Natural Order and Science

[I_am_not_mafia]

It is not a matter of belief; it is a matter of fact. Conscience is a common and original inner voice that is free from any contamination of human desires.

Explain how this works then.

Is a conscience not a part of the brain? Does it float freely nearby? If so then how does it interact with the brain? How does information from the conscience get transmitted to the brain and what's stopping it from being overridden? What physical mechanisms are involved? How can a conscience exist without matter? Where does it get its energy from?

Please present the evidence for an inner voice that you call a conscience interacting with the brain that is free from human desires.

If the conscience is part of the brain then it is part of what makes human desire. Please point to exactly what part of the brain it is a part of and provide evidence.

As the saying goes, put up or shut up.

[Harris]

No, that is the historical reality. There were two periods when the scientific method was discovered - first, the ancient Greeks (circa 300 BCE), and then the Muslims during the Golden Age of Islam (circa 900 CE). But in both cases, there was no continuity, no next generation to carry on that idea due to political turmoil, and so it died out. It was revived during the Renaissance that took place in Italy in the 16th century, and then spread out throughout Europe, then finally to the world.

Archaeological evidences show that civil structures of almost all ancient civilizations were based on some moral traditions. In my previous responses I have argued that morals are not a matter of reason or a matter of sentiment, it is conscience that makes man a moral agent whereas conscience is the natural “inbuilt mechanism of self-correction.” I have also repeated many times that science is incapable of dealing with subjective experiences therefore, the attempt to prove or disprove this innate mechanism by applying mechanical means of science is simply incorrect.

Empirical method was clearly outlined in a previous post. It is a method to investigate evidence that is objective, observable and can be repeated by any other individual or team of people such as lab experiments.

You have tried to explain “HOW” by totally omitting “WHY.” That is all what you have done so far.

The terrorist who've just attacked in Brussels were also acting on their conscience. I think you are very unwise to think that conscience is the measure of all things, when it is the least that anyone should trust. You should heed the words of the great physicist Feynman: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."

Feynman is a smart gentleman. If he has said "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool," then he has said it correct.

Throughout my responses that is exactly what I am also saying. Conscience can be supressed and corrupted easily. However, that absolutely does not mean that conscience by nature is contaminated by human desires. Conscience is pure inner voice that critically give analysis to our own deeds without, or against, our will or deliberate intention.

I have also contended the idea of crime by saying that crime is the outcome of corrupted conscience. A person intentionally corrupts his conscience for the sake of seeking more pleasure.

People who have dead conscience are same everywhere. People who are killing innocent people in Europe are the same people who are killing innocent people in Afghanistan. Only a zombie (here I mean a person whose conscience is dead) is capable of killing innocent women and children for the sake of his career or pleasure. Such a person can be anyone atheist or theist. The belief label in this case serves only the purpose of identity and nothing more.

Again, subjective experiences are the least thing you should trust. It leads to wars, rapes, massacres, atrocities -- the worst that we see in humanity.

Tell me, if someone slaps hard on your face just to have some fun, would you take your feelings of humiliation as “the least thing you should trust?” I think you are now confused.

Total nonsense. Conscience is what you acquired from your parents, teachers, culture, etc. It is heavily influenced by the environment in which you grew up. And so your conscience is a reflection of what you have learned, what you have been exposed. And in some cases, your conscience can be a very dangerous thing. Ask the terrorists from ISIS what their conscience are telling them.

This response is an evidence that you have not understood the concept of conscience. Here I give you few quotes that I picked randomly from the internet. These quotes will give you a better picture of conscience.


“Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity. Those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize also the voice of justice.”
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn


“Through pride we are ever deceiving ourselves. But deep down below the surface of the average conscience a still, small voice says to us, 'Something is out of tune.'”
Carl Jung


“THE ROOTS OF VIOLENCE:
Wealth without work,
Pleasure without conscience,
Knowledge without character,
Commerce without morality,
Science without humanity,
Worship without sacrifice,
Politics without principles.”  
Mohandas K. Gandhi


“War is so unjust and ugly that all who wage it must try to stifle the voice of conscience within themselves.”
Leo Tolstoy


“Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing wonder and awe -- the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.”  
Immanuel Kant

[Harris]

It is not a matter of belief; it is a matter of fact. Conscience is a common and original inner voice that is free from any contamination of human desires.

Explain how this works then.

Is a conscience not a part of the brain? Does it float freely nearby? If so then how does it interact with the brain? How does information from the conscience get transmitted to the brain and what's stopping it from being overridden? What physical mechanisms are involved? How can a conscience exist without matter? Where does it get its energy from?

Please present the evidence for an inner voice that you call a conscience interacting with the brain that is free from human desires.

If the conscience is part of the brain then it is part of what makes human desire. Please point to exactly what part of the brain it is a part of and provide evidence.

As the saying goes, put up or shut up.

You are raising a mind-body problem which is a mystery of all times. Many philosophers, psychologists, neuro-scientists and even physicists had tried to resolve this problem through different mechanical means even by means of quantum realm but no one was ever able to describe subjective experiences and how mind and body correlate.

Although a huge literature is available on consciousness proposing several different theories but I am more inclined towards the radical approach that David Chalmers has taken on to investigate consciousness. Even if his radical theories are not giving anything promising but to me it seems they contain some element of reality. I am offering you his short enlightening lecture at TED in which he has summarized all his research and gave two radical ideas about consciousness. This lecture would give you some idea about consciousness and by watching it you perhaps gain a better understand not only on consciousness but also on conscience.

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_chalmers...anguage=en

[I_am_not_mafia]

Explain how this works then.

Is a conscience not a part of the brain? Does it float freely nearby? If so then how does it interact with the brain? How does information from the conscience get transmitted to the brain and what's stopping it from being overridden? What physical mechanisms are involved? How can a conscience exist without matter? Where does it get its energy from?

Please present the evidence for an inner voice that you call a conscience interacting with the brain that is free from human desires.

If the conscience is part of the brain then it is part of what makes human desire. Please point to exactly what part of the brain it is a part of and provide evidence.

As the saying goes, put up or shut up.

You are raising a mind-body problem which is a mystery of all times. Many philosophers, psychologists, neuro-scientists and even physicists had tried to resolve this problem through different mechanical means even by means of quantum realm but no one was ever able to describe subjective experiences and how mind and body correlate.

So basically you believe in something that you have no evidence for and no idea how it could exist in practice. You cannot even begin to explain these questions yet you continue to believe what you do regardless and instead hand-wave the questions away by saying that it is unknowable.

There is no mind-body problem. The mind is an emergent property of a collection of neurons. Destroy the neurons and the mind is also destroyed. We know this by observing people under anesthetic, or who suffer from neurodegenerative diseases or brain lesions. If we destroyed your brain, your consciousness, identity, memories and conscience would all cease to exist.

What people call a conscience is also an emergent property of the brain. Every brain is wired differently due to nature and nurture therefore everyone's conscience, if they have one, is specific to themselves.

[little_monkey]

No, that is the historical reality. There were two periods when the scientific method was discovered - first, the ancient Greeks (circa 300 BCE), and then the Muslims during the Golden Age of Islam (circa 900 CE). But in both cases, there was no continuity, no next generation to carry on that idea due to political turmoil, and so it died out. It was revived during the Renaissance that took place in Italy in the 16th century, and then spread out throughout Europe, then finally to the world.

Archaeological evidences show that civil structures of almost all ancient civilizations were based on some moral traditions. In my previous responses I have argued that morals are not a matter of reason or a matter of sentiment, it is conscience that makes man a moral agent whereas conscience is the natural “inbuilt mechanism of self-correction.” I have also repeated many times that science is incapable of dealing with subjective experiences therefore, the attempt to prove or disprove this innate mechanism by applying mechanical means of science is simply incorrect.

Empirical method was clearly outlined in a previous post. It is a method to investigate evidence that is objective, observable and can be repeated by any other individual or team of people such as lab experiments.

You have tried to explain “HOW” by totally omitting “WHY.” That is all what you have done so far.

The terrorist who've just attacked in Brussels were also acting on their conscience. I think you are very unwise to think that conscience is the measure of all things, when it is the least that anyone should trust. You should heed the words of the great physicist Feynman: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."

Feynman is a smart gentleman. If he has said "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool," then he has said it correct.

Throughout my responses that is exactly what I am also saying.

The problem is you think everyone who disagree with you is a fool, while Feynman's quote applies to you. But you are too blind to see that it applies to you. You are the fool, and you are the one who have been easily fooled.

Conscience can be supressed and corrupted easily. However, that absolutely does not mean that conscience by nature is contaminated by human desires. Conscience is pure inner voice that critically give analysis to our own deeds without, or against, our will or deliberate intention.

I have also contended the idea of crime by saying that crime is the outcome of corrupted conscience. A person intentionally corrupts his conscience for the sake of seeking more pleasure.

People who have dead conscience are same everywhere. People who are killing innocent people in Europe are the same people who are killing innocent people in Afghanistan. Only a zombie (here I mean a person whose conscience is dead) is capable of killing innocent women and children for the sake of his career or pleasure. Such a person can be anyone atheist or theist. The belief label in this case serves only the purpose of identity and nothing more.

Again, subjective experiences are the least thing you should trust. It leads to wars, rapes, massacres, atrocities -- the worst that we see in humanity.

Tell me, if someone slaps hard on your face just to have some fun, would you take your feelings of humiliation as “the least thing you should trust?” I think you are now confused.

Total nonsense. Conscience is what you acquired from your parents, teachers, culture, etc. It is heavily influenced by the environment in which you grew up. And so your conscience is a reflection of what you have learned, what you have been exposed. And in some cases, your conscience can be a very dangerous thing. Ask the terrorists from ISIS what their conscience are telling them.

This response is an evidence that you have not understood the concept of conscience. Here I give you few quotes that I picked randomly from the internet. These quotes will give you a better picture of conscience.


“Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity. Those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize also the voice of justice.”
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn


“Through pride we are ever deceiving ourselves. But deep down below the surface of the average conscience a still, small voice says to us, 'Something is out of tune.'”
Carl Jung


“THE ROOTS OF VIOLENCE:
Wealth without work,
Pleasure without conscience,
Knowledge without character,
Commerce without morality,
Science without humanity,
Worship without sacrifice,
Politics without principles.”  
Mohandas K. Gandhi


“War is so unjust and ugly that all who wage it must try to stifle the voice of conscience within themselves.”
Leo Tolstoy


“Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing wonder and awe -- the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.”  
Immanuel Kant

More of your crackpot theory. Carry on.

[Harris]

You are raising a mind-body problem which is a mystery of all times. Many philosophers, psychologists, neuro-scientists and even physicists had tried to resolve this problem through different mechanical means even by means of quantum realm but no one was ever able to describe subjective experiences and how mind and body correlate.

So basically you believe in something that you have no evidence for and no idea how it could exist in practice. You cannot even begin to explain these questions yet you continue to believe what you do regardless and instead hand-wave the questions away by saying that it is unknowable.

There is no mind-body problem. The mind is an emergent property of a collection of neurons. Destroy the neurons and the mind is also destroyed. We know this by observing people under anesthetic, or who suffer from neurodegenerative diseases or brain lesions. If we destroyed your brain, your consciousness, identity, memories and conscience would all cease to exist.

What people call a conscience is also an emergent property of the brain. Every brain is wired differently due to nature and nurture therefore everyone's conscience, if they have one, is specific to themselves.

First learn what is an Easy Problem and what is a Hard Problem and then try to furnish your argument. You are writing without having any idea of what you are writing.

[Harris]

Archaeological evidences show that civil structures of almost all ancient civilizations were based on some moral traditions. In my previous responses I have argued that morals are not a matter of reason or a matter of sentiment, it is conscience that makes man a moral agent whereas conscience is the natural “inbuilt mechanism of self-correction.” I have also repeated many times that science is incapable of dealing with subjective experiences therefore, the attempt to prove or disprove this innate mechanism by applying mechanical means of science is simply incorrect.


You have tried to explain “HOW” by totally omitting “WHY.” That is all what you have done so far.


Feynman is a smart gentleman. If he has said "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool," then he has said it correct.

Throughout my responses that is exactly what I am also saying.

The problem is you think everyone who disagree with you is a fool, while Feynman's quote applies to you. But you are too blind to see that it applies to you. You are the fool, and you are the one who have been easily fooled.

Conscience can be supressed and corrupted easily. However, that absolutely does not mean that conscience by nature is contaminated by human desires. Conscience is pure inner voice that critically give analysis to our own deeds without, or against, our will or deliberate intention.

I have also contended the idea of crime by saying that crime is the outcome of corrupted conscience. A person intentionally corrupts his conscience for the sake of seeking more pleasure.

People who have dead conscience are same everywhere. People who are killing innocent people in Europe are the same people who are killing innocent people in Afghanistan. Only a zombie (here I mean a person whose conscience is dead) is capable of killing innocent women and children for the sake of his career or pleasure. Such a person can be anyone atheist or theist. The belief label in this case serves only the purpose of identity and nothing more.


Tell me, if someone slaps hard on your face just to have some fun, would you take your feelings of humiliation as “the least thing you should trust?” I think you are now confused.


This response is an evidence that you have not understood the concept of conscience. Here I give you few quotes that I picked randomly from the internet. These quotes will give you a better picture of conscience.


“Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity. Those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize also the voice of justice.”
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn


“Through pride we are ever deceiving ourselves. But deep down below the surface of the average conscience a still, small voice says to us, 'Something is out of tune.'”
Carl Jung


“THE ROOTS OF VIOLENCE:
Wealth without work,
Pleasure without conscience,
Knowledge without character,
Commerce without morality,
Science without humanity,
Worship without sacrifice,
Politics without principles.”  
Mohandas K. Gandhi


“War is so unjust and ugly that all who wage it must try to stifle the voice of conscience within themselves.”
Leo Tolstoy


“Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing wonder and awe -- the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.”  
Immanuel Kant

More of your crackpot theory. Carry on.

Thank you for the compliments. The things which are true you cannot twist them nor distort according to your likeness. If someone do not like to hear the truth then he can escape from that truth only by deceiving himself.

[I_am_not_mafia]

So basically you believe in something that you have no evidence for and no idea how it could exist in practice. You cannot even begin to explain these questions yet you continue to believe what you do regardless and instead hand-wave the questions away by saying that it is unknowable.

There is no mind-body problem. The mind is an emergent property of a collection of neurons. Destroy the neurons and the mind is also destroyed. We know this by observing people under anesthetic, or who suffer from neurodegenerative diseases or brain lesions. If we destroyed your brain, your consciousness, identity, memories and conscience would all cease to exist.

What people call a conscience is also an emergent property of the brain. Every brain is wired differently due to nature and nurture therefore everyone's conscience, if they have one, is specific to themselves.

First learn what is an Easy Problem and what is a Hard Problem and then try to furnish your argument. You are writing without having any idea of what you are writing.

You're just dismissing what I am saying because you can't counter it.

[I_am_not_mafia]

And by the way Harris, just parroting a single philosopher's controversial idea (in this case hard and easy problems of consciousness) doesn't mean that you actually know anything about what you're referring to. David Chalmer is talking shite. But not as much shite as you are.

[The Grand Nudger]

The claim that our individual conscience is somehow free of our humanity is absurd.  Suppose it were true, though.  Why do we need god, again, if we have one of those? Why spend any time wondering what a god wants, or pouring over whatever book it is that accurately represents those wants, once you figure out which one it is...when we can just refer to our own conscience? Does god even matter, if your claim is true Harris? It's difficult to see how.