What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

Should I be indifferent to what is good merely because there are diverse views on it?

OMG. Is this the crack that's lets in the light?

That's a very suspect deployment of the word 'indifferent' there. I think he means 'indifferent to' in the same sense as 'unmotivated by' which would be in line with more than one of his reported sources, although I could be wrong as he usually hasn't read his reported sources.

It's also nothing like a VA sentence anyway - grammatically.

[Atla]

My critique is of 'mentalism' tout court. And my claim is that 'the mind, containing mental things and events' is a fiction, or a myth, or a metaphor. In our skulls, there is nothing but physical stuff: brain tissue, gurgling juices and blood, and electrochemical processes - synaptic firing of neurons.

If we look, we won't find thoughts, ideas, concepts, and so on.

Those thoughts, ideas, concepts etc. are what some of those brain tissues, electrochemical processes etc. are like from the inside perspective. Collectively we call them a human mind.

For example this image you are experiencing right now, when you see the monitor this sentence appears on, is what some part of your brain is like from the inside.

[Peter Holmes]

My critique is of 'mentalism' tout court. And my claim is that 'the mind, containing mental things and events' is a fiction, or a myth, or a metaphor. In our skulls, there is nothing but physical stuff: brain tissue, gurgling juices and blood, and electrochemical processes - synaptic firing of neurons.

If we look, we won't find thoughts, ideas, concepts, and so on.

Those thoughts, ideas, concepts etc. are what some of those brain tissues, electrochemical processes etc. are like from the inside perspective. Collectively we call them a human mind.

For example this image you are experiencing right now, when you see the monitor this sentence appears on, is what some part of your brain is like from the inside.

Erm. 'From the inside perspective, these physical things are like thoughts, ideas, concepts, etc.'

Sorry, but this makes no sense. From whose perspective? And how can a synaptic event 'be like' a thought?

There are thoughts in the brain in exactly the same way as there are feelings in the heart. Metaphorically.

[Atla]

Erm. 'From the inside perspective, these physical things are like thoughts, ideas, concepts, etc.'

Sorry, but this makes no sense. From whose perspective? And how can a synaptic event 'be like' a thought?

There are thoughts in the brain in exactly the same way as there are feelings in the heart. Metaphorically.

Well from your perspective.

Claiming that the only direct reality we are experiencing, and have ever experienced, only exists metaphorically, isn't even a respectable philosophical position imo, but a form of escapist denial.

You have it all backwards. All you actually know are the thoughts, concepts, feelings, images etc. that constitute your mind. And then using the faculties of your mind, the concept of a neural net viewed from the outside, is created. But you've never actually directly seen another neural net (and its accompanying EM fields etc.) from the outside, let alone from the inside, so you can't actually tell what they should be like from the inside perspective.

[Peter Holmes]

Erm. 'From the inside perspective, these physical things are like thoughts, ideas, concepts, etc.'

Sorry, but this makes no sense. From whose perspective? And how can a synaptic event 'be like' a thought?

There are thoughts in the brain in exactly the same way as there are feelings in the heart. Metaphorically.

Well from your perspective.

Claiming that the only direct reality we are experiencing, and have ever experienced, only exists metaphorically, isn't even a respectable philosophical position imo, but a form of escapist denial.

I'm not claiming that. I'm saying that when we talk about 'having a thought' or 'changing our mind', we're speaking metaphorically about electrochemical events - synaptic firing - and so on. Physical things.

You have it all backwards. All you actually know are the thoughts, concepts, feelings, images etc. that constitute your mind. And then using the faculties of your mind, the concept of a neural net viewed from the outside, is created. But you've never actually directly seen another neural net (and its accompanying EM fields etc.) from the outside, let alone from the inside, so you can't actually tell what they should be like from the inside perspective.

This model is strange. Who or what is the 'I' that 'knows' the thoughts, concepts, feelings, images, etc that supposedly constitute my mind? And what does 'viewed from the inside' mean?

I think you're trying to patch together or flesh out a mentalist model that just doesn't work. It's a story about our selves and experiences that's unproblematic as long as we don't take it literally.

[Skepdick]

I'm not claiming that. I'm saying that when we talk about 'having a thought' or 'changing our mind', we're speaking metaphorically about electrochemical events - synaptic firing - and so on. Physical things.

Who is speaking metaphorically? Is it not you?

This model is strange. Who or what is the 'I' that 'knows' the thoughts, concepts, feelings, images, etc that supposedly constitute my mind?

This model is so strange.

Who is asking these questions? Is it not you?
If you aren't asking these questions then who or what is asking these questions?

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is problematic when 'what is good' is merely subjective, i.e. based on individual[s] opinion, beliefs and judgment.

Is it any less problematic when others decide what is good for you?

It may or may-not be problematic if others decide what good for me, especially on matter I am not an expert, e.g. medicine, nutrition, car maintenance, etc.

As such, humanity will need a taxonomy of 'what is good' and differentiate those good that can be self-developed from those we need guidance from third parties.

There is a difference between having to decide to act on what is good in contrast to being doing good spontaneously.
However, the ultimate is for one to act spontaneously to what is good for oneself, groups and humanity.

Should I be indifferent to what is good merely because there are diverse views on it?

I think you should be respectful of what other people decide is good for themselves, and as long as it doesn't conflict with someone else's decision about what is good for them, leave them to it.

Note the necessary taxonomy of what is good - a future project for humanity.

From that taxonomy of what is good we can categories those goods which other people decide is good for themselves, and as long as it doesn't conflict with someone else's decision about what is good for them.
To avoid any grey issues on critical matters that can threaten humanity as a species,
there should be a category on what is universally good for all of humanity.
However such a good should not be decided and enforced on anyone.

Rather, in the future, all of humanity need to be guided such that they will exercise what is good universally on a naturally, spontaneously and voluntarily basis without force or influence from external authorities and third parties.

Example of an existing state of maintaining what is good;
Assuming you are a normal average moral person, WHY is that you do not go about killing other humans, committing mass murder and genocides?
It is because you already have the neural moral algorithm of what is good universally in your brain such that naturally, spontaneously and voluntarily basis you are adhering to what is good, i.e. not committing those evil acts.

Since the average person already has such a state of maintaining what is good, there is the potential IN THE FUTURE [not now] to develop this moral state in ALL or the majority of human, so that what is good is maintain naturally.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My critique is of 'mentalism' tout court. And my claim is that 'the mind, containing mental things and events' is a fiction, or a myth, or a metaphor. In our skulls, there is nothing but physical stuff: brain tissue, gurgling juices and blood, and electrochemical processes - synaptic firing of neurons.

If we look, we won't find thoughts, ideas, concepts, and so on.

Those thoughts, ideas, concepts etc. are what some of those brain tissues, electrochemical processes etc. are like from the inside perspective. Collectively we call them a human mind.

For example this image you are experiencing right now, when you see the monitor this sentence appears on, is what some part of your brain is like from the inside.

Erm. 'From the inside perspective, these physical things are like thoughts, ideas, concepts, etc.'

Sorry, but this makes no sense. From whose perspective? And how can a synaptic event 'be like' a thought?

There are thoughts in the brain in exactly the same way as there are feelings in the heart. Metaphorically.

You are talking nonsense as usual without any supporting credible references.

What is a 'mind' is synonymous to an active conscious physical brain as conditioned within the human-based biology-psychology-FSK.
The physical brain of a corpse is never recognized as a mind.

There are thoughts in the brain in exactly the same way as there are feelings in the heart. Metaphorically.

What kind of metaphorical nonsense is this?

All feelings [e.g. physical pains from the heart or anywhere in the body] are processed in the brain via synaptic events, then felt.
All emotional feelings are also processed in the limbic system in the brain via synaptic events.

All thoughts from the brain are represented by physical neurons and synaptic events.

Neuroscientists are just starting to link brain activity to internal experiences, such as thoughts, says Loren Frank.
https://www.snexplores.org/article/brai ... lpha-waves

Different emotional thoughts are triggered from specific parts of the limbic system, thus reducible to their synaptic events. e.g.

• Scientists have identified a specific region of the brain called the amygdala, as the part of the brain that processes fear, triggers anger, and motivates us to act. It alerts us to danger and activates the fight or flight response. Researchers have also found that the prefrontal cortex is the area of the brain that controls reasoning, judgment and helps us think logically before we act.
  https://psychcentral.com/blog/anger/201 ... he-brain#1

[Veritas Aequitas]

I'm not claiming that. I'm saying that when we talk about 'having a thought' or 'changing our mind', we're speaking metaphorically about electrochemical events - synaptic firing - and so on. Physical things.

Nope, you are ignorant as usual, and learning on your 'what is fact' which is illusory and nonsensical.

Within the human-based biological psychological FSK,
when we talk about 'having a thought' or 'changing our mind', we're are literally representing those matters by electrochemical events - synaptic firing - and so on in an active brain which is the brain.
If there is no active FSK-brain, i.e. the FSK-mind, there is no 'having a thought' nor 'changing our mind'.

This model is strange. Who or what is the 'I' that 'knows' the thoughts, concepts, feelings, images, etc., that supposedly constitute my mind? And what does 'viewed from the inside' mean?

I think you're trying to patch together or flesh out a mentalist model that just doesn't work. It's a story about our selves and experiences that's unproblematic as long as we don't take it literally.

Your model is more strange, illusory and non-sensical.

To you, what is fact is a feature of reality which is just-is, being-so or that is the case.
The description of an "I" me, or you is not the described-I, me or you.

Now, if you insist the factual described "I" me, or you is not constituted by the mind's and brain's neurons and synaptic event, then, that real factual described-I, me or you must be an illusory just-is or being so.

Btw, you still have not proven to me the existence of the real described-fact or the real-described factual "I" that is independent of the individual's opinion, beliefs and judgment, i.e. independent of any human-based FSK.

[Peter Holmes]

I'm not claiming that. I'm saying that when we talk about 'having a thought' or 'changing our mind', we're speaking metaphorically about electrochemical events - synaptic firing - and so on. Physical things.

Nope, you are ignorant as usual, and learning on your 'what is fact' which is illusory and nonsensical.

Within the human-based biological psychological FSK,
when we talk about 'having a thought' or 'changing our mind', we're are literally representing those matters by electrochemical events - synaptic firing - and so on in an active brain which is the brain.
If there is no active FSK-brain, i.e. the FSK-mind, there is no 'having a thought' nor 'changing our mind'.

This model is strange. Who or what is the 'I' that 'knows' the thoughts, concepts, feelings, images, etc., that supposedly constitute my mind? And what does 'viewed from the inside' mean?

I think you're trying to patch together or flesh out a mentalist model that just doesn't work. It's a story about our selves and experiences that's unproblematic as long as we don't take it literally.

Your model is more strange, illusory and non-sensical.

To you, what is fact is a feature of reality which is just-is, being-so or that is the case.
The description of an "I" me, or you is not the described-I, me or you.

Now, if you insist the factual described "I" me, or you is not constituted by the mind's and brain's neurons and synaptic event, then, that real factual described-I, me or you must be an illusory just-is or being so.

Btw, you still have not proven to me the existence of the real described-fact or the real-described factual "I" that is independent of the individual's opinion, beliefs and judgment, i.e. independent of any human-based FSK.

If there were no neuroscience, would there be no neurons and synaptic events? (With one bound, you could be free of your silly argument.)

[Skepdick]

If there were no neuroscience, would there be no neurons and synaptic events?

If there were no question-askers who would be asking such questions and why?

If there were no question-askers who would obtain the answer to this question and how?

[Will Bouwman]

Assuming you are a normal average moral person, WHY is that you do not go about killing other humans, committing mass murder and genocides?
It is because you already have the neural moral algorithm of what is good universally in your brain such that naturally, spontaneously and voluntarily basis you are adhering to what is good, i.e. not committing those evil acts.

Since the average person already has such a state of maintaining what is good, there is the potential IN THE FUTURE [not now] to develop this moral state in ALL or the majority of human, so that what is good is maintain naturally.

What will bring this state about? Over 2000 years ago Socrates argued that people who behave immorally do so out of ignorance. There have been some changes in moral standards, including some I would call improvements, but it is not clear that persuasion alters neural moral algorithms. Are we therefore waiting for evolution to eradicate people with the wrong neural moral algorithm because, for some reason, mating strategies employed by people with a tendency to commit mass murder and genocide stop working? Or will it take medical intervention and a bit of eugenics?

[Skepdick]

What will bring this state about? Over 2000 years ago Socrates argued that people who behave immorally do so out of ignorance. There have been some changes in moral standards, including some I would call improvements, but it is not clear that persuasion alters neural moral algorithms. Are we therefore waiting for evolution to eradicate people with the wrong neural moral algorithm because, for some reason, mating strategies employed by people with a tendency to commit mass murder and genocide stop working? Or will it take medical intervention and a bit of eugenics?

I don't understand the "or" in your line of questioning.

Do you see human activity as somehow distinct from all other evolutionary mechanisms which act as natural selectors?

If your own people decide to remove you from the gene pool - you fail at the game.

[Will Bouwman]

I don't understand the "or" in your line of questioning.

It really shouldn't trouble you.

Do you see human activity as somehow distinct from all other evolutionary mechanisms which act as natural selectors?

As someone involved in a multi-paradigm field, I would have thought you could achieve in natural language what you manage in computer science.

If your own people decide to remove you from the gene pool - you fail at the game.

That's one way of looking at it.

[Skepdick]

I don't understand the "or" in your line of questioning.

It really shouldn't trouble you.

Do you see human activity as somehow distinct from all other evolutionary mechanisms which act as natural selectors?

As someone involved in a multi-paradigm field, I would have thought you could achieve in natural language what you manage in computer science.

I mean, most of the time I can't even distinguish your content from something a language model would write so yeah.

A ChatGPT subscription is also cheaper than your book. And way more readily available.

That's one way of looking at it.

Obviously. It's the way of looking at it from the evolutionary paradigm.