But this doesn't at all counter my point of there being uncomputable mathematics and hence uncomputable problems. Or to put it another way, undecidable problems where an undecidable problem is a decision problem for which an effective method (algorithm) to derive the correct answer does not exist. — ssu

This discussion involves two distinct issues. The first concerns uncomputable problems, on which I fully agree with you. The second relates to whether biological organisms function like machines. As I mentioned earlier, there is broad consensus among biologists that living organisms operate according to the same physical laws as non-living systems. For instance, water molecules can pass consecutively through several living organisms and emerge unchanged—identical to how they were before entering the first of them.

Furthermore, I believe that the primary function of brains is computation—more specifically, to act as control systems. While they may not be able to solve every problem they encounter, in such cases the organism may suffer harm or die. Yet I regard this fallibility, too—this occasional failure—as a similarity between brains and computers.

Machines and living entities are a bit different (as I assume you know), but let's accept the very broad definition here and ignore the obvious physical differences between man made machines and living organisms. — ssu

You're right that at first glance, machines and living organisms appear quite different—especially regarding structure and origin. However, if we focus on functional principles and physical processes, the line becomes less sharp than it seems.

In fact, already in the mid-19th century, leading scientists such as Carl Ludwig, Hermann von Helmholtz, Jakob Moleschott, and Carl Vogt argued that the physiological and chemical processes occurring in living beings are governed by the very same natural laws as those in the non-living world. This marked a decisive shift away from vitalistic thinking toward a scientific materialism that sees no need for a special “life force” beyond physics and chemistry.

Vitalists had posited an irreducible inner principle—vis vitalis—to account for the uniqueness of life, but this notion steadily lost ground as physiology and biochemistry revealed the continuity between living and non-living matter.

Helmholtz in particular famously applied the law of conservation of energy to biological systems, emphasizing that no separate principles were required to explain life. Carl Vogt even provocatively claimed that “the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile”—underscoring the continuity between organism and mechanism.

So, while machines and organisms differ in origin and complexity, their internal workings are, in a deep sense, physico-chemical systems, and thus comparable under the lens of natural science.

Do note that computation is a specific way to solve problems, the process of performing calculations or solving problems using a set of well-defined rules or instructions, following algorithms. We don't compute everything if we are presented with a problem. Or do you really compute every problem you find? — ssu

You're right, I don’t consciously compute every problem I encounter. But that doesn’t mean computation isn’t happening. Much of the problem-solving is outsourced to unconscious brain processes.

Take sports as an example: when I play tennis and see a ball flying toward me, I don’t consciously calculate its trajectory using physics formulas. But my brain does - automatically and incredibly fast - estimate its speed, angle, and landing point, allowing me to react in time. That’s a form of implicit computation.

So while I don’t deliberately compute everything, my brain is constantly computing - just not in a way that feels like "doing math".

There are four features involved when it comes to a person, namely instinct, logical thinking, intuition, and wisdom; they come in order in a person. Free will is the ability of the mind to choose freely. It is required to decide in a situation when there is a conflict of interest. — MoK

You sound like you’re drawing from idealism and Kantian philosophy, maybe with a libertarian view of free will—is that how you see it?

Machines and living entities are a bit different (as I assume you know), but let's accept the very broad definition here and ignore the obvious physical differences between man made machines and living organisms. — ssu

While it's true that most people might share your opinion, it's worth noting that several prominent thinkers have argued that the brain—or even the human being as a whole—can be understood as a kind of machine. Notable proponents of this view include: Julien Offray de La Mettrie, Thomas Hobbes, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Alan Turing, Marvin Minsky, Daniel Dennett, Francis Crick, Jacques Loeb, Rodney Brooks, and Robert Sapolsky.

there doesn't have to be at all any kind of "meta-algorithm" at all, it is just that subjectivity isn't computable. — ssu

While subjectivity may not be computable at present, I assume it is in principle, given that the brain - a physical system effectively functioning as a (non-digital) computer - somehow gives rise to it.

... anti-reductionist biologists like Ernst Mayr have defended naturalized conceptions of teleology (that Mayr calls "teleonomy") that don't conflict with Gould's insistence on the lack of foresight of evolution through natural selection. The question regarding the present aims (forward-looking) of an organism's structure and behavior is distinct from the question regarding the origin of this structure (backward-looking). — Pierre-Normand

Teleology explains events as caused by goals or intended purposes. In contrast, teleonomy describes the appearance of goal-directedness, treating such goals as merely apparent rather than actual causes. To me, teleonomy represents a rejection of teleology rather than its naturalization. I maintain that all phenomena—including biological ones—can ultimately be explained by physical processes, even if, in many cases, we are still far from achieving this.

Many entities have, in addition to their material constitution, formal/functional/teleological features that arise from their history, their internal organisation, and the way they are embedded in larger systems. This is true of human beings but also of all living organisms and of most human artifacts. — Pierre-Normand

The problem with this statement is that, in modern biology and the philosophy of science, teleology is generally rejected as a fundamental explanatory principle. While evolutionary processes can produce structures that appear purpose-built (such as wings for flying), this appearance is understood as a result of natural selection, not as evidence of actual purpose. Since Darwin — and even more explicitly since Stephen Jay Gould — such apparent design is treated as an illusion rather than a literal reality.

What must then be appealed to in order to explain such irreducible formal features need not be something supernatural or some non-material substance. What accounts for the forms can be the contingencies and necessities of evolutionary and cultural history history, and the serendipitous inventions of people and cultures. Those all are explanatory factors that have nothing much to do with physics or the other material sciences. Things like consciousness (and free will) are better construed as features or emergent abilities of embodied living (and rational) animals rather than mysterious immaterial properties of them. — Pierre-Normand

I consider the assumption of irreducible formal features in complex entities to be unfounded. What may appear irreducible arises from our limited understanding or from the intricate interplay of physical processes. In principle, everything composite — including consciousness and will — can ultimately be traced back to physical processes. Where such reduction has not yet been achieved, this reflects epistemic limitations rather than an ontological impossibility. Even if higher-level phenomena are described functionally or as emergent, there is no justification for treating them as independent ontological domains beyond physics. This applies equally to biological organisms and to artificially created intelligent systems.

That should start the usual disagreements about scientistic physicalism and how this has collapsed the richness of conscious experience into merely computational or mechanistic terms. Next comes the points about the hard problem of consciousness, followed by some Thomas Nagel quotes. Enjoy. — Tom Storm

In my opinion anyone who rejects physicalism and the associated reduction of conscious experiences to material processes must assume that these experiences are based on something else. But on what – an élan vital, magic, or what else?

What have the scientists failed to do with the nematode? As a non-programmer, I guess I'm asking whether decoding is an analogy, or something that literally can be done with creatures. — J

Decoding refers to the exhaustive understanding of the biological system of the nematode – encompassing its genetics, cellular processes, neural architecture, behavior, and environmental responses – with the goal of constructing a fully accurate computer simulation based on these data. This goal has not yet been achieved.

What are we trying to understand in ourselves though ? — kindred

By “understanding ourselves,” I meant fully decoding ourselves—much like scientists are currently attempting with the simplest model organism: the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. This tiny animal consists of 959 cells, its nervous system of 302 neurons, and its genome was fully sequenced back in 1998. Yet even after more than 60 years of research, we still haven't succeeded in fully understanding how it functions. That’s why I suspect it will take quite some time before we truly understand the human being—if that's even possible. In fact, I’m skeptical that it can ever be done. I suspect that decoding a system requires a more complex system. A human being might, in theory, be able to decode a nematode—but just as a nematode would never be capable of decoding itself, I suspect that humans, too, will never fully succeed in decoding themselves.

If you were to ask for a universal standard, then you would be stuck with the majority's vote unfortunately. — PartialFanatic

I disagree. If you consider that, in every society, the uneducated constitute the majority, then only someone who is similarly uneducated and shares their tastes can benefit from the majority’s vote. For an educated reader, however, this vote of the masses is irrelevant. If there is anyone you can trust in this regard, it is a critic whose taste you know and whose preferences you share.

More like self-overcoming. I tend to hold good art should challenge and offer new ways of seeing. But maybe I'm doing it wrong. I do most things wrong so that's ok. — Tom Storm

There is nothing wrong in it. Everyone does it in their own way. I'm more the type who likes to savor things, whether it's music, art, or literature.

My favourite novels often weren’t enjoyable at first. They grew on me, and the initial struggle with the author transformed me as I persisted. I didn’t come away simply entertained, I came away enlarged. I remember fighting with George Eliot in Middlemarch and with Faulkner in As I Lay Dying. In the end, I got through, and the effort itself felt like an achievement. For me, reading great novels isn’t always about immediate pleasure; it’s more like climbing a mountain, demanding, sometimes punishing, but meaningful precisely because of the journey into unfamiliar territory and even the sacrifices required. — Tom Storm

Interesting. I tend to think if a book feels like self-mortification, I might be in the wrong genre. Then again, maybe that’s the Calvinist in you talking.

The closest thing I have come up with for a mode or standard is emotions, but there are works that I consider cheap that still inspire emotions. — Red Sky

In my opinion, the value of a novel lies in its ability to captivate me from the first page to the last—so compelling that I can’t put it down and regret how quickly the remaining pages dwindle.

What about male prostitutes? — Joshs

As far as I know this applies to all possible sexes and genders.

Prostitution is mainly human trafficking and the exploitation of people in distress for entertainment purposes.

In terms of this "active" element, for me, it's in interpretation, — Judaka

For me, it's in the evaluation."

Some kind of evolved reptile with our intelligence, undoubtedly, would not possess this kind of thinking as we do. This is why I describe it as an ability of ours. Is that a more agreeable assessment for you, or do you disagree with it? — Judaka

An intelligent reptile would likely make different evaluations than an intelligent chimpanzee, although there would likely be some overlaps, such as: not killing, not harming, not stealing... just to name a few.

Morality is many things, but for me, primarily, it is the ability to perceive things as right/wrong, fair/unfair and just/unjust. — Judaka

I would define morality as the active process of evaluating things and assigning them a value of either right or wrong, rather than passively perceiving them as such.

@Mark S
What I intended to convey is that it is considerably simpler to prescribe the actions one ought take to achieve a particular goal, rather than prescribing the goal they ought to strive for.

There is no commonly accepted ultimate goal for advocating and enforcing moral systems — Mark S

That's why I'm saying that moralizing without such a goal is much more challenging than when you orient yourself towards a goal X that you already have set for yourself.

When the topic is "moral oughts", I do not understand the combination of

1) the continued philosophical interest in, and too common assumption of, “imperative oughts” that do not seem to exist and

2) the apparent lack of philosophical interest in universal moralities based on conditional oughts such as Morality as Cooperation Strategies.

Can anyone explain it? — Mark S

I'll give it a try. The lack of interest in moral concepts based on conditional norms of oughtness can be explained by the fact that it represents a relatively simple problem. When the goal is known, it is relatively easy to reach a consensus on how it can be achieved. If X is known, determining the means Y is relatively straightforward. On the other hand, the more intriguing and challenging question seems to be what one can do before setting the goal X, or through which procedure one can achieve this goal. Or in other words, it's about the question of which goal X one should set and with what justification. This appears to be an almost insurmountable task, especially when one wants to find objections against rational egoism.

Can anyone explain

1) the continued philosophical interest in, and too common assumption of, “imperative oughts” that do not seem to exist and

2) the apparent lack of philosophical interest in universal moralities based on conditional oughts such as Morality as Cooperation Strategies? — Mark S

Meanwhile, I believe I understand what you're getting at. I will do my best to compose a satisfactory answer to it, but it will take a few more days, I'm sorry to say.

Are there goals shared by all well-informed, rational people? — Mark S

Even if that were the case (which I do not doubt), it would have no significance for moral duties because, as Hume already stated, one cannot derive an "ought" from an "is."

"Hume's law or Hume's guillotine is the thesis that, if a reasoner only has access to non-moral and non-evaluative factual premises, the reasoner cannot logically infer the truth of moral statements."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

Or, as John Leslie Mackie put it: "There are no objective values."

Do you mean to say that every immigrant in the Canada is cooking boiled beef and cabbage, because they're under British-style governance? — Vera Mont

I agree with you that diversity is possible under a single government, even more so under a single municipal administration.

You do see this is some alcohol and drug recovery programs, where people go around and apologize and even make amends for the wrongs they have done to people they know. I've also known a few people to gain insight into their actions over time and try to correct behaviors they now realize to be wrong. — Tom Storm

Agreed, there are such things. However, I meant actual cases in which one deceives, disadvantages, oppresses, or exploits another. In the cases I am aware of, moral appeals have had no effect, the abuses could only be stopped by legal proceedings.

But what is even more odd is that Christians when asked to name the commandments rarely remember more than 3. Not to mention the fact that of the 10 commandments, there's really only 4 that pertain to morality in any real sense. The rest are all worship and dogma related. — Tom Storm

You are right - interesting point! I would add that even if these commandments have failed to achieve their main purpose - the improvement of humanity - (otherwise they wouldn't be necessary to this day), they still provide historians with valuable insights into the lifestyle of the inhabitants of ancient Palestine. We learn that they occasionally ...

1. worshiped foreign gods,
2. misused the name of God,
3. did not sanctify the holidays,
4. did not honor their parents,
5. killed their fellow citizens,
6. committed adultery,
7. stole,
8. bore false witness against their neighbors,
9. coveted their neighbor's house or
10. their wife, servant, maid, and livestock.

In a similar way, the code of conduct of the boarding school at the Thomasschule in Leipzig provided surprising insights into the way of life of its students during the time of Johann Sebastian Bach. :smile:

I think most people just intuit what they ought and ought not to do based upon their own presuppositions — Tom Storm

What is the use of someone knowing what he ought to do if he is not willing to do it. There is, after all, the saying: "Man always remembers only nine of God's commandments, except the commandment he is about to transgress". I think there is some truth in it - knowledge is not everything, there is also wanting, desire, lust... etc

Have you ever heard of someone correcting an injustice just because it was pointed out to them that what they were doing was immoral? I haven't.
A reversal only occurs when otherwise unpleasant consequences would be imminent, that is my experience.

I think many have stared blindly into the darkness of humanity only to find nihilism while not looking carefully at the times people act out of kindness and care. We look so hard at wrongdoings when thinking about morality that we forget to include good deeds into the mix. — Christoffer

This is a misunderstanding; I by no means wanted to say that all people are evil. My experience is that people are different: some are friendly, helpful, and generous, while others are unfriendly, hostile, racist, chauvinistic, or cruel. Fortunately, the former are in the majority, or at least I hope so.

I don't find the question of whether there is an objective morality to be so crucial. It has emerged in the course of dialogues between cultures with different moral beliefs, as can be read in Wikipedia under "Value Pluralism.":

"In ethics, value pluralism (also known as ethical pluralism or moral pluralism) is the idea that there are several values which may be equally correct and fundamental, and yet in conflict with each other. In addition, value-pluralism postulates that in many cases, such incompatible values may be incommensurable, in the sense that there is no objective ordering of them in terms of importance."

From my perspective, the question of the effectiveness of morality is more important than that of its objectivity. Personally, I believe that moral prescriptions do not deliver on what they promise, which is to improve people's behavior. They may be effective and necessary for children, but most adults tend to have a more rejecting attitude towards moral teachings. In general, adults want to decide for themselves what they do and what they refrain from, and they perceive anything else as arrogance and patronization. Many do not want to conform to what they refer to as "political correctness." My experience is that such people who disadvantage or discriminate others do not respond to moral appeals; instead, they need to be dragged into court.

Although many people are convinced otherwise, I do not believe that moral systems and teachings are indispensable for the existence of society (except for children, as I said before). I see them as rather ineffective and annoying, and sometimes even harmful (especially in strict religious systems), and therefore, I reject them.

What for? Nobody cares what colour you prefer their skin to be. — Vera Mont

Yes, you correctly identified my problem. :lol:

Maybe tap into that and see if morality can be objectively found for our species. — Christoffer

Many theologians and philosophers have tried to find an objective morality, but without success. The last one I know of is John Leslie Mackie. In his book "Ethics - Inventing Right and Wrong" he says:

I have given abundant reasons why almost everyone should, in his own interest, welcome the fact that there is, and hope that there will continue to be, some system of morality, and why, even if the existing system does not suit him, his aim should be to modify it, at least locally, rather than to destroy it. But this [...] leaves unanswered the question 'Why should I not at the same time profit from the moral system but evade it? Why should I not encourage others to be moral and take advantage from the fact that they are, but myself avoid fulfilling moral requirements if I can in so far as they go beyond rational egoism and conflict with it?' It is not an adequate answer to this question to point out that one is not likely to be able to get away with such evasions for long. There will be at least some occasions when one can do so with impunity and even without detection. Then why not? To this no complete answer of the kind that is wanted can be given. — John Leslie Mackie

Well the way I see it is that nature itself is creative and destructive. It's chaotic and ordered. And natural living things embody this - acting in both ways either in service of themselves or in service of their community (social animals - packs, prides, squads, troops etc). — Benj96

I have a similar view: mutations are random and chaotic, and so are the conditions that favor a few individual mutations and eliminate most of them. Both, mutations plus letal environmental conditions, in their interaction are called evolution.

we can go against instinct if we so wish. — Benj96

This is a difficult hypothesis to prove.

We can be as self serving or as socially cooperative as we like. It is likely that we have more control over instinct than most animals do. Sacrifice and suicide being prime examples of how we overcome our primal instinct to self preserve. — Benj96

This is a deception, we can do many things but we cannot go against the laws of nature and against our instincts. Freud for example attributed suicide to the death instinct,

That's a toughie, given that the law of God as taught by most religions runs counter to the laws of nature; that good moral behaviour requires that one suppress one's animal instinct and repudiate one's animal drives. — Vera Mont

Mark Twain's point is precisely that the law of God is that which governs the planets, rivers, plants and animals (including man). In other words, that the laws of nature are the law of God.

Can one not do something purely spontaneous and random with no purpose at all. — Benj96

You are right, people can even do something purely spontaneous, while thinking about something else. How could I have forgotten this important possibility?

And they would all meekly obey - even though they didn't, under the most egregious apartheid. — Vera Mont

That is indeed the most difficult hurdle: how to convince people of the idea, but it is the only one. :joke:

Do you really want that ? A world that abhors pain. — kudos

Yes, I abhor my own pain, since I am not a masochist, and other people's pain, since I am not a sadist either.

Do you truly hate your villains or envy them? — kudos

I do not envy villains at all, since I am not Nietzsche. On the other hand, I don't hate them either, but I still prefer to see them behind bars.

Because, it happened through the slow, indirect evolutionary process, not asking or wishing. — Vera Mont

I don't believe that would be so difficult. You would just need to form two groups and ask one group to only have children with the darkest members, while the other group only has children with the lightest members. In a few generations, you would have two different skin types.

once this
program of procreative racial deconstruction
has run its course, there's no separating the colours again. — Vera Mont

Why not? Originally, all humans had the same skin color, namely black, from which the different colors developed. Why shouldn't the same be possible again?

What is the advantage of being meaningless and powerless, no more than a part plugged into a mechanical society, no more needed than another identical part? — Athena

As I said, I also see the disadvantages of uniformity, even though I don't view them as extreme as you do. Ideally, I would like to have both diversity and peace, but given the nature of human beings, it doesn't seem possible to me. Therefore, I have to choose one side over the other. As difficult as it is for me, I would rather give up diversity than peace. Unfortunately, I have no hope of changing human nature, which would naturally be the most beautiful and best solution.

Who knows, maybe after a year of uniformity, I would say: Please give me back diversity, even if it is connected with contempt, hatred and war. Could be, I don't know.

Such uniformity would be less interesting than we have now, but it's only a matter of time. — Vera Mont

You're right, there would be disadvantages, (I love diversity too) but I think the advantages would outweigh them.

I was hoping for a more convivial group, but the dolphins refused to take me along; said white people can't jump. — Vera Mont

Although I'm not used to being overtaken, I have to admit that you made it. :up: :smile:

Besides, I would like it if we all belonged to one nation, if we all had the same skin color, no matter which: white or black, green or blue, the main thing is no differences. I find it very unfortunate that people always want to separate themselves into groups from the others. I never wanted to belong to any group except that of humanity as a whole.