god = the universe

[Cris]

MarcAC,

What method would you use to test any evidence excluding the scientific method?

The scientific method is based on logic and reason. If you exclude that method then all that is left is illogic and irrationality. And I think you also mean 'alleged evidence', it isn't evidence until it has been successfully tested for a positive result.

Do you know that 'if' angels existed and you tapped into your spiritual being and saw one [assuming such a thing exists], scientific analysis would almost certainly discredit it with some neural explanation and you - and everyone else around you - would think that you are one craaaazy futhermocker?

That doesn't follow. If you could see such a thing with your senses, as opposed to your imagination, then that would suggest a physical manifestation, which is something that science can handle. But really if anything can impinge on your senses or your brain, which are both physical then there must be a transfer mechanism between the alleged spirit world and the real world. I.e. a point at which the immaterial bridges the gap to the material, at that point science would be capable of measurement and detection. And so far that hasn't occurred.

But this raises another issue about what it could mean for something immaterial to communicate to the material. The implication is that this immaterial object must have a material component to connect the immaterial to material objects. But wait, how would that material component then connect to the other remaining immaterial components. Ah ha, there must be another material component that connects the immaterial to the primary material component that connects to the material world. Hmmm, but I see a long series here until all the immaterial components are fully material.

It would appear there can be no way that something immaterial could communicate with something material unless they were both fully material, and there goes your idea of immaterial spirits, gods, and angels.

 

[Canute]

Quote from Cris
_________
"But this raises another issue about what it could mean for something immaterial to communicate to the material. The implication is that this immaterial object must have a material component to connect the immaterial to material objects. But wait, how would that material component then connect to the other remaining immaterial components. Ah ha, there must be another material component that connects the immaterial to the primary material component that connects to the material world. Hmmm, but I see a long series here until all the immaterial components are fully material."
_____________

This is the basic objection to a causal mind and it's a killer. However it is not necessarily unanswerable. For instance one can argue that matter is also immaterial (a hypothesis which the evidence increasingly supports) so that no impossible crossing of domains between the physical and non-physical is required.

Or one might argue that the multiverse hypothesis is true in a strong sense and that infinite universes exist, in which case all consciousness may need to do is decide what to be conscious of, where to place its attention, what to believe etc. in order to select between material outcomes of events, (in other words to decide which universe it is conscious of).

One could also argue that we just don't know enough yet to explain it, although this is a bit of a cop out since its a logical problem as much as a scientific one, so more knowledge won't help.

The best reply I can find is to say that in the ultimate analysis consciousness is all there is, although this sounds unscientific, (it is not intended to be), without a lot more explanation.

Another possibility is to take a lesson from superstring theory and assume that events can be their own cause, and that substances can be made out of themselves. This moves the goal posts in all sorts of ways.

 

[Raithere]

god = the universe

Originally posted by Canute
I agree that by most definitions 'God' explains little. However this does not mean it's impossible to have a hypothesis which some people would accept as 'God' and which others would accept as being a scientific hypothesis. A sort of dual aspect explanation. This seems likely to me, energy fluctuations in the void being a reasonable candidate and superstring theory being another.

But why bother with the assertion of God? What extra something does it provide?

Epiphenomenon are defined as having no causal powers and as existing beyond the realm of the physical. To me it's a polite way of avoiding the illogicality of saying that consciousness is non-existent.

That's why I asked for an example of such a reference. That's not what epiphenomenon means:

epiphenomenon n. pl. ep•i•phe•nom•e•na
1. A secondary phenomenon that results from and accompanies another: “Exploitation of one social class or ethnic group by another [is] an epiphenomenon of real differences in power between social groups” (Harper's).
2. Pathology. An additional condition or symptom in the course of a disease, not necessarily connected with the disease.
American Heritage Dictionary

I feel that your first sentence here is self-contradictory.

I guess it depends on what definition of subjective you're using. If we confine subjective to simply that which exists in the mind of an individual then yes but I was shooting towards more of a personal POV definition. Thus my optics example: What you perceive might not be what I perceive but that, in itself, is not problematic.

I agree that the supernatural does not exist, but maybe for different reasons. Things exist, in which case they are natural, or not. Logically it is not necessary for something to be measurable in order to have an effect on existence, it is just necessary for it to be experience-able.

Science studies many things that are not directly measurable, yet their effects are; gravity, for instance. Logically, anything that affects our 'material' universe is at least indirectly measurable no matter where the force originates.

I don't feel that anything (except the experience-able) is beyond science.

I'm not sure what you mean here by 'experience-able'.

But a lot is beyond science in its current mainstream form, its currently unproven physicalist paradigm.

First, I'd like to clear up an apparent misunderstanding. Science did not 'choose' a 'physicalist' paradigm, nor does it necessarily depend upon one. The key mechanism of science is repeatability. A phenomenon must be able to be repeated so that it can be studied. One time only occurrences are of little use.

I can only agree that the mechanism by which consciousness affects matter is difficult to imagine. However it is easier if one accepts that matter is itself (in the final analysis) immaterial.

You've lost me here... what then are you suggesting consciousness is made up of? Is it a 'natural' condition or a 'supernatural' one? If it is supernatural how do you propose it effects the natural world without a mechanism of interaction?

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by MarcAC
As far as I’m concerned everything is highly questionable and this entire website runs mostly on hearsay. Does that mean most things on the site aren’t true? But how do you determine that these claims are unfounded? Why do you place evidence in quotations?

Anecdotal testimony and hearsay may or may not be true but personal claims do not constitute evidence. The ephemeral and wildly inaccurate nature of personal testimony is well documented, it needs to be backed up with something more reliable; thus science's reliance on repeatable experiments and empirical data. The reason I put the word evidence in quotations is because I have yet to see anything that really qualifies as evidence; despite the claims. Aside from logical argument what other basis we use to determine the veracity of such testimony? Without such a basis, or in considering a subjective one, aren't all testimonials equal? How is it you can reject one and not another, aside from personal prejudice?

Actually, Raithere, I stated my opinion that consciousness of our physical four dimensions can be basically explained away by physical brain function, and my opinion that it is an integral process.
...
Does consciousness only constitute the consciousness of our physical world? I don’t believe so.

Why not? What leads you to suggest something beyond this? Upon what evidence or argument do you establish the existence or something else? All I see, so far, is presumption.

Here, we meet the unavoidable consequence of the discourse; what is the nature of consciousness?

It's nature seems to be nature. Essentially, consciousness seems to be a self-affecting condition of internal and external isomorphism (awareness of self and the external world) within a neural network.

Damage, caused by a blow to the head can put you in a coma, the question is why do some people in a coma hear people speaking to them, though they cannot return the communication?

Because the brain is not dead and the senses are still active, the unconscious mind can still record sensation but coma patients are not conscious... in fact, unconsciousness is the very definition of a coma.

I would think they are still self aware. Somewhat like an autistic person - he just can’t communicate conventionally with other people.

That does not seem to be the case.

Belief comes with faith. You removed your faith from religion and placed it in science
... or yourself?... or nothing?

A better way to say it is that religion failed. I had questions that religion could not answer properly. So I began the process of eliminating fallacies and contradictions from my beliefs. I began by simply studying the Bible and comparing what was there with what I was told in Sunday School and Mass. I expanded this to a study of other religions and philosophy. For a considerable time I was Agnostic, believing that God was probable, but that its existence was undetermined. Eventually, I realized that I could find no reason that justified a belief in God. Thus, I am now, technically, an atheist.

To answer your question directly; I gave up my faith in what other people tell me and placed it in myself. Rather than believing the wildly varying, illogical, contradictory, and unfounded claims of others without examination I trusted in my own ability to discern and decide. Basically, I picked up a Bible and read it for myself.

It's not that I find religion without value. All religions express ideals; often they are, individually, quite defensible. As such, I find admirable those who labor towards such ideals. But I find it far more common that religion is a sanctuary for the self-satisfied. In short, this manner of expression of ideals often becomes self-serving and dogmatic. I also find that declaration of an ideal based solely upon authority to be pitifully weak and dangerous.

The problem I have with this is that you might as well be a star floating around in the near vacuum of space. What would be the point of it all??? I can never take that stance. I have a much stronger faith in God the Trinity, YHWH [I am], is, was, will be than anything else,

I always find it so strange when theists insist that an atheists life is so void of meaning or purpose or is somehow intrinsically egocentric. The point is the same; to live your life the best you can according to the ideals and goals you believe in. The only difference is that you claim your ideals and goals are set by God. A claim you cannot prove.

It is my assertion that religious ideals are simply invented by other men. Perhaps it was handed to you during your upbringing, or perhaps selected by you from the various offerings out there. But how much effort have you put into an examination of those ideals? Are they individually defensible? Are they collectively congruent? Are they expressed lucidly and meaningfully or are they ambiguous and open to widely diverse interpretations. In short, does what you believe make sense or do you simply accept it upon faith.

Religious authorities often say 'trust God' but what they really mean is 'trust me'.

I am assured that nothing changes with Him. As you obviously know, scientific truth is tentative, I delve into science, but history has proven that science is somewhat an approximation to the truth, right now it could be off by a factor of 1.5, 10, or 10,000,000,000,000. Somewhat like the function y=1/x, it will never get to the truth. My knowledge, through faith in God is all the y and x I need - it has no limits.

Prove it then. Prove the veracity of your spiritual knowledge because despite all my years of study I have yet to discover proof.

My advice? Re-examine your spiritual side. Like a neutrino, you might not see it, but it just might be there.

I never lost my 'spiritual' side. I simply do not believe that its source is otherworldly. The Universe seems to be more than enough to warrant such feelings and, honestly, I find most conceptions of God rather limiting in this regard.

Science explains how, God explains why.

No, it doesn't explain why, at least not with any consistency or reliability. 'God willed it' doesn't explain anything that 'shit happens' doesn't. Personally, I find 'shit happens' more satisfying.

The question is do we have the tools to measure it with? And if we do, are we utilizing them? Galaxies weren’t apparent until the invention of the telescope.

And if we ever do discover God I'll be delighted. Until then it seems rather presumptuous to assert its existence as fact, much less claim that we know how and why he made things the way they are.

~Raithere

 

[MarcAC]

On Fantasies and Fairytales

Originally posted by Consequent Atheist
I totally agree! Nor will it make significant inroads into Hinduism, Jainism, or playful references to the Daoine Sidhe.

With regards to the choking number of religions out there; A Christian acquaintance once told me of a humorous moment with his Hindu friends. They were eating burgers – beef ones of course. So he just couldn’t resist pointing out to them that they were eating one of their gods [quite a plethora].

Of course, that doesn't make your particular fairy-tail any more substantive than its theistic neighbors.

I have no interest in weeping statues or anomalies in glass. Yet they may be of more significance [make more sense] than a statue of an elephant drinking milk??? [revealed to be an elaborate hoax]. When I need an extra hand around the home I don’t see Shiva!? She has six of them! When she offers to lend me a few maybe I’ll place some interest in her. My ‘fairy[tale]’ will stand up better to logical critique. That’s why roughly 1/3 of the world’s population supports it. Otherwise, my faith assures me of it’s substance

 

[MarcAC]

Logic...

Originally posted by Cris
The scientific method is based on logic and reason. If you exclude that method then all that is left is illogic and irrationality. And I think you also mean 'alleged evidence', it isn't evidence until it has been successfully tested for a positive result.

Illogic and irrationality? So you consider direct personal experience illogical and irrational, and thus it cannot be a proof of something. Am I to assume that a husband’s love for his wife should withstand critique by the scientific method before it is substantiated?
Science would be stagnant without the discovery/invention of the irrational numbers within the number system. Mathematicians first critiqued their subsistence with a bias similar to yours.

That doesn't follow. If you could see such a thing with your senses, as opposed to your imagination, then that would suggest a physical manifestation, which is something that science can handle...

I think it follows. How would you devise an experiment to test for the presence of a subatomic particle? You can’t see it, so you have to consider its effects right? Because, many of these particles - and their accompanying effects - exist for an inconceivable moment in time. Consider neutrino detection. I would also take into consideration Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle [some things, we can never measure with complete accuracy] and Godell’s incompleteness theorem [we simply can’t know some final truths via current mathematical/scientific methodology]. I don’t disagree with the notion that science may be able to detect the presence of these beings, but how would it be done? Wait and watch for them to appear? In fact, can it be done?

... Ah ha, there must be another material component that connects the immaterial to the primary material component that connects to the material world. Hmmm, but I see a long series here until all the immaterial components are fully material.

As Canute said you could be seeing the immaterial and deem it material. Otherwise, it must seem incredible how an athlete actually finishes a race. Consider this, when he reaches the half way point, he has a half of the distance left to travel, then he reaches a half of the half of a distance, then he covers the half of the other half, but if he keeps covering half distances he’ll never finish the race. It must seem pretty incredible to you that any races can be actually finished, right? And then I return with my function y=1/x. We can consider everything we know and can know, via scientific methodology, to be on that curve. Does it mean that the x and y axes don’t exist? Of course not, without them the curve wouldn’t exist. Is there any interaction of the curve with the axes? Of course there is – y=1/x; x=1/y.; xy=1. You just can’t see that info on the curve. Have fun.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Raithere
god = the universe

But why bother with the assertion of God? What extra something does it provide?

I agree. I did not mean to suggest that God was a good explanation, after all its just a word - hardly helpful to understanding - I just meant that current scientific explanations are also just words. Science has not yet succeeded in explaining how anything comes to exist and God is no better or worse (yet) as describing the sort of mechanism that is necessary to fill this explanatory gap. You have faith that science will fill this gap and explain everything, and you may be right. However it has a long way to go and I am not alone in thinking it will never succeed (eg. Chalmers, Heisenberg, Plato, Newton, Maxwell, etc).

"That's why I asked for an example of such a reference. That's not what epiphenomenon means:"

Perhaps we are both right. In regard to consciousness 'Epiphenominalism' is the belief that consciousness is non-causal and simply a spurious by-product of brain processing, thus non-existent outside of subjective experience. However you are right to say that this is a specific application of the word and not a general definition. In fact just about everything is epiphenominal by a a reductionist view, so examples other than mind are easy to find. Kitchen tables are epiphenominal from a QM perspective.

"I guess it depends on what definition of subjective you're using. If we confine subjective to simply that which exists in the mind of an individual then yes but I was shooting towards more of a personal POV definition. Thus my optics example: What you perceive might not be what I perceive but that, in itself, is not problematic."

OK - but the fact remains that science has a very big problem with subjective experience - it generally denies it any real existence. We have only just got rid of behaviourism in psychology and it is a scientific orthodoxy that the matter/energy is all that exists that needs explaining.

Science studies many things that are not directly measurable, yet their effects are; gravity, for instance. Logically, anything that affects our 'material' universe is at least indirectly measurable no matter where the force originates. I'm not sure what you mean here by 'experience-able'.

I accept this (and would also argue that nothing outside oneself is directly measurable). However I feel that this is a damaging limitation that science places on itself, one that prevents it from from making progress in explaining the existence of matter.

First, I'd like to clear up an apparent misunderstanding. Science did not 'choose' a 'physicalist' paradigm, nor does it necessarily depend upon one. The key mechanism of science is repeatability. A phenomenon must be able to be repeated so that it can be studied. One time only occurrences are of little use.

This is a big topic. I'll start by quoting Alan Wallace (the Taboo of Subjectivity) who suggests that "If we are to trust the scientific community to give unbiased reports of its research then physicalism must be regarded as a matter of conceptual analysis, a priori insight or religious faith. For there is clearly no scientific consensus on this matter, or even an historical convergence towards such a convergence among scientists." I do agree that science requires repeatability, but this should not be taken to mean that unrepeatable events do not happen. I would like to argue with you that science does choose its physicalist paradigm but its too long an argument for this post. (Happy to do so privately)

You've lost me here... what then are you suggesting consciousness is made up of? Is it a 'natural' condition or a 'supernatural' one? If it is supernatural how do you propose it effects the natural world without a mechanism of interaction?

I was suggesting that nothing exists which is supernatural. Why do you assume that there is no mechanism of interaction?

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Re: On Fantasies and Fairytales

Originally posted by MarcAC
My ‘fairy[tale]’ will stand up better to logical critique.

Interesting and, perhaps, a self-fulfilling point. Three questions come immediately to mind:

• Have you ever studied and/or attempted an honest logical critique of any Eastern religion?
• Have you ever studied and/or attempted a logical ctitique of Western logic, as opposed to, e.g., Dialetheism?
• Would you truly suggest that logical possibility is sufficient warrant for belief, given that any number of fantasies are logically possible?

Is it not possible that your claim lacks credibility, relevancy, or both?

Originally posted by MarcAC
That’s why roughly 1/3 of the world’s population supports it.

Would not this recourse to argumentum ad numerum mandate your conversion to Islam?

Originally posted by MarcAC
Otherwise, my faith assures me of it’s substance.

I can do no less than respect faith so long as it does not posture as something other than what it is.

 

[Raithere]

Originally posted by Canute
I just meant that current scientific explanations are also just words.

And mathematics; but yes, they are simply hypotheses at this point.

Science has not yet succeeded in explaining how anything comes to exist and God is no better or worse (yet) as describing the sort of mechanism that is necessary to fill this explanatory gap.

The scientific hypotheses do have some advantages. One, they explain how the Universe might have originated in a way that correlates with our current understanding of how the Universe works. Two, with them we are able to make predictions that are, at least in theory, verifiable.

You have faith that science will fill this gap and explain everything, and you may be right. However it has a long way to go and I am not alone in thinking it will never succeed (eg. Chalmers, Heisenberg, Plato, Newton, Maxwell, etc).

Actually, I think it's quite likely that we will never have a complete understanding of how and why. But I don't see this as a reason to leap to the conclusion of a supernatural creator.

Perhaps we are both right. In regard to consciousness 'Epiphenominalism' is the belief that consciousness is non-causal and simply a spurious by-product of brain processing, thus non-existent outside of subjective experience.

I see what you mean in this case. Although the question of consciousness is problematic, for it seems that none of the qualities we associate with consciousness are, by themselves, sufficient. In cases like this I often find we must attempt to discover what our hidden presumptions are. Personally, my suspicion is that consciousness is a gestalt experience that occurs beyond a particular threshold of escalating complexity and interaction.

OK - but the fact remains that science has a very big problem with subjective experience - it generally denies it any real existence. We have only just got rid of behaviourism in psychology and it is a scientific orthodoxy that the matter/energy is all that exists that needs explaining.

This does occur but I think it's more of a perceptual problem in people rather than a stated paradigm that all of science labors under. Indeed, I think more consideration should be given to exactly what theoretical science is. To wit: "As we move away from the plane of immediate sensation, all knowing is metaphorical - in science, as in poetry and art." - Skeptics and True Believers - Raymo

However I feel that this is a damaging limitation that science places on itself, one that prevents it from making progress in explaining the existence of matter.

I honestly don't see this happening though when one looks at the cutting edge of theoretic science. Where I do see this happening is in the public mind and I agree it is problematic.

I do agree that science requires repeatability, but this should not be taken to mean that unrepeatable events do not happen.

I agree. And I think it's actually so obvious that it is often disregarded. (Again, we must consider what our unstated premises are.) What is often overlooked is that there are areas where science does not really work as an investigative process. The trouble is, aside from logic, I don't know of any other truly reliable alternative. But it should be recognized that, regarding some things, our thoughts are really all we have to go on. Still this needs to be recognized by the Theistic side as well; for the various opposed and well reasoned hypotheses are equal in this regard.

Personally, I have no objection to a general theistic belief, only to the assertion of it as fact. However, I keep coming up with the same question, "What does the assertion add to our understanding?"

I would like to argue with you that science does choose its physicalist paradigm but its too long an argument for this post.

I agree that such prejudice exists, I simply disagree that it is intrinsic to science. And I think that the 'better' scientists realize it.

I was suggesting that nothing exists which is supernatural.

Then we agree.

~Raithere

P.S. I forgot to say it before so, "Welcome to SciForums". I've really been enjoying your posts.

 

[spookz]

now if only i could be as eloquent as canute.........!
welcome, my brother in arms

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Raithere
The scientific hypotheses do have some advantages. One, they explain how the Universe might have originated in a way that correlates with our current understanding of how the Universe works. Two, with them we are able to make predictions that are, at least in theory, verifiable.

Hmmm. The current scientific hypotheses of how our universe originated are expressed in the terms that we originally developed in the natural sciences as they related to our everyday world and our prevailing assumptions about it. If (hypothetically) those explanations are based on incorrect terms and assumptions one would expect them to break down somewhere. Although many geniuses have ensured that such explanations can be extended all the way back to a few moments after the universe came into existence they do break down at this point (and some would say before this). You may be right that this will change, and it seems fair to say that as far as the the universe is physical science can be expected to eventually explain it. However my prediction is that if science is going to explain existence it will soon have to face up to the fact that it does not make sense to say that the opposite of 'physical' is nothing at all. As you say there are signs that this is happening.

Actually, I think it's quite likely that we will never have a complete understanding of how and why. But I don't see this as a reason to leap to the conclusion of a supernatural creator.

I agree. I do not believe in the supernatural. (And also think that we might eventually understand - in outline at least - if we can think truly rationally about it)

I see what you mean in this case. Although the question of consciousness is problematic, for it seems that none of the qualities we associate with consciousness are, by themselves, sufficient. In cases like this I often find we must attempt to discover what our hidden presumptions are. Personally, my suspicion is that consciousness is a gestalt experience that occurs beyond a particular threshold of escalating complexity and interaction.

Many would agree but I don't. Although it might be true of mind I can't see how it can logically be true of consciousness, of experience itself.

This does occur but I think it's more of a perceptual problem in people rather than a stated paradigm that all of science labors under. Indeed, I think more consideration should be given to exactly what theoretical science is. To wit: "As we move away from the plane of immediate sensation, all knowing is metaphorical - in science, as in poetry and art." - Skeptics and True Believers - Raymo ]

I agree that there are non-physicalist scientists, (and also many self-avowed physicalists who pray to God at the weekend). However they don't have much impact on the way science is practiced, taught, or perceived, or on the nature of its explanations. This does no favours to human society or the world.

I agree. And I think it's actually so obvious that it is often disregarded. (Again, we must consider what our unstated premises are.) What is often overlooked is that there are areas where science does not really work as an investigative process. The trouble is, aside from logic, I don't know of any other truly reliable alternative. But it should be recognized that, regarding some things, our thoughts are really all we have to go on. Still this needs to be recognized by the Theistic side as well; for the various opposed and well reasoned hypotheses are equal in this regard.

Agree with all this. However science should be free and able to investigate everything. To say that logic is somehow different to science (eg metaphysics) is a cop out. All forms of thought use both induction and deduction as a basis. They have to be used together as appropriate. It is a shame we ever decided that philosophy was a different discipline to science.

Personally, I have no objection to a general theistic belief, only to the assertion of it as fact. However, I keep coming up with the same question, "What does the assertion add to our understanding?"

I suppose it all depends on ones definition of God. I agree that the traditional Christian God does not help much, except inasmuch as it assumes consciousness predates matter, which is an interesting idea whether or not you believe in any particular defintion of God.

Thanks for the welcome. This is the most (perhaps only) consistently sensible forum I've ever stumbled on.

 

[spookz]

The scientific method is generally thought to require that scientific verification draw only from outer experience, thus excluding all inner experience as a valid basis for scientific verification. Consequently, the scientific study of consciousness today is largely limited to the physical sciences and the externally observable correlates of consciousness. Mathematics, however, provides an example of a rigorous science based on inner experience that is nonetheless verifiable. Contrary to widespread belief, it is possible, therefore, for an authentic science to be based upon inner experience.

Mathematics: The Bridge to an Integral Science of Experience

 

[Canute]

Good point. (And all science is based on inner experience in the end).

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Is mathematics a sciece or a tool of science?

 

[jayterrier]

Consciousness is different from nature. Nature is controled by laws, while my perceptions and attitudes are not conforming.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

According to this guy, god doesn't only equal the universe, god is the equation that explains how we got here and how the universe was formed. Interesting stuff.

 

[Cris]

Jay,

Consciousness is different from nature. Nature is controlled by laws, while my perceptions and attitudes are not conforming.

Are you sure? Aren't you really just arbitrarily deciding where nature ends and something else begins?

Rait suggests, and I fully share this, that "Consciousness seems to be a self-affecting condition of internal and external isomorphism (awareness of self and the external world) within a neural network.".

But such neural networks obey the laws of physics; they are bio-chemical and electrical. They react to and are limited by the quality and quantity of input data received from external surroundings.

And again as Rait suggests - Consciousness is a gestalt experience that occurs beyond a particular threshold of escalating complexity and interaction.

But all of this is occurring as a part of nature, i.e. we are a part of nature. There seems no good reason to suggest or impose something else.

 

[Canute]

CRIS

Quote: "People should be free to do anything they wish except where such actions would interfere with the freedom of others."

Why is this? If consciousness is not causal people don't ever 'do' anything, and even if by some quirk of determinism they happen to act in a way that restricts someone else's freedom so what? Surely you can't have no consciousness AND morality.

 

[Asguard]

so basically the answer is no anthony, there is no logical reason why your theory is wrong, the only reason we object is cause we arent as smart as agnostics who admit they could be wrong and that someone else could be right

 

[Cris]

Canute,

If consciousness is not causal people don't ever 'do' anything, and even if by some quirk of determinism they happen to act in a way that restricts someone else's freedom so what? Surely you can't have no consciousness AND morality.

Assuming you and your consciousness are one and the same thing. Now consider yourself as a machine that processes information received through your sensors.

You begin life with near zero resident processing routines. Those that are present are hard-wired and permit very limited operation of peripheral equipment and two fundamental alert mechanisms, pain and pleasure.

Your entire existence from the beginning to the end comprises the receipt of external information and the avoidance of pain and the search for pleasure. Your processing capabilities grow by trail and error by recognizing what actions avoid pain and what maximize pleasure.

Processing capabilities continue to grow in complexity to the point where they can determine that maximum pleasure can be achieved if there is freedom to try anything, and minimal damage can be achieved by not interrupting the path of other independent processing units that have the capability to cause pain.

All of your actions are entirely deterministic. Social morality is determined by the complexity and the sophistication of human processing capabilities with the objective of maximizing pleasure and the avoidance of pain.

For example: murdering someone who is limiting my pleasure or causing me pain could be seen as a way to eliminate the problem, however, my processing capabilities allow me to realize that the murdered person might have friends who would seek revenge or there could be a legal system that would seek me out. Either way there is a significant risk that I might ultimately incur significant pain by committing murder.

Does that answer your question?