Gays, population growth, the environment, clouds!

[DB_Hunter]

And where do these concepts and values originate from?

You say humans fulfill their instincts differently...what does this mean?

Are you saying that you understand homosexuality to be natural, but should be nurtured into heterosexuality?

@AssertnFailure:

Concepts and Values originate from your viewpoint towards life. This can be partial, as in the case that you only subscribe to a moral code on life, but you don't mind say how your economic affairs are fulfilled. Or it can be comprehensive, and this would make you an ideological individual. If you are ideological you would constantly refer to your viewpoint in life about all problems e.g. you could be a communist, so you would refer to communism in an attempt to find solutions to economic problems, social problems etc.

It is in this context that I mean humans fulfill their instincts and needs differently.

So in line with this understanding, and in this particular context, I don't view any action to be 'natural' or 'unatural'. Actions by themselves do not have an intrinsic value of being right or wrong. It is your viewpoint on life that determines the value of right or wrong for any action, and acts as a criteria for judgment.

As actions are determined by concepts, if you change the concepts in an individual you will change his/her actions. So in answer to your third question, if a person is homosexual then this aspect of them should be changed via changing their view towards this action from being acceptable to unacceptable. However this will only happen if you change their viewpoint towards life/framework of thinking, since homosexuality stems from the the idea of sexual freedom.

So why am I for this point? This is because of my viewpoint towards life and my opinions as to how best society can be orgainsed to produce tranquility for all. Which leads me on to the following point...

@Yukimura:

That's why I havn't actually mentioned my own viewpoint on life yet, because I want people to remain as objective as possible in this discussion. I agree with KitKat, that you can't seperate people's belief's, religous or otherwise, from their actions/discussions etc.

Your viewpoint in life will provide you solutions to problems you face. What we have been doing so far is discussing these solutions without discussing the viewpoints themselves. Why? Simply to see what are the best solutions before any prejudices or biases we have get in the way. People already have been quite emotional over this one issue... this would be magnified in a viewpoint discussion, because that fundementally deals with why you live your entire life the way you do.

Anyway, there's a flaw in your argument about a person who gives up drinking or makes some other behavioral change...

...It's quite probably impossible to detect what exactly it is that caused the shift in most cases, conceivably it could be s mundane as because Tom was wearing a blue shirt on Monday but not on Wednesday.

Your refutation of my argument is based on a theory proposed by some psychologists, which from my understanding are not accepted by all psychologists as fact. These are theories without conclusive proof, based on a few "experiments" which do not even meet the criteria of the scientific method. You can't experiment on people in order to determine their behaviour, as there are too many variables at play. This is why I say the scientific method is being used beyond its remit by these psychologists. Psychology is not a science. You can't cut open a human and find his/her thoughts in the brain.

Fine, you could have brain scans and see which parts of the brain are being activated say when a person is about to do something. You will ofcourse have a physcial manifestation of your thoughts, but thoughts are not orignated due to chemicals in your brain.

The best analogy I can think of is like a computer. You have the hardware and the software part. The software controls what the hardware does, hence when a command is to be executed you will see a physical manifestation of this. But the action is initiated from the software, not the hardware, despite us seeing a change in say voltage on the motherboard when data is to be written in to the RAM.

[Yukimura]

@Kitkat I didn't mean to imply that anyone WAS trying to force anything, just that I was noticing symptoms that could happen and I was hoping it wouldn't. My reason was because I've had this discussion before with a very rigid Christian (I mean every word in the bible is indisputably true rigid), and he made some very reasonable points about how from the Christian framework there's only one correct answer and everything else must be wrong by the tenets of his faith. At this point I stopped the discussion because I didn't want to be threatening his core values every time I wanted to talk about something that disagreed with the doctrine that he believed.

@DB_Hunter It seems like we've both come to the conclusion that human science can't completely understand behavior but we've approached it from different directions. You're offering your theory and I'm offering mine. Neither is physically testable (though mine should be theoretically testable) and thus neither is truly scientific. I understand your refutations of psychological theories because you're pointing out their flaws. What I don't understand is your claim that thoughts and behaviors are more than just chemical signals. The reason I don't understand your perspective is because you've made the claims without offering any explanation (that I can see). Is your claim simply a personal opinion that it doesn't work the way I've said or is it supported by some evidence?

As to your analogy, since I've been studying computer architecture for a few years and it was the basis for my theory about deterministic thought processes, not some psychological paper as you inferred. Software on a computer, once compiled and run, merely acts as inputs into the hardware that cause the hardware to change state deterministically (hopefully). Once you've written a piece of software, compiled it, and begun executing it, it is no longer simply software, it is a part of the system itself and you can't go back and change it while it's running. However if the software is very robust it can take in information and behave in different ways based on that information, and according to some it might even be capable of 'growing' and evolving itself while it's running.

@spiegal: There are no clouds, they are a figment of your imagination.

[DB_Hunter]

@Yukimura:

My theory can't be scientifically tested, as my whole point is that this not the realm of science. We are talking about concepts, which are judgements upon reality. Science can only at best describe a reality, and not pass judgement on it.

Science can't say whether or not for example Euthenaisia for disabled individuals is morally justified (was on the news in the UK a couple of nights ago). Science can't decide if the European Union should expand to include Turkey, or if funding to Medicare in the US should be cut from the government and people should use private healthcare instead. All of these decisions can only be made using your viewpoint on life. What I am saying can be verfied by rational reasoning, instead of science.

The fact that you are reading this post andf comprehending what I am saying, then forumlating a response proves what I say. You are sensing the reality of what I am saying then responding. It's once you have sensed what I saying and formulated your response that the whole chemical stuff kicks in. Maybe I have not made myself clear in this aspect. I do not for one moment deny that chemicals and electical impulses have a role to play in your actions. All I am saying is that they way your chemicals and electrical impulses respond are controlled by your thoughts and concepts, which are in turn determined by your viewpoint on life.

As for the computer example, it was a rough analogy, not a straight map. Apologies for the simple analogy!

[complich8]

... this is getting tedious. Such a ... windy topic.

Science doesn't have an ethical toolkit. Ethics doesn't have a scientific toolkit. However, each is necessary to engage in the other properly (see also: bioethics, various unethical science experiments).


Humans are not obviously deterministic machines. We're continually self-programming. It's theoretically possible that you could construct a turing-model representation of a human being's behaviors and choices, but such a model would be incalculable and ultimately useless, and require omniscience to produce.

If you're going to compare humans to computers, you should learn more about evolutionary computation and self-organizing systems. We constantly change our own code. All life does, actually. We also constantly change our hardware -- growing new receptors, making new neural connections. A simple deterministic computing model just doesn't work for a human being.


As creatures with wills, we can override our instincts, if there's compelling reason to do so (see also: Gom Jabbar). However, when there's not compelling reason to do so, we won't. If our instincts are telling us to eat, and there's food around, we'll eat, unless there's some factor telling us not to eat (like, a knowledge that the food is poisoned, or that we're saving the food for a party tonight, or possibly both).

So, if you want gay people to override their urge to have sex with people of the same sex, you better start coming up with reasons that they'll find compelling. (hint: "god says so" isn't compelling, and neither is "you're responsible for faltering population growth")


Finally, you're faced with a choice. If you believe in a Cartesian or Lockean concept of the mind (qua soul) as separate from the body, you believe that the body is ultimately a puppet for the mind. If you believe in the general view of modern neuroscience, then the mind is a result of those chemical reactions in the brain, and nothing else. This, in itself, determines whether you believe that your mind controls your body or your mind is a function of your body. Clearly, the biggest voices in this thread are not meeting on this fundamental issue, and I am fairly sure this could be considered an intractable conflict.

[DB_Hunter]

.

Science doesn't have an ethical toolkit. Ethics doesn't have a scientific toolkit.

Agree.

However, each is necessary to engage in the other properly (see also: bioethics, various unethical science experiments).

Agreed, but only in certain contexts.

If you're going to compare humans to computers, you should learn more about evolutionary computation and self-organizing systems. We constantly change our own code. All life does, actually. We also constantly change our hardware -- growing new receptors, making new neural connections. A simple deterministic computing model just doesn't work for a human being.

It was an analogy. A bad one, as I have already admitted. Doesn't change my point though.

As creatures with wills, we can override our instincts, if there's compelling reason to do so (see also: Gom Jabbar). However, when there's not compelling reason to do so, we won't.

Agreed.

So, if you want gay people to override their urge to have sex with people of the same sex, you better start coming up with reasons that they'll find compelling. (hint: "god says so" isn't compelling, and neither is "you're responsible for faltering population growth")

The issues of population decline and whatnot... the stuff I mentioned way back... that was an example of what happens when people follow the idea of sexual freedom. Gays, non-marriage hetro relationships... this all points towards societal breakdown. But I agree, some people would need more compelling reasons then the well being of society to change their behaviour.

I can see you are deeply convinced of the idea that God does not exist. I am a Muslim, and I do believe that Allah exists. Since Islam forms my viewpoint on life, I could have indeed issued a 'God says so' kind of statement and left it at that. It is afterall something I am deeply convinced of. However I was willing to discuss the issue in depth with everyone and anyone, in an objective manner. If this is to continue on the issue of the existance of God, all I ask is that you extend the same courtesy.

[Board of Command]

I can see you are deeply convinced of the idea that God does not exist. I am a Muslim, and I do believe that Allah exists. Since Islam forms my viewpoint on life, I could have indeed issued a 'God says so' kind of statement and left it at that. It is afterall something I am deeply convinced of. However I was willing to discuss the issue in depth with everyone and anyone, in an objective manner. If this is to continue on the issue of the existance of God, all I ask is that you extend the same courtesy.

And because of that it is impossible to truly argue objectively.

[DB_Hunter]

And because of that it is impossible to truly argue objectively.

It depends what you mean. If we are talking about proving the validity of a viewpoint, then if one is sincere in the discussion then you have to argue objectivley. As I have been saying all along, concepts dictate actions, and the concepts spring from your viewpoint in life. Change the viewpoint, you change the concepts which change the actions.

As for myself personally, I understand Islam conceptually. I agree if someone holds on to their viewpoint in an emotional manner rather than conceptually, then the discussion becomes much more difficult. Since I did not start labelling people blasphemous heretics for holding views opposing my own, I hope it can be seen that I am able to discuss in a conceptual manner.

By the way as a side point... I've got this horrible cold right now, so if I take some time in responding to posts from now on you know why.