I'd say consciousness is that part of us which is eternal. I don't think consciousness is "the mind." The mind is more like a superimposition or modification of this eternal part, framed as it were on by different adjuncts.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
What is consciousness?
- Thread starter TScott
- Start date
I'd say consciousness is that part of us which is eternal. I don't think consciousness is "the mind." The mind is more like a superimposition or modification of this eternal part, framed as it were on by different adjuncts.
Impossible is a big word. I'm not 100% sure that we can't. I doubt that we can do it with AI (programming a binary system) alone. People have been trying for the past 60 years, but I think it could be possible with a neural network/fuzzy logic approach.
As to why humans have preferences, why our minds are capable of subjective thought-there are some pretty good theories out there on that. Eudaimonist posted a link describing a dual aspect approach to this problem, which shows promise. This approach has some of it's roots in what is called Information Theory. I've read several different variations of this theory and what I get from it is that all information, in this case as it pertains to our mind, has two aspects. A physical aspect and an experiential aspect. The physical aspect of a color is the actual frequuency of the light reflecting off the object, or emanating from the object. The experiential aspect of the object is how it affects us as we experience the phenom of our neural receptors sensing the light and the transmission of that information to the different destinations in our neural system.
Upvote
0
What do you mean by "eternal"?
When I say "mind", I'm not referring to our consciousness, because we know that our minds work even when we are not conscious, or conscious that they are working (as in our sub-conscious).
Upvote
0
I mean that it always was, pre-existing our own minds, and that it will continue on enduring, everlastingly....
Very true.
Upvote
0
Because I refuse to believe that from the dust we came and to the dust we will return. I see no reason for morality in an outlook such as that.
Upvote
0
Eudaimonist
I believe in life before death!
- Jan 1, 2003
- 27,482
- 2,738
- 58
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Dust doesn't need morality, but we do if we are to avoid becoming dust again sooner than necessary.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Upvote
0
T
Theofane
Guest
Consciousness is big. It is bigger than you could possibly imagine. It's just not tangible or measurable.
Upvote
0
Not when morals are an inherent outcome of one's identity. I see my own practical identity as that of a spiritual soul, possessing various qualities such as eternality, immutability and so on, to which alone moral worth can be ascribed.
If I am not this, then I am for all intents and purposes a totally contingent entity, whose activities are by default random and without any guiding reason. For instance, if I am but a concatenation of impulses in the brain, then what difference does it make if those impulses guide me to immoral over moral acts? Ultimately, there is no reason for one action over another in such a system. My being inherently changeless, free, and unencumbered from matter, makes it incumbent upon me to stay true to my nature as a spiritual soul, however.
Upvote
0
Eudaimonist
I believe in life before death!
- Jan 1, 2003
- 27,482
- 2,738
- 58
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Because it guides choice towards the choice-worthy. There is a natural standard of goodness, which has to do with the actualization of our potentials as human individuals. Morality is preferable to non-morality because it is beneficial for human life.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Upvote
0
Describe in detail this "choice-worthy" nature of a thing. From where does it stem? Choice is a volitional act on the part of an agent. That said, we choose both "good" and "bad" things. Those who do so find both things "choice-worthy." There's no room for morality here.
Uhm....
I don't buy that for half a moment. That is a very loaded statement. What is "the actualization of our potentials as human individuals"? When you say "individuals" you mean we are all different, correct? If we are all different, why shouldn't we have radically different goals that conflict with each other?
That sounds like some uber-nice utopian, egalitarian type common sense. That's fine. I just don't see anything that it has to do with morality.
Upvote
0
Now, you gave me some good reasons to be fair. I think what I meant to ask was more subtle than "why is morality good" or anything to that effect. Sorry if this was your misunderstanding. Of course morality is good. My issue is, why should anyone be interested in morality for morality's own sake? What obligatory force is there in morality such that it is incumbent on one to do the moral act as opposed to the immoral or indifference.
Upvote
0
Eudaimonist
I believe in life before death!
- Jan 1, 2003
- 27,482
- 2,738
- 58
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
It's good for you. It is in your own best interests. That is a sufficient reason. There is no "deeper" reason that can be given, nor any need for one.
There is, of course, nothing to prevent anyone from acting immorally. But they cannot rationally claim that acting immorally is in any way justified. Only by prioritizing their values with a proper standard of human well-being can they claim to be doing what they ought to do. That provides the "obligatory force".
eudaimonia,
Mark
Upvote
0
Eudaimonist
I believe in life before death!
- Jan 1, 2003
- 27,482
- 2,738
- 58
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Choice-worthy has nothing to do with desire. If something is worthy of choice, it is something that is good for oneself. In other words, it is not merely chosen (or desired), it is worthy of choice (or desirable). I'm an ethical naturalist, not a moral subjectivist.
You don't buy it? Or you don't understand it?
Human maturation is an example of the actualization of human potentials. Children have the potential to become adults. The actualization of the child's potential for adulthood could be called "growth". This is just an obvious example. We may grow in many ways, not just physically.
That, and the fact that it is individuals that actualize their potentials. IOWs, flourishing as a process pertains to individuals.
We benefit from the uniqueness of others. If I have a talent for physics, and you have a talent for engineering, together we may achieve what either of us alone cannot. Generally speaking, our respective efforts to live a good life do not require conflict. Our human capacity to use reason and language to coordinate our activities mean that we can cooperate, trade, share, or agree to leave each other alone.
Sure, there could be bizzaro lifeboat examples that could suggest otherwise, but in the normal course of life in society we don't encounter those. I'm not suggesting that there is no possibility for morally ambiguous situations, where morality seems of little help. Again, those are likely to be the exception, not the rule.
Keep in mind that we are all human, and that we are social beings. We are unique individuals, but we share many things in common, and we have similar social natures.
I'm neither an egalitarian nor a utopian, but thank you for calling it common sense. It is that.
That's a very odd thing to say. Morality has nothing to do with identifying what is worthy of choice? Or ethical standards? You must have a very odd view of morality.
Help me out here. Where roughly would you place yourself metaethically?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFfoB8qXdbY
eudaimonia,
Mark
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Nope, it's a logical fallacy even when you find the results important.
Fair enough - the fact that you are an amoral sociopath except for your belief is a good reason to keep believing for all our sakes, but it doesn't make your beliefs true.
The consequences of those actions. You know, physical harm, being removed from society, death, those kind of things. Humans don't survive all that well in isolation - we need the help of others to really thrive. If we don't follow basic rules of morality, other people aren't going to find it in their interest to help you and you're going to find life difficult.
Upvote
0
GrowingSmaller
Muslm Humanist
The red you see may be a secondary property insofar as the external object is concerned, but it is a primary property of your brain.
Upvote
0
GrowingSmaller
Muslm Humanist
Our morlity is just our behavioral response to an environment (inner and outer) of value.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
