tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post117016970881128934..comments2024-01-24T04:59:45.518-05:00Comments on Jewish Atheist: Steven Pinker on ConsciousnessJewish Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04616617537150446818noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-1170443226489905482007-02-02T14:07:00.000-05:002007-02-02T14:07:00.000-05:00MY OWN VIEW IS THAT [science will kill morality] I...<I>MY OWN VIEW IS THAT [science will kill morality] IS backward: the biology of consciousness offers a sounder basis for morality than the unprovable dogma of an immortal soul.</I><BR/><BR/>I couldn't agree more, and I am all for a better understanding of consciousness and its relation to morality. I am cautious, however, in my optimism regarding the implications of this research. Isn't it possible that some scientist, convinced of his possession of a thorough understanding of consciousness, could use this knowledge to dehumanize those people whose brains/minds don't quite fit into his model of human consciousness?<BR/><BR/>I'm in uncertain territory here, so maybe I'm off the mark a little bit, but it seems like once we reach a certain level of scientific confidence, it opens the door to evaluating some people as being worth more than other people.<BR/><BR/>In the long-term, I think you're right and that this knowledge is a good thing. But in the past, where science and morality have overlapped, people have used science to justify atrocities. At least, it's something to be wary of.snaarshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11270463014493592156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-1170376503568447892007-02-01T19:35:00.000-05:002007-02-01T19:35:00.000-05:00I appreciate the information you provide on this s...I appreciate the information you provide on this subject, JA. As you know, it's a topic of interest to me.<BR/><BR/>Regarding the three sections of your post: I think the argument of the first section is strong, the middle section less so, and the third section quite weak.<BR/><BR/>The correspondence between electrical activity in a certain part of the brain and the conscious experience of the subject is pretty impressive. The data is still open to interpretation. Jewish Philosopher's question is a good one. Still, the data supports the position that there is a 1:1 correspondence between brain function and consciousness — even if I think it falls short of conclusive proof.<BR/><BR/>The second section is less compelling to me. It's pretty obvious that our brain (and our consciousness, if the two are discrete) learns to recognize patterns. We quickly scan a room and recognize that object in the corner as a chair, although we have taken in very little information about it. This is a kind of mental shortcut that makes sense of our environment without demanding thorough attention to every object at all times.<BR/><BR/>The examples given are of that sort. I am presented with certain data and I reflexively interpret them a certain way — incorrectly. It isn't surprising that people do this, because they have practised interpreting data that way since earliest childhood. The data are provocative but they don't prove, to my satisfaction, that consciousness is an illusion.<BR/><BR/>As for the third section —<BR/><EM>Once we realize that our own consciousness is a product of our brains and that other people have brains like ours, a denial of other people's sentience becomes ludicrous</EM> —<BR/>that's nothing more than wishful thinking.<BR/><BR/>Lots of people enjoy inflicting physical and psychological suffering on others. It isn't that they think the suffering isn't real. They just get off on having that kind of absolute power over another human being.<BR/><BR/>It isn't a failure to understand that other people are not sentient — that's making cheap excuses for the unconscionable behaviour of evil people.<BR/><BR/>I won't insist that belief in a benevolent deity is a better ground for morality than the argument (consciousness = brain function) of this post. But I utterly reject the converse argument, that this post provides a better ground for morality than belief in a benevolent deity.<BR/><BR/>People are capable of great good, and great evil. It's one of the mysteries of human nature, and it's an intractable problem. No one has devised any solution for it to date — and this argument certainly doesn't constitute one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-1170261734270773062007-01-31T11:42:00.000-05:002007-01-31T11:42:00.000-05:00Also, just a small question: If I were to take a k...Also, just a small question: If I were to take a kitchen knife and open up the throat of Professor Pinker's girlfriend (Professor Pinker is twice divorced and currently unmarried), would the professor simply sigh and say "Well, his brain chemistry caused it. Let's get a mop." I'm not too sure.jewish philosopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17987540457195983665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-1170261237610421492007-01-31T11:33:00.000-05:002007-01-31T11:33:00.000-05:00"near death experiences are not the eyewitness rep..."near death experiences are not the eyewitness reports of a soul parting company from the body but symptoms of oxygen starvation in the eyes and brain"<BR/><BR/>How does he know that? Because stimulating a certain area of the brain will simulate an NDE? Perhaps stimulating a certain area of the brain will simulate seeing a waterfall, does that mean there are no waterfalls?jewish philosopherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17987540457195983665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13054771.post-1170170173985101182007-01-30T10:16:00.000-05:002007-01-30T10:16:00.000-05:00Not much to disagree with there... Well, from ME a...Not much to disagree with there... Well, from ME at least.... [grin].CyberKittenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394155516712665665noreply@blogger.com