I'm a bit confused, now, as to what we're disagreeing upon because I thought I had said some fairly sensible things, but it seems not to be clicking. — Moliere

I expect the lack of 'clicking' is mostly a matter of me trying to get by without providing enough details. The point I was hoping to get across was that the role that gamete roulette plays in neurological differences, while for practical purposes invisible (by comparison with say, hair color), is on a whole nother level in determining what it means to be the individual result of the spin of the wheel.

I don't want to go in depth in trying to make a case, but some additional info on my basis for thinking so...

At least a third of the approximately 20,000 different genes that make up the human genome are active (expressed) primarily in the brain. This is the highest proportion of genes expressed in any part of the body. These genes influence the development and function of the brain, and ultimately control how we move, think, feel, and behave.

https://www.ninds.nih.gov/health-information/patient-caregiver-education/brain-basics-genes-work-brain

You god-denying heretic — Joshs

You left off, "and vile thread derailer". :wink:

Do you think it is a moral failure for people to have inconsistent beliefs?
— wonderer1

"Things which we know (or believe) to be bad or evil are things that we know we oughtn't do." We know it is bad or evil to simultaneously hold contradictory propositions, and therefore we know we ought not do so. Whether one wants to call this a moral failure will depend on their definition of moral. I have given two definitions, one which would apply and one which would not.

What do you think? — Leontiskos

I think evil is in the eye of the beholder, in that evil is something our evolved monkey minds tend to project on things in the world. The notion of a HUD, where things which aren't actually part of the world get projected on top of more straightforward perceptions, might help illustrate this notion.

As we social primates do, in the heat of the moment I'm prone to see people as evil and act on the basis of such mental projections. However in this era, where dishing out the law of the jungle is seldom well advised, I think it is generally better to recognize one's mental projection of evil, for the monkey mindedness that it is, and try to achieve a more enlightened perspective. If I am able to step back from seeing red and recognize my projection of evil for what it is, I tend to be able to act in a more productive way.

Contrary to your claim that, "We know it is bad or evil to simultaneously hold contradictory propositions, and therefore we know we ought not do so.", I understand that it is simply an aspect of human learning that we will often find ourselves holding contradictory propositions. It doesn't make much sense to see oneself as evil for exemplifying such a human characteristic. Of course it is valuable to resolve self contradictory beliefs to the extent one is able, but that hardly makes a person with unresolved self contradictions evil.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.

― Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance: An Excerpt from Collected Essays, First Series

I would say that in the realm of speculative reason there is the law of non-contradiction, which no one directly denies, but which they do indirectly deny. Are we obliged to obey the law of non-contradiction? Yes, I think so... — Leontiskos

Do you think it is a moral failure for people to have inconsistent beliefs?

I don't have any clear idea of your theory of mind, and I don't expect the points I raise to get much traction in the minds of people unable to seriously consider physicalism. However, my point is that individual variation, that might be seen as being on the order of the variation in fingerprints, can have profound effects in the case of the 'wiring' of our brains. Furthermore the idiosyncracies to brain wiring play a huge role in who we are.

For example, consider these two images, where the difference might appear as superficial as that between fingerprints:



I speak from experience in saying that sort of difference has a profound effect on who one is. Of course I understand most people can get away with being blissfully ignorant of how their own idiosyncratic neural wiring results in them being who they are, but such naivete is not an option for me. And I don't have to make it easy for others to remain naive. :wink:

Edit: Image Source - https://autismsciencefoundation.wordpress.com/2015/08/30/minicolumns-autism-and-age-what-it-means-for-people-with-autism/

Maybe our understanding of necessity differs? To my mind if you can switch a part of the code and have the same results then there is not a necessary relationship between code and an organism's identity. Since you can do that -- not in science fiction but in science -- it just doesn't strike me as something I'd call necessary for personal identity. That is I can see it plausible that if I had a different code I could still be the same person in a counter-factual scenario because I don't think identity is necessitated by code. It would depend upon which part of the code was switched -- I could also have a genetic disease due to this, for instance, and I'd say I'm a different person then. But if one base got switched out in an intron then that is a scenario that seems plausible to me to possibly make no difference in the course of my life, and in relation to the topic, for my personal identity. — Moliere

Sure there are possible different genetic codes that result in the same phenotype, but the scenario under consideration here is not one of minimal DNA substitution, but of relatively wide spread differences in DNA resulting from random selection of gametes.

Consider the uniqueness of the fingerprints of siblings.

Regarding the uniqueness of brains:

With our study we were able to confirm that the structure of people's brains is very individual," says Lutz Jäncke on the findings.

"The combination of genetic and non-genetic influences clearly affects not only the functioning of the brain, but also its anatomy.

Like many others here, I can't make much sense of the things you say, and I would have to recommend that you talk to a neuropsycholgist about that.

This can enter into an utterly different direction. My sole contention has been that the empirical sciences - again, which utilize the scientific method - cannot address what value is, this even in principle. — javra

Suppose "value" is a fallacious reification, and instead there is only valuing as a process that occurs. Could science study human valuing?

Copied from the other thread:

I could have fair hair and still be me. I could be six inches shorter than I am and still be me. I could have musical talent as opposed to competence and still be me. Minor changes don't matter. — Ludwig V

I'd think you can only imagine being yourself with such supeficial changes, but what about less obvious, but more profound differences? Suppose the genes this 'alternate you' got resulted in a person with an IQ 40 points lower than yours? Suppose the genes alternate you got resulted in schizophrenia? Would
you think the alternate you to be you in that case?

What's with this categorization? Is there a name for a philosophical study of "mean old people"? — jgill

I propose "curmudgeonlogy".

So we have:

1. Moral sentences are not truth-apt (non-cognitivism), or
2. It is not wrong to eat babies (error theory), or
3. It would not be wrong to eat babies if everyone said so (subjectivism), or
4. It would be wrong to eat babies even if everyone said otherwise (realism) — Michael

5. It's a lot more fun to play with babies than to eat them. (emotivism)

It should be easy for you to explain why I’m on it. You told me you saw a pattern. — NOS4A2

I've got better things to do.

What your comment says to me is that the company I keep in philosophy of science and cognitive science is far removed from your neck of the woods. — Joshs

True, I haven't spent nearly so much time in an ivory tower playing make believe.

Sorry to break it to you, but you really don't know what you are talking about, in describing science. You might as well be telling a fairy tale.

Putting it in your terms, how science chose to experience the things became the basis of what the things were in themselves. — Joshs

This says to me that you don't have enough experience in engaging in scientific processes to know what you are talking about. It sounds like you have simply accepted a story about science. What basis do you have, for thinking people should believe that you know what you are talking about on this subject?

If you are not on that spectrum it should be an easy matter for you to read up on the pattern and explain how it doesn't fit. Why would you need any help from me in that regard?

If moral facts are brute facts then there is no explanation. — Michael

The thing is, there are areas of research pointing to there being explanations beyond mere brute fact. See Jon Haidt's The Rightous Mind. There is value in understanding one's tendencies to moral judgement in order to deal with those tendencies skillfully.

I’m afraid we’ve never met so your intuitions amount to nothing. — NOS4A2

Right, meeting you has nothing to do with the basis by which my intuitions formed. However, I have had previous experiences which led to me having good recognition of the pattern. You aren't providing any reason to think that the pattern doesn't fit. Do you think you are able to?

Let me know when the real world enters the picture. — NOS4A2

The real world has been in the picture throughout our discusssion.

I was curious as to whether you would falsify my intuition that you are on the psychopathy spectrum, and I provided you with multiple opportunities for you to provide evidence falsifying that hypothesis.

...perhaps I give you too much credit by implying that you are capable of doing this. — Fooloso4

Seems likely to me. (Although I don't think "credit" or "discredit" are necessarily relevant.)

The word does not strike a chord, nor can any other abstraction you can put forward. — NOS4A2

Well, you can say that for you it does not strike a chord, but you don't speak for everyone.

You won’t tell me which “us” you’re referring to... — NOS4A2

You didn't ask.

In the context of this thread, the "We the People" discussed in the preamble to the US constitution seems a relevant circle of who one might consider "us". Though I had no particular circle in mind. Some might associate "us" with family, and others with humanity, and draw the circle narrower or wider at different times, depending on circumstances.

Whatever monkeysphere you can relate to will do for the purposes of this discussion.

...proving to me it lacks any reference to the real world and flesh-and-blood human beings. — NOS4A2

You seriously need to improve your critical thinking skills. You mistake jumping to a conclusion on your part for something having been proven. I recommend greater recognition of seeking falsification as good epistemic practice.

Once again, you didn't ask.

Do you still need me to explain references to the real world further?

Ready or not, here it comes. — Jonathan Waskan

Indeed.

For some reason ChatGPT also wasn't being fed current information (I think everything was at least a year old). Recently they allowed it access to current events, but I think that's only for paid members. Not sure what the rationale behind the dated info was or is. — Jonathan Waskan

I would guess vetting of sources for reliability would be a concern. What sources of infomation is a 'real time up to date' AI relying on without vetting?

If by “strikes primal chords” you mean you get a little tingly sensation whenever you hear a first-person plural or first-person possessives, without first wondering what this “us” refers to... — NOS4A2

You can strike everything after "If" because it is just sophist propaganda spewing out of your head, whether intentionally so or not. A more interesting topic to me is whether or not you can relate to "us" striking a chord. Or to what degree you can do so?

I’d say you’re susceptible all types of propaganda. — NOS4A2

First off, as you demonstrate over and over in this thread alone, you are enormously susceptible to propaganda yourself. So now that we've established that we are humans here discussing things in this thread... Do you experience thoughts of "us" as striking a primal chord within you?

I'm hoping they put the brains and brawn together within the next ten years. — Jonathan Waskan

I'm somewhat trepidatious about it. The first thing that popped up when I googled "neuromorphic hardware" was this link sponsored on Google by Intel. It is the first advertising of neuromorphic hardware that I have seen.

I've been a convinced connectionist for nearly 40 years now, and I was confident that AI would get to the state it is now about now. However, for a long time I thought it would only be after neuromorphic hardware was readily available. The acceleration in the development of AI, that I see as being likely, seems like something humanity is not well prepared for.

This merits its own consideration:

Why do you keep saying “our democracy”? Why not just say “democracy”? We know the answer: this trite phrase is political language, not used to discuss the concept, but used to appeal emotionally to those who read it. This is what “thinking in words” gets you, an over-estimation of the power of words and the attempts at propaganda as a result. — NOS4A2

It also merits consideration that "us" strikes primal chords, in homo sapiens who aren't psychopathic to some degree. Any thoughts on that?

In fact, though Asimov used the three laws to describe robot operating principles, he didn't think of them as being written out explicitly in some form of code. Rather, they were deeply embedded in their positronic networks much as we see with ChatGPT. — Jonathan Waskan

Hopefully not as they are embedded in our neural networks, with an ethical bias towards *us* not being harmed. (With "us" referring to some subset of sentient beings.)

Well maybe "should" was too strong a word but I think similar kinds of skepticism as with moral realism can lead you to drop other realisms. Where to draw the line? Depends who you are I guess. It doesn't seem to me a big leap from dropping moral facts to modal facts which do not seem to be anymore facts about actual events as morality is. Dropping normativity in the context of morality does not seem such a stretch either from dropping normativity about beliefs all together which I am sure a lot of moral anti-realists would not find easy. I think the idea that there is no objective fact about what someone ought to do would also cover beliefs if it covers moral facts, ceteris paribus. I think there's probably other parallels too where some argument against moral facts might apply to other facts.

I guess there is no good well-defined place for deciding where you should stop in terms of skepticism though. Even the most stringent anti-realist I am sure will not give up everything. — Apustimelogist

Sorry it took me so long to respond. This gave me a lot to think about. :up:

I've got more mulling to do, but I agree with your penultimate sentence.

Your point about modality I find especially interesting, in that it seems that consideration of alternate possibilities (of past and future) is a rather important aspect of what our brains do. On the other hand, on the space-time block view that relativistic physics suggests, such possibilities are figments of our imagination. On the third hand, it seems rather undeniable that our imaginings of future possibilities (whether accurate or not) can play a significant role in how the future turns out (at least within the context of the suface of one tiny planet).

Still mulling...

But still, I find that questioning of my contribution to the philosophy forum to be rather awkward. Like, do people need to accept your specific philosophical ideal in order to be valued as a contributor? Is not even my questioning of certain ideas a contributing factor on a philosophy forum? Sounds a bit weird to imply a lack of contribution in that way? — Christoffer

:100: :up: To your whole post.

And to the quoted portion... Yeah it come across as religious bigotry, on the part of people who want philosophy to assure them of the reliability of their security blanket.

There are ways of apprehending or thinking about the world and our experience that dissolves emotional responses. — Tom Storm

Well put.

One has to prove God does not exist in order to prove that He did not create the universe, doesn't that follow? — FreeEmotion

Ok, what do you mean by "God"?

Existential Comics: A Dialogue on Compatibilism

The problem there is that we wouldn’t recognise patterns, let alone have neuroscience, or any science, were it not for the ability to abstract, compare, contrast, equate, and so on. — Wayfarer

Are you saying that our ability to recognize patterns is dependent on our conscious thought? If so, I think you've got things backwards.

Very briefly, it revolves around the metaphysical assertion that Ideas (whether construed as forms, principles or universals) are only graspable by a rational mind (nous) but they are not produced by the mind. They are 'in the mind, but not of it' - that is, intelligible objects. — Wayfarer

@Tom Storm

I think a more realistic way of looking at it is that human reason is substantially a function of pattern recognition occurring in our brains, and that notions like forms and universals reflect a neurologically naive attempt at making sense of the results of such pattern recognition. I think there is a reification going on, in seeing as things ("intelligible objects"), what can more accurately be understood as events subconsciously occurring in our brains (recognitions of patterns).

I suppose one mights say, as Wayf does, that "they are not produced by the mind" if "the mind" is equated with consciousness. However, from a more holistic perspective, where mind is understood as including the subconscious activity of our brains, it seems to me more accurate to think that what Wayf refers to as "intelligible objects" are in fact produced by the mind/brain. ( Which is not to say they are purely phantasms without correspondence to things in the larger world.)

Why are electrons negatively charge particles? — Michael

It's arguably because of a decison made by a relatively uninformed Ben Franklin.

It cannot work. Thinking that it works, even just a little, means that we have some ability get access to the truth, to reality, to how the world really is. — Angelo Cannata

The fact that we have some ability to get access to how the world really is, is what allowed for the construction of the internet which allows people to say such vacuous things as you say here, to others all around the world.

I hope you can learn to bark more meaningfully. Lots of other people do. Don't sell yourself short.

Obviously, an organized system of barking will never be able to master an understanding of the world. Curiosly, humans think they can, and then they are even surprised seeing that it doesn’t work. — Angelo Cannata

Well "master" might be a bit grandiose. On the other hand we are discussing philosophy with people all over the world, so maybe it works somewhat?

Anselms's ontological argument is mine, in spite of it's theological pretenses, for it is an example of a logically valid constructive argument that is 'necessarily true' but nevertheless draws a false conclusion about the world outside of logic, in spite of the argument insisting that it is referring to the outside world! — sime

Interesting example!

In other words, even ideal reasoners can be expected to draw rationally "correct" yet empirically false conclusions about the world. In which case, what is the point of AI and cognitive science? — sime

There is more to an ideal of reasoning than the ability to apply logic in a valid way. There is also the pattern recognition applied to diverse empirical observations that allow for recognition of false premises. For example the "training set" which is hugely important to the results yielded by modern AI.

I am not sure I understand what you mean here?? — Apustimelogist

I took the following to mean, "If you drop moral realism you should drop all realism."

If you drop moral realism you should drop all of it. And most people are unwilling to do that it seems. — Apustimelogist

Perhaps I was misinterpreting you, but I was explaining that I don't see a good justification for dropping all realism, on the basis of the nonexistence of moral facts.

Now, there may be people who earnestly profess to fail to comprehend morality. But I would say that if it is observable in their actions then they understand it just fine, it's just that their theory is at odds with their actions. — Leontiskos

I wouldn't say I fail to comprehend morality. I see morality as a function of evolved cognitive biases which tend to make individuals function successfully in a social group, as the following video illustrates:



Like the angry monkey, we are biased towards judging things to be wrong and acting on such judgements. There is no need for a 'moral law' to explain such behavioral tendencies - just a history of evolution as social primates.

There is no inconsistency in social primates like us intellectually recognizing an emotivist basis for morality, and yet continuing to be social primates who form and act on moral judgements. Humans can't turn themselves into Vulcans just by adopting a particular moral theory.

I know your intuitions about morality have been strongly influenced by religious arguments. So it is understandable that it would be quite a paradigm shift for you to grasp such a different way of understanding morality, but I happen to think this is vastly more realistic than your belief in a moral law and lawgiver.

I feel there is a mindset behind honesty.
Without that mindset, honesty doesn't exist. — YiRu Li

Autism?

Obviously, this clearly isn't an argument for moral realism but it is an argument against the case that moral realism is inherently different to any other kind of realism. If you drop moral realism you should drop all of it. And most people are unwilling to do that it seems. — Apustimelogist

I think there are evolutionary reasons that our thinking is biased in ways that tend to make us successful as a social species. I don't see a reason to think such moral biasing (or similar biasing) of our perspective would bias our perspectives in all regards.