What could make morality objective?

[RCSaunders]

Thanks again. I'm not denying that we, along with some other species, experience what we call consciousness. I'm saying there's no reason to think that what we call consciousness is a non-physical (or abstract) thing or experience. And its physical privacy is irrelevant; that doesn't make it non-physical. No one else can experience my having my leg cut off either.

How can a physical cause (for example, neural activity) have a supposed non-physical effect? What is the causal mechanism?

Of course a physical cause cannot cause a non-physical thing which is how I know my conscious experience is not caused by the physical. Our difference is more semantic than metaphysical. You regard everything that actually is as physical, so if there are conscious experiences they must be physical (or totally explicable in physical terms) while I only regard what I can directly perceive (directly see, hear, feel, etc.) or can deduce directly from or about what is perceived as physical and everything else I know exists (life, consciousness and mind) as real existents, (not enitities), but can neither be perceived or explained in terms of what can be perceived. The fact I cannot perceive them or know them that way does not mean for me there is anything mystical or supernatural about them, they are just additional natural but unperceivable attributes of the same physical reality.

Both claims invoke the idea of something non-physical. And just as the second exposes supernaturalism as merely an appeal to magic - a childish superstition - so does the first.

I'm wholly sympathetic (intellectually, not emotionally) with your dislike of anything that suggests supernaturalism and I think most people do have a mystical view of things like life, consciousness, and mind. The supernatural view of such things (turned into notions of the, "soul," and, "eternal life," and all other superstitious nonsense) is exactly what I oppose. Just because most people's understanding of something becomes a superstition, does not mean I must reject my own conscious experience to evade their mistake.

I think the shock of behaviourism - and not just Skinner's - was its scary rejection of the legacy dualism that still plagues psychology. How can you study the mind - the psyche - if you reject the claim (the ancient, supernaturalist delusion) that the mind is a separate, identifiable and observable thing?

That's the fundamental problem with the pseudo-science of psychology. It cannot study the mind because it is not observable. The best a psychologist can do is rely on the testimony of those whose, "minds," he is supposedly studying, but can never study a mind itself, the actual experience of the one providing the testimony. A patient can describe his own conscious experience but the psychologist cannot actually observe what is being described and can only understand it, if at all, in terms of his own conscious experience. A patient can say, "I have this taste in my mouth that tastes like lemon," but if the psychologist has never tasted a lemon, he cannot possibly know what the patient is describing, and if he has tasted a lemon, he can only assume the patient's experience is the same as his--but he can never know it and can never observe it.

As I say, the myth of so-called abstract (or non-physical) things runs deep and strong through our explanations.

You are right, that almost all views of those aspects of life that are not directly amenable to direct perception are mythical and mystical. I assure you, mine isn't. My views are not learned from anyone else, and as far as I know, there is no one else who holds the same views in these matters that I do. I began where you are, assuming everything could be explained in terms of the physical until I ran into the contradictions--that facts that I am conscious, have knowledge, and consciously choose all my behavior.

I have often thought, perhaps all those who are certain there is only the physical and that everything, including their own conscious minds can be explained as some kind of physically caused phenomena are right, at least about their own minds. I cannot argue with someone else's experience. I only know my own conscious mind is not a physical phenomena, and if I'm the only one in the universe for whom that is true, so be it.

[Peter Holmes]

Thanks again. I'm not denying that we, along with some other species, experience what we call consciousness. I'm saying there's no reason to think that what we call consciousness is a non-physical (or abstract) thing or experience. And its physical privacy is irrelevant; that doesn't make it non-physical. No one else can experience my having my leg cut off either.

How can a physical cause (for example, neural activity) have a supposed non-physical effect? What is the causal mechanism?

Of course a physical cause cannot cause a non-physical thing which is how I know my conscious experience is not caused by the physical. Our difference is more semantic than metaphysical. You regard everything that actually is as physical, so if there are conscious experiences they must be physical (or totally explicable in physical terms) while I only regard what I can directly perceive (directly see, hear, feel, etc.) or can deduce directly from or about what is perceived as physical and everything else I know exists (life, consciousness and mind) as real existents, (not enitities), but can neither be perceived or explained in terms of what can be perceived. The fact I cannot perceive them or know them that way does not mean for me there is anything mystical or supernatural about them, they are just additional natural but unperceivable attributes of the same physical reality.

Both claims invoke the idea of something non-physical. And just as the second exposes supernaturalism as merely an appeal to magic - a childish superstition - so does the first.

I'm wholly sympathetic (intellectually, not emotionally) with your dislike of anything that suggests supernaturalism and I think most people do have a mystical view of things like life, consciousness, and mind. The supernatural view of such things (turned into notions of the, "soul," and, "eternal life," and all other superstitious nonsense) is exactly what I oppose. Just because most people's understanding of something becomes a superstition, does not mean I must reject my own conscious experience to evade their mistake.

I think the shock of behaviourism - and not just Skinner's - was its scary rejection of the legacy dualism that still plagues psychology. How can you study the mind - the psyche - if you reject the claim (the ancient, supernaturalist delusion) that the mind is a separate, identifiable and observable thing?

That's the fundamental problem with the pseudo-science of psychology. It cannot study the mind because it is not observable. The best a psychologist can do is rely on the testimony of those whose, "minds," he is supposedly studying, but can never study a mind itself, the actual experience of the one providing the testimony. A patient can describe his own conscious experience but the psychologist cannot actually observe what is being described and can only understand it, if at all, in terms of his own conscious experience. A patient can say, "I have this taste in my mouth that tastes like lemon," but if the psychologist has never tasted a lemon, he cannot possibly know what the patient is describing, and if he has tasted a lemon, he can only assume the patient's experience is the same as his--but he can never know it and can never observe it.

As I say, the myth of so-called abstract (or non-physical) things runs deep and strong through our explanations.

You are right, that almost all views of those aspects of life that are not directly amenable to direct perception are mythical and mystical. I assure you, mine isn't. My views are not learned from anyone else, and as far as I know, there is no one else who holds the same views in these matters that I do. I began where you are, assuming everything could be explained in terms of the physical until I ran into the contradictions--that facts that I am conscious, have knowledge, and consciously choose all my behavior.

I have often thought, perhaps all those who are certain there is only the physical and that everything, including their own conscious minds can be explained as some kind of physically caused phenomena are right, at least about their own minds. I cannot argue with someone else's experience. I only know my own conscious mind is not a physical phenomena, and if I'm the only one in the universe for whom that is true, so be it.

Thanks for the time and care you've taken to explain your position.

As I understand it, you think that, behind or beyond any of the ways we use and explain, for example, the word 'life' and its cognates, there is something else - physically unperceivable and inexplicable, with no physical location or properties - that is, as it were, Life (my capitalisation).

And I've explained why I think this is a mistake - an example of the kind of unfalsifiable claim that characterises the mysticism we both reject. And I think our disagreement isn't semantic, but rather ontological.

May I suggest we leave it here? And thanks again for an interesting discussion.

[Sculptor]

I have often thought, perhaps all those who are certain there is only the physical and that everything, including their own conscious minds can be explained as some kind of physically caused phenomena are right, at least about their own minds. I cannot argue with someone else's experience. I only know my own conscious mind is not a physical phenomena, and if I'm the only one in the universe for whom that is true, so be it.

The problem here is that you misunderstand "physical". You know nothing. You have masked your misunderstanding with a fantasy.
If that is the crutch that gets you past this inconvenience then so be it.

[RCSaunders]

Thanks for the time and care you've taken to explain your position.

As I understand it, you think that, behind or beyond any of the ways we use and explain, for example, the word 'life' and its cognates, there is something else - physically unperceivable and inexplicable, with no physical location or properties - that is, as it were, Life (my capitalisation).

That's not quite right. I do not think life and consciousness are in any way possible or separate from the physical, but that a very small number of very rare physical entities in the universe, called organisms, have those attribute which differentiates them from all other physical entities, that they are not at all inexplicable but can be accurately described and that those descriptions are actually the explanation of what differentiates organisms from mere physical entities. Those attribute cannot be directly perceived, they are what makes perception possible to an organism. The evidence is one's own conscious perception. It cannot be shared but cannot be denied, if one is conscious. We know we see, not by seeing it (or perceiving it in any other way); we know we see because we do. Like volition, we know we consciously choose our behavior, not by perceiving it or even explaining it, but because it is not possible for us to do anything consciously we do not choose to do, at least for those of us who are conscious and do choose our behavior. One has to take the word of those who swear they are not conscious or do not choose their behavior. I just want to make it clear there I have no view of any kind of ineffable

I just want to make it clear I have no view of any kind if inexplicable, ineffable, or mystical thing or stuff behind or separate from the physical. Separate from the physical, there is nothing, but the physical obviously can have properties that make it a living organism that cannot be explained in terms of the directly perceivable attributes. It is denying that obvious fact that leads to all the so-called philosophical mysteries opening the door to endless superstitious and mystical attempts to explain them.

And I've explained why I think this is a mistake - an example of the kind of unfalsifiable claim that characterises the mysticism we both reject. And I think our disagreement isn't semantic, but rather ontological.

May I suggest we leave it here? And thanks again for an interesting discussion.

Yes, you have explained your position very well and I have to say, I very much agree with it in most respects, because it is prompted by the premise insisting on evidence. We can certainly leave it here. Thank you for being reasonable and enjoyable as well.

[RCSaunders]

I have often thought, perhaps all those who are certain there is only the physical and that everything, including their own conscious minds can be explained as some kind of physically caused phenomena are right, at least about their own minds. I cannot argue with someone else's experience. I only know my own conscious mind is not a physical phenomena, and if I'm the only one in the universe for whom that is true, so be it.

The problem here is that you misunderstand "physical". You know nothing. You have masked your misunderstanding with a fantasy.
If that is the crutch that gets you past this inconvenience then so be it.

What inconvenience? It seems to me, denying one consciously chooses everything they do is evading the inconvenient fact they are responsible for everything they do because they consciously choose it. It is the perennial excuse of all those who want to blame something else for all their problems and failures, "it's not my fault, I never chose to do those dumb things that have ruined my life, something (my gene's, society, my education or lack thereof, my irresistable feelings and desires, my economic status, family, society, etc. etc. (or the Devil) made me do it.

I cannot argue with your personal experience, and it does not matter whether you understand it or not, it is not mine. I consciously choose my behavior. I cannot know what determines your behavior, but I cannot evade the fact I'm responsible for every aspect of what I do consciously and whatever success I enjoy in life is because I have chosen to achieve it and whatever failures or problems I have in life are my own fault.

[Belinda]

I have often thought, perhaps all those who are certain there is only the physical and that everything, including their own conscious minds can be explained as some kind of physically caused phenomena are right, at least about their own minds. I cannot argue with someone else's experience. I only know my own conscious mind is not a physical phenomena, and if I'm the only one in the universe for whom that is true, so be it.

The problem here is that you misunderstand "physical". You know nothing. You have masked your misunderstanding with a fantasy.
If that is the crutch that gets you past this inconvenience then so be it.

What inconvenience? It seems to me, denying one consciously chooses everything they do is evading the inconvenient fact they are responsible for everything they do because they consciously choose it. It is the perennial excuse of all those who want to blame something else for all their problems and failures, "it's not my fault, I never chose to do those dumb things that have ruined my life, something (my gene's, society, my education or lack thereof, my irresistable feelings and desires, my economic status, family, society, etc. etc. (or the Devil) made me do it.

I cannot argue with your personal experience, and it does not matter whether you understand it or not, it is not mine. I consciously choose my behavior. I cannot know what determines your behavior, but I cannot evade the fact I'm responsible for every aspect of what I do consciously and whatever success I enjoy in life is because I have chosen to achieve it and whatever failures or problems I have in life are my own fault.

You are right, RCSaunders, to shoulder the responsibility for your own decisions. Your ability to take this responsibility is closely linked to your freedom to chose from an array of options. Some people have limited options, such people as infants, mentally handicapped, victims of torture, slaves, people engaged in dying, very ill people, people with mental illnesses.

Where an individual is on the continuum between a large spread of options and no options at all, is matter of what hand life has dealt them, a free hand at one pole, or no cards to play at the other pole. At any event the ideal to aim at for oneself and for others whom we aim to help, is both to increase the scope of options and encourage to take responsibility for what they decide .

[Sculptor]

I have often thought, perhaps all those who are certain there is only the physical and that everything, including their own conscious minds can be explained as some kind of physically caused phenomena are right, at least about their own minds. I cannot argue with someone else's experience. I only know my own conscious mind is not a physical phenomena, and if I'm the only one in the universe for whom that is true, so be it.

The problem here is that you misunderstand "physical". You know nothing. You have masked your misunderstanding with a fantasy.
If that is the crutch that gets you past this inconvenience then so be it.

What inconvenience? It seems to me, denying one consciously chooses everything they do is evading the inconvenient fact they are responsible for everything they do because they consciously choose it. It is the perennial excuse of all those who want to blame something else for all their problems and failures, "it's not my fault, I never chose to do those dumb things that have ruined my life, something (my gene's, society, my education or lack thereof, my irresistable feelings and desires, my economic status, family, society, etc. etc. (or the Devil) made me do it.

This was not the issue I was addressing.
Regardless of radical free will, or determinism you are still responsible like it or not.

I cannot argue with your personal experience, and it does not matter whether you understand it or not, it is not mine. I consciously choose my behavior. I cannot know what determines your behavior, but I cannot evade the fact I'm responsible for every aspect of what I do consciously and whatever success I enjoy in life is because I have chosen to achieve it and whatever failures or problems I have in life are my own fault.

I determine my behaviour. Me and the rest of the universe. If you don't want me to get angry with you then don't piss me off. If you don't want me to come after you, don't steal from me.
Cause is a bitch - but nothing happens without it.

My post was about "knowing consciousness is not physical" which is bollocks.

[RCSaunders]

My post was about "knowing consciousness is not physical" which is bollocks.

Anything physical can either be directly perceived or detected and examined by some physical means (e.g. microscopes, telescopes, electronic instruments, etc.) When you can detect my consciousness (not brain activity, which is definitely physical) my actual seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, and tasting, my consciousness of internal states like pain, vertigo, or nausea, and my conscious thoughts or imagination, let me know. Unless you believe in mind-reading, there is no way for anyone to perceive or detect another organism's consciousness.

Now I cannot say you consciously see, hear, and perceive things, or feel pain, or have conscious thoughts or imagination, because no one can know anyone else's conscious experience, or if they even have any except by the other's testimony. You might just be a machine programmed to say and write what you do. An unconscious machine can certainly be programmed to say what you said. I can only speak for myself and those others who assure me they are also conscious.

I'm not arguing with you, just making the point for other conscious individuals who read this and wonder what you are going on about.

[RCSaunders]

You are right, RCSaunders, to shoulder the responsibility for your own decisions. Your ability to take this responsibility is closely linked to your freedom to chose from an array of options. Some people have limited options, such people as infants, mentally handicapped, victims of torture, slaves, people engaged in dying, very ill people, people with mental illnesses.

Where an individual is on the continuum between a large spread of options and no options at all, is matter of what hand life has dealt them, a free hand at one pole, or no cards to play at the other pole. At any event the ideal to aim at for oneself and for others whom we aim to help, is both to increase the scope of options and encourage to take responsibility for what they decide .

Thanks Belinda. There is no principle or law of reality that says everyone can, or is even supposed to be happy and successful. If history is any guide, most people will never be successful or happy in this world. With few exceptions, most people could be successful if they were willing to do what is required to achieve it, bit there are no guarantees, it is very difficult, and the evidence shows, most won't.

Of course there are people with limited options, including some you described such as the mentally deficient, the physically handicapped, the very ill, or those born in impossible conditions beyond their control. There is almost no handicap or limitation, however, ever used by anyone as an excuse for their failure that some individual I know with that same handicap or limitation has not lived a very full and successful life.

One of my boyhood friends, from a very poor broken home, when eight years old, was sitting on a curb when a trolley car went by dragging him off the curb, cutting off one of his legs and one of his arms. If anyone had an excuse for failure, he did, but he did just the opposite. He rode a bike, played baseball, excelled in school, worked his way through college and became a very successful business man. Except during his medical convalescence he never received any special help (and I'm sure would have refused it if offered).

Everyone born, however, is not going to succeed. Many will not even live beyond a few days, and nothing in this world will, "increase the scope of options," available to those born with Severe microcephaly, Anencephaly, or Trisomy 18.

The failure of most people, however, is not because of any handicap or something beyond their control (everyone has handicaps and difficulties to overcome), but simply their own failure to use the abilities and resources they do have to be and achieve all they can, because they are not willing to do the very hard work necessary to succeed, especially when surrounded by a society promising unearned rights, safety, and security. It's easier to complain about a world that is, "unfair," that does not automatically provide what one wants and blame everything except one's own choices and actions for their failure.

As much as you and I deplore the unhappiness of others and wish for everyone to be a success, it is a mistake to squander any wealth or effort attempting to provide additional, "scope and options," on those who refuse to use the opportunities and abilities they already have. With the exception of the infinitesimal minority of individuals with impossible conditions, the failure of all other individuals is their own fault.

[Peter Holmes]

Just a thought about our supposed epistemic isolation from each other - the supposedly necessary privacy of what we call our minds and conscious experience. I suggest this is a legacy of the empiricist skepticism that, for example, Russell recycled and peddled - and, further back, of the Cartesian dualism that we've never really shaken off.

Our having, by and large, the same physiology as each other, including the same brains, actually unites us. So, in normal circumstances, I can know a great deal about what you're going through when, for example, you're injured, and when you experience things. The claim that I can never know what it's like to be someone else is absurd. (If it were true, how could any notion of moral rightness and wrongness make sense?)

If I can never know when someone else has an idea, how can I know when I have an idea? How can I know what the expression 'having an idea' means?

[Sculptor]

My post was about "knowing consciousness is not physical" which is bollocks.

Anything physical can either be directly perceived or detected and examined by some physical means (e.g. microscopes, telescopes, electronic instruments, etc.) When you can detect my consciousness (not brain activity, which is definitely physical) my actual seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, and tasting, my consciousness of internal states like pain, vertigo, or nausea, and my conscious thoughts or imagination, let me know. Unless you believe in mind-reading, there is no way for anyone to perceive or detect another organism's consciousness.

Now I cannot say you consciously see, hear, and perceive things, or feel pain, or have conscious thoughts or imagination, because no one can know anyone else's conscious experience, or if they even have any except by the other's testimony. You might just be a machine programmed to say and write what you do. An unconscious machine can certainly be programmed to say what you said. I can only speak for myself and those others who assure me they are also conscious.

I'm not arguing with you, just making the point for other conscious individuals who read this and wonder what you are going on about.

My point was not to state that consciousness is physical. I believe that, but cannot prove it. My point was to say that knowing that consciousness in NOT physical is bollocks.
Clearly there is the world of ideas and the world of matter. Matter and energy are the best notions we have to describe the world, and physical describes both things in interaction. Like a book is physical, but contains ideas, the ideas could die without the continued existence of the book or a copy of it. I think the same works for the brain. Ideas are the unique arrangement of matter and energy in neural matter. When the brain dies so too does the unique ideas that have not been "copied" to another person. All this is evident.
Saying that consciousness is NOT physical is an empty statement with no basis in evidence.
Obviously the brain is more than a passive book, but whatever it might be able to achieve it has to do so physically.

[henry quirk]

My point was not to state that consciousness is physical. I believe that, but cannot prove it.

Usually, in this place, folks who believe consciousness is physical never admit they can't prove it. They dissemble and obfuscate.

Good on you, guy...

[RCSaunders]

My post was about "knowing consciousness is not physical" which is bollocks.

Anything physical can either be directly perceived or detected and examined by some physical means (e.g. microscopes, telescopes, electronic instruments, etc.) When you can detect my consciousness (not brain activity, which is definitely physical) my actual seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, and tasting, my consciousness of internal states like pain, vertigo, or nausea, and my conscious thoughts or imagination, let me know. Unless you believe in mind-reading, there is no way for anyone to perceive or detect another organism's consciousness.

Now I cannot say you consciously see, hear, and perceive things, or feel pain, or have conscious thoughts or imagination, because no one can know anyone else's conscious experience, or if they even have any except by the other's testimony. You might just be a machine programmed to say and write what you do. An unconscious machine can certainly be programmed to say what you said. I can only speak for myself and those others who assure me they are also conscious.

I'm not arguing with you, just making the point for other conscious individuals who read this and wonder what you are going on about.

My point was not to state that consciousness is physical. I believe that, but cannot prove it. My point was to say that knowing that consciousness in NOT physical is bollocks.
Clearly there is the world of ideas and the world of matter. Matter and energy are the best notions we have to describe the world, and physical describes both things in interaction. Like a book is physical, but contains ideas, the ideas could die without the continued existence of the book or a copy of it. I think the same works for the brain. Ideas are the unique arrangement of matter and energy in neural matter. When the brain dies so too does the unique ideas that have not been "copied" to another person. All this is evident.
Saying that consciousness is NOT physical is an empty statement with no basis in evidence.
Obviously the brain is more than a passive book, but whatever it might be able to achieve it has to do so physically.

Sculptor, I understand, and actually have a great deal of sympathy with your view. I would not even try to change it. As far as I can see it certainly does me no harm that we do not agree on it. I personally think it is mistaken (as you do mine). I can even hope you are right, but until it can be demonstrated, I just cannot agree with it. But I still love you!

[RCSaunders]

My point was not to state that consciousness is physical. I believe that, but cannot prove it.

Usually, in this place, folks who believe consciousness is physical never admit they can't prove it. They dissemble and obfuscate.

Good on you, guy...

I agree. I should have made that point as well. You are a star today, Henry.

[Peter Holmes]

There's plenty of evidence that what we call consciousness is physical: a product of and dependent on neural activity. And, to my knowledge, there's no evidence for the existence of what we call consciousness in the absence of neural activity.

By contrast - and, again, to my knowledge - there's no evidence that what we call consciousness is a non-physical phenomenon - given that such a claim is even coherent - which, pending an explanation and demonstration of a non-physical phenomenon, it isn't. It's just an appeal to magic.