Religous debates and questions [2]

I agree that the primary differences between marriage and other relationships in a modern "secular" society are the legal ones, David.

But same kind of relationship between more than two people outside of marriage not recive the widespread condemnation as an almost modern secular sin that the same relationship within a marriage does? That's certainly not because of legal considerrations. That's the aspect I find a bit strange I think. We obviously have some ethical considerations for married people that we don't have for unmarried people living exactly the same life.

I think that is because marriage is a ceremony in which you publicly state an oath to someone else.
If that oath includes remaining faithful to that one person and you break it, well even in modern times some things dont change, humans dont like oathbreakers.
As at Dunharrow so in marriage!

I'm not sure I understand what a "secular sin" is, Blue. And I'm not sure I agree to your premise.

I can think of unmarried couples where cheating was a big enough sin to seemingly justify killing.

On the other hand, I can think of some famous people whose mistresses are common knowledge with seemingly no drama at all.

It all seems to depend on the specific case.

Can you give me examples?

By secular sin I just mean a breach of ethical societal rules that doesn't have it's basis in religion.

And I'm refering to functional polygamous relationships and the fact that we are happy to let more than two people live in a relationship outside marriage, while one person marrying two or more others recieves widespread societal condemation. I'm not talking about cheating or extramarital affairs or celebrities mistresses or so on.

As I said I agree with you that legality is the main difference between marriage and another relationship, but obviously there some other ethical considerations involved in poeples condemnation of polygami in marriage, but societies acceptance of it elsewhere.

And wouldn't one just change the vowes to we will be faithfull to eachother, Petty. Marriage is after all a secular enunion first and a religious second in modern society.

My point is just this discrepancy in societal acceptance of the one and condemnation of the other. Seen aside from the legal perspective, what reason is there for it?

Bluebottle wrote:
And I'm refering to functional polygamous relationships and the fact that we are happy to let more than two people live in a relationship outside marriage, while one person marrying two or more others recieves widespread societal condemation. I'm not talking about cheating or extramarital affairs or celebrities mistresses or so on.

Can you give me some examples of functional polygamous relationships that are prominent and public? If they're not public, I don't think they count for the purpose of this discussion.

To what degree they exist is for me another discussioon. As if you have been discussing polygamous relationships as in cheating, extramarital affairs or celebrity mistresses we have obviously  talking about different things. None of my points relates to that at all.   As such we would have had no discussion.

As for the discussion we've had I've mostly been pointing out what I see as an interesting difference in public and societal perception of polygamous relationship inside and outside marriage. Wether one belives it exist or not, it's obviously allowable in one sphere and not the other.

Bluebottle wrote:Wether one belives it exist or not, it's obviously allowable in one sphere and not the other.

But that's what I'm really asking, Blue. To me it's not obvious at all.  

If you claim it's "obviously allowable in one sphere" then you need to be able to show at very least one case where it's obviously allowed in that sphere.  "Obviously allowable" is a high bar to set.  

It's to the question of "obviously not allowed in the other" that I mentioned mistresses, because that appears to be a socially acceptable way for some couples to invite a third member into the family, at least in some times and places.  (Maids or gardeners is another.) Why wouldn't that be relevant to the question of "obviously allowable"? 


{{Where IS Odo when you need him???   }}

Oh, it can be perfectly relevant. It just wasn't what I was adressing.

And obviously allowable for me is here a rather low bar, meaning there are no legal rules against it. Obvious as it's obviously not allowable to marry more than one person legally.

Your example with the mistress would perhaps be a different form of relationship again, but not one of the ones I was describing.

Well if you're setting the bar that low, then the question almost collapses on itself, at least here, because of child custody and community property laws. They'd have to be completely rewritten to allow for polygamous marriage.  They're stretched to their limits now, just trying to deal with divorce, which wasn't legal when they were written.

We are already discovering what we believe to be the physical substrate for consciousness (the brain), and "mysticism" and "spirituality" is subsiding as a consequence. Yet this is not the whole story, as we are left with an apparently redundant system - a perfectly functioning neural substrate and a physically irrelevant sentient being. This situation is not compatible with a non-teleological world view.

If the subjective aspect of consciousness actually did something however, for example if it helped the creature evolve (and coevolved with the creature), then it would go along way to establishing, in my view, what could be a rational atheism. Note this would also require the subjective aspect of consciousness (mental properties) to be considered a physical substance of its own (say being operative in a higher dimension), a philosophy of mind generally rejected at present. As previously mentioned, the only model I have encountered that attempts to offer a naturalistic explanation for sentience involves panpsychism (although it fails to specify how or why complex, integrated sentient systems might develop, even if the physical universe were constructed from "mental primitives").

consciousness helps creatures to survive, its a tool like opposable thumbs or teeth. whos to say that all animals dont have consciousness, we dont know whether Lobsters or Elephants know they are individuals, so if all animals have some degree of consciousness does that mean they are all excluded from heaven just because they are not human? it seems like the height of arrogance to say we are more worthy of spiritual life than they. What if Elephants mourn their loved ones and create cemetaries so they can meet in an after life.

Lobsters?     srsly    poor buggers

Im with you on this one Figg (again!!!) I think conciousness has obvious evolutionary benefits, and I find it unlikely that humans are the only possessors of it on this planet, let alone the rest of the vastness of the universe.
Even excluding the animal kingdom we have to consider species of the past- Neanderthals seem to have had many complex actions we would associate with concious sentient beings, including the burial of their dead with possessions and the creation of art.
It seems clear to me conciousness is not a unique attribute to modern humans.
Even my cats display signs of one, they have a name they recognise as themselves, so a sense of individuality, favourite things, places, complex personal relationships with each other, the neighbours cats and with me. Their behaviour is about as predictable as a humans and about as unpredictable. They appear to be concious and aware of themselves as a thing existing, they dream.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
Even excluding the animal kingdom we have to consider species of the past- Neanderthals seem to have had many complex actions we would associate with concious sentient beings, including the burial of their dead with possessions and the creation of art.
It seems clear to me conciousness is not a unique attribute to modern humans.

There's an increasing amount of circumstantial evidence that Neanderthals were sophisticated leather workers and boat builders.  It's now generally accepted that unless you're pure African you have Neanderthal ancestors. That seems to be where our non-African hair and skin come from. http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022787170_neanderthalgenesxml.html

Neanderthals may have died out 30,000 years ago, but new analyses from the University of Washington and Harvard confirm that genetic traces of the stocky cave-dwellers live on in most of us.

Working separately, two research teams probed the genomes of nearly 1,700 people from Europe and east Asia in the most comprehensive survey for DNA passed down from Neanderthals who mated with early Homo sapiens.

Their results, published Wednesday, agree with previous estimates that 1 to 3 percent of the genome of living Europeans and Asians came from Neanderthal ancestors.

The UW team estimates that the average person carries at least 300 to 400 Neanderthal genes, out of a total of about 25,000. The scientists were able to zero in more precisely than ever before on where those ancestral genes are located.

.........

Most of the Neanderthal genes appear to be relegated to parts of the genome that aren’t vital to body functions, Akey said.

But both the UW and Harvard scientists found a high concentration of Neanderthal DNA in chromosome regions that influence hair and skin. That means early humans must have picked up some valuable traits from interbreeding with Neanderthals, such as a tough skin resistant to infection or better adapted to the cold.

“It’s tempting to speculate that ... these genes were important in helping humans adapt to non-African environments,” said Harvard geneticist David Reich, co-author of the second study, published in Nature.

Scientists believe modern humans first migrated out of Africa about 100,000 years ago, encountering Neanderthals who had been living throughout Eurasia for hundreds of thousands of years.

That would seem to suggest that either Neanderthals had souls (however you choose to define them) or that some of our ancestors didn't (at least if you're European or Asian.)

wow thats really interesting, makes sense really, the Neandertals were very robust and probably had all sorts of useful immunity from certain diseases and as you said resistence to extremes in temperature. They are our closest relatives I suppose, humanoid but not homo sapian, bit like those little Hobbit peoples bones they found on an Island? cant remember where it was exactly.
Animals are also afraid of death, they sense it and avoid it, we have just taken that fear to another level, as we are aware sooner or later it happens to us all, and that fear is where I think spirituality came from, its like a muscle thats been over developed in our psyche another hypothalmus that doesnt deal with heat, cold, hunger, sleep, but ancient fear, response to music and the need to talk and communicate. All humans have a respnse to music and feel that urge to dance chant and I think spirituality is hard wired like that. Whirling Dervish kill 3 birds with one stone.


this is probably the most beautiful music vid i have ever seen on this subject, it makes me realize how ancient and strange this world really is.

The brain process of "consciousness" (self-awareness related modules) helps creatures to survive. Based on present understanding of physics, the internal perspective of a creature (the subjective aspect of consciousness) is however not required for it to be observed as conscious and for its higher level "cognitive" processes to function (behavioural and imaging measurement). All that is believed to be required are its neural networks, and if this is not the case then a radically new mechanism must be developed for the interaction of an independent sentient being with the physical (neural) substrate - proposals of Cartesian dualism are not popular..

I agree, a lovely vid & great music. Enjoyed it especially after a stressful day, It helped me wind down.   
Going back to animals, how come they get shit scared & even try to bolt for it when confronted with the abattoir ? They smell blood yes, they smell the death, so they must know death is a thing to be feared ?  Why are pets as scared of the Vet as we are of the dentist ? I dont except this about animals not having a 'soul', 'personality' whatever you'de like to call it. Its bullshit. My little "wednesday" loved her uncle, & when he left me, she was not the same cat. she didnt eat, she was miserable, she wouldnt get away from the patio doors for months, it was hurting me to see her looking out for hours each day. My old puss looked after her when she was born in my house. He baby sat so the mum, (his own sister) could go out for a while, He & 'weds' were inseparable for 10yrs. & yes, I do believe 'weds' mourned him & I bet she felt heart break as much as I did. Just cos she cant tell me in MY language, doesnt make her thick ! she FELT an emotion, just as humans do. I aint changing my mind on animals.

richardbrucebaxter wrote:All that is believed to be required are its neural networks, and if this is not the case then a radically new mechanism must be developed for the interaction of an independent sentient being with the physical (neural) substrate - proposals of Cartesian dualism are not popular..

Or it could just be a matter of degree. I'm not a neuroscientist but your posts seem to be ignoring a lot of alternatives in favor of driving towards a pre-supposed point (though one you are reluctant to state explicitly).

Note the terminology used in science often confounds mental processes and empirical measures thereof. It is able to do this because it makes the assumption of physicalism, and it speaks to a scientific audience (who understand the limits of the empirical method). The terminology is often not well used in philosophy, because philosophy must be discussed independent of any philosophical position (and does not limit itself to empirical measurement). When I create words such as "extraphysical being" to describe the subjective aspect of consciousness (the non-physical mind), I am attempting to respect science, philosophy, and the audience.

(I am not aware of any alternatives I am ignoring here, except perhaps eliminativism. There is no matter of degree on the division between substance dualism and physicalism - physics either works or it does not. The various conceptualisations of physicalism; reductive/non reductive do not affect the arguments being presented).

When I create words such as "extraphysical being" to describe the subjective aspect of consciousness (the non-physical mind), I am attempting to respect science, philosophy, and the audience.- Richard

I dont understand the concept of a nonphysical mind- the mind is just the product of the activity of the brain- a physical object obeying physical laws.

Yes but the physical mind (brain) does not necessitate the existence of a sentient being - this is a philosophical assumption (~physicalism).

Yes but the physical mind (brain) does not necessitate the existence of a sentient being- Richard

It does appear to in several billion human individuals just on this planet.
It appears that self awareness can also be detected by observing the behaviour of many types of animal, and has been mentioned the evidence points to extinct ancestors also possession it.
In fact it seems downright common in any creature with a brain. I'd hazard the limits on it are driven by the amount of information being fed to the brain (the complexity of the nervous system) and the complexity of the brain in analysing the information.

I think the harder argument to make is that sentience and self-awareness is not a product of the physical brain.

There is that wonderful line about conservation that goes, even though human beings are the primary reason for extinction of other species on this planet, we are also the only ones who have realised that and are actively trying to stop it.

So there is probably a self awareness there that other species lack. Though I would be more open to the idea that it goes in degrees, as Eldo suggested.

(Petty I would agree with this also. But when you say "I dont understand the concept of a nonphysical mind- the mind is just the product of the activity of the brain- a physical object obeying physical laws", it is also suggestive of a reductive physicalism. The mapping between the brain and mental properties is unspecified, which is why they are considered separately, even in the perception literature).

I would say that was a product of the development of our communications- no other species has developed it so such a level.
We are story telling apes.
We can pass on practical, social, historical knowledge in impressive detail and in an impressive variety of forms- giving our species a long history view that other species lack (and ourselves in the past where innovation and discovery were lost and refound and lost again due not being passed on),

A chimp might innovate a new more efficient way of cracking a particular nut, but it has no way to spread that information beyond its immediate peers, and if its not passed on its simply lost.

Humans pass all that on, and we've got better and better tat it, and it self builds once you start.
Its no coincidence humans have exploded in terms of technological advancement since we discovered how to write things down.

The mapping between the brain and mental properties is unspecified- Richard

Surely thats just a lack of knowledge so far, knowledge we gain more of every day.
Its quite possibly one day science will fully map the brain and all it functions.
I personally think it makes use of the nature of quantum to store and access information and we may discover (or disprove) that one day.
But a lack of current understanding does not necessary point to it automatically having another source of purpose somehow out with the physical material.
If the past shows us anything its that previous assumptions about non-physical properties of things have eventually been proven false and the true physical cause identified.