0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Apparently. They colonised you, regulated their population to a sustainable level, and determined almost everything about your mood and behavior: when they are hungry or thirsty, they tell you to eat and drink, and if they don't like your choice of food, they encourage you to get rid of it. You can vote Labour as often as you like, but you can't get rid of a bad government.
But now we can decide which microbiome should live inside us, which one should die,
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 02/06/2021 23:42:57But now we can decide which microbiome should live inside us, which one should die, So there is an inevitable conflict of interests, and only human vanity decides which should win. No sign of a universal goal!
Hereís a thought: What IS a thought? I know it involves my brain, and my brain is made of neurons. And my brainís neurons are listening to other neurons all over my body. But how do those neurons actually work? Maybe youíve heard that it involves electricity, but does that mean youíve got little zaps and lightning bolts running through your veins like Pikachu? Donít worry, Iím here to set you straight on what a neuron is, what an action potential is, and how fast your nervous system really communicates.
Oxygen is pretty great stuff, but this recently discovered organism couldnít care less about oxygen. It breathes nitrogen and may offer a window into how the types of cells in OUR bodies may have evolved billions of years ago.
A good moral standard would tell us if we behave like a good or bad scaffolding. It would inevitably prioritize things according to their impacts to the future of consciousness. There would be sacrifices in one form or another.
Sometimes, our unwillingness to make some sacrifices simply means our willingness to make even bigger sacrifices.
The only similarity applicable to every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future. It's not restricted to selfish behavior, although self preservation is important up to some limit.
You have hit upon the ultimate philosophical statement. All things can be classed as A, not A, or unclassifiable in terms of parameter A..
Any conscious entities can be classified into 3 types based on their behavior related to the extension of consciousness further into the future. The first type directs their efforts to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future. The second type directs their efforts to prevent the existence of consciousness further into the future. The third type doesn't direct their efforts to either ways.
For centuries, all philosophers seem to have done is question and debate. Why do philosophical problems resist solution?
Philosophy seems to be on a hiding to nothing. It has a 2,500-year history in the West and an extensive back-catalogue Ė of problems. There are questions about what exists, and what we know about it, such as: Do we have free will? Is there an external world? Does God exist? and so on. There are also questions of analysis and definition such as: What makes a sentence true? What makes an act just? What is causation? What is a person? This is a tiny sample. For almost any abstract notion, some philosopher has wondered what it really is.Yet, despite this wealth of questions and the centuries spent tackling them, philosophers havenít successfully provided any answers. Theyíve tried long and hard but nothing theyíve said towards answering those questions has quite made the grade. Other philosophers havenít been slow to pick holes in their attempted answers and expose flaws or dubious assumptions in them. The punctures in the attempted answers then get patched up and put up for discussion again. But what happens is that new punctures appear, or the patches fail and the old punctures are revealed again. Philosophy emerges as a series of arguments without end, and its questions settle into seemingly intractable problems.
Our lives are regulated by, among other things, moral codes, codes prescribing whatís off-limits (whatís morally wrong) and what isnít (whatís morally permissible). Just what is a moral code though? What is the source of morality? Is it our emotions or our reason or something else again? And there are further questions: why should anyone be moral? Whatís in it for them? Plato gave these questions close attention. He took the view that a wrongdoer is someone who makes a cognitive mistake by not thinking things through clearly enough. Plato thought that, if only we had a clear idea of what moral goodness is, if only we could know it for what it is, weíd be bound to avoid wrongdoing. To know the good is to love it.Other philosophers disagreed and found no route from reason to morality. David Hume thought that only emotion, not reason, could provide direction to our lives. Thereís nothing contrary to reason, Hume provocatively said in his Treatise of Human Nature (1739), to care more about scratching your finger than the fate of humanity. Something we should take from this debate between Plato and Hume is that itís not at all like a parlour game on which nothing of consequence hangs. In fact, itís hard to think of a problem that could have more consequence than one about how weíre to live our lives. Dismissing this debate as empty wordplay would be a cop-out, an evasion of an especially difficult intellectual problem. It is, moreover, far from being an isolated example. Debates about the reality of moral responsibility, the rationale for punishment or the moral status of animals raise other intellectually and morally pressing issues.
What is the source of morality?