Today's discussion of morality...molecules, quantum mechanics and human life :) (1 Viewer)

[Cookie182]

Today I had an interesting ethical discussion with a friend over lunch.

She had just finished an introductory book on quantum mechanics and in combination with her tertiary knowledge of biochemistry posited quite an important question.

If we are simply the breathing result of atomic particles at a foundational level, as is the environment surrounding us (which, along with us appears to show no obvious "purpose" or design), why is it anymore "wrong" to destroy a human being then it is to destroy any other set of atoms i.e. those composing a rock, a piece of coral, a building?

If you study the cosmos and it's compartments (including us) we are one of the same: subatomic particles; foundationally. The variation in life and structures that we observe, from humans to fish to planets and machinery is simply due to what appears to be arbitary but unique arrangements of these particles and inlcusion/exclusions of subatomic elements (which leads to variations in protons etc causing chemical variations for eg). All of what we observe today is simply in occurence due to seemingly random nuclear reactions (supernovas) which produced higher elements. However, if you break it all down to the nuts and bolts, we're simply part of this big mix.

What makes our physical arrangement of particles so important it is worthy of this invention call "ethics"?

 

[Riet]

because of societal constructs, are you really that fucking stupid?

 

[BlackDragon]

In the examination of the ontological difference between particles that are the same it is often important to point out the concept of holistic properties. A chair is just an arrangement of particles and, in this way, one might think that the concept of a chair is ontologically unnecesary and that we can just refer to the arrangement of particles. The thing that requires the concept of a chair, in one sense, is that it is more than the sum of their parts if one can posit holisitic function. In the same way, perhaps the holistic function of particles arranged human-wise is conciousness. The arrangement of particles that together allow one to feel pain and emotion, and to think. This then relates to question of materialism and the relationship between mind and brain. But nonetheless, this is perhaps one of the reasons why it is treated differently.

 

[badquinton304]

I think because ethics were created by us in order to work in our favor and to give peace of mind in that we will survive and advance. People in general are percieved to be of benefit to society through contribution, so we naturally give a value to people because they are seen to be a benefit to the society that we are
somewhat dependant on. Objectively we are not very important but we see our selves worthy of ethics because it works in our favor.

 

[Cookie182]

In the examination of the ontological difference between particles that are the same it is often important to point out the concept of holistic properties. A chair is just an arrangement of particles and, in this way, one might think that the concept of a chair is ontologically unnecesary and that we can just refer to the arrangement of particles. The thing that requires the concept of a chair, in one sense, is that it is more than the sum of their parts if one can posit holisitic function. In the same way, perhaps the holistic function of particles arranged human-wise is conciousness. The arrangement of particles that together allow one to feel pain and emotion, and to think. This then relates to question of materialism and the relationship between mind and brain. But nonetheless, this is perhaps one of the reasons why it is treated differently.

I think this is a well-reasoned response and a good starting point. I raised something similar in the discussion, though perhaps not as elegantly. I definitely think that there is more to humans than materialistic reductionsim brings; yet we do often take this "special status" as a constant given and never question it.

The argument seems to indicate that viewing a "system" or set of arranged particles as a whole indicates a higher level of complexity or importance, but what does it actually mean to look at something at this level? Can we not do that for other non-human systems? What if we view the total cosmos as a holisitic system, surely it is greater then this projected 'consciousness' of one human? Why then should damage to certain parts of the cosmos be less important?

Just thoughts on a difficult question...

 

[0bs3n3]

k so you can't feel emotion it's all just subatomic particles.

 

[Name_Taken]

Sigh, not one of these discussions again, haha.

To OP because humans have a soul, and rocks and chairs do not, put simply without bringing religion into this debate.

 

[Cookie182]

k so you can't feel emotion it's all just subatomic particles.

This is quite a contentious area for science; hopefully research in the nuero/psychological realms will uncover further facts in the future.

Philosophers have debated about this rigorously as it is a subset of the question of consciousness. Dennet's Consciousness Explained though controversial (and necessarily so) is a good read...

Though note, on many interpretations, yes, emotion is simply elicitated through neurological responses produced in our brain which at its core like the rest of the known universe is made up of subatomic particles.

the harder question is not explaining how emotion occurs, but why a certain feeling is the way it is when elicited through specific stimuli. For eg, why do we feel terror when watching a horror film not happiness?

 

[Cookie182]

Sigh, not one of these discussions again, haha.

To OP because humans have a soul, and rocks and chairs do not, put simply without bringing religion into this debate.

Then don't bring religion into the debate.

You know that logic doesn't allow for the addition of that element when there is no supporting evidence at all.

Sticking to skepticism, the soul unless proven needs to be disregarded.

 

[Name_Taken]

Then don't bring religion into the debate.

You know that logic doesn't allow for the addition of that element when there is no supporting evidence at all.

Sticking to skepticism, the soul unless proven needs to be disregarded.

I'm not going to bring religion into the debate becuase then it will simply spiral into the "Does God exist?" thread or the "Homosexuality in Australia" thread.

I don't think it will be possible for you to explain the questions posed in your opening post however without the acceptance of a divine power, but as I said I'm not going to go there.

 

[staticsiscool]

cos these atoms and shit have formed a conscious being that is aware of itself and rocks havent

 

[BlackDragon]

the harder question is not explaining how emotion occurs, but why a certain feeling is the way it is when elicited through specific stimuli. For eg, why do we feel terror when watching a horror film not happiness?

Yes. It is also important to question whether materialism can explain everything in the world. A key tale to the illustrate the meaning of this is the following: A scientist who has never seen the colour red has studied it completely and throughly understands everything that it is in terms of science. He knows everything about red and what it is physically. If, however, he sees a red flower, does this add to his understanding of the colour red? Does he learn anything new?

In a similar way, if everything that we feel could be explained by physical processes does this mean we understand who we are? Is the conciousness something more than the brain? If so what actually is it? How does it interact with the physical body if it is something different than physical?

I'll reply properly later cookie.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Sigh, not one of these discussions again, haha.

To OP because humans have a soul, and rocks and chairs do not, put simply without bringing religion into this debate.

i don't believe in the soul

 

[TrueHappiness]

Then don't bring religion into the debate.

You know that logic doesn't allow for the addition of that element when there is no supporting evidence at all.

Sticking to skepticism, the soul unless proven needs to be disregarded.

But then reality unless proven needs to be disregarded too. But how can one prove reality?

Mabey huamnity does have a purpose or design as you so put it. I mean this basic system of ethics is testimony to God.

The system of morality is present in most humans, i.e. murder is outlawed by almost all societies, from the prehistorics to contemporary society. The most plausible theory is a conscious, intelligent, Good, creator whose laws we follow.

 

[Slidey]

Sigh, not one of these discussions again, haha.

To OP because humans have a soul, and rocks and chairs do not, put simply without bringing religion into this debate.

Souls don't exist. Next.

 

[philphie]

i'm bored slidey? please troll me

 

[spartan31234]

Do you know why we don't kill our kink and why we generally find it wrong to do so?

Because... we have been programmed to do so! Duh
I don't think natural selection will create a species which see's nothing wrong with killings it own.

 

[BlackDragon]

I didn't regurgitate anything. With all the philosophy i've done i've never actually studied philosophy of the mind specifically, though I will soon.

 

[ad infinitum]

Evolution.

@Blackdragon, please young sir, refrain from claping your Hmong Sticks together as it makes an awful white noise.

 

[SylviaB]

Do you know why we don't kill our kink and why we generally find it wrong to do so?

Because... we have been programmed to do so! Duh
I don't think natural selection will create a species which see's nothing wrong with
killings it own.

shit troll is shit