Patricia Smith Churchland - The Great Debate: Can Science Tell us Right From Wrong? (4)

[shoppittsburghnow]

very interesting thanks

[osclarkos]

some sweet info here

[clairebehun]

some great inforamtion here thanks

[vashcerom]

I was duped by this ignoramus. She started by making sense and, i notice how she became increasingly agitated as she veered off science into her religious ferver. She needed to provide evidence (actual examples) for her assertions otherwise they are just so much hot air polluting an otherwise intelligent discussion. Second point: JUST BECAUSE WE DO NOT AS YET KNOW SOMETHING IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT CANNOT BE KNOWN THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

[Psity]

"Neuroscience has not shown that no one ought to be responsible for what they do".

Yet, Neuroscience has is not ALL science. research the Milgram experiment from psychology.

[BER2ERKER]

@Ician100 that's not at all what he is saying or even at all relevant to what he is saying. Sam Harris is trying to figure out a solution, plain and simple, to the question of where morality originates. He isn't proofing any type of new world or anything bizarre such as that. That's not the point, at all.

[BER2ERKER]

I liked the first half a lot, but I got lost a bit towards the last half, or quarter, or so.

[Clifton100]

why the fuck ain't this bitch in the kitchen and mopping the floors?

[PinUpPrecious]

@Clifton100 Why aren't you repairing my sink or mowing my lawn? Shouldn't you be at work to make money for me to spend? Some man you are.

[DementedScrew]

Fuck I hate it how she Rolls her R's.

[OnSugarHill]

I think its funny how she is worried about academics creating a certain arrogance and condesendscion saying "No, I know whats best for you". Isn't that the same arrogance that religion has, saying "I know what's right to do because scripture told me, or God told me". I would trust science to claim they know whats right for me by creating a theory through facts of whats best rather than a religion claiming to know whats best for me based on faith, and not facts.

[Duplex0r]

@Ician100 "big Brother" is something psychology, sociaology and probably also neurology already found to be very detrimental to physical health, joy, flourishing of ones personality and so on. So by Harris' Argument, Big Brother is not a very effective way of promoting human well-being.

Asking without any implications: have you read his book? It should free you of this wrong impression you have.

[scientrophic]

@Ician100 At least Sam is proposing an intelligent and systematic way of finding out what really is important to human well-being. Science reveals reality, which is always there, the question is whether we know it. If it turns out that x, y, and z are necessary to equitable human flourishing, but we're only used to doing x, and y, we may moan about z, but that doesn't change the reality. It was there all along, like planetary orbits. If we know morality, we are immoral for not complying with it.

[scientrophic]

@Ician100 I wouldn't take his tone the wrong way, and he probably doesn't want Big Brother any more than you. However, morals have never been something that come naturally to us. We evolved in brutal times, and evolved behaviors and mental states that helped us survive in those times. Now things are different, we have societies that require cooperation on a scale to which we are not amenable "out of the box." The truly "good" thing may not be something you want to do, or will do, so what to do?

[qpwillie]

@Ician100

Well, I don't know. People like you seem to get pretty miserable when somebody mentions this intelligent first cause that you don't think exists. I don't believe in the easter bunny but my head doesn't explode when someone mentions him. In fact, it doesn't upset me at all. I don't even hate the people who talk about him.

[qpwillie]

A mindless universe does not and can not care whether a species survives or not or even whether it suffers or not. Therefore there couldn't be any innate right or wrong in any real sense. There also couldn't be any good or bad - just is or is not.

What a dark, empty world it must be for people who believe there is no caring, intelligent first cause!!

[MovieClipUploads]

@qpwillie The universe is mindless but we are not.

[qpwillie]

@MovieClipUploads

I don't think you're up to this discussion. Your statement has no depth.

In an existence with no ultimate intelligent authority, somebody could think it was OK to commit mass murder and that person wouldn't be any more right or wrong than people who didn't think it was OK. It would be nothing more than how that person felt.

[FIGHTFANNERD3]

@qpwillie sadly your right 

[twooffour]

@Omnicron777

Not following "knowledge" about external facts in any simple, predictable way such as an object attracted by gravity to another object.

The "knowledge" and "value" departments of our minds can stand in about any relationship conceivable, so that's the root of this "problem", I think.

[twooffour]

@Omnicron777

But anything that "ought" to be, is only because our brain says so.

A value is an actual mental state, the fact that an individual thinks "this is my value, this is what ought to be", hence still an "is".

So the relationship between "ought" and "is", is really just the relationship between our brain state, and external facts.

As we know our nature, our brain can react with any "value" to any external fact - denial, agreement, etc., as it's an autonomous mechanism.

[twooffour]

@Omnicron777

Well, in a way, ought IS an is. It's our wish, and decision, to do something, which IS in the brain ;)

[lyntonio]

additional facts to bare to solve the Palestinian situation maybe the dishonesty of the Islamic doctrine Palestinians are indoctrinated with, and where it would take anybody.

[ArcadianGenesis]

Moral truth is not predicated on our knowing it. -Sam Harris

[enalonzo]

geez she breathes and swallows her spit mad loud over the mic, its so annoying i had to just skip her presentation

[paulk314]

Believing that one knows moral truths can lead to "Intervening in the lives of others when you really should not". That is a moral judgment. She's contradicting herself.

[zeroblue123]

@paulk314 It's a claim about the consequences of believing that one knows moral truths, how does that make it a moral judgment, and how would making a moral judgment be contradicting the original claim?

[paulk314]

@zeroblue123 She's making a normative claim: she's saying there are times when you *should not* intervene in the lives of others. That's what makes it a moral judgment.

It's a contradiction because she's claiming to know a moral truth while at the same saying that it is bad to know moral truths.

[Demondaze84]

@paulk314 Well she's certainly implying that there are moral truths by suggesting there are times when one ought not intervene (seems more like a judgment about morals than a moral judgment), but it doesn't necessarily follow from the claim that believing one knows moral truths can sometimes lead one to bad actions that it is bad to know moral truths in general. I take her point to be that we ought to be very careful about making moral judgments, not that we shouldn't make them at all.

[paulk314]

@Demondaze84 If her point is that we ought to be very careful about making moral judgments, then I agree. I made the point I did because often times people will charge into moral relativism based the idea that having moral certainty leads to disastrous results (e.g., trying to push our moral views on others) and therefore moral certainty is bad.

[MrDarkbloom]

Miss Churchland... (The King) Sam Harris has just invited you to sit at the world's greatest reason table! :)))))))))))

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@MrDarkbloom I think she's earned the title "Dr. Churchland."