Biology and neuroscience can quite well explain our moral nature as if you didn't already know this. Humans are moral animals and science can explain why.
Afterlife and Pre-life
- Thread starter heresJohnny
- Start date
Biology and neuroscience can quite well explain our moral nature as if you didn't already know this. Humans are moral animals and science can explain why.
The thread seems to have drifted seriously away from the more interesting topic heading. So coming back on topic a little - i.e. pre-life and afterlife -
LG
The brain needs the other organs? Not true. My brother died of polio. In the final stages the nutrients and oxygen needed for his brain were provided by a machine, he was otherwise paralyzed from the neck downwards. Brain activity remained for some time with minimal communication, small eye movements mainly. Eventually these ceased and brain activity began to rapidly decay. My parents watched helplessly in the final moments of brain death after they had agreed to have the machines turned off. That was 1953. I suspect his brain could have been kept alive longer today with modern technology.
I cannot imagine any scenario of a normal fully functional person who has a fully functional brain but who is not alive. I seriously doubt you could either. But please try. In the meantime let's safely assume that if a normal person has a fully functional brain, then they are alive (has life and has consciousness). In this example life and consciousness are clearly on display, the person can move, talk, reason, debate, make love, etc etc. Some of these activities might be limited, e.g. the cases for a paraplegic, or perhaps serious moto-neuron disease, e.g. Steven Hawking. And in that latter case his life and consciousness are made very clear to us through man made technology.
All that these things tell us, and countless other clinical scenarios is that life and consciousness are seemingly dependent on a living brain, since if the brain dies then all these signs of consciousness and life vanish. The alternate view that you have implied is that life and consciousness are independent and hence can survive independently of a brain. Can you show any examples that support your implications, or in this case, absolute assertions? Or in fact anything that might show a difference between your suggestion and pure fantasy?
All our experiences to date indicate that life/consciousness is dependent on a functional brain. We have nothing to suggest that life/consciousness can survive without a brain. Unless someone can show how that is possible then after-life arguments can have no merit.
LG
There are two parts to this and both deal with the two absolute assertions stated and and their accompanying total absence of support.
The brain needs the other organs? Not true. My brother died of polio. In the final stages the nutrients and oxygen needed for his brain were provided by a machine, he was otherwise paralyzed from the neck downwards. Brain activity remained for some time with minimal communication, small eye movements mainly. Eventually these ceased and brain activity began to rapidly decay. My parents watched helplessly in the final moments of brain death after they had agreed to have the machines turned off. That was 1953. I suspect his brain could have been kept alive longer today with modern technology.
Here we see that "life" and "consciousness" have been equated, but made clear that "life" is independent of a functioning brain. I.e. in the clause that states that a living brain is irrelevant (amounts to nothing) if consciousness (life) is absent.
I cannot imagine any scenario of a normal fully functional person who has a fully functional brain but who is not alive. I seriously doubt you could either. But please try. In the meantime let's safely assume that if a normal person has a fully functional brain, then they are alive (has life and has consciousness). In this example life and consciousness are clearly on display, the person can move, talk, reason, debate, make love, etc etc. Some of these activities might be limited, e.g. the cases for a paraplegic, or perhaps serious moto-neuron disease, e.g. Steven Hawking. And in that latter case his life and consciousness are made very clear to us through man made technology.
All that these things tell us, and countless other clinical scenarios is that life and consciousness are seemingly dependent on a living brain, since if the brain dies then all these signs of consciousness and life vanish. The alternate view that you have implied is that life and consciousness are independent and hence can survive independently of a brain. Can you show any examples that support your implications, or in this case, absolute assertions? Or in fact anything that might show a difference between your suggestion and pure fantasy?
All our experiences to date indicate that life/consciousness is dependent on a functional brain. We have nothing to suggest that life/consciousness can survive without a brain. Unless someone can show how that is possible then after-life arguments can have no merit.
Other suggestions I see here is the idea that souls are eternal and gain hold of a new material entity and leave when that entity dies. The point that we have no memories or any form of evidence of these pre or post states doesn't appear to be of great importance. I would suggest otherwise since the suggestion can just as easily be equated to souls that do not exist and the entire story remains completely intact, i.e. we live and die as is quite apparent, and adding the soul component to the story doesn't appear to offer anything relevant.
Similar irrelevances and fantasies run rampant throughout all religious storytelling.
Similar irrelevances and fantasies run rampant throughout all religious storytelling.
And Karma most certainly does exist.
When we do good things other good things tend to follow, and when we do bad things other bad things tend to follow.
And all of this is very personal and is all about how we feel about our actions.
Good Karma is achieved via the hormones - Serotonin, Endorphins, Dopamine, Phenylethamin, and Ghrelin.
And bad Karma is usually a result of the absence of the above hormones.
There are many others including the sex hormones.
There is nothing supernatural about Karma but I'd suggest the effects are real. If you do a good deed your hormones will react to make you feel happy, relaxed, and less stressed. These effects lead to fewer accidents, a positive effect on others, less depression, etc.
Similarly bad deeds tend to result in - guilt, fear of being caught, higher stress, etc. All of which cause hormonal imbalances and a poorer quality of life and subsequently poor effects on others.
Do a kindly act each day and enhance your karma - your hormones will reward you accordingly. Still won't lead to an afterlife of course.
When we do good things other good things tend to follow, and when we do bad things other bad things tend to follow.
And all of this is very personal and is all about how we feel about our actions.
Good Karma is achieved via the hormones - Serotonin, Endorphins, Dopamine, Phenylethamin, and Ghrelin.
And bad Karma is usually a result of the absence of the above hormones.
There are many others including the sex hormones.
There is nothing supernatural about Karma but I'd suggest the effects are real. If you do a good deed your hormones will react to make you feel happy, relaxed, and less stressed. These effects lead to fewer accidents, a positive effect on others, less depression, etc.
Similarly bad deeds tend to result in - guilt, fear of being caught, higher stress, etc. All of which cause hormonal imbalances and a poorer quality of life and subsequently poor effects on others.
Do a kindly act each day and enhance your karma - your hormones will reward you accordingly. Still won't lead to an afterlife of course.
"Best" course of action in what sense, to what purpose?
You didn't answer my question:
How can we use quantum mechanics or physics to explain and direct our ethical concerns in interactions with other people, other living beings and other things?
For example, you find out that a friend has lied to you, and now you don't know whether to confront him or not, and if yes, how, and you don't know how to put your mind to ease over the betrayal.
far from challenging my assertion, that seems to confirm it
its more that a brain without life = 0 consciousness
I think you missed the point, or perhaps were running with a different definition of consciousness.
Only through the agency of soft science with a complete absence of anything except theoretical models (all of which are based on the non-evidenced claim that the nature of consciousness is a materially reducible phenomena - IOW they cannot actually even begin to discuss what the essential components of perception are much less how it works ... yet there is some expectation that a discussion on why they think it is true be taken seriously or at least on the same level as their more credible claims : eg metal fabrication and gps satellite navigation )
PS - google "racist camera" before you start talking about "the science of light received on the retina wall" to save me the trouble
Last edited:
I know that an fMRI does not help in situations like this -
For example, you find out that a friend has lied to you, and now you don't know whether to confront him or not, and if yes, how, and you don't know how to put your mind to ease over the betrayal.
Science seems to be so good and so fancy when it comes to some fancy abstractions, but it is largely useless when it comes to helping people with things as they really matter in their daily lives.
@wynn --
But it does help in situations like this. If we can find out what people generally like and dislike, and we can for there are discernible patterns across the species, what causes suffering and what doesn't(again, well within the reach of the fMRI), then we can decide to act accordingly.
But we don't even really need that to discern such things, as the patterns are quite obvious to those who pay attention.
But it does help in situations like this. If we can find out what people generally like and dislike, and we can for there are discernible patterns across the species, what causes suffering and what doesn't(again, well within the reach of the fMRI), then we can decide to act accordingly.
But we don't even really need that to discern such things, as the patterns are quite obvious to those who pay attention.
If you think it explains our moral behaviour it would seem that you don't know what one is
:shrug:
I guess what makes it so difficult to accept is that there are no case studies to show how the use of fMRI's can approach the extensive questions surrounding our moral issues or even basic actions in the animal kingdom.
All they seem to be able to do is localize the general parts of the brain that they guess play a part in responding to general situations.
The fact that no one uses or advocates the use of fMRI's to manipulate, cultivate or outright discourage certain moral behaviours (or even define a moral behaviour with them) tends to indicate that whatever explanations of moral behaviours and attitudes are forthcoming bear no more value than a poodle learning to unload excrement at a desirable location and time.
:shrug:
You're right that an fMRI won't help in this situation. The reason is that to try to look at the problem on the level of brain chemistry is to consider the problem at the wrong level.
Obviously, when your brain considers the problem of lying, betrayal and so one, there are chemical and electrical changes in the brain. An fMRI can reveal some of those changes (though at a somewhat coarse level of detail). But explaining your resolution of the moral problem in terms of the release of chemicals or the firing of neurons would completely obfuscate the information that we'd actually be interested in.
As an analogous problem, you could present reams of data on the flight of a baseball from pitcher to batter - speed, trajectory, timing etc. - but if all you're interested in whether the batter struck out or hit a home run or whatever then you're going to bury yourself under a mountain of unnecessary detail. In other words, you're looking at the problem at the wrong level of explanation for what you want to know. The details and outcome of the batter's swing of the bat are all there in the physics, but in way too much detail for the issue at hand.
Understand?
Whom are you trying to convince or prove wrong? Because it's certainly not me.
You were discussing the role of fMRI's and morality
I was discussing the role of fMRI's and morality
The only straws are the one's you are grasping to keep your argument afloat
:shrug:
I'm not sure. Who is wrong here? And why?