Is morality objective or subjective?

[Alexis Jacobi]

"How can you be "free" "after your death"? Who makes you "free"?"

I think what bahman is tryna say is

Another option ….

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, you are a little boy...

Ad hominems. I wouldn't apply to you to know so much as your own hat size.

[bahman]

Far from it. I tell you where to look, so you can have the discussion. If you can't be bothered to look, then it's you who doesn't want the discussion.

That is alright.

If that were true, then there would be no "subconscious" mind: just the mind we happen to have.

We have both.

You're missing the problem, I can see. I'll try to make it clear.

Either there are two "minds," the "conscious" and the "subconscious." Or there is only one "mind," which is neither "subconscious" nor "conscious," because it's the only "mind" there ever is.

But you say that reality itself is composed of "the subconscious mind." But if that's the case, there's nothing to be "conscious" of...it's ALL "subconscious," and as such, is not stably tied to any "reality" at all.

Which way is it?

There are at least two minds in you both are conscious of what they are doing. Each mind excels in different tasks. Conscious mind is good at making a good decision when the situation is simple. The subconscious mind however is good at making a good decision when the situation is complicated. This is confirmed by many studies.

Wait: now you've got two categories, not one: "subconscious" and "real." But you say that all our experiences come from the former, so what does the latter indicate?

What you experience is either provided by the subconscious mind or it is put in your brain by spiritual beings. I am sure that I have a subconscious mind as I can see its involvement in many things that I am not consciously aware of. I talk with it and it replies. I am however not sure about spiritual beings as my subconsciousness could play evil and try to fool me by giving me a false experience!

The latter means that we experience things directly rather than through the subconscious mind.

If there's a "we" that "experiences things directly," then that's different from "the subconscious mind," obviously. It's some kind of "conscious" mind, presumably.

Do you see why I can't add up what you're saying?

What you experience is either provided by your subconscious mind or it is put in your brain by spiritual beings. The spiritual experience is personal and no one else can experience it unless we are dealing with mass hallucination. That is why I use the word putting in your brain when I talk about spiritual experience.

What makes you "sure" of anything -- including the subconscious mind, or of the real, or of death, of your own agnosticism?

This isn't making sense. Can you fix it?

I am free after my death, so I can have direct experience of things if there is such a thing as life after death.

How can you be "free" "after your death"? Who makes you "free"? Where are you "free"? And what "things" are you "directly experiencing" only after death?

Again...I can't make any sense of this. Help me out, if you would.

If we accept the conscious mind as a substance, what you can call it soul, then this soul is trapped within the body. It takes the information in the form of refined experience from what the subconscious mind provides. So your soul is trapped within the body. However, your soul is separated from your boy if we accept that your soul can persist to exist after death. I had an out-of-body experience. It is hard to explain it but you are conscious of your surroundings without subconscious intervention.

[Immanuel Can]

That is alright.


We have both.

You're missing the problem, I can see. I'll try to make it clear.

Either there are two "minds," the "conscious" and the "subconscious." Or there is only one "mind," which is neither "subconscious" nor "conscious," because it's the only "mind" there ever is.

But you say that reality itself is composed of "the subconscious mind." But if that's the case, there's nothing to be "conscious" of...it's ALL "subconscious," and as such, is not stably tied to any "reality" at all.

Which way is it?

There are at least two minds in you both are conscious of what they are doing.

So no "subconscious"? I thought the "subconscious" was supposed to generate everything...isn't that what you said it did?

Each mind excels in different tasks. Conscious mind is good at making a good decision when the situation is simple. The subconscious mind however is good at making a good decision when the situation is complicated.

Wait: you said this is "conscious." Look above.

I don't think you understand this at all.

Wait: now you've got two categories, not one: "subconscious" and "real." But you say that all our experiences come from the former, so what does the latter indicate?

What you experience is either provided by the subconscious mind or it is put in your brain by spiritual beings.

So now, the "subconscious" "provides" all the "experiences," or " spiritual beings" do? But you just said there was only two "conscious" minds...

I am sure that I have a subconscious mind as I can see its involvement in many things that I am not consciously aware of. I talk with it and it replies. I am however not sure about spiritual beings as my subconsciousness could play evil and try to fool me by giving me a false experience!

If you can "talk with it," and it "replies," and yet you are "not consciously aware of" it...how does that work? How can you "talk" and receive "replies" from something of which you are not "conscious"?

If we accept the conscious mind as a substance,

We can't. "Mind" is not a "substance."

what you can call it soul, then this soul is trapped within the body.

Who "trapped" it there?

...you are conscious of your surroundings without subconscious intervention.

You are "conscious" without "subconscious" intervention? And there are "surroundings"? What's in them? What "surrounds" you?

[nemos]

... Well, if you have enough time then it is better to give the thought to be processed by the subconscious mind...

Perhaps the only problem is that I have absolutely no control over my subconscious mind, just like my reflexes. Only consciousness is in my control, or rather my control is manifested only through consciousness.

[bahman]

You're missing the problem, I can see. I'll try to make it clear.

Either there are two "minds," the "conscious" and the "subconscious." Or there is only one "mind," which is neither "subconscious" nor "conscious," because it's the only "mind" there ever is.

But you say that reality itself is composed of "the subconscious mind." But if that's the case, there's nothing to be "conscious" of...it's ALL "subconscious," and as such, is not stably tied to any "reality" at all.

Which way is it?

There are at least two minds in you both are conscious of what they are doing.

So no "subconscious"? I thought the "subconscious" was supposed to generate everything...isn't that what you said it did?

The subconscious mind simply refers to another conscious mind that exists within you. You can call them conscious minds A and B. People call them conscious and subconscious minds.

Each mind excels in different tasks. Conscious mind is good at making a good decision when the situation is simple. The subconscious mind however is good at making a good decision when the situation is complicated.

Wait: you said this is "conscious." Look above.

I don't think you understand this at all.

I hope it is clear now.

Wait: now you've got two categories, not one: "subconscious" and "real." But you say that all our experiences come from the former, so what does the latter indicate?

What you experience is either provided by the subconscious mind or it is put in your brain by spiritual beings.

So now, the "subconscious" "provides" all the "experiences," or " spiritual beings" do? But you just said there was only two "conscious" minds...

As I said, your experience is partly provided by the subconscious mind and partly by the spiritual being. Of course, if you have a spiritual experience at all otherwise all your experiences are provided by the subconscious mind.

I am sure that I have a subconscious mind as I can see its involvement in many things that I am not consciously aware of. I talk with it and it replies. I am however not sure about spiritual beings as my subconsciousness could play evil and try to fool me by giving me a false experience!

If you can "talk with it," and it "replies," and yet you are "not consciously aware of" it...how does that work?

I am aware of what my subconscious mind says.

How can you "talk" and receive "replies" from something of which you are not "conscious"?

The subconscious mind is conscious.

If we accept the conscious mind as a substance,

We can't. "Mind" is not a "substance."

Of course, we can. The story is long!

what you can call it soul, then this soul is trapped within the body.

Who "trapped" it there?

Your conscious mind naturally is trapped there.

...you are conscious of your surroundings without subconscious intervention.

You are "conscious" without "subconscious" intervention? And there are "surroundings"? What's in them? What "surrounds" you?

Yes, you can be conscious of your surroundings without subconscious intervention when you have an out-of-body experience. You experience the stuff, chair, table, etc. in the place that your body is not.

[bahman]

... Well, if you have enough time then it is better to give the thought to be processed by the subconscious mind...

Perhaps the only problem is that I have absolutely no control over my subconscious mind, just like my reflexes. Only consciousness is in my control, or rather my control is manifested only through consciousness.

Sure, you don't have control over your subconscious mind. The subconscious mind is conscious as well. And yes, you have partial control over things through your conscious mind.

[Immanuel Can]

There are at least two minds in you both are conscious of what they are doing.

So no "subconscious"? I thought the "subconscious" was supposed to generate everything...isn't that what you said it did?

The subconscious mind simply refers to another conscious mind...

Wait...wait...wait.

Here is the M-W definition of "subconscious":

subconscious

noun
: the mental activities just below the threshold of consciousness

So no, the "subconscious" mind cannot, by definition, "refer to another conscious mind." It has to refer to one that is unconscious, or operating below the level of any consciousness.

I hope it is clear now.

Not yet, obviously.

What you experience is either provided by the subconscious mind or it is put in your brain by spiritual beings.

So now, the "subconscious" "provides" all the "experiences," or " spiritual beings" do? But you just said there was only two "conscious" minds...

As I said, your experience is partly provided by the subconscious mind and partly by the spiritual being.

Wait. So now you're saying we're not conscious of ANY of it. Part comes from "subconscious" stuff...meaning stuff we're not aware of, and some of it comes from "spiritual being(s)"? So that would mean our conscious minds were totally the product of subconscious and spiritual stuff, neither of which is us at all. So they're not "our" experiences...they're things these two other things make us do?

Sounds like "voices in the head" type stuff, if not demon possession.

I am sure that I have a subconscious mind as I can see its involvement in many things that I am not consciously aware of. I talk with it and it replies. I am however not sure about spiritual beings as my subconsciousness could play evil and try to fool me by giving me a false experience!

If you can "talk with it," and it "replies," and yet you are "not consciously aware of" it...how does that work?

I am aware of what my subconscious mind says.

Then it's "conscious," by definition, not "subconscious." If it were "subconscious," then you would not be focally aware of it.

The subconscious mind is conscious.

No, by definition, it's not. It's "subconscious."

If we accept the conscious mind as a substance,

We can't. "Mind" is not a "substance."

Of course, we can.

No, you can't. "Substances" are things that have physical properties. "Mind" has none. You can't give a slice of your mind, or six pounds of your awareness, or a chunk of morality, or a gallon of your identity to your best friend. Mind-phenomena are non-divisible and devoid of physical characteristics.

what you can call it soul, then this soul is trapped within the body.

Who "trapped" it there?

Your conscious mind naturally is trapped there.

"Naturally"? By what "nature?" Who or what is the cause of this "nature" of yours? Who trapped the mind?

Okay. So what I now understand is that you have voices you hear. Some of them, you think are a "subconscious" one that tells you stuff you "hear" (with your conscious mind, presumably, since you can tell me about them). The other is "spiritual beings" who tell you things. And then there's you, the "conscious" person who experiences reality. Have I got that right?

[Will Bouwman]

What is an atheist without a capital A?

I think there really isn't such a thing.

Eh?

Wait...wait...wait.

Here is the M-W definition of "subconscious":

subconscious

noun
: the mental activities just below the threshold of consciousness

Well if M-W is the source of authority, here's how they define atheist:
a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods: one who advocates or subscribes to atheism.
While we're at it, we can refer to M-W to explain why that describes my position better than agnostic. Here's their definition:
a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable.
While I personally think underdetermination is an inevitable product of human ingenuity, I can't rule out definitive resolutions.

[Immanuel Can]

What is an atheist without a capital A?

I think there really isn't such a thing.

Eh?

Atheists want people to believe their view is non-ideological. They want us to think it's just rational skepticism. However, it's got to be clear to even a rudimentary logician that that isn't the case. Rational skepticism never goes beyond the evidence it possesses. Atheism does. It claims not merely to think it's possible there's no God, but to assert dogmatically that no God exists. Therefore, there's no such thing as a non-arbitrary, non-indoctrinatory "atheist." They're all "Atheists," with a capital "A."

But many of them either don't want to realize that, or realize it but also realize it hurts their case for them to admit it: hence their insistence on the small "a."

Wait...wait...wait.

Here is the M-W definition of "subconscious":

subconscious

noun
: the mental activities just below the threshold of consciousness

Well if M-W is the source of authority,

I've had this discussion with the dictionary-naive in other places. Dictionaries are great for general definitions, but not always good for precise ones. What you will find, if you check, is that there are more specialized dictionaries for every discipline that requires a more strict or capacious or specialize vocabulary and a more precise use of language. M-W has a good rudimentary definition of "subconscious," but its definition of "Atheist" is a bit shallow and confused.

We must remember that dictionaries are designed by men. They're designed by committees, in fact. And anybody who has done any committee work knows that men make mistakes, and committees are all about compromise. The results are sometimes mixed.

here's how they define atheist:
a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods: one who advocates or subscribes to atheism.

That's not a terribly good achievement for them, as a definition.

We don't know what "who does not believe" means to the writers in this case: it could mean either "happens not to think," or "happens not to thing about," or it could mean, "refuses to believe." What they've left out of their proposed definition is the disposition of the claimant. We don't know if they're saying, "An Atheist just doesn't know," or "An Atheist declares."

Their "agnostic definition turns out to be a little better, but still flawed:

While we're at it, we can refer to M-W to explain why that describes my position better than agnostic. Here's their definition:
a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable.

Here, they create more problems than they solve, really, by overstating a case.

Does an "agnostic" have to believe that OTHER PEOPLE cannot possibly know God? If that's the definition, we'd have to say that M-W is asking a lot of them. How would I know what you do or do not know? And the same problem pertains to "probably unknowable": how would I know what you CAN know or CANNOT know? What would be my basis for such a judgment? So M-W is making agnostics sound rather overblown and irrational, are they not?

I think they'd have been much better to go with what you and I DO know, and CAN POTENTIALLY attest to: namely, what we, ourselves think is the case, and leave our judgment of other people out of the equation. They should have said, "a person who does not know any ultimate reality or God," perhaps. And they could have added, "a person who estimates that an entity such as God is probably unknowable to him." That would have been a fair and reasonable way to craft such a definition, and wouldn't make the agnostic look like he was presuming to have knowledge of the inside of other people's mind or to be setting imaginary and arbitrary limits on the possibilities of others' experience.

But they kind of blew that one.

[bahman]

So no "subconscious"? I thought the "subconscious" was supposed to generate everything...isn't that what you said it did?

The subconscious mind simply refers to another conscious mind...

Wait...wait...wait.

Here is the M-W definition of "subconscious":

subconscious

noun
: the mental activities just below the threshold of consciousness

So no, the "subconscious" mind cannot, by definition, "refer to another conscious mind." It has to refer to one that is unconscious, or operating below the level of any consciousness.

It is as I stated. Everything is conscious. Change is not possible without the mind (I have an argument for that). The mind is conscious therefore there is a conscious activity wherever there is a change.

So now, the "subconscious" "provides" all the "experiences," or " spiritual beings" do? But you just said there was only two "conscious" minds...

As I said, your experience is partly provided by the subconscious mind and partly by the spiritual being.

Wait. So now you're saying we're not conscious of ANY of it.

I didn't say that. Do you want me to repeat myself?

Part comes from "subconscious" stuff...meaning stuff we're not aware of, and some of it comes from "spiritual being(s)"?

I said that part of your experience is provided by your subconscious mind and another part by the spiritual beings.

So that would mean our conscious minds were totally the product of subconscious and spiritual stuff, neither of which is us at all.

No. The conscious mind can decide, think, have desires, have feelings, and the like. On top of that, there is the subconscious mind which can decide, think, and the like. The subconscious mind also provides experiences such as the five senses. Your dreams are also partly produced by your subconscious mind.

So they're not "our" experiences...they're things these two other things make us do?

It is not clear to me what you are asking.

Sounds like "voices in the head" type stuff, if not demon possession.

I know what demon possession means. In my case, they come and go. I can make the distinction between the voices I hear. I know which one is due to my subconscious mind and which one is Satanic or Angelic.

If you can "talk with it," and it "replies," and yet you are "not consciously aware of" it...how does that work?

I am aware of what my subconscious mind says.

Then it's "conscious," by definition, not "subconscious." If it were "subconscious," then you would not be focally aware of it.

Of course, it is conscious.

The subconscious mind is conscious.

No, by definition, it's not. It's "subconscious."

Please set aside the definition of M. W. dictionary.

We can't. "Mind" is not a "substance."

Of course, we can.

No, you can't. "Substances" are things that have physical properties. "Mind" has none. You can't give a slice of your mind, or six pounds of your awareness, or a chunk of morality, or a gallon of your identity to your best friend. Mind-phenomena are non-divisible and devoid of physical characteristics.

The conscious mind is a substance. It might not be merely physical though. We know the location of the conscious mind in the brain.

Who "trapped" it there?

Your conscious mind naturally is trapped there.

"Naturally"? By what "nature?" Who or what is the cause of this "nature" of yours? Who trapped the mind?

Your conscious mind is trapped in a part of your brain. What it perceives is what the subconscious mind produces.

Okay. So what I now understand is that you have voices you hear. Some of them, you think are a "subconscious" one that tells you stuff you "hear" (with your conscious mind, presumably, since you can tell me about them). The other is "spiritual beings" who tell you things. And then there's you, the "conscious" person who experiences reality. Have I got that right?

Yes.

[Immanuel Can]

The subconscious mind simply refers to another conscious mind...

Wait...wait...wait.

Here is the M-W definition of "subconscious":

subconscious

noun
: the mental activities just below the threshold of consciousness

So no, the "subconscious" mind cannot, by definition, "refer to another conscious mind." It has to refer to one that is unconscious, or operating below the level of any consciousness.

It is as I stated. Everything is conscious.

So nothing is "subconscious"?

Now you can see why I can't make sense of what you say. "Subconscious" is "below the level of consciousness." "Conscious" means "at the level of being conscious."

Change is not possible without the mind (I have an argument for that).

I think that's going to need to be made. What's your argument?

As I said, your experience is partly provided by the subconscious mind and partly by the spiritual being.

Wait. So now you're saying we're not conscious of ANY of it.

I didn't say that. Do you want me to repeat myself?

Not "repeat." Clarify. Say something that doesn't contradict what you already said.

Part comes from "subconscious" stuff...meaning stuff we're not aware of, and some of it comes from "spiritual being(s)"?

I said that part of your experience is provided by your subconscious mind and another part by the spiritual beings.

That's exactly what I just said.

So they're not "our" experiences...they're things these two other things make us do?

It is not clear to me what you are asking.

It's not clear to me what you're saying. You seem to be saying people are totally manipulated by "spiritual beings," and by their "subconsciousnesses." But that leaves nothing for our consciousnesses to do.

Sounds like "voices in the head" type stuff, if not demon possession.

I know what demon possession means. In my case, they come and go. I can make the distinction between the voices I hear. I know which one is due to my subconscious mind and which one is Satanic or Angelic.

Oh. So you're demon-oppressed, if not 100% possessed. You've got voices in your head that are not you. Is that right?

I am aware of what my subconscious mind says.

Then it's "conscious," by definition, not "subconscious." If it were "subconscious," then you would not be focally aware of it.

Of course, it is conscious.

Then why did you say it was "subconscious"?

The subconscious mind is conscious.

No, by definition, it's not. It's "subconscious."

Please set aside the definition of M. W. dictionary.

I can't. It's the standard definition, available from multiple dictionaries, too. If you don't use language in the standard way, how can I understand what you're trying to say?

Of course, we can.

No, you can't. "Substances" are things that have physical properties. "Mind" has none. You can't give a slice of your mind, or six pounds of your awareness, or a chunk of morality, or a gallon of your identity to your best friend. Mind-phenomena are non-divisible and devoid of physical characteristics.

The conscious mind is a substance. It might not be merely physical though. We know the location of the conscious mind in the brain.

We don't, actually. Mind isn't a substance. And it doesn't have a particular location in physical space that we have found. There are plenty of people who have been born with pieces of the "normal" brain missing, but who have achieved normal brain function. Example: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as ... -1.3679125

Your conscious mind naturally is trapped there.

"Naturally"? By what "nature?" Who or what is the cause of this "nature" of yours? Who trapped the mind?

Your conscious mind is trapped in a part of your brain.

I'm asking who, or what, "trapped" it there.

Okay. So what I now understand is that you have voices you hear. Some of them, you think are a "subconscious" one that tells you stuff you "hear" (with your conscious mind, presumably, since you can tell me about them). The other is "spiritual beings" who tell you things. And then there's you, the "conscious" person who experiences reality. Have I got that right?

Yes.

Okay. I was right. You have voices in your head. You attribute these to "spiritual beings." How/when did you start to get these voices in your head?

[bahman]

Wait...wait...wait.

Here is the M-W definition of "subconscious":

subconscious

noun
: the mental activities just below the threshold of consciousness

So no, the "subconscious" mind cannot, by definition, "refer to another conscious mind." It has to refer to one that is unconscious, or operating below the level of any consciousness.

It is as I stated. Everything is conscious.

So nothing is "subconscious"?

Now you can see why I can't make sense of what you say. "Subconscious" is "below the level of consciousness." "Conscious" means "at the level of being conscious."

Nothing is unconscious or subconscious. Please see my next comment.

Change is not possible without the mind (I have an argument for that).

I think that's going to need to be made. What's your argument?

Please see this thread.

Wait. So now you're saying we're not conscious of ANY of it.

I didn't say that. Do you want me to repeat myself?

Not "repeat." Clarify. Say something that doesn't contradict what you already said.

I said, your experience is partly provided by the subconscious mind and partly by the spiritual being.

Part comes from "subconscious" stuff...meaning stuff we're not aware of, and some of it comes from "spiritual being(s)"?

I said that part of your experience is provided by your subconscious mind and another part by the spiritual beings.

That's exactly what I just said.

You said "...we're not aware of..."

So they're not "our" experiences...they're things these two other things make us do?

It is not clear to me what you are asking.

It's not clear to me what you're saying. You seem to be saying people are totally manipulated by "spiritual beings," and by their "subconsciousnesses." But that leaves nothing for our consciousnesses to do.

As I said in my other comment, the conscious mind has very limited memory (so-called working memory), can think, and has feelings.

Sounds like "voices in the head" type stuff, if not demon possession.

I know what demon possession means. In my case, they come and go. I can make the distinction between the voices I hear. I know which one is due to my subconscious mind and which one is Satanic or Angelic.

Oh. So you're demon-oppressed, if not 100% possessed. You've got voices in your head that are not you. Is that right?

More than that. I see things as well. And I am not possessed. I have control over my feelings and thoughts. I had the vision of Jesus and I talk with Him now and then. Not all my visions are Satanic. They are Angelic as well.

Then it's "conscious," by definition, not "subconscious." If it were "subconscious," then you would not be focally aware of it.

Of course, it is conscious.

Then why did you say it was "subconscious"?

The term subconsciousness as psychologists use is a misconception. Everything is conscious.

No, by definition, it's not. It's "subconscious."

Please set aside the definition of M. W. dictionary.

I can't. It's the standard definition, available from multiple dictionaries, too. If you don't use language in the standard way, how can I understand what you're trying to say?

We can have our dictionary. We can agree on terms and definitions. If you are not happy let's call two minds A and B instead of conscious and subconscious.

No, you can't. "Substances" are things that have physical properties. "Mind" has none. You can't give a slice of your mind, or six pounds of your awareness, or a chunk of morality, or a gallon of your identity to your best friend. Mind-phenomena are non-divisible and devoid of physical characteristics.

The conscious mind is a substance. It might not be merely physical though. We know the location of the conscious mind in the brain.

We don't, actually. Mind isn't a substance. And it doesn't have a particular location in physical space that we have found. There are plenty of people who have been born with pieces of the "normal" brain missing, but who have achieved normal brain function. Example: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as ... -1.3679125

Well, there is a huge amount of literature that claims there is a location for the conscious mind. Just google "conscious mind brain location".

"Naturally"? By what "nature?" Who or what is the cause of this "nature" of yours? Who trapped the mind?

Your conscious mind is trapped in a part of your brain.

I'm asking who, or what, "trapped" it there.

Your conscious mind is a part of your brain. So in this sense, it is trapped.

Okay. So what I now understand is that you have voices you hear. Some of them, you think are a "subconscious" one that tells you stuff you "hear" (with your conscious mind, presumably, since you can tell me about them). The other is "spiritual beings" who tell you things. And then there's you, the "conscious" person who experiences reality. Have I got that right?

Yes.

Okay. I was right. You have voices in your head. You attribute these to "spiritual beings." How/when did you start to get these voices in your head?

I have had spiritual experiences since more than ten years ago.

[Immanuel Can]

I have had spiritual experiences since more than ten years ago.

When? Under what circumstances? Did you take a drug? Were you at a seance? Did you join a cult? Were you invovled with something occult? I'm interested in how you came to this unusual condition of hearing these voices. Most people don't hear things like this, you see.

[bahman]

I have had spiritual experiences since more than ten years ago.

When?

When I was awake, asleep, and a condition between awake and asleep.

Under what circumstances?

What do you mean?

Did you take a drug?

I used to smoke marijuana but I stopped smoking it a long time ago.

Were you at a seance?

No.

Did you join a cult?

No.

Were you invovled with something occult?

No. I just asked for it.