How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

[RCSaunders]

Growing and becoming more complex are certainly changes.

No one is saying that it's "not you." But you change. You're not identical to what you were previously. There's a continuity to it, but continuity is different than logical identity.

And the man who woke up this early morning is still the same man who went to bed late last night. No matter what changes there are, over the course of a day/night, a week, a month, a year, years: I am always me, never someone else. I do not slowly or rapidly become another man.

A is A and I am me.

Yeah, you're same in the sense of being causally, contiguously connected to what you were, but that's not (onto)logical identity, which means that nothing differs at all (onto)logically.

Ontologically, an entity is whatever it's attributes (qualities, characeristics, and properties) are. Every entity has some attributes that change, and some attributes that remain unchanged while others change. The duration of an entity is determined by those attributes that remain unchanged for the duration of that entity. If all the attributes all changed the entity would never exist.

If individual human consciousness were not a single existent, there would be no reason to ever make a choice about the future. If the consciousness you have today is not the same consciousness you will have tomorrow, why would you make a choice about anything that might affect tomorrow's consciousness, since it's not the one you have now? Why would care about what some other consciousness is going to experience?

I'll tell you why. Because you know damn well the consciousness of tomorrow is the same consciousness you are experiencing at this moment, and it has been the same consciousness since the first time you opened your eyes and will be the same consciousness until the last time you close them, and it is that consciousness which is you and all that has meaning or matters in this would is what has meaning and matters to that consciousness.

[henry quirk]

And the man who woke up this early morning is still the same man who went to bed late last night. No matter what changes there are, over the course of a day/night, a week, a month, a year, years: I am always me, never someone else. I do not slowly or rapidly become another man.

A is A and I am me.

Yeah, you're same in the sense of being causally, contiguously connected to what you were, but that's not (onto)logical identity, which means that nothing differs at all (onto)logically.

Ontologically, an entity is whatever it's attributes (qualities, characeristics, and properties) are. Every entity has some attributes that change, and some attributes that remain unchanged while others change. The duration of an entity is determined by those attributes that remain unchanged for the duration of that entity. If all the attributes all changed the entity would never exist.

If individual human consciousness were not a single existent, there would be no reason to ever make a choice about the future. If the consciousness you have today is not the same consciousness you will have tomorrow, why would you make a choice about anything that might affect tomorrow's consciousness, since it's not the one you have now? Why would care about what some other consciousness is going to experience?

I'll tell you why. Because you know damn well the consciousness of tomorrow is the same consciousness you are experiencing at this moment, and it has been the same consciousness since the first time you opened your eyes and will be the same consciousness until the last time you close them, and it is that consciousness which is you and all that has meaning or matters in this would is what has meaning and matters to that consciousness.

Here's the thing, RC: if consciousness (or mind) is solely the result of the brain/body, TS would be right. The brain/body I have right now is significantly different than what I had ten, twenty, thirty years ago. If I am brain/body alone then why don't I change too? I don't. I learn, experience, acquire history, but it's always the same me, the same mind, the same consciousness. I'm the one who sez, well, I didn't know that then but I do now. There is an unchanging, irreducible sumthin' in my composition. I call it spirit, you can call it information.

[Immanuel Can]

There is an unchanging, irreducible sumthin' in my composition. I call it spirit, you can call it information.

Well, he sure as heck can't say it's "information," because "information" changes. "Spirit," or "identity," if one prefers, is always the same, regardless of shifts in "information."

[henry quirk]

There is an unchanging, irreducible sumthin' in my composition. I call it spirit, you can call it information.

Well, he sure as heck can't say it's "information," because "information" changes. "Spirit," or "identity," if one prefers, is always the same, regardless of shifts in "information."

Just tryin' to give RC sumthin' to hold on to, some label he can apply (cuz spirit, you know he ain't havin' none of that).

[RCSaunders]

Yeah, you're same in the sense of being causally, contiguously connected to what you were, but that's not (onto)logical identity, which means that nothing differs at all (onto)logically.

Ontologically, an entity is whatever it's attributes (qualities, characeristics, and properties) are. Every entity has some attributes that change, and some attributes that remain unchanged while others change. The duration of an entity is determined by those attributes that remain unchanged for the duration of that entity. If all the attributes all changed the entity would never exist.

If individual human consciousness were not a single existent, there would be no reason to ever make a choice about the future. If the consciousness you have today is not the same consciousness you will have tomorrow, why would you make a choice about anything that might affect tomorrow's consciousness, since it's not the one you have now? Why would care about what some other consciousness is going to experience?

I'll tell you why. Because you know damn well the consciousness of tomorrow is the same consciousness you are experiencing at this moment, and it has been the same consciousness since the first time you opened your eyes and will be the same consciousness until the last time you close them, and it is that consciousness which is you and all that has meaning or matters in this would is what has meaning and matters to that consciousness.

Here's the thing, RC: if consciousness (or mind) is solely the result of the brain/body, TS would be right. The brain/body I have right now is significantly different than what I had ten, twenty, thirty years ago. If I am brain/body alone then why don't I change too? I don't. I learn, experience, acquire history, but it's always the same me, the same mind, the same consciousness. I'm the one who sez, well, I didn't know that then but I do now. There is an unchanging, irreducible sumthin' in my composition. I call it spirit, you can call it information.

I call it what it is, consciousness. I'm not a physicalist, Henry.

[Terrapin Station]

Yeah, you're same in the sense of being causally, contiguously connected to what you were, but that's not (onto)logical identity, which means that nothing differs at all (onto)logically.

See my response to B, above.

There is no such (real) thing as an "essence" or "spirit." Essences are merely conceptual constructs individuals make (so phenomena of a particular person's brain), and specifically, they're the necessary properties the person requires to consider some x (some particular) an F (a type or universal term arching over a number of particulars).

[Terrapin Station]

If individual human consciousness were not a single existent, there would be no reason to ever make a choice about the future. If the consciousness you have today is not the same consciousness you will have tomorrow, why would you make a choice about anything that might affect tomorrow's consciousness, since it's not the one you have now?

Because it's causally, contiguously connected to today's consciousness, so what it's like tomorrow is affected by decisions you make today. It's not identical to today, but it's connected to it.

[RCSaunders]

If individual human consciousness were not a single existent, there would be no reason to ever make a choice about the future. If the consciousness you have today is not the same consciousness you will have tomorrow, why would you make a choice about anything that might affect tomorrow's consciousness, since it's not the one you have now?

Because it's causally, contiguously connected to today's consciousness, so what it's like tomorrow is affected by decisions you make today. It's not identical to today, but it's connected to it.

So the moon I see this morning is not the moon I see this afternoon. They are two different things I mistakenly call the same entity because they are causally contiguously connected?

[henry quirk]

Ontologically, an entity is whatever it's attributes (qualities, characeristics, and properties) are. Every entity has some attributes that change, and some attributes that remain unchanged while others change. The duration of an entity is determined by those attributes that remain unchanged for the duration of that entity. If all the attributes all changed the entity would never exist.

If individual human consciousness were not a single existent, there would be no reason to ever make a choice about the future. If the consciousness you have today is not the same consciousness you will have tomorrow, why would you make a choice about anything that might affect tomorrow's consciousness, since it's not the one you have now? Why would care about what some other consciousness is going to experience?

I'll tell you why. Because you know damn well the consciousness of tomorrow is the same consciousness you are experiencing at this moment, and it has been the same consciousness since the first time you opened your eyes and will be the same consciousness until the last time you close them, and it is that consciousness which is you and all that has meaning or matters in this would is what has meaning and matters to that consciousness.

Here's the thing, RC: if consciousness (or mind) is solely the result of the brain/body, TS would be right. The brain/body I have right now is significantly different than what I had ten, twenty, thirty years ago. If I am brain/body alone then why don't I change too? I don't. I learn, experience, acquire history, but it's always the same me, the same mind, the same consciousness. I'm the one who sez, well, I didn't know that then but I do now. There is an unchanging, irreducible sumthin' in my composition. I call it spirit, you can call it information.

I call it what it is, consciousness. I'm not a physicalist, Henry.

Your consciousness and my spirit aren't the same thing, I reckon. Yours extends out of matter; mine coexists with matter.

[henry quirk]

Yeah, you're same in the sense of being causally, contiguously connected to what you were, but that's not (onto)logical identity, which means that nothing differs at all (onto)logically.

See my response to B, above.

*There is no such (real) thing as an "essence" or "spirit." **Essences are merely conceptual constructs individuals make (so phenomena of a particular person's brain), and specifically, they're the necessary properties the person requires to consider some x (some particular) an F (a type or universal term arching over a number of particulars).

*Yeah, there is.

**philo-hooey.

[Terrapin Station]

So the moon I see this morning is not the moon I see this afternoon. They are two different things I mistakenly call the same entity because they are causally contiguously connected?

You're not "mistakenly" calling it the same entity, unless for some reason you think of that as solely being about it being logical/ontological identical on each occasion. Hopefully you're not under that misconception, and you realize that calling it the same entity doesn't imply that.

[RCSaunders]

Here's the thing, RC: if consciousness (or mind) is solely the result of the brain/body, TS would be right. The brain/body I have right now is significantly different than what I had ten, twenty, thirty years ago. If I am brain/body alone then why don't I change too? I don't. I learn, experience, acquire history, but it's always the same me, the same mind, the same consciousness. I'm the one who sez, well, I didn't know that then but I do now. There is an unchanging, irreducible sumthin' in my composition. I call it spirit, you can call it information.

I call it what it is, consciousness. I'm not a physicalist, Henry.

Your consciousness and my spirit aren't the same thing, I reckon. Yours extends out of matter; mine coexists with matter.

Where the hell did I ever say consciousness extends out of matter? I don't even know what that would mean. Consciousness does not emerge out of anything else. I only say consciousness is not a thing or a substance or an entity that can exist independently of a conscious being. Do you think it is or can?

Just curious. I'm on your side, in this, Henry. We just may have a slightly different way of looking at it.

[RCSaunders]

You're not "mistakenly" calling it the same entity, unless for some reason you think of that as solely being about it being logical/ontological identical on each occasion.

I have no idea what you mean by, "identical." If by identical you mean, "static," without any change whatsoever, who would ever think that. If by identical you mean an entity with the very same attributes that identify it as that entity at different times and places why would it not be the very same entity? (If it's not the very same entity, what happened to it, and where did the new one come from. Your, "causally, contiguously connected," description just explains how an entity remains the same one. If you mean something else by identical, what would it be?[/quote]

I also have no idea what you mean by logical/ontological. I know what both words mean but not what your compound form is supposed to mean. It almost seems like a category confusion: logic pertains to reason (epistemology), ontology pertains to existence. I would be interested in what you mean here.

[henry quirk]

I call it what it is, consciousness. I'm not a physicalist, Henry.

Your consciousness and my spirit aren't the same thing, I reckon. Yours extends out of matter; mine coexists with matter.

Where the hell did I ever say consciousness extends out of matter? I don't even know what that would mean. Consciousness does not emerge out of anything else. I only say consciousness is not a thing or a substance or an entity that can exist independently of a conscious being. Do you think it is or can?

Just curious. I'm on your side, in this, Henry. We just may have a slightly different way of looking at it.

Obviously, I don't know what you mean by consciousness. Can you gimme a plain language definition? in a coupla short paragraphs, please.

[Terrapin Station]

I have no idea what you mean by, "identical." If by identical you mean, "static," without any change whatsoever, who would ever think that.

Yes, logically or ontologically identical refers to it being _exactly_ the same.

If by identical you mean an entity with the very same attributes that identify it as that entity at different times and places why would it not be the very same entity?

The attributes can't be _exactly_ the same, either, because the attributes obtain via the particular dynamic relations of matter. That's what attributes ARE, unless you're going to posit some sort of real abstract or real universal, which insofar as I know you, I don't think you'd want to do.

"Logically identical" means that we're not equivocating. When we have two occurrences of the same variable in logic, for example, they refer to exactly the same thing, in the same respect, at the same time, etc.

"Ontologically identical" means that we're referring to exactly the same thing as an existent--there can be nothing different about it as an existent.