What could make morality objective?

[Iwannaplato]

Since all humans evolved from bacteria since >3 billions years ago,
do you deny this process of the bacteria-based FSK became part and parcel of our present human-based FSK via 3 billions years of evolution and natural selection?

So, what is the process? where is the bacterial FSK in humans now? How do we verify this claim? Not everything gets passed down, as natural selection, the phrase itself, implies. So how do we know this did?

Also for bacteria to have a framework and system it would seem to me they need to be conscious? A framework is an abstract conception of something else. Are you granting bacteria cognitive processes?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4802748/

Life is consciousness, consciousness is life.

Thanks for the link. I'm more interested in how VA put it all together with his other ideas.
According to the Vedanta there's only consciousness, period. Not just what most modern humans call life. I have wondered if, in the end, VA decides to assert panpsychism. That would solve some of the problems of him telling use what the universe was like before humans arrived (or even bacteria).

But are you saying you think bacteria have a framework and system of knowledge? That's not just having consciousness.

[Peter Holmes]

Since all humans evolved from bacteria since >3 billions years ago,
do you deny this process of the bacteria-based FSK became part and parcel of our present human-based FSK via 3 billions years of evolution and natural selection?

Premise: Humans evolved from bacteria, by natural selection, over billions of years.
Conclusion: Therefore, the bacteria framework and system of knowledge became part of the human framework and system of knowledge.

This is utter, unmitigated tripe, for which you have not one scrap of evidence. It's mystical claptrap. But hey, when did having to produce evidence and sound argument ever give a mystic charlatan pause?

[Skepdick]

Since all humans evolved from bacteria since >3 billions years ago,
do you deny this process of the bacteria-based FSK became part and parcel of our present human-based FSK via 3 billions years of evolution and natural selection?

Premise: Humans evolved from bacteria, by natural selection, over billions of years.
Conclusion: Therefore, the bacteria framework and system of knowledge became part of the human framework and system of knowledge.

This is utter, unmitigated tripe, for which you have not one scrap of evidence. It's mystical claptrap. But hey, when did having to produce evidence and sound argument ever give a mystic charlatan pause?

Every time you ask for evidence it gets thrown at you. And then you ask for more.

It's almost like you are sealioning or something.

https://www.science.org/content/article ... el-and-act

[Atla]

"bacteria-based FSK"



Hmm it says there are about 39 trillion bacteria in a human body. I guess they are all slightly different. That sounds like a whole lot of FSKs.

[Peter Holmes]

"bacteria-based FSK"



Hmm it says there are about 39 trillion bacteria in a human body. I guess they are all slightly different. That sounds like a whole lot of FSKs.

They're gearing up for a mind-meld with bacteria.

[popeye1945]

So, what is the process? where is the bacterial FSK in humans now? How do we verify this claim? Not everything gets passed down, as natural selection, the phrase itself, implies. So how do we know this did?

Also for bacteria to have a framework and system it would seem to me they need to be conscious? A framework is an abstract conception of something else. Are you granting bacteria cognitive processes?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4802748/

Life is consciousness, consciousness is life.

Thanks for the link. I'm more interested in how VA put it all together with his other ideas.
According to the Vedanta there's only consciousness, period. Not just what most modern humans call life. I have wondered if, in the end, VA decides to assert panpsychism. That would solve some of the problems of him telling us what the universe was like before humans arrived (or even bacteria).

But are you saying you think bacteria have a framework and system of knowledge? That's not just having consciousness.

If you read the article you will come to see, that consciousness is life, life is consciousness.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Since all humans evolved from bacteria since >3 billions years ago,
do you deny this process of the bacteria-based FSK became part and parcel of our present human-based FSK via 3 billions years of evolution and natural selection?

Premise: Humans evolved from bacteria, by natural selection, over billions of years.
Conclusion: Therefore, the bacteria framework and system of knowledge became part of the human framework and system of knowledge.

This is utter, unmitigated tripe, for which you have not one scrap of evidence. It's mystical claptrap. But hey, when did having to produce evidence and sound argument ever give a mystic charlatan pause?

When I used framework and system of knowledge [FSK], it is implied framework and system of Reality [FSR].
For bacteria FSR is more appropriate, but I am using FSK as a convenience.

It would be very shallow of you when I refer link FSK with bacteria, you think I believe bacteria are capable of doing a PhD.

You are very ignorant of reality.

Note I wrote above;

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 143310.htm

In addition, a clue, quote;

"The discovery sets a landmark in research to understand the way bacteria are able to respond and adapt to changes in their environment, a trait shared by nearly all living things, and it could lead to innovations in fields from medicine to agriculture."

From what I learned, all living things would include human beings.

In my case, it is not decision making, but about the emergence and realization of reality [FSR] within the primordial soup of particles existing at present.

As such, human beings merely retain a very minute but very critical element of realization from the FSR of the bacteria.
Surely you cannot deny we humans are evolved with the fundamental life forces and drive for survival that is fundamental critical for bacteria and its related elements of the FSR.
You need to do more research yourself, I won't be giving you more evidence.

Btw, it is not only we humans inheriting elements from the bacteria via evolution and natural selection but rather we inherit what other elements from our evolutionary ancestors via natural selection till the evolution of human beings up to the present.

[Veritas Aequitas]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4802748/

Life is consciousness, consciousness is life.

Thanks for the link. I'm more interested in how VA put it all together with his other ideas.
According to the Vedanta there's only consciousness, period. Not just what most modern humans call life. I have wondered if, in the end, VA decides to assert panpsychism. That would solve some of the problems of him telling us what the universe was like before humans arrived (or even bacteria).

But are you saying you think bacteria have a framework and system of knowledge? That's not just having consciousness.

If you read the article you will come to see, that consciousness is life, life is consciousness.

Life forces emerged from abiogenesis [3.5 billion years ago] via a very complex process.

Consciousness-proper as in human consciousness [awake, sleep, dreaming, self-awareness] emerged in the later phases of the evolutionary timeline.

[Iwannaplato]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4802748/

Life is consciousness, consciousness is life.

Thanks for the link. I'm more interested in how VA put it all together with his other ideas.
According to the Vedanta there's only consciousness, period. Not just what most modern humans call life. I have wondered if, in the end, VA decides to assert panpsychism. That would solve some of the problems of him telling us what the universe was like before humans arrived (or even bacteria).

But are you saying you think bacteria have a framework and system of knowledge? That's not just having consciousness.

If you read the article you will come to see, that consciousness is life, life is consciousness.

And as I said Vedantic beliefs are panpsychist. So it's not just life or what most Westerners call life thats conscious.
And two do you think bacteria have FSKs, a framework and system of knowledge. Some people might think consciousness and all sorts of cognitive abilities are the same thing. Some don't.
Do you think bacteria have a framework and system of knowledge?

[Iwannaplato]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4802748/

Life is consciousness, consciousness is life.

Thanks for the link. I'm more interested in how VA put it all together with his other ideas.
According to the Vedanta there's only consciousness, period. Not just what most modern humans call life. I have wondered if, in the end, VA decides to assert panpsychism. That would solve some of the problems of him telling us what the universe was like before humans arrived (or even bacteria).

But are you saying you think bacteria have a framework and system of knowledge? That's not just having consciousness.

If you read the article you will come to see, that consciousness is life, life is consciousness.

And as I said Vedantic beliefs are panpsychist. So it's not just life or what most Westerners call life thats conscious.
And two do you think bacteria have FSKs, a framework and system of knowledge. Some people might think consciousness and all sorts of cognitive abilities are the same thing. Some don't.
Do you think bacteria have a framework and system of knowledge?
Because that's what VA asserted and what I responded to.

[Veritas Aequitas]

• As the theory of evolution began to eclipse both religious explanations and Enlightenment doctrines regarding the singularity of human consciousness, it became clear that consciousness must have a point of emergence during evolution and that point likely occurred before Homo sapiens.
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK231624/

[Peter Holmes]

• As the theory of evolution began to eclipse both religious explanations and Enlightenment doctrines regarding the singularity of human consciousness, it became clear that consciousness must have a point of emergence during evolution and that point likely occurred before Homo sapiens.
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK231624/

The evolutionary emergence of biological consciousness was not the 'emergence and realisation' of the reality of which a creature could be conscious.

[Iwannaplato]

But suppose we explain what we mean by the word consciousness by saying it's 'awareness of our selves and our environment'? The next questions could be 'But what is awareness?' Is an amoeba aware of its self and its environment? Or a hamster? Where does awareness/consciousness kick in? Is there a tip-over point in neural development? Do dogs have minds, and if not, why not?

And possibly an irrelevant aside, back in the 60s attibuting emotions, intentions, experiencing to animals was considered speculative at best in science. It could even damage your career to, in a professional context, attribute such things to animals, even primates.

And we can play the same game with 'experience' and 'experiencing'. Point is: why are questions about consciousness, experiencing - mind, knowledge, truth, identity, intention, will, etc, etc - hard to answer? Why not apply the Razor?: there's no reason to think of these nouns as names of things that therefore may or may not exist, and that, if they do exist, can be described.

There's no reason to think ?

Occam's Razor would lead to some kind of idealism, if we use the OR in the popular and I think misguided way, since we have experiencing and we posit things based on experiencing as causes. And all our words lead back to meanings within experiencing: even simply adjectives like 'hard'. Even a word like brain refers to (an ever changing) set of associations within our experience. I'm not arguing antirealism here, but if we want to push parsimony, something like 'brain' is actually a lot of experienced associations.

Suppose these 'things' are mysteries invented to explain mysteries of our own invention? We use nouns to name things, but the meaning of a noun is not the thing it names.

Sure, but that holds true for all nouns.

And abstract nouns (misleading name) need not be names of things at all.So the supposedly tough questions - what are mind and consciousness, and so on? - are profoundly misleading misfirings.

Can you show this? And why those and not other nouns?

Okay. But I think this (commendable) demystification of the mind radically changes the mind-dependence/mind-independence distinction.

OK, but the mystification via substance claims holds for physicalists, monists, dualists, any anyone else who takes a stand on substance.

Do you want evidence for the existence of 'an experience', as another wants evidence for the existence of 'reality'?

Not in this discussion. I asked where as a literal question. Where is the experiencing taking place? I can't remember if you equate mind with brain, or think that mind is a made up idea for what is really brain, but that's where I am probing. Are you saying that experiencing is happening in the brain? Where are dreams, thoughts emotions, those things that get posited in minds? The brain, the body, within the body in and around the body? If it's really a physical thing, where is it? I am not saying there is no answer to that. I am interested in your answer, and then more questions will come up.[/quote]

Again, it seems to me these questions arise from a misconception. If 'having an experience' is a physical thing, it must have a physical location.

right, so if you think it's physical, where is it?

Or try another philosophical question: what and where is knowledge? In the brain? Or is it also in muscle memory? Or can it be in books and librairies? Or try: what and where is information?

That's a bit different from 'experience'. Knowledge can, yes, be in things, even for physicalists, for example. It's a term with a broader set of main meanings, in this kind of discussion of ontology.

The mistake is always the same: think a noun is the name of something; ask what and where that thing is; if it has no physical identity, conclude it must be non-physical; call it a Form, or a universal, or a concept, or an abstraction; finally, invent a place where such things exist - such as the mind.

Though I was focusing on experiencing.

But why does the word 'physical' have no meaning?

Well, first off, can't I use your argument above, that it's an abstraction and a noun? But then more specifically because the qualities something needs to have or need not have keep changing. If something is considered real, it will be called physical by physicalists, regardless. I see no reason to think this process will stop.

Why is 'stuff that we consider real' not an explanation?

Calling something physical is not an explanation. It no longer adds any information.

And suppose we use 'real' to mean 'consisting of energy or the form of energy we call matter', or 'consisting of the stuff studied by physicists and other natural scientists'.

Matter no longer means anything either. Energy means the ability to do work which is not a substance. And anything new we find, regardless of what it is like will get batched in that general category, if we continue to do what has been done for the last few centuries in making this expanding set. Not just an expanding set with individual examples, but expanding in terms of 'what kinds of things' are now considered real and then get called physical.

Doesn't the term 'non-physical' then have at least a reasonably clear use?

Every second 100 trillion neutrinos are passing through your body without contacts. And neurtrinos have mass. There are massless particles, particles in superposition and so on. As I said in the other longer post: Medieval theologians if shown the qualities of what is currently considered physical might say 'oh, well, if you call that stuff physical, perhaps angels would be called physical in your language.' If we go back to the original substance battles that I think underlie the current physicalist and materialist clinging to these empty categories, I think the silliness can be more clearly seen.

Signs can mean only what we use them to mean - and explanations come to an end.

And if we keep changing the meaning...I don't think they are meaningful. Or, better put, they just mean 'real' or 'verified to our satisfaction at this time to be considered real'. They aren't substance claims, and my guess is because of the old (and current) battles between different paradigms they are clung to despite this.

Yes. The problem of labels and their baggage. And my point is that, if we recognise this, we can't rationally carry on talking about mind-dependence and mind-independence - which is what VA and others want to do - in the context of subjectivity and objectivity.

I am not saying there is a monism, not that there is no dualism. I don't think that's really meaningful.

[Iwannaplato]

double

[Veritas Aequitas]

• As the theory of evolution began to eclipse both religious explanations and Enlightenment doctrines regarding the singularity of human consciousness, it became clear that consciousness must have a point of emergence during evolution and that point likely occurred before Homo sapiens.
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK231624/

The evolutionary emergence of biological consciousness was not the 'emergence and realisation' of the reality of which a creature could be conscious.

You missed the point.

The 'emergence and realization of reality' grounded on elements since 3.5 billion years ago
is not same as the emergence of consciousness which is about a 300K years ago just before Homo sapiens emerged.