One can be a successful entrepreneur without becoming a capitalist, but it is very difficult, and the failure of many entrepreneurs is due to one's unwillingness to venture into the realm of capitalism. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree. Also, unless you're running a Fortune Global 500 corporation, entrepreneurship (the experience of some forum members) and macroeconomics (the topic of this thread) are incommensurable.

A natural human right is a moral claim to social equaity which applies across all human cultures, hence; is universal and inalienable.

That is Fascism, I think you would have to say; I'm not talking about something that could possibly happen somewhere, but what is happening all the time and everywhere. — unenlightened

I agree. Also, greed is good, but globalism is great.

Nowadays, the concept of human rights has gained such a righteous connotation that it seems to be the case that in order to gain the upper hand in any discussion about whether some need (whether basic or not) should be granted or not by the state, is to invest it with the label of "human rights". — rickyk95

People are born into the world with:

1) Natural rights/privileges and natural duties/obligations which are universal and inalienable, arising from natural law (the moral claim that the human condition forms the basis of an absolute equality between all people).

2) A need for well-being which can only be met, or denied, by other people (i.e., society).

3) Legal rights/privileges granted, and legal duties/obligations required, by the human authority having jurisdiction over their place of birth.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a codified example of the principle of natural rights.
http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html

Thirty articles are listed; which ones should be eliminated to provide debt relief for governments?

Not so much a marketplace then, as a battlefield, where rather than add value to the community, one seeks to take value from others. And a battlefield is a place that adds no value, but destroys it, and redistributes the remains on an arbitrary and unequal basis. — unenlightened

Exactly. And that would be Fascism.

My favourite history quote:
"Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past".
George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949).

After talking with a friend who is an economist, and as a partial although incomplete economist in training I had to agree with his argument of altruism being inferior to taking a selfish stance in life. — Question

So psychopaths control the markets; tell me something I don't know. Is your friend Gordon Gekko?
http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0012282/quotes

This is a serious issue that needs global support in facilitating open and educated leaders to the benefits of cheap labor that some do not comprehend. — Question

Why waste time educating leaders? Just bribe, blackmail, or threaten them. There's plenty of money available for those kind of things, because it's not wasted on labour costs.

Can a world exist where everyone is happy? — MonfortS26

Happiness is an emotion (an instance of a person's core affect continuum); a subjective condition which doesn't persist over time. As such, it is an unattainable intersubjective (social) goal.

By definition, happiness varies across individuals and cultures. For example:
1) What makes a psychopath happy is probably not the same thing that makes a neural typical person happy.
2) What produces happiness in one culture (e.g., head hunters) may not produce happiness in other cultures.

However, if happiness is a positive attitude toward (or evaluation of) one's life with reference to eudaimonia (i.e., human flourishing, or well-being), it is a practical (and arguably necessary) social goal which entails the satisfaction of fundamental human needs (Max-Neef, et al.) through the implementation of public policy based on a political commitment to social equality.

Interestingly, the OECD combines both the evaluation of, and affective reaction to, life experiences in its definition of subjective well-being.
Helliwell, J., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (2017). World Happiness Report 2017, New York: Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
http://worldhappiness.report/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/03/HR17.pdf

I object to that term 'chemically induced'. It is derogatory and dismissive. — Wayfarer

It also places the claim, "How I found God", in its proper context.

'stonedthoughtsofnature's posts are highly resonant with the 60's sensibility. — Wayfarer

In other words, you suspect his experiences are chemically induced, hence; artificial as opposed to natural spiritual experiences.

I would best describe the experience as a connection to an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient presence that perpetuates every part of my being, it doesn't "linger" over it, it completely transcends my physical body and connects me with a part of everything else. — stonedthoughtsofnature

Thanks for providing more information.

Does it seem like a case of being visited by an external presence or of internal communion or possession? How long do these episodes last, when and how often do they occur? Is it a pleasant or unpleasant experience?

No idea how I would be able to prove this since it's subjectively experienced, but I believe everyone can harvest the same experience within themselves through the process of introspection and deep insights into the center of the psyche. — stonedthoughtsofnature

So you have harvested this experience through introspection and deep insights? Is it an empowering experience? What is the significance of your moniker?

...the judgment unlike a taste, brings with it the feeling that it is the way it ought to be judged. Taken together, one would think that theoretically, anything, and everything could be seen as beautiful... — Wosret

So the objects of spiritual experience include the transcendentals (i.e., truth, beauty, goodness)? Anything else?

It is something I regarded as apodictic, i.e. impossible to deny. The point which struck me with great force was the inherent perfection of natural objects, like moss-covered rocks and saplings. I had this sudden realisation of the extraordinary beauty and significance of ordinary life, and felt that this feeling was something that we all should have and mainly lack. — Wayfarer

That sounds like a typical spiritual experience, with emotional and knowledge-imparting aspects. Apparently, entheogens do induce spiritual experiences:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3050654/

I wonder if this effect could be psychologically described as imagination enhancement. In other words, could entheogens be considered to be a crutch for those who lack imagination?

Okay. I suppose we could think of these as departures from the ordinary, practical, everyday run of things. Imagination seems to insinuate itself all over the place, but is still a stepping aside from direct experience, I guess. — Srap Tasmaner

Different psychological functions cause and/or sustain different types of experience. Because imagination is the psychological cause of, and belief the psychological resolve which sustains, spiritual experience, no rational explanation of its knowledge-imparting quality can be given.

William James wrote a book on the subject:
The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature. Being the Gifford Lectures on Natural Religion Delivered at Edinburgh in 1901–1902, Classics, Library of America, 2010, ISBN 978-1-59853-062-9.
https://ia600209.us.archive.org/31/items/varietiesreligi01jamegoog/varietiesreligi01jamegoog.pdf

I don't understand your point here. Can you elaborate? — Srap Tasmaner

Sure. It's not a point, it's a question; a request for an answer (not an argument).

Given that:
1) Peak Experience is an effect of self-actualisation.
2) Flow is automatic attention.
3) Belief is an attitude which accepts a proposition as true without evidence.
4) Imagination is the faculty of forming a mental image apart from perception.

In what way is the experience of these psychological things similar?

I wonder if a similar challenge doesn't arise from the psychology of peak experience, of flow, and so on. If you have an experience that you interpret religiously, does it really not matter that someone else has a similar experience when surfing? — Srap Tasmaner

Peak Experience is an effect of self-actualisation.
Flow is automatic attention.
Belief is an attitude which accepts a proposition as true without evidence.
Imagination is the faculty of forming a mental image apart from perception.

In what way is the experience of these psychological things similar?

I had a fellow philosophy major tell me once over beers that he was a believer because of a particular experience he had while tripping on acid. He explained that, at the time, he was already an experienced tripper, and so he was able to recognize that this was not the usual experience of using LSD, but something completely different. I took him at his word, but what are you really to do with something like that? — Srap Tasmaner

Ask alot of questions.

"Should I dedicate all my time to the pursue of eternal life" — AXF

That would depend on your definition of eternal life (for example, would it involve becoming a cyborg?), and your plan for obtaining it (e.g., the phased replacement of your failing body parts with robotic parts).

Ponce de Leon had a simpler plan which is much more appealing.

Given the current advancements in AI, genetics and chemistry, it is not unfathomable that at some point in the future we could 'engineer' cognitive states that are amazing beyond anything we can currently imagine. Combine the two and you have the ultimate goal achieved - never ending happiness. — AXF

Actually, human cognitive states are complex beyond anything we can currently imagine. Also, the screenplay for Frankenstein has already been written (spoiler: it didn't end in happiness).

You should not spend any resources towards making a family, pursuing hobbys or taking care of your parents... — AXF

Just give up my humanity for the benefit of the IT industry and medical profession (among others), and the empty promise of an everlasting transhumanist nirvana? Hmm, let me think about it. No thanks.

It is like an investment with an endless potential profit and a slightly painful consequence if it fails. It's worth making. — AXF

You go first, and let me know how it works out. What do you do for a living? Stand-up comedy? Used car salesman? Everglades estate agent?

Yeah, I have tons of beliefs. Just no beliefs that any religious claims are true...That could be handy if we could find surveys about atheists who are "spiritual" — Terrapin Station

I think your self-report suffices in this respect.

I don't have those sorts of beliefs, and so I don't interpret anything as those sorts of experiences, which reinforces or strengthens that I don't have those sorts of beliefs. — Terrapin Station

True enough. And yet you have a belief system (or worldview) of some sort; even if it consists of unbelief, such as Scientism.

When it comes to making claims that are about what masses of persons' beliefs are, I'm only interested in pretty rigorous data about that. — Terrapin Station

Then you would probably be interested in the fact that The Pew Research Center on Religion & Public Life has been publishing The Changing Global Religious Landscape since at least 2010.
http://www.pewforum.org/2017/04/05/the-changing-global-religious-landscape/

Thanks for the links, but you still haven't answered my questions.

...as someone who doesn't have those sorts of experiences, that contributes to not being prone to those sorts of beliefs. — Terrapin Station

It's not that these types of experiences result in belief or imagination (two closely related psychological functions). It's rather that belief in, or imagining, a narrative/mythology/worldview results in these types of experiences.

And while the spiritual experiences of an individual are not the result of sensory stimulation, homeostasis, or affect, they can be inferred by others through the observation of subsequent behaviour.

This may be a good place to start researching the subject. — Rich

Your charges were not directed toward Pharmacology in particular, but toward Science in general. The burden of proof is yours.

Science is essentially an umbrella marketing term for fundraising and shielding against criticism. There are no standards, there are no methods. — Rich

This discussion just got interesting all of a sudden.

In spite of the fact that I have a science degree, have spent my entire career applying science, and find it useful to refer to science in both a general and particular sense, I am genuinely intrigued by the possibility that science could actually be a hoax perpetrated by conspirators in academia and industry. And I might even believe that I have been brainwashed if you could answer a few questions for me:

1) Who uses the term "science" for fundraising and/or as a shield against criticism?
2) Please elaborate upon the scientific method myth. Has the scientific method ever existed or been practiced? If not,
3) What is the basis for consensus in the various scientific communities? Hush money? Kickbacks?

Even if science is a hoax, could I still use the word "science" for convenience sake? It's much easier than saying something like, "that thing people in research labs make you think they are doing, but really aren't."

Thanks for the clarification. So individuals are the objects of natural law, having natural rights. Is there a natural law theory which doesn't contain a natural right to life (irrespective of mental development)? If not, we should probably be concerned about defining life rather than levels of consciousness. Otherwise, what you are proposing is an arbitrary (i.e., personal or cultural) moral framework with no universal authority.

Moral considerations are applied to protect systems...

I’m talking about all moral considerations, so the individual becomes the object of moral axioms. This includes rights, but also more general axioms people may have such as the golden rule. — sackoftrout

I'm familiar with intersubjective moral codes and subjective moral truths, but not with what you're talking about. Are you referring to some sort of universal morality which is inherent in human nature (i.e., natural law)?

Again, what are these conscious systems being protected from?

From your chosen moniker, it could be inferred that your thoughts are inspired by a chemically-induced state of consciousness. Or are they neoplatonically inspired? Both? Neither?

"The predisposition to religious belief is the most complex and powerful force in the human mind and in all probability an ineradicable part of human nature." Wilson, E.O. (2004). On Human Nature. Harvard University Press.

If true, there is no such thing as a spiritual vacuum (i.e., all human beings have a worldview). Science is a method which some have transformed into a worldview (i.e., Scientism).

This is an argument which demonstrates that abortion should not be considered immoral and that anti-abortion views are largely the result of psychological biases. — sackoftrout

Demonstrates? I have a few questions pertaining to the first paragraph.

Moral considerations are applied to protect systems which contain the complete physical and/or informational machinery required to generate consciousness. — sackoftrout

What moral considerations in particular are being referred to here? How, and by whom or what, are they applied to protect conscious systems? And what are these systems being protected from?

Why do moral considerations only protect conscious (and not also semi-conscious and non-conscious) systems? Especially if by protecting these others, conscious systems are also protected (e.g., protecting a water supply, or food source, etc.)?

Are conscious systems always conscious? Are they unprotected when they are semi-conscious or non-conscious?

The phrase, "systems which contain the complete physical and/or informational machinery required to generate consciousness" is metaphorical unless it applies solely to computers, robots, artificial intelligence, etc.

If this phrase is intended to refer to both inorganic and organic entities, the word "machinery" is used inappropriately, because machinery is not a component of organic systems. Also, please provide definitions for "information" and "consciousness" which are appropriate for both inorganic and organic systems (in order to avoid category errors).

These rights uphold the respect and dignity of autonomously guiding one’s own delicate phenomenological experience. — sackoftrout

What rights are being referred to here? Are moral considerations being equated with rights (i.e., are they synonymous terms)? What is phenomenological experience as opposed to other types of experience?

Paul Costa (with his NEO PI model of personality), also puts forth the idea that people who self-monitor are likely to be deceitful or manipulative. — Anthony

Did this idea arise from criticism by Widiger, Ben-Porath, and Waller regarding the lack of controls in NEO PI-R for dishonesty and social desirability bias?

Wouldn't straightforwardness be related to impulse control problems and outspokenness? — Anthony

No. I equate straightforwardness with honesty, and outspokenness with unreserved speech. As such, they are two different things, and neither one is a symptom of an impulse disorder, narcissism or psychopathy.

Narcissistic and psychopathic behaviour is generally calculated and deliberate (i.e., not impulsive). Is this a result of greater than normal self-monitoring which compensates for a lack of empathy?

The following paper deals with choice blindness (i.e., the lack of meta-awareness with regard to decision-making):

Johansson, P; Hall, L; Sikström, S; Tärning, B; Lind, A (2006). "How something can be said about telling more than we can know: On choice blindness and introspection" (PDF). Consciousness and Cognition. Elsevier. 15 (4): 673–692. https://web.archive.org/web/20160605003648/https://www.lucs.lu.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Johansson_et_al-2006-How_Something_Can_Be_Said.pdf

What sort of free will is necessary for moral responsibility, and does ours satisfy the criterion (thus making us morally responsible)? — Sineview

This is the wrong question to ask with regard to the relationship between choice and responsibility. It presupposes responsibility and asks for a definition of free choice which provides it. I agree with presupposing responsibility (as this satisfies a fundamental human need for justice), but a better question would be: given a scientifically derived notion of human choice, how can we formulate responsibility to meet the need for justice?

Belief in free will as it is understood by libertarians (for example, Kant) consists in believing, inter alia, that whatever we have done in the past, we really could have done otherwise, even though all the conditions were just the same. — John

Has any scientific research been conducted which supports libertarian free will (the ability to do otherwise)?

You're saying that human nature and genetic predispositions qualify as coercion, correct? — Sineview

Incorrect.

Are uncoerced choices possible, then? — Sineview

Coercion is the use of physical force, threat or intimidation without regard for a person's desires or volition in order to obtain compliance. Using this definition, I suspect that, absent oppressive living conditions, choice coercion is more exception rather than rule.

Human nature and genetic predisposition would seem inescapable and fully influencing of our choices, since they affect the mechanisms by which one chooses. — Sineview

Correct. In this, it's important to note the difference between coercion and influence.

Human beings are not free to function contrary to human nature. This should be intuitively obvious, but just in case evidence is required: we cannot see in ultraviolet like bees, and we cannot hear ultrasonic frequencies like dogs. Our sense organs detect signals within a specific range. In other words: they are limited, or constrained; they are the parameters of human sensory perception. Also, we cannot fly like birds, we cannot run 40 mph like cheetahs, etc., etc.

In like manner, human choice functions within the limits of human consciousness (the sum total of a person's current mental activity). Its operation is preceeded by problem-solving, and it is the result of decision-making. These are types of controlled and/or automatic information processing. This controlled/automatic functionality provides the requisite flexibility for responding to our environment instantaneously, or in a delayed manner (according to the exigencies of a situation). It also results in thinking which misinterprets its environment under certain conditions (i.e., errors, illusions, and biases). These natural faults in thinking are counteracted only by the application of a morality (which is probably why morality is a human universal).

If not intuitively obvious, an experiment could be developed to test the following hypothesis:

Human choice is ultimately limited to satisfying corporeal desires (being mindful of mortality), social desires (being mindful of a transcendent public good, and obligations imposed by social norms, laws, etc.), or ethical desires (being mindful of moral obligations imposed by conscience, intersubjective morality, etc.), and human preference with regard to satisfier choice is as follows:
1) First Choice: personal satisfiers.
2) Second Choice: social satisfiers.
3) Third Choice: ethical satisfiers.

In addition, a person is not free to function contrary to their own genetic predispositions. This also should be intuitively obvious. If not, two examples should suffice:
1) Temperament (those aspects of personality considered to be innate, as opposed to learned) is an example of a heritable attribute which affects behaviour (limits choices) and remains essentially unchanged throughout the course of a person's life.
2) Mental disorders also affect behaviour (limit choices), sometimes resulting in criminality. Many are genetically determined. Some can be treated (e.g., obsessive-compulsive disorder), and some cannot (e.g., narcissistic personality disorder and psychopathy).

So, the influence of human nature in general, and genetic predisposition in particular place limitations (constraints) on a person's choices. They are parameters of human freedom with reference to choice.

This is why free will, defined as the ability to do otherwise, is an illusion. Whereas, defined as uncoerced choice, responsibility depends simply on the presence or absence of coercion. If the choice was coerced, the person is not responsible for their subsequent action(s), conversely; if the choice was uncoerced, the person is responsible for their subsequent action(s).

Case in point?

How do you define free will? — Sineview

Uncoerced choice.

What are the parameters of human freedom? — Sineview

With regard to choice: the absence of coercion, human nature in general, genetic predisposition in particular, and environmental circumstances.

Can we make only internal choices, or can we actualize our internal choices in the external world? — Sineview

Choice is actualised through subsequent intention, planning, volition, and action.

It is that background ability to assess and equate and impute meaning - to say that 'this means that', that 'because of this, then that must be', that strikes me as being foundational to the operations of rational intelligence. — Wayfarer

I would re-phrase it thus: reasoning (along with many other cognitive and intuitive functions) is a component of verbal modelling (which is the processing component of intelligence).

Animals sense, interpret, and nonverbally model their environment, whereas; human verbal modelling provides an infinite capacity for description. For those who like to think that animals possess a language faculty (hence, modelling capacity) similar to that possessed by human beings, all I can say is: they communicate by means of physical signals, but what do they manufacture?

So what is the agenda behind attempts to equate animal nonverbal modelling with human verbal modelling? Could it be to justify animal-like behaviour on the part of human beings?

But regardless, computers are ultimately the instruments of human intelligence; and I am still dubious that they will ever know what all (or any) of that information means. — Wayfarer

This presupposes that AI is being developed to "know what all that information means". I think we need to go back to Noblosh's comment and ask who is developing AI, and for what purpose?

The comment was 'wrong department'. — Wayfarer

In any case, we agree that the social sciences and humanities do not reduce to neuroscience, physiology, biology, chemistry, or physics.

You may refer to:
1) Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory, Cross-Battery Approach (Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007).
2) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-IV) (Kaufman & Lichtenberger, 2006).

Is having complete knowledge important? — JupiterJess

nobody has the time to learn everything — Marchesk

what would be the difference even if they did — JupiterJess

The difference would be one of dependence or independence. Dependence enhances social control. Artificial intelligence can be controlled, natural intelligence cannot.

Dennett seems to think this is a use it or lose it scenario. — JupiterJess

Of course it is.

AI doesn't serve humanity, AI is a toolset. — Noblosh

A prescient warning is contained in this observation.

There are a lot of heavy hitters that believe that the Internet is on the verge of becoming a real intelligence. — Wayfarer

Information control is mind control. To what extent is information being controlled on your social networks?

intelligence and information processing are fundamentally different in some basic way. — Wayfarer

I don't see how. Intelligence is a measure of memory, knowledge, and controlled/automatic processing capacity.

this isn't something new or novel — StreetlightX

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Consciousness is a hierarchical matrix, with discursive awareness being the topmost level, but discursive awareness is underpinned by many activities which are subliminal, subconscious and/or unconscious. — Wayfarer

I agree. The terms conscious, semi-conscious, and non-conscious are convenient for classifying types (or aspects) of mental activity, and provide a convenient framework for discussion, but they are not mutually exclusive categories.

If you define consciousness as the sum total of an individual's current mental activity (the Spotlight Model subscribed by most cognitive theories), it can be measured on a continuum between fully aware/responsive, partially aware/responsive, and unaware/unresponsive. Then the operation of any particular activity (e.g., attention) may be described as varying between a controlled (conscious) and automatic (semi-conscious) process.

By extension, inference could be measured on a continuum between induction/deduction/abduction (controlled processing) and the application of heuristics (automatic processing).

The activation of processing type (controlled and/or automatic) depends on the exigencies of a situation. Immediate decision-making requires semi-conscious, automatic processing. Delayed decision-making permits conscious, controlled processing. Both are employed in daydreaming (creative thinking), with or without meta-awareness.

How do we know that those other parts aren't "conscious" in the sense that there is some form to the information being processed, and that there is some central executive "looking at" those forms and manipulating them for some meaning or purpose. — Harry Hindu

Great question. I can't answer it beyond saying that non-conscious activity could be the source of automatic thoughts and the primitive reflexes. It may also process forgotten memories. I would very much be interested in any current research on non-consciousness.

Consciousness seems to me to be some kind of information architecture. It is composed of all the various sensory impressions from our various sensory organs, and they all can appear at once. This seems to imply that the brain in a central nervous system is the central location where the information from the senses come together into a seemless model of the world, and it is this model that we reference in order to make any decision and perform any action. — Harry Hindu

I agree. Well said.

Is a computer that uses face recognition by using an image of a face and then comparing the shape, angle and features of the face with what it has in it's memory so that it recognizes a face or doesn't, conscious/aware? — Harry Hindu

Another great question. Automated facial recognition is probably a current technology. If a computer can simulate perception, observation and introspection, it satisfies my definition of awareness. At some point it becomes necessary to formulate general, inorganic, organic, and human definitions of consciousness.

It occurs to me that the expressions 'being aware of' and 'being conscious of' are clearly synonymous, whereas the noun 'awareness' and assumed distinctions from 'consciousness' seem popular in talk of psychology. — jkop

It should be intuitively obvious that consciousness includes a mental component and a corporeal component. Cases in point: wakefulness, sleep, coma, etc.

This distinction serves as a basis for assessing disorders of consciousness (e.g., minimally conscious state, persistent vegetative state, chronic coma, etc.) and predicting life support outcomes, among other things.

I think you can be conscious but not aware in some states near sleep.Actually I have had the experience of being conscious of being asleep, very rarely - maybe once or twice. Also in meditation you can get into states where you're conscious but not conscious *of* anything, which almost fits that description. — Wayfarer

I think these are good examples of semi-conscious activity (i.e., sleep, hypnagogia, trance). Other less obvious ones include daydream and flow.