Originally posted by FMF
As we are talking about morality ~ as opposed to "sin" ~ can you give me an example of a thought having an adverse impact on [b]someone else without an action caused by that thought?[/b]

"A lot of neuroscientists in the field are very cautious and say we can't talk about reading individuals' minds, and right now that is very true, but we're moving ahead so rapidly, it's not going to be that long before we will be able to tell whether someone's making up a story, or whether someone intended to do a crime with a certain degree of certainty." - Professor of neuropsychology, Barbara Sahakian.

What happens in the future, if technology enables thoughts to be read or shared? Will an immoral thought then be equivalent to an immoral act? (As a thought could then have an adverse impact on someone else).

For example; in the past we had bullying, and now have cyber bullying. Perhaps, in the future, we will have thought bullying.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
For example; in the past we had bullying, and now have cyber bullying. Perhaps, in the future, we will have thought bullying.

Well for bullying to actually occur it necessitates actions that have an impact on its victim. What do you mean by "thought bullying"? If it means "thinking about bullying" then that isn't bullying, is it? Cyber bullying is just another form of bullying using the internet to facilitate the interactions between the bully and the victim. There still have to be actions. People have been able to bully each other with the written and spoken word since time immemorial. I can't see how the advent of the internet gives any reason to say it points to ~ or that the next step will be ~ paranormal phenomena becoming commonplace in the future. There is nothing whatsoever paranormal about the internet.

What happens in the future, if technology enables thoughts to be read or shared? Will an immoral thought then be equivalent to an immoral act?

In my view, only if it damages, deceives or coerces someone else. If technology one day enables thoughts to be converted into actions, and it is used in this way, then they will be actions and not just thoughts any more.

Originally posted by FMF
Well for bullying to actually occur it necessitates actions that have an impact on its victim. What do you mean by "thought bullying"? If it means "thinking about bullying" then that isn't bullying, is it? Cyber bullying is just another form of bullying using the internet to facilitate the interactions between the bully and the victim. There still have to be act ...[text shortened]... o actions, and it is used in this way, then they will be actions and not just thoughts any more.

To be clear, i was not entertaining the idea of paranormal activity. (Which of course is a nonsense). I was rather toying with the idea of thoughts no longer being private, due to future advances in technology/science. - One could then bully someone with the mind, as well as the fists or keyboard. (A little far fetched i acknowledge). I think it is the privacy of thoughts that doesn't make them immoral, as they do not hurt anyone in themselves. What though if thoughts were no longer private?

I guess a Christian could argue that thoughts are not private from God, and in that sense could be viewed as potentially immoral.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
One could then bully someone with the mind, as well as the fists or keyboard. (A little far fetched i acknowledge). I think it is the privacy of thoughts that doesn't make them immoral, as they do not hurt anyone in themselves. What though if thoughts were no longer private?

Surely harming someone else only with one's thoughts is an example of paranormal activity, yes? If you are maybe talking about something like hurting someone else's feelings [as in bullying] with the contents of your unspoken and un-acted upon thoughts, then isn't this the realm of extra sensory perception and therefore a paranormal thing?

If thinking something were somehow changed [by technology, as you suggested] into an action that existed or occurred in some way external to your mind and actually affected someone else even as your body was [for the sake of argument] motionless and physically inactive nor even out of view, then surely it would then be an action and not a mere thought? Maybe it would be called 'telekinetic action' or 'psychokinetic action'?

Originally posted by FMF
[b]Surely harming someone else only with one's thoughts is an example of paranormal activity, yes?

Yes, if you managed to do it today. In the future though, it may simply be a technological possibility. (We wouldn't call television a paranormal activity, just because it can make people appear in your living room).

If thoughts were no longer private, and could be shared as easily as sharing words, it would be a very different world.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
If thoughts were no longer private, and could be shared as easily as sharing words, it would be a very different world.

It would be a complete dystopia because humans do not have much power when it comes to controlling their thoughts in contrast to how they have very nearly total control over their actions.

Originally posted by FMF
It would be a complete dystopia because humans do not have much power when it comes to controlling their thoughts in contrast to how they have very nearly total control over their actions.

Yes ,agreed. I for one would have problems in such a new world. ;o)

Originally posted by FMF
It would be a complete dystopia because humans do not have much power when it comes to controlling their thoughts in contrast to how they have very nearly total control over their actions.

http://www.airshipentertainment.com/buckcomic.php?date=20090604

webcartoon, last panel.

Originally posted by FMF
"Sins" aside ~ by which I mean acts that are regarded by theologians and religious people as transgressions of God's will ~ the notion of "immoral thoughts" is a misnomer. "Morality" is a code that governs human interaction ~ and thoughts that do not lead to immoral deeds cannot be deemed as being immoral. Your take on this?

I doubt I would have much use for the specific phrase "immoral thoughts", but I would not consider it to be a category error: no good reasons why immorality could not be predicated unto thoughts or mental attitudes. Presumably no one would dispute the anthropologic fact that moral codes have had a hand in governing human interactions. But the predication at issue here would depend on how one reads 'morality' in a greater normative sense and on one's views regarding moral properties and norms. The idea that morality is a code that governs human interaction is a particularly narrow reading of the term in this sense. For example, I would expect it could naturally be rejected on both counts (that morality is something codified; that it concerns only regulation of human interaction) if one were inclined towards, say, a virtue ethics approach, or some consequentialist approaches.

Originally posted by FMF
It would be a complete dystopia because humans do not have much power when it comes to controlling their thoughts in contrast to how they have very nearly total control over their actions.

Totally off-topic, but somebody is actually actively following you around and thumbing down each and every one of your posts. At the very least, he or she is resilient. Also a bit of a stalker. But resilient none-the-less.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Totally off-topic, but somebody is actually actively following you around and thumbing down each and every one of your posts. At the very least, he or she is resilient. Also a bit of a stalker. But resilient none-the-less.

Think i have the same stalker. 🙁

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Think i have the same stalker. 🙁

I'll balance it out 😉

Originally posted by Great King Rat
I'll balance it out 😉

Hey, thanks Mr Rat. 🙂

Originally posted by FMF
"Sins" aside ~ by which I mean acts that are regarded by theologians and religious people as transgressions of God's will ~ the notion of "immoral thoughts" is a misnomer. "Morality" is a code that governs human interaction ~ and thoughts that do not lead to immoral deeds cannot be deemed as being immoral. Your take on this?

This OP is like saying "okay, I'm going to have a discussion about floor coverings, but I don't want to talk about tile."

Way to craft an OP that supports your thesis while denying opposing argument. Not really worth commenting on at all, really. If you're going to talk about "immorality" and then ban discussion of "sin", you're just steering the discussion in your favor because you close down half of the conversation. Coincidentally, it's the half that disagrees with you.

Originally posted by Suzianne
This OP is like saying "okay, I'm going to have a discussion about floor coverings, but I don't want to talk about tile."

Way to craft an OP that supports your thesis while denying opposing argument. Not really worth commenting on at all, really. If you're going to talk about "immorality" and then ban discussion of "sin", you're just steering the discu ...[text shortened]... you close down half of the conversation. Coincidentally, it's the half that disagrees with you.

I talk about tile all the time. For you see,

I have learned to say NO to rugs.