3 ms·

> Let's say that eventually it is the consensus of the scientific community that things like consciousness, pain and free will are just illusions, and therefore

> Let's say that eventually it is the consensus of the scientific community that things like consciousness, pain and free will are just illusions, and therefore, human rights are an outdated concept That last part is a value statement that I doubt science could prove.

kazinator 10y ago
Consciousness (and pain) aren't illusions because they correspond to external phenomena, and have a significant objective component. An illusion is something that nobody else can experience, even partially, other than the subject having the illusion. Even if free will is rule-based at some low-level, that doesn't erase the concept of rights. We have rights even among inanimate objects. For instance, some server instance has rights to access certain files. Rights are not pinned to free will. They are mostly about declaring certain unwanted actions of others to be wrong and punishable. Whether those unwanted actions are the result of free will, or whether they are deterministic, is immaterial. At most, that consideration only influences how we regard a violation of right; we might be somewhat more lenient if we believe that it was inevitable. This is why the criminal courts take a particular view toward defendants who are mentally deficient or insane; in effect, this is based on the belief that those people possess less free will. It is never declared, however, that whatever they did was OK.
- stcredzero 10y ago
  We have rights even among inanimate objects. For instance, some server instance has rights to access certain files. You're really positing this as actual serious intellectual output? Just because it uses the same word does not mean that "rights" in the context of a server instance has anything to do with rights in the context of human rights. <facepalm>
  - kazinator 10y ago
    I don't see the difference. Rights is just some security-related descriptor of an object, whether that be a human being or a Wi-Fi router or whatever. I generally don't equivocate over word semantics.
    - eveningcoffee 10y ago
      Perhaps you could provide few examples that relate to humans?
- dwaltrip 10y ago
  A server instance has no legal rights. The human controlling the server has certain legal rights in how they are allowed to configure and operate it. For example, as granted by the first amendment, they can serve a large variety of content to visitors, etc. This is a pretty important distinction.

kazinator 10y ago

Consciousness (and pain) aren't illusions because they correspond to external phenomena, and have a significant objective component. An illusion is something that nobody else can experience, even partially, other than the subject having the illusion. Even if free will is rule-based at some low-level, that doesn't erase the concept of rights. We have rights even among inanimate objects. For instance, some server instance has rights to access certain files. Rights are not pinned to free will. They are mostly about declaring certain unwanted actions of others to be wrong and punishable. Whether those unwanted actions are the result of free will, or whether they are deterministic, is immaterial. At most, that consideration only influences how we regard a violation of right; we might be somewhat more lenient if we believe that it was inevitable. This is why the criminal courts take a particular view toward defendants who are mentally deficient or insane; in effect, this is based on the belief that those people possess less free will. It is never declared, however, that whatever they did was OK.

stcredzero 10y ago
We have rights even among inanimate objects. For instance, some server instance has rights to access certain files. You're really positing this as actual serious intellectual output? Just because it uses the same word does not mean that "rights" in the context of a server instance has anything to do with rights in the context of human rights. <facepalm>
- kazinator 10y ago
  I don't see the difference. Rights is just some security-related descriptor of an object, whether that be a human being or a Wi-Fi router or whatever. I generally don't equivocate over word semantics.
  - eveningcoffee 10y ago
    Perhaps you could provide few examples that relate to humans?
dwaltrip 10y ago
A server instance has no legal rights. The human controlling the server has certain legal rights in how they are allowed to configure and operate it. For example, as granted by the first amendment, they can serve a large variety of content to visitors, etc. This is a pretty important distinction.