mbohu

Sorry, if I'm repeating something that already has been said here. Haven't had the time to do more than skip through some posts in this thread, but: It looks like it's happened: The argument switched from "He didn't do it, it was perfect" to: "He did it, but it wasn't a crime." @billvon, you must be so proud of your psychic abilities! NPR came on when I switched my car on this morning, and I heard some guy (clearly from the republican defense team--or a republican senator?) who at first blush, I thought, actually sounded quite intelligent and less bloviating than what I usually hear...so I kept the radio on for a few minutes, rather than immediately switching to my Chillout/Techno playlist. Here is how his argument went: "Clearly, a president always thinks that his own election is in the public interest. Otherwise he wouldn't run. THEREFORE: When he pressures a foreign government to dig up dirt on his own opponent, so he has a better chance of winning the next election, this cannot be seen as a 'quid pro quo' in the sense that would be illegal or questionable, because he is clearly doing it in the public interest. Pressuring Ukraine to help his own re-election is not only perfectly legal, but (at least in the president's mind) in the public interest." What a genius argument! I had to stop my car to applaud! I am now planning a bank robbery. Since I clearly believe that I am a great guy and contribute much to this world, and could contribute so much more if I had more money (think of all the additional people who will get to jump out of airplanes with me, and have their lives enriched), it is quite clearly in the public interest that I should have more money--therefore it won't be a crime at all! It will be a public sservice! Probably should get paid for it! Man, this is great! I wonder if they were rolling on the floor laughing, when they came up with this argument in their preparation for the trial.

Well, in the end, yes: That's what matters in the implementation phase. But you have to start with the design phase first, even in your own thinking. Otherwise we are just reacting to suggestions from politicians, primarily based on how much we like them or how much we believe we may identify with their general world views (which often are pretend world views anyway--based on what THEY think we like to hear) and we get messes like the ACA, which was initially suggested by Democrats because it used to be a Republican plan, that Democrats thought they may get through with some Republican support, and then was gutted of anything really useful (public option, price controls) by industry and politicians that did not want it to succeed (because now it had a Democrat's name attached to it) and so on. (not that I don't think it has SOME good things for SOME people) That's completely putting the buggy in front of the horse. Design phase first: What do we actually want? Then: See how much of that we can convince those money and power grabbing selfish bastards (uh, I mean: devoted public servants) to pass. "plan the jump. jump the...well something that looks at least slightly similar to the plan"

Maybe for politicians, but shouldn't be hard at all for us: What would you want from healthcare for all? What do you think we can afford as a nation? How do you want it managed? Given that you're probably not an expert on these matters (neither am I nor most of us here), what are you willing to try, even if it doesn't completely align with what you think is best? If you know any models in other countries, which ones do you like? Why? Which ones don't you like? Why not? (Can we look at that simply based on the actual healthcare system and not based on what we think this country may stand for politically, as in "Well they're northern European, so they must be libtard socialists"...which of course isn't true anyway--plenty of hardcore conservative Norwegians, Swedes and Icelanders!) It's not too hard to answer these questions without getting caught up in which politician or party may have suggested something like that previously, and how much I happen to like or dislike their followers.

maybe non-partisan?

Well, no. I have experienced it in practice and loved it. (Well, I never thought twice about it--only now in comparison to the US system, do I notice how good it was.) BUT: Of course it doesn't solve every problem (especially not problems of immigration and other intractable issues). Of course, any implementation of it also has its issues; some implementations are better, some are worse. But this particular problem would exist in the US as well, without UHC. The undocumented immigrant wouldn't get any health services here either, would she? In fact, knowing your political leanings, I am assuming you do not WANT her to get any health services here, or do you? So I am not sure what you think the problem is. Or are you saying that the US should give high quality, free health services to undocumented immigrants who are held in camps? (You'd be my hero, if you did!!!!)

Jerry, I was talking about countries that have universal healthcare. I'm not too familiar with the VA system in the US. Do you think that the proponents of universal healthcare in the US want the actual hospitals to be government run? I don't get that impression. Again, I'm saying that in the European countries that I'm familiar with, and which have universal healthcare, the actual health services are not government-run, and in some countries even the insurance providers are private or partially private--and in no case I am aware of, is the government making any treatment or health decisions. Again, the VA may be different. I am completely ignorant about it. My uneducated guess would be that medical services for active duty members may be very excellent, and for veterans not so much...but that is just based on rumors and my impression of the US military being one of the most excellent organizations in the world...but the US unfortunately lacking in concern for their vets once they left active service (just finished an episode of NCIS that indicated as much...so you can see how much my opinions are coming from TV and second hand knowledge! ) And yes: Even in Europe, military facilities may be government run--not sure about that.

But again, in this particular instance, universal healthcare is not the problem. What they--and therefore you, since you posted it--are complaining about, is that (non-naturalized) immigrants are NOT part of that system.--so they actually WANT universal healthcare. The problem is they are NOT getting it. So it presents an argument FOR universal healthcare. That seems like a generalization, and simply isn't true. Even if it was true in healthcare, it isn't true in many other places: One currency for all citizens, one electrical grid, one water delivery system, one internet, one police force, one set of laws that applies to everyone, one road system, one shared airspace, and so on. (and again, I think most people in the US really misunderstand this, and it makes them afraid: NONE of the hospitals or doctors or anything else about the actual health services are run in any way by the government. The government just pools the collection of insurance payments--in many countries with universal healthcare, even the insurance providers are private companies. There is nothing "government run" about this system, as far as anyone who participates can tell. You are never dealing with "the government" when any of your health decisions are concerned.) But what I would say about healthcare: I think the most successful model is, where all the basics necessary for survival are completely covered by universal healthcare; and that still leaves room for private insurance companies, that can cover elective procedures and various upgrades (better hospital rooms, etc) for those who want it. This works in a number of countries. It's the one issue where I'm not sure why Bernie (and others) are so adamant in not wanting ANY private insurance. BUT: The system only works well if everyone is FIRST covered by universal healthcare--because that offers tremendous cost benefits, that simply aren't available when it is just one of the options. Again: Your article is more about immigration and the issue of refugees in Europe, and that certainly is another interesting topic of discussion (if quite treacherous territory.)

This really isn't related to universal healthcare. It's exactly because refugees do NOT have access to universal healthcare in Greece (not anymore) that the problem in the article exists: "In July 2019, the Greek government rescinded access to healthcare for asylum seekers and undocumented people " Knowing how it works in these countries, it's not hard to guess which particular political side wanted access to universal healthcare rescinded for refugees. Can you guess? Now, what I would say--and this really only applies in Europe, where there is a serious number of refugees from war-torn countries (serious as a percentage of population of the countries receiving the refugees) and where there ARE real social and medical safety nets: I think it is better to limit the number of refugees allowed into a country rather than not provide proper service to the ones there. Europe has that problem: There is a great humanitarian impulse to let the maximum number in (alternatives aren't great, so what can they do?) but then there is backlash to that, from significant parts of the local population, and so, to politically make up for that backlash, they start curtailing what the refugees are allowed to do (in terms of getting jobs, proper accommodations, health services, etc.) That then ends up being the worst of both worlds (for the receiving country), leaving them with a large marginalized, poor and hopeless immigrant population (of course, for the immigrants themselves this may still be better than not allowing them in? It's hard to say--options just aren't good one way or another.) But: Universal healthcare doesn't have much to do with this particular problem.

But: Yeah, I'm sorry to say: Not one of the US's most appealing qualities: The general ignorance about the rest of the world and the way we like to stereotype them. Anyone who knows even a tiny bit about Iceland would not have thought that article to be real: "Ja, Ja, Hans, mach schnell, mach schnell!"

Just to clear this up for all my friends from Iceland: The patheos article is meant to be satire: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/iceland-mandates-mental-health-warnings-on-all-bibles/

Absolutely. There is certainly a kind of theism one can imagine that would be completely amoral. An amoral God would actually solve one of the biggest arguments that theists usually have to defend themselves against, which usually goes something like: "If God is good, why does he kill and torture all these innocent children all over the world (via war, horrible diseases, natural disasters, etc.)" I actually find it likely that, if there is a conscious being that is the source of everything that exists (and in my view would have to--in some way--not be separate from this creation; so would also experience all that suffering himself--and isn't that what Jesus is a symbol for in the Christian belief?), this being would naturally have to at least have a very different understanding of morality than we do. (For the religious people: Such a being would not negate religious beliefs--at least not all of them--but would leave them intact as various "stepped down" interpretations and translations into a human language of something that would be completely incomprehensible to the human mind. Same for atheism: Such a being would be of such a different nature that saying "it doesn't exist" is almost as good of an approximation of it as any other definition--and of course all physical laws and scientific theories would have to be a part of this being's modus operandi) To come back to your criticism of my argument (or the headline I employed): Yes, physicalism may be a better word (if not completely encompassing). In my defense, I DID elicit one of the responses I was hoping for, which was that multiple people did write that they clearly believed that "brain=consciousness". And again, my argument was that, if that is your belief, then it begs the question where there could be a "conscious agent" whom we can assign "morality" to (without redefining the word to mean something like a simple "program" that runs on auto-pilot and is nothing but an effect of physical laws. In that case physical laws (or chance, if we include quantum effects) would be the "moral" agent). Thanks for the link, Coreece. I think that article points to some part of what I'm trying to get at, which is that the belief that "atheism is purely rational" is simply not true in most cases. My experience is that most people do not fully think this trough all the way, and hold their rationalistic, physicalistic, atheistic "belief" on one side and then have a separate set of moral, humanistic, social codes they live by, some of which actually contradict the former completely. Now, certainly this would be just as true for theists and religious or "spiritual" people, but they generally do not argue that their entire worldview is based on pure rationalism, so THEIR inconsistency is therefore perfectly consistent.

Bummer.

Ha! Great analysis, thanks! (and as you wrote, only Jerry can say if that's what it was) Myself, I thought the "which is understandable" made pretty clear what I meant. I would like to offer a suggestion: What if we just discussed the actual topics and--if we had to make any assumptions at all--we simply make the assumption that the other person meant whatever they said in the best possible way...or in any case simply not veered off into these side-discussions about style and assumed intentions? They simply distract from the topic. Personally I think the thread is confusing because of these kinds of distractions. It is hard enough to communicate in a useful way when people are coming from very different angles at an issue. And NO!!!!!!!!!!! By the above paragraph I do not mean to say "You are all idiots and can't even stay on topic, and I am the only one who is staying on topic" Hey, eventually we may even become aware of these pesky images that we tend to form in our minds of others (or in our brains, as some would say) , usually based on one or two opinions we read from them (which most likely we didn't even fully understand); images like: "trump supporter", "libtard", "religious nut", "conservative", "typical atheist" "probably a Bernie supporter", etc. ...all standing in the way of actually hearing what that person is saying RIGHT NOW about this SPECIFIC TOPIC --and we can try to hear past those made up images? No? Too much to ask? Yeah, probably...I can't really do that so well either!

Hi Jerry, Wow! I'm so sorry. I really don't see how I am insulting people. On the contrary: I get the feeling that I want to engage in an interesting exchange of ideas and concepts and find that a lot of people react by personal attacks. (Not you, as far as I can tell, nor the poster who I responded to in this particular post) But please let me know how I was in any way insulting anyone with this post (or really any other one) Any one sentence, particularly in this post that was insulting?

You did not understand what I was saying. I said nothing about deities. (You may not have followed the entire discussion, which is understandable) But since you bring up the Trolley Problem, let's switch topics entirely, because this is an interesting one: It is based on a completely utilitarian definition of morality, which I think is not a good definition. Morality really isn't about calculating costs versus benefits, (5 dead people versus one dead person, etc.) and I think this way of defining morality has led to some real catastrophes in human history (calculating "megadeaths", and justifying some terrible wars, etc.) Morality is more about certain principles (which, although they are likely to be colored by individual and cultural factors, may also have some universal aspects to them). So, I wouldn't even say that there is much morality involved in switching the train to one track or another, if you are simply calculating the benefit of either decision. There IS morality involved in saying you won't throw the fat man on the track, even if that COULD save 5 lives, because in this case you are likely acting out of some internal principles, which override your simple stone-cold calculation. What's interesting is of course, that most people will say, they'll switch the train to a track with one person, but will NOT throw the fat man on the track (and people who like that example will say how stupid that is, because both actions have the same results in terms of number of dead people), but this shows that we have evolved to understand that morality is more than a simple benefit calculation--and I think that's a good thing. Of course the entire train example is extremely contrived to begin with, because it leaves out the possibility of anything happening between the train choosing one track or another and the impact. It also assumes that you can calculate with certainty that the fat man will stop the train, but your own body won't, etc. It generally assumes that you know all possible outcomes exactly, and real morality exists especially in those places where you do NOT know outcomes with any kind of certainty.

Yes. But not only "could". This is how it works right now, every single time, if you truly believe that consciousness equals only brain activity. In a sense, what you wrote and what I am writing right now is simply an effect of synapses firing, which is determined by other physical occurrences (such as the photons from the screen hitting my retinas, etc) and I have no choice in writing this whatsoever. Personally, I find that an untenable philosophy, but I really don't think anyone thinks the "brain=consciousness" theory through to its logical conclusion.

Let's try to come at it from a different angle: So let's start with: consciousness is neither an illusion, nor does it exist as an inhabitant of some metaphysical realm. So, let's then say that consciousness is just a name for the collection of physical matter and activity in the brain--correct me if that is again an assumption that you do not subscribe to, and maybe you can define what it is for you. If this is the case, then we have to consider that the brain is simply embedded in the physical world around it and reacts to stimuli in a way that is predetermined by physical laws. It cannot "decide" to react one way or another. So: It does not make any decisions as such. We really cannot say that the brain is moral or immoral. It has no choice in the matter. If consciousness equals brain, then we have to completely redefine the word "moral" in order to apply it here.

Well, but doesn't there have to be a YOU that is capable of making a decision, in order for morality to exist? See, you say: "every society TRIES..." This assumes that there is someone who can TRY to do something (rather than something else; so you can decide NOT to kill your neighbor versus killing him) But if every single thought in your mind (including the one "I want to kill my neighbor") is simply an effect of something that you have no control whatsoever over (your neurons firing in your brain, which simply fire because of physical laws that force them to), then how can there be any moral or immoral action? Think of your brain like a pool table and the neurons like billiards balls. Let's say the thought "kill my neighbor" is manifested by the 8-ball going into a corner pocket: The reason the 8-ball goes into the pocket is simply because it was hit in a certain way by another ball, which in turn was hit by another ball before, etc. etc. Once it has been hit, you cannot prevent it from going into the pocket (and in fact, once the very first ball was hit, the outcome is already clear). It is simple physics. In case of your brain, the physical actions that make the "kill neighbor" neuron fire, were set into motion long before you even came into existence, and there is simply nothing YOU can do to stop it from happening. The only way you can have an influence is, if there is something that your consciousness can do, that can have some kind of influence on this firing of synapses, that is OUTSIDE of the purely physical law. But that would be woowoo!

No. Here is the inconsistency: Religious person: "My religion makes me moral. Therefore religion is good and necessary." Atheist: "No. Atheists can be moral. In fact here is how religion is not a good moral system, and here is why atheists can actually be more moral:..." (This is an argument you can see presented often by Mat Dilhaunty, Richard Dawkins, etc.) When really, what they SHOULD be saying is: "Morality is irrelevant. As far as we know, there really isn't such a thing. You THINK you are moral, when in reality you simply HAVE to act the way you do because of physical laws." Now, the issue with this is, that this then completely makes the entire discussion irrelevant, because, for the same reasons, there is NO WAY the religious person could not be religious, nor is there a way the atheist could not be an atheist. Both are slaves to the firings of their synapses. No reason the atheist should feel superior or more intelligent. It's not his achievement. What I really THINK though, is that no one TRULY believes that kind of determinism. Because everyone acts (HAS to act) as if they had control over their lives. Hence the inconsistency. (And: it isn't really about determinism as such, because there are ways that indeterminate events--such as quantum fluctuations--can be part of the physical infrastructure BUT that still doesn't change anything, because unless you believe that quantum indeterminism is controlled by consciousness or some such thing--the kind of woowoo stuff atheists would be horrified by--the indeterminism of chance doesn't change the fact that no conscious influence can be taken.)

pchapman: I mostly agree with everything you write in this post. But: I still think no one here really understood what I meant with my original post: I am NOT saying that religious people have a better basis for morality than atheists. I am saying that if you accept the premise of atheism (a certain definition of it, that WAS born out by some of the comments in this very post) then NO ONE has any basis for any morality. "Morality" itself is a concept that has no meaning whatsoever, if you accept that premise. So, neither religious people NOR atheists can be moral or immoral, in this case. Let me try one more time to explain what I mean: Premise 1 (again, this premise has been specifically affirmed by a number of posters): All "mind" and consciousness is completely a function of brain activity Following from that: All brain activity is completely determined by physical laws that need no "decision maker" or "person" but simply follow from previous physical states and laws of nature. So: synapses fire because of certain chemical reactions, which start because of other electrical, chemical or otherwise physical occurrences. If all mind is determined by this firing of synapses then all thought, all decision making, all "moral" goodness is nothing but an effect of these physical states and laws. Even IF, as someone (yobnoc) suggested, consciousness is an "emergent phenomena" which arises, when a certain complexity of brain structure is achieved, this emergent phenomena cannot have any influence on physical occurrences, UNLESS you allow physical laws to be in some cases circumvented by the influence of this consciousness (and I am sure no self-respecting atheist believes THAT kind of woowoo!) There is therefore simply no one making any decisions of any consequence whatsoever. There can therefore be no moral or immoral action. Every action is simply an effect of the simple combination of physical laws and prior states of matter. "Morality" is meaningless and non-existent. (or the meaning of the word has to be completely redefined) I am open to a logical argument against this, or someone pointing out where the space for moral decisions in such a worldview exists. I also want to point out that I am not advocating a religious worldview instead. I think that the religious worldview is too easy a target. It does have its roots in older thinking, and it's easy to attack from a newer (post 17th century..so not THAT new), rationalistic view--but the rationalistic, objectivistic, purely materialistic view has its own limitations and inconsistencies, that cannot be argued away by saying "well, the religious people have it even more wrong"...as if there were only two choices! ...and I'm going to shut up again.

I wouldn't call it that. Simply because the term "soul" doesn't have a well defined meaning. I don't really know what you would mean by it, nor would you know what I mean--unless we subscribe to believing in the same ancient book or something. Not speculating about a possibility, nor stating a belief--that's why it starts to get a bit frustrating to me: This consciousness is a constant experience in me. I don't understand how it's not self-explanatory to everyone else. Maybe you were on point about what you said (I think it was you) many many posts back about not knowing if anyone else actually is "real" and experiences themselves. Maybe I really am the only one experiencing anything after all, as it seems impossible to talk about it in a meaningful way with others (at least in this post). So, I am talking about something that I directly experience, not a concept, a belief or an idea. I think it's something that everyone experiences (but admittedly few probably pay any deep attention to), and when I talk about it I purposefully try not to use any words that are defined by something external, I also purposefully try not to refer to any religions or philosophers (even though I've studied many around this subject) because I am not interested in the concepts or beliefs. I am interested in the experience.

Quote: "And you can do it even if you’re not personally made of money." But only if you do not live in the US, where a single company holds the monopoly on tunnels and has driven everyone else out of business via lawsuits and whatever else they could do. (sorry to be a bit cynical)

Well, I'm going to make one last attempt to get to the point about consciousness (I think the morality thing has been explored enough by now) As you are sitting here, reading these words, there is something awake in you. There is something that hears your mind repeating the words that you are reading. This SOMETHING is what I would call consciousness. We are assuming that all other humans have it, even though you have never been able to experience it anywhere else but inside you. You may also assume that some (or even all) animals have this. And there are philosophers who posit that the essence of it is present in everything, including elementary particles. But for all practical purposes right now, the only thing that is important is that YOU are aware of its existence inside you. (or that consciousness is aware of itself inside you) It does not depend on you DOING anything, and if you have practiced certain types of meditation or have ever experienced being consciously aware during deep sleep, you will know that it also does not depend on any kinds of thoughts. This awareness, this "being conscious of existing or perceiving" requires no thoughts or actions. Now, many people will say that it will cease to exist as soon as the neurons in your brain stop to fire, but there is really no evidence either way that this is true or false. At best we can say that we see the expression of consciousness cease (or change) at that point. You WILL, of course, notice yourself, at the moment when your brain's neurons cease to fire, but no matter which way it goes you won't be able to tell us. Now, the theory of emergence is an interesting one, but at least as far as the popular example of "wetness" is concerned, that is often used to explain it, it doesn't really hold water here (pun somewhat intended). "wet" is a bit of a nebulous term, but we can probably define it as a combination of certain physical properties, such as molecular cohesion inside a substance, surface tension, cohesion to other substances, a phase of matter, etc. All these are physical properties, and while some only are perceivable when there are a certain number of molecules of a substance present, they do relatively easily follow from the physical properties of the molecules and their fields. That really isn't the same here with that inner awareness of yourself. If that's not at least somewhat clear, I don't know how to better express it. Again, I am not talking about any expression of consciousness. It is quite conceivable, for example, that you can do, talk and even think the exact same way without this consciousness, without there being any internal awareness that you are doing any of thee things. From the outside, no one could tell. (And no, the Turing Test does not test for conscious awareness, it tests for certain complexities of expression and logic) The only thing is, you KNOW you are aware. You can only know that for sure from the inside. So, if that was an emergent property of a certain level of physical complexity, then this type of emergence would really be entirely unique and unprecedented. It would not compare to the combination of physical properties that we call "wetness" emerging from the presence of a certain number of molecules of a given substance. If you don't agree, that's fine, but we may just be talking past each other in that case.

Certainly does the trick as well.

That is an entirely reasonable conclusion. The one primary reason I do not subscribe to it myself is because it closes down a huge avenue of experience. I have no problem, for example, to sit in on a traditional latin catholic mass with Gregorian Chants and have a deep internal (spiritual?) experience of reverence and power and peace (and if you asked me at that very moment if I believed in the power of god, I'd probably say "sure!") and then to get up and not base my worldview on any 2000 year old stories. I can then spend 12 hours chanting bhajans to Shiva and have an even deeper experience of changed consciousness. Then I can go back to my lab, put on a white coat and cut open brains to determine how they work (ok, I haven't done that in decades) Spiritual experiences, to me, are undeniably true. They cannot be argued away by references to externalities. Believe systems, be they religious or objectivistic, are ALWAYS limiting. They cut you off from the mystery of life, no matter what they are. It is also possible that it's impossible to live without belief systems in this world. Our psyche seems to want something to hang on to, in order to feel grounded and safe, BUT I think it's best to question them all--and particular one's own (rather than just pointing out how superior one's own belief system is to everyone else's--and yes: i'm fully aware of the potential irony of this statement!)