Split Thread Science cannot explain consciousness, therefore....

[Tommy Jeppesen]

To the highlighted part - neither can you or I - all we can say is that blue is the "best colour in my opinion".

If I say "blue is the best colour" - all I am saying is that it is the best (whatever that even means) colour in my opinion. My opinions are just behaviours so again unless you hold that behaviours like opinions are supernatural or have a component that is supernatural science can predict and even "tell me" what is the best colour for me.

We are already seeing "science" telling us what - for example - is the "best movies for me" based on information obtained from our ratings of other movies and so on.

You don't understand - do you?

To believe in (a) God is a natural behavior and not to believe in (a) God is a natural behavior. Either one can be observed in different humans or can change over time in a single human. But science can't tell us, whether believing or not believing in (a) God is morally right or wrong. Science can tell us, that science can tell us nothing about the supernatural. To claim to know that there is (a) God or no gods is philosophy and/or religion and not science.

So science can tell us that if someone doesn't like the idea of killing a given human, that someone probably won't like the idea of killing another human. Or if if someone else does like the idea of killing a given human, that someone else probably will like the idea of killing another human.
But science can't tell us if killing a human is morally right or wrong. To kill a human is a natural behavior. To claim it is either right or wrong is also a natural behavior.

With regards

 

[Darat]

You don't understand - do you?
To believe in (a) God is a natural behavior and not to believe in (a) God is a natural behavior. Either one can be observed in different humans or can change over time in a single human. But science can't tell us, whether believing or not believing in (a) God is morally right or wrong. Science can tell us, that science can tell us nothing about the supernatural. To claim to know that there is (a) God or no gods is philosophy and/or religion and not science.

...snip...

Given your paragraph following the highlighted question it is clear that you don't understand.

There is nothing profound in your point, it is merely the result of the sloppiness inherent in the English language.

In the sense you are using "God is morally right or wrong." it is a meaningless question/phrase because you are not realising the assumptions built into the language.

All you can tell me is your answer to that question and it is rapidly becoming apparent that science can indeed model you well enough to tell me what your answer would be if I asked you.

So science can tell us that if someone doesn't like the idea of killing a given human, that someone probably won't like the idea of killing another human. Or if if someone else does like the idea of killing a given human, that someone else probably will like the idea of killing another human.
But science can't tell us if killing a human is morally right or wrong. To kill a human is a natural behavior. To claim it is either right or wrong is also a natural behavior.

With regards

Yes it is a natural behaviour, one that science seems to be well on its way of describing/modeling well enough to tell me your answer.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

...
Yes it is a natural behaviour, one that science seems to be well on its way of describing/modeling well enough to tell me your answer.

I am a former professional soldier. Is that enough?
I am an atheist, secular humanist, academic skeptic, currently not using drug addict, has a disability pension based on a psychiatric disorder, votes center in politics(Europe) and an anti-realist and subjectivist/relativist, when it comes to morality and ethics. Yes, I am a philosopher also.

So what do I believe when it comes to killing another human?

 

[Darat]

The methodology of science requires objectivity. Morals and ethics are subjective, they are not descriptive(not evidence) and not objective(they are biases and dependent on the brain(observer)).

That an act is morally wrong can't be based on observation(external sensation) and is a feeling/emotion in part. Reason can play a part, but there are always feelings/emotions and first person subjective evaluation; i.e. a bias.

You need to reword your statement:

That an act is morally wrong to me can't be based on observation(external sensation) and is a feeling/emotion in part. Reason can play a part, but there are always feelings/emotions and first person subjective evaluation; i.e. a bias.[/quote]

Science has no inherent problem in describing bias whether in humans or the spinning of a wheel.

What science can do - in principle - do is tell me what you will/would consider to be "morally wrong".

Stop using a strawman. To claim something is subjective is not claim that it is supernatural. And, no that all reality is objective, is not so in practice and if you don't understand that, then that is a case of subjectivity. That you don't understand that some of behavior you do, is subjective, is subjective behavior.

With regards

I am not using a strawman but if you want to claim that science can't model what your "morals" are then you are claiming there is an aspect of such behaviour that is not part of the natural world. That is a conclusion from your claim.

But see my post above, the problem is that you are not unfolding the assumptions built into your question/claim.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

No, I am saying that a scientist as a scientist can't use science to tell whether killing another human is morally right or human. She/he can tell us, if it is morally right or wrong to her/him as human, but not as a scientist.

 

[Darat]

I am a former professional soldier. Is that enough?
I am an atheist, secular humanist, academic skeptic, currently not using drug addict, has a disability pension based on a psychiatric disorder, votes center in politics(Europe) and an anti-realist and subjectivist/relativist, when it comes to morality and ethics. Yes, I am a philosopher also.

So what do I believe when it comes to killing another human?

What is the 10⁹⁸⁵⁶⁷ digit of PI? What you don't know the answer so science can't work it out?

I unfortunately do not have enough data or a quite accurate model of you or generic human behaviour to be able to give you an answer. That is not to say that in principle science can't ever have enough data or accurate enough models to model your morality. As I said "science" i.e. research/learning is getting more and more accurate at working out our "subjective" likes and dislikes. I find it quite disconcerting but also quite wondrous.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

What is the 10⁹⁸⁵⁶⁷ digit of PI? What you don't know the answer so science can't work it out?

I unfortunately do not have enough data or a quite accurate model of you or generic human behaviour to be able to give you an answer. That is not to say that in principle science can't ever have enough data or accurate enough models to model your morality. As I said "science" i.e. research/learning is getting more and more accurate at working out our "subjective" likes and dislikes. I find it quite disconcerting but also quite wondrous.

We agree, but a scientist as a scientist still can't tell whether killing another human is morally right or wrong to science. The scientist stops being a scientist and answer as human whether killing another human is morally right or wrong to her/him.

 

[Darat]

We agree, but a scientist as a scientist still can't tell whether killing another human is morally right or wrong to science. The scientist stops being a scientist and answer as human whether killing another human is morally right or wrong to her/him.

Science says nothing, science is just something humans do, whether that be calculating the chances of a Tesla car colliding with the earth within a million years or predicting which people will default on a loan or which movies you will like.

A scientist or rather the model they have created could be used to say "Tommy Jeppesen will state that X is morally wrong".

Now what has this got to do with consciousness or whether science can explain consciousness or not?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Science says nothing, science is just something humans do, whether that be calculating the chances of a Tesla car colliding with the earth within a million years or predicting which people will default on a loan or which movies you will like.

A scientist or rather the model they have created could be used to say "Tommy Jeppesen will state that X is morally wrong".

Ahh, the map/model and landscape. Morality, as something humans do or X is morally right, wrong or not moral to a given human, is part of the landscape. A scientist makes maps, but when a scientist answer whether X is morally right, wrong or not moral to her/him, she/he stops making maps/models and becomes a human like everybody else and stops being a scientist.

Now what has this got to do with consciousness or whether science can explain consciousness or not?

From consciousness to experiencing to qualia to subjectivity/morality/ethics. There is something scientists can't do, they themselves can't answers as scientists whether X is morally right, wrong or not moral to themselves using science. Morality to someone is a part of the landscape and not the map/model. In a natural and physical world there is a limit to the methodology that scientists uses.

 

[LarryS]

We agree, but a scientist as a scientist still can't tell whether killing another human is morally right or wrong to science. The scientist stops being a scientist and answer as human whether killing another human is morally right or wrong to her/him.

I disagree - in principle, science can 'do morality', in that moral decisions can be conducted as functions, having inputs and outputs. We may not like the output, or all agree with the function - but heh, that's morality.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I disagree - in principle, science can 'do morality', in that moral decisions can be conducted as functions, having inputs and outputs. We may not like the output, or all agree with the function - but heh, that's morality.

What do you mean by input?

The current input is feelings/emotions(subjective) sometimes in conjunction with reasoning and produces biases(subjective). Morality/ethics is subjective.

So again, what do you mean by input and would you make them objective as according to the scientific methodology?

Likewise with functions; they have to be objective as according to the scientific methodology.

Unless you can explain it beyond just these words about functions, having inputs and outputs; I will treat it as pseudo-science.

 

[LarryS]

for example, X = desired population and Y = current actual population

IF Y > X THEN Murder OK

obviously a simple function, and not to our liking, but not that far off from

X = religion of an individual, Y= desired religion

IF X<>Y THEN KILL

 

[Darat]

Ahh, the map/model and landscape. Morality, as something humans do or X is morally right, wrong or not moral to a given human, is part of the landscape. A scientist makes maps, but when a scientist answer whether X is morally right, wrong or not moral to her/him, she/he stops making maps/models and becomes a human like everybody else and stops being a scientist.



From consciousness to experiencing to qualia to subjectivity/morality/ethics. There is something scientists can't do, they themselves can't answers as scientists whether X is morally right, wrong or not moral to themselves using science. Morality to someone is a part of the landscape and not the map/model. In a natural and physical world there is a limit to the methodology that scientists uses.

You are still making the same mistakes, I am sorry that I'm not able to help you understand the points I was making - which the above does not address by the way - we are reduced to repeating the same thing to one another.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Science says nothing, science is just something humans do, whether that be calculating the chances of a Tesla car colliding with the earth within a million years or predicting which people will default on a loan...

What is your method of filtering out bias when predicting one's individual behavior in a social environment?

 

[Darat]

What is your method of filtering out bias when predicting one's individual behavior in a social environment?

I may be misunderstanding you as your question doesn't seem to make much sense to me but I'll try and answer what I think you mean.

If we are trying to model human behaviour then that model has to incorporate bias since that is part of human behaviour so we wouldn't be looking to filter out bias behaviour in that model.

 

[Tassman]

There is no one moral system grounded in nature. There are several competing and contradictory moral systems grounded in nature.

We have evolved as a social species and all our ethical systems reflect this empirically verifiable reality. What you cannot say, unless you’re a theist, is that there is one, true absolute morality to which we must all adhere. The maintenance of the functioning community is what it’s all about regardless of the moral system.

 

[Cheetah]

There is no one moral system grounded in nature. There are several competing and contradictory moral systems grounded in nature.

We have evolved as a social species and all our ethical systems reflect this empirically verifiable reality. What you cannot say, unless you’re a theist, is that there is one, true absolute morality to which we must all adhere. The maintenance of the functioning community is what it’s all about regardless of the moral system.

Tommy is correct.
We have evolved as a social species and that is precisely why people will differ in their morals.

Evolution works at the level of the individual, or even at gene level, not species level. Within a social species there can be multiple, mutually exclusive strategies for individuals to follow within the same social group.

Very much simplified example to illustrate the point:
Imagine a species that lives in groups. Individuals need to groom themselves to keep their parasite burden low enough to stay healthy enough to escape predators and reproduce effectively.
It's very difficult to reach all parts of your own body and you will never be totally parasite free.
If a "cooperation gene" evolves it will rapidly spread through the population. If I groom your back and you groom mine, we will both be better off than individuals just grooming themselves. Great and beneficial for everyone.

Except for the fact that the "cooperation gene" will never be able to spread through the whole population. As soon as most individuals have the gene, cheaters who get groomed by cooperative individuals, but don't bother grooming their benefactors, will be better off and fitter than cooperators, since they could spend the extra time they save pursuing food and mates.

So the "cheater gene" becomes fitter and starts spreading through the population. As soon as the "cheater gene" becomes too prevalent everyone starts suffering from parasites again and the "cooperation gene" again becomes the fitter option and starts spreading.

An optimal balance will ultimately be reached, with say, thumb suck, 80% cooperators and 20% cheaters in the population. Especially if the species under discussion have good memories and cheaters will only be groomed by a cooperator once or twice before the cooperator realizes the bastard is cheating and the cheater has to, next time, find another cooperator to groom him.

This social species will thus contain individuals with opposing morals, cheaters and cooperators.
Each of the two strategies is driven by evolution as optimal at the same time, within the group.

 

[Cheetah]

Just to add.

The species as a whole will obviously be better off if it contained 100% cooperating individuals, but that utopia can never be reached through evolution and natural selection.

 

[Cheetah]

I disagree - in principle, science can 'do morality', in that moral decisions can be conducted as functions, having inputs and outputs. We may not like the output, or all agree with the function - but heh, that's morality.

IOW science can 'do morality' but it cannot make moral decisions.
Sounds like a contradiction to me.

 

[David Mo]

Of course it answers your question. Chimpanzee society, as per human society, has its rules of acceptable behaviour. Chimp standards are not the same as the human standards certainly, but that’s beside the point.


“Community” is not an “abstract concept”, it has a specific definition: “Community: A group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common” - Oxford Dictionary. .

How the rules are decided vary according to the community. In times past they were decided by absolute monarchs or in theistic societies by God’s Word as interpreted by his priests or Shaman. Relatively recently they have been decided via democratic processes...and all sorts of ways in between. But the maintenance of the community is what it’s all about.


Tribalism was successful for most of human history. But in the modern global village and the multicultural societies that dominate the world today they can no longer function effectively. Tribalism today promotes conflict and raises more problems than it solves. It still holds good for the chimpanzees though.

Saddam was merely an example. The International Criminal Criminal Court is a reality. “Crimes against humanity have not yet been codified in a dedicated treaty of international law, unlike genocide and war crimes, although there are efforts to do so. Despite this, the prohibition of crimes against humanity, similar to the prohibition of genocide, has been considered a peremptory norm of international law, from which no derogation is permitted and which is applicable to all States.”

http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/crimes-against-humanity.html


(...)

Sometimes...often even in the oligarchies that run Russia and the USA. But even these people at least must pretend to observe the standards and reflect the values of society, because these standards are very real.

Nothing religious about it! We have evolved as a social species and our ethical systems (many and varied that they be) reflect this empirically verifiable reality.

You are matching ideologies with effective moral norms. Functionality of a norm has to be measured by effective rules of behaviour. “Thou shalt not kill” are beautiful words that only can be interpreted in the particular context of an aggressive text as the Bible is where slaughtering the enemies is strongly commanded. The UDHR is a modern formulation of the Ten Commandments. Beautiful but vague and in some respects contradictory. You can kill whole populations in the name of the Ten Commandments and you can kill whole populations in the name of the UDHR… or democracy.

If you limit yourself to vague statements as “what I’m saying is that morals and ethics are grounded in our evolved nature as a social species” it is difficult to disagree, although the idea is a bit speculative. “Morals are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation in every case and are a consequence of natural selection” is a more problematic statement. I don’t think that you are able to assess if a particular norm (“in every case”) is better or worse to the evolution of human species, except for some obvious examples of ecological norms. And this is so because human evolution is not only natural but social. I repeat you: moral norms are the outcome of the struggle for power between social groups that defend particular interests. It is impossible to say if the norms that subject women in Muslim societies are better or worse than those of relatively equalitarian societies. If we see what it happens in other natural societies I am afraid that patriarchal societies are more "adaptive". If we have to struggle against male chauvinism —I think so— we should look for our principles in other place than natural evolution of species.

What standard are you measuring this “morally reprehensible” morality against?

Violence, herd instinct, selfishness, etc. also are evolutionary products. Nature provides us with both cooperative and aggressive impulses. Nature is morally neutral. Natural empathic impulses can be a base to implement moral decisions. But moral decisions are different to natural impulses.

Even if we have natural impulses toward 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.