That would be ridiculous. If it is shown that objects only exist in the mind, then why would there be a distinction? Objects would only exist as thoughts. What exists "out there", if anything, wouldn't be space-time with objects. It would be something else entirely - and unexplainable. It would be non-physical, while the mind would be physical.

The same way and role that the peacock's feather plays. It encourages mates to choose them because it shows fitness.

I really don't get the point of this debate. What is non-physical and what is physical? Who cares? What point does one hope to make when one finds that the universe is one or the other? How will that differ from the other's position?

To say that what is physical vs. non-physical is what is explained vs. what isn't is just referring to our own ignorance. There are physical things that have been explained and physical things that haven't been. To use these terms is just making things more confusing because it is a false dichotomy.

Perhaps a metaphysical definition would be that an event or object is physical if and only if it has a spatiotemporal location within some reference frame. — MetaphysicsNow

Some theories of mind claim that space-time only exists as a mental construction to help us make sense of the world. In this sense, the mind would be the only thing that gives rise to a spatiotemporal location. In this sense, the mind would be physical and everything else non-physical.

One evil demon is enough to get the skeptical argument about certainty going - in fact you don't strictly speaking need the evil demon in any case. If you burrow into Descartes's argument it is, in the abstract, simply based on the idea of the fallibility of all processes, and that obtaining knowledge is a process. — MetaphysicsNow

What do you mean "falilibility" of all processes? How do they fail? Is it our senses that fail us, or our interpretation of what they represent? When you say, "all processes" do you also mean processes like fusion and the evolving process of organisms by natural selection? Did natural selection fail in some way? By whose standards?

He "gets around" this by introducing his clear and distinct ideas which provide us with knowledge without having to go through a process of acheiving it. — MetaphysicsNow

Why would one want to get around facts if one is trying to get at knowledge? We have instinctive knowledge and we have learned knowledge. Which one are you talking about?

We've long since moved on from Descartes obsession with certainty - but he changed the terms of the philosophical debate: prior to him the big distinction in metaphysics was between form and content, after him it was all about mind and matter. — MetaphysicsNow

Well, that's the thing. There is no distinction. Dualism is false. Mind and matter interact so they are made of the same substance. Whether you want to call that substance "non-physical/mental", or "physical/matter", does it really matter? No, it doesn't. Descartes went through all that trouble for nothing.

My concept of the non-physical is phenomena that cannot be detected by our senses and the scientific extensions of our senses and which cannot be explained by existing scientific paradigms. — johnpetrovic

You're describing something that possibly doesn't even exist. How does one provide evidence for things that our senses and scientific instruments can't get at? To ponder the existence of such things would be a waste of time.

The non-physical is associated with our current state of scientific knowledge. For example, prior to the work of Maxwell and Hertz, electromagnetic radiation was non-physical, but became physical as a result of the knowledge that they generated. At the present time, self-aware consciousness is non-physical.

What is your concept of the non-physical? — johnpetrovic

This is related to the "supernatural" as science provided natural explanations for environmental phenomenon, the supernatural explanations were eventually abandoned.

This kind of description of "non-physical" is arbitrary and meaningless. By whose standards of scientific explanations are we measuring - 21st century humans? 15th century humans? Humans from 5,0000 BC? or aliens? If aliens have explained consciousness, doesn't that mean that consciousness is physical and we are simply ignorant - just as we were when we had our "supernatural" explanations?

Another thing that no one seems to think about is how do we know that the evil demon isn't being fooled by another more powerful evil demon and so on ad infinitum. If it is possible that we are being fooled by an evil demon then it is also possible that the evil demon is being fooled as well. You end up requiring an omniscient being to stop the infinite regress. Then we arrive at the problem of omniscience.

You are clearly having a bad day. — Marcus de Brun

If asking questions means that one is having a bad day, then everyone on a philosophy forum must be having bad days.

How about you address my points instead of doing the side-step?

Your link doesn't answer any of my questions. In fact, it seems to reinforce the point I'm making in that it is only okay for blacks to use the word.

This is the typical tactic of those that can't answer difficult questions: claim the discussion is off-topic and ignorant instead of answering them. Damn, Baden. I thought you were one of the smarter ones on this forum.

I'm still on the topic of rappers and the lyrics that they use, which seems perfectly fine in a thread labeled, "When Philosophy fell, Rap stood up." I don't know what topic you've diverged to in your head unless it was simply to avoid answering difficult questions.

The use of the 'n-word' by Rappers and black Americans in General, is a very powerful F.U. To racism itself, not a confirmation of it. — Marcus de Brun

It's a FU to whites in that "I can say the word and you can't". That is racism. Tell me one black who heard a white say the word and thought that the white person meant the same thing they did. It's telling people what they can and can't say based on the color of their skin, which is racism.

Snoop Dogg is a black rapper therefore what? — Baden

...therefore Snoop Dogg's lyrics are part of the discussion. What is so difficult about that?

No, they're not. They've appropriated the word and are using it in a different way than it was originally used by white people. You didn't notice that? — Baden

How are they using it differently than white people? Can whites use the word the same way without being called racists? Can blacks make the distinction in how it is used when a white person uses it both ways, or can a white person use that word only one way (which would be a racist thing to say)? Are there any white rappers using that word in their lyrics? Is there a different way to use the word "cracker" than how black rappers are using it (in a racist way)?

Why not? It's a discussion forum. The OP can focus on any type of music he wants. — Baden

Sure they can, but are they really being consistent then? Like I said, there are other music genres that can be considered MORE philosophical than rap, and you want to focus on rap and it's "philosophical" nature?

That's Snoop Dogg. — Baden

Who is a black rapper. Maybe you didn't get my point.

Strawmen aren't philosophical either. — Baden

Neither is racism, which is what every rapper (most rappers) who uses the N-Word in their lyrics engages in.

The OP is about the evolution of rap into something more interesting than it had previously been, and mentions specific artists in that regard. Sure, it's not philosophy but as art there's no reason it can't be unmitigated genius just as there's no reason it can't be irresponsible crap. Depends on the artist and depends on the work. — Baden

Then why the focus on rap, when there are many other music genres that could be considered philosophical more than rap?

Philosophy itself is just an artful use of words.

I don't love you hoes,
I'm out the doe.

72% of black children are born out of wedlock.

How philosophical.

What does it mean when someone says "the laws of physics break down"? When a physical law is abandoned in favor of a new one, we don't say that the laws of physics are breaking. What is happening is that our understanding is evolving.

Possibilities exist only in our minds as the result of uncertainty. There are no possibilities out there only deterministic events of cause and effect. Randomness, uncertainty and possibilities go hand-in-hand as the effect of our own ignorance.

Logic only fails when you don't put all relevant information into the logical system. When we use logic and get the wrong answer, it isn't the fault of logic. It is our fault for not inputting the correct and relevant information into a logical system.

I agree about templates but don't understand your objection to saying cupness or even sporkness. — SteveKlinko

Then are you sure that you agree with me about templates? My point was that we have better, more accurate terms to use ("cup template") instead of these philosophically loaded terms, like "cupness".

The Computer Mind would be equivalent to the Physical Human Mind (the Brain). But Humans have a further processing stage which is the Conscious Mind. When Humans see the Color Red there are Neurons firing for Red. But with Humans there is also that undeniable Conscious Red experience that happens. You can't really believe that a Computer has an actual Red experience. That would imply some Computer Self having that experience. Science knows very little about Consciousness so who knows maybe even a grain of sand has Consciousness. But you have to draw a line somewhere in order to study the problem. — SteveKlinko

No. You have to study it first to see where you should draw the line, or else that line would be subjective - arbitrary.

There is no red out there. Red only exists as a representation of a certain wavelength of EM energy. Any system could represent that wavelength as something else - the written word, "red, a sound of the word, "red" being spoken, another color, or even something else entirely. No matter what symbol some system uses to represent that wavelength of EM energy, others that also have a different representation could eventually translate the other's symbol for that thing. That is what we do with translating languages.

What we see is not what the world is. Our minds model the world as physical objects with boundaries and borders, but the world isn't like that. It is all process, which can include "mental" processes, and non-mental (what many might call "physical" processes). When you look at someone you see them as a physical being, but they are just an amalgam of certain processes, some of them being "mental" in nature. What I mean by "mental" is goal-oriented sensory information processing. Brains are what we see, but they are just models of other's mental processes.

YOU are a process. What I mean is, your mind is a process - a mental process. It is what it is like to be your mental process of simulating the world in fine detail so that you can fine-tune your behavior for the extremely wide range of situations you will find yourself in during your lifetime. Your conscious experience is just a predictive model of the world and is not as the world is in real-time. It is continually updated with new sensory information milliseconds after the events in the world.

So to say that computers cannot have minds seems to be out of the question, if we designed them to learn using the information they receive about the world and their own bodies through sensory devices and to represent the world (using the information from it's senses) in a way that enables it to fine-tune it's behavior to achieve it's own personal goals. In other words, the computers you have on your desktop probably do not have minds in the same sense that we do. There may be something it is like with it being a process like everything else, but it is without any self-awareness or independent thought.

Let's interpret a footstep as a memory of something stepping there. What entity has this memory? Ground? The Earth? Some even larger system? Can any of these be said to have a mind? — BlueBanana

I don't know what you are asking here. IF we were to interpret a footprint as a memory of something stepping there, then yes, it would be part of the the mind of the Earth, I guess. But we don't call footprints "memories". We call them "evidence". We can also call your recall of a crime as evidence as well, so in a way, yes, memories are effects of certain causes, just like footprints. What makes footprints and memories distinct is that footprints are not used to obtain a certain goal by the same system that it is part of. Footprints are on the ground and part of the surface of the Earth. The Earth has no goals for which to use the memory/knowledge of that footprint, or any footprint for that matter. Organisms and computers (currently only working for human goals) are the only things that use information to obtain goals.

Sentience to begin with. Conscious experiences. — BlueBanana

...and what are conscious experiences?

They don't express any attributes that would imply them having a mind, and neither does their physical structure. — BlueBanana

What attributes would imply that one has a mind? Wouldn't one attribute be that it uses stored information to act for it's own interests?

How do we know that "physical" structure has anything to do with it? What is "physical" anyway?

I don't see how you can have a brain, but no mind, or at least the potential for mind. Having memory means you have a mind. Many people on this thread are being inconsistent and attributing minds to humans but not to computers. Why? How do we know that humans have minds but computers don't? What is a mind if not memory that stores and processes sensory data?

A robot, or a zombie, could be programmed to answer questions about their feelings as if they had any. — BlueBanana

Like I said, p-zombies cannot be programmed. They are dead inside. Humans are more like robots, where p-zombies are more like a mechanical contraption without any capacity for programming. Humans are programmable. P-zombies are not.

You're taking a lot for granted, and in such matters, that is not wise. — Wayfarer

Every time you are asked what it is that is missing when we compare humans to computers, you weasel out of answering the question.

You're missing the reality that the Robot would most definitely need the concept of cupness to operate in the general world of things. Knowing the color of the handle of one particular cup might help with that cup. In the real world the Robot would need to understand cupness in order to find a cup in the first place. Then when it finds a cup it can determine what color it is. — SteveKlinko

So, we design a robot with templates - a template for cups, for humans, for dogs, for cars, etc. - just like humans have. We humans have templates stored in our memory for recognizing objects. We end up getting confused, just like a robot would, when an object shares numerous qualities with different templates. The solution is to make a new template, like "spork". What would "sporkness" be? Using the word, "cupness" just goes to show what is wrong with philosophical discussions of the mind.

However, a p-zombie, despite having no consciousness, reacts to stimuli in exactly the same way a human being would. A human, however, is aware of its own consciousness and sentience, and this awareness in itself is a perception that human reacts to. Therefore, wouldn't a p-zombie notice its lack of consciousness and experiences and comment on these, thus not being completely similar in its actions to a human being? — BlueBanana

Sure, a p-zombie would notice something missing, just like a blind person notices something missing when they hear others talking about their visual experiences.

P-zombies wouldn't have dreams or nightmares.
P-zombies wouldn't have that internal voice telling them what would be right or wrong, or self-reflection. Being a p-zombie would be like having blind-sight. People with this condition are aware that there is something there, but are not clear on the details of what that thing is. They do not behave like normal humans as a result of this lack of visual consciousness.

The behaviour of computers are driven by bottom-up processes (mechanical/hardware) and top-down processes (non-mechanical/software). P-zombies would be like "computers" without software. They would be more like a typewriter that simply reacts to external input and can't perform actions based on its own internal programming and stored information. That would be the kind of difference we would see between a human being and a p-zombie.

Oh, I just realized I didn't describe what I mean when I say I'm agnostic.

Simply, I do not believe that no gods exist and I do not believe that some god exists. — Jerry

Strange. Your own system seems to indicate a lack of a belief in anything. You do not explain how it is that atheists cannot have lack of a belief, but you can.

Isn't your lack of belief based on a lack of evidence? That is the same reason atheists have a lack of belief in the existence of gods.

To say that "Because we do not have evidence does not mean that god does not exist" could be said for the existence of anything, including elves, hobbits, dragons and orcs. We simply do not go around believing in the possibility of everything for which there is no evidence for. We must filter the possibilities some way, and through empiricism and rationality, we can.

Who knows? But, for whatever reason, the unfalsifiable proposition known as Materialism is very popular here — Michael Ossipoff

Actually both materialism and idealism have both been falsified. The fact that the material interacts with the mental, and vice versa, is falsifiable evidence that the universe is neither one or the other, but something else entirely.

What other means is there for seeking truth if not logic and reason? If there is no way to prove what you believe, then why believe in it at all? Should it not simply be a placeholder where other beliefs with the same amount of evidence hold the same amount of weight? Believing in unfalsifiable claims is just a personal preference of one claim over another when both have the same amount of evidence to support them - none.

This is why I work from the bottom-up -of not believing in things that simply do not have any evidence to support them and then when evidence arises, belief is a bit more reasonable. The simplest explanations are the better explanations. Explanations that do not make other unfalsifiable claims in order support them are better explanations.

The hypothetical I was referring to is where your point was presumably leading, which was food production whereby humans were turned into food which would have an appealing taste. If it wasn't leading to that, then it was leading nowhere. — Sapientia

When someone is in a "vegetative" state does that mean that vegetarians can eat them?

Art is simply a social trait that enables one to acquire resources, mates and friends - which is why we do most of the weird social things we do.

It's extremely ignorant to conflate mental hardship with physical pain. The pain I am referring to is physical pain, which is an evolutionary trait. — chatterbears

Who are you to say that physical pain is worse than mental hardship? When a child is molested and carries that mental hardship with them for the rest of their lives, is that worse, or not as worse as you burning your hand while steaming your veggies? Pain is a mental state, not a physical state. Damage to your body is a physical state, which your mental state represents as pain. We can eliminate physical pain with drugs, but not so much with mental anguish.

Really? So how about you go into a factory farm, lay on the floor and let one of the workers slit your throat. They can then feed you to a cannibalistic tribe who can benefit from your corpse.

It's extremely ignorant to conflate mental hardship with physical pain. The pain I am referring to is physical pain, which is an evolutionary trait. The fight or flight response. Either way, you want to avoid pain, whether that is by running away, or fighting for your life. The rare case of people who want to end their lives is NOT what I am referring to. I was referring to an overall commonality that all living beings share. Which is to avoid pain and suffering.

I am starting to think you're a troll as well, but I hope not. — chatterbears

When we exercise, we experience physical pain, but we keep doing it for the health and social benefits. Physical pain teaches you what is dangerous to your body and what isn't. We need pain in order to survive. It evolved for a reason.

It is not a rare case for someone to end their lives. People do it every day.

Avoiding something does not make that thing you are avoiding "bad", or "wrong". Pain isn't "bad" or "wrong". Is everything that you try to avoid in life universally "bad"? When you try to avoid your mother in law does that make her "bad"?

I can't take you seriously any more. Vegans care about SENTIENT living beings that can experience pain and suffering. A plant does not have a brain or a nervous system, and therefore cannot experience pain and suffering. You keep conflating things in a ridiculous manner. I cannot tell if you're trolling at this point. — chatterbears

I can't take you seriously because you don't read posts and instead insist on these replies that do not address what I have said. I already made that same point in my post you are replying to. If it is about pain that you are worried about, then we can kill animals without them feeling any pain. If it is life you are worried about, then you kill life every time you eat a head of lettuce and are being inconsistent yourself. Who are you to determine which organism gets to live simply because of the arbitrary boundary you have chosen of having a nervous system or not.

I cannot tell you are an immature child pitching a fit, or an ignorant adult with a chip on his shoulder and is angry at the world for no reason.

Yes, this is a problem for most living beings in this planet, we can't go on without killing something else. But this relation with fruits at least isn't that bad, the tree is giving the fruit for anyone that wants to eat it, so they defecate their seeds and proliferate their species. — jonjt

I'm talking about killing a whole plant, like a head of lettuce, or a whole forests of trees that are chopped down for fuel, building materials, etc.

It doesn't matter if we shit here or not. Earth will eventually be swallowed up by an expanding sun, or destroyed by some other cosmic catastrophe. The universe has it's own shit (black holes, supernovas, comets, etc.) that will end up wiping out the entire planet with us along with it. Perspective.

Yeah, it is REALLY EXTREME to not want to hurt another living creature needlessly. — chatterbears

So is your problem in hurting another living creature or killing them? We could kill our food with no pain, if that is your problem. If it is the killing itself, then you vegans have that problem of killing life. Plants are life.

So meat-eating is not a sane general practice for the human race if it wants both a population peaking at 15 billion and to survive that in reasonable shape. — apokrisis

We have the entire universe for our living space. If we would just stop focusing on nationalism dividing humans into different groups based on culture and heritage, then maybe we could focus on expanding out into the universe. We don't want to keep all of our eggs in one basket regardless of what we end up eating. For the human race to survive extinction, we need to move off the planet.

Humans have a higher intelligence level, and therefore can understand morals/ethics on a higher level. And the only thing I have applied to humans and animals that is universal, is that we ALL want to avoid pain and suffering. Every other moral dilemma or quality can be viewed as subjective, but the will to live and the goal to avoid pain, is universal. And we can build a moral system just off that foundation alone. If we all want to avoid pain and suffering, to cause NEEDLESS pain and suffering would be wrong. And by NEEDLESS, I am referring to pain that didn't need to be caused because there is an alternative. For example, we don't need to factory farm animals, because we have an alternative of a plant-based diet. Therefore, since it is not NEEDED in the same way a lion NEEDS to hunt an animal to survive, our actions have become immoral. Especially when you self-reflect on why you want to farm animals, most of it comes down to taste pleasure/convenience/cultural norms/etc... All reasons which are not valid or consistent within your own ethical views. — chatterbears

Wrong. Many of us seek pain and discomfort, so pain is not necessarily bad. Making mistakes is how we learn and develop. Enduring hardships can make us better and stronger people. Then there are those that say that being born is wrong and being alive is suffering and ending your life would be good (just look at some of the other threads on this forum). This is what I mean by it being subjective.

Understanding morals/ethics on a higher level is understanding that morals and ethics are subjective and vary from culture to culture as well from individual to individual. There is no universal right and wrong, or good and bad. It is based upon one's own individual goals, which can be shared or come into conflict with others' goals.

Uncertainty is the knowledge that our predictions can fail. "Certainty"/"Uncertainty" seems to be one of those philosophical buzz-words that has evolved into meaninglessness. There is no "certainty"/"uncertainty". There are only predictions which can be wrong or not. We live in our predictions. Our world view is made up of predictions.

The reason this thread has gone on pointlessly is because most of you are looking at it all wrong. Basically every ethical/moral dilemma comes down to questioning the nature of ethics/morals themselves. Instead of trying to make oneself consistent with one's ethical positions (which we all find nearly impossible), we should be questioning the basis of ethics and what it really means to be "moral".

But we, as humans, have a higher capacity for moral value and therefore have an obligation to use it to create less harm and less pain. Although a lion may not understand what is being done to them in a "good" or "bad" sense, they know that pain is something they want to avoid. And we share that same trait with them, as humans want to avoid pain as well. Whether you call it "good" or "bad" is irrelevant. — chatterbears

Then I don't understand the point of this thread. Is it "wrong"/"bad" to eat animals?

What does it even mean to say that "humans have a higher capacity for moral value"? Humans have the capacity to put themselves in others' shoes. We think that other people and animals think and want the same things we do. They don't. So all you are doing is applying your own rules to others. As I told you before, morals and ethics are subjective and are not applicable across the board in every situation for every organism.

And some humans are not conscious to the same degree as other humans - therefore the degree of consciousness should not be a measuring stick for deciding who lives and who dies. — Harry Hindu

Yes. I was waiting for that one. But what's your point? We don't factory farm humans. They wouldn't taste as good. — Sapientia

The point was there in the post. You just cherry-picked the post in making your reply. I said that the degree of consciousness should not be a measuring stick for determining what lives or dies.

"Tasting good" is subjective. Human meat could be designed to taste like anything. — Harry Hindu

No, that's not what you said to me. That might have been what you meant to suggest, but I wanted to be clear, which is why I asked you what your point was. — Sapientia

That is what I said to you. READ.

The degree of consciousness should be factored into consideration with regard to appropriate treatment, and that is my point.

And I don't really care about whacky hypotheticals. Why should I? — Sapientia

I think you have a more serious problem of not being able to read and address others' posts appropriately. Nothing I said was hypothetical.

If I am inconsistent in something that is as easily changeable as a diet, I would change it. — chatterbears

For the record, I eat meat because I like the taste. I see "healthy" people get sick and die every day, while a lifetime smoker lives to 95. It's more than what you put into your body. It's also has to do with genetics. What may be unhealthy for one might not be for another (that is not to say that it would be healthy, just not unhealthy).

I do not believe in the existence of any objective ethical laws, so doing what I like is what is "good" and doing what I don't is "wrong". I'm a libertarian so I believe that we are all free to do as we please as long as we don't interfere with anyone else.

Like you said,

Lions, tigers and alligators cannot moral assess actions and conform to ethical consistency. They don't have the capacity for moral evaluation like we do. — chatterbears

If this is the case, then they do not understand what is being done to them is "good" or "bad". They don't even associate "bad" with any pain they might feel, or "good" with pleasure. The fact that any organism seeks pleasure over pain isn't good or bad. It's simply the result of how they evolved to survive and are the psychological triggers for certain physical behaviors.

Yes. I was waiting for that one. But what's your point? We don't factory farm humans. They wouldn't taste as good. — Sapientia

The point was there in the post. You just cherry-picked the post in making your reply. I said that the degree of consciousness should not be a measuring stick for determining what lives or dies.

"Tasting good" is subjective. Human meat could be designed to taste like anything.

I don't. I'm not arguing that animals don't feel pain. I'm arguing that a meat-eater can "accept the 3 moral pillars while simultaneously eating animals" by rejecting the claim that animals feel pain (or at least the claim that animal pain is like human pain). — Michael

Okay, so you were playing devil's advocate?

My point was, on what grounds does one claim that animals do not feel pain? If you are playing devil's advocate then why stop playing when the questions get difficult?

They can be arbitrary, but people can be inconsistent within their own arbitrary ethics. Which is part of the problem. — chatterbears

People are inconsistent in many things, including yourself. It is probably the result of how our modular brain evolved.

Ethics are simply rules for behaving within certain social structures, of which lions, tigers and alligators are part of, and are arbitrary.