2

Andrew Eshleman provides an answer to the first question: given determinism can we be accountable, that is, have moral responsibility. In keeping with this focus on the ramifications of causal determinism for moral responsibility, thinkers may be classified as being one of two types: 1) an incompatibilist about causal determinism and moral responsibility—...


2

Here is the question: But to what extent do you or philosophers believe (or disbelieve) physicalism because of evidence from science, or is it more from philosophical "evidence" and/or a metaphysical assumption, perhaps influenced by the prevailing scientific zeitgeist and/or the beliefs of most (neuro)scientists that the brain is indeed the source of the ...


2

The simplest answer to this question is to remember that correlation does not equal causation. Neural correlates are exactly that: biological phenomena that correlate with subjective experiences of consciousness. We have no clear idea (yet) what produces (causes) the subjective experience of consciousness, and so we have no theory on which to base a ...


2

Information, information that exists in the neural processes, is probably the physical quantity that correlates perfectly with consciousness. Consciousness is a very complex and dynamic entity: you’re conscious of many things that have a lot of complicated, fine details and that always change and change rapidly (in milliseconds), such as the consciousness ...


1

The general and blurry line between folk psychology and scientifically rigorous psychology is one, first and foremost, about representations in a presumed (mostly) realist metaphysical position about the world. What the behavioral sciences purport to give is more accurate, more confident propositions about the world than the back-of-the-envelope calculations ...


1

This question, or at least one very like it, was one of the discussion chapters in The Minds I, by Dennett and Hofstadter. https://www.amazon.com/Minds-Fantasies-Reflections-Self-Soul/dp/0465030912 That book took a very playful approach to philosophy of mind, and I expect that you would enjoy it immensely. Often the point of such what-if questions in ...


1

I haven’t found any literature that discusses matter similar to your thought experiment, so the followings will be just my interpretation of some existing theories as I understand them. First, let’s be clear what it means for something to be the same when it has been altered (like being distorted in your thought experiment). IMO, that thing will ...


1

The Buddhist monk's reference suggests you know the answer already – religion. Buddhism is likely a more accessible instance of religion in this context in that it is non-theological/non-theistic it's more psychological than mythological suffering is a primary axiom of the system unlike say sin That said, great Christian (and Jewish and Muslim) saints ...


1

You are making a category error, between physiology like pain, and mental experience like suffering. Say I cut your legs off, but made sure using anaesthetics you never felt any pain, at the time or later. You might still be expected to suffer, knowing the things you could no longer do. ""Monks, even if bandits were to savagely sever you, limb by limb, ...


1

I just wish to add a few thoughts and conceptualizations that came to my mind: As others have highlighted, there is a long debate (a) about determinism, and (b) about the definition of free will, and (c) if free will is compatible with determinism (this position being called 'compatibilism'). (a): Some answers here mentioned that at the micro-level ...


1

tl;dr- Ethics modifies the behavior of ethical agents, regardless of determinism. For example, we can still judge a thief for their thievery to the betterment of society even if we choose to describe the thief's agency as 100% determined by physical processes. Analogy: In video games – players have free will; but, characters are determined by ...


1

Our imagination and creativity are bound to our previous knowledge and experience. When we imagine something totally new, its still consisted of parts we already knew (words, letters, concepts, images, colors and so on). Lets do a little experiment. Imagine "a new color", can you? Probably not. Okay, now imagine a new concept, go on with "I imagine a ..." (...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible