h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>If we know those pathways we can model and predict your choices.<<

We are definately getting closer to the day when we can predict everything everyone will do... but will people then become intentionally unpredictable and will we be able to predict that? Hmmm...

Once the scientific method has gone as far as it can to give a clearer picture of the problem and indeed indicate what can’t be judged or concluded scientifically THEN it comes down to people making a decision. It reduces the messiness.

However, should that decision be purely secular or do we really need to factor in what people 1000years ago wrote down what their particular brand of imaginary magical friend supposedly said on the subject?

Yes, secular people may well have agendas but at least those agendas can’t be supported by waving a book or indeed agendas based on that book which may be to the detriment of the populace.

i.e. as much as Tony Blair wants history to judge him we can judge him right now on the evidence he didn’t have for WMD’s in Iraq.

I think it is a way off yet, the more we learn the more we find out how much more complicated the brain is than we imagined.

One telling thing though that indicates (to me) that there is a way to model this is that it seems our conscious decisions are not conscious at all but made unconciously (or subconsciously) and then 'promoted' to our conscious minds where we think we consciously decided them. Thus some automated process in our heads is actually making the decisions.

Yes...you can build an Edward the Android.

BUT: That will only answer the question 'What *will* Edward have for lunch?' ie, what will my neurological pathways determine that I'll choose. (And it would have to be a complicated android at that. Not only would it have to know about how my taste receptors and pleasure centres work...but also about the cultural and psychological factors that have determined how I feel about my weight; How skint I am this week and whether I mind...etc. I wonder why you'd bother modelling it, instead of just asking me?)

Remember, though, the question is what *will* I eat but what *should* I eat?

Say I go for the plate of chips instead of the healthy salad. I'll probably enjoy the chips more but will die slightly sooner as a result.

What can science tell me about whether I've made the right choice?



Scientists really should read up on The Philosophy of Science. Once again - this is David Hume's 'Is-Ought Problem'. He's a pretty important thinker in the history of science!

Science isn't replacing empathy or saying that empathy isn't used in the conclusions to a problem. This is something that is used as a criticism of 'scientific' people that they lack empathy etc. I disagree, when Archbishops are telling the nation how they believe gay people should be treated based on what it says in a book or Popes say condoms should not be used because of what someone thinks the Bible should be interpreted without seeing the effect on the people involved that lacks empathy and is just dogma. Science isn't dogmatic...it just allows for more informed choices.

I don't think that's the criticism *I'm* making of science.

And I don't think I'm saying anything about Archbishops, either.

"And it would have to be a complicated android at that. Not only would it have to know about how my taste receptors and pleasure centres work...but also..."
Indeed, it would have to have your memories and experiences and preferences and so forth. It would have to model *you*. Which then brings up the old question of would it be you?

"I wonder why you'd bother modelling it, instead of just asking me?"
Well, in reality we may not do so. But the issue is whether it could be done, whether the scientific method could be used on the question. And it can. Which is not to say it will be.

"What can science tell me about whether I've made the right choice?"
Well that depends on what you mean by 'right' - the question is not defined yet. But for a given value of 'right' (personal satisfaction, long life, etc) then it can work out the resultant events of eating the specified food and match that with the specified goal thus giving and answer.

Is Edward's question not actually about whether there exists some sort of objective Platonic moral 'Right'? Certainly we can imagine scientific investigation of various carefully defined 'values of right' but I'm not sure that it would be possible to scientifically investigate a hypothetical objective Platonic moral 'Right' any more than we can construct a device which is able to detect the communication between the immaterial soul and the material body.

I guess I'm just not getting the question then!

I don't see how 'right' can be used without a goal.

How exactly would a "objective Platonic moral 'Right'" be defined? Or, in english, what's it mean?

Morals are more in keeping with religion and absolutes. Do you mean ethics or am i talking nonsense?

'How exactly would a "objective Platonic moral 'Right'" be defined? Or, in english, what's it mean?'


I don't know how it would be defined. I don't see that such a thing could exist -- it would imply that, for example 'Abortion is Evil' is an inherent property of the universe and has always been, even before the first placental creatures were scampering about dodging dinosaur feet. It's absurd to think that morality exists independently of the agents indulging in it. Or so it seems to me.

>>What can science tell me about whether I'd prefer soup or a sandwich for lunch?<<
>>..the question is (not) what *will* I eat but what *should* I eat?<<

Either way, as what you like to consider as your 'free will' is in fact directly related to the physical origin of your emergent consciousness, it is theoretically possible to accurately predict both what you 'will' eat, and what you 'should' eat.

This would require a currently unimaginably comprehensive technology capable of understanding the entire physical brain/body, but unless you adhere to dualism, is a scientific possibility

Again, since 'free will' is essentialy meaningless, and therefore is an illusion, there is no actual appreciable difference between what you 'will' do, and what you 'should' do.

'You' don't 'do' anything at all, but actions are performed, and things are done. It only apppears as if there were a 'you' do make the decision.

How so many absurd rules of conduct, as well as so many absurd religious beliefs, have originated, we do not know;
nor how it is that they have become, in all quarters of the world, so deeply impressed on the minds of men;
but it is worthy of remark that a belief constantly inculcated during the early years of life,
while the brain is impressionable, appears to acquire almost the nature of an instinct;
and the very essence of an instinct is that it is followed independently of reason.
Charles Darwin

>> since 'free will' is essentialy meaningless <<

Well, I have. I can only put it down to absurd religious belief, for those who think we haven't.

Radio 4's iPM last Saturday had a very small and inadequate piece about Thought For The Day.

They interviewed Jonathan Bartley of the Christian think-tank Ekklesia, who I think is a rather balanced association and I did actually like Jonathans TfTD's.

He told how he was interviewed on Today and said TfTD should be opened up to secularists...he was soon removed from the list of presenters for the slot.

Below is a more detailed explanation of what went on and what the Religion & Ethics department of the BBC said to Jonathan. Ethical, moral, inclusive, self-serving...I leave the conclusions to yourselves.

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/8302

There is also the iPM blog where you can go and read the blog entry and further discussion as well as a post from our erstwhile contributor Della.

Gif

>It's intended to encourage debate, not stifle it.<



My only complaint is that posting snippets of conversation on Gifopedia as a 'theist's response' does indeed stifle debate.

Mikey

>>It's intended to encourage debate, not stifle it.<<

I know. There are some people with a new religion, in this thread.
It's called Dawkism ? Believing in zilch. No scriptures to disprove.
No prophets to criticise. 'We' can't lose. But what's the point ?

In fact, what's the point in mankind being in the universe, at all ?

warner, I presume you are merely trying to rile people and are taking the p1ss otherwise you know nothing about how the human mind works or what people think when free of the chains of religious dogma.

Your last post does not deserve anymore comment.

>> I presume you are merely trying to rile people and are taking the p1ss <<

about post 14516
No, I'm not. That's what it appears like to me ..
Like many criticise me with my belief.

'In fact, what's the point in mankind being in the universe, at all ?'



finally warner is talking sense! Of course there's no inherent point. We all make up our own point. The religious just pretend that they're not making it up.

anhaga

I agree with post 14519, except substitute 'believe' for 'pretend'.