That is all very interesting stuff. Never would have thought of postulating a consciousness field (but of course I'm not a physicist; I don't know how such things work). That being said, I don't count myself as a philosopher either.

I knew of the mind-body problem, yes.

To say particle interaction "causes consciousness" is to say some particle description we can write down describes to us consciousness; that you can give me some paper with some descriptions of particles and, after review (even very lengthy) I (or any other diligent reviewer) would say "ah yes, these particles / field equations / whathave you, would be conscious in this description. — boethius

I grant all of that, but I think belief is different. Unless I'm mistaken we can actually model belief in the brain, whereas, as you say, we cannot mathematically model consciousness and do not know if it even can be modeled.

I thought about your linguistic solution and it seems pretty good - elegant even. But how could we know which beliefs (collections of words) are the result of freely interacting with the environment?

I actually thought we were getting somewhere.

If beliefs don't exist in the brain then where do they exist? And whether or not brains are conscious seems to be a different problem.

Say I have a box of apples. The apples are separate from each other. I can pick them up, eat them, count them. I don't think ideas or beliefs are separable in that way. It seems much more artificial to me. More open to disagreement. — T Clark

Okay, that makes things clearer. I don't think that beliefs need to be separate in such a way in order to count them as a brain state, or a quality of a brain state. We know that people have beliefs and that they exist in the brain, so even if the brain state isn't separately countable and can't be extracted we know that said person's belief is the result of a brain state - even if said brain state might never be repeated.

Not everyone would have to have the same brain state to believe the same thing, but those beliefs exist as brain states nonetheless.

Furthermore, if there is a finite number of brain states brain states could potentially repeat I think.

edit: Actually even if there is an infinite number of brain states I think they could still repeat.

another edit: the possible number of brain states has nothing to do with whether or not they will repeat it seems to me.

I doubt they exist as separate brain states. I'd guess, without any specific justification, that no brain state ever repeats itself. — T Clark

What exactly do we mean by separate? Separate from other phenomenon in the brain? Or never repeating and identifiable? I used the word because you did.

I don't think beliefs actually exist as separate things that can be counted in any realistic sense. — T Clark

If they exist as part of the mind I would see the beliefs as existing as a brain state or change in brain structure. Sure - maybe the brain states are the result of and cause things but if they exist in people's brains they could be separately analyzed at a point in time it seems to me. I don't even need to know how to describe the objects (beliefs as brain states): all I need to know is if they can be put into a set.

Many posters here, who I agree with a lot, I would never want to trust to make this decision. — Judaka

Who would you trust?

I don't really buy that leaving a website running that promotes hate of oppressed minorities is less harmful than removing it. I've heard this argument many times, but experiment, measurement, can and has put it to the test. Social media is proof positive that platforming vile crap just makes more suckers that believe it. — Kenosha Kid

Studies?

In my view to seek an irrefutable and timeless guideline to all present and future societies is simply futile and plain silly. — ssu

When did I say I was aiming to do that? I am just trying to start a discussion, if only to see where people's "common sense" lies.

Since the emergence of the idea of "Free Speech", the limits and the abuse of this right has been debated and thought about. It's shouldn't come as something new. — ssu

I was specifically referring to death threats. I don't quite know what I think about them yet (other than that they are horrible).

Defending free speech as a principle sounds nice but what is actually being defended? There are consequences on both sides of the issue and it's an evolving issue because technology evolves and changes the game. You use slippery slope fallacies to defend a hardline stance which doesn't actually make much sense. — Judaka

But in this case I think the slippery slope arguments are valid. Consider a left wing nationalist. Such views exist but are really not all that common. This potential radical is about as left of center as a radical libertarian is right of center - and both views could be prone to censorship if we left such decisions to the social media company executives/politicians. I think left-wing nationalism is actually potentially not that bad, whereas radical libertarianism is ridiculous; these two views are not equally valid but are equally dangerous to the establishment. So yes, I agree - the main issue is who is to decide what is harmful speech. And the speech that will go first is the speech that is critical of the establishment.

And if it is limited then it isn't even free speech anymore. I agree - there are downsides to the absolutist position - but limiting speech deemed offensive/harmful is just too risky imo.

Yeah, I'm having trouble with this one. Maybe death threats should be allowed some of the time. And all speech communicates meaning, yes. I would say, with regard to the president threatening to bomb a country or a people for no good reason: that just sounds like a terrorist threat, and so by our own laws said president is a terrorist and should be tried.

I suppose one could say that death threats inspire terror more than most things, and thus is different from abusing one's wife. If one person is issued death threats then others may begin to fear the same fate.

Modern technology has created a situation were there aren't the old limits to public speech, but also tech has created new methods for censorship, surveillance and propaganda. — ssu

Absolutely true. Mark Zuckerberg proclaimed that social media platforms would allow the common person the ability to be heard unlike ever before; it would be a "fifth estate". In this case that appeared not to be true. While the case I linked has more to do with the school's infringement on the cheerleader's first amendment rights, it is relevant because the average person can create content and distribute it like never before with social media - but there is often times a cost, be it at the hands of a mob or a censorious school district.

Well that's fine. Suppression is censorship when it serves the common good. But I'd also dispute the "of the common good" since that could cast mere censorship as broader suppression when in the defense of minorities, for instance. — Kenosha Kid

The way I understand it is that it's more so that censorship is suppression of speech/ideas considered objectionable, harmful, etc. The intentions behind such suppression can be both in the service of a greater good or not so much. Suppression of speech on the basis of protecting minorities would count as suppression serving a greater good - at least for those in favor of it. Thus it would be censorship. Those opposed to it might argue that it doesn't serve what they consider to be a greater good. Thus they might not see it as censorship, but rather unjust suppression. Sorry if that's a little pedantic. I think we mostly agree.

Much hate speech is not clear and direct incitement: it is rabble-rousing against a particular person or subset of people. — Kenosha Kid

Yeah, I know. I think hate speech should be allowed, along with things like Holocaust denial.

Another poster here recently pointed me in the direction of an anti-trans website dedicated to giving the impression that trans = criminal, and not caring too much for facts in its efforts. it's not outright calling for violence against the trans community, but it's certainly doing its utmost to generate that sort of hatred. — Kenosha Kid

Once more, something like that needs to be countered, and censorship is the worst way to go about it. Banning it just adds to its draw and validates purveyors of hate; "Our views are true and they can't tolerate it - they have to censor us". Such things are just pushed underground, while keeping it in the open allows it to be addressed.

Trump, who persecutes and vilifies anyone who disagrees with him while going out of his way to harm others with his free speech, is a hypocrite and a douchebag. — Kenosha Kid

You will find only agreement here. The guy is the worst criminal to come about in a long time.

Reciprocity is key. What you should and shouldn't say isn't an objective set of rules, it's consensual politics: I don't want my feelings hurt and I don't want to hurt yours. And it mostly works. The problem is the people who don't want their feelings hurt but want to hurt your feelings, and have an inconstant relationship with censorship as a result. — Kenosha Kid

I personally have little regard for people's feelings - and maybe that is a fault - but I also have little in terms of feelings to be hurt. So, overall, hurt feelings is a pretty crappy reason for censorship, imo. But the hypocrisy you describe is definitely real.

Someone is going to jump in and call me a shitty philosopher or something now to be clever.

On Sunday mornings in a neighborhood not too many miles from me, a fellow used to preach on a street corner in a housing development from an improvised stand. He's loud and objectionable and uses loudspeakers - but I live a town-and-a-half away. — tim wood

But whenever and wherever they want? I suspect there will never be a clear line, but in place of that reasonable lines. — tim wood

A noise complaint is valid, but I don't think it should matter that it's on a Sunday. But yes, I think the Westboro Baptists should pretty much be able to speak wherever and whenever - even if it might turn out to be dangerous for them. They should be warned, but they can make their own decisions. They're adults.

explain the reasoning behind your claim that death threats should obviously not be allowed — Pinprick

We can't have people living their lives in fear, can we? It can be traumatic for someone to get doxed and have their life threatened. It directly causes undue suffering and doesn't constitute the imparting of any ideas, so I wouldn't want to see something like that protected.

The nub of the issue is you need good people to speak but for that to happen you need to let bad people speak (free speech) and, conversely, if you don't want bad people to speak, you can't let good people speak as well (cenorship). — TheMadFool

I wouldn't put it in terms of good and bad people, but rather good and bad speech. Everyone is capable of sifting through the news and ascertaining the truth of an issue unless they are willfully misinforming themselves (I know someone who is smart that is determined to read and regurgitate fake news like it's going out of style).

Now that I think about it, there really isn't even good or bad speech. It's more like that all speech should be allowed but only some of it advances human progress and understanding, but often times this "good" speech comes from the minority with less power over institutions and popular opinion. Thus the importance of free speech; hopefully people will recognize it when someone is speaking truth.

I also suppose, like Judaka said, free speech becomes a lever by which the rich and powerful can oppress minorities. But so what? The only way to battle such a thing is by correcting it with more speech; censoring the powerful would never be acceptable due to the inherent power dynamics in the US; the billionaires and executives and CEO's hold most of the power, and would turn the censorship around on the less powerful once the threshold has been crossed. I think that this is likely one of the only valid slippery slope arguments around.

Your feelings on the Westboro Baptist Church and its practices? And, "no matter how odious"? Speech can get pretty odious. — tim wood

Trust me, I know how odious speech can get - I deal with odious speech on a regular basis. And yes, even the Westboro Baptists should be allowed to spew their bile.

who is to judge what incites - or who is to say the incited were not incited? — tim wood

I think that it is obvious when one is calling for violence, and if it is ambiguous it can be decided by the courts. If it matters enough then it can go to the supreme court.

Killer Mike said he wanted to see the world burn down in the aftermath of George Floyd's death. That might be considered incitement, but he also clearly said prior to that not to burn down one's own house but rather to mobilize and use one's voting power, to fortify it. And it was obviously straight from the heart.

Now should Killer Mike be arrested? Of course not, he would have to be taken out of context for it to even seem like incitement. But if one were to isolate that statement it might seem as much an incitement as some of Trump's tweets. As long as it isn't something like "overturn a democratic election via political violence" or "go and burn down your neighborhood drug store" it isn't incitement, and it is pretty clear when it is.

There appears also to be a street standard, the "Coke upon Littleton of the fist." And that will vary depending on the street. — tim wood

No doubt. And great reference btw.

I always thought if one only wanted to hear one's own opinions...find a mirror. — Book273

There are definitely a number of people who disagree with me on this one.

Everyone agrees that free speech should have some limits, the one which is pertinent here is the exception of violence and oppression. — Judaka

Trump talking about banning Muslims is a rich, white, powerful male using his free speech to oppress and disadvantage Muslim minorities. — Judaka

But others in power can use their own speech to defend against the slander and oppression, can they not? Just because one might be able to use free speech as a lever to impel some to treat Muslims poorly doesn't mean that said person needs to be silenced. If anything the statements Trump made on the travel ban, for instance, helped reveal just how xenophobic he is, and caused many to become even more obstinate in their opposition of his agenda.

With someone like Trump you just have to give him enough rope to hang himself, so to speak.

Postmodernism says that rather than our rationality being imperfect, it's a product of our race/gender/wealth and our rationality just reinforces convenient logic. — Judaka

But surely rationality can help us select between different logics, too? Maybe we can start from a neutral point and come to some conclusions that are not influenced by our wealth/identity?

For me, it is beyond comprehension that religion came first. It's just an organized, cultish way of trying to explain mystery. — James Riley

I actually think religion was probably the very first way of explaining reality and its mysteriousness; cavemen didn't have science or philosophy.

For me, it is beyond comprehension that religion came first. — James Riley

Well, religion, as we agree, depends upon morality, while morality can exist as a separate entity. But if religion developed alongside morality, then they would be codependent upon each other in a way that would be difficult to disentangle - even if, as stated earlier, morality can exist on its own.

And it seems entirely possible to me that religion and morality developed together - or at least affected each other. Can you give an argument as to why that isn't the case?

There is something in me that defaults to an assumption that someone is disagreeing with me when they respond to my posts. But search as I might, I don't think you are disagreeing with me. My post was really just saying religion did not come first and it does not have a monopoly on good. — James Riley

No, I definitely am disagreeing with you, but not over anything particularly important - just that religion doesn't really borrow from secular ethics all that much. Unless you would say that secular ethics would also be our first primitive attempt at morality? Apparently the origins of morality is more complicated than one might think, so I don't know if our first, primitive, moral beliefs were totally separate from religion.

The idea that something is moral or immoral was indigenous to man — James Riley

I mean, yeah, I guess, but whether or not it developed alongside religion is ambiguous. At the very least it seems to me religion was an attempt to codify our moral intuitions, so I wouldn't say that religion copies morality, but rather that religion depends on morality on a fundamental level - but not the other way around.

I don't accept the premise of the OP. It is not only possible to conceive of morality without reference to religion, the religious who claim to be moral are merely pretending to the same moral values as the atheists and humanists. — James Riley

What? They are pretending to the morals of humanists? Really? Humanists and the religious disagree on so many things, so vehemently. While it appears that morality precedes religion according to some anthropologists, and people are likely to discard religious commands that go against their moral intuitions, the religious have very different values than most humanists.

Religion, even if it arose simultaneously, was not the source of, nor did it precede morality. It just claimed it, as it always does. — James Riley

I agree with this; religion, by the very nature of the - apparently - undesirable certainty it breeds, must be the only game in town.

Religion is just copying morality, and is not the source of it. — James Riley

Religion, even if it arose simultaneously, was not the source of, nor did it precede morality. It just claimed it, as it always does. — James Riley

It is important to remember that many people actually believe that moral actions are obligatory merely because god commands us to do them. According to these people, god really is the source of morality, and they will often times not tolerate any challenges to his authority, or even accept one of the two horns of this dilemma. If god exists and commands us to do moral acts, then humanists are actually incorrect. But then again, there is no reason to believe god exists.

It seems to me that religion is mostly a means of regulating behavior, of codifying mostly intuitive moral principles, whereas humanism is about moral reasoning given a few axioms, such as unnecessary suffering being wrong. In fact, that is a good difference between many humanists and the religious: many of the religious believe it is okay for us to suffer - god just works in mysterious ways. But I have never seen, for instance, a humanist make a claim that torture for no reason is okay (or really that torture is okay at all). Like I said earlier, there are fundamental differences between the humanist and religious worldviews.

What is this, some kind of quiz? I think Christianity according to POC is pretty much the same as Christianity according to whites.

I said "I wouldn't". And yeah, I just mean the cultures of any POC.

Or are we to ignore cultural and religious factors and focus on economic, educational, and political factors, exclusively? — Apollodorus

I would. There is nothing wrong with black culture imo, and I wouldn't want to see it disappear. As far as religion goes, idk.

But I'm assuming that people believe that the commands given by God are moral, because they are given by God. He wouldn't command me to do something immoral, surely? I suppose it depends on which religion you have in mind. — Manuel

Whatever moral commands god gives us would be morally obligatory since "moral" in this context boils down to "what one ought to do". Thus, any command given by god could be moral, regardless of anyone's personal notion of right and wrong. He could command us to murder, and it would be right, merely because he commands us to do it, which equates to telling us what we ought to do.

And yes, most people who believe in this believe that god only commands us to do moral things. But whatever god commands us to do - morally - is obligatory, even if people think it is immoral.

Now back to religion. God commands something, it is right because He says it is right. Why is it right? Because God says so. This seems to me to be equivalent of asking but what's wrong with I did and a police officer replying "it's the law". Yeah, fine. I don't think that's a good reason, much less an argument. — Manuel

But it is a good argument in the case of god: he has omnipotence, omniscience, etc., whereas a policeman is enforcing laws that are themselves decided by legislators who are elected by fallible people. In the context of divine command theory god is the ultimate arbiter of what is right and wrong; the laws cannot possibly be unjust if god says they are not.

What about culturally — Apollodorus

What would cultural equality entail?

Sure. But it doesn't offer an explanation which isn't tautological as to why you should or should not do X, Y or Z. — Manuel

It isn't a tautology: moral acts are obligatory because god commands them. However, that doesn't mean that god commands moral acts because they are moral. Those are two very different things.

It may appear clear. Doesn't mean it is. — Manuel

How is it not crystal clear? God commands it, it is right, we should do it. I'm not saying divine command theory is infallible, but it makes ethics very simple.

Not that religion makes morality more clear. Just because a deity announces a moral principle to be valid does not make the moral principle itself more important or better stated. — Manuel

Most people seem to believe that moral acts are obligatory merely because god commands them. If god exists and does command us to do things, then those things can indeed be morally obligatory just because he says so. The idea also applies to principles, as they guide actions. Thus, morality is clear as day in the context of religion - even if the principles imparted by god are arbitrary.

Yes, but also educationally and politically.

The (usually) atheists and humanists who claim to be able to be moral even though they are not religious nevertheless have many of the same moral values as the religious. — baker

There is quite a bit of overlap, but atheists - by definition - deny the objectivity of revelation. This is because they do not believe in god who, if nonexistent, cannot use his omnipotence to make moral commands obligatory.

So while some basic ideas are common to both humanists and the religious, the humanist has a human-centered, rational justification for their moral beliefs, whereas the religious depend upon arbitrary commands taken on faith. But the atheist, by the very nature of being atheist, is a skeptic with respect to the moral facts given by god.

Whence the idea that morality can be conceived of without reference to religion? — baker

Whence would be the desire to survive as a species, the desire to rationally justify what almost everyone knows - we must sacrifice for the greater good. The values that promote the greater good are codified in ethics, especially humanistic ethics. You might argue that religion serves the greater good, or did, but such a tendency is far more explicit in humanism - there are no ritual sacrifices, no flagellation for sins committed long ago, no vicarious redemption. Humanism has cast off all distractions, thus secular ethics.

Just out of curiosity, how would you define "critical race studies", "white privilege", "racial equality" and similar concepts because it looks like they tend to be interpreted differently by different people? — Apollodorus

CRS is pretty irrelevant to this thread. I would define "white privilege" as the myriad benefits that white people accrue merely for being white. "Racial equality" is a state in which people of all colors share equal opportunity, and, thus, equal outcome. If you think that equal opportunity does not equate to equal outcome, then you must give a reason for any disparities, given there are no significant biological differences between whites and people of color.

I would say, with regards to culture, however, things like the preponderance of poor and working class black single mothers is more the result of the drug war than culture. John McWhorter lays it out pretty well when he writes:

"The War on Drugs destroys black families. It has become a norm for black children to grow up in single-parent homes, their fathers away in prison for long spells and barely knowing them. In poor and working-class black America, a man and a woman raising their children together is, of all things, an unusual sight. The War on Drugs plays a large part in this. It must stop."

This is part of why I advocate for the freeing of nonviolent drug offenders.

All of that being said, I believe a society should, ideally, be able to be colorblind once equity is achieved.
— ToothyMaw

That would perhaps be a natural consequence of a level playing field. Xenophobia will not go away completely, of course, so vigilance is necessary, including concerning one's own prejudices. That's actually a good practice regardless of topic, to be aware of your blind spots and tendencies for bad reasoning. — Echarmion

Yes, I agree, but I don't think that micro-aggressions and other more implicit forms of prejudice can really be corrected for without severe language policing, which is always a bad thing. Not to mention I don't see how unconscious bias can be addressed at all being that it is unconscious; it cannot be grasped any more than an unconscious desire to have sex with Donald Trump that manifests as hatred.

Essentially the only way to correct for it is equality of outcome across the population groups, which is to say we should see similar distributions of income, wealth etc. — Echarmion

Once again, I agree, but I do think that culture plays a (limited) role, whether it is the culture of the impoverished or people of color.

I think that people on the extreme end of "wokeness" believe - implicitly or explicitly - that oppression cannot really be overcome, hence their focus on drawing boundaries around groups. — Echarmion

Good analysis. These people claim to be both anti-racist and agents of progress, too.

I think that some of them get a small taste of power - a high from both virtue signaling and tearing people down - and they just can't help themselves. It reminds me of Ben Shapiro's fans, who just want to feel like they are winning, tearing up the libtard cucks.

I think what we're witnessing here is the end of Utopia. If you believe that no truly just society is possible, what remains is only to reinforce the borders - both the physical and the metaphorical ones. — Echarmion

Of course a just society is possible! We should not, however, say that whites need to save themselves from something they cannot change about themselves - both physically and metaphorically. I mean, why reinforce borders when we can simply institute policies that will help level the playing field? Of course some idiots will accuse these policies of being racist (I'm looking at you, Tucker Carlson), when really they aren't, imo, if they are intended to reduce discrepancies between whites and people of color. If anything that makes said policies less racist than ones that are indeed totally colorblind; we can only achieve equity by uplifting the disadvantaged.

All of that being said, I believe a society should, ideally, be able to be colorblind once equity is achieved.

In such a scenario, the oppressor and the oppressed can never truly integrate, and while their positions can change to the opposite sign, the fundamental dynamic cannot be overcome. Either the oppressed is cast out and shackled, or the oppressor must engage in a continuous process of, as you call it, self-flaggelation to atone for their continued but inescapable oppression. — Echarmion

But most white people, while privileged, do not actively oppress people of color. Unless we are talking about unconscious bias, microaggressions, etc. - things that are difficult to correct for. And why do you think that this dynamic is necessary? Do you really think that people of color want to oppress white people - or do they just want to be treated in accordance with the difficulties that they face? My guess is the latter.

Also: I'm not ignoring Native Americans and LGBTQ people - I'm just not focusing on them in this thread because they have different situations. But then again, all of this stuff intersects.

For all of the sympathy that I have for Anarchist Black Cross and the prison abolition movement, I think that they ultimately have somewhat naive, if not somehow fanatical, ideas as it concerns abolition. — thewonder

I don't mean that kind of abolition, but rather abolition from institutional and systemic racism.

One man's freedom of speech is another man's indoctrination of radicalism and fundamentalism. — unenlightened

This becomes less important the more you educate yourself I think; while, like I said, maybe we shouldn't allow public school teachers free reign to teach their ideologies, at the university level in the US it is largely just assumed that students can deal with potentially radical or unpleasant ideas and viewpoints, and sift through them, finding personal, and perhaps even objective, truths where they might. At that level free speech is paramount. Which is why I think Cornell West should have been tenured at Harvard. The guy is a hero.