Secular Café: Why Consciousness is a Problem

Secular Café Discuss philosophical concepts and moral issues.

Why Consciousness is a Problem Jun 1st 2012, 00:30 It seems trivially true that the felt quality of redness is different than the observed interactions of neurons. To see this, we simply have to imagine a red patch, and compare that to any possible interactions between the physical constituents composing our brain. The two are not identical. Intuitively then, it seems as if the world can be separated into the mental and the physical, the belief in which can be called mind/body dualism. So what do I mean by "the felt quality of redness"? We might imagine that while looking at a red flower, we are in a way peering out through our eyes at the flower. This view is generally rejected as it brings to mind a tiny person behind our eyes, and another behind his, ad infinitum. This when we know vision to be the result of the interaction of light with our eyes, which triggers a chain reaction of neurons. What seems left out of that explanation is what can be called the phenomenal character of e.g. redness, or in less technical terms: the felt quality of redness or the experience of redness. Now while our experience of seeing a red rose may seem different than the neural correlates thereof, there is some reason to think they must nevertheless be the same in some sense. The brain seems to be a closed causal system, which is to say that there is no room for mental properties and physical properties to interact: consciousness seems superfluous. The prospect of existent but non-interacting mental properties is perhaps even more problematic, as then it would seem impossible for us to be able to speak of mental properties at all. So the problem often referred to as the Hard Problem of Consciousness, is the problem of accounting for the apparent lack of identity between the mental and the physical. Currently there is no academic consensus as to what strategy is best for doing so, though many have been proposed. So the question remains open.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: intolerance of intolerance. Is it going anywhere and where will it lead us.

Secular Café Discuss philosophical concepts and moral issues.

intolerance of intolerance. Is it going anywhere and where will it lead us. May 28th 2012, 16:47 Are people who hate people who hate others self absorbed, self righteous or self aggrandizing? Are stereotypes a means or a justification and how can these false images be refuted without the refuter defaulting to their own mental images of the types of people who use stereotypes? In this day and age we are sometimes inundated with the term "Rights" but the precursor is always a subgroup of a group instead of the rights of any individual within that entire group to be treated equally with anyone else in that group. Is it not in the best interest of the entire group, as a whole to protect and defend anyone or any subgroup within the entirety of group lest the subgroup they're in be the next to be placed on the chopping block? Is the simple fact that there are subgroups of groups within society make that society vulnerable to be fractured and why would we give ear to those who claim to want save society by separating it from itself? Do those who wish to lead society into a promised land actually have a promised land to take us or is it this just and image they delude us into believing because they know we would not believe in them? When is a sanctuary an prison and a higher order of thinking or acting a more palatable means of promoting arrogance? When does all this and much much more begin to create something that is a benefit to everyone?

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Understanding vs Excusing

Secular Café Discuss philosophical concepts and moral issues.

Understanding vs Excusing May 27th 2012, 19:40 Rather than go off in somebody else's thread, I'm making a new one. I often run into the mindset that equates the understanding of why somebody does something - anything - with excusing that behavior. As if to say that if we, as a jury or just as human beings, understand the train of incidents and/or genetics and/or whatever else that led to an instance of wrongdoing, then we are bound to just pat them on the head and let them go on their merry way. I don't get that at all. I really don't understand why those two are connected. They aren't connected at all for me - I can understand what led someone to do a heinous crime without letting them off the hook for responsibility for their actions. Can somebody explain that linkage to me? Why does understanding equal excusing?

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Logic is pure

Secular Café Discuss philosophical concepts and moral issues.

Logic is pure May 27th 2012, 16:17 Out of curiosity. Do you belief logic/reason is an independent entity that is impenetrable by outside influences?

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Moral character and science

Secular Café Discuss philosophical concepts and moral issues.

Moral character and science May 27th 2012, 06:24 Folks, I hold a belief that moral character has nothing much to do with science, if anything. I don't have any evidence for this belief, or even an idea of where my belief comes from, but there it is and I can't shift it. There are those who would tell us that we are part of chains of cause and effect, that our behaviour is conditioned by upbringing and socialisation, that our behaviour can be driven by deep imprints on our species (tooth and claw stuff) and all kinds of scientific reasoning to explain why we do what we do. However, I hold this belief that when a person does something sneaky and underhand, they do it because this is the kind of person they are; as if the bad fairy had waved the wand over their crib and made them like that. Although calling myself liberal, I also know that my belief is conservative, and highly judgmental, making me someone who would call another person "a bad lot" if the circumstances arose. What do others think about this issue? Alex. PS - Of course the 'bad fairy' scenario would itself be part of a cause and effect thing, so that is not a very good example, as it lets the sneaky and underhand person off the hook, implying that they were alright until cursed.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: The Salamander and the Phoenix

Secular Café Discuss philosophical concepts and moral issues.

The Salamander and the Phoenix May 26th 2012, 00:44 .. incredible incredible creature that can grow a new limb if it's injured! It truly is a recipe for immortality. Ditto my star sign's emblem the Phoenix... rising from the ashes.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Random acts of kindness

Secular Café Discuss philosophical concepts and moral issues.

Random acts of kindness May 24th 2012, 21:50 .. like my neighbour putting out the rubbish to be collected if I'm not able to do it. So beautifully thoughtful. Does anyone here have a memory of such little acts of kindness?

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Just words?

Secular Café Discuss philosophical concepts and moral issues.

Just words? May 23rd 2012, 03:58 I wondered about this:- http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/847...dents-retarded The problem being the year book used the term "Mentally Retarded". When I was younger, this was the standard, polite term to use for someone with a lower than normal intellect, while "Spastic' was a normal, indeed medical term used to describe Cerebal Paulsy. People of course adopted "Retard" and "Spaz" as insults, with the result that it became un-PC to use those terms. But where does it end? I noted a case recently where a child objected to being termed "Special", and calling someone an "Aspie" has become a popular derogatory term. Do we need to just face up to the fact that words mean what they mean, and the fact that some are hijacked as insults shouldn't change their use? After all, I believe "Developmentally delayed" is the current PC term. Well, the development we are talking about is MENTAL development, and something which is delayed could also be termed impeded- or RETARDED. If changing the words doesn't change what you mean, why change the words?

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: The poisonous concept of "honour"

Secular Café Discuss philosophical concepts and moral issues.

The poisonous concept of "honour" May 22nd 2012, 19:44 I'd like everyone to read this short article by the Pakistani physicist Pervez Hoodbhoy. IMO he writes the best articles in Pakistan. http://tribune.com.pk/story/374879/l...y--bayghairat/

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Cardinal who covered up child abuse and got away with it says secularists are immoral

Secular Café Discuss philosophical concepts and moral issues.

Cardinal who covered up child abuse and got away with it says secularists are immoral May 21st 2012, 16:29 http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2012...+News+Daily%29 These scum know no shame.... Quote: In an address at Leicester's Anglican Cathedral, the former leader of Catholics in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, said that "secular values" were behind the violence carried out in totalitarian states and some of the 20th century conflicts that have killed millions. "Our danger in Britain today is that so-called western reason claims that it alone has recognised what is right and thus claims totality that is inimical to freedom," he said. "No one is forced to be a Christian. But no one should be forced to live according to the new secular religion as if it alone were definitive and obligatory for all humankind." He said: "The propaganda of secularism and its high priests want us to believe that religion is dangerous for our health. It suits them to have no opposition to their vision of a brave new world, the world which they see as somehow governed only by people like themselves. They conveniently forget that secularism itself does not guarantee freedom, rationality … or violence. Indeed, in the last century, most violence was perpetrated by secular states on their own people." He said a loss of "reverence" for humanity meant that some of the most vulnerable people in society are now routinely viewed as a "problem" or "threat". Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said: "Cardinal Murphy O'Connor is simply echoing the Vatican's familiar and untrue line that 'secularism' is the enemy of religion. It is certainly the enemy of power-seeking religion, as with the Vatican's present version of Catholicism, but it upholds the rights of religious believers to practise their faith freely and without hindrance. His presentation of Christianity as being under attack is a familiar one and still completely unconvincing. It is part of a wider campaign to reassert Catholic influence." Mr Sanderson continued: "Murphy O'Connor says that the 'high priests' of secularism can't guarantee freedom from violence or immorality. "But we should never forget that Mr Murphy O'Connor himself was guilty of disgracefully covering up some of the most horrific crimes of a paedophile priest when he was Archbishop of Arundel and Brighton – allowing the perpetrator to continue abusing children in other parishes. Why Murphy O'Connor was never brought to justice over this remains a mystery."

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: What is reality?

Secular Café Discuss philosophical concepts and moral issues.

What is reality? May 16th 2012, 11:46 I know I've come up with a lot of crazy thoughts, but in all the topics I've ever created or have ever seen, for that matter was based in someone's version of reality. I was just consumed by a thought of just how infinite reality actually is and what it encompass, but also what different it is to each and every one of us. Why is that? What is the purpose of so many points of veiw in this great big world that expands to the outer reaches of our galaxy and beyond. What makes up the space that surrounds us, our world and much more important, why do we call it ours?

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: One Death for a Hundred Better Lives

Secular Café Discuss philosophical concepts and moral issues.

One Death for a Hundred Better Lives May 15th 2012, 02:31 Recently I saw an episode of the show The Firm. And in the show a question of morality arose. People with terminal illnesses receive billions of dollars from insurance companies in order to pay for another procedure, another test, another dose of medication, only to survive a few more hours, a few more days, a few more months. But is it worth it? What are they doing during that time? Laying on a bed thinking about their coming death and trying to endure the pain of the now. Wouldn't it be better to end it now? let the suffering end. Instead of prolonging their pain, couldn't we use that money to pay for medication people need, to pay for food so someone doesn't starve, better education for our kids so they can figure out how to end these terminal illnesses so fewer have to die in the first place? Or are we paying for a principle. The "No man left behind", the miracle operation, the hope. So when are people put over the principle? When will we be able to accept one death for hundreds of better lives? Now, no, I didn't provide any real stats, nor am I asking whether we should kill off our grandparents or parents so that our kids can live better. I'm asking the simple question, who do we put first? The one or the many? (The example from The Firm does not reflect my views, I just simply thought it was an intriguing topic worth discussing.)

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Is the present situation beneficial to the democrats or the republicans

Secular Café Discuss philosophical concepts and moral issues.

Is the present situation beneficial to the democrats or the republicans May 14th 2012, 19:45 I was thinking about the financial situation in the world and I can see two ways of looking at it and would like some input. With the insecurity and the fear, would a person be more inclined to horde what they have and defend that from all comers, saying. "I've got mine, you get your's," or would a person see the deprivation of others and share with them the prosperity they have? Would they be more inclined to be what some call being a shining example of what you can get If you quote/unquote work hard or would they be what some call a compassionate individual and share what others have, even though those people may not wish to share. Does being apart of society mean sharing in the fate of others or simply mean being an individual within that society

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Can philosophy and/or theology say anything about the ultimate origin of the universe?

Secular Café Discuss philosophical concepts and moral issues.

Can philosophy and/or theology say anything about the ultimate origin of the universe? May 14th 2012, 15:07 Some seem to think so - the KCA being a case in point. In the video below Thunderf00t attacks such a view, in my opinion compellingly. (Not loaded: 4u6Mz21jTaA) David

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Of Fear and rage

Secular Café Discuss philosophical concepts and moral issues.

Of Fear and rage May 14th 2012, 03:16 I've been looking at things in the last few years and it seems that the country is beset by fear of change and the rage of frustration in those that think change hasn't come soon enough. I think both of these two reactions are setting America on a collision course with itself. Something has to give in order for us to move forward. I think the whole world is at a tipping point and what survives out of this will color the world for the next 100 years. How can we all diffuse this so that we can begin the next 100 years without totally devastating one another and carry on this hate fest, between the left and the right into the next millennium. Sacrifices have to be made. I've said that before but it seems there are too many desiring their own little piece of the pie.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Probability and the gambler's fallacy

Secular Café Discuss philosophical concepts and moral issues.

Probability and the gambler's fallacy May 13th 2012, 05:48 We have a state-run lottery here in ZA, with 6 numbered balls out of a set of 49 being randomly dished out by a machine. The lottery even has a little mini-show with a presenter and whatnot. Whenever a ball pops out, the presenter usually says something like 'it's number 12, visiting us for the 315th time.'. Now, we all know that the balls fall randomly, but some balls have fallen 300 times and others only 270 times, for example. If we assume that, probabalistically, after say a million rolls, this percentile disparity between balls falling would be dramatically reduced so as to be close to even, doesn't it imply that to satisfy this probabalistic outcome, the ball with 270 falls has a greater chance to fall in future since it needs to 'catch up'? It sort of niggles me, even though my intuition tells me that the 30-fall difference is probably unit-based, and not a percentile to be caught up later. In other words, after a million rolls, the difference is likely (in fact, more likely) to also be 30 (or even more), although the percentile difference is pretty much wiped out. It only /appears/ to be significant currently since the current sample size is relatively small.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Ego te absolvo.

Secular Café Discuss philosophical concepts and moral issues.

Ego te absolvo. May 10th 2012, 02:53 Ego te absolvo. those words will always be important emotionally for me.. Those words at Confession were so soothing. Cutting loose, from religion , I still think that Father in the Confessional was a major drawcard as a part of organised religion and probably still is.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Really really strong DNA markers..

Secular Café Discuss philosophical concepts and moral issues.

Really really strong DNA markers.. May 8th 2012, 04:53 .. in my family one member was adopted and for some reason all those in a DNA link with him have fuzzy blond hair. I don't think he has ever wanted to trace his biological parents.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions