Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ConsciousLiterature t1_ivl2ymq wrote

Reply to comment by eliyah23rd in Michael Shermer argues that science can determine many of our moral values. Morality is aimed at protecting certain human desires, like avoidance of harm (e.g. torture, slavery). Science helps us determine what these desires are and how to best achieve them. by Ma3Ke4Li3

If all your goals are synaptic action then so are all your values.

3

eliyah23rd t1_ivl4re0 wrote

I agree with that too. 100%

Does that tell you anything about whether I should hold these values?

2

ConsciousLiterature t1_ivlcgas wrote

Yes.

It says you may not have any choice but to hold those values and it may not be possible within the laws of physics not hold those values.

3

eliyah23rd t1_ivuhfdd wrote

I hope you're still around. I wanted to continue our discussion.

I don't think I want to get into Free Will issues right now, unless that is important to you. May I ask you the following question.

Image the following two views:

A. There is nothing over and above the neural description of what it going on when you hold a value.

B. The neural description is all well and good. What matters is that it expresses a linguistic assertion of a value. That value can be justified by some means (disjunction of facts, reason-logic, some higher reality)

I think both you and I hold A. However, I acknowledge that there are people who believe B. My choice of A is a philosophical position about justification of assertions.

Is your position:

  1. Agree
  2. B is not even a position, therefore there is only A. Therefore there is no evaluation to be made between A and B.
  3. Something else.
2

ConsciousLiterature t1_ivuzcxb wrote

I don't believe in "some higher reality" so I don't agree with B.

I believe that what happens in B is merely an emergent phenomena. For example I have a laptop. I call it a laptop. I use the laptop. You understand what I mean when I talk about it. The laptop is a particular arrangement of atoms and an electrochemical reaction that happens in accordance with what's happening inside and outside of it and the laws of nature.

When people refer to consciousness (and values or whatever) they are merely talking about a particular arrangement of atoms undergoing a complex set of electrochemical reactions.

That's it.

3

eliyah23rd t1_iwbp46x wrote

I hope you don't mind these delays in my replies. I've been ruminating in the meantime.

My list for B was actually a disjunctive list (facts OR reason-logic OR higher being). So rejecting one of the list does not mean that B is wrong.

But it doesn't really matter. Let's pretend I only gave the "higher being" option and so you don't agree with B.

You seem to say that you accept that there are people who believe B but you believe in A. (Option 1 in the second set of questions).

Preferring A to B is a philosophical position, is it not?

(On the other hand, I may have misunderstood you. Are you arguing for B after all? Does the emergent phenomenon you are referring you actually justify the value? I continue to assume that you don't hold that, but I wanted to raise the possibility just in case.)

1

ConsciousLiterature t1_iwewoxa wrote

>Preferring A to B is a philosophical position, is it not?

I don't think so. I mean maybe the word "prefer" makes it a philosophical issue but the core issue is a scientific one. Many people "prefer" a flat earth theory but whether or not the earth is flat is a scientific question.

> Does the emergent phenomenon you are referring you actually justify the value?

It is a description of what value is or means. You have some value or another because some electrochemical reaction is taking place in your brain. That's what I believe. I don't think you have a "choice" in your values because "you" are just an emergent phenomena from from atoms interacting with each other.

2

eliyah23rd t1_iwfm99o wrote

Fair enough. Thank you so much for this little chat.

1