New answers tagged

0

The analogy to the big bang, is confusing. It implies there was no matter to have states before consciousness, and that consciousness originated instantenously. A better analogy might be with the epoch of recombination, which produced the cosmic microwave background. The universe had expanded and cooled enough for atoms to be stable, making what had been ...


1

This is from wikipedia's "defintion" of Consciousness: Consciousness, at its simplest, is "sentience or awareness of internal and external existence". Despite millennia of analyses, definitions, explanations and debates by philosophers and scientists, consciousness remains puzzling and controversial, being "at once the most familiar ...


2

Consciousness is one of the oldest, most discussed and hardest issues of epistemology in philosophy, with large overlap with psychology, cognitive science, neuroscience, and artificial intelligence (neural networks). Even non-professional common folks have some sensible theories such as theory-theory (modern strict math formulation using Bayesian learning ...


1

This has been problematic for a number of reasons. According to Britannica and the Stanford site: for the first half of the 20th century - consciousness was measured by psychologists using introspection - which lead to inconsistent and unscientific results (Richard Nisbett and Timothy Wilson discussed a wide range of experiments that showed that people are ...


0

It is impossible to know what is "objectively good", because that would imply having the absolute truths required for something. If something is good because it increases our probabilities of survival, then, "objectively good" implies knowing the absolute truths required to survive, which is impossible: all living beings follow its own ...


10

In the proposition IX, part III of Ethics, Spinoza operates the following reversal of concepts: it is not because we judge that something is good that we desire that thing, but it is because we desire it that we judge it to be good. In Spinoza's philosophy, our judgement as well as our actions are entirely determined, based on what information and experience ...


3

Maximising wellbeing and avoiding suffering are just subjective heuristics required for evolution of replicating genes. A great deal of research shows things like having a job with autonomy is more important than higher pay, that a meaningful life connected to others is far more important than pleasure or suffering. We can relate moral progress to going ...


2

In light of your pre-assumed objective/subjective philosophical view, there're possibly several schools of thought to account for what's "good" for a person or a species. There's evolutionary naturalism or physicalism which suggests what's good for the person or as a species will be preserved and prevailed naturally, what's "bad" will be ...


2

Your question answers itself. Well-being implies the presence of goodness before anything else; asking if the pursuit of well-being is good is like asking if I will feel pain if I hurt myself. But linguistics aside. however, all of this relies on a fundamental axiom or premise, and that is, that pursuing well-being and avoiding suffering are fundamentally ...


-1

Intuitively well-being and happiness are good things. If we are going to say that something else is more important then we would need to identify what that is and justify why it’s more important.


Top 50 recent answers are included