That's been explained and demonstrated IF it turns out that I have the tool to comprehend anything and that is unsettled.

Not behavior but consciousness itself. I think I know (in the commonly understood sense) the situation.

Let's consider the cover of this book:



If it were an accurate representation we would only be able to see a white page bec those strings are attached to every particle in everything. Nobody can tell us how, those strings having arranged the form of the structure of the brain according to immutable laws of nature, consciousness emerges. The only thing that really matters in this world is if we can direct our own thoughts and actions. We feel as if it's being done in a stream of consciousness and nobody can tell us what that is. Here are a couple of youtubes for your consideration:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. When you say "I'd like to know how what is no more than a fizz of elementary particles can decide anything," is it A) a simple statement of curiosity, as in "I'd really like to understand this subject," or B) a statement of doubt that it's possible?

As stated, especially with the "no more than fizz" phrasing, I think I've only seen it used by theists to express B, but maybe you meant A.

Not much substance in this post to respond to. What is morality if not how we ought to behave? Please define it for us. It's possible you wish to redefine it so you can hold onto it, but I'm not sure yet. Also the rest of the post is pretty unfair. The main point is that atheism leads to nihilism. I can't see any way for moral values to be instantiated in reality but by an absolute moral being. Whether that's god or a bunch of transcendent reality programmers I can't say. Most of the rest of your post attempts to derail what has been thus far a rational discussion with ad hominem.

It doesn't matter whether or not he cares. If there's a moral law that forbids murder, hes breaking it by murdering. Also a choice to follow it or not is sort of implied.

There are varying degrees of determinism. What you're alluding to is hard determinism or incompatibilism which basically says everything is determined and we are not agents but agency is illusory. Compatibilism says free will and determinist materialism can exist at the same time (They aren't mutually exclusive). Free will is sort of contingent on self aware creatures only, etc. I don't know but I suspect Sam Harris is a compatibilist.

Couldn't Ted Bundy just as easily say it doesn't matter whether or not God cares [about Ted's behavior]? Why should Ted care what anyone thinks about his behavior?

Ted can say and do whatever he wants. If there's a code to follow then there's probably also consequences for not following it. But this is derailing into seminary let's keep it to philosophy.

PS Harris is a hard determinist which makes his views on 'morality' even more laughable than I initially thought.

Compatibalists

are

cowards.

Perhaps, DoOrDoNot, you could contribute some more substantial thoughts on the topic, in the same manner that Original Position has been doing. Perhaps I've missed some vital posts, but I don't even know what you think makes something moral, what makes something an "ought", whereas OP has revealed a great deal (or perhaps you just don't know?). Without reciprocity, it's all rather tedious. Similarly (from the earlier posts), what does it mean for something to "objectively matter", in contrast to OP's comments?


You say morality cannot exist without God (or an authority), but below you give two different ways for a "set of oughts" to exist, only one of which requires the authority. Care to clarify?
If morality is "accessible by logic", would would someone look for to find it?
If "instantiated by an authority", what kind of things would the authority need to know that mere humans do not?


btw, I pretty much agree with this:
But only up to this:
I'm rather curious to hear that while you reject those list of possibilities, you do seem to accept that you can get objective "oughts" from a subject who is an "authority" but not a subject who is a person:
I know that's not really a question, I'm really just curious to find out some of your positive beliefs on the topic.



PS Harris is a determinist.

What changes about the harmful nature of a person's actions if afterwards we find out is was a brain tumour? You'd still want to remove them from society, right?

Also, determined behaviour still includes influences, like laws, or proclamations of what is considered moral or whatever. Determined behaviour isn't equal to pre-programmed behaviour.

Also, if you're having a particularly salty interaction with someone, sometimes it can help to take a breath and consider "I might have turned out something like that had I experienced what they did"!

It's been said that you shouldn't judge someone until you've walked a mile in their shoes. That's a great idea, because after your walk you're a mile away from them and you've got their shoes! (A friend told me that joke last week.)

You need better friends.

Just kidding, I've heard the same joke.

FYP

I meant 'A.' It's obviously possible since here we are talking about it unless we're all experiencing an illusion in which case nothing is to be trusted as true including that conclusion. I use 'fizz' and 'robot' bec it expresses what we really are if we are incapable of self-directed thought and I don't see how that's possible in a mechanistic universe.

I have a heavy streak of nihilism in me and I've been searching around to see if it's justified and all that I've been able to find to counter it is the possibility that we ARE capable of self-directed thought and THAT possibility might be found once science (w/o any of this 'it's an emergent phenomenon' hand-wave nonsense) determines the nature of consciousness.

In at least one of the Harris vids I've watched he says he and Dennet disagree. While we're at it can someone explain the compatabalist position w/ some clarity? All I get from the Dennet vids is a tortuous re-definiton of free will.

Determinism appears to be in vogue these days, even the compatablists take it as a given. I ask if that's justified and I don't think it is yet.

A brain tumor would be exculpatory evidence. Insanity is a legal defense. If I were in charge I'd release the brain tumor person if the experts say that person is not a danger just as the insane get released once the doctors say they are no longer a danger.

In a mechanistic universe those 'influences' and 'proclamations' themselves are brought about by the immutable laws of nature and have no meaning.

The last is what I resort to when I see someone limp in UTG w/ J-3o. Happens at low stakes LHE all of the time. It's uncanny.

No formal complaints have been filed to ASU and this all seems to originate from one buzzfeed article, an organization that has never gotten anything wrong for thousands of years.

Apparently some women don’t like being told their outfit is nice, that’s basically rape these days.

Sexual harassment is very real and very serious. I have no clue as to whether or not Professor Krauss did anything wrong, but I think an overly flippant attitude toward sexual harassment on your part isn't really warranted.

For the record, I've never met a woman who wasn't pleased when I complimented her outfit. (And I compliment women often.)

nm about the brain tumour bit, I lost my train of thought (all I think I was getting at was that we'd still remove a harmful person from society, even if it was due to something neurologically obvious and it might include possible treatment).

Is there some kind of meaning that you think you'd get with free will but not determinism? (just to check, you're talking about personal meaning, rather than some kind of objective meaning, currently still undefined?)

For me, the way Sam Harris describes determinism sounds like what is most likely happening with human brains, and that discovery didn't make me feel like I'd lost something meaningful. But I'm fairly sure I'd already be labeled a nihilist, and ideas like there is anything akin to "objective meaning", or that morality is something transcendental to the existence of rational and empathetic creatures interacting with one another, those kinds of ideas already sounded more like woo or wishful thinking, so would not have been something that I lost.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I don't need a god and I don't need meaning. What I need is a reason to live. If I am an automaton I have no reason to live. If I am not then there's a reason to live. There must be some school of philosophical thought that takes that view.

This badly misrepresents the allegations. The Buzzfeed article describes allegations of Krauss groping women without their consent and forcefully attempting to have sex with someone. Those are serious charges and your attempt to belittle them here is inappropriate and shameful. He's denied the charges, so if you believe him, fine, whatever. I will say that the number of allegations and his seeming reputation among female members of the skeptic community don't give his denials much credibility in my eyes.

Krauss is almost certainly finished in academia. He won't even get speaking invitations. The internet says he's worth $2 million (who knows if that's true) which isn't enough to retire on. The play is obvious and he may as well troll the world that's tossing him aside: Announce that he's been a fool and that he's now a theist! That'll sell a great many books and produce paid speaking engagements.

I suggest just looking up the meaning of the two terms. I'm not here to give philosophy lessons.


If morality was a property of the natural universe, it should be purely accessible by logic or science.

I don't know, as it's not.

The same thing that makes you morally responsible. No one would consider the actions of a lion or a 3 year old child immoral; they simply aren't aware enough to be held accountable for their decisions. After a certain point of regular development of intelligence and self-awareness is reached though, human beings are considered moral beings. I suppose the ultimate moral authority would be totally aware and totally intelligent/rational. It's ironic, but Shelly Kagan is a contractarian (so OP seems to be) who suggests that a good moral law is one such that a perfectly rational group of humans have agreed to abide themselves by for the greater good. What is God if not a perfectly rational and intelligent being? (these guys can't even reason without appealing to a God it seems)


I'm sorry I don't know what this means.

Is that why you resorted to ad hominem and stopped the conversation? Shoo fly

Harris is a hard determinist who believes talk about deep understanding of questions like meaning and morality is pointless. His conception of morality seems to be a utilitarian one in which the best course is to arrange our societies and laws in such a way that human happiness and flourishing is maximized and human pain and suffering are minimized. Every thought and action is determined, and no one is deeply responsible for their actions though should be held responsible to have a functioning legal system and society. Free will does not exist, so deep moral responsibility doesn't either. However, dangerous people (who are dangerous by no fault of their own) should be removed from society and rehabilitated based on science and stuff and in every imaginable way this should be done to achieve the main goal of human flourishing etc.

Compatibilism believes that all your prior thoughts are determined by physical processes but you have the ability to choose in any given moment between a set of possible actions. So for example, while you are still determined, because you are a conscious being you have the ability to will certain limited actions. All your desires etc are predetermined, so your choice is also determined, but you are still making a decision. For example, when you're a kid you have a bunch of different flavors of ice cream. None of this was chosen by you, it was all determined for you as you didn't know what ice cream was. You tried chocolate mint, vanilla, and raspberry at 2 years old. For whatever physical reasons, the taste of the raspberry ice cream gave you the best good feelings. Later on when you are intelligent and aware, you choose raspberry over others regularly. Your choice is real as you still had the free ability to choose others, yet your preference for raspberry is completely determined. You choose to do that which you are determined to do.

Antony Flew somewhat "revived" his career when he became a theist late in his life. He wrote a book called There is a God, after spending I think close to five decades as "The World's Most Notorious Atheist."