But if you're really a good person, would you seek revenge on bad people for being bad? Or allow the judiciary system to do it for you either through monetary compensation or prison time etc. — Benj96

This from Wikipedia:

The principle is found in Babylonian Law.[6][7] If it is surmised that in societies not bound by the rule of law, if a person was hurt, then the injured person (or their relative) would take vengeful retribution on the person who caused the injury. The retribution might be worse than the crime, perhaps even death. Babylonian law put a limit on such actions, restricting the retribution to be no worse than the crime, as long as victim and offender occupied the same status in society. — Wikipedia

As this indicates, the eye for an eye standard was developed not as endorsement for revenge but as a limit to retribution. Punishment should be proportionate to the offense.

I think at this point in history there are a few key issues left to people who wish to find support for higher consciousness/idealism/theism worldviews - the nature of consciousness, and the mysteries of QM, being the most commonly referenced. — Tom Storm

I think there is a case to be made for a theistic worldview. I actually have an OP on the subject half-written. I'll finish it eventually.

I say that values can indeed be irrational. — hypericin

Yes, I understand that.

It assumes the separation of subject and object, and attempts to arrive at objective descriptions of measurable entities. And the mind is not among those entities. — Wayfarer

I don't want to get into a long discussion about how science has to proceed. I will say that there is no reason the mind would not be among entities amenable for study by science. You and @Constance are just waving your arms and promoting a ghost in the machine with no basis except that you can't imagine anything else.

From where I sit, there's no need to take this discussion any further. We clearly aren't going to get anywhere. I'll give you the last word if you want it.

I can't imagine. — Constance

"I can't imagine" is a pretty pitiful argument.

You seem certain of this. Is this an article of faith? Or do you have evidence for this? Is that evidence conclusive? — bert1

Not faith, confidence. Could I be wrong? Of course. But the fact that many people cannot conceive that consciousness might have a physical basis is not evidence that it doesn't.

it is precisely this relation that science cannot explain. — Constance

That science has not explained. I see no reason to believe it can't.

This is debatable. — hypericin

I suppose, but I stand by my judgement. Going beyond that is outside the bounds of this discussion.

By science I mean the instruments that detect physical matter....Not saying we can't go beyond that if we understand the problem. — Mark Nyquist

As far as I can see, there's no reason to think that consciousness can't be understood in terms of principles we already are aware of. I don't see any hard problem.

Our brains contain networks and catalogs and hierarchies of biologically contained non-physicals that will never be detected by any physical means, ever, regardless of the science. — Mark Nyquist

If it can't be known by science, how can it be known. How do you know it?... You don't.

Thanks! Got it just now on Kindle. I'll give it a good read — Constance

It still amazes me that almost anyone, almost anywhere can get almost any book, movie, or music just by pushing a couple of buttons.

To break with this requires an entirely different paradigm of knowledge relations; radically different. Can't imagine a neurological approach finding this. — Constance

I disagree with this. Scientists don't generally say that biology is nothing but chemistry. In the same way, mental processes, including consciousness, are not nothing but biology. But they are bound by biology in the same way that recorded music is bound by a CD or MP3 reader or radio. Music is not nothing but electronic equipment and electrical processes.

I would be fascinated to read about this. — Constance

Antonio Damasio is a neuroscientist who studies the biological foundations of mental processes, including consciousness. The book I have is "The Feeling of What Happens."

Doesn't that imply that you value truth in the expense of happiness? — TheMadMan

Not necessarily. I think it would vary from situation to situation.

This is facile and untrue. It shows a lack of understanding of how the universe works at a fundamental level.
— T Clark

Are you saying atheists are making facile and untrue statements? Well, go on then, edify us/them as to the true state of affairs. — Agent Smith

No, I'm saying that atheists in general would not say that because it's not true and shows a lack of understanding of how the universe works.

This leads me to a further question: what if there are types of fields other than electromagnetic? — Wayfarer

The idea of a field is not all that exotic - it just means there is a specific value of some property at all locations of space, at least within a given area. There are definitely fields other than electromagnetic ones. There are gravitational fields and quantum fields. If I understand correctly, and that's a fairly big if, a quantum field is the one you're talking about when you reference "atomic particles are conceived of as 'excitations of fields'.."

Consider the case of Frank Brown, a US scientist who situated oysters in an isolated environment in Evanston Illinois, in the middle of the continental US, and was amazed to find that they gradually synchronised their opening and closing times with the high tides adjusted for their location, even though they were completely isolated from external world. — Wayfarer

I'm not sure I understand. There are no tides in Evanston, Illinois. For an oyster in a location with tides, differences in hydrostatic pressure with different water depths could be one possible explanation for coordination of shell opening. Another might be sensitivity to the flow of water associated with tides.

I am definitely a skeptic about any ideas of exotic or hidden fields that have important effects which have not been identified.

Would you push the button? — TheMadMan

I wouldn't push the button, but that doesn't change my answer to the previous question.

Which value would you attribute to each choice? — TheMadMan

I'm not sure what I would do in a situation like that.

I think this issue makes me wonder a lot of questions because my failure is see the Pope as someone different from God but probably a Catholic sees him as the pure representation of the idea of God. — javi2541997

I think there are a lot of differences among Catholics about many issues of doctrine, especially here in the US. My wife is Catholic and I don't think she cares about papal infallibility at all.

I see it as you do. But this premise could end up in an argument where the Pope is above God. Catholics don't want to humanize the Pope but I understand that, at the same time, no one is divine as much as God.
So, they will always have this debate. Are the faculties of the Pope object of criticism? If we critize him, are we arguing against God's mercy? — javi2541997

The kinds of questions you are asking only make sense from within Catholic Christianity. From outside where we stand, the questions can only be sociological or anthropological.

To my mind "the hard problem of consciousness" is only "hard" for (Cartesian) philosophers because their aporia is actually still an underdetermined scientific problem. — 180 Proof

Your claim was not merely that it has not been, but that it could not be, explained (likened to trying to reach the earth from the moon by car). — Isaac

We seem to be in a similar situation: no understanding of physical processes, however complete, explains consciousness. — Art48

You have provided no justification for this statement, because there isn't any beyond "Seems to me."

As Isaac wrote:

Another in a tiresome series of posts confusing the poster's personal inability to understand neuroscience with there being no facts of neuroscience to understand. — Isaac

Would you still chose to escape it?

If yes, would you say that is the rational choice? — TheMadMan

I'd say it's neither rational nor irrational. It's a question of values, which are non-rational.

if you ask "how did the universe came to be?", atheists reply "it's just a fluke". — Agent Smith

This is facile and untrue. It shows a lack of understanding of how the universe works at a fundamental level.

Where is the rigidity? — TheMadMan

As I've said, you underestimate the compassion of normal, everyday, non-enlightened people.

As I said before I'm not speaking of the ordinary man but beyond it. I pointed to the man of Chuang Tzu, Zarathustra's etc. — TheMadMan

As I wrote previously and as comments by others highlight, I think you are being unnecessarily rigid in your understanding of how morality works for regular people.

The underlying premises of morality are based on social factors, such as the principle of the golden rule of treating others as one would wish to be treated, as well as morality existing socially as a form of social contract. — Jack Cummins

This is a good point.

You'll have a hard time following it if you haven't read Plantinga. (I wouldn't blame you if you don't want to bother.) — SophistiCat

I did check it out at the Wikipedia link you provided. I found the argument... unconvincing. Thanks.

The best of them are those who defined the structure and obeyed their conscience but I believe that was uncommon. — TheMadMan

I don't think that's true, but, as I noted, I can't provide more specific backup for that belief.

I had a hard time following your argument. The use of letters to represent properties was especially confusing, e.g. I can't figure out what "the probability of R on N&E is low" means. Some of them were not defined. You also make a lot assumptions about God's characteristics without explanation. Not all gods are necessarily omnipotent, omniscient, or rational. Are you only talking about a Christian or Muslim God?

Plantinga argues that the person who accepts naturalism (N) the thesis that there is no God or anything at all like him and evolution (E) has a defeater for her belief that her cognitive faculties are reliable (R). — GodlessGirl

This is the only place in the body of the post you mention evolution. You don't really explain how it fits into the argument.

a belief on materialism(which he takes N to entail) — GodlessGirl

I don't think naturalism requires a belief in materialism.

It is true that in modern times people base their morality less and less on formal system. I took into consideration the whole history of mankind. — TheMadMan

I'm not a good enough student of history or anthropology to be definitive, but I think my description of how most people make moral decisions probably applies during all times.

But still I observe that people, consciously or unconsciously, create a structure of morality for without it they feel at a loss. — TheMadMan

Most people probably do to some extent, but I think there's a lot of wu wei in how even regular people treat other people.

And welcome to the forum.

How would a phenomenal conservativist accept my definition when there is no reason we should think an intuition increases the probability that a belief is true? — GodlessGirl

Welcome to the forum.

I've made the case here on the forum many times that intuition is a valid source of justification. Whether or not it is adequate in itself depends on the consequences of being wrong. If the consequences are significant, intuition might have to be validated with additional information.

So we have the moral person who acts through the traditions of their organized belief system and we have the person of Heraclitus, of Chuang Tzu, of Christ and of many old wisdom who acts spontaneously through their understanding. — TheMadMan

Sounds like you are familiar with the Tao Te Ching. This from Verse 38, Stephen Mitchell's translation.

When the Tao is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the husk of true faith,
the beginning of chaos. — Tao Te Ching

Although I am mostly in agreement with what you've written, I think you've laid it out too starkly. Most people don't make decisions based on a formal system of morality. For me, that's what conscience is about - it includes internalized learned rules, but also empathy and compassion.

A veritable definition of sophistry: what counts is what serves my purpose. — Banno

That's not what sophistry means. You should look it up.

I'd be happy to discuss opinion sometime, but it's outside the scope of this discussion, which is about knowledge.

Which, on your account, have no truth value... — Banno

I didn't say anything about the truth value of opinions. Let me think about them now... I think you're probably right that opinions are not either true or false. That doesn't mean they aren't useful. I've been consistent here on the forum that I believe usefulness is more important than truth.

There wasn't actually an argument in that post. — Banno

Agreed, but there were statements of opinion.

What is the term you'd prefer to designate JTB if not "knowledge"? Let us use the word "tnow" for that. — Hanover

As I stated previously, knowledge is adequately justified belief. As to what JTB is...I guess I think it's meaningless, or at least useless. That's a position I've been pretty consistent about throughout my brilliant philosophical career here on the forum.

One might even claim that their pushing such a break between fact and value was intentional sophistry. — Banno

Particularly lame sophistry.

Are you really wanting to maintain that values do not have a truth value? — Banno

Yes.

SO it's not true that I like vanilla, — Banno

That you like vanilla is a statement of fact. Your liking of vanilla is a statement of value.

Who shouldn't such sentence have truth values — Banno

It's not that it shouldn't. It's that it doesn't.

I'm saying that Ptolmey didn't know the earth was in the center of the universe, regardless of how helpful that belief might have been to him. — Hanover

I disagree.