What about if we look at it through a moral, hedonically moral, lens? Shouldn't the world ought to have been in a way that's pleasing to us? Why are we stuck with reality, dissatisfying as it is? I suggest that we stop arguing and do something about it: Can't we make consciousness immaterial? — Agent Smith

If you concede there is a (1) a reality and (2) there is what you'd like reality to be, and you choose to live in #2 while recognizing you're not truly in reality, but you're just in some Disney Magical Kingdom that you like to visit in your mind, you can do that I suppose.

I'm not sure how you can sustain the self imposed delusion.

In any event, though, when you're talking to me, let's focus on talking about what's behind door # 1.

If the answers is yes, then consciousness is everywhere, because everything is able to react to anything. — Angelo Cannata

I might not fully understand your position then. Your OP suggested that it was stupid to believe that consciousness was reducible to neuro-biology, but here you've indicated that the hard problem of consciousness described by Chalmers (the p-zombie issue) poses a serious challenge to your position (which I take to be that consciousness is not so reducible).

Your main problem, from what I've quoted from you above, isn't that you think the reductionists are wrong, but simply that they have a logically supportable position that happens to lead to an unpalatable conclusion. I'd just say it's not a valid objection for you to reject a position simply because it leads to an unhappy, yet perhaps true, result.

What if she is SEXY? — god must be atheist

What if she was like Oholibah of Ezekiel:

" 18 When she carried on her prostitution openly and exposed her naked body, I turned away from her in disgust, just as I had turned away from her sister. 19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. 21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled."

As phrased, I take the OP as somewhat of a strawman because it asserts that the predominant view of consciousness studies is an extreme reductionism, where the language of science can fully explain and describe consciousness. That seems to be the position you are passionately arguing against.

The first step in this debate would be in locating the person who holds that view and then they can more fully explain why they are not stupid.

My assumption is that many will take a more tempered view and accept that scientific explanations don't fully describe consciousness, although I doubt many will attribute that limitation to the non-physicality of consciousness.

It also looks like (and you can explain if I've gotten this wrong), you've taken an extreme reductionist stance of you own here, arguing that neuro-biology plays no legitimate role in describing consciousness, but that the entire field is beyond science. If that is your argument, then it suffers from more serious problems than the argument you object to, which is that neuro-biology fully describes conscious states.

I suspect if we should hash this out, the answer will lie somewhere in the middle, where people are willing to grant some scientific limitation to the understanding of consciousness, with fairly bright lines being drawn between those who will accept or object to those limitations being caused by substance like differences in the brain versus the consciousness.

No, it's based on the assumption of common human motivation — T Clark

Then why the variation cross-culturally?

You're making a claim that ethical knowledge is a priori,
— Hanover

No, I'm not.


As I've said, at it's most basic, morality is based on empathy. A sense of commonality with other people. I think a lot of that is built in. Hardwired. How much? I don't know. — T Clark

How are you distinguishing a priori from "hardwired"?

Some cultures have purity rules, dietary rules, sexual prohibitions, caste systems, gender rules, body modification rules, ritualistic demands, etc etc. These ethical rules often violate progressive liberal views on what empathy demands.

I'm not disagreeing that my modern sensibilities don't prioritize empathy as an ethical criterion, but if I'm going to proclaim that the true way to determine morality for all cultures in an absolute sense, I'm not going to be able to declare that it arises from the natural human condition because it doesn't seem to when I look at the human condition across cultures.

morality is, as I claim, a reflection of human nature, there is a sense in which it is objective. It's how we're built by evolution, genetics, and development as supported by socialization and learning. — T Clark

This is based upon a false assumption of the universality of ethical norms. It is simply not the case that all cultures hold to the same moral rules, which would presumably be the case if morality was the result of genetic evolution (as opposed to social evolution).

You're making a claim that ethical knowledge is a priori, which, if true, would alleviate the need that we teach our children rights from wrong.

So, in other words, belief in a higher power makes no difference to whether one is moral or not. — Fooloso4

Whether your beliefs comport with reality doesn’t affect your moral worth. I'm aware that's a religious belief held by some though.

Why do you think many secular humanists are concerned about human rights and work hard to help others and improve human life? Do you think it's the remnants of theism? — Tom Storm

I think they do good because they are good people. I'm not terribly concerned with motives. If they're feeding the hungry, the hungry are getting fed.

I do think they're sincere in their motivations, meaning they may feel that it's the lack of there being a God that makes them even more moral in that they feel motivated entirely internally and needn't rely upon higher nonsensical powers. That is, I don't think they have deep seated unshakable theistic thoughts. I think they're true blue atheists.

As a theist, though, I do think their goodness does in fact come from a higher source, even if they deny it. Their beliefs (like mine) don't create reality. One of us is wrong regarding this whole theism thing, but I don't contend that theists are better people because they are theists. The idea that faith alone makes you a better person isn't something I subscribe to.

I concure. Moral decisions cannot be decided in an algorithmic fashion - they are far too complex. Just as no rule can accomodate the definition of "game", and of "morality", no rules could cover the all possible situations we migth call "moral". — Banno

I understand that "morality" is defined based upon the context or game upon which it used in, thus making the term inherently ambiguous outside the game upon which it is played. But what goes for "morality" goes for all terms, so I question why that would be a special case.

When you say that "game" cannot be defined, I assume that means that the definition of "game" is dependent upon the game that "game" is used in?

Why is "morality" and "game" within that special case of language games that they should be singled out? Aren't all terms on equal footing in this regard?

Not necessarily faith, but a goal (although, arguably, this can involve faith). By pursuing a goal, nihilism and amoralism are not options anymore. Because by pursuing a goal, a person's actions are directed toward that goal, meaning that the wandering, confusion, inconsistency etc. associated with nihilism and amoralism are eliminated or at least minimized. — baker

The cure for all existential doubt and for all the distress that might befall the philosophically oriented is to not be philosophical, but to be superficial. That is, ignorance is bliss. So, if you wish to cure your wandering and confusion by refusing to look behind the fact that the goal you're pursuing actually has no meaning, I guess you could temporarily deceive yourself into thinking you had real purpose and that would get you through the day.

The sexiest male will couple with the sexiest females. The sexiest females will couple with the sexiest males. (Promiscuity assumed, as per your theory.) There is a stratum which is least sexy, both genders. What are they going to do? Live a celibate lifestyle? No, life is better with bad sex than with no sex. So the unsexiest members of the small populations still made babies. — god must be atheist

You can't conclude unsexy people have bad sex, but only that they have ugly sex. I mean it's enough you've called them ugly, but don't deny them the mad skills they might have. I'd think there'd be a negative correlation between skills and looks just because the hotter you are, the less hard you must try.

By relying on others to clarify moral questions, we're only assuming that someone else might know better than we do, or, at most, that someone else knows better than we do. — baker

Obviously only you are responsible for you own decision, but relying upon others to assist in figuring out moral questions only means your conscientious.

But I still don't know which character was Barney, after which the show had been named. — god must be atheist

Those were characters from the Barney show. Barney is a big purple dinosaur and he loves you.

Certainly not an uncommon assertion. Would you class secular humanism as foundational? — Tom Storm

These are the affirmations of the secular humanist: https://secularhumanism.org/what-is-secular-humanism/affirmations-of-humanism/

I don't think these beliefs are foundational, but I think the foundation from which they flow is that humans are of some special status worthy of considering all of these matters and treating humans differently from all other things in the universe. We don't bother with secular rock-ism, secular porcupine-sim, or secular notebook-ism, but we focus only on those issues that affect humans and, for some reason, elevate them above all else and arrive at a moral system filled with all sorts of affirmations of how they ought be treated. We call this secular humanism.

To claim the secular humanist's beliefs about humans are foundational is to claim something special about humans, but they deny humans have any. If humans have no degree of magic in their constitution, then we'd need to treat human beings like the pool balls that they are.

So, either (1) admit that humans are special and worthy of special treatment and make that your foundation, or (2) deny that and stop with trying to create special rules for these ordinary physical entities. If you choose (1), you're not a secular humanist as they define themselves and you've not avoided any of the problems levied against the theist. If you choose (2), you're not a secular humanist, but some sort of nihilist, which is exactly what the theist expected to be the result.

The theist asserts human's special treatment arises from their being created in God's image and possessing part of a divine essence (soul). If a secular humanist were to accept #1 (and they don't according to what I've read), I might concede their views were foundational, but I'd also think they might be theistic.

I would add to your list that your kid be raised to be respectful of those fearful, weak, and simple minded and who don't achieve to an impossible standard, but to look at each person's heart for who they are.

So, to the extent one evaluates their child based upon your criteria, they will have failed to have the respect I just described, but they would have instead been a person too quick to declare their own child a failure.

Am I saying your kid is to get the same love, respect, and pride from you regardless of whether they satisfy your competitve criteria? Yes, yes I am.

actually don't know who Barney is / was as a celebrity. — god must be atheist

How would you demonstrate, for instance, that rape is wrong based on moral realism? — Tom Storm

The same way a theist demonstrates the existence of his diety. He doesn't. Such is a foundational faith statement, from which all sorts of conclusions derive.

I'd submit without that faith foundation, nihilism and amoralism results.

You've got to have faith in something I suppose.

think the recipient of the joke's "hurt" is the audience himself or herself. The relief comes from not hurting that much actually. The audience feels that the joke and the joke teller outsmarted him or her... and the relief comes from the fact that it's not really antagonistic but rather friendly. — god must be atheist

Sounds like some projection perhaps on your part. Not everyone is braced for impact when the comedian comes on stage. I can think that might be the case with some comedians, but think of Barney telling jokes to kids. There would be no edge there

goes on to explain how moral absolutism is a bit silly, and tell the funny story about Kant thinking it wrong to lie to save someone from being murdered. — Banno

We can speak of absolutism in the generic or debate the nuances of the categorical imperative. I do think Kant's efforts are more successful than the consequentialist's, but I've posited him as the holder of all answers.

Focusing on the Ethics Center's definition, I don't understand what it means by "regardless of context " Even in a starkly absolutist system like divine command theory, killing is permissible sometimes. That sometimes is contextual

A better interpretation of Kant (and of absolutism generally) would be to say "regardless of consequence." That would mean whether you should lie to the murderer at the door to save a life is possibly answerable in the affirmative if you have a moral absolute that innocent life ought be preserved whenever possible.

The distinction being in prioritizing moral directives versus evaluating for preferential consequences.

Keep in mind here that this turn of the debate from your reference to Kant moved it from a debate of absolutism versus relativism to one of deontology versus consequentialism. How the 2 interplay is something I'd have to think more on.

I'd tend to agree that Utlitarianism is relativistic in terms of it evaluating a population's present pleasure/happiness, but the principle itself dictating such an evaluation must occur appears absolute, suggesting it is not acceptable to reject a properly computed Utilitarian result ever.

How Mill sustains his view that liberty is an absolute good, despite his Utilitarianism is problematic as well, but that's a Mill problem, as above was just a Kant problem.

moral statements are not mere preferences, because of preferences taken only apply only to apply to me, where as a moral statement is taken to apply to everybody. — Banno

In thinking about this, if draw a further distinction. Consider "one ought not steal" versus "one ought eat one's vegetables." The first, I'd submit is not a conditional. You ought not steal period. If you must add a conditional, it would be simply to reassert it's meaning: "You ought not steal if you are to be a moral person." Consider the second though, it's not a moral directive, but an implied conditional. That is: "You ought eat your vegetables if you want to be healthy and strong like your father."

It's the lack of conditional as well that elevates it to the ethical.

Really? So, what is moral absolutism? That might be a good place to start. — Banno

Wiki knows all:

"Moral absolutism is an ethical view that all actions are intrinsically right or wrong. Stealing, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done for the well-being of others (e.g., stealing food to feed a starving family), and even if it does in the end promote such a good. Moral absolutism stands in contrast to other categories of normative ethical theories such as consequentialism, which holds that the morality (in the wide sense) of an act depends on the consequences or the context of the act."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

Well, who else will you trust? Who better? — Banno

And what am I trusting? If Joe says "Bob stole the money," am I evaluating Joe's character, Joe's motives, Joe's veracity, Joe's ability to have correctly seen the crime, Joe's intellect in assessing the many facts that have led him to that conclusion, or Joe's temperament in being able to rationally decide?

My point being that there are all sorts of things that I rely upon when evaluating other's contributions to my conclusions. If your suggestion is that I will look to my reasons to determine if rape is wrong and compare them to other people's, then you are offering, at least in theory, an objective, universal basis for right and wrong and describing my search for truth. That is, I'm not satisfied with just declaring my ability to self declare right and wrong. How I trust my reasons versus another's will be subject to all sorts of considerations (as in the Joe example), but I don't give myself absolute trust.

Not knowing what is morally demanded of us is something that causes most moral creatures occasional distress, and we do resort to others and our own reflections to try to figure it out, meaning we must be accepting there is some objective standard for what that moral reality is.

Sorry, but this is a blatant disregard for humans' fundamental reality. I just said. There are fundamental things that we hold dear to us. Disgust with rape is not taught. The body knows without being told. So, yes, rape is immoral. — L'éléphant

And so those who aren't disgusted by rape, do we declare them evil? And they declare themselves not evil. So who's right?

Don't miss my point here: I agree the rapist is wrong, but I deny its wrongness is simply social convention or a genetically dominant trait. I suggest it's more than that

Rape is wrong and we agree it is wrong.

Drop the "because".

Now, is rape wrong? Do you agree? If so, we can get on with other things. If not, then... well, there are all sorts of possibilities. — Banno

If rape is wrong even if we disagree that it's wrong, then you're arguing moral absolutism, in which case we agree. I think we don't though, but you may clarify

Your bold "you" misses the point, unless you suggest I, Hanover, have the godly power of decreeing right from wrong. I'd replace it with "anyone", and the answer is yes. If we let our prisoners vote, assuming voting is how we sort the good from the bad, in the district that encompasses the worst prison, rape is good.

If rape is wrong because we have agreed it is wrong, it is good when we change our mind.

would be a mistake to think that because something is undefined, it is meaningless. — Banno

The reference to Ecclesiastes was to provide a counter to the idea that religion does not include existential doubting and to quell your whole enterprise of finding a few key terms to focus on in your quest for a definition of "religion."

In any event, don't get too focused on the word "meaningless" in that translation. The more accurate translation is probably "vapor." https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/1/what-translation-best-translates-the-word-vanity-in-the-kjv-in-ecclesiastes

"Vanity" is a common translation as well.

We can't even define the meaning of meaningless. Ironic I guess.

But so much of religion is the opposite; the certainty of faith runs whole against what you set out here. Faith is "standing before the world with the presumption of knowing." — Banno

But see: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%201&version=NIV

don't think you've understood what is happening here.

↪Hanover , too, it seems. — Banno

Oh please. I'm trying to decipher your objective here as much as you are trying to decipher mine

DO you think I would disagree with that? I'm the one who repeats ad nauseam "Don't look to the meaning, look to the use". — Banno

OK, but you're looking at other people's usage, not your own experience. You're watching the animals in the zoo and telling the monkeys what it is to be a monkey. I'm saying hop in the cage.

At present we have ritual, transcendent hierarchies and longing as core aspects of religion. — Banno

And you gained this insight from your reading, your time here, or in the pew?

I'm not going to deny there are elements of what you say present in various religions, but I will deny entirely you have come close to capturing the essence (to the extent that word makes sense), at least from my perspective from my seat in the pew, of what religion can be (and it certainly can fall quite short).

It's like asking what it's like to play soccer. It's all about ritual, hierarchy, authority, mindless loyalty. Yes, but that's not why we play. If it were, you might ask why we choose just to be burdened with odd restrictions.

If this interests you, just go to whatever religious service you desire and gather actual first hand knowledge. Religion is about doing. Otherwise you're just watching odd people do odd things and wondering why otherwise reasonable people play this game.

Show me the systems that have been collectively employed/directed that are meant to help provide standards. — Ennui Elucidator

The standards have been set by celebrity culture. Your question is what has been done to counterbalance it.

How do we organize this pushback without having to rely upon the help of the book burners and pro-lifers? MAGA!

How can you know a cup doesn't have an essence? — baker

Could be what was in that Pulp Fiction briefcase.

Of course they are myths. That doesn't make them wrong. Saying. Lord of the Rings is not an accurate account of the history of the world is neither useful nor cogent. — Banno

Nice.

Is it porn satire or just garbage? — jgill

It's celebrated as sex positive because it discusses female sexuality without judgment.

If parents have abdicated their responsibility of setting sexual behavior norms to their children, you can't expect those same people to vote to make sexual norms a matter for law enforcement.

I just learned what a W.A.P. is. Apparently an acronym for a number one song by Cardi B that Wiki described as:

"WAP received widespread critical acclaim for its sex-positive message, while some social conservative commentators criticized its explicit nature."

Here are the first lyrics to whet your palate for more:

"Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Yeah, you fucking with some wet ass pussy
Bring a bucket and a mop for this wet ass pussy
Give me everything you got for this wet ass pussy
Beat it up, nigga, catch a charge
Extra large and extra hard
Put this pussy right in yo' face
Swipe your nose like a credit card
Hop on top, I want a ride
I do a kegel while it's inside
Spit in my mouth, look at my eyes
This pussy is wet, come take a dive."

What's a guy supposed to think women want, an ice cream cone and have her back by 10? Why do you suspect the men (barely men at that) are driving this train and not the women?

Surely you say she wouldn't want to be choked, and it's the man who must be overstepping to think that, right? She must be the victim in that case. Well, read on:

"He got some money, then that's where I'm headed
Pussy A-1, just like his credit
He got a beard, well, I'm tryna wet it
I let him taste it, and now he diabetic
I don't wanna spit, I wanna gulp
I wanna gag, I wanna choke
I want you to touch that lil' dangly thing that swing in the back of my throat"

Who do we arrest, him or her? She just got herself a wet ass pussy that needs tending to, that's all. Sex positive. That's what this is. Stop being a fuddy duddy.

But when we actually use a word, we assume, take for granted it has an essence. — baker

Maybe, I don't know what incorrect assumptions people make, but why is it relevant that we evaluate our incorrect knee jerk reactions?

the contrary, it's instructive to look into the processes of the meaning of words precisely when it comes to "loaded topics" like religion. — baker

Of course. But just like cups neither have essences, which was my point.

So the very first human was a Jew? Wouldn't that make every human a Jew? If not then how did the first Jew become a Jew? — Harry Hindu

If you're asking for the biblical account, no, Adam wasn't Jewish. The Hebrews were chosen to receive the Torah at Mt. Sinai after fleeing Egypt, so the story goes.

If you're looking fur a more historically accurate account of when rabbinical Jewish law developed dictating who is a Jew, I'd assume after the 1st century CE after the fall of the second temple.

I'm also not advocating here the Orthodox definition of who is a Jew over other viewpoints, but only indicating it is one. The Reforn have a very different view

This is the same as saying, "religion" is just scribbles on this page. — Harry Hindu

There can be 20 potential criteria that every religion has, with 2 particular examples not having any overlap, meaning 2 examples would not share an essential similar trait

My point here is that even if you wish to maintain your antiquated essentialist views, your above criticism does not logically follow.

There is no god. We make our own purpose. — Banno

Which is what? To help your fellow man and woman, love and educate your kids, be a force of happiness to all? Why? Seems meaningless to simply make someone's stay as comfortable as possible if you admit there was no reason for them to come and stay in the first place.

It's like being Sisyphus' water boy, tending kindly to him, convincing yourself your altruism and goodness matters, ignoring the fact that you're all involved in a meaningless struggle that will eventually end with your death and then eventually the destruction of the world.

We can easily criticize their work as insufficiently philosophical but the the point is they were writing polemical works, for the average reader, they were not engaged in serious philosophy. If they had been writing philosophy, they would have struggled to sell books — Tom Storm

I found the Dawkins' book I read a general primer on evolution, and I can't imagine it threatened any theists other than Creationists.

Maybe there's a political need to stamp out those peculiar literalists, but the weakness of their position is so obvious, it's not clear why a philosopher would expend much time defeating them.

If there is no God, there is no teleos and there is no good. "Good for what? " is a meaningless question if there is no what, no aim, no objective.

What does it mean to be a "Jew" if not performing some ritual — Harry Hindu

You are a Jew if your mother was a Jew. Judaism is not even based upon your belief system.

"Religion" is not a term with an essence.