Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9045 total)
67 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx (5 members, 62 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 887,176 Year: 4,822/14,102 Month: 420/707 Week: 151/197 Day: 40/55 Hour: 4/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Biology is Destiny?
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1092 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 32 of 129 (641778)
11-22-2011 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by New Cat's Eye
11-22-2011 9:42 AM


Re: Neurology kills Free Will
Its not for me. In my view, the mind is a gateway from the spiritual to the physical, and it stems from the brain. Damage the gateway, and the spirit doesn't come through the same way. Brain damage affecting behavior doesn't negate the spirit, for me.

Doesn't falsify the unfalsifiable notion of a disembodied spirit having some unspecified effect on behaviour, of course.

It doesn't falsify the notion of the CIA controlling our behaviour through invisible thought-rays, either.

Have you really thought about what role the spirit has in all this? It isn't making the final moral decisions since apparently (research that the OP puts forward) the brain seems to have veto powers, even when it has sustained damage.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-22-2011 9:42 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-22-2011 11:16 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1092 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 69 of 129 (642066)
11-25-2011 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by caffeine
11-25-2011 4:35 AM


In what way would the behaviour of this robot differ from the behaviour of a human?

The Zombie argument. This is often refuted by suggesting that if you created a robot that did everything a human did, in the same ways, then it would be conscious.

That is to say, if you create something that is exactly equivalent to a conscious human, you have something that is exactly equivalent to a conscious human. Including the conscious part. Another angle would be to suggest that if such a robot/zombie was not conscious, then neither are we.

what is the adaptive basis for consciousness?

We don't know. In fact we don't even know there has to be an adaptive basis for it. Indeed, it might be a spandrel.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by caffeine, posted 11-25-2011 4:35 AM caffeine has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1092 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 111 of 129 (642659)
11-30-2011 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Tangle
11-30-2011 11:45 AM


descriptive and normative
Philosophy usually divides morality into two types:
'descriptive' which is the sorts of rules derived by human authority groups (religions, clubs, states) - such as "don't eat meat on friday" "replace your divots" and "don't drive when drunk" and
'normative' which is the universal code of moral actions that humans possess such as those I described earlier (and several objected to). They're mostly of the 'do no harm' sort that google is so fond of - things like, don't murder rape thieve etc.

I don't think that's quite right. Descriptive describes what people think is right and wrong (often used to compare different people or groups). Normative is about they way people should behave. Applied is about how to put the normative ideas into practical use. Meta is about understanding what 'right' and 'wrong' actually mean.

Descriptive morality, or ethics, would be saying that Catholics view many contraceptives as morally wrong. Normative would be saying we should not use contraceptives, Applied would be to have sex without the use of contraceptives, Meta would be saying that right behaviour is behaviour that is in agreement with God's will.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Tangle, posted 11-30-2011 11:45 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Tangle, posted 11-30-2011 2:32 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1092 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 113 of 129 (642683)
11-30-2011 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Tangle
11-30-2011 2:32 PM


Re: descriptive and normative
Is it right enough to get by, or do we have to run down the rabbit hole again?

Just worth keeping in mind if you want to advance the discussion. Your descriptions of normative and descriptive are in error, which may cause problems if you want to discuss the matter in depth.

However, your point that

sociopaths know the (descriptive) rules but it doesn't inhibit their actions because the (normative) impulse not to do harm that is present in 'normal' people is missing.

More or less still works out as a fair position to take. Sociopaths may know that x believes y to be wrong (descriptive) whereas they themselves may not feel compelled to feel that it is wrong themselves (lacking the normative).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Tangle, posted 11-30-2011 2:32 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Tangle, posted 12-01-2011 6:39 AM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1092 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 115 of 129 (642735)
12-01-2011 7:04 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Tangle
12-01-2011 6:39 AM


Re: descriptive and normative
I think they got this from an unknown source that actually reads:

quote:
In its first descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong whether by society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience. In its second normative and universal sense, morality refers to an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions

Which I do agree with. This is slightly different wording, but it changes the meaning considerably, I feel. (I find the above quote all over the net, but I can't find its origins).

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Tangle, posted 12-01-2011 6:39 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Tangle, posted 12-01-2011 1:53 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021