Do you ever ...

[Resha Caner]

Simply ending the conversation might indeed be the best option at this stage. I´m pretty frustrated with it right now, I notice that I am losing my patience, and I have run out of ideas how to possibly improve it.

That's too bad. All our conversations end this way, and every time I am completely dumbfounded as to what I did to frustrate you. I think you are very intelligent and articulate - even if our views are drastically different. So, I enjoy your insights and always hope something will come from talking to you. Yet it never ends that way. As such, I am sad.

I want to ask a few more things. First, you asked some questions in this latest post. Do you want replies? Based on how you ended, I am not sure.

Second, and with as much sincerity as I can convey in an Internet discussion, I would like you to rate me compared to the average conversation here at CF. I want you to be brutally honest. On a scale of 1 to 5, how well do I express myself? And how well do I indicate you have been heard? 1 = I do much better than others here at CF. 3 = I am typical of those here at CF. 5 = I am much worse than others here at CF.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well, in post #19 you were the first to use the word "insult", so you tell me what you meant.



Yes, and if you read post #18 carefully you'll see that I already understood that is what you meant.



You spoke of both conversations and scenarios. I would assume that playing out a conversation in your head is one type of scenario. Given that you said this conversation is going as you expected, I assumed you had given it some forethought, i.e. that you had played out some scenarios in your head.

But if you want to give me another type of scenario you play out that doesn't involve a conversation, I'd like to hear it.



What are the other possibilities?



I sensed that, but didn't want to presume. What are some typical positions you might argue even if you don't believe them?

Reread post 19, it doesn't say I insulted you...it says you took no insult, there is a difference.

No, in post 18 you speak as if I called lives trivialities, this isn't so. I spoke of life's trivialities, for example...what you had for breakfast. I don't care.

I wouldn't want to tell you any nonconversational scenarios I play out in my head...they are private until played out. I only mentioned them because that is as close to being a "thought experiment" that I can come up with.

Other possibilities for explaining what I have observed, I'm afraid, would be insulting. There's no need anyway, the way your other conversations on this thread are playing out seem to strengthen the original assessment.

Such positions as I might take always seem dialectical. Rarely does an obvious third position arise no one has considered. Dialectical in specific terms like...American politics...or more general terms like conformity/nonconformity.

 

[quatona]

That's too bad. All our conversations end this way, and every time I am completely dumbfounded as to what I did to frustrate you. I think you are very intelligent and articulate - even if our views are drastically different. So, I enjoy your insights and always hope something will come from talking to you. Yet it never ends that way. As such, I am sad.

Resha, thank you for telling me how you feel about this conversation. It is comforting to know that the failure of our communication saddens you as much as it saddens me. It´s something I can connect with, even though the feeling in that we can connect with each other is not the most pleasant one.
We´ve both spent quite some time and effort to make it work, we both have an interest in making it work; and, as you´ve mentioned, this hasn´t been the first time.

Yes, I am intelligent and articulate, and so are you.
Yet, sometimes - as I said in a previous post - two peoples´ paths just don´t cross. Sometimes there is a fundamental mismatch between two persons, and the conversation simply doesn´t flow. This is a frustrating and saddening experience - but that´s the way it sometimes is. It can become a real pain when it happens to two persons who are - in some way - dependent on each other in real life; however here, on a virtual message board it´s not a disaster: we can simply thank each other for our time and effort and then part our ways and move on, hoping that among the other 7 billion people out there there will be someone who matches our needs better.

Now for a bit of analysis: I don´t believe that the reason for our faling conversations is the fact that our views are different. Rather, it´s the fact that our ways of thinking, our preferences, our approaches, our focusses are different (which doesn´t mean that either your or mine is "wrong", or something).
Here´s another analogy: Tom paints a picture for Peter; a scenario where a couple of persons are in vivid conversation in a restauration (well, that´s at least what´s the picture is about in Tom´s idea). Now, Peter happens to be a car freak and his profession has to do with traffic, and in his perception the cars (that Tom has just added for a bit of realism and colour) in the picture are what the picture is about.
So his comment is: "Hey, what do those cars in the picture mean?"
Tom: "They aren´t that important. Let´s say it´s the cars that the people in the picture used to get to the restaurant."
Peter: "But there are more people sitting there than there are seats in the cars."
Tom: "Well, the picture isn´t about how the people got there, it´s about the way they interact."
Peter: "But that´s illogical and unrealistic. People can´t have a conversation in a place without having come there, in the first place."
Tom: "Let´s say the others got there by subway."
Peter: "But this appears to be a scenario in a small town. In such a small town there aren´t any subways."
And so on and so forth.
Is Peter wrong? No. All the things he says are correct.
Is he disinterested in the picture? No - he looks at it very carefully and he is a sharp observer.
Is he obnoxious? No, not at all. He is contributing a lot of ideas to the conversation.
Is he unintelligent? Nothing points to that assumption.

He is just not responsive to those things in the picture that Tom has painted it for. Not because he refuses to be responsive, but just because he isn´t.

Or, IOW: If all you have is a hammer everything appears to be a nail.

I guess what you are looking for in my posts are intelligent, intellectual, quasi-scientific insights (and there´s nothing wrong with that). What I, on the other hand, am offering isn´t the result of highly intelligent considerations; receiving the message doesn´t require you to make use of your high intelligence, your analytic abilities, your scientific mind; and possibly all it would take to receive it would be to put all these abilities aside for a moment. But that´s not your world, it´s not the way your mind works, and that´s completely ok.

And, of course and vice versa, I don´t get what your posts are about. I actually didn´t even get the OP. Well, I do understand the words, I do understand the question, but I don´t know why you would ask such a question, because I don´t experience myself making thought experiments, I´m just thinking - and oftentimes my thougths indeed lead me to some weird places.
So I am wondering:
Is Resha (just like others do their daily workout) doing a thought-experiment each morning after getting up and brushing his teeth? And now he´s run out of absurd ideas and needs some new input?
Or is this possibly just an openmindedness contest?
Or is Resha a bit irritated by some of his "weird" thoughts, and learning that other people have seemingly weird and absurd ideas, as well, would comfort him?

I want to ask a few more things. First, you asked some questions in this latest post. Do you want replies? Based on how you ended, I am not sure.

Personally, I don´t expect much from continuing that part of the conversation - I´m afraid it will just lead to more of the same frustrating and saddening misunderstandings.
But if you feel that responding might help us getting somewhere, or clarify something that I have been missing - feel free to go ahead.

Second, and with as much sincerity as I can convey in an Internet discussion, I would like you to rate me compared to the average conversation here at CF. I want you to be brutally honest. On a scale of 1 to 5, how well do I express myself? And how well do I indicate you have been heard? 1 = I do much better than others here at CF. 3 = I am typical of those here at CF. 5 = I am much worse than others here at CF.

Resha, this is something that goes completely against all I believe in. Rating and comparing people has no place in my world. It doesn´t help with anything, it is the cause for most of the misery we observe.
Plus: In my view, communication doesn´t fail because one of the participants is doing poorly, but because the participants have formed a system, and something about the system is disfunctional. A square and a circle can´t get into touch (except for one single point), and it would be stupid for the circle to blame the square for this fact, and vice versa.

But if you insist that I should fall back into old very bad habits, I´ll do you the favour.
First question: 2
Second question: 5.

And now that I have done you the favour I beg you to immediately forget about it.

Now, here´s a kind request to you.
In the opening of your post you wrote:
So, I enjoy your insights and always hope something will come from talking to you. Yet...

I would like to know:
Has there ever come something from talking with me, for you - as small as it may be? Something that brought you a bit of inspiration, a bit of joy, something that has made your life just a tad bit better, of whatever it may be that would constitute for you that "something has come from" it?
And if so, what has it been?
(Please note: I´m not asking you to rate me or my abilities. I´m not asking you to tell me who or what I am.)

 

[Resha Caner]

I hope you won't take offense that I have cut your post down to just a few items. I did read it all, and I appreciate the effort you put into it. I'm just concerned that if I comment on any part of it, it will start the cycle all over again and frustrate your efforts. But I do appreciate the extent to which you expressed yourself.

As you said, it appears we have a "fundamental mismatch." I have known for some time that I will only be able to connect with certain types of people. I don't look down on (or at least do my best not to) those people I can't connect with. In some ways, I greatly admire them for having the insights I lack. And, sometimes I reach out to them, trying to grasp their different way of approaching things. It just seemed like you were one of those whom I should have been able to better connect with.

Though it is probably no concern of yours, I do hope you find that person who sparks the right thing that draws you to God.

First question: 2
Second question: 5.

Thank you.

I would like to know:
Has there ever come something from talking with me, for you - as small as it may be? Something that brought you a bit of inspiration, a bit of joy, something that has made your life just a tad bit better, of whatever it may be that would constitute for you that "something has come from" it?
And if so, what has it been?

Of course. Every time we talk it starts off with great promise. I can't recall the specifics of each conversation ... the frustration often seems to remain more than the salient points. In that regard you may find my answer disappointing since I may not recall those instances that you do. However, there was a past conversation distinguishing discussion from debate that was productive for me. In this particular thread the discussion on feelings was interesting. I could probably come up with more if I were to dig into some past threads.

God bless.

 

[Resha Caner]

Reread post 19, it doesn't say I insulted you...it says you took no insult, there is a difference.

OK. You used the word. I asked a question about it. You replied. Now we're all crystal clear on what happened.

No, in post 18 you speak as if I called lives trivialities, this isn't so. I spoke of life's trivialities, for example...what you had for breakfast. I don't care.

I hope you're not telling me what I meant, but only what you inferred. I was attempting to clarify what I said. Specifically, the phrase, "I'm sure you don't mean they have no value as a person," was meant to indicate my understanding.

I wouldn't want to tell you any nonconversational scenarios I play out in my head...they are private until played out. I only mentioned them because that is as close to being a "thought experiment" that I can come up with.

OK.

Other possibilities for explaining what I have observed, I'm afraid, would be insulting. There's no need anyway, the way your other conversations on this thread are playing out seem to strengthen the original assessment.

I take your reply to mean you haven't any explanations that would be flattering to me, but I don't mind if you share them. I hope to learn from it.

 

[Paradoxum]

We can all of us improve, and I will strive to do so.

But I will also note that I feel as if people here try to pull me into debates even if I don't want it. In your case, you suggested I "attack" your position. That's a more direct example. The more subtle ways are to ask for more and more detail about why I don't find a view convincing. It's hard not to be critical when that happens. Or another is to accuse me of raising an issue and then to leave it lying. In this particular thread I haven't meant to raise any issues.

My approach so far is to stay with questions as much as I can.

It would be easier if you just quoted me and then pointed out directly which bits you don't find convincing and why. If you just say that you don't find what I've said convincing, it sounds like you haven't bothered to identify why, when I've put time into trying to explain myself.

You might not mean it that way, but to me it can see like you are simply ignoring what I say. I'm not saying that was your intention.

Aren't you saying that one is physics just as the other is physics? So does that mean human behavior is not caused by physics? If not, then what causes it? As long as another cause is missing that distinguishes human behavior from plant behavior, your discrimination seems arbitrary. If both are caused by physics, then it seems you have no reason to discriminate. Or at least I don't see it yet.

Human (and other animals) probably just work by physics too, but the difference is that they are conscious and have feelings. Feelings go along with actions. I'm not concerned about being decent to rocks or plants... I'm concerned about being decent to things with feelings.

Even using a mirror for species with eyes seems too subjective to me. You can't know why a creature appears to recognize himself. You don't know what is occurring in the brain. Cameras, etc. make me incredibly uncomfortable. I don't like my picture to be taken. I assume this test does not involve telling the subject the purpose of the test. As such, were I put in a room with a mirror, I would do my best to pretend it wasn't there, to act as if I don't recognize the mirror is there. So I would fail to demonstrate self-consciousness per this test.

I seems reasonable that for a creature to think "that is me", it must have a concept of 'me'. Sure, maybe it doesn't, but we have to do the best with the information we have.

You wouldn't fail the test. The test wouldn't start until you were looking at the mirror. I've seen people use mirrors in the bathroom. I'd think if I put a camera in your bathroom, I'd see you using a mirror.

Anyway, you use words like 'me' and 'I', so that would hint as you having a concept if Self too.

I don't have much confidence in psychology. I've seen it fail too often in the lives of some people I love very much. I think psychology can help those people with a talent for human relations hone their innate skills, but that's about it. So, the kind of test I would expect is an understanding of the physical brain structure that connects to this idea of yours.

Is that the kind of detail you're looking for?

Sure.

I am sorry. I didn't mean it to encompass your entire explanation. Rather, it was my way of boiling this conversation down to its essence. It seems to me whenever I question your science, you fall back on, "Well, but I feel it," and then whenever I start to probe your feelings you fall back on, "It's not about me. We can use science."

When I said that you were wrong to stop the explanation, my point would be that you didn't boil the conversation down to its essence.

I said 'I feel it' in relation to myself... when else did I say it? I also don't remember you probing my feelings.

I feel self-consciousness, and we can observe behaviour (and brain science?) to try to figure out what else is self-conscious. What is it you find so strange and circular about that?

Maybe I have now?

Nope, I still have no idea. I haven't seen you explain anything anthropocentric in this post.

IMO psychology is a study of human behavior. I can't say it's invalid to attempt animal psychology, but I find 99% of it ridiculous - the type of projections of our thoughts onto animals that you have spoken of. Until we can actually communicate concepts to animals ... and there are very few of those opportunities that seem promising ... I just don't think psychology will get you there.

Well those are nice opinions.

I'm concerned about how we should treat animals. For example, is it okay to kill dolphins or not? Based on what we know about them, I'd say they have a concept of Self, and therefore we should avoid killing them just like we avoid killing young children.

Maybe they don't have a concept of Self, but I'd say the evidence points in that direction, and we have to a decision. Either needlessly killing dolphins is morally condemned (and illegal) or it shouldn't.

So that leaves brain chemistry, and I don't recall anything more than a cursory mention of that from you. So, in doing the best "with what we know", I think part of that is acknowledging what we don't know and giving the benefit of the doubt to caution.

Sure, we don't KNOW. Are you advocating that we don't eat any animals? I wouldn't say we need to be that cautious. I don't think it's likely that cows and chickens are self-conscious.

 

[Resha Caner]

It would be easier if you just quoted me and then pointed out directly which bits you don't find convincing and why. If you just say that you don't find what I've said convincing, it sounds like you haven't bothered to identify why, when I've put time into trying to explain myself.

You might not mean it that way, but to me it can see like you are simply ignoring what I say. I'm not saying that was your intention.

OK, but if I reply to a post, I always read all of it. And I promise to do so into the future. I have been quoting you, but I will quote larger sections if that helps you.

I don't like it when someone quotes a huge block of text. Then I'm not quite sure what they're responding to. And, in some cases it seems a lazy habit to me, as if they couldn't be bothered to extract the salient points but are just going to ramble on about what they think I might have said.

I understand the need for the surrounding qualification, but once I have absorbed that, I prefer to edit quotes down to the salient point. I guess that's not working for you. To be honest, this part of the discussion is more interesting to me than the discussion on self-consciousness, but it's worth continuing as an exercise to see if I can improve.

Human (and other animals) probably just work by physics too, but the difference is that they are conscious and have feelings. Feelings go along with actions. I'm not concerned about being decent to rocks or plants... I'm concerned about being decent to things with feelings.

Then you will need to define feelings for me.

IMO you don't know anyone's feelings unless they are explicitly communicated. Until that happens you are assuming what their feelings are based on the actions you observe. As such, it still seems to me you are projecting your feelings onto the actions of other animals. (**Footnote: I'll admit some of this is a result of my recent conversation with quatona, but I'm not claiming this is quatona's position on feelings)

As such, I don't think feelings are a workable measure (though your definition may change my mind). I once had a conversation about pain and abortion. The point being made to me was that based on the clinical definition of pain, an early fetus does not feel pain when it is aborted. My point was that I don't care what the clinical definition is (and I doubt the fetus has much interest in it either). The fetus is reacting to the threat before it develops this clinical ability to feel pain. (**Footnote: This is not my fundamental objection to abortion. It was just a conversation I had).

At this point then, the criteria I would suggest (for your idea) is anything which has the ability to react to a threat. Brain structure is the one area that seems to offer another possibility, but I don't think it's there yet.

You wouldn't fail the test. The test wouldn't start until you were looking at the mirror. I've seen people use mirrors in the bathroom. I'd think if I put a camera in your bathroom, I'd see you using a mirror.

... along with many other things I don't want you to see. I always find suggestions like this curious. You don't want to hurt beings with feelings, but you suggest spying on me. Were I to find out you had been spying, I would be quite angry. If you asked permission to do it, my answer would be no.

Regardless, you are still merely projecting what you use a mirror for onto my actions. IMO the best uses for a mirror are as a signaling device and to start fires. As long as you must continue to project in that manner, I will not be satisfied with your idea. But maybe I am in the minority as to how effective your idea would be.

Anyway, you use words like 'me' and 'I', so that would hint as you having a concept if Self too.

Yes. Exactly. I mentioned communication as a key aspect in my previous post. If a being can communicate abstract ideas such as self-consciousness, it is much more plausible to conclude they are self-conscious ... as opposed to trying to observe them without their knowing.

I feel self-consciousness, and we can observe behaviour (and brain science?) to try to figure out what else is self-conscious. What is it you find so strange and circular about that?

I tried to answer this above. My reason for quoting you here is the question mark on "brain science". Do you have some to support your position?

Nope, I still have no idea. I haven't seen you explain anything anthropocentric in this post.

First, I apologize for saying "anthropocentric". The better word would be "anthropomorphic".

Anthropomorphic: ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human.

As I 've noted, I think you're projecting.

Maybe they don't have a concept of Self, but I'd say the evidence points in that direction, and we have to a decision. Either needlessly killing dolphins is morally condemned (and illegal) or it shouldn't.

I don't like to needlessly do anything. It bothers me if a beautiful rock formation is destroyed to make room for a human construction. Not because I think the rock was alive, but because I hate to destroy beauty.

Sure, we don't KNOW. Are you advocating that we don't eat any animals? I wouldn't say we need to be that cautious. I don't think it's likely that cows and chickens are self-conscious.

I'm torn. I'm not a vegetarian, but I'm not completely sure how justified my hamburger was yesterday. I don't lose much sleep over the issue, but I doubt I could defend my dietary habits very well. I wouldn't be surprised if heaven is vegetarian.

With respect to husbanding animals in order to utilize them for labor (or harvesting things like eggs and milk as food), I have no qualms whatsoever as long as they are treated well.

I tend to think of the soul (my equivalent to your self-consciousness) as a spectrum. I could say bacteria absolutely do not have a soul and we absolutely do. Everything else in between is a matter of degree. But I will note that I also think our soul is the only one sufficiently developed to make us a spiritual animal.

Am I doing better at not giving the appearance of ignoring you?

 

[bhsmte]

To quote one of my favorite movie lines:

"What we have here, is failure to communicate"!

Whenever you have two parties involved and one party is a theist and the other is a non-believer, you are going to hit some impasses, from core fundamental differences in how each party digests information through their individual filter, and their own interpretation of the same when it comes out the other end.

As Quatona already explained, both parties can be intelligent and articulate, but you can't get around those fundamental differences that are present, that are going to surface at some point, the deeper the conversation goes.

I have reached an impasse with several theists on this board who were intelligent folks, and further discussion on a particular point became fruitless. Doesn't mean one party is right and one party is wrong, just a different way of thinking has been exposed.

 

[Paradoxum]

OK, but if I reply to a post, I always read all of it. And I promise to do so into the future. I have been quoting you, but I will quote larger sections if that helps you.

I don't like it when someone quotes a huge block of text. Then I'm not quite sure what they're responding to. And, in some cases it seems a lazy habit to me, as if they couldn't be bothered to extract the salient points but are just going to ramble on about what they think I might have said.

I understand the need for the surrounding qualification, but once I have absorbed that, I prefer to edit quotes down to the salient point. I guess that's not working for you. To be honest, this part of the discussion is more interesting to me than the discussion on self-consciousness, but it's worth continuing as an exercise to see if I can improve.

You prefer talking about how to write posts?

Thanks for quoting me more.

Then you will need to define feelings for me.

The qualia of like and dislike. There is somewhat of a definition.

Qualia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IMO you don't know anyone's feelings unless they are explicitly communicated. Until that happens you are assuming what their feelings are based on the actions you observe. As such, it still seems to me you are projecting your feelings onto the actions of other animals. (**Footnote: I'll admit some of this is a result of my recent conversation with quatona, but I'm not claiming this is quatona's position on feelings)

Yes, I make an educated guess about the feelings of humans and other animals based on how they act, and what I know about them in general.

As such, I don't think feelings are a workable measure (though your definition may change my mind). I once had a conversation about pain and abortion. The point being made to me was that based on the clinical definition of pain, an early fetus does not feel pain when it is aborted. My point was that I don't care what the clinical definition is (and I doubt the fetus has much interest in it either). The fetus is reacting to the threat before it develops this clinical ability to feel pain. (**Footnote: This is not my fundamental objection to abortion. It was just a conversation I had).

It doesn't matter whether feelings are measurable... feelings are important in morality. If you can't KNOW the feelings of others you have to either make an educated guess, or stop trying to be moral.

At this point then, the criteria I would suggest (for your idea) is anything which has the ability to react to a threat. Brain structure is the one area that seems to offer another possibility, but I don't think it's there yet.

Being able to react to a threat isn't important though. A robot can be programmed to react to danger, but it doesn't mean it is wrong to 'kill' a robot.

I don't care how easily testable moral criteria are, I care about whether they are the important moral criteria. Whether they are testable is merely a practical problem, not a problem with the moral theory.

... along with many other things I don't want you to see. I always find suggestions like this curious. You don't want to hurt beings with feelings, but you suggest spying on me. Were I to find out you had been spying, I would be quite angry. If you asked permission to do it, my answer would be no.

I'm not saying I'm actually going to spy on you.

Regardless, you are still merely projecting what you use a mirror for onto my actions. IMO the best uses for a mirror are as a signaling device and to start fires. As long as you must continue to project in that manner, I will not be satisfied with your idea. But maybe I am in the minority as to how effective your idea would be.

I've already explained the mirror thing a few times. The mirror test is used because identifying the image in the mirror as yourself would seem to show that you have a concept of self. (The mirror test is seeing if a being notices a dot drawn on their head using a mirror, by the way).

Yes. Exactly. I mentioned communication as a key aspect in my previous post. If a being can communicate abstract ideas such as self-consciousness, it is much more plausible to conclude they are self-conscious ... as opposed to trying to observe them without their knowing.

Sure, but not all animals can communicate like that.

I tried to answer this above. My reason for quoting you here is the question mark on "brain science". Do you have some to support your position?

I said about brain science for this future.

First, I apologize for saying "anthropocentric". The better word would be "anthropomorphic".

Anthropomorphic: ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human.

As I 've noted, I think you're projecting.

I'm trying to make an educated guess based on the evidence. Call that what you wish... I'm bored of arguing about it.

Do you think saying animals feel pain is anthropomorphic for the same reason?

I don't like to needlessly do anything. It bothers me if a beautiful rock formation is destroyed to make room for a human construction. Not because I think the rock was alive, but because I hate to destroy beauty.

I'd hope murder (and generally violating beings) would bother you more, or in a different way, from the destruction of a beautiful rock formation.

I'm torn. I'm not a vegetarian, but I'm not completely sure how justified my hamburger was yesterday. I don't lose much sleep over the issue, but I doubt I could defend my dietary habits very well. I wouldn't be surprised if heaven is vegetarian.

With respect to husbanding animals in order to utilize them for labor (or harvesting things like eggs and milk as food), I have no qualms whatsoever as long as they are treated well.

I'm not as torn as you. I don't think there is anything violated by killing cows and chickens. I'd prefer meat made in a laboratory though, since I'd still prefer to avoid killing, and possible bad conditions.

I tend to think of the soul (my equivalent to your self-consciousness) as a spectrum. I could say bacteria absolutely do not have a soul and we absolutely do. Everything else in between is a matter of degree. But I will note that I also think our soul is the only one sufficiently developed to make us a spiritual animal.

Do you think apes and dolphins are as spiritual as young children? They are pretty similar.

Am I doing better at not giving the appearance of ignoring you?

Yup, apart for the mirror thing.

I am glad you are quoting me more now.

 

[Resha Caner]

The qualia of like and dislike. There is somewhat of a definition.
Qualia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks.

It doesn't matter whether feelings are measurable... feelings are important in morality. If you can't KNOW the feelings of others you have to either make an educated guess, or stop trying to be moral.

I found this comment very interesting. I would have said feelings are irrelevant to morality. Murder is wrong no matter how the victim feels about it.

Being able to react to a threat isn't important though. A robot can be programmed to react to danger, but it doesn't mean it is wrong to 'kill' a robot.

I wonder about the same thing in regard to teaching apes to communicate (Koko or whatever her name was and her ability to sign). Are we just "programming" the responses of these animals?

I don't care how easily testable moral criteria are, I care about whether they are the important moral criteria. Whether they are testable is merely a practical problem, not a problem with the moral theory.

OK, but I see measures as an important step in communicating an idea to another ... especially if you were to expect people to act on the idea.

Sure, but not all animals can communicate like that.

And that means something.

Do you think saying animals feel pain is anthropomorphic for the same reason?

I suppose I am. Though in a more colloquial usage of the term it doesn't matter to me. The animal is reacting to an attempt to injure (or kill) it. That's all I really need to know, and whether I call that pain and how pain is defined is largely moot.

I'd hope murder (and generally violating beings) would bother you more, or in a different way, from the destruction of a beautiful rock formation.

It does. Does the destruction of natural beauty bother you?

I'm not as torn as you.

Maybe so, but I think you're inferring it bothers me more than it really does. Maybe I should say it's something I've thought about rather than that it bothers me.

Do you think apes and dolphins are as spiritual as young children? They are pretty similar.

Apes and dolphins aren't spiritual at all as I would use the term. Children are.

 

[quatona]

I hope you won't take offense that I have cut your post down to just a few items.

No, that´s completely fine with me.

As you said, it appears we have a "fundamental mismatch." I have known for some time that I will only be able to connect with certain types of people. I don't look down on (or at least do my best not to) those people I can't connect with. In some ways, I greatly admire them for having the insights I lack. And, sometimes I reach out to them, trying to grasp their different way of approaching things. It just seemed like you were one of those whom I should have been able to better connect with.

I appreciate that you have tried time and again, despite the many previous disappointments.

As for me, I think I can connect with people (and they can connect with me) fairly easily. In real life, that is. Personally, I need to see people for that. I need to see how they say what they say, I need their facial expressions, their body language and the tone of their voice. For to get a connection the content of their speech is of minor relevance.
All this is not possible here on a message board.

Though it is probably no concern of yours, I do hope you find that person who sparks the right thing that draws you to God.

Well, tbh, I have mixed feelings about this wish of yours. I´m sure you mean well, but I don´t like it when people want a certain direction or a certain result for me. It always gives me the impression they are more interested in the direction/result than in me and my well-being.
I hope for people to find what´s best for them (and I am not assuming that I know what that is).

Of course. Every time we talk it starts off with great promise. I can't recall the specifics of each conversation ... the frustration often seems to remain more than the salient points. In that regard you may find my answer disappointing since I may not recall those instances that you do.

Thank you. No, your response is not disappointing. It was an entirely open question, I didn´t hope for or expect a particular response.

 

[bhsmte]

No, that´s completely fine with me.


I appreciate that you have tried time and again, despite the many previous disappointments.

As for me, I think I can connect with people (and they can connect with me) fairly easily. In real life, that is. Personally, I need to see people for that. I need to see how they say what they say, I need their facial expressions, their body language and the tone of their voice. For to get a connection the content of their speech is of minor relevance.
All this is not possible here on a message board.


Well, tbh, I have mixed feelings about this wish of yours. I´m sure you mean well, but I don´t like it when people want a certain direction or a certain result for me. It always gives me the impression they are more interested in the direction/result than in me and my well-being.
I hope for people to find what´s best for them (and I am not assuming that I know what that is).








Thank you. No, your response is not disappointing. It was an entirely open question, I didn´t hope for or expect a particular response.

Excuse me for butting in on your discussion, but I couldn't help but agree whole heartedly, with your response about Caner's desire for you to find God. To me, that would be the equivalent of a non-believer stating; "I hope you come to the point where you understand a God does not exist". I highly doubt, Caner would appreciate that comment, considering he is entitled to his belief of God, just as non-believers are entitled to non-belief of God.

It always strikes me as odd, when one person feels the need to suggest a certain direction for another's life, based on what the other person chooses to believe.

I can't speak for other non-believers, but I have never suggested that a believer should see the light and not believe, ever and have made it clear; if someone chooses to believe and it makes them a better person and doesn't harm others, than hold onto your belief. I only take issue when someone claims I have "missed the boat", or "haven't chosen to connect with God", I am a lessor person for not believing and or the believer has objective evidence that God exists and I am choosing to ignore the same.

 

[quatona]

Excuse me for butting in on your discussion, but I couldn't help but agree whole heartedly, with your response about Caner's desire for you to find God. To me, that would be the equivalent of a non-believer stating; "I hope you come to the point where you understand a God does not exist". I highly doubt, Caner would appreciate that comment, considering he is entitled to his belief of God, just as non-believers are entitled to non-belief of God.

It always strikes me as odd, when one person feels the need to suggest a certain direction for another's life, based on what the other person chooses to believe.

Well, the way you put it it sounds like the problem is making the comment (but maybe it just sounded that way).
If it´s Resha wish and hope I don´t take issue with him being honest about it and expressing it. It would be much worse if he were trying to secretly manipulate me in that direction.

What makes me uncomfortable and tends to overshadow the conversation is the fact that someone has such wishes and hopes for me, in the first place. In that it makes me suspicious that - no matter what topic the person raises - it´s just another fancy foreplay that will finally turn out to have been invented for the ever same tiresome end. (Sort of like you knew whenever your mother came to you and said "Let´s talk about... [be it ice cream, fashion, the next day, grandma, whatever]" it was actually going to be about you not doing your homework.)

Then again, maybe there´s no need to ascribe more significance to it than I ascribe to my friend´s statement "I so wish you´d love Wagner´s music just like I do - it means so much to me, and it saddens me to see that you can´t have all those great encouters I have when listening to it."

 

[Ana the Ist]

I hope you're not telling me what I meant, but only what you inferred. I was attempting to clarify what I said. Specifically, the phrase, "I'm sure you don't mean they have no value as a person," was meant to indicate my understanding.




I take your reply to mean you haven't any explanations that would be flattering to me, but I don't mind if you share them. I hope to learn from it.

What you put in quotes there I read sarcastically....it's my mistake and as you said, all is clear now.

I've read of a condition where a person doesn't read facial expressions correctly. It seems like a minor thing at first, but if you think about it...you realize how such a failing will cause a rather extreme sense of social awkwardness and difficulty. Such a person quickly becomes an object of aversion as those around them will wonder why they "don't get it.". It's my understanding that this anomaly is biological in nature.

Why couldn't the same be said of someone's ability to interpret verbal, inflected, and maybe even written cues? Take my misreading of your statement as sarcasm for instance. A possibility, no? I don't think this is the case...but you're certainly not thin-skinned and you asked, after all.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well, the way you put it it sounds like the problem is making the comment (but maybe it just sounded that way).
If it´s Resha wish and hope I don´t take issue with him being honest about it and expressing it. It would be much worse if he were trying to secretly manipulate me in that direction.

What makes me uncomfortable and tends to overshadow the conversation is the fact that someone has such wishes and hopes for me, in the first place. In that it makes me suspicious that - no matter what topic the person raises - it´s just another fancy foreplay that will finally turn out to have been invented for the ever same tiresome end. (Sort of like you knew whenever your mother came to you and said "Let´s talk about... [be it ice cream, fashion, the next day, grandma, whatever]" it was actually going to be about you not doing your homework.)

Then again, maybe there´s no need to ascribe more significance to it than I ascribe to my friend´s statement "I so wish you´d love Wagner´s music just like I do - it means so much to me, and it saddens me to see that you can´t have all those great encouters I have when listening to it."

You like Wagner?

 

[bhsmte]

Well, the way you put it it sounds like the problem is making the comment (but maybe it just sounded that way).
If it´s Resha wish and hope I don´t take issue with him being honest about it and expressing it. It would be much worse if he were trying to secretly manipulate me in that direction.

What makes me uncomfortable and tends to overshadow the conversation is the fact that someone has such wishes and hopes for me, in the first place. In that it makes me suspicious that - no matter what topic the person raises - it´s just another fancy foreplay that will finally turn out to have been invented for the ever same tiresome end. (Sort of like you knew whenever your mother came to you and said "Let´s talk about... [be it ice cream, fashion, the next day, grandma, whatever]" it was actually going to be about you not doing your homework.)

Then again, maybe there´s no need to ascribe more significance to it than I ascribe to my friend´s statement "I so wish you´d love Wagner´s music just like I do - it means so much to me, and it saddens me to see that you can´t have all those great encouters I have when listening to it."

I believe it is a significant statement, because choosing to believe or not believe is a very personal decision a person makes, which likely included quite a lot of thought.

As I stated, to me, it is the equivalent of claiming a person who does not believe is missing something in their life, so the believer hopes they find God to fulfill what they are missing. Why would a believer make that statement to a non-believer otherwise?

 

[quatona]

You like Wagner?

Huh? I can´t stand his music.

 

[quatona]

I believe it is a significant statement, because choosing to believe or not believe is a very personal decision a person makes, which likely included quite a lot of thought.

Just to be clear: I can´t make much sense of the idea that beliefs are a matter of choice/decision. (But I guess this isn´t crucial to your point, anyway, so there is no need to have this discussion here.)

As I stated, to me, it is the equivalent of claiming a person who does not believe is missing something in their life, so the believer hopes they find God to fulfill what they are missing. Why would a believer make that statement to a non-believer otherwise?

Well, I didn´t mean to question the validity of this conclusion when I said "It may not be that significant". (Probably the word "significant" was misleading?)
Also, we seem to agree totally in that whats good for one person needn´t be good for another (to the point that what is life-saving for one person can be fatal for another).

What I meant to contemplate on was: Is it really that big a deal so that it must make me as uncomfortable as it does?
People are implicitly making the assumption that what is good for them must be good for another all the time, in complete innocence. It starts with "Hey, you should try this. It tastes really great." and ends with saving a person who is about to commit suicide.
I tend to think that it is, to a degree, how empathy works.

IOW: It seems to me that when I focus on the empathic aspect of telling me what´s good for me I can handle it better. No matter the way it is presented, it´s still an offer.

 

[Paradoxum]

I found this comment very interesting. I would have said feelings are irrelevant to morality. Murder is wrong no matter how the victim feels about it.

I'd say your morality isn't about concern for people then. Maybe you'd agree, but in that case I don't see why I would care about some abstract thing not connected to the people violated.

There's nothing wrong with killing someone if they truly want to die (and informed and rational choice to). Why would there be? It's their life and they who are potentially harmed, so it's up to them.

It's the same with sex. Unjust sex (rape) is only rape if the person doesn't want it. In the same way, unjust killing (murder) is only murder is the person doesn't want it done to them. I could go on with examples of how we accept that the choice of the person involved decides whether an action is right or wrong to be done to them.

I wonder about the same thing in regard to teaching apes to communicate (Koko or whatever her name was and her ability to sign). Are we just "programming" the responses of these animals?

I don't know how much apes understand sign language, but I doubt it is much different from children. Of course we could ask if children are merely programmed.

OK, but I see measures as an important step in communicating an idea to another ... especially if you were to expect people to act on the idea.

How perfectly we can measure something doesn't doesn't tell us whether a an idea is right. It may be that the thing is hard to measure, or perhaps impossible. If you don't accept that then your just closing your mind to such potential truths because you don't like uncertainty. Maybe we just have to decide our actions on imperfect information.

And that means something.

Animals don't have human vocal cords? Maybe other animals can't use language.

I suppose I am. Though in a more colloquial usage of the term it doesn't matter to me. The animal is reacting to an attempt to injure (or kill) it. That's all I really need to know, and whether I call that pain and how pain is defined is largely moot.

I care, because I think hurting others should be avoided.

It does. Does the destruction of natural beauty bother you?

Sure.

Maybe so, but I think you're inferring it bothers me more than it really does. Maybe I should say it's something I've thought about rather than that it bothers me.

I'd be the same then I suppose.

Apes and dolphins aren't spiritual at all as I would use the term. Children are.

How do you know children are and apes or dolphins aren't? I suppose it depends on the age of the child too. If you don't want me asking you questions that's fine... I don't mind.

 

[Resha Caner]

I've read of a condition where a person doesn't read facial expressions correctly. It seems like a minor thing at first, but if you think about it...you realize how such a failing will cause a rather extreme sense of social awkwardness and difficulty. Such a person quickly becomes an object of aversion as those around them will wonder why they "don't get it.". It's my understanding that this anomaly is biological in nature.

Why couldn't the same be said of someone's ability to interpret verbal, inflected, and maybe even written cues? Take my misreading of your statement as sarcasm for instance. A possibility, no? I don't think this is the case...but you're certainly not thin-skinned and you asked, after all.

It's a possibility. I am a very visual person, and I'm quite sure the lack of body language impacts conversations on the Internet - quatona said something similar.