• 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....

Where we differ is that I don't think it's impossible because of engineering challenges. I think, in principle, it will never happen. And you would never be able to verify whether such a system was conscious anyway.

Do you think other people are conscious?

But why believe in the middleman? Ditch materialism. If you think a bunch of toilets can be conscious, why not just believe everything is conscious. You're a very short hop away from panpsychism as it is.

Once again you are not reading my posts. Why do you repeatedly ask questions already answered, instead of responding to my answers?

The process of mind and consciousness is a very specific thing. It took millions of years of evolution and an insanely complex brain, wired in just the right way for it to work.
...
I consider the chance of a conscious mind happening naturally with "shifting sand dunes, meteor swarms, rain storms" etc. to be impossible.
I see no way for a simple "brain like thing" to spontaneously appear and eventually evolve and become more complex and result in consciousness on these "types of hardware."
I cannot see a way for a natural mind to exist, except by starting very simply and evolving more complexity over time.

It probably needs a lot of complexity in the environment, a whole ecosystem of things to compete with for a nervous system and a brain to even evolve, never mind a human mind.

See.

Materialism is the belief that there exists mind-independent stuff, and that this stuff can combine in certain ways, and- presto- consciousness results. Somehow.

I think this is magical thinking.

Oh, now I understand.
You should have mentioned you don't believe in science.
I was hoping for a reasoned discussion and was disappointed when all I could get from you is a repeated "I don't believe it" without any justification, reason or logic.

I now see it is futile to motivate my reasoning using science and the laws of physics, since these are based on "magical thinking materialism."

I suppose we are really done now.


:confused:
 
Last edited:
Exactly what I’m saying, it comes down to the woo of complexity, which can appear and disappear at random.


I imagine people saying exactly the same kinds of things about heat, back around the time when technology to exploit heat had recently made great advances and the Laws of Thermodynamics were just beginning to be understood. "You're saying there's this immaterial thing that's invisibly hidden in some substances even when they're freezing cold, and it can be carried from place to place through a vacuum on sunbeams, and when it's concentrated it can provide motive power but when diffused it's a waste product that impairs motive power... get outta here with your random woo!"

"Complexity" is not a causal explanation of anything (except for something being difficult to understand, which is kind of inherent in the definition anyhow), any more than "because of heat" is a causal explanation of anything. "If brains work because of complexity then the waves on the ocean should also be conscious" makes no more sense than "if steam engines work because of heat then my toaster should be making the 11:20 run from Hainault to Redhill via Horsham and Reigate, calling at Carshalton Beeches, Malmesbury, Tooting Bec and Croydon West."

Today, technology to exploit complexity has recently made great advances and, lo and behold, the nature and properties of complexity are becoming better understood. To wit:

For a long time, the only kinds of processes whose workings could be understood were those that either quickly damped out to a uniform state (Wolfram type 1), such as a stone falling to the ground or a coal burning; repeated themselves cyclically (Wolfram type 2), such as the tide or a steam engine or walking; or produced chaotic or unpredictably "random" changes (Wolfram type 3), such as ocean waves or the weather. None of those processes seemed able to create any complex thing, types 1 and 2 because they do not generate novel complex patterns and type 3 because they cannot preserve the novel complex patterns they generate.

So, everything that was observed to create complex persistent things, like biological growth and development and human thought, was believed to be the result of some sort of magic rather than any possible physical process. That's why one of the greatest philosophical mysteries for millennia was how human thought, considered not a physical process, could cause our limbs to move, which clearly was a physical process...

Those who still hold to that belief today still cannot answer the question of how the nonphysical affects the physical, except by vague analogy to things like antennas (the brain) picking up signals (the will to move ones arm). These signals are otherwise undetectable and their nature and makeup is not only completely unknown, it cannot ever be known. It cannot ever be known because even if such a signal were somehow discovered, it would either be a physical process itself (like, say, nerve conduction or radio waves) or it would not be (like, say, the will of a soul), leaving the question of how the physical and the nonphysical could possibly interact still unanswered and unanswerable.

Fortunately, we have a better answer, which is that all those phenomena that were far too amazing to possibly be the results of physical process, and thus had to be attributed to mysterious creative forces of the universe, are actually the results of physical processes. That eliminates the need for an impossible interface between the physical and the nonphysical.

Specifically, they are all Wolfram type 4 processes, which can both generate and preserve persistent complex patterns, a previously unrecognized type of behavior. These processes include biological evolution, certain iterative processes arising in pure mathematics, and the behavior of computing machines when programmed in certain ways.

The creative power of such processes was not recognized at first. For instance, well after the process of evolution was understood, some philosophers were claiming that there must be some mystical force ("élan vital") separate from evolution itself driving evolution toward more complex forms. (Kind of like the idea that there must be some mystical force separate from the brain that makes the brain conscious, come to think of it.) The idea that even very simple processes starting with very simple initial configurations could generate complex forms via type 4 behavior was not recognized until the current millennium...
 
Hi Cheetah.

In short for what we can say about reality independently of the mind; i.e. metaphysics, here it is:
There are different theoretical physical theories about what causes this universe into being.
In a formal sense I call that the metauniverse; MA. So MA can have caused a universe as it appears, UA or another universe, which is not as it appears, UO.
So all we can say with reason is that MA caused UA or(strong logic) UO. Nothing else and even that requires that you believe in causation as outside the mind (David Hume) and that you are not a strong metaphysical solipsist.

With regards

I think I get what you are saying.

To us the universe seems to be a "material universe". In the case of UA, MA would be a material universe as well but, on the other hand, it might only appear so (UO) and MA could be very different.

This is what I don't understand.
The U we observe is completely logical to the limits of our understanding and observations, no exceptions. It works according to a fixed set of logical laws.
How can MA give rise to something that strictly follows logical rules, while MA itself is not following logical rules?
This does not make sense to me.
 
There are always aggressive and selfish impulses; social animals like us restrain or modify these impulses to better enable group living and build more cooperative groups...and we socialise our children accordingly.

Justice is based upon community values, i.e. morals. Properly administered justice is essential for the maintenance of law and order in a community.

The bad “norms” tend not to be sustainable; those in your example are nowadays universally regarded as evil. OTOH the more positive human qualities can result in enlightened values such as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which most developed nations aspire to impliment.

Yes, if its goals are socially orientated.

You have an angelic vision of the animal world. Chimpanzees kill and devour animals of his same species. Is this behaviour “cooperative”? It don’t seems so.

Animal socialisation is decided by fixed patterns of action and social learning is secondary. Its rules are sometimes cooperative and sometimes not. Human socialization is decided by ideas and interests that may or may not be cooperative. These interests never or hardly ever represent the whole of society. They represent the power groups that are at stake in society. Administration of justice is not an exception but a battlefield. To think that what the powerful decide is directed to the common good by the fact that they have the strength to impose their ideas and interests is sheer naivety. They do not even correspond to the interests of particular societies as a whole and much less to the species. For example: Humanity's power groups are implementing policies that lead straightforward to the destruction of humanity's habitat. They do so not for the interests of the human group as a whole but against them.


Discriminatory laws and attitudes are perhaps the most “sustainable” of human behaviours. They have always existed and you don't know when they will end. Are they good? “Sustainable” is an extremely vague criterion of morality. You cannot predict what would be “sustainable” in the future and you cannot say that simple longevity turns the bad behaviour into good.

The UDHR is a simple frame not a legal system. It is easy to agree with some vague principles, but there is not a single country that respect all the articles of the UDHR. In reality there is not a true universal legal system in international affairs. International affairs are governed by the law of the strongest. According to your sustainability criterion, it makes this law of the jungle a moral law. NO. There is not a common law of the humanity.

“Socially oriented” is another vague criterion of morality. Dissidence is the expression of a conflict between two concepts of “socially oriented”. Dissidence is the expression of a moral conflict with the rules that dominant groups impose and is the prove of the relative autonomy of moral. The main character of Ibsen’s The Enemy of the People feels that his moral duty consists in the opposition against the interest of almost all the people of his town that live from the exploitation of a source of contaminate water. He knows that he is risking even his life but he denounces the fraud because it is his moral duty. A good parable of a very common circumstance.

“Sustainable” and “socially oriented” are vague criteria. But even they wouldn’t be you have to show why they are obligatory. A cynical dandy could say: “Well, this is the law of the herd. I am not a sheep and I do whatever I want. F*** the society!” What says the evolution of this good guy? Nothing. Because it is not a problem of evolutionary theory but a moral one.
 
You have an angelic vision of the animal world. Chimpanzees kill and devour animals of his same species. Is this behaviour “cooperative”? It don’t seems so.

Chimpanzees live in communities nevertheless with their own rules of behaviour, just as we do.

Animal socialisation is decided by fixed patterns of action and social learning is secondary. Its rules are sometimes cooperative and sometimes not. Human socialization is decided by ideas and interests that may or may not be cooperative. These interests never or hardly ever represent the whole of society. They represent the power groups that are at stake in society. Administration of justice is not an exception but a battlefield. To think that what the powerful decide is directed to the common good by the fact that they have the strength to impose their ideas and interests is sheer naivety. They do not even correspond to the interests of particular societies as a whole and much less to the species. For example: Humanity's power groups are implementing policies that lead straightforward to the destruction of humanity's habitat. They do so not for the interests of the human group as a whole but against them.

Nevertheless, if there is any goodness or caring to be done we are the ones to do it. The question of right and wrong arises due to the fact that we have to live among other human beings in community. And if we are to do so in a successful way there are certain basic principles that must apply if we want other members of the community to agree on the “rules of the game".

Discriminatory laws and attitudes are perhaps the most “sustainable” of human behaviours. They have always existed and you don't know when they will end. Are they good? “Sustainable” is an extremely vague criterion of morality. You cannot predict what would be “sustainable” in the future and you cannot say that simple longevity turns the bad behaviour into good.

Tribalism will always discriminate against “the other”, but among the more developed societies tribalism is secondary to cooperation.

The UDHR is a simple frame not a legal system. It is easy to agree with some vague principles, but there is not a single country that respect all the articles of the UDHR. In reality there is not a true universal legal system in international affairs. International affairs are governed by the law of the strongest. According to your sustainability criterion, it makes this law of the jungle a moral law. NO. There is not a common law of the humanity.

This is not the case, e.g. if Moses had engaged in the genocidal behaviour today that he did back then he would be hauled before the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity...like Saddam Hussein. A common law for humanity is developing and is closer today than it has ever been in the past.

“Socially oriented” is another vague criterion of morality. Dissidence is the expression of a conflict between two concepts of “socially oriented”. Dissidence is the expression of a moral conflict with the rules that dominant groups impose and is the prove of the relative autonomy of moral. The main character of Ibsen’s The Enemy of the People feels that his moral duty consists in the opposition against the interest of almost all the people of his town that live from the exploitation of a source of contaminate water. He knows that he is risking even his life but he denounces the fraud because it is his moral duty. A good parable of a very common circumstance.

“Sustainable” and “socially oriented” are vague criteria. But even they wouldn’t be you have to show why they are obligatory. A cynical dandy could say: “Well, this is the law of the herd. I am not a sheep and I do whatever I want. F*** the society!”

What says the evolution of this good guy? Nothing. Because it is not a problem of evolutionary theory but a moral one.

Social orientation is not “obligatory” it is instinctive and our morality is grounded in it... e.g. a mother nurtures her child instinctively, not because she’s obliged to or that it's the socially acceptable thing to do.. If your “cynical dandy” was a member of a symphony orchestra and said F*** the orchestra I’m going to play my instrument MY way he’d be removed from the orchestra. The same applies to social misfits if their behaviour proves too disruptive to the social organism. They are removed from society.
 
...The same applies to social misfits if their behaviour proves too disruptive to the social organism. They are removed from society.

Okay, Tassman.

We are within a natural word. We use a combination of logic(truth/proof) and science(evidence).
This is your worldview and I will stay within it.

Fact established with evidence used as a premise:
Premise: I can't work.
Conclusion: I am social misfit.
Problem, the logical deduction is invalid as it doesn't follow from the premise.
Solution, add another premise.
Premise: The inability to work is what makes me a social misfit.
New challenge: Evidence.

Now it gets "funny", because now you have problem. You can't using science give evidence for the fact, that another human is a social misfit. That has nothing to do in particular with the example of being a misfit. It goes deeper than that.
You can't observe these kinds of positive or negative evaluation using external sensory experience. In everyday words you can't see any version of moral or ethical good or bad. You can't see a social misfit and you can't see that their behavior is bad/wrong or what ever.

That is the problem with your worldview. You are wrong (not morally), but mistaken and in error, if you believe that you can establish a moral "we" using science. You can see a "we" in the human species, but you can't see a social and moral "we". That is your categorical error, you treat these 2 cases of "we" as the same, but they are not the same. The one (human species) is observable, the other is not. You can't use observation alone to establish that you and I are a "we" in social and moral sense. And indeed we are not. I am not part of your moral worldview and I won't play as a part of your "orchestra" and your "we". So now establish using evidence that I am a negative (misfit). You can't and that is your error and where you are mistaken in a non-moral sense.

You are wrong in the same sense as someone, who claims that biological evolution is not a fact.
It is a fact, that you can't use science to do morality and ethics and you can't establish your "we" and "social misfits" using science.
Sorry, Tassman, I wish you were right, but it is an illusion and delusion to believe that you can establish a moral "we" using science.

With regards

PS: We are all in a descriptive sense equal as human and different as individuals. That is science, but it won't help you doing morallity and ethics.
 
Last edited:
Chimpanzees live in communities nevertheless with their own rules of behaviour, just as we do.
This is an obviousness. It's not an answer to my objection.


(...) The question of right and wrong arises due to the fact that we have to live among other human beings in community. And if we are to do so in a successful way there are certain basic principles that must apply if we want other members of the community to agree on the “rules of the game".
“Community” is an abstract concept. Human society is divided in groups with different interests. The final rules are decided by dominant groups as an outcome of a conflict of interests.


Tribalism will always discriminate against “the other”, but among the more developed societies tribalism is secondary to cooperation.
Tribalism and other systems of domination are not secondary around the world and in every kind of political system. It seems that they are very “successful” because they are omnipresent in every place and epoch of humanity.



This is not the case, e.g. if Moses had engaged in the genocidal behaviour today that he did back then he would be hauled before the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity...like Saddam Hussein. A common law for humanity is developing and is closer today than it has ever been in the past.
Don’t be ingenuous. Sadam Hussein was not judged by any International Court. If Milosevic was judged in an International Court it is because he was defeated before. Nobody put Pinochet in front of an International Court. He had powerful friends. You won't see a USA President in an International Court.

Social orientation is not “obligatory” it is instinctive and our morality is grounded in it... e.g. a mother nurtures her child instinctively, not because she’s obliged to or that it's the socially acceptable thing to do.. If your “cynical dandy” was a member of a symphony orchestra and said F*** the orchestra I’m going to play my instrument MY way he’d be removed from the orchestra. The same applies to social misfits if their behaviour proves too disruptive to the social organism. They are removed from society.
Human societies are “a little” more complex than an orchestra. An instinct doesn’t allow exceptions and cynical dandies are legion. Human societies are full of individuals that don’t respect “the rules of the herd” and they are not outsiders, but most respectable members of the high society in many cases. Not only they are not removed of the society but they are honoured as Great Eminences.

These are the actual rules of society not those idealized that you seem believe in. This is not the conformism of “we live in the better world as possible” guided by Mother Nature. Human reality is not natural. The good savage or the good civilized nature are fairy tales. Reality is not moral and only moral can help us to struggle against injustice of the real world.

It is curious: your ethical naturalism turns Mother Nature in the god that you say don’t believe. This is a religious cult also.

I don’t know if the evil is a product of human evolution but the triumphant evil exists and is morally reprehensible.
 
Okay, Tassman.

We are within a natural word. We use a combination of logic(truth/proof) and science(evidence).
This is your worldview and I will stay within it.

Fact established with evidence used as a premise:
Premise: I can't work.
Conclusion: I am social misfit.
Problem, the logical deduction is invalid as it doesn't follow from the premise.
Solution, add another premise.
Premise: The inability to work is what makes me a social misfit.
New challenge: Evidence.

Now it gets "funny", because now you have problem. You can't using science give evidence for the fact, that another human is a social misfit. That has nothing to do in particular with the example of being a misfit. It goes deeper than that.
You can't observe these kinds of positive or negative evaluation using external sensory experience. In everyday words you can't see any version of moral or ethical good or bad. You can't see a social misfit and you can't see that their behavior is bad/wrong or what ever.

That is the problem with your worldview. You are wrong (not morally), but mistaken and in error, if you believe that you can establish a moral "we" using science. You can see a "we" in the human species, but you can't see a social and moral "we". That is your categorical error, you treat these 2 cases of "we" as the same, but they are not the same. The one (human species) is observable, the other is not. You can't use observation alone to establish that you and I are a "we" in social and moral sense. And indeed we are not. I am not part of your moral worldview and I won't play as a part of your "orchestra" and your "we". So now establish using evidence that I am a negative (misfit). You can't and that is your error and where you are mistaken in a non-moral sense.

You are wrong in the same sense as someone, who claims that biological evolution is not a fact.
It is a fact, that you can't use science to do morality and ethics and you can't establish your "we" and "social misfits" using science.
Sorry, Tassman, I wish you were right, but it is an illusion and delusion to believe that you can establish a moral "we" using science.

With regards

PS: We are all in a descriptive sense equal as human and different as individuals. That is science, but it won't help you doing morallity and ethics.

I am NOT using “science to do morality and ethics”. What I’m saying is that morals and ethics are grounded in our evolved nature as a social species. Morals are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation in every case and are a consequence of natural selection. They are naturally built into us, because those morals are beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals.

Cheers.
 
I am NOT using “science to do morality and ethics”. What I’m saying is that morals and ethics are grounded in our evolved nature as a social species. Morals are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation in every case and are a consequence of natural selection. They are naturally built into us, because those morals are beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals.

Cheers.

EVOLUTION DOES NOT TAKE PLACE AT THE LEVEL OF THE SPECIES!!!

Sorry for the all caps, but as long you don't get that evolution also takes place inside the human species and that self-preservation and procreation is not beneficial to all of us.
Short example - you kill me and take my wife for breeding. Reverse if you like. :) Self-preservation is not we-preservation and breeding is between a male and female, not between all of the species.
That gives rise to resource and mating competition within the species. So because of this, there is no peaceful universal breeding and survival of our species.
IT DOESN'T SAY - SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST SPECIES.
It says - replication of the fittest genes.
Tassman - the primary process is not the individual and it survival, that is the replication of the fittest genes, evolution is nothing but a long line of replication. Over time that is what matters.

With regards
 
This is an obviousness. It's not an answer to my objection.

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 an abstract concept. Human society is divided in groups with different interests. The final rules are decided by dominant groups as an outcome of a conflict of interests.

“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 and other systems of domination are not secondary around the world and in every kind of political system. It seems that they are very “successful” because they are omnipresent in every place and epoch of humanity.

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.

Don’t be ingenuous. Sadam Hussein was not judged by any International Court. If Milosevic was judged in an International Court it is because he was defeated before. Nobody put Pinochet in front of an International Court. He had powerful friends.

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

You won't see a USA President in an International Court.

Well not until Trump maybe.............Ahem.

Human societies are “a little” more complex than an orchestra. An instinct doesn’t allow exceptions and cynical dandies are legion. Human societies are full of individuals that don’t respect “the rules of the herd” and they are not outsiders, but most respectable members of the high society in many cases. Not only they are not removed of the society but they are honoured as Great Eminences.

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.

These are the actual rules of society not those idealized that you seem believe in. This is not the conformism of “we live in the better world as possible” guided by Mother Nature. Human reality is not natural. The good savage or the good civilized nature are fairy tales. Reality is not moral and only moral can help us to struggle against injustice of the real world.

It is curious: your ethical naturalism turns Mother Nature in the god that you say don’t believe. This is a religious cult also.

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.

I don’t know if the evil is a product of human evolution but the triumphant evil exists and is morally reprehensible.

What standard are you measuring this “morally reprehensible” morality against?
 
Let us get back to the start:
Is there something you and I can't do using science as methodology?
Yes, we can't do morality and ethics using science as methodology.

As short example: If reality/the universe/the world/everything is natural and physical and objective(metaphysics), then the falsification of that in practice is that subjectivity is natural and physical(biological) and it is easy to show:
Someone: Everything is objective.
Me: No, because that "no" is in practice subjective and real!!!

The mind itself is epiphenomenal, but some processes in the brain are subjective. Because of that science in practice is limited to that which can be done objectively, but can't be used to do something, which is subjective. That would be illogical to claim it is possible, Because you or I would at the same time and in the same sense be doing something objective and subjective. That is it.
 
EVOLUTION DOES NOT TAKE PLACE AT THE LEVEL OF THE SPECIES!!!

Sorry for the all caps, but as long you don't get that evolution also takes place inside the human species and that self-preservation and procreation is not beneficial to all of us.
Short example - you kill me and take my wife for breeding. Reverse if you like. :) Self-preservation is not we-preservation and breeding is between a male and female, not between all of the species.
That gives rise to resource and mating competition within the species. So because of this, there is no peaceful universal breeding and survival of our species.
IT DOESN'T SAY - SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST SPECIES.
It says - replication of the fittest genes.
Tassman - the primary process is not the individual and it survival, that is the replication of the fittest genes, evolution is nothing but a long line of replication. Over time that is what matters.

With regards

You’re arguing a straw-man. I did not say that evolution takes place at the level of the species. And I did not say the primary focus is the individual and its survival. Neither of those things is true.

What I’m saying is that morals and ethics are grounded in our evolved nature as a social species, just as the behaviour of chimpanzees is grounded in their evolved characteristics as social animals. In both instances the following characteristics are shared by humans and other social animals, particularly the great apes: attachment and bonding, cooperation, empathy, reciprocity, altruism, conflict resolution, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group.

These are the qualities that result in a moral code or, in the case of the great apes, patterns of communal behaviour. In both instances, as with all animals, we have a purpose-driven life; one of survival and reproduction.

You have yet to posit an alternative to a moral system grounded in nature.

Cheers.
 
Let us get back to the start:
Is there something you and I can't do using science as methodology?
Yes, we can't do morality and ethics using science as methodology.

...snip...

Unless you want to hold that morality and ethics are supernatural then they are simply types of human behaviour and therefore there is no reason to assert that science cannot "do them".
 
Morals are like colours, people have different favorite colours, just as people have different morals.

Science cannot say blue is the best colour, only that 36% of people agree that blue is their "best" colour.

Science cannot pick between opinions.
 
Morals are like colours, people have different favorite colours, just as people have different morals.

Science cannot say blue is the best colour, only that 36% of people agree that blue is their "best" colour.

Science cannot pick between opinions.

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.
 
Unless you want to hold that morality and ethics are supernatural then they are simply types of human behaviour and therefore there is no reason to assert that science cannot "do them".

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.

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
 
Morals are like colours, people have different favorite colours, just as people have different morals.

Science cannot say blue is the best colour, only that 36% of people agree that blue is their "best" colour.

Science cannot pick between opinions.

Correct. :)
 

Back
Top Bottom