No one is quite like Sam but you might also like:

New, new atheists:

Steven Woodford (Rationality Rules)
Alex O'Connor (CosmicSkeptic)

Political/Social commentary:

Douglas Murray
Jonathon Haidt
Claire Lehmann

Science and Society

Bret & Eric Weinstein
Steven Pinker

How do you know that the "brain science" is lacking? — Bird-Up

There are so many theories but no evidence so far as to how consciousness functions.

what your specific principal is that allows the distinction to be made between the consciousness and the physical brain — Bird-Up

No doubt there is a connection between the brain and consciousness but we don't yet know how. I'll leave that to the experts, especially neuroscientists, who are in a good position for that. As they state that they do not know themselves I wouldn't dare to say anything for certain.

...If you look at the wiring of the brain it is a network of electro-chemical pulses. It's not so much different to our computers (only vastly more complex). How could such pulses give us the feeling of having an experience?

It's easy to understand the process of watching clouds in the sky. The light goes into the eye and the image is rendered in the brain. But we have cameras that can do this. What is this extra phenomena that makes me aware of it? Why do we need to know what the clouds and sky feel like? Why do I need to be aware of what my eye and brain are doing?

You might be correct that it is just certain wiring, I really don't know.

The early gnostics believed Yahweh, the god of the old testament, was evil.

Yes, by all measures of morality and goodness today the three middle-eastern Abrahamic religions; Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, are backwardly bronze-age sinister.

I'd say it's time we all grew up and let them go, but what can you do.

I don't know but I would got to neuroscientists first for an answer and they unanimously agree they can't pinpoint the conscious experience in the brain. The question remains: where is it?

Complex neural networks seem to be functioning for the easy problem so looking at consciousness as possibly a field like time or space is a lot more compelling.

As I said though, if you can prove consciousness is simply the emergent property of neural complexity then go ahead and prove it, otherwise I'll wait for the brain science.

The conscious part of our brain is tasked with executive function. It casts judgment on the rest of the brain, proliferating or inhibiting the competing urges generated by the unconscious areas of the brain. Once you reflect on that, it doesn't seem so surprising that consciousness arises. If the cluttered chatter of the unconscious mind can be improved by organization and judgment, then the thing that serves as the judge/organizer likely has a bird's-eye view of the sum of all those sensory inputs. The process of that bird's-eye view itself would be human consciousness. We have awareness for the purpose of decision-making. Decision-making would be more difficult without awareness, so that's why consciousness ("something") takes place.

Prove it.

Couldn't a sufficiently advanced robot be programmed to do what we do without consciousness?

The conscious part of our brain is tasked with executive function. It casts judgment on the rest of the brain, proliferating or inhibiting the competing urges generated by the unconscious areas of the brain.

I think you are conflating consciousness with conscious mental processes. You are still talking about "the easy problem" of consciousness, not "the hard problem".

We don't know.

That's the short answer. I like David Chalmers arguments for pansychism. Quite a few neuroscientists do to.

But for me, general conduct is governed by judicial code, in which the “only one ought” is simply ought to obey the law, whereas in moral conduct, there are no oughts at all. There is only and ever.....will this according to that obligation......oughts derived therefrom being irrelevant. — Mww

Isn't the moral conduct of everyday life and what goes on in the highest supreme court based on the same basic premise of wellbeing though? Isn't the law rooted in justice? Aren't our concepts of what is wrong and right based on harm?

I also think some ground for a strictly moral conduct, is missing. — Mww

I agree. I skimmed the surface. I have been reworking it and now think there is actually only one complete axiomatic is-ought statement regarding morality. I think the maxim holds:

[is statement:] One can not help but act on the desire they believe will bring the most pleasure and the least pain (one values wellbeing) therefore,
[ought statement:] One ought to know if such a belief will bring the most pleasure and least pain is right or wrong — Bert Newton

..but I didn't go into any lengths about how this is applied other than using empiricism and reason. I think if I made more of a point of "empathy born of the reasoning that others are the same", or as Joe Rogan puts it: "everyone else is yourself, living a different life." and direct you to the studies in Positive Psychology that show we are happier for helping others, I think then, people might swallow this better.

The fact is: humans value wellbeing. Working together, getting our beliefs about that correct, is the grand project of morality.

Thanks. :)

Because we value wellbeing, which we might be wrong or right about.

Why take pain relief medicine to relieve a headache instead of placing crystals on your head?

Why ought you do anything?

All oughts can be reduced to the belief they will lead to wellbeing.

There are better and worse ways to be. We ought to find the best ways to be. This means checking our beliefs.

I don’t think he’s trying to fit them all together, but rather pairing individual rights with Kant (the CI), and greatest good with Mill (utilitarianism). And I think saying he’s got some bridge between those two “sides”: the Kant/rights side and the Mill/greatest-good side. — Pfhorrest

Correct. Well, I'm saying it is a conflict of moral interests in the case of the boatmen and why the case is so subjective. The orphan's rights as an individual conflict with the greater good.

In principle, but not without support. Hume said so himself — Mww

Yes. Hume was critical of moralists who jumped the is-ought gap without explanation. However, we know what that gap is. You can get an an ought from an is if you include the missing link of what you believe will give you the most pleasure. Therefore, strictly speaking the is-ought is actually an is-belief-ought.

It is raining outside therefore [if you believe it will bring you pleasure] you ought to take an umbrella
Is is poison therefore [if you believe it will not bring you pleasure] you ought not to poison others
He is suffering a headache therefore [if you believe it will bring you pleasure] you ought to give him medicine

We know that the gap is people acting on what they believe will give them the most pleasure. Of course most people have empathy born of reason, others are just like you, so what gives us pleasure is what gives others pleasure. There is only one ought:

you ought to do what gives you and others the most wellbeing

The point is you could be wrong about what gives you and others the most pleasure, and there can be a conflict of interests in who's pleasure should succeed, therefore we can get an ought from your belief about what is. That ought could be objective or highly subjective depending on circumstance.

Meh, this is basically epiphenomenalism. — SophistiCat

Yes, and some.

I believe I am both. I made a post about it.

Thank you all for answering my initial question and apologies for derailing the thread.

If you want to discuss this idea further I made a new post: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8862/rubbos-bridge

Thanks again!

I'm going to make a new thread very soon, just writing it all up now. In it I will outlay a new way of looking at morality, similar to what has been discussed here. I'll state my position a lot clearer there so if you want to continue the discussion there that would be dandy. Should be up soon :)

So why ought you take medicine when you are sick?

Ah yes, 3 minutes into the video and Cuck Philosophy brings up Hume's Law. In defence of Harris I do believe he has a compelling argument against this. When pressed, Harris replies that, "human beings value wellbeing" and goes on to say that therefore we can have a science of wellbeing (the moral sphere). Harris adds that this is no different to our approach to any other science. Why study medicine? You have a headache therefore you ought to take pain relief medicine. But why? Why ought a human being take pain relief medicine?

There IS a universe therefore we OUGHT to study physics
There IS a gene therefore we OUGHT to study genetics
There IS a chemical therefore we OUGHT to study chemistry
There IS an illness therefore we OUGHT to study medicine

No, there is no law in the universe compelling us to do those things (if you wish) and even if we removed them all and went back to living in caves still, the most fundamental value we would have left then is wellbeing. Making Harris' argument even stronger. If you look deeper you will find that wellbeing is inherently implied in the is-ought of these examples but few seem to be able to grasp the axiomatic ought.

I would ask you, if you take an issue with Harris' claims and Hume's Law: WHY ought you take medicine when you are sick?

1) You can't help but act on what you believe will give you the most pleasure (axiomatic ought)
2) You may be right or wrong about that belief
3) What will give you the most pleasure will be the right, moral action (not necessarily the one you believe to be) [this is hard to understand, and hard to demonstrate without subjectivity]
4) If you want the greatest pleasure (which you do) then you ought to know what will give you the greatest pleasure (moral behaviour).

That's really it in a nutshell. I can't keep repeating myself. Watch The Good Delusion, it might be clearer.

If you're interested in hearing critique of Sam Harris's view, and I think that's wise if we are to prove this theory, then I can recommend https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxalrwPNkNI — MadWorld1

Will watch.

Oh, be prepared, he has since changed his mind on that and is now in more agreement with Harris, as you will see.

I mean, who's pulling who? The carriage or the horse? — MadWorld1

It's irrelevant. Our behaviour is relevant to ethics and what causes us to behave (that is, take an action) is desire. What causes desire is the conviction of pleasure-at-the-end, what causes that is irrelevant as then you are going down a causal chain that has no meaning to the conscious experience: dopamine, nervous system, genes, egg and sperm, grandparents, chimpanzees, unicellular organism, the big bang. Yes, the reason why we do anything is determinism but in ethics we are dealing with conscious states, good and bad, right and wrong behaviour, and for that we only need to look so far as pleasure being the prime mover.

Are you looking for evidence of the aximoatic ought being pleasure? Just ask yourself why you do anything. You will have your answer.

I think you have misunderstood me somewhat. I haven't explained it too well because we're straying off topic (my fault) and I didn't mean this thread to be about this idea, just if a system existed already like it. But if no one minds, I will continue.

No, I don't think so. Brain states affect behavior, not right or wrong behavior. — MadWorld1

This is where you are misunderstanding.

Behaviour, or "doing something", or "acting on a desire", is motivated by the belief that such action will give you the most pleasure (as opposed to other actions). Here's the point you need to grasp: Just because it's what your brain convinces you is good for you (the most pleasurable course of action) doesn't necessarily mean it's right or even good for you. You could be wrong about the action you took. For example, you eat a pizza because the desire for pizza outweighed all other desires in pleasure. However, it turns out the pizza gave you food poisoning, so in the end it wasn't the right or best action you could have taken. You may be wrong about it being the activity that would give you the most pleasure NOT wrong because it was immoral. Important point to grasp.

I We ought to proliferate our genes.
II Force impregnating women will proliferate our genes.
Conclusion: We ought to force impregnate women. — MadWorld1

...I would argue that we don't actually want to survive, we want to experience pleasure, survival just allows it. What about suicide? The selfish gene has failed there, but pleasure has dictated once again. Also, the selfish gene isn't actually selfish according to Dawkins, it can be very altruistic, it does whatever it can to survive. Dawkins actually regrets calling it that and prefers to call it "the immortal gene".

The tricky thing is using pleasure to "make" (ought) people behave more morally. That is, the most pleasurable course of action "should" (ought) also be the right one (that is, it doesn't harm others). This is the part of the theory that gets wacky and is hard to understand for people. It's also the part where it becomes difficult to surmount the subjectivity. I have some ideas that aren't quite developed yet so I won't share but for now...

Are you arguing for objective morality or a subjective one? — MadWorld1

We are trying to find an objective approach to morality. I'm not sure if we are quite there yet. Pfhorrest, the first person to respond to me in this thread has a great approach of accepting the subjectivity of morality but putting any moral claims to empirical testing. It's a great idea, but it would be good to find something completely objective.

You seem knowledgeable on the topic, so do you mind if I ask for other books that I can read on the topic, other than the one by Sam Harris? — MadWorld1

I'm very new to this, no expert. If you have read The Moral Landscape then you have a firm foundation, however I think Alex O'connor and Steven Woodford take it to a new level. Watch this presentation by Alex The Good Delusion if you're really interested in this, and will no doubt explain it better than I have.

Exactly. We might be wrong about what gives us the most pleasure. As per your example of a child. A child may steel another child's lollypop because of instant gratification but if the child is shown that they can derive more pleasure by not stealing it (avoiding a fight, empathy born of reason, potential sharing in the future, etc.) then they will not steal. Hence, back to Harris' ethics, that right and wrong behaviour is predicated on pleasure.

It's not just a neurological function of the brain to strive for happiness, that's a tool evolved to incentivize survival and reproduction in order to spread our genes. Isen't that, then, the real axiomatic ought? — MadWorld1

Yes, but the tool the selfish genes adopt to do so is the pleasure reward. I think they're linked, if the purpose is to survive then it's wrong to kill (according to the gene). Pleasure means survival, harm means death. The only problem with the selfish gene though is that it carries this wacky and seemingly unnecessary thing called consciousness. We are not just "survival machines" as Dawkins puts it but conscious ones at that.

That's just it; it's a function of the brain, it's not in the sphere of morality — MadWorld1

But the functions of the brain map on to the conscious state - and consciousness is everything, to us. A wave of dopamine is the feeling of pleasure. A wave of cortisol is the feeling of anxiety. A wave of dopamine tells us that the belief we hold about our action is the right course. Brain states affect behaviour, right or wrong behaviour. Aren't we now in the field of ethics?

I just can't shake the feeling that we're talking about why people act a certain way on average, or why we seem to have a kind of universal, intersubjective sense of at least obvious right and wrong, and conflate it with what we ought to do. To me these are different questions. — MadWorld1

Because the why is involuntary, it forces the ought. There is no "what we ought to do", we are forced to act on pleasure, then the question arises, is this the best way to seek pleasure? Is spanking your children the best way to seek pleasure? Numerous studies have found increased risk of impaired child development from the use of corporal punishment. If a parent is given all the information about this then they change their beliefs, they change their behaviour. They derive more pleasure by not spanking their children. How is this not ethics?

If the person believed there was any sort of pleasure to be had in the future they wouldn't commit suicide. This is the role of serotonin in the brain, it's the pleasure chemical related to thoughts of the future. The suffering in life and hopelessness of attaining any future pleasure is the deterrent to live and so the thought of suicide - ending the suffering - seems more pleasurable in the moment. The belief gives them pleasure, they may be wrong about the outcome.

I think the desire for suicide is still pleasure - it's more pleasurable to end it than to continue suffering into the future.

Deferred gratification is not "good" for you right now, but it may allow you to find "pleasure" or "success" later. — Gnomon

So is grueling physical exercise, studying hard for an exam, or throwing yourself on a grenade to save your fellow soldiers, but all actions are done because of the belief that pleasure is at the end. Of course, we can be wrong or right about such beliefs.

why do so many people do things that are obviously bad for them, such as smoking tobacco? Do they have "bad" beliefs about what's good for them? — Gnomon

When the desire to smoke a cigarette arises their mind convinces them that this will give them the most pleasure. It is the crux of giving up, your mind must have the conviction that not smoking at the moment will give you the most pleasure.

Do they have "bad" beliefs about what's good for them? — Gnomon

At the moment of acting on the desire, yes. They lack the conviction that smoking is bad for them in the long run.

Does present pleasure outweigh eventual pain in their analysis, or do they just do "what they d*mn well please"? — Gnomon

Yes. They are convinced at that moment the present pleasure outweighs the eventual pain. Again, the only thing that will make a smoker not smoke is the conviction that they will get more pleasure by not smoking.

Thanks for the example but I think it proves my point. Everything we do is predicated on the belief that such action is the one that will bring us the most pleasure.

But as an ethical principle it lacks the Altruism necessary for the Public Good, and it provides no reason for Deferred Gratification essential for mature human behavior — Gnomon

Can you give me an example of an altruistic action or deferred gratification action, or any action at all for that matter that isn't predicated on the belief that it will give you pleasure? (Perhaps substitute "pleasure" with "happiness" or "wellbeing" as they mean the same thing here).

Science can only show us how to best achieve the fulfillment of a moral duty, not prove what that moral duty ought to be. — MadWorld1

Well, that's what we are pondering. So far, people like Sam Harris have made a compelling argument for objective moral grounds. Harris uses the analogy of putting your hand in fire. Consider Humes Law with this example:

Your hand IS in the fire therefore you OUGHT to pull it out

One can see how ridiculous this is, the ought is inherent in nature, an axiomatic ought. Likewise, human beings don't have a choice when it comes to acting on the desire that they believe will give the most happiness, it's a neurological function of the brain; dopamine, serotonin, physiological functions.

They might be wrong or right about such a belief and so we can wander into the field of ethics armed with this fact about the natural world at least and extrapolate from there. Harris is basically saying that it's wrong to harm yourself - that is, you'll only harm yourself because of the erroneous belief that you thought it would give you pleasure, therefore you were objectively wrong. And all human beings are the same on this therefore it's wrong to harm others IF that harm doesn't result in the end of wellbeing.

Harris argues that if you question this then you may as well question everything else we do in science. Why study physics? Why study biology? Why not walk into an emergency room and ask the surgeon who is doing a life-saving procedure why they are doing that? In other words, what law is there in the natural world that tells us we should study physics or mathematics other than the inherent neurological function of giving us dopamine when we pursue wellbeing?

Thanks, I'll check them out.

I just came up with this, it's not perfect as yet but I think it's a good start to my thinking:

1) Human beings have no choice but to act on the desire that we are convinced will bring us the most pleasure and no human being desires harm without the end of pleasure.
2) Human beings can be right or wrong about such moral beliefs (what action gives them and others the most pleasure or harm) and such beliefs may be validated with empiricism and reason.

Thanks, I love your thinking. Your question: "what is it about a moral claim that makes it different to any other?" is bang on the money. I found this: The Good Delusion | What's The Closest We Can Get To Objective Ethics? It's very cool, he was inspired by Sam Harris.

Everyone, and I mean everyone, is a moral relativist. It's unfortunate, especially for Westerners who have been taught empiricism and the scientific method, yet throw it all away when it comes to morality.

Thanks for you help.

Thanks. I'll check it out.