/sci/entists of 4chan, I come to you today with a query regarding the nature of man and ultimately the Universe. What is morality? Is it real or an illusion? If it is real, what does this imply about the Universe if humanity is an evolutionary result of the cosmos?

File: 124 KB, 576x576, Solar.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:29:57 2012 No.5293154 [DELETED]

/sci/entists of 4chan, I come to you today with a query regarding the nature of man and ultimately the Universe.

What is morality? Is it real or an illusion?
If it is real, what does this imply about the Universe if humanity is an evolutionary result of the cosmos?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:31:27 2012 No.5293163 The result of a self organizing system

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:31:56 2012 No.5293166 >>5293154 >/sci/entists of 4chan, I come to you today with a query regarding NOT SCIENCE Fuck off.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:33:26 2012 No.5293171 >>5293166 How is evolution and the nature of the universe NOT about science?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:34:26 2012 No.5293173 >>5293171 Not the same guy but you're probably here to discuss philosophy not science.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:34:56 2012 No.5293176 >>5293171 That wasn't OP's question. He was posting an irrelevant edgy teenager pseudo-philosophy bullshit question. Those belong to >>>/b/ >>>/v/ >>>/reddit/ >>>/9fag/ >>>/x/ >>>/r9k/ >>>/lit/

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:35:41 2012 No.5293181 >What is morality? Is it real or an illusion? Please leave. Sorry but this is just terrible.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:38:41 2012 No.5293195 >>5293176 Why do you insult him? There is also no such thing as pseudo-philosophy. This isn't even philosophy. Morality is scientific.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:39:56 2012 No.5293203 there is no objective basis for atheistic morality

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:40:11 2012 No.5293207 >>5293195 > objective morality whatever you're smoking, I don't want it

Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:40:26 2012 No.5293209

>>5293173
>philosophy not science
Everything is science, especially the mind and its machinations.

>>5293176
>irrelevant edgy teenager pseudo-philosophy bullshit
Well aren't you Mr.Science...
>the interaction of two biological machines based upon electric signals and synapses is NOT science. Its bullshit and dumb and so is everyone who doesn't agree with me.
>The universe is organizing itself into conscious entities by forging new elements in giant furnaces called stars, and in so doing evolving just like the life it creates within itself... but THAT'S A DUMB PHILOSOPHICAL EDGY TEENAGE THING TO TALK ABOUT
Please go away.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:40:26 2012 No.5293210 >>5293195 0/10

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:41:41 2012 No.5293213 >>5293207 It's not my fault you don't understand modern neuroscience. Please go back to >>>/b/. >>5293210 I'm not a troll. Why do you think I'm trolling?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:42:56 2012 No.5293221 >>5293213 > neuroscience > morality nah

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:42:56 2012 No.5293222 Morality is a human construct, you can say it is real in our minds, once we die it isn't real anymore.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:43:11 2012 No.5293225 >>5293154 Morality is a human invention. Its real as in the though that there exist a god. Or that there exist meaning beyond facts.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:43:11 2012 No.5293231 >>5293209 >conscious entities And now we know you're a troll from >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:43:26 2012 No.5293226 It's a panda (the singular of qualia). It's not an illusion, but you can only communicate it with tulpas.

Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:45:56 2012 No.5293236

>>5293195
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.

Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:48:56 2012 No.5293251

>>5293221
Only someone against science would make such an incorrect claim. Are you against science?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811909011331
http://www.springerlink.com/content/a8926q746t212727/
http://www.cell.com/neuron/retrieve/pii/S0896627310001728

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:49:56 2012 No.5293261 >>5293251 >pseudo-philosophy published under the guise of neuroscience Absolutely disgusting. These people are ruining the reputation of neuroscience.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:50:57 2012 No.5293264 >>5293231 Why? Consciousness is a scientific phenomena.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:52:11 2012 No.5293269 >>5293264 >untestable, unobservable metaphysics >a scientific phenomenon Choose exactly one. 0/10 and back to >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:52:41 2012 No.5293274 >>5293251 The first is behind a paywall. The second does not establish an objective morality.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:52:41 2012 No.5293275 >>5293264 See you later bud

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:52:56 2012 No.5293276 >>5293261 An anonymous troll knows more than multiple PhDs? I think not. Please get off the science board.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:52:56 2012 No.5293278 >>5293261 >>5293231 I think we know who the real troll is...

Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:53:26 2012 No.5293281

>>5293251
You are attempting to use the of parts of the brain used for thinking about a subject as a proof of the subjects existence.

We also have a portions of our brain that are more activated when we lie, deceive, make stories up and dream about flying magical ponies.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:53:26 2012 No.5293283 >>5293269 Philosophy is a science. How retarded are you?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:53:56 2012 No.5293285 >>5293276 >>5293278 You are the troll. You are promoting /x/ tier pseudoscience. Please leave this board.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:54:27 2012 No.5293291 >>5293283 No, it is not.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:54:27 2012 No.5293293 >>5293276 You don't even know what you're not reading. Why don't you try reading it, so you can not know what you attempted to read instead.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:54:56 2012 No.5293296 >>5293281 Please keep demonstrating you have no idea what you're talking about. How old are you? Still in middle school? Are you a dualist too?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:55:41 2012 No.5293299 >>5293296 >too Does that mean you are one?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:55:41 2012 No.5293300 >>5293291 Maybe the "simple Wikipedia" will fit your intellectual level: http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy#Introduction

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:56:26 2012 No.5293304 >>5293299 I'm not. Thanks for showing your lack of reading comprehension.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:56:56 2012 No.5293307 File: 21 KB, 248x275, 600full-through-the-wormhole-poster.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5293275 >>5293269

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:56:56 2012 No.5293308 >>5293296 I was actually arguing in your favor but you are apparently too stupid to recognize it. Carry on.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:56:56 2012 No.5293309 >>5293293 I have read it and I surely understand it better than you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:57:41 2012 No.5293311 >>5293300 Nice projection. Just becase "simple" wikipedia is the highest level you are able to understand, you can't assume that everyone else is a retard like you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:57:56 2012 No.5293312 >>5293308 You're not arguing in anyone's favor, troll. You're too stupid to understand what "morality" means. Look it up in a dictionary. Morality is a scientific concept.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:58:26 2012 No.5293315 >>5293311 >projection I don't think you know what that word means. I'm not the one who claimed philosophy isn't a science. Educate yourself.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:58:42 2012 No.5293316 >>5293312 Your burden of proof.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:59:56 2012 No.5293318 >>5293316 I've proved all of my claims. It's not my fault you don't understand them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 17:59:56 2012 No.5293319 >>5293315 I'll give you some time to stop crying. When you calmed down, you'll hopefully realize why you are wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:00:41 2012 No.5293322 >>5293318 >delusion Take your meds.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:00:56 2012 No.5293323 >>5293316 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality Do your own research before you decide to enter a discussion please.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:01:27 2012 No.5293325 File: 172 KB, 720x960, anita-sarkeesian-full-body-shot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] wats going on in this thread girls?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:01:27 2012 No.5293326 >>5293319 It's funny that you lack the self-reflective thinking to realize that this statement describes you, not me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:01:27 2012 No.5293327 >>5293323 >This article has multiple issues And so do you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:02:12 2012 No.5293329 >>5293322 I don't take any medication. You probably do based on your obvious unscientific and psychotic attitude towards scientific concepts ITT.

Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:02:26 2012 No.5293330

>>5293323
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This article relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject. (September 2011)
This article is written like a personal reflection or essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. (September 2011)
The neutrality of this article is disputed. (August 2012)
This article may be unbalanced towards certain viewpoints. (September 2011)

This is what proof looks like to the pseudoscientific fanatic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:02:41 2012 No.5293335 >>5293323 > sam harris and ayn rand disregarded at 99.9% c

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:03:12 2012 No.5293336 >>5293325 I'm just scientifically educating a fool. Feel free to join. >>5293326 You should take my advice. It's good for you.

Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:04:11 2012 No.5293341

>>5293327
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=mind-reviews-morality-hypocrisy-and-consciousness
http://www.amazon.com/Essays-Cognitive-Science-Collegiate-Consciousness/dp/1434983412
http://speakingofresearch.com/2012/08/23/consciousness-and-moral-status/

Please go away. You've contributed nothing but shit to this thread.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:04:41 2012 No.5293339 >>5293329 >I don't take any medication. You definitely should.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:04:56 2012 No.5293340 I see one good answer & about 30 saying why I'm better than the other guy Sounds more like /phi/ than /sci/ eh?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:05:41 2012 No.5293342 >>5293336 You haven't given any advice. All you've done thus far is demonstrate your lack of understanding of basic neuroscientific concepts while flooding the thread with obvious unsupported pseudo-scientific nonsense. Please go back to >>>/b/.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:06:11 2012 No.5293346 >>5293340 Are you insinuating they're all just trying to be edgy instead of progressives?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:06:11 2012 No.5293347 >>5293339 >projecting

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:07:11 2012 No.5293355 >>5293346 Well the internet does seem to magnify not the individuals oppinion but the societies view on its own pregression

Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:07:12 2012 No.5293351

>>5293154
Everyone who is in a pissing contest with the others needs to calm the fuck down. You're seriously no better than the religious fanatics.

>He doesn't believe what I do, so I'm going to say he's unintelligent, or a sheep, or against science.

Are you seriously that fucking conceited? Do the people who actually want to have a good back-and-forth about this a favor and fuck off.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:07:26 2012 No.5293353 >>5293341 >>5293342 >thinks he can promote his magical soul bullshit by claiming it to be neuroscience Try harder.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:08:11 2012 No.5293356 >>5293353 > try harder He can't. It's the best he can do. Which is fucking pathetic.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:08:11 2012 No.5293357 File: 97 KB, 1107x794, Consciousness.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:08:27 2012 No.5293359 >>5293353 >magical soul bullshit You don't know what that means. Please look up morality in any scientific journal and see why you are wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:09:41 2012 No.5293366 >>5293359 >look up pseudo-philosphy in a science journal Good one. I lol'd.

Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:09:56 2012 No.5293367
File: 20 KB, 305x364, carl sagan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

OP here.
Thanks for your help /sci/
In the short time this thread has been active you have all demonstrated more than I could have ever hoped for.
Much appreciated.
I'm off now, but keep squabbling if you must.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:10:26 2012 No.5293370 >>5293355 So tear it down so I can have my space instead of ours eh?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:10:41 2012 No.5293374 >>5293356 You know what's even more pathetic? He does this every evening. It's like he enjoys losing debates.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:11:42 2012 No.5293378 >>5293366 >pseudo-philosphy That word doesn't mean what you think it means. It's not my fault your aspie ignorance is overwhelming.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:12:11 2012 No.5293384 File: 27 KB, 465x364, 1303148648032.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:12:41 2012 No.5293381 >>5293374 > every evening Oh shit, really? I'm usually only browsing sci earlier in the day. > neuroscience proves objective morality guise!!! how could anyone believe this

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:12:56 2012 No.5293382 >>5293370 Exactly bring the enviroment down to my level so I can punch it in the face better, so to speak, & ironically were using everything in our manmade enviroment to do that!

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:13:56 2012 No.5293388 >>5293381 >how could anyone believe this Only a crank would not believe this. Quackery goes on >>>/x/.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:14:11 2012 No.5293389 >>5293382 Including ourselves ._.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:15:11 2012 No.5293393 >>5293378 >bawww I can't stand it when other posters are actually educated Cry harder.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:15:11 2012 No.5293400 File: 1.14 MB, 680x1671, I was just pretending.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5293367

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:16:11 2012 No.5293401 >>5293393 Exactly. Why do you continue to cry?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:16:41 2012 No.5293403 Morality is objectively real. Otherwise we would all kill each other because that's what we would do otherwise! Also proof of intelligent design.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:16:56 2012 No.5293406 >>5293401 Because your stupidity is too sad.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:18:12 2012 No.5293411 >>5293406 I am not stupid. You are.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:19:56 2012 No.5293417 >>5293411 Exactly the response I expected from babby.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:22:12 2012 No.5293431 >>5293417 Except I am right and you are wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:23:41 2012 No.5293434 >>5293431 Nope.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:25:41 2012 No.5293441 >>5293434 Yes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:26:11 2012 No.5293442 >>5293441 False.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:26:56 2012 No.5293446 >>5293442 True.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:27:26 2012 No.5293450 >>5293446 Wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:27:26 2012 No.5293453 >>5293450 Nope

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:28:11 2012 No.5293463 >>5293460 I am here for science and math, you are here for garbage posting. Guess who belongs here.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:28:26 2012 No.5293460 >>5293450 What you are doing is called shitposting. If you don't have a counterargument, please go to >>>/b/.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:30:26 2012 No.5293471 >>5293463 So why are you here again?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:31:41 2012 No.5293475 >>5293471 For science and math. You know, the kind of thread people like you can't contribute to because you lack the education.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:33:26 2012 No.5293485 >>5293475 If you lack education and refuse to learn, why are you here? This is my question.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:35:27 2012 No.5293494 >morality >is >a >human >construct there you go

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:36:11 2012 No.5293497 >>5293485 This is what you are doing. You are promoting anti-intellectualism.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:37:26 2012 No.5293502 >>5293497 >This is what you are doing. Wrong.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:38:56 2012 No.5293511 >>5293502 Just as expected you as an anti-intellectual lack the ability to reflect your behaviour.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:41:11 2012 No.5293522 >>5293406 >>5293411 >>5293417 >>5293431 >>5293431 >>5293434 >>5293441 >>5293442 >>5293446 >>5293450 >>5293453 stop samefagging

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:44:57 2012 No.5293535 >>5293511 I have self-reflective thinking. You don't, and the only one anti-intellectual here is you. Please stop projecting your flaws onto others.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:46:41 2012 No.5293544 >>5293535 If you had self-reflective thinking, you'd be embarrassed over all the retarded garbage you posted.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:48:56 2012 No.5293555 >>5293544 I have not posted any retarded garbage. Please stop mistaking scientific content for such.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:49:26 2012 No.5293557 >>5293555 >your posts >scientific Choose one.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:52:26 2012 No.5293573 >>5293557 Exactly. So why are you posting obvious unscientific content on the science and math board?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:53:56 2012 No.5293580 >>5293573 So you admit that you are posting nothing but garbage?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:56:11 2012 No.5293591 >>5293580 No, I am admitting that you are. You have yet to make one scientific post. Instead you have only insulted real science by referring to it by the buzzword "pseudo-philosophy".

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:56:57 2012 No.5293595 >>5293591 See? You're mistaking pseudo-philosophy for science. This is why you will never be a real scientist.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 18:59:41 2012 No.5293604 >>5293595 The buzzword pseudo-philosophy doesn't exist. I have already shown you that what you refer to as pseudo-philosophy is real rigorous science. Instead of admitting that you were wrong you've flooded the thread with psychotic insults.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 19:00:26 2012 No.5293611 >>5293604 >pseudo-philosophy >science Choose exactly one. Go back to >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 19:05:42 2012 No.5293634 >>5293611 Not my fault you refuse real science. Edgy teenager elitism belongs on >>>/b/.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 19:06:26 2012 No.5293637 >>5293634 >implying /x/ nonsense is "real science"

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 19:11:41 2012 No.5293653 >>5293637 >implying your opinions are facts

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 19:12:41 2012 No.5293657 >>5293653 >implying facts are opinions

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 19:14:11 2012 No.5293660 >>5293657 I agree. Philosophy being a science is a fact.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 19:15:26 2012 No.5293667 >>5293660 Nope.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 19:19:41 2012 No.5293679 >>5293667 That's a claim. Where is your evidence?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 19:20:56 2012 No.5293686 >>5293679 Where's yours?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 19:22:41 2012 No.5293691 >>5293660 What is philosophy?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 19:24:27 2012 No.5293698 >>5293686 The demarcation problem.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 19:29:11 2012 No.5293710 File: 37 KB, 432x575, 1335794608963.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5293698

>>	FUCKING CANCER Anonymous Mon Nov 26 19:32:41 2012 No.5293717 File: 54 KB, 419x480, 4075.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] PHILOSOPHY IS NOT SCIENCE RELATED >>/lit/ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 19:35:41 2012 No.5293727 >>5293717 You ruin the board even more with your shit. Congratulations.

Anonymous Mon Nov 26 19:41:56 2012 No.5293752

I'm not going to read through a bunch of garbage troll posts, but for anyone here who is actually serious..
Morality is as real as physical health. I hate to just straight steal Sam Harris' analogy, but it is such a good one it's hard not to. Should we try to be healthy? Is a cancer patient really, really less healthy than an olympic athlete? Yes. Of course they are, by any measurement standard of health that makes sense. Should we try to be healthy then? Well, I suppose the cosmos is rather indifferent to it, but should we be indifferent? Of course not. Anyone who says otherwise just doesn't know what they're talking about. If you don't think so, are you prepared to say medicine isn't a science? That we haven't really learned anything at all in the past 1000 years about what makes people sick and how to prevent it?

The same goes for morality. As long as we define 'morality' as 'trying to make people happy/have emotional/physical well-being', then it is just as much of a science as physical health is. There are facts to be known about what makes people happy just as there are facts to be known about what makes people healthy (one deals with brain/mind states, the other more generally with the body and the brains reaction to it). Now, the questions morality pose are admittedly incredibly complex and disgustingly difficult to answer, but we can certainly, over time, hone in on the correct answer, simply by expanding our knowledge of the relevant neurobiology (and other related fields).

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 19:42:12 2012 No.5293756 File: 394 KB, 1532x2408, 1349040760693.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 19:44:11 2012 No.5293761 >>5293717 >believing you're doing 4chan good You sad soul.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 19:45:41 2012 No.5293762 >>5293717 >FUCKING CANCER O the hypocrisy

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 19:47:42 2012 No.5293766 >>5293752 >Morality is about feeling good Get out of here you dirty hippie.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 19:50:56 2012 No.5293772 >>5293766 What else could morality possibly be about?

Anonymous Mon Nov 26 19:52:11 2012 No.5293778

>>5293766
All conscious action is based on feeling good. People seek out pleasure and leisure. They work in order to gain money and satisfaction in order to have further pleasure, etc.

Same applies to moral principles. We seek to maximize our pleasure and of those close to us.

Anonymous Mon Nov 26 20:16:41 2012 No.5293810

>>5293778
Just because you can apply scientific thinking and mathematics to a subject does not make it a hard science.

With the level of bullshit and subjectivity that people throw in these subjects, they don't even classify as soft science,they become philosophy.

Then subtract a lack of respectable or interesting ideas, and then you get.....

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 20:28:11 2012 No.5293847 >>5293752 >Sam Harris Please stop.

anon Mon Nov 26 21:36:11 2012 No.5293962

Morality is as real as you want it to be. If you look at it from someone who is studying human behavior then you could say that it is very well and real. Physically though morality is nothing but a firing of chemicals in the brain as result of other chemicals. As for your second question. Humanity is nothing more than a lucky coincident in this grand universe. A simple organism on a small planet was lucky enough to survive its first days and the conditions were just right to allow the continuation of life. We are not the endgame of the cosmos nor are we an evolutionary result of it. We are just simple primates and our ancestors happened to be in the right place at the right time.

Anonymous Mon Nov 26 21:58:11 2012 No.5294027

I come on to actually browse /sci/ for the first time, and see this interesting thread. I click, expecting a deep discussion about it but instead am a bit shocked by the pretentious, god-complex elitist assholes yelling at each other.

Fuck. Time to move on.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 22:01:26 2012 No.5294036 >>5293154 >check out /sci/ >someone asks a philosophical question >128 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click here to view. >someone posts a legit science question >0 replies Everything is going as expected.

Anonymous Mon Nov 26 22:53:26 2012 No.5294151

>>5293154
I ate the troll bait.

Morality is as real as one person would perceive it to be. I have morals based on what is taught and what actions has been applied to me based on my own decisions, break a law and pay the tarrif. Morals can be learned from the environment, culture and socio-economic backgrounds. This does not mean that it was or is prevelent within the entire universe.

In short morals keep humanity intact and keeps us from destroying each other so we can procreate and live in relative peace and harmony.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 26 23:06:09 2012 No.5294191 >>5293173 morality isn't even philosophy, it's just muh feels

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 12:35:56 2012 No.5295668 Where did the butthurt pseudo-philosopher go? His jokes were so funny.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 12:41:11 2012 No.5295682 >>5293163 /thread Morality as an idea exists if it is not some inherent property of the universe, calling it an "illusion" confuses these 2 definitions of morality. Most of this thread is a discussion about semantics, not science or philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 12:48:11 2012 No.5295694 >>5295682 >implying semantics aren't important to science and philosophy >implying semantics aren't topic of science and philosophy Way to show your lack of education.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 12:53:26 2012 No.5295711 >>5295694 Discussions about semantics should not go beyond stating the definition of a word.

Anonymous Tue Nov 27 13:00:56 2012 No.5295729

>Science
The systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

>Morality
The differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong).
Can someone tell me how these two things are synonymous?

Anonymous Tue Nov 27 13:02:57 2012 No.5295732

>>5295711
According to what definition? [citation needed]

>>5295729
>testable
No, scientific theories don't need to be testable. Being plausible explanation and being backed up by loads of evidence is enough. See for example astrophysics, evolution, string theory, geoscience, climate science.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 13:04:41 2012 No.5295737 File: 14 KB, 310x248, feynman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5295732 >string theory >a plausible explanation

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 13:05:42 2012 No.5295740 >>5295737 Come up with a better one. Oh wait, you're an edgy pop sci fag from reddit who doesn't even understand the math because he's still failing calculus.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 13:05:42 2012 No.5295741 File: 17 KB, 400x240, everyones_laughing_at_you.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5295732 >string theory >backed up by loads of evidence

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 13:06:27 2012 No.5295743 >>5295741 You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 13:09:42 2012 No.5295749 File: 10 KB, 220x286, schrodinger2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5295740 >string theory >not pop sci

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 13:10:27 2012 No.5295750 >>5295749 >implying you understand the math behind string theory I bet you don't even know what a derivative is.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 13:11:26 2012 No.5295752 >>5295740 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku http://technorati.com/technology/embedded/article/michio-kaku-string-theory-the-future/ http://247technews.com/?p=728

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 13:12:57 2012 No.5295756 >>5295752 >kaku Pop sci redditor status confirmed. I don't wanna read dumbed down drivel. Come up with real science or shut up, high school retard.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 13:12:57 2012 No.5295757 File: 12 KB, 203x303, 1326029274595.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This shit is still up? Stop fucking bumping.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 13:13:26 2012 No.5295759 >>5295756 0/10

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 13:14:11 2012 No.5295762 File: 69 KB, 445x602, 1353955218053.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5295752 >Michio Kaku >blogs >string theory

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 13:14:27 2012 No.5295763 >>5295759 >redditor got told >resorts to memetic shitposting

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 13:14:27 2012 No.5295764 >>5293154 >What is morality? Something that brains came up with

Anonymous Tue Nov 27 13:16:27 2012 No.5295766

>>5295756
>>5295762
>>5295763

He was pasting links to show the relationship between string theory's popularity among reddit users and a famous popular scientists attempt to popularise string theory.

An attempt to explain to sub-par humans that reddit users blindly follow string theory without looking at the facts.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 13:19:41 2012 No.5295772 >>5295766 How about you actually read up on the theory before blindly hating it because your uneducated fellow redditors told you they believe it's wrong?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 13:21:11 2012 No.5295774 >>5295766 The high schoolers who dismiss a theory they don't even know are the worst. I haven't seen a single scientific argument against it. All I see these retards posting is appeals to religion. Do you even math?

Anonymous Tue Nov 27 13:22:41 2012 No.5295777

>>5293154
Despite the claims that this is a philosophical question, I see it more as a psychology one, as morality is an aspect of the mind and may possibly exist in the minds of lesser animals as well. Morality is a combination of logical reasoning, which this board is apparently abundant in, and situational empathy and its effect on our daily decisions.
It is real, though many will argue that it's not, in the same way that dreams aren't "real".
It doesn't imply anything about the Universe, because its existence is limited to the mind.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 13:27:27 2012 No.5295788 >>5295777 >ctrl+F >"psych" >3 results >first two are in "psychotic insult" >3rd result is my post God dammit, /sci/! You're supposed to be intelligent!

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 13:29:26 2012 No.5295796 >>5295777 >because its existence is limited to the mind. So it doesn't exist? Because, you know, there's no evidence for the existence of a "mind". Go back to >>>/x/

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 13:33:41 2012 No.5295814 >>5295796 I'll put this in terms you might be able to understand. Hardware is to firmware as brain is to mind.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 13:34:12 2012 No.5295818 >>5295814 How about you show me this magical "mind"? You can't? /x/ is that way ---->

Anonymous Tue Nov 27 13:49:28 2012 No.5295869

>>5295818
Imagine you have a box, and inside this box is a unique object. Only you can look into the box, and every person has a box of their own. You sit down and have a talk with friends about the object in the box, using descriptive language but being unable to show directly. Everyone in the room describes the same object in their box. Can we safely assume there is an object in the box?

You claim that a mind does not exist, despite the fact that you have one you experience yourself. Everyone has one, and can communicate information about it because, again, everyone has one.

The fact that we can not see each others minds does not mean they do not exist. It simply makes things more difficult.

It is like saying math does not exist, because you can't do math without axioms.

Anonymous Tue Nov 27 13:51:11 2012 No.5295882

>>5295869
>Only you can look into the box
If I had a physically existing box, everyone could look into it.

>despite the fact that you have one you experience yourself
Care to show me any evidence? You are claiming now that I am not a biological being but some magical /x/ ghost. I am not.

>The fact that we can not see
If it existed, we could measure or observe it.

Anonymous Tue Nov 27 14:01:11 2012 No.5295919

>>5295882
More importantly, we could observe it's EFFECTS. Something with a cause (mind) but no effect is like nothing else in nature and an invalid proposition. Even if it did exist, it wouldn't matter - it would have as much importance as my invisible pet elephant.

Anonymous Tue Nov 27 14:01:26 2012 No.5295914

>>5295882
OK, you can not into hypothetics very well, so lets try again.

The box is extremely advanced alien technology. it reads your retina/does a brain scan/whatever would fit for you to accept the fucking hypothetical that only you can read it.

You can not take it apart, the object would be destroyed. You can not circumvent the limits by any means.

Emergent phenomena =/= magic. I never said ou had a soul, or a spirit, only a mind. It may only be a projection of the hardware of your brain, but it is like saying a television show does not exist because you can explain how a TV works without the show.

You are the same faqgot that comes on here all the time looking for any window to spout the "mind is magic and not science" crap, so this isn't really for your benefit. You are a zealot, and there is no reasoning with a zealot. You know damn well you have a mind.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 14:06:42 2012 No.5295937 >>5295914 You're talking about the mind like it can't be observed in it's physical form - the brain. The box analogy is stupid as fuck, since we can observe the brain. I think this is where the confusion comes into play.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 14:08:27 2012 No.5295946 >>5295818 The mind is a process which can be detected and measured with scientific equipment, there is no "magic" involved.

Anonymous Tue Nov 27 14:09:26 2012 No.5295951

>>5295914
>The box is extremely advanced alien technology
Now this is getting ridiculous. Do you have any actual argument?

>Emergent phenomena =/= magic.
We can only speak of a phenomenon to be "emergent", if there's a phenomenon to be observed in the first place. Saying that an unobservable phenomenon is emergent means believing in magic. "Hurr the invisible non-interacting ghost in my closet is totally emergent, that makes him real." Please go back to >>>/x/

Anonymous Tue Nov 27 14:09:56 2012 No.5295953

>>5295937
Well my point is that the box is the brain, and perhaps it is not a perfect analogy. Perhaps it would a better analogy is the object where a holographic projection created by the box, but still only observable to the owner. We can observe, to an extent, how the box would create the image, but not the image itself directly.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 14:10:11 2012 No.5295957 >>5295914 >and there is no reasoning with a zealot. You know damn well dat irony

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 14:11:11 2012 No.5295959 >>5295919 The mind affects the actions of the body, it's a summary of the collective thoughts that occur within our brains.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 14:11:56 2012 No.5295963 >>5295919 >we could observe it's EFFECTS What effects? As far as I know there are no effects attributed to a magical soul. Everything in nature can be explained by physics, chemistry and biology. >>5295937 Show me how it can be observed, /x/tard.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 14:12:42 2012 No.5295964 >>5295953 A better analogy is a computer, which I made earlier. brain = hardware mind = firmware

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 14:13:56 2012 No.5295969 >>5295946 How can it be detected? Show me the evidence. >>5295959 The actions of the body are determined purely biologically and physically, not by any magical soul entity. >>5295964 Except that firmware can be seen and tested.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 14:13:56 2012 No.5295970 >>5295963 Souls are fake, but the mind can be measured with an EKG. It's essentially brain activity. How much simpler can I make this explanation?

Anonymous Tue Nov 27 14:14:26 2012 No.5295971

>>5295951
>>The box is extremely advanced alien technology
>Now this is getting ridiculous. Do you have any actual argument?

No, it was a hypothetical you could not run with, so i had to issue contraints you could not argue with. i bet ou are that guy who when in riendly conversation is asked "if you had to do x or y, what would ou do?" you constantly argue so you don't have to pick x or y, when that is not the fucking point.

By the way, the fact that we are two minds communicating over a complicated system invented by minds, means it is pretty emergent. It is the first phenomena we every experience when we are born.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 14:14:56 2012 No.5295974 >>5295970 >EKG And now we know you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. How is measuring your heart beat a proof of a metaphysical non-interacting soul?

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 14:16:26 2012 No.5295975 >>5295974 Shit, wrong abbreviation, I meant EEG.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 14:16:56 2012 No.5295976 >>5295964 >>>5295953 >A better analogy is a computer, which I made earlier. Yes, i agree it was better, but not or the point i was trying to illustrate, which was the exclusivity of the single observer.

Anonymous Tue Nov 27 14:18:27 2012 No.5295985

>>5295971
"What if magic is real" is not a valid hypothetical. This is a science board and thought experiments in science deal with the consequences of a possible scenario when considering the laws of nature, not some /x/ beliefs.

>the fact that we are
No, we are not magical souls. We are humans, i.e. biological machines.

>emergent
I already told you that "emergent" can only be used to describe observable phenomena. Saying "my non-interacting invisible rape demon is emergent" is complete and utter bullshit.

>>5295975
That still doesn't prove magic.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 14:18:27 2012 No.5295989 >>5295970 electricity is physical though >>5295964 I think mind is the wrong word then, since this mind you speak of is attributed to the complexities regarding the arrangement of brain matter.

Anonymous Tue Nov 27 14:18:41 2012 No.5295990

>>5295974
Again, a soul is a hypothetical entity that is capable of existing independent of physical form, this isn't real.
I'm talking about the mind, which, because I have to sum it up for simpletons like you and possibly misrepresent it through such simplification, can be described as "brain activity".

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 14:19:56 2012 No.5295996 >>5295989 (as no one would claim that the firmware and hardware aren't just part of the physical entity that is the computer.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 14:20:41 2012 No.5295999 >>5295985 It ain't magic, motherfucker, this is neurology! >>5295989 Again, the soul and the mind aren't one in the same. You keep requesting evidence of something not real to prove the existence of something unrelated.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 14:21:56 2012 No.5296003 >>5295990 Like i said, hes a zealot. He will keep using childish words like magic and soul to discredit the concept of a mind. Good luck arguing with a brick wall, I'm out of here.

Anonymous Tue Nov 27 14:21:56 2012 No.5296004

>>5295989
>electricity is physical though
And electricity has nothing to do with magical souls.

>>5295990
>hurr I use synonyms to make my /x/ beliefs look less unscientific

>>5295999
>this is neurology!
Neurology deals with the brain, a biological organ. Your shit is metaphysical nonsense with no evidence.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 14:23:26 2012 No.5296008 >>5296003 >/x/tard who is trying to push spiritualism nonsense >accuses a scientist of being a zealot Comedy gold.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 14:25:11 2012 No.5296016 >>5296004 Again, (spirit != mind), spirits aren't real, they're the metaphysical bullshit you're thinking of. The mind is a part of the brain and can't exist without the brain, hence why neurology does apply here. I'm getting sick of your straw man.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 27 14:28:11 2012 No.5296026 >>5296016 >The mind is a part of the brain Can you show me that part? Is it a gyrus or a lobe? Can you cut it out?

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math