Sorry, but AI intelligence is not the same as human intelligence. I've also been outspoken about this in another thread. We can't say that computing is the same as thinking.

This is a significant change in argument. The OP, to which I responded, addresses evolution as explanation for consciousness - not biology. There's a very distinct difference between the two. — javra

Biology, evolution -- whatever it takes.

I've posted links in this thread:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12484/the-decline-of-intelligence-in-modern-humans

I need to revisit those articles, as I'm not sure if they're adequate as sources of how intelligence (hence consciousness) developed.

What you provide is not an explanation of how consciousness comes about via the mechanisms of biological evolution - in brief, natural selection acting upon mutations. — javra

No I have not provided you with the how. I've only been talking about examples of consciousness. So, we can proceed then to discuss how biology is the reason why consciousness exists -- as a start.

What is lacking in our accepted definition/description of consciousness? Because I'm good with it. But if you're not, what's your definition of consciousness in humans, in animals?

So what's your opinion if we only stay within Newberry's parameter?

You're not mentioning philosophy, which I think is of greater importance than the disciplines you've mentioned. — javra

Oops, actually, I meant to include Philosophy there. I didn't review my post. But yes, I agree.

Sure, but we don't know this via our inferential knowledge of biological evolution, right? — javra

Uhm, yeah that's what I meant -- we do know through the inter-disciplinary studies. Tests and studies show this.

To be clear, my question was that of “how does biological evolution explain how consciousness comes about, this when biological evolution (as theory we employ for explanations and predictions) does not of itself provide us with an explanation of what is conscious and what is not conscious." — javra

They do. Let's cite some studies from the medical community. For example, the consciousness of babies is defined as that recognizing the mother's voice and face, then later awareness of body parts, etc. As adults we are aware of our own mortality and what is death. So, we are aware of the future and what happened in the past.

Tell me, what is it that's inadequate as explanation in your opinion? Let's start there.

So I'll ask: How can the mechanics of biological evolution explain how consciousness comes about when it cannot provide an explanation of what does and does not have consciousness? — javra

What does and does not have consciousness is an inter-disciplinary topic covered by biology, psychology, and specialized areas such as neurology. Of course, different levels of consciousness exist among living beings. But human consciousness is the most understood -- so I only referred to human consciousness.

And your question has been answered. It's hard to have a discussion when one starts with "what does and does not have consciousness", because we know humans have consciousness.

So when presenting someone not familiar with the hard problem, or even has really grasped it (and is not of a mystical bent), they will quickly answer: "Because evolution has created it!" when asked, "Why is it we have sensations, thoughts, feelings associated with physical processes?".

How does one actually get the point across why this is not an acceptable answer as far as the hard problem is concerned? — schopenhauer1

This is, again, confusing the how with the why question by those who answer the question that way. They're answering the how thinking they're providing the why answer. Philosophically, we cannot answer why humans have sensations, consciousness, and feelings. We can only answer the how humans became this way -- through mutation, evolution, etc.

My question is this. How do we add the reflection schema to a theory such that the proof predicate Prov_U() includes the reflection schema itself. Would the following do the trick?

P8: P_1 & P_2 & … & P_7 & Prov_T(⌜phi⌝) → phi — Newberry

You can only if P8: is defined in your theory. Otherwise, do equivalence or some other logic axioms. Or embed Prov_T() in Prov_U().

Obviously, advertising qualifies as a pre-existing relation, so that the exchange cannot be called an impersonal exchange. The type of relation which advertising is, needs to be further expounded to draw out the affect which it has on the exchange. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. Advertising to the public does not create a legal or binding relation with the audience. You could ignore advertising. I think it's clear from the definition here that those relations that would create personal relations are ones that are binding -- financial obligations, for example, as in loans or extension of credit.

Two things. First, and least important - it is a mistake to conflate command economies with 'socialist economic systems'. — Streetlight

I did not. My use of "or" means that you could take any one of those listed to use as example. I hope we are clear on this-- command economy is not the same as socialist economy.

Second and far more important: a command economy is the opposite of impersonal exchange: it thoroughly personalizes (or rather, socializes) a market such that exchange in a command economy are precisely not spot exchanges. Market 'control' by a central state means precisely that such markets are anything but impersonal, and that exchanges under such conditions are embedded in social and political relations which dictate them from without. So it is wrong to say, as you have, that impersonal markets are features of command economies. I don't say this in any kind of defence of command economies. But it does point to a misunderstanding of either impersonal exchange, or command economies on your part. — Streetlight

Then you are changing your definition of impersonal exchange, which is against the rules of argumentation. Again, an impersonal exchange exists in command economy. The target buyers do not have to have binding relations with the authority in order to purchase, nor a personal relations must exist in order to make the purchase. I think we need to revisit the definition of command economy. Just because a government controls capitals and production, it doesn't mean that the public must all be bound one way or another.

Capitalism does not succeed in creating impersonal markets, The personal relations are just disguised, so as not to appear as part of the actual market. Consider advertising for example, it's nothing but a personal appeal. This we call marketing. — Metaphysician Undercover

For purposes of expediency, let's stick to the description below that Streetlight provided, see quote below. I'm cool with it. So, if that is so, then capitalism and other economic systems do necessarily form impersonal markets. Not to be confused with market economy whose umbilical cord is tied to capitalism. As you can see, the latter is a special term given to describe what happens in capitalism.

A market is, first and foremost, a site of what might be called impersonal exchange. It is ‘impersonal’ insofar that those who participate do not, for the most part, have any pre-existing obligations, bonds, or relations to one another. This ‘impersonal’ aspect of markets is what makes it different to say, gift economies, where gifts might be exchanged in order to keep up good relations between tribes. — Streetlight

command economies aren't market economies. — RolandTyme

I don't know if you're directing this to my post. But my response to this is, at the moment I can't entertain inchoate comments as this thread has too many important points and already several pages long.

So, I decided to self-diagnose the affliction I contracted reading this thread ( :sweat: sorry for lack of a better metaphor. I posted previously that I did not recognize the kind of capitalism I had in mind when reading Streetlight's OP and succeeding filling-in on this thread).

That said, I really like threads like this because there's truly a great effort made (on the part of Streetlight) in bringing out issues that require understanding of nuances.

Here's my objection to the prevailing sentiment within this thread:

Yet even here, neither the generalization nor the reproduction of the conditions impersonal production is enough to get us to capitalism. One further, crucial step needs to be taken. ....

It is at this point, where the general mode of production becomes geared towards the market, that capitalism proper can be said to come into being. And this, ultimately is the difference in kind between markets and capitalism. Markets bear upon issues of exchange: how goods move from one set of hands to another. Capitalism..., cannot be understood apart from issues of production: of who and what is it that stuff is produced for. — Streetlight

I am challenging the bolded sections of the passage above because these are simply not what define capitalism. Rather, they occur despite capitalism. So, my confusion is brought about by these two features that were already present in other economic systems that are not capitalism.

So what are these other economic systems that somewhat resemble capitalism except in the most crucial, essential way? The socialist economic system and planned economy or centrally planned economy or command economy, among others. Mode of production and impersonal markets are features of these economies, too. Except that there is a central authority that makes the decisions as to the production and distribution of goods. So, the shift in decision-making and control are what distinguish these non-capitalist economies from capitalism. Put another way, all economies have the generalized impersonal markets and production for market. So the truly distinguishing features aren't those, but who has control and decision-making over production and distribution of all goods and services. (There's a lot to unpack here, but I hope this vague description drives the point).

Capitalism is something that rarely gets challenged, even today. You have to really seek it out. Marx's name gets thrown around a lot, of course, but much like other classics -- highly praised and rarely read. This could be a reason for the difficulty or lack of understanding? — Xtrix

Thank god I wasn't thinking of Marxism. And I don't know if this is even relevant to say, but I took economics in graduate level and political economic system in the undergraduate level, so I'm pretty sure my confusion did not come from that.

Am I the only one to understand that the "why?" question is invalid only when looking at it through a scientific framework. So it is not that the question is silly, rather the framework is inappropriate. — M777

Funny in science, the why overlaps the how and in an attempt to satisfy questions of the why, they would proceed to again explain a phenomenon in terms of how. Why does it rain? Because when water vapor collects in the clouds and precipitation....

So with my Pessimist philosophy, I have distilled the idea that Comply or Die is a feature of the human condition. Basically, this means that we either comply with the conditions we are situated in (socioeconomic in particular) or we will die a slow death due to not playing the game correctly or simply outright suicide (outright rejection of the game). — schopenhauer1

Is there something about being in a position that one must do X for their survival that is callous or problematic? — schopenhauer1

No, questioning it is not problematic, or even putting it that way is not problematic. I mistakenly believed that this thread is about an alternative reality where people are not compelled to produce.

A lot of human conditions are set and no alternatives exist for those who want a different condition.

I do believe it can be objective, in both an Epistemic and everyday, ordinary sense of the word, for the reason that acts of kindness, v. .olunteer service, donations, assumptions of responsibility, manifestations of human decency take place daily in this world. That is evidence; that is data to be ordered and explained by a logical framework, a system, that would constitute the seeds of a genuine scientific theory.
In fact I would go further and claim that if one considers Psychology to be a science, then that branch of Psych that deals with matters of ethical concern, namely Moral Psychology, which employs experiments to establish correlations, assigns degrees of reliability to its findings, indexes and dates its conclusions, admits that those are all tentative and subject to further investigation and update, etc.,ethics is already, in a sense, science!![/u — Marvin Katz

I'm on board with this! If moral psychology is recognized as testable, verifiable findings on morality, I am a subscriber. I already reject relativism -- this is a sorry-ass approach to morality. But pluralism can be incorporated into your paradigm. I think it is already.

I suppose talking in extremes doesn't amount to a productive discussion. There is a point to a discussion, and that is the satisfaction of an inquiry, albeit imperfect. That's productive, even if we don't solve the world problems, we get satisfaction in answering an inquiry. But while you pinpoint an extreme -- no one should be compelled to produce -- the lack of further discussion as to what could happen in the future is missing.

And Tom, precisely those two quotes are what kept me in confusion, among other explanations here. So, I'll try to read up on capitalism. Thanks.

I think this is the first time in my posting on this philosophy forum that I have not successfully gotten the gist/understanding of the OP and further exposition on the OP on this thread. (I read the thread three times) And I don't mean to say that this is the fault of Streetlight. I mean, my reading comprehension, for some reason, is low when reading this thread. I take this seriously; and I don't have an answer. I'm sure this is a well thought-out thread.

Edit: I wanted to participate, but I'm at a loss for words due to my not understanding most of it.

@Benkei mentioned something about the perpetuity of corporations -- that they are a separate entity, existing with rights of a person, which should be discussed here. I related to that, but the response had again put me in confusion. So, there's got to be a gap in my understanding of this discussion. Which embarrasses me. :zip:

Edit 2: I think it exposes my lack of understanding of capitalism. This is the only sane explanation I can come up with.

I ask because I feel many if not all our problems are caused by not getting our priorities right. For example, I'm a sucker for good-looking peeps and my life is nothing but a series of disasters caused by my idée fixe with beauty. — Agent Smith

You're shallow and you suffer from lack of something in you. This is the true meaning of your desire for physical appearance. I've dated super good looking individuals, and appearance-challenged individuals. I'm speaking from experience.

Jesus! This is painful!

Philosophy is/was my cope. I thought l was improving myself and the world with philosophy but it's all a facade. Who cares what we have to say, what we think ???

Replace my clearly thought philosophical paragraphs with schizo rambling and it remains the same in character — Wittgenstein

Things like engaging in philosophical discourse could only work intrinsically. Do not reach out for the external satisfaction of your torment. Accept it and live with it. That's the only way you could "win". I'd say courage is a virtue even in a losing battle.

I'm too much of an asshole to let torment like that bother me. (not that I have what you have)

There are a lot of de factos of life to live in a socioeconomic environment with surviving, getting comfortable, and entertainment. These de factos are in a sense a "force" if you don't want to overcome the fear of death. ALL of this imposition of following the de factos of socioeconomic realities or death, is wrong. — schopenhauer1

So I ask you, what might a society look like with a rebellious stance towards production? — schopenhauer1

I'd like to know at which non-production point would it be sustainable/livable to be. Because I don't think there is in human history a period when all productions halted. This is equivalent to committing mass suicide. So, my question is, do we want to continue to live? If so, do we want to change the socio-economic power structure so that we're not compelled to work in order to produce? I'll tell you that if all workers stopped producing, that would hurt everybody.

When I debate anti-abortion people I always ask them how it comports with their other moral ideas. — Jackson

Good inquiry.

My question is, does it really matter if morality is objective or subjective? I do not think so. — Jackson

Good point. It does not. (But it doesn't mean that one is free to do whatever they please).

Whether it's objective or subjective, or whatever form it comes, morality is a set of principles that needs reconciling with other sets of moral principles. And this is an ongoing thing.

First of all, I'm glad someone is again raising questions about objectivity. Because before anything else, this notion needs to be understood fully. I had wanted to open a thread just for this purpose alone.

But here is something:

It seems that you have quite a moderate idea of "objective", since a few checks are enough for you to think that something is objective. This makes the discussion very ambiguous and confused. In philosophy "objective" means absolutely, totally independent from our judgement. — Angelo Cannata

Angelo pinpoints the problem with our understanding of objectivity. But he stops short of explaining further what's missing.

So, I think from your post, Marvin, objective to you means that there is either a scientific consensus or an individuals' affirmation of moral principles incorporated in their daily lives. And I disagree to the fullest that, philosophically speaking, this is what we mean by objective reality. Objectivity means that meaning is out there. And that we didn't improvise, create, influence this objective reality in one way or another. Neither is objectivity to be understood as a consensus among people: an objective reality could be one that's never been discovered due one reason or another, namely, we do not have the right faculties to discover it.

One of the examples that's commonly used by philosophers is the existence of a triangle. This is what I would call the epitome of objective reality, if I believe in objective reality.

What can I say, I'm a healer. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Another talent that's been demonstrated here. haha!

Thank you for accelerating my mediocrity to advance in no time -- and that's without having to put out any project like you did in the videos.
Sweet! I feel much better now. :grin:

Now that's the spirit. Stretching is good for the soul. :sweat:

I've come to terms with the thought that I'm not creative.

Or to put it another way: they did not even understand what it means to be poorly serviced. — Janus

The irony is that they built the most impressive architecture in the world -- water ducts, coliseum, palaces, government buildings, etc.

Why do I have to help other persons? — Jackson

You don’t. But the society or the masses would impose you that if you do not do so, you would be amoral. — javi2541997

You're engaging in true moral discussion and maybe not know you're pushing the correct buttons.

1. Society's compulsion for the individuals to provide moral contributions to the public is itself a legitimate moral question. And guess what? One can actually question it and they would still be under a legitimate reason to question, like what Jackson is doing.

2. Contrast that with an individual's action that directly affect others -- for example, murdering someone, or smoking in a closed room with other people, or inciting chaos in a crowded theater by fire alarm prank.

Bottom line, society cannot compel individuals on 1, but it is within reason to punish for the offenses mentioned in 2.

Apparently more like one of the greatest vectors of disease in the ancient world (well Rome at least), since they apparently were not cleaned and the water replaced often enough — Janus

Okay that, too. That's a separate issue though. If there was a way to keep them regularly clean, then they should work.

"Diogenes syndrome is a disorder characterized by self-neglect, domestic squalor, apathy, compulsive hoarding of garbage and more importantly lack of shame. The syndrome does not refer to the intelligence or the philosophies of Diogenes but rather refers to the way Diogenes lived." — Hillary

This is fair and accurate.

Even animals would prefer cleanliness, unless they're ill of some malady. Cats definitely show health by how clean they keep themselves. You'll know it when they're not feeling well, or they're neglected -- they'd also stop grooming themselves. Dogs prefer clean environment -- they don't shit where they eat.

Public bath facilities were one of the best contributions of the ancients to the world.

women still love tall handsome masculine man, biology doesn't lie. — Wittgenstein

This is a myth.

To be "moral" you would pull your weight to not allow others to perish with you.. But then the meta-position from this is whether it was even good to put people in the position that they needed to pull their weight. — schopenhauer1

This is the gist of the OP. However we choose to call it -- division of labor, sharing, team-work, pitching-in -- your question is whether it is even moral to require everyone to pull their weight. And my answer to this is no. If people don't want to share with the work, they have every right not to. But the fruit of one's labor should commensurate with their contribution of time and effort.

And I agree, often in capitalist society, one's time and effort do not commensurate with the prize they get. You can dig ditch 24/7 and still not able to enjoy life as others can. I mean when bonuses in hundreds of thousands dollars are easily given to some in the organization, even during the pandemic and lay-offs, there's absolutely something wrong with this society.

If you find issue with this, can you explain why? — Philosophim

I don't think I can. At least not to you. And I don't mean this in a negative way.

I'll tell this you this, though, then I'll blow off of this thread:

Your "core values", whatever those are, and whatever definition you attach to that expression, wouldn't play a role in a situation in which you find yourself in possession of power and opportunity that you could exploit. (Please keep track of the nuances here). While not all in power would usurp it, when some do, that core values would have nothing to do with it. That's why cybersecurity, surveillance, and monitoring are effective means of combating corruption. They (the people in charge of tracking) would give zero credits to your wholesome goodness.

An expression of disapproval is not a point. — Philosophim

Neither is this:

False character only holds when there is threat of punishment, loss, or promise of reward. True character holds when no one will punish, harm, or reward you for what you do. — Philosophim

Ugh. Where to begin.

If you think the way you do here on this thread, then you have no understanding of human nature yet.