101–110 of 175 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right and wrong are subjective to humans.
That being said, some people argue that there exist "objective moral values"
When these "scientists" can get lions to stop eating gazelles, I'll stop eating cows, chickens, and fish. That being said, I am concerned about how animals are treated during their lifetime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is without any philosophical backup the neural correlate is entirely uncompelling—it's merely a clinical definition of a measure of... nothing meaningful. One that can be just as easily applied to a recording device, modulo the explicit mention of neurons. It gets worse. When you look at it closely there's no useful reason to restrict any of these measures with arbitrary criteria to the things we consider…
The problem is that multiple times in the history of science the search for somehow philosophically sound underpinnings led to stagnation and not to progress, that was in fact what Aristotle did to a large extent and was the main obstacle to development of science altogether. The recent example of this is the search of aether. In the end the way that science has progressed is by dropping too much "whys" and sticking…
If you look at the formulation it starts out as a magical-seeming property, yet the definitions and processes do nothing to demystify that property. If you look at that process carefully you'll find the deceit: this is not an answer to the question of consciousness as asked. With the right philosophical treatment there might be hope of reconciliation, but without it the concept is just going to remain magical, without meaningful conclusions.
Aether is a great example, one I had in mind. Consciousness is very much like aether in some ways. It may well be that the only useful scientific thing to say about it at the end of the day is: it is not a useful concept to science. Much better than the contrivances offered up with no compelling connection to the subject.
The last word in TFA is 'qualia'. This is the problem. Canonical definitions of that term describe it as impossible to measure, or simply ineffable, which effectively puts it off the table for a scientific treatment. Regardless of what you think of what should constitute a scientific concept, the implication that these measurements alone elucidate an ineffable phenomenon is exactly the kind of thing that stinks of bullshit.
When these "scientists" can get lions to stop eating gazelles, I'll stop eating cows, chickens, and fish. That being said, I am concerned about how animals are treated during their lifetime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are not responsible for the actions of the military. Just because they are born in US doesn't make them responsible for the actions of the US military any more than someoe born in Canada, Brazil or Japan. People who have power over the actions taken are responsible, pretty much the person itself and also the higher chain of command for the said person who commits whatever act to be held responsible for.
Every taxpayer is partly responsible for funding the actions of their country's military.
I am not responsible for an act you do with the knife I sold you last week, unless I did it in consent of you commiting the act. My parents aren't responsible for the acts I do.
Only when there's power, there's responsibility. Taxpayer does not have power over military, hence why taxpayer has no responsibility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are not responsible for the actions of the military. Just because they are born in US doesn't make them responsible for the actions of the US military any more than someoe born in Canada, Brazil or Japan. People who have power over the actions taken are responsible, pretty much the person itself and also the higher chain of command for the said person who commits whatever act to be held responsible for.
The military gets orders from politicians who get elected by US citizens.
I would also disagree with politicians controlling the military -- perhaps the people in charge do have political power too, but I would argue that the political power and power over the military are rather indirect, it's not the same entity controlling the two, there are multiple people and entities with indirect relationships.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are not responsible for the actions of the military. Just because they are born in US doesn't make them responsible for the actions of the US military any more than someoe born in Canada, Brazil or Japan. People who have power over the actions taken are responsible, pretty much the person itself and also the higher chain of command for the said person who commits whatever act to be held responsible for.
Every taxpayer is partly responsible for funding the actions of their country's military.
If I had to wager money on what future societies would condemn us for, I'd bet a lot on our treatment of animals. Even if other highly-encephalized animals aren't conscious, they are still open to a wide range of experiences that we can empathize with. They can learn and play. They feel hunger and pain. Some species can even form friendships and mourn the passing of their kin. Despite all indications that our treatme…
This isn't about kindness and cruelty, this is about awareness. As long as we perceive other living beings as The Other, we're not truly aware -- we can't empathize, we can't be compassionate, we can't be a complete human being. Condemning people for barbarism is a subtler form of separation, of saying "those people are not us." But they are, just as we're growing as a species and society to be aware of non-human awareness.
When these "scientists" can get lions to stop eating gazelles, I'll stop eating cows, chickens, and fish. That being said, I am concerned about how animals are treated during their lifetime.
Also, this is a ridiculous justification for meat eating, since lions cannot reason about morality.
If I had to wager money on what future societies would condemn us for, I'd bet a lot on our treatment of animals. Even if other highly-encephalized animals aren't conscious, they are still open to a wide range of experiences that we can empathize with. They can learn and play. They feel hunger and pain. Some species can even form friendships and mourn the passing of their kin. Despite all indications that our treatme…
Spot on. This is typical human hypocrisy at work. The worst thing I find is the "I'll eat a sausage but I couldn't possibly eat a cute bunny wabbit". The sausage in its natural form is capable of being a valuable and loyal human companion. I haven't eaten meat since I was at university in the distant past after I got addicted to a combination of ramen noodles, mushrooms and home made pepper sauce. The ethical dilemma…
> Regarding tastiness, Indian vegetarian food (particular aloo, gobi is far tastier than anything with meat in and you can grow ALL the ingredients yourself if you want without having to shovel a single turd.
In your opinion.