Ethics question

[Vent]

Well i can't say i can relate to that argument i'm sorry. Emotions are the product of a brain of a conscious being that's grounded in a cause and effect universe governed by physical laws, they therefore must correlate to reality because cause and effect determined their very existence. Many ethical values are also shared throughout the world so they also have a kind of global, although not universal, consistency and regularity which allows us to infer that they are likely something more than the product of a rugged individualism.

 

Just because we're an objectively arbitrary species in the arse end of nowhere doesn't mean our ethics don't matter. They are important and valued by "us", the only known originators of the concept. In fact, we, and by extension our feelings and emotions towards ethical arguments, and the only things that do matter because they deal with what we value and are important to us. We (which of course includes our thoughts, feelings and emotions), are the purpose.

 

Since you say neither side of an ethics argument really matters i'm wondering what is your definition of ethics? ...is this definition consistent with the argument you are presenting here?

[questionposter]

Well i can't say i can relate to that argument i'm sorry. Emotions are the product of a brain of a conscious being that's grounded in a cause and effect universe governed by physical laws, they therefore must correlate to reality because cause and effect determined their very existence. Many ethical values are also shared throughout the world so they also have a kind of global, although not universal, consistency and regularity which allows us to infer that they are likely something more than the product of a rugged individualism.

Emotions are not the product of consciousness, they are the product of sub-consciousness, or in other-words, everything except consciousness. Furthermore, "cause and effect" doesn't really exist in that type of sense, instead there is probability, but moreover that wasn't my point. My point was that the feeling of something is not logic for the action that might be the result of it, because it is merely the compulsion to do something, and does not logically correlate to "deserve" or "not deserve".

 

Just because we're an objectively arbitrary species in the arse end of nowhere doesn't mean our ethics don't matter. They are important and valued by "us", the only known originators of the concept. In fact, we, and by extension our feelings and emotions towards ethical arguments, and the only things that do matter because they deal with what we value and are important to us. We (which of course includes our thoughts, feelings and emotions), are the purpose.

But the values that are important to an individual are not universal, that is why it's important to be objective and why no single ethics or moral values is actually correct or incorrect. There is also the fact that inert matter itself does not have ethics, yet it is a large part of the events in the lives of living things.

 

Since you say neither side of an ethics argument really matters i'm wondering what is your definition of ethics? ...is this definition consistent with the argument you are presenting here?

 

There's simple definitions here http://dictionary.re...owse/ethics?s=t

Edited May 6, 2012 by questionposter

[Vent]

Your dictionary link is inconsistent with your argument. You are asking for objective and universal statements for ethics yet you assent to a definition of ethics that deals with humans, their values, their culture and their conduct? It's an incoherent stance, no wonder it's leading to confusion.

 

To repeat what i said about emotions because you seemed to read something that wasn't there. Emotions are the product of a brain [of a] conscious being. I never said they were the product of consciousness, but rather the brain. Replace conscious with sentient if you wish, or just remove the adjective and noun altogether if it sits better with you. Emotions are determined by a state of the brain, to say that they have no cause is non-nonsensical.

[questionposter]

Your dictionary link is inconsistent with your argument. You are asking for objective and universal statements for ethics

I don't think I ever said ethics was universal. If anything I said

 

But the values that are important to an individual are not universal, that is why it's important to be objective and why no single ethics or moral values is actually correct or incorrect. There is also the fact that inert matter itself does not have ethics, yet it is a large part of the events in the lives of living things.

 

yet you assent to a definition of ethics that deals with humans, their values, their culture and their conduct? It's an incoherent stance, no wonder it's leading to confusion.

 

 

It originally did deal specifically with humans, and how humans would have made the decision for how ethically logical it is to actually wipe something out. Ethics can still use logic.

 

To repeat what i said about emotions because you seemed to read something that wasn't there. Emotions are the product of a brain [of a] conscious being. I never said they were the product of consciousness, but rather the brain. Replace conscious with sentient if you wish, or just remove the adjective and noun altogether if it sits better with you. Emotions are determined by a state of the brain, to say that they have no cause is non-nonsensical.

 

 

Emotions aren't the product of a conscious brain either, they will get released by certain signals happening regardless of if they are in response to anything, and they don't determine anything because obviously you don't have to do what your emotions implore you to. The only thing they cause is a compulsion, and there is no logical correlation between a chemical being released and "deserve" or "not deserve".

Edited May 6, 2012 by questionposter

[Vent]

I didn't say emotions (necessarily), determine anything, but rather emotions are determined by a state of a brain (this is the third time). To make it more explicit, a particular emotion is determined to be that emotion by a particular state of a brain. Invoking specifics like chemicals, probability and 'certain signals' doesn't change the fact that they have a cause, and therefore determined to be what they are. Whatever emotion arises is determined to be that emotion by whatever is its cause.

 

As an aside, if "Emotions aren't the product of a ....brain", what are they the product of?

 

Granted, you didn't say universal, my bad, but you do maintain a requirement for objectivity, so i ask how can you expect an objective initial condition for ethics under the definition you have taken? The definition is concerned with human value, yet when human value is used as an argument for an initial condition you declare it null because it's not objective. Like i said before it's not going to be, is it? This idea of objective conditions, unconcerned with human value, honestly makes no sense to me at all and i maintain it seems completely incompatible. Please explain to me where i'm going wrong as in my eyes you require a different definition of ethics for your argument.

 

The first sentence of my post 49 may clarify a bit.

[questionposter]

I didn't say emotions (necessarily), determine anything, but rather emotions are determined by a state of a brain (this is the third time). To make it more explicit, a particular emotion is determined to be that emotion by a particular state of a brain. Invoking specifics like chemicals, probability and 'certain signals' doesn't change the fact that they have a cause, and therefore determined to be what they are. Whatever emotion arises is determined to be that emotion by whatever is its cause.

Well chemicals don't have a "cause", they are there simply because they have survived evolution, otherwise you need to be more specific as to what you mean by "state of a brain".

 

As an aside, if "Emotions aren't the product of a ....brain", what are they the product of?

You were adding the word "consciousness" to the mix, which is a tricky subject. Emotions are a product of the brain normally, but having consciousness doesn't necessarily have anything to do with that. But, even though they are a product of the brain, they are simply a chemical response to an action, they do not logically correlate to any question of morals, just because a chemical is released doesn't actually mean something does or does not deserve something.

 

Granted, you didn't say universal, my bad, but you do maintain a requirement for objectivity, so i ask how can you expect an objective initial condition for ethics under the definition you have taken? The definition is concerned with human value, yet when human value is used as an argument for an initial condition you declare it null because it's not objective. Like i said before it's not going to be, is it? This idea of objective conditions, unconcerned with human value, honestly makes no sense to me at all and i maintain it seems completely incompatible. Please explain to me where i'm going wrong as in my eyes you require a different definition of ethics for your argument.

Human values can be objective. If you do something simply because of your emotions, that's not even ethics, that's just you following whatever those chemicals compulse you to do. I haven't seen much to suggest ethics isn't logical.

Edited May 7, 2012 by questionposter

[Vent]

Well chemicals don't have a "cause", they are there simply because they have survived evolution...

 

So therefore they have a cause. Regress to the beginning of the universe if you wish, even though it makes no sense to do so with regard to ethics and human sentiment towards them.

 

 

You were adding the word "consciousness" to the mix, which is a tricky subject. Emotions are a product of the brain normally, but having consciousness doesn't necessarily have anything to do with that. But, even though they are a product of the brain, they are simply a chemical response to an action, they do not logically correlate to any question of morals, just because a chemical is released doesn't actually mean something does or does not deserve something.

 

I don't consider the idea of being conscious tricky at all. To remind you, i took both the adjective and noun out because you didn't like them. The argument remains the same.

 

The state of your brain right now, is a state, and is "determined" by many things, vis-à-vis, it has a specific cause. You're making it more complicated than it needs to be. Assume the brain is in a vat or that we're a computer program if it makes it easier for you, the conditions give synonymous results of experience (because irrespective of either idea being true our experience is still our experience), and the argument is again the same.

 

Emotions also do correlate directly to any question of morality and ethics, assuming ethics to be based off of emotions (your argument), if they are concerned with human value. One necessarily implies the other, under the definition you gave and the assumptions you are using.

 

I'm sorry, but your argument still just sounds like Plato's Form of the Good or something, and it's just as elusive.

[questionposter]

So therefore they have a cause. Regress to the beginning of the universe if you wish, even though it makes no sense to do so with regard to ethics and human sentiment towards them.

Can you logically show the correlation between the release of a chemical and how something "deserves" to get wiped out?

 

 

 

 

I don't consider the idea of being conscious tricky at all. To remind you, i took both the adjective and noun out because you didn't like them. The argument remains the same.

You should consider it tricky because not even science knows what it is, so I don't see how you can.

 

The state of your brain right now, is a state, and is "determined" by many things, vis-à-vis, it has a specific cause. You're making it more complicated than it needs to be. Assume the brain is in a vat or that we're a computer program if it makes it easier for you, the conditions give synonymous results of experience (because irrespective of either idea being true our experience is still our experience), and the argument is again the same.

I don't think there is an overall "state" unless you can be more specific, nor is there anything that "determines" the processes of your brain. I have never heard of anything like that in my entire life. You do not have to automatically do whatever your emotions suggest, this is proof that they are simply chemicals independent from consciousness.

 

Emotions also do correlate directly to any question of morality and ethics, assuming ethics to be based off of emotions (your argument), if they are concerned with human value. One necessarily implies the other, under the definition you gave and the assumptions you are using.

Emotions effect your decisions, some more than others, and that's it. They are just chemicals that cause a feeling or compulsion to do something, it's the choices to act on them or not that matter anyway.

 

I'm sorry, but your argument still just sounds like Plato's Form of the Good or something, and it's just as elusive.

Strictly speaking, "good" and "evil" are just words humans made up.

Edited May 7, 2012 by questionposter

[anotherfilthyape]

We are humans, our interests are the wellfare of humanity so thus... Causing the extinction of a species detrimental to humans in a way that no negative ecological consequence exists? Lets go for it... Mosquitos do not only transmit disease, they cause itches that can become wounds and get infected, some humans are allergic to these... Why not do the same on cockroaches, flies, ticks, fleas, lice, some grasshoppers, etc. The problem is... Do we know enough about ecology to take these risks? We are constantly trying to get rid of many species without any consideration on the ethics of that... We call it "epidemiology"... Of course the specialty only concentrates on lex complex lifestyles... that is in pathogens like prions, viruses, bacterias and such, but that still is "getting rid of species"... Isn't it? And we wish the virus of AIDs could go extinct, and other venereals, so we can have more careless sex...

Edited May 8, 2012 by anotherfilthyape

[questionposter]

We are humans, our interests are the wellfare of humanity so thus... Causing the extinction of a species detrimental to humans in a way that no negative ecological consequence exists? Lets go for it... Mosquitos do not only transmit disease, they cause itches that can become wounds and get infected, some humans are allergic to these... Why not do the same on cockroaches, flies, ticks, fleas, lice, some grasshoppers, etc. The problem is... Do we know enough about ecology to take these risks? We are constantly trying to get rid of many species without any consideration on the ethics of that... We call it "epidemiology"... Of course the specialty only concentrates on lex complex lifestyles... that is in pathogens like prions, viruses, bacterias and such, but that still is "getting rid of species"... Isn't it? And we wish the virus of AIDs could go extinct, and other venereals, so we can have more careless sex...

But the problem is, why do we objectively deserve to live over them, especially considering they aren't actually making the human race extinct? The human race is just another species in a perhaps infinite universe, the universe would keep going regardless of if we got wiped out. If we do wipe them out just because we don't like them, why is it not logical for something to wipe us out just because they don't like us?

Also viruses aren't actually living things, they are much smaller than bacteria and consist mainly of protein wrapped DNA.

Edited May 8, 2012 by questionposter

[Vent]

Oh for heavens sake. The idea of being conscious is not the same as explaining how consciousness arises in the first place, which was determined by prior causes. You forget or deliberately omit that we live in a cause and effect universe (unless we're talking about the physics of nothing, which we're not). You are being fallacious.

You are talking about ethics.

You gave a definition of ethics that deals with human value.

You stated that ethics comes from emotions.

You refuse to change your definition.

You refuse to change your assumption.

Now because you cannot objectify either you are declaring propositions based on emotion towards human value null because they are not objective.

 

Your assumptions cannot possibly give you the answer you're looking for. Look at your argument before you look for something you won't find due to the conditions you are imposing.

[questionposter]

Oh for heavens sake. The idea of being conscious is not the same as explaining how consciousness arises in the first place, which was determined by prior causes. You forget or deliberately omit that we live in a cause and effect universe (unless we're talking about the physics of nothing, which we're not). You are being fallacious.

You are talking about ethics.

You gave a definition of ethics that deals with human value.

You stated that ethics comes from emotions.

You refuse to change your definition.

You refuse to change your assumption.

Now because you cannot objectify either you are declaring propositions based on emotion towards human value null because they are not objective.

 

Your assumptions cannot possibly give you the answer you're looking for. Look at your argument before you look for something you won't find due to the conditions you are imposing.

 

I don't think I refused to do any of those things because those were never an issue in the first place. I never said anyone's view was wrong did I? No, I merely pointed out what they translate to or what effects a particular system like that would have. Besides, it is possible to be ethical without considering emotions and furthermore they are just chemicals, that's why it isn't wise to just take your emotions as laws of the universe. Because from an objective point of view neither mosquitoes nor humans would matter more, logically whatever one deserved the other would deserve. That's it.

In fact, why should the entire fate of a species be decided on emotion? Can you logically draw a correlation between emotion and ethical action? Logically, why does something have to be done just because of your emotions?

Edited May 8, 2012 by questionposter

[Greg H.]

Logically, why does something have to be done just because of your emotions?

 

What does logic have to do with emotions? Emotions aren't logical. Logic can be used to override emotions (such as calming yourself down in a dangerous situation so you can make rational decisions), and emotions can certainly override logic. What makes you think they are connected in any way?

[questionposter]

What does logic have to do with emotions? Emotions aren't logical. Logic can be used to override emotions (such as calming yourself down in a dangerous situation so you can make rational decisions), and emotions can certainly override logic. What makes you think they are connected in any way?

 

Just because something is logical doesn't mean it's objective. If you make an ethical statement, it should have logic to back it up otherwise it is meaningless. Without logic, ethics is just a random spout of words that were the result of interpretations of the feelings perceived by the release of chemicals and nothing more.

Edited May 8, 2012 by questionposter

[Greg H.]

Just because something is logical doesn't mean it's objective. If you make an ethical statement, it should have logic to back it up otherwise it is meaningless. Without logic, ethics is just a random spout of words that were the result of interpretations of the feelings perceived by the release of chemicals and nothing more.

 

I'll concede that ethical statements should have some logical premise. Unfortunately, "should" does not necessarily carry over into "does".

[questionposter]

I'll concede that ethical statements should have some logical premise. Unfortunately, "should" does not necessarily carry over into "does".

 

It's not that they "should", it's that otherwise they don't have any real meaning otherwise, they have no real ground or actual basis to be acted upon.

[Vent]

Do cows 'deserve' to die because we need to eat them? Should we remain perplexed because we can't come up with an objective answer to our need for sustenance? Like the camel who dies of dehydration because it can't decide on the utility between two identical watering holes? Philosophers have been searching for millennia for this 'objective standard of human value' and all have failed, finding themselves muddled up in mysticism. If you continue searching, good luck (and that's sincere, not rhetorical).

 

All rigourous ethics is logical in its argument. But does it try to be objective in its initial conditions? No. Parfit's object-given reasons (On What Matters), tries to come close, but fails to be honest due to making an arbitrary division and chimerical antagonism between object-given and subject-given. In the words of Hume, our passions are just a part of our mental state that comes about when we find ourselves taking something that matters to us. Form follows function, especially in ethics, or should do, it's what it's there for and why we argue about it after all.

 

Edit: can't spell.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Vent

[Greg H.]

It's not that they "should", it's that otherwise they don't have any real meaning otherwise, they have no real ground or actual basis to be acted upon.

 

I don't know that that is necessarily true.

 

For instance, I can very easily say "I won't steal because when people steal from me, I feel bad." The argument may appear logical, but it's based solidly on how I feel about the matter. I feel bad about being stolen from, and since I don't want to make other people feel bad I won't steal from them. There's certainly a logical order to that statement, but the premise (I feel bad) is an emotional reaction to a situation, not a logical one.

 

 

 

[questionposter]

Do cows 'deserve' to die because we need to eat them? Should we remain perplexed because we can't come up with an objective answer to our need for sustenance? Like the camel who dies of dehydration because it can't decide on the utility between two identical watering holes? Philosophers have been searching for millennia for this 'objective standard of human value' and all have failed, finding themselves muddled up in mysticism. If you continue searching, good luck (and that's sincere, not rhetorical).

 

All rigourous ethics is logical in its argument. But does it try to be objective in its initial conditions? No. Parfit's object-given reasons (On What Matters), tries to come close, but fails to be honest due to making an arbitrary division and chimerical antagonism between object-given and subject-given. In the words of Hume, our passions are just a part of our mental state that comes about when we find ourselves taking something that matters to us. Form follows function, especially in ethics, or should do, it's what it's there for and why we argue about it after all.

 

Edit: can't spell.

 

The way I see it, the emotions are merely conscious interpretations of chemicals, or not even interpretations, just something you try to make sense of. You wouldn't feel anger or love without the chemical for it, and you wouldn't feel pain without nerve cells.

And with cows deserving to die, that's exactly my point. There is no particular view that is wrong, but neither is there an actual logical correlation to those views and reality which is why no view is wrong or right. There is no right or wrong with "wanting", but there is a logical fallacy with building off of it to use logic and say "a chemical is released, therefore a species deserves to be wiped out".

If you really want to live in a world where the fate of entire species is merely decided by "I don't like them, so they should die", you can do that if you want, but if the human race truly wants to live in a world with every species being able to live and most of life thriving, even if the view is not correct or incorrect, then the extra energy needs to be put into shaping the global environment that way, and I don't think the mosquitoes or the alligators or the malaria or the dolphins or the birds or the fish are going to do it, so that only leaves us to do it if we actually want to follow through with it.

Edited May 8, 2012 by questionposter

[anotherfilthyape]

But the problem is, why do we objectively deserve to live over them, especially considering they aren't actually making the human race extinct? The human race is just another species in a perhaps infinite universe, the universe would keep going regardless of if we got wiped out. If we do wipe them out just because we don't like them, why is it not logical for something to wipe us out just because they don't like us?

Also viruses aren't actually living things, they are much smaller than bacteria and consist mainly of protein wrapped DNA.

 

True, prions are not considered actually living things and whether viruses are living things or not is really a polemic matter, but some pathogens like fungi are living things and we do try to wipe them out...

 

About mosquitos not making the human race extinct... They are not making it extinct but they are reducing the overall fitness of humanity... They kill some humans and who knows if any of the humans they kill have the potential of making a major breakthrough in the benefit of humanity...

 

Now we must consider that these species are not on the same level as humans, they do not exhibit anything but instinct, they are purely mechanical, maybe electromechanical, but not sentient... We can consider them to be robots of nature... Would you ponder whether it is ethical to destroy a robot? A mere machine? And I'm not refering to artificial intelligence, if we created artificial intelligence we should give this artificial sentience the same value we give other humans, as long as they exhibit a capacity for independent complex thoughts, emotions, sorrow, grief, happiness, pleasure, love, etc. There is not an objective value on this but a subjective value, namely, the value to exhibit emotions, something that we know (thanks to ethology) many vertebrates exhibit but not simpler lifeforms (the octopi exhibits intelligence which makes them an unusual invertebrate but they do not exhibit emotions, so their intelligence might juyst be higher computational power).

[questionposter]

True, prions are not considered actually living things and whether viruses are living things or not is really a polemic matter, but some pathogens like fungi are living things and we do try to wipe them out...

Well, some labs try to preserve them, and even pathogens like Polio, although mainly in case someone else tries to use it as bio-warfare.

 

About mosquitos not making the human race extinct... They are not making it extinct but they are reducing the overall fitness of humanity... They kill some humans and who knows if any of the humans they kill have the potential of making a major breakthrough in the benefit of humanity...

You could argue that for anyone who has ever died.

 

Now we must consider that these species are not on the same level as humans,

Define what you mean by "level". And so what if they aren't?

 

they do not exhibit anything but instinct, they are purely mechanical, maybe electromechanical, but not sentient...

 

I don't think we really have the capability to confirm that, unless you were a mosquito and remembered all of it. Science can't really say what consciousness is, and "instincts" merely effect consciousness, so if instincts and chemicals like aggression and fear are there, what are they effecting if not some type of perception? I think it is more logical to look at it in terms of will-power rather than the existence of consciousness itself, but I suppose we don't know exactly what will-power is either.

 

We can consider them to be robots of nature... Would you ponder whether it is ethical to destroy a robot? A mere machine?

 

Most biologists don't actually make those types of assumptions, they merely experiment on things for the sake of science, not because of ethical issues. And for the robot, it would depend. I wouldn't really care about a hand-held calculator, but I couldn't really tell if something like a complex AI was actually conscious in any way, I would be careful about it.

 

And I'm not refering to artificial intelligence, if we created artificial intelligence we should give this artificial sentience the same value we give other humans, as long as they exhibit a capacity for independent complex thoughts, emotions, sorrow, grief, happiness, pleasure, love, etc.

I still don't know and science doesn't know enough about what consciousness and what perception actually is, so it would depend. Not only that, but emotions are just chemicals, so why do you think they matter? Wouldn't the fact that something is a living thing matter more than if it happened to be adapted to release chemicals in response to something or not?

 

 

There is not an objective value on this but a subjective value, namely, the value to exhibit emotions, something that we know (thanks to ethology) many vertebrates exhibit but not simpler lifeforms (the octopi exhibits intelligence which makes them an unusual invertebrate but they do not exhibit emotions, so their intelligence might juyst be higher computational power).

 

So what if they aren't on the same "level" as humans? To the universe humans still don't matter any more than any "lower level" thing.

Edited May 9, 2012 by questionposter

[anotherfilthyape]

Well, some labs try to preserve them, and even pathogens like Polio, although mainly in case someone else tries to use it as bio-warfare.

 

We try to preserve them in controlled form, to retain their genetic material in case it might be necessary, but there is no conservationist effort to let them roam as self-sustaining species.

 

You could argue that for anyone who has ever died.

 

Indeed this is why humanism has a position against murder, one of the reasons at least. This is why as a humanist I do not oppose the murder of serial killers, rapists, cleptocrats and other people that are more dangerous to humanity than beneficial.

 

 

Define what you mean by "level". And so what if they aren't?

When I use the term level I use it because I think it is pretty expressive and easy to understand, since you want an explanation I will rephrase the whole idea;

 

We have no reason to try to preserve rocks intact, we have extended this lack of care to weeds and when we ask where to stop not caring I say that the ability to exhibit sentience is enough, in ohter words, we must only worry about sentient beings. Why do we care about sentient beings and not about anything or anyone we do not consider sentient? Because only sentient beings care about their own existence or the existence of their peer, this is a unique value, the capacity for emotion, that makes them more than mere matter, yes, there is no immaterial component to their matter, but there is worth to their existence. The issue is really complex to explain completly and I am having a headache right now but if you need more explanation make me detailed questions and I will answer. And note that the worth of their existence is not an instrumental worth, as the worth of money or works of art, but a worth in relation to itself.

 

I don't think we really have the capability to confirm that, unless you were a mosquito and remembered all of it. Science can't really say what consciousness is, and "instincts" merely effect consciousness, so if instincts and chemicals like aggression and fear are there, what are they effecting if not some type of perception? I think it is more logical to look at it in terms of will-power rather than the existence of consciousness itself, but I suppose we don't know exactly what will-power is either.

 

Emergentist science can explain enough about instincts, consciousness and emotions to make a claim, whether it is behaviourist psychology or whether it is ethology... I have not yet started to study ethology because I want first to complete studies in philosophy and I had to stop because I could not advance in my country the way I wanted (I found philosophy to biased here). Consciousness is the effect of writing a code and decodiying so it keeps changing (it involves learning, if we ever invent Artificial Intelligence it would require the ability to learn for it to be trully Artificial Intelligence). I recommend you the book "Gödel, Escher, Bach" by Hofstadter, it gives an excellent acount of consciousness and emergentism.

 

Most biologists don't actually make those types of assumptions, they merely experiment on things for the sake of science, not because of ethical issues. And for the robot, it would depend. I wouldn't really care about a hand-held calculator, but I couldn't really tell if something like a complex AI was actually conscious in any way, I would be careful about it.

 

Most biologists are not ethologists... Ethology is a specific field of study in relation to animal behaviour and the internal mental state of animals. The problem of finding internal mental states in someone that is not oneself is already adressed by philosophy (the problem is known as the philosophical zombie) and it explains the existence of solipsism; however we can accept emotions in other people by projecting their behaviour, this tool, our natural empathy, is the same tool that, when analysed, becomes the tool of the ethologist and I have never found confirmation that non-vertebrates exhibit the complex self-worth of vertebrates, that is also the reason why they do not exhibit much creative behaviour.

 

I still don't know and science doesn't know enough about what consciousness and what perception actually is, so it would depend. Not only that, but emotions are just chemicals, so why do you think they matter? Wouldn't the fact that something is a living thing matter more than if it happened to be adapted to release chemicals in response to something or not?

 

Emotions are not merely chemicals, that is a materialistic and physicalist way to put it, if you go into materialism or physicalism nothing matters and everything is permitted... However emergentism (that is semi-dualist but, unlike dualism, does not need non-material components for existence) understands that emotions are a complex result of the code that our thinking system is and gives value to things in relation to how much wellfare they seem to give us. It understands that consciousness consists of perceiving the workings of our thinking (that is a sort of code) to further change it (our ability to reflect) and that perception is the alteration of our thinking's code as an answer to our enviroment (or to other objects that may affect our thinking, like drugs).

 

So what if they aren't on the same "level" as humans? To the universe humans still don't matter any more than any "lower level" thing.

 

But we are not the universe and we are not responsible of making the universe static, we are ourselves and we have to look after ourselves and that means looking after humanity itself... We care aboutecology because it has consequences on us, nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

[questionposter]

We try to preserve them in controlled form, to retain their genetic material in case it might be necessary, but there is no conservationist effort to let them roam as self-sustaining species.

 

 

 

Indeed this is why humanism has a position against murder, one of the reasons at least. This is why as a humanist I do not oppose the murder of serial killers, rapists, cleptocrats and other people that are more dangerous to humanity than beneficial.

 

 

When I use the term level I use it because I think it is pretty expressive and easy to understand, since you want an explanation I will rephrase the whole idea;

 

We have no reason to try to preserve rocks intact, we have extended this lack of care to weeds and when we ask where to stop not caring I say that the ability to exhibit sentience is enough, in ohter words, we must only worry about sentient beings. Why do we care about sentient beings and not about anything or anyone we do not consider sentient? Because only sentient beings care about their own existence or the existence of their peer, this is a unique value, the capacity for emotion, that makes them more than mere matter, yes, there is no immaterial component to their matter, but there is worth to their existence. The issue is really complex to explain completly and I am having a headache right now but if you need more explanation make me detailed questions and I will answer. And note that the worth of their existence is not an instrumental worth, as the worth of money or works of art, but a worth in relation to itself.

 

 

 

Emergentist science can explain enough about instincts, consciousness and emotions to make a claim, whether it is behaviourist psychology or whether it is ethology... I have not yet started to study ethology because I want first to complete studies in philosophy and I had to stop because I could not advance in my country the way I wanted (I found philosophy to biased here). Consciousness is the effect of writing a code and decodiying so it keeps changing (it involves learning, if we ever invent Artificial Intelligence it would require the ability to learn for it to be trully Artificial Intelligence). I recommend you the book "Gödel, Escher, Bach" by Hofstadter, it gives an excellent acount of consciousness and emergentism.

 

 

 

Most biologists are not ethologists... Ethology is a specific field of study in relation to animal behaviour and the internal mental state of animals. The problem of finding internal mental states in someone that is not oneself is already adressed by philosophy (the problem is known as the philosophical zombie) and it explains the existence of solipsism; however we can accept emotions in other people by projecting their behaviour, this tool, our natural empathy, is the same tool that, when analysed, becomes the tool of the ethologist and I have never found confirmation that non-vertebrates exhibit the complex self-worth of vertebrates, that is also the reason why they do not exhibit much creative behaviour.

 

 

 

Emotions are not merely chemicals, that is a materialistic and physicalist way to put it, if you go into materialism or physicalism nothing matters and everything is permitted... However emergentism (that is semi-dualist but, unlike dualism, does not need non-material components for existence) understands that emotions are a complex result of the code that our thinking system is and gives value to things in relation to how much wellfare they seem to give us. It understands that consciousness consists of perceiving the workings of our thinking (that is a sort of code) to further change it (our ability to reflect) and that perception is the alteration of our thinking's code as an answer to our enviroment (or to other objects that may affect our thinking, like drugs).

 

 

 

But we are not the universe and we are not responsible of making the universe static, we are ourselves and we have to look after ourselves and that means looking after humanity itself... We care aboutecology because it has consequences on us, nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

 

I don't really see much of what your saying in my physics books, which as you know tries to describe reality, and you might as well assume god exists because science doesn't have any evidence to support if "lower level" organisms actually have consciousness or perception or not. There isn't actually a logical component of the universe that says life can only do certain things, and considering that it means we can take to extra step to care about organisms we would consider to be a "lower level" if we want to, even though ironically the universe doesn't actually recognize level, a meteor will wipe out all life on Earth if it's big enough no matter how sentient any life on it is. Furthermore, there is no way to quantify consciousness, therefore we cannot say with certainty that one organism has a greater value of it than another.

Since we can't really say perception and consciousness doesn't exist in things like mosquitoes, which personally I think it easily could even if not in large compared to humans I like to assume every thing that is living has some type of consciousness no matter how minute, and instead look at what they can control of their body and will power, because when you look at it that way you can make a smooth gradient between organisms, there doesn't just have to be some finite point where consciousness cuts off. Can you personally tell the deference between which species have "sentience" and which ones you know for sure don't? Because not even science can.

Also, what if those organisms would have one day evolved into sentient organisms? Then your still destroying a sentient species.

And besides, regardless of if anything is actually sentient, many animals have been tested to feel what appears to be pain. People even thought fish for a long time didn't feel pain, but with further testing, there's even chemical evidence of it because they release endorphins into their blood-stream when injured.

Edited May 10, 2012 by questionposter

[anotherfilthyape]

 

I don't really see much of what your saying in my physics books, which as you know tries to describe reality

 

You are looking at the wrong book, physics does not try to describe reality, it tries to describe reality in relation to interactions between energy and matter and in relation to movement, not every aspect of reality is explained at that level... Read about emergentism

 

and you might as well assume god exists because science doesn't have any evidence to support if "lower level" organisms actually have consciousness or perception or not.

 

that is a non sequitur

 

There isn't actually a logical component of the universe that says life can only do certain things, and considering that it means we can take to extra step to care about organisms we would consider to be a "lower level" if we want to, even though ironically the universe doesn't actually recognize level, a meteor will wipe out all life on Earth if it's big enough no matter how sentient any life on it is.

 

That is the point... A meteor would not care... Why should we? Just because we can care? Then why do not we behave like animists and avoid consuming anything because anything can be sentient? Even air or even a rock? (And people have already died trying to eat only air because they deemed all life sacred). Even inuits that are animists are pragmatic enough to eat animals because it is convenient for their survival (they have a lot ot rituals and taboos involved in their hunting and predation of plants, but they at least end caring about themsevles rather than about lifeforms that are not humans)...

 

And about nature recognizing level... I understand electromagnetic blasts affect machines but not humans, so that's somehow against what you said...

 

Furthermore, there is no way to quantify consciousness, therefore we cannot say with certainty that one organism has a greater value of it than another.

 

Ethology has proven that some species do not recognize themselves in a reflection (species with the ability to perceive reflections), that is an evidence of lower degree of consciousness... Ethology is still young but it has proven a lot about animal sentience.

 

Since we can't really say perception and consciousness doesn't exist in things like mosquitoes, which personally I think it easily could even if not in large compared to humans I like to assume every thing that is living has some type of consciousness no matter how minute, and instead look at what they can control of their body and will power, because when you look at it that way you can make a smooth gradient between organisms, there doesn't just have to be some finite point where consciousness cuts off. Can you personally tell the difference between which species have "sentience" and which ones you know for sure don't? Because not even science can.

 

I say the difference is vertebrates... Science does say it... Many documentals about lifeforms share this view, ethology shares this view.

 

Also, what if those organisms would have one day evolved into sentient organisms? Then your still destroying a sentient species.

 

That is the same argument against abortion and it is flawed logic because any number of things can and should happen before the organism evolves into a sentient organism (just like any number of things must and can happen before a zygote evolves into a sentient human)

 

And besides, regardless of if anything is actually sentient, many animals have been tested to feel what appears to be pain. People even thought fish for a long time didn't feel pain, but with further testing, there's even chemical evidence of it because they release endorphins into their blood-stream when injured.

 

None of these are vertebrates I bet ya... And pain is not the issue, sorrow, grief, joy, that's the issue, it lasts longer and is more complex than mere pain.

 

 

 

 

[questionposter]

that is a non sequitur

No, your trying to say that you know one thing is more conscious than another despite the fact that consciousness can't be quantified and therefore can't have values compared.

 

 

That is the point... A meteor would not care... Why should we?

We would care because we're not objects.

 

 

Just because we can care?

Why would we not care then? Just because we can not care? It works both ways.

 

 

Then why do not we behave like animists and avoid consuming anything because anything can be sentient?

We do behave like animals though, it is animal to form large social groups and interact and support each other, and it is animal to have cell-membranes and limbs and a brain and consume food rather than make it like plants.

 

Even air or even a rock? (And people have already died trying to eat only air because they deemed all life sacred). Even inuits that are animists are pragmatic enough to eat animals because it is convenient for their survival (they have a lot ot rituals and taboos involved in their hunting and predation of plants, but they at least end caring about themsevles rather than about lifeforms that are not humans)...

Nature naturally likes to do the most efficient thing, but the most efficient thing isn't the only thing to do.

 

And about nature recognizing level... I understand electromagnetic blasts affect machines but not humans, so that's somehow against what you said...

What does an EM wave have to do with a universal view? An air temperature of no more than 130 degrees Fahrenheit would kill us eventually, but not necessarily machines.

 

 

 

Ethology has proven that some species do not recognize themselves in a reflection (species with the ability to perceive reflections), that is an evidence of lower degree of consciousness... Ethology is still young but it has proven a lot about animal sentience.

No, it hasn't proven it, it has provided some limited evidence for it. These types of experiments aren't always the strictest. Have you ever considered that some species don't even see well or don't even see in the visible spectrum? Besides, doesn't really matter anyway.

 

 

 

I say the difference is vertebrates... Science does say it... Many documentals about lifeforms share this view, ethology shares this view.

Science does't say anything about it at all, it can't even touch something as complex as consciousness itself at this point, all it can say is how animals respond to certain things, and different animals respond to things in different ways. Just because an animal doesn't do the exact same thing as us doesn't mean it can't have any similarities.

 

 

 

That is the same argument against abortion and it is flawed logic because any number of things can and should happen before the organism evolves into a sentient organism (just like any number of things must and can happen before a zygote evolves into a sentient human)

It happened with us, why not with other species? Besides, I thought you said every person who died was potentially a genius. And who is to say what a species "must" go through to get to that level?

 

 

 

None of these are vertebrates I bet ya... And pain is not the issue, sorrow, grief, joy, that's the issue, it lasts longer and is more complex than mere pain.

Emotions themselves aren't much more complex. You have this chemical released into the bloodstream and brain, and your brain reads it and has an interaction that tells perception what it is, similar to how pain works even.

Edited May 10, 2012 by questionposter