Secular Morality?

[Doug Shaver]

One way to define a word is to point at something that exists outside anyone's mind and utter the word that is supposed to represent it.

That is not how it gets defined. That is one method of telling someone how it has been defined by your linguistic community.

That is not possible for "consciousness,"

There are a great many words for which it is not possible to use that method of telling someone what the word means.

What one has in mind what "consciousness" means may vary from person to person; there is no way to refute that hypothesis, as far as I know.

What you experience when you see a particular color might be quite different from what I experience when I see that color. The experience could be unique for every human being, and I can think of no way to prove that it isn't. That doesn't mean we have no good reason to act on the assumption that your experience of redness is the same as, or at least relevantly similar to, my experience of redness.

[Tassman]

Addressed to Doug Shaver:

That is fine, but I noticed that you did not dispute his points.

So you agree with Harris’ points regarding consciousness, except that you disagree with him that it’s a natural phenomenon - something Harris never disputes.

And, as a believer in 'free-will', you disagree with Harris’s: “It is difficult to think about law, politics, religion, public policy, intimate relationships, morality—as well as feelings of remorse or personal achievement—without first imagining that every person is the true source of his or her thoughts and actions. And yet the facts tell us that free will is an illusion. – Sam Harris, ‘Free Will’.

In short you are continuing your regrettable habit of cherry-picking quotes from well known atheist figures, which you erroneously think support your theist position ("see, even an atheist agrees with me"), whilst ignoring the overall position being presented by the authors.

[seer]

OK, I'll say it outright: I don't agree with him.

What exactly don't you agree with and why?

[seer]

So you agree with Harris’ points regarding consciousness, except that you disagree with him that it’s a natural phenomenon - something Harris never disputes.

Except he doesn't know that it’s a natural phenomenon, he is an atheist so he has to believe that.

And, as a believer in 'free-will', you disagree with Harris’s: “It is difficult to think about law, politics, religion, public policy, intimate relationships, morality—as well as feelings of remorse or personal achievement—without first imagining that every person is the true source of his or her thoughts and actions. And yet the facts tell us that free will is an illusion. – Sam Harris, ‘Free Will’.

Since Sam Harris had no choice in saying or believing the above how does he know it is true? Perhaps the evolutionary process has caused him to believe false things?

[Doug Shaver]

What exactly don't you agree with and why?

You threw him at me in response to this statement of mine: "It is a misreading of evolution to think that every property of every organism evolved out of bare necessity. Many properties are just incidental byproducts of other properties that were necessary for survival. Consciousness seems to be such an incidental property." I will present my analysis of his reasoning when you have explained how his reasoning shows that my statement is in error. He has a PhD, which I don't, and he is famous, which I'm not. Aside from that, what do you find compelling about his argument?

[Tassman]

There is no substantive evidence for anything that is NOT a natural phenomenon. So, until such evidence is forthcoming, this remains the default position.

Since Sam Harris had no choice in saying or believing the above how does he know it is true? Perhaps the evolutionary process has caused him to believe false things?

[seer]

There is no substantive evidence for anything that is NOT a natural phenomenon. So, until such evidence is forthcoming, this remains the default position.

Except human consciousness may actually be that evidence, so with the creation of the universe, or biological life. Or human rationality.

What facts? Sam Harris, has no choice in what he believes are fact or not facts. He has no choice in how he interprets information or the conclusions he comes to. So how does Sam Harris, or you Tass, know that you are not getting this issue wrong? The evolutionary process never causes us be believe false things as true?

[seer]

You threw him at me in response to this statement of mine: "It is a misreading of evolution to think that every property of every organism evolved out of bare necessity. Many properties are just incidental byproducts of other properties that were necessary for survival. Consciousness seems to be such an incidental property." I will present my analysis of his reasoning when you have explained how his reasoning shows that my statement is in error. He has a PhD, which I don't, and he is famous, which I'm not. Aside from that, what do you find compelling about his argument?

Then what is consciousness a by product of? And can you list other human attributes that are incidental byproducts - and not necessary for survival?

[Doug Shaver]

Then what is consciousness a by product of?

The computing power of our brains. Any computer that can do what our brains do will be a conscious entity.

And can you list other human attributes that are incidental byproducts - and not necessary for survival?

One would be variations in skin color. Our survival has never depended on what color we were, but it has depended on our resistance to certain kinds of solar radiation. The chemical that maximizes that resistance happens to produce dark skin when present in large quantities. When some of our ancestors migrated to climates where less of its protection was needed, their skins got pale, but not because pale skin itself conferred any benefit.

[Tassman]

Except human consciousness may actually be that evidence, so with the creation of the universe, or biological life. Or human rationality.

What facts? Sam Harris, has no choice in what he believes are fact or not facts. He has no choice in how he interprets information or the conclusions he comes to. So how does Sam Harris, or you Tass, know that you are not getting this issue wrong? The evolutionary process never causes us be believe false things as true?

Yes Harris and I have choice; determinism does not rule this out. Scientific determinism states that, given the state of the universe at one time, a complete set of laws fully determines both the future and the past and that the present is the result of various choices and chances in the past.

[seer]

Yes Harris and I have choice; determinism does not rule this out. Scientific determinism states that, given the state of the universe at one time, a complete set of laws fully determines both the future and the past and that the present is the result of various choices and chances in the past.

No, you have a determined choice. You can not freely choose what you will believe to be true or not. So how do you know that the laws of nature programmed you to believe the correct thing in this instance?

[Tassman]

No, you have a determined choice.

You can not freely choose what you will believe to be true or not.

So how do you know that the laws of nature programmed you to believe the correct thing in this instance?

[seer]

Yes, but we make decisions nevertheless; ‘determinism’ is not ‘fatalism.’ Ask your Calvinist friends to explain the difference. Determinism indicates that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs. Thus, if you want to insist that we have free agency, you must show how this can be the case in a determined universe. “God-did-it” is not an acceptable answer.

Yes Tass, and I'm not a Calvinist. Humans have no more real choice than a monkey in your world.

…but we have the illusion that we freely choose what to believe is true or not – and rational people will choose what to believe based upon substantive evidence as opposed to choosing what to believe based upon religious mythology.


It is evident that ‘consciousness' has natural origins and that it is a by-product of the material brain. ALL the research to date indicates this to be the case. There’s no good reason to think otherwise.

You did not answer the question. How do you know, on this subject, that the system programmed you correctly to understand the the evidence and come to the right conclusions? After all you were programmed by a process that is blind when it comes to facts, evidence or right conclusions.

[Truthseeker]

It is evident that ‘consciousness' has natural origins and that it is a by-product of the material brain. ALL the research to date indicates this to be the case. There’s no good reason to think otherwise.

Ah, but there is a reason (maybe you would think it's a bad reason, heh). Scientists are supposed to take nothing for granted. Be skeptical. In this case, they are supposed to think that, well, it does look like all the research that has been shown does indicate that consciousness is naturally caused . . . BUT maybe there is still a chance that conclusion is wrong, somehow. Let's keep looking for any counter evidence.

[Tassman]

Yes Tass, and I'm not a Calvinist. Humans have no more real choice than a monkey in your world.

You did not answer the question. How do you know, on this subject, that the system programmed you correctly to understand the the evidence and come to the right conclusions? After all you were programmed by a process that is blind when it comes to facts, evidence or right conclusions.

I repeat that rational people will choose what to believe based upon substantive, multiply tested evidence. This process is not to quote your nonsense, it is a consequence of having evolved computational, reasoning brains. The alternative is to choose what to believe based upon religious mythology.

Ah, but there is a reason (maybe you would think it's a bad reason, heh). Scientists are supposed to take nothing for granted. Be skeptical. In this case, they are supposed to think that, well, it does look like all the research that has been shown does indicate that consciousness is naturally caused . . . BUT maybe there is still a chance that conclusion is wrong, somehow. Let's keep looking for any counter evidence.

Science takes as a given the concept of uniformity in nature, i.e. that the laws and constants of nature are steady and reliable. Thus, For example, that the speed of light is constant and does not change over time. It has been continually measured and verified over many decades just as all the constants and laws so far discovered in nature have been.

The alternative is to view nature as capricious and unpredictable and prone to unexplained miracles to the extent that science could not assume the principle of uniformity, or any other basic law or constant of nature. Therefore it would not be in a position to build up the corpus of testable knowledge that it has been so demonstrably successful in doing.