t explain anything? You never produce anything to substantiate this claim.

…why is that?

 

[Belz...]

Where have I ever argued that cognitive science can’t explain anything? You never produce anything to substantiate this claim.

…why is that?

Well, maybe if you waited for my answer instead of, as usual, concluding that there is no answer in the same post as your question, you might learn something. But since you're obviously not interested in learning something, what's the point?

Every time this topic comes up, you throw your hands in the air and demand evidence for cognitive science knowing anything. It's presented, you hand-wave it away, rinse, repeat.

There's no point in repeating this exercise. I'm just pointing and laughing.

 

[Pup]

The evidence for a universal objective morality is everywhere all-the-time. The evidence is the simple fact that the vast majority of men / women respond similarly to similar challenges and conditions. We have shared values. There is, IOW, much more that unites us than divides us. No one has the slightest idea where any of this comes from, but the majority sure do agree that this is what happens.

As for where it actually does come from….well, it most indisputably did NOT come from us (or did you create you?). Meaning, it comes from somewhere else. Given that science currently hasn’t a clue what a ‘you’ is and where it comes from, it is quite reasonable to characterize that ‘somewhere else’ as a higher authority since it creates you.

Not just humans. Other animals respond similarly to similar challenges. Bees work tirelessly for the queen. Many animals will endanger themselves to protect their young. Are you saying a higher authority tells bees to devote their life to the queen? Or is consciousness enough to make humans so special that they have a higher authority but no other animals do?

 

[abaddon]

Congratulations. You have managed to convince yourself that you have won again. Your lack of integrity is utterly intact.

Except that I did not declare unilateral victory, I simply stated that engaging with such arrant nonsense is a fools errand

Here’s a trick question tsig: If I have a complicated question about neuroscience do I ask…

- tsig
- abaddon
- a neuroscientist

Congratulations. You finally spelled it right. You do not want to consult any of those. You want to invoke woo as the answer. Good luck with that.

…and where did I say we will never know?

Probably never because you are aware that the moment you make any affirmative claim, there will be an avalanche of rebuttals.

But…in case it has escaped your notice… one of the things cognitive science is about is exactly that: ‘knowing’. What does it mean to ‘know’ something? It is not just that there does not exist any clear understanding of the answer…there doesn’t exist any understanding period. It is a complete and utter mystery… but you do it all the time.

Oh, hello solipsism, I've not seen you in three posts.

So…on the one hand it is a complete and utter mystery…and on the other hand it is the exact opposite (cause if it was as much of a mystery to you as it is to science you sure wouldn’t be doing it…would you)! How do you suppose those two opposing conditions are reconciled?

False dichotomy.

But it’s not just you. Every scientist on the planet HAS to conclude (just like Leumas HAS to conclude) that every moment of every day they are 100% of something which their discipline has absolutely no ability to ultimately explain.

Yet they all somehow fail to walk out into those imaginary highways full of traffic. Just like solipsists. Odd, that.

Where am I linking cognition to gods and religion. Faith is faith. It’s just as much of a mystery as everything else. Denial is also denial.

And the Spaghetti Monster of the gaps is the Spaghetti Monster of the gaps. But those gaps keep shrinking as science moves forwards so that the mental gymnastics required to sustain are confined to ever smaller gaps and the moves deployed become ever more extreme.

“I am the captain of my soul, the master of my destiny.”….that’s how.

Yer not. It's a delusion.

The evidence for a universal objective morality is everywhere all-the-time.

Is it? Where?

The evidence is the simple fact that the vast majority of men / women respond similarly to similar challenges and conditions.

Covert misogyny insert noted.

We have shared values.

No we don't.

There is, IOW, much more that unites us than divides us.

Borderline.

No one has the slightest idea where any of this comes from, but the majority sure do agree that this is what happens.

Flat out fabrication.

As for where it actually does come from….well, it most indisputably did NOT come from us (or did you create you?). Meaning, it comes from somewhere else.

Is that you, God of the Gaps? Hi.

Given that science currently hasn’t a clue what a ‘you’ is and where it comes from, it is quite reasonable to characterize that ‘somewhere else’ as a higher authority since it creates you.

Well, no. That is called primitive superstition. You are quite welcome to subscribe to it. I prefer not to do so.

Or would you characterize ‘something’ that creates / uncreates you as a ‘lower authority’?

No, I wouldn't. But I have yet to see any evidence that such an imaginary being actually exists.

…and yet, Leumas, you (and, presumably…science) continue to avoid the questions. Your record so far is 0 and 8. Not looking good for you Leumas. Does kind of undermine your credibility when you keep frothing that science can answer everything… but it cannot answer any of this:

You continue to miss the ethos and modus operandi of science. Why?

Provide a scientific explanation for ‘you’….keeping in mind that there doesn’t exist a scientist on the planet who has a clue how your brain creates ‘you’.

No problem. Right after you provide your religious explanation for 'you'.

…and since that seems way out of your league (and that of science…so far), simply provide a definitive scientific explanation for how you created that post.

…and if that is too difficult…simply provide a definitive scientific explanation for how you produced ONE letter.

…just one letter Leumas. Surely your magnificent science can manage one…measly…letter!

Inevitably you will fail to answer these questions (not least of all because no one can). So it seems that there are, in fact, vast areas over which science currently has no clear domain.

That would be Information Theory, another science which seems to have evaded your attention.

Where have I ever argued that cognitive science can’t explain anything? You never produce anything to substantiate this claim.

…why is that?

That is because you are content to ignore the research and ascribe pretty much anything to god/angels/spirits/unicorns/whatever you make up.

 

[abaddon]

Wow. You are not just cherry-picking sentences, you are cherry-picking individual words.

Then you are wrong.

I won’t waste my time expecting you to support this conclusion. You can’t. The following is a direct quote from the people in the

neurology

department at University College London:

“We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain.”

You failed dismally to provide the actual citation. Who said that? When did they say it? What was the context?

But no matter, I did what you should have done and found it.

This is it, and it turns out that it doesn't mean what you pretend it does. It is from Richard Frackowiak and he has neglected to account for emergent behaviours, much as you have neglected to account for the latest research.

Or, to give you some idea how much is actually understood about how the brain works, we have Jeff Lichtman from the

neurology

department at Harvard:

“Lichtman likens neuroscience on the whole to a staircase with a million stairs. At the top is a complete one-to-one mapping of the human brain. "We maybe have gone one step,"

Your position is that goddidit and no steps should be undertaken at all.

Those quotes come from neuroscientists…but what do they know! You’re abbadon.

Still can't bring yourself to spell correctly.

When you shut down your internet connection at the end of a long day, you rock! You’ve won every argument, you’ve vanquished every foe. You are triumphant!

This is so wrong on every level.
1. My internet is up 24/7 because my company has customers ranging from SoCal to UK to HU to JP.
2. Once again, this is not a competition. Why do you think it is?

…you’re also completely wrong about everything. But that’s a minor detail.

Yet you are unable to support the assertion that I am wrong about everything without resorting to the usual slander of the woo peddler. Why would that be?

 

[annnnoid]

Well, maybe if you waited for my answer instead of, as usual, concluding that there is no answer in the same post as your question, you might learn something. But since you're obviously not interested in learning something, what's the point?

Every time this topic comes up, you throw your hands in the air and demand evidence for cognitive science knowing anything. It's presented, you hand-wave it away, rinse, repeat.

There's no point in repeating this exercise. I'm just pointing and laughing.

That’s called being dishonest. You have made this accusation numerous times. You have never produced any evidence to support this accusation. Yet somehow I am to blame for pointing out this fact?????

So I’ll ask once again…you make the claim that I have argued that cognitive science ‘does not know anything’. Once again you fail to produce any evidence that I have ever made this argument.

Once again I ask: Why do you do that?

Or…alternatively…you could take this wonderful opportunity and produce this evidence that you so resent being asked to produce.

Not just humans. Other animals respond similarly to similar challenges. Bees work tirelessly for the queen. Many animals will endanger themselves to protect their young. Are you saying a higher authority tells bees to devote their life to the queen? Or is consciousness enough to make humans so special that they have a higher authority but no other animals do?

I get the impression you find the idea of a ‘higher authority’ of any variety somewhat repugnant. Unfortunately, however you want to arbitrate the matter, such is reality. Everything that exists is, ultimately, a function of something that no-one has the slightest comprehension of. Since everything is a function of this ‘thing’…this ‘thing’ can quite accurately be regarded as a ‘higher authority’. The degree to which it is accurate or appropriate to conceptualize ‘everything’ (or our relationship with it) in such a manner is, ultimately, as unanswerable as the mystery which we are a function of. People do. That is evidence of something. Is it right, is it wrong…there are no answers to these questions. Such is also reality. And considering how singularly unique ‘consciousness’ is, it would hardly be a stretch to allow that it might endow human beings with some unique qualities.

<SNIP>

Edited by jsfisher: 

Post edited for compliance with rules 0 and 12 of the Membership Agreement.

 

[Belz...]

I will use your own words (rephrased a little) as my answer to you and others who keep straw manning and responding to posts they have not read and making up stuff about the posters they are responding to without having ever bothered to read their posts which negate the made up stuff if only they have read them in the first place.

I haven't been strawmanning you. I'm asking you to post substantive answers rather than dismiss people with images.

 

[Belz...]

That’s called being dishonest.

I know; that's why I called you on it.

You have made this accusation numerous times.

Every time you display the behaviour. I have given you the benefit of the doubt before but you squandered all your opportunities to prove me right. I won't make that mistake again.

You have never produced any evidence to support this accusation.

See, you're doing it again!

Once again I ask: Why do you do that?

I've already explained it for all to see. I would like to say that it's surprising that you haven't seen it, but given the very thing I was describing, it's just par for the course.

 

[Belz...]

Congratulations on wasting however much time it took to write all that.

And you're still doing it. Now you can safely pretend that Abaddon never posted any of that. Great!