• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Cheetah said:
I agree I might be one, I just think it is extremely unlikely for the reasons I explained.
Click to expand...

It is unknown and not possible to assign any actual probabilities. So it doesn't matter what you think, because that doesn't determine whether you are in a universe, which is as it appears or you are in a universe, where you are a Boltzmann Brain.
 
Tassman said:
Hence, as a consequence, morals are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation in every case and are a consequence of natural selection as described by science. They are naturally built into us, because those morals are beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals. In short, morality is grounded in scientific fact, not philosophical arguments.
Click to expand...

Evolution implies that some individuals of a species kill others to be more reproductive. Evolution also implies that weaker individuals must die only because ther are weak. Do you think that these facts are morally good?
 
David Mo said:
Evolution implies that some individuals of a species kill others to be more reproductive. Evolution also implies that weaker individuals must die only because ther are weak. Do you think that these facts are morally good?
Click to expand...

Well, they are good if I benefit and bad if I am on the receiving end. That is a variant of moral relativism and moral relativism is a fact, whether you like it or don't.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
It is unknown and not possible to assign any actual probabilities. So it doesn't matter what you think, because that doesn't determine whether you are in a universe, which is as it appears or you are in a universe, where you are a Boltzmann Brain.
Click to expand...

Why can't I say that a very specific complex thing that is the end result of many small, incremental steps, each of which makes logical sense on it's own and follows logically from the previous step, is MUCH more likely than the same very complex thing appearing spontaneously, without any history?
 
Last edited:
Cheetah said:
Why can't I say that a very specific complex thing that is the result of small
incremental steps, each of which makes logical sense on it's own and follows logically from the previous step is MUCH more likely than the same very complex thing appearing spontaneously without any history.
Click to expand...

You accept causation or cause and effect, right? If yes, then include that in your analysis.

You are caused by the universe and how ever you think, you think so because that is caused by something else than you in time, space and causation.
Logic is not outside the universe, logic is a result of the universe. Your thinking/logic is not caused ex nihilo, but comes in in time, space and causation from the past as a part of the universe.
So you are caused to think the same, regardless of what universe you are in.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
So you are caused to think the same, regardless of what universe you are in.
Click to expand...
Ok, agreed.
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Logic is not outside the universe, logic is a result of the universe. Your thinking/logic is not caused ex nihilo, but comes in in time, space and causation from the past as a part of the universe.
Click to expand...

I've never thought about this. Does a Boltzmann Brain experiencing the same things as a brain in a material universe, not imply a similar underlying logic common to both universes?
 
Last edited:
Cheetah said:
...
I'm wondering about this. Does a Boltzmann Brain experiencing the same things as a brain in a material universe, not imply a similar underlying logic common to both universes?
Click to expand...

Wow, that is a deep question, Now real life calls, but if fate permits, I will give it some thought and come back to you.

With regards
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Read some of Tassman's post and you will find the following claims:
The world is physical and natural.
Science can answer all questions within this world.

It started as I recall as a progression from qualia to psychology versus biology and whether there are words, which are a part of a natural world, but can't be explained by natural science.

And indeed there are such words: "Morally right" and "morally wrong".
So this thread is about both solipsism and qualia.
So if you like we are debating the subjective experience of "morally right" and "morally wrong" and if that is a limit to science.
So does "morally right" and "morally wrong" have something to do with consciousness, qualia and subjective experience. Yes, they do. Further they don't have a scientific theory like the theory/law of gravity, unless you can show us a link to a scientific theory of what behavior is morally right or wrong.

In regards to the header of this thread it is related:
Science can't answer moral questions, therefore science is a limited methodology when it comes to questions about the natural world.
Click to expand...


To repeat - you are using the words "right" & "wrong" to mean two completely different things. When anyone says it is "right" to help a blind person to cross a busy road, the word "right" is being used there to mean "the helpful and kind thing to do" ... but when you say it is believed that science is "right" to say we evolved from earlier apes, that is a totally different use of the word "right", where it's being used to mean "what we think is factually correct". They are two entirely different things which you are mixing-up by a sloppy use of language when using a word like "right".

Or to make that even more clear/specific - it's actually completely misleading to say that it's "right" to help other people or to be kind to animals etc. What we really mean is "it's right beneficial to others and to animals if we can help to keep them safe and free from harm". The word "right" is actually just being used as a linguistic shorthand in all situations like that, i.e. in all descriptions of so-called "moral" behaviour.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Wow, that is a deep question, Now real life calls, but if fate permits, I will give it some thought and come back to you.
Click to expand...

Thank you, looking forward to it.

A Boltzmann Brain experiencing "material universe logic" while operating on "Boltzmann universe rules" surely implies that the "material universe logic" is derived from "Boltzmann universe rules".
 
Last edited:
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Indeed it is a fact, that we in practice don't have one universal justice system, but several, which in fact contradict each other as for what justice is.
That is a natural, physical and scientific fact.
Click to expand...

Is there a point there? There is just one common goal, the survival of the family and community and cooperation so that the human species survives. All philosophical arguments on morality are grounded in this “natural, physical and scientific fact.”

So how do you use science between contradicting justice systems to determine, which one is a natural, physical and scientific fact and the others are not natural, physical and scientific facts, if it is a fact, that we have several contradicting justice systems and they are all natural, physical and scientific facts?
Click to expand...

I did not say one uses science to determine justice systems. I said that justice systems derive from the “natural, physical and scientific fact” that we are a social species.
 
David Mo said:
Evolution implies that some individuals of a species kill others to be more reproductive. Evolution also implies that weaker individuals must die only because ther are weak. Do you think that these facts are morally good?
Click to expand...

As with all animals we have a purpose-driven life; one of survival and reproduction. For any social species such as us, the benefits of being part of the social group outweigh the benefits of individualism; killing is not acceptable within any group. In tribal morality it was considered OK to kill members of other tribes, e.g. the Moses genocides, but not today.
 
David Mo said:
Where have you answered my original questions? Where have you commented my example of the camera?

Why you are avoiding my questions?
Click to expand...

Once again, I've ANSWERED them to the best of my ability. Your question about heads and computers and pyramids was, as I explained, irrelevant and nonsensical. What more do you want? I can't answer a nonsensical question better than to point out that it is.

If you want to reword that question or explain why you think it's relevant, please do so, but I'd rather you stick to the actual discussion: do you have an issue with my use of consistency (non-contradiction) as a standard to determine what's real or not?
 
Belz... said:
Once again, I've ANSWERED them to the best of my ability. Your question about heads and computers and pyramids was, as I explained, irrelevant and nonsensical. What more do you want? I can't answer a nonsensical question better than to point out that it is.
Click to expand...

It makes no sense because you say it doesn't make sense. No need to justify what you say. I see.
I give you the example of a camera and you respond with your particular conception of coherence. What does one have to do with the other?
 
Last edited:
David Mo said:
It makes no sense because you say it doesn't make sense. No need to justify what you say. I see.
Click to expand...

I DID justify it. Stop lying.

I've told you repeatedly what I mean by consistency, and that your question uses the word differently, making it irrelevant. What part of that do you think you can gaslight away?
 
Last edited:
As a professional soldier I learned that any complex plan breaks down when it meets the enemy. The civilian version is that life beyond the Internet calls, so that is it for today.

See you all tomorrow.
 
What we call "right" or "wrong" is when you get down to it simply the way we process information and the result of that process. If it is ever possible to fairly accurately model the processes that are "me" then using that model someone could in advance decide if some action is what I would say is "right" or "wrong".

So I could ask my personal AI assistant "OK google - is it right or wrong I kill the person who hasn't put the right bins out?". And it could answer "For you that would be right, however I would like to point out that if apprehended after committing such a crime the probability of you not being convicted is less than 5% as the vast majority of the population does not consider it right to kill the person who hasn't put the right bins out."

Indeed this may be the very therapy we need for psychopaths and sociopaths. We create a model of their flawed processes, correct the flaws and then train them to obey their AI assistant. When they ask their internal voice "Is it right I slit the throat of the checkout person because I'd like to feel how the blood feels when it gushes out over my hand?" The AI will say "no"!

There is nothing special about such concepts that indicates there is something other than the processes we can already crudely model that are me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom