Searching for GOD...

[SteveH]

Steve H,

What signature?

Anyway, do you carve out your remarkable claim just for morality or do you claim objectivity too for other fields of judgment - artistic merit, language, that kind of thing? What SI units of moral/immoral do you apply, and how do you test for them?

I don't know what you mean about language, but artistic merit, yes (well, strictly speaking "inter-subjective", but it amounts to the same thing). If not, the only standard for judging artistic productions is popualrity, which would make Patience Strong the 20th Century's greatest poet, and even the people who enjoy la Strong's doggerel and to whom real poetry is a closed book would probably admit that that wasn't the case.

[Alan Burns]

Mostly positive claims, the burden of proof for them lies with the claimer.  As far as I am concerned there are no souls, gods, evil ones, no heaven or hell as we don't have any evidence for any of these things.  They are just unsupported bald assertions with an added frisson of prejudical language calculated to induce shame in people who try to remain true to principled thinking.

I take note of your phrase "prejudicial language calculated to induce shame in people"
How could you presume this to be true if all our apparent conscious choices are predetermined in our subconscious?

[torridon]

I take note of your phrase "prejudicial language calculated to induce shame in people"
How could you presume this to be true if all our apparent conscious choices are predetermined in our subconscious?

From the point of view of the insulted, the feeling of shame is not a conscious choice.  If someone says something insulting you feel insulted.  Choice doesn't come into it.  Likewise I don't get a choice in whether to experience the sky is blue or whether strawberries taste nice.

From the point of view of the insulter finely honing a nicely calculated insult, the subtle interplay of preconscious states of mind is not normally a particularly relevant consideration - someone could have been working on a nice insult for weeks beforehand. Sometimes people plan revenge against an enemy well in advance of a suitable opportunity arising.  Jeremy Corbyn has probably been plotting the downfall of the Tory government for years.  The subtleties of cognition and perception are irrelevant in such scenarios, they only become a practical issue in very high speed and immediate situations like fight or flight response where the split second delay of conscious experience could mean the difference between life or death.  The intention to bring down the Tories can be harboured in subconscious mind more or less indefinately.

[torridon]

I am fully aware that we have broached this subject several times before, but I find it increasingly bizarre that you continue to deny that we have the freedom to choose such actions as they are just the inevitable result of physical reactions.   Yes all these silly actions come from somewhere and are the end result of cause and effect, but there has to be an instigating action to set off the physical chains of cause and effect to bring about the action.  The instigating action is certainly not a random event.  The only other option in a materialistic scenario is that there was no definable instigating action and everything is just an inevitable consequence to previous events.  The only realistic alternative is that these actions are instigated by a consciously driven act of will, but such an event is not a feasible option in the physically driven materialistic scenario.  So what enables our conscious awareness to instigate an act of will?  It all depends on what constitutes our conscious awareness, because whatever it is must have the power to instigate actions in our physical brain and not just be part of the mechanistic chains of endless cause and effect, and over which there is no control other than the laws of physics.

A little too long, too wordy that, I think.  Clearly all actions have a beginning, although not all beginnings are conscious.  I just took a breath of air; I didn't consciously choose to do that.  Our minds are constantly making decisions, mostly without 'our' knowledge.

Conscious thought is involved in other, more complex situations. Right now I'm considering how to spend my remaining annual leave this year, should I book a trekking holiday in Nepal, or maybe I might enrol on a conservation week planting trees in the Highlands, or I might sign up for a citizen science project.  I haven't come to a decision yet, but when I do, it will be a moment in which the appeal of one option at last gains a clear lead over its rivals.  I don't choose that one option should appeal more than the others, rather, I discover which option is going to suit best by researching and filling in details

[Alan Burns]

You seem to be separating 'choice' from the neurological activity in involved in decision making yet in the link I poster earlier the researchers were pointing out that the prefrontal cortex show increased activity during all decision making. No doubt you'll say this is a reaction but the researchers don't mention this being a reaction to anything - are they wrong?

Appeal to authority will not change the basic logic.

Perhaps I have not been very adept at explaining, so I will try once more.

First let me dispense with the determined versus random red herring.  Of course a conscious choice is determined, but determined by what?

If the determining factor is defined by physical events, then it can be nothing more than an inevitable reaction because we have no control over how physical events react.  No amount of biological complexity can change the basic premise that the outcome of every event in a material brain will be determined by the laws of physics.

This effectively would mean that our conscious awareness will be just a spectator over what is determined by physical reactions of the electro chemical activity in our brain.

But our perception is that our conscious awareness is not just a spectator, but a driver of our conscious choices.  For our choices to be driven would mean something is capable of consciously inducing events which control the driving process.  This is where the concept of spiritually determined comes into play.  Another red herring is the claim that there is no effective difference between spiritually determined and physically determined.  The difference is obvious - physically determined events are determined by the laws of physics.  What determines our will derives from our conscious awareness, which must have the power to consciously invoke an act of will within the physical brain.  If our conscious awareness comprises nothing more than an emergent property resulting from material reactions, it will have no power of control within itself.  Our freedom to exert control can't be derived from material reactions alone.

No doubt this post may bring about some deep, well thought out responses which endeavour to show that I am wrong and that everything must have a physical explanation, but these responses will themselves provide evidence of the responder's ability to consciously drive their own thought processes.

[ippy]

Alan's mind is driven by the things he's rather successfully been indoctrinated with so much for his free will.

He was probably indoctrinated at that pre seven years of age group of children unfortunately for them like so many, it's probably because the religious groups are having more difficulty getting their hands on the young as in the past plus we're all far better informed from virtually all directions, at an early age too and perhaps these are a couple of the reasons combined that are contributing to the exponential drop in those interested in these religions every year.

ippy

[Gordon]

Appeal to authority will not change the basic logic.

You don't employ logic, and appealing to authority is reasonable when what is being appealed to is authoritative: hence if you have toothache you don't consult a plumber.

Perhaps I have not been very adept at explaining, so I will try once more.

True, but go for it anyway.

First let me dispense with the determined versus random red herring.  Of course a conscious choice is determined, but determined by what?

All the influences, preferences and assessments of circumstances processed by your brain. some of which you may not be aware of.

If the determining factor is defined by physical events, then it can be nothing more than an inevitable reaction because we have no control over how physical events react.  No amount of biological complexity can change the basic premise that the outcome of every event in a material brain will be determined by the laws of physics.

And? One of these 'physical events' is the biology that allows you to think but you do like to argue from consequences that you don't like.

This effectively would mean that our conscious awareness will be just a spectator over what is determined by physical reactions of the electro chemical activity in our brain.

Not if it is an integral part of the overall process.

But our perception is that our conscious awareness is not just a spectator, but a driver of our conscious choices.

That isn't my perception - perhaps you are creating problems for yourself by insisting on trying to detach conscious awareness from all the other activity going on in our brains instead of seeing it as an aspect of a wider process.
 

For our choices to be driven would mean something is capable of consciously inducing events which control the driving process.

Which is what brains do.

This is where the concept of spiritually determined comes into play.  Another red herring is the claim that there is no effective difference between spiritually determined and physically determined.

Nope: no red herring here, and this is where you fall into logical incoherence.

The difference is obvious - physically determined events are determined by the laws of physics.

So what!

What determines our will derives from our conscious awareness, which must have the power to consciously invoke an act of will within the physical brain.  If our conscious awareness comprises nothing more than an emergent property resulting from material reactions, it will have no power of control within itself.  Our freedom to exert control can't be derived from material reactions alone.

Yet it seems to be just 'material reactions', Alan, whether you like it or not, although you are attempting to over-simplify and under-play 'material reactions' to suit your arguments from consequences: and of course this is also where your personal incredulity kicks in.

No doubt this post may bring about some deep, well thought out responses which endeavour to show that I am wrong and that everything must have a physical explanation, but these responses will themselves provide evidence of the responder's ability to consciously drive their own thought processes.

There you go again - trying to insist that conscious awareness and directed thinking are somehow separate from our biology rather than seeing them as complex aspects of our biology: you do this in order to contrive a gap to drop your God/soul notion into and preserve you particular take on faith. 

[Alan Burns]

A valiant attempt to try to refute the logic, Gordon.  The logic which leads to the inevitable conclusion that material brains, no matter how complex, can never be free to control their own thought processes.  Yet I have the freedom to contradict you because the conscious willpower of my human soul gives me the ability to do so.

[torridon]

If the determining factor is defined by physical events, then it can be nothing more than an inevitable reaction because we have no control over how physical events react.  No amount of biological complexity can change the basic premise that the outcome of every event in a material brain will be determined by the laws of physics.

This effectively would mean that our conscious awareness will be just a spectator over what is determined by physical reactions of the electro chemical activity in our brain.

Yes, that is broadly correct. 

But our perception is that our conscious awareness is not just a spectator, but a driver of our conscious choices.... 

Yes, that is our perception, but our 'perceptions' are themselves constructions of lower levels of mind.  Humans have evolved many fairly unique attributes, not least among these is a compelling sense of agency and a strong sense of self.  These senses are part and parcel of the human flavour of conscious experience.  All you are arguing for is that how it seems is actually how it is, whereas critical thinking has been in the business of dispelling the illusions of mind since the days of the pre-Socratics.  Now we know that we never experience raw reality, all mental experience is fabrication of more primal levels of mind, and that includes that sense of agency, a feeling of being responsible for decisions taken.

[Gordon]

A valiant attempt to try to refute the logic, Gordon.  The logic which leads to the inevitable conclusion that material brains, no matter how complex, can never be free to control their own thought processes.  Yet I have the freedom to contradict you because the conscious willpower of my human soul gives me the ability to do so.

Your 'wee man at the controls' approach isn't logic, Alan: it is your religious faith, aided and abetted by your fondness for fallacies, getting in the way of logic.

[Sebastian Toe]

Perhaps I have not been very adept at explaining

Well  you have as yet been unable to give a definition for your "forces of evil" and also for how they work.

[ekim]

Yes, that is broadly correct. 

Yes, that is our perception, but our 'perceptions' are themselves constructions of lower levels of mind.  Humans have evolved many fairly unique attributes, not least among these is a compelling sense of agency and a strong sense of self.  These senses are part and parcel of the human flavour of conscious experience.  All you are arguing for is that how it seems is actually how it is, whereas critical thinking has been in the business of dispelling the illusions of mind since the days of the pre-Socratics.  Now we know that we never experience raw reality, all mental experience is fabrication of more primal levels of mind, and that includes that sense of agency, a feeling of being responsible for decisions taken.

Perhaps I am not reading you correctly but if you say 'all mental experience is fabrication ' it could be said that critical thinking is a mental experience and is therefor just a fabrication.  Criticism also implies choice.  If 'we never experience raw reality' shouldn't we dismiss that concept also?

[torridon]

Perhaps I am not reading you correctly but if you say 'all mental experience is fabrication ' it could be said that critical thinking is a mental experience and is therefor just a fabrication.  Criticism also implies choice.  If 'we never experience raw reality' shouldn't we dismiss that concept also?

I think we can differentiate between immediate personal experience and conceptual abstractions derived from intersubjective consensus and data gleaned from instruments.  Science distrusts personal testimony for good reasons.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

I don't know what you mean about language, but artistic merit, yes (well, strictly speaking "inter-subjective", but it amounts to the same thing). If not, the only standard for judging artistic productions is popualrity, which would make Patience Strong the 20th Century's greatest poet, and even the people who enjoy la Strong's doggerel and to whom real poetry is a closed book would probably admit that that wasn't the case.

But nor would they be able to say that, say, Shakespeare was objectively a great poet – and your claim was of objectivity.

Re language, it’s another area of human codification that’s agreed by consensus and to a degree by instinct but no-one claims it to be objectively correct. You and I and many other people will for example agree on what we mean when we use the word “cow”. Moreover, there’s also evidence of instinctive language – babies for example around the world will tend to say “Da-Da” when they see their fathers. That doesn’t mean though that there’s some grand universal lexicon of what language should be.

Similarly with art or music. Mozart for example was considered by the Victorians to be a sort of Mantovani – all froth and insubstantiality. Then he was re-evaluated and is now considered a genius. It’s also true though that instinctively we find some music harmonious and other music to be discordant. The point here is that again there isn’t a grand register of “good” and “bad” music, or of art – rather we apply these labels quite happily on the basis of our collective responses to them.

And so with morality. Some moral issues we respond to instinctively – the “yuk” factor for example – and others we reason our way towards. Where we get to though is consensus – that by consensus murder is morally wrong for example – but we can’t point to an objective measure that’s external to us for validation. You might find someone who thinks that murder is fine (a sociopath for example), and for him it would be fine. You cannot though have someone who’s opinion is that gravity doesn’t apply to him be right about that even for himself because jumping out of a window would falsify him.

That’s the point here – morality (and aesthetics and language) are what we intuit and reason them to be but they’re all human constructs rather than invariable properties of the universe. Nor though do the need to be for people to express their judgements on them nonetheless.   

[ekim]

I think we can differentiate between immediate personal experience and conceptual abstractions derived from intersubjective consensus and data gleaned from instruments.  Science distrusts personal testimony for good reasons.

Yes, it may do, but when it comes to medicine it would be wise for a practitioner to also take into account the personal testimony of the inner experience of the person being practised upon rather than just treat him as an object for instrumental data gleaning.  However it can be tricky trying to distinguish between factual testimony and delusional testimony.

[SteveH]

Steve H,

But nor would they be able to say that, say, Shakespeare was objectively a great poet – and your claim was of objectivity.

My claim, strictly speaking, was of inter-subjectivity: a broad consensus of those who've thought deeply and studied the subject in question.

Re language, it’s another area of human codification that’s agreed by consensus and to a degree by instinct but no-one claims it to be objectively correct. You and I and many other people will for example agree on what we mean when we use the word “cow”. Moreover, there’s also evidence of instinctive language – babies for example around the world will tend to say “Da-Da” when they see their fathers. That doesn’t mean though that there’s some grand universal lexicon of what language should be.

There are theories about the origin of language. Most words meaning "you", at least in the Indo-European group - du, tu, vous, etc - involve pushing the lips forwards, towards the other person,while the words for "me" involve drawing them back towards oneself (although I've just looked up the Welsh word for "you", and it's "chi", which rather buggers up that theory.

Similarly with art or music. Mozart for example was considered by the Victorians to be a sort of Mantovani – all froth and insubstantiality. Then he was re-evaluated and is now considered a genius. It’s also true though that instinctively we find some music harmonious and other music to be discordant. The point here is that again there isn’t a grand register of “good” and “bad” music, or of art – rather we apply these labels quite happily on the basis of our collective responses to them.

Exactly - inter-subjectivity again.

And so with morality. Some moral issues we respond to instinctively – the “yuk” factor for example – and others we reason our way towards. Where we get to though is consensus – that by consensus murder is morally wrong for example – but we can’t point to an objective measure that’s external to us for validation. You might find someone who thinks that murder is fine (a sociopath for example), and for him it would be fine. You cannot though have someone who’s opinion is that gravity doesn’t apply to him be right about that even for himself because jumping out of a window would falsify him.

Morality is more than the yuk factor. Utilitarianism is the only moral system that really makes sense, and that unequivocally condemns murder, because it tends to reduce happiness and increase misery. That is an objective standard.

[torridon]

Utilitarianism is the only moral system that really makes sense, and that unequivocally condemns murder, because it tends to reduce happiness and increase misery. That is an objective standard.

Does Utilitarianism say that the murder of Adolf Hitler in 1938 would have been unequivocally, objectively immoral ?

[SteveH]

Does Utilitarianism say that the murder of Adolf Hitler in 1938 would have been unequivocally, objectively immoral ?

Not necessarily.
To expand a little: there are two major types of utilitarianism: act and rule. Act utilitarianism applies the principle of maximising happiness and minimising misery to individual acts, which I think is impractical, whereas rule utilitarianism derives general rules from the principle, and judges acts according to the rules, though in exceptional circulstances it might be right to break a rule. Thus murder is normally wrong, but may in exceptional circumstances be justified, such as killing Hitler in 1938. I am a rule-utilitarian as far as ethics is concerned. (I feel a new thread coming on.)

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

My claim, strictly speaking, was of inter-subjectivity: a broad consensus of those who've thought deeply and studied the subject in question.

No it wasn’t. Your claim was of objectivity – here in fact:

"Of course there's objective right and wrong. If there isn't, how can we condemn the Nazis, or Brady and Hindley?" (Reply 31490)

A broad consensus etc is what we have, and that’s what allows us to condemn the nazis etc. without objective standards and metrics to refer to.

There are theories about the origin of language. Most words meaning "you", at least in the Indo-European group - du, tu, vous, etc - involve pushing the lips forwards, towards the other person,while the words for "me" involve drawing them back towards oneself (although I've just looked up the Welsh word for "you", and it's "chi", which rather buggers up that theory.

No doubt, but I was merely pointing out that language is analogous to aesthetics and to morality in that we partly intuit and partly reason toward judgements on these matters without requiring objective standards to do so.

Exactly - inter-subjectivity again.

Exactly – but not objectivity, which was your claim.

Morality is more than the yuk factor.

I know, that’s why I said that it was.

Utilitarianism is the only moral system that really makes sense, and that unequivocally condemns murder, because it tends to reduce happiness and increase misery.

How would utilitarianism – ie, the greatest good for the greatest number – work in practice? Would for example a transplant surgeon be morally right to murder someone to harvest his organs if those organs would save the lives of five people who would otherwise dies? 

That is an objective standard.

No it isn’t. It’s just what enough people agree on for it to be accepted as normative and then enforced in laws. Objectivity isn’t determined by instinct and opinion, however widely held.   

[SteveH]

Steve H,

No it wasn’t. Your claim was of objectivity – here in fact:

"Of course there's objective right and wrong. If there isn't, how can we condemn the Nazis, or Brady and Hindley?" (Reply 31490)

A broad consensus etc is what we have, and that’s what allows us to condemn the nazis etc. without objective standards and metrics to refer to.

I was referring to artistic judgements.

How would utilitarianism – ie, the greatest good for the greatest number – work in practice? Would for example a transplant surgeon be morally right to murder someone to harvest his organs if those organs would save the lives of five people who would otherwise dies? 

No, because if that was the general rule, we'd all be living in constant fear, with a consequent big reduction in happiness. See new thread in "Philosophy" if you want a sensible discussion (in marked contrast to the replies so far) of utilitarianism.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

AB: "I will continue to deny any theory which effectively removes the reality that...etc" (Reply 31408).

How much more evidence would you like? Notice that he doesn't say, "I will look for gaps in the scientific theories and insert my claims of fact into those gaps" or similar. To the contrary, he simply denies "any theory" that contradicts his faith beliefs full stop. QED

No point in just quoting what he wrote since our disagreement is how we interpreted what he wrote.

Theories don't remove AB's idea of a spiritual agent interacting with the brain in the process of reasoning and in making reasoned choices, especially choices that have significant consequences. Or as AB likes to put it: the soul's free will to make a conscious choice of action between different subconscious desires, fears and wants.

Theories are different explanations of the findings available at the time. There is no finding of a spiritual agent existing so theories don't rule them in or out, so AB doesn't need to worry. The recent findings of brain activity measured before a specific decision to act have led to a theory about the sub-conscious mind and decision-making that requires further investigation and evidence. It doesn't rule out that the conscious mind is involved in reasoning out complex decisions with significant potential consequences. Nor does it rule out AB's theories of the brain interacting with something that can't be currently investigated.

This summary of current thinking on sub-conscious vs conscious by Magda Ossman, an experimental psychologist at Queen Mary's, London, is worth looking at:
https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-28/february-2015/does-our-unconscious-rule

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Now you're just making stuff up. Here (again) is what he actually said:
(Reply 31408)

There’s no connection between that and your re-imagining of it as ruling out “any theory that positively asserts the brain can never and does not interact with something undefined by science”.

There is a connection between what AB wrote about denying a theory that rules out the "reality that we are capable of driving our own thoughts and invoking conscious choices" and what I wrote. I didn't just make it up you banana.

He has been stating repeatedly that he thinks the conscious brain drives decisions he makes - such as what he decides to write on this forum, what he decides to edit out or alter -  and that seems to be what he has labelled or defined as free-will. He also thinks his brain is interacting with his soul as he thinks his soul determines his free-will choices i.e. his conscious reasoned choices between competing desires and fears. He acknowledges that past events will influence those competing desires and fears and therefore influences his choice, but he thinks his choice between those desires and fears is a reasoned conscious choice made by his brain interacting with his soul. There is no evidence for his concept of a soul, and many other people could just leave out the soul completely and investigate the role of the conscious brain in complex decision-making, but AB has included a soul in his explanation. 

Which theory are you thinking of that rules out what he thinks is happening when he writes his posts for example? If you link to it and copy and paste the relevant bit or refer me to the relevant paragraph, I'll have a read as maybe I am misunderstanding what you are getting at when you say he dismisses entirely scientific findings.

Your initial claim was that AB consistently entirely dismisses scientific findings we do have because it provides an incomplete explanation for consciousness. I don't see him dismissing entirely scientific findings so much as asking questions, some of which are being asked by other experimental psychologists, except he adds on evangelism about souls and God to answer some of his own questions.   

[ippy]

No point in just quoting what he wrote since our disagreement is how we interpreted what he wrote.

Theories don't remove AB's idea of a spiritual agent interacting with the brain in the process of reasoning and in making reasoned choices, especially choices that have significant consequences. Or as AB likes to put it: the soul's free will to make a conscious choice of action between different subconscious desires, fears and wants.

Theories are different explanations of the findings available at the time. There is no finding of a spiritual agent existing so theories don't rule them in or out, so AB doesn't need to worry. The recent findings of brain activity measured before a specific decision to act have led to a theory about the sub-conscious mind and decision-making that requires further investigation and evidence. It doesn't rule out that the conscious mind is involved in reasoning out complex decisions with significant potential consequences. Nor does it rule out AB's theories of the brain interacting with something that can't be currently investigated.

This summary of current thinking on sub-conscious vs conscious by Magda Ossman, an experimental psychologist at Queen Mary's, London, is worth looking at:
https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-28/february-2015/does-our-unconscious-rule

Dorothy Rowe the world renown Australian Dr of psychology has a more more realistic view on the subject.

Regards ippy.

[Dicky Underpants]

See new thread in "Philosophy" if you want a sensible discussion (in marked contrast to the replies so far) of utilitarianism.

Well, on that thread, I see that you're already considering abandoning it, since no one appears to have fulfilled your criteria considering what a 'sensible discussion' is. Shall we debate the meaning of 'sensible' instead, or just accept that it means only what Steve H says it means?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Dorothy Rowe the world renown Australian Dr of psychology has a more more realistic view on the subject.

Regards ippy.

Thank you for your unevidenced belief about Dorothy Rowe. Almost as interesting as the opinions AB puts forward.