Is morality objective or subjective?

[Walker]

What would be an open system?

[Gary Childress]

What would be an open system?

The Earth.

[Immanuel Can]

In a closed system, yes.

Materialism assumes we're in a closed system. There is nothing beyond the strictly material, nothing outside to "feed in" order or energy to the system, which already encompasses everything there is, the material universe itself.

But we're not in a closed system. The sun is constantly delivering energy to the Earth. The universe itself is thought to be a closed system and will allegedly someday fizzle out.

The universe is a closed system, you say. The Sun is likewise part of this closed system, and is also subject to entropy.

[Immanuel Can]

Non-material thing sounds like an oxymoron. However, given the examples …

If it’s not material, it must be energy.

No, that doesn't follow, unless Materialism is true.

If it’s a thing it has a form.

What is the "form" of courage? What is the configuration of love? What is the shape of intelligence? What is the density or weight of consciousness? What's the specific gravity of identity?

These are things, alright. But are you suggesting they have physical form?

[Immanuel Can]

No one yet knows what consciousness actually is; what it consists of, how it comes about, etc. Some people think it is a fundamental property of the universe, whatever that means. Like Descartes, if there is only one thing I can be sure of, it is consciousness, so I would say it is not only part of the natural world; it could actually be the only part.

That would be a form of Idealism, I guess. But I don't think it's plausible to imagine that physical reality is composed of nothing but ideas of things.

But it's a heck of an interesting thing to note. Consciousness is real. But it's not anything science can really locate or tell us anything substantial about. In fact, science does not even know what "consciousness" is, though science itself, of course, relies on it completely.

Yes, I just said more or less the same thing.

Why should such odd, non-material things, or, as the philosophy of mind calls them, "epiphenomena" even exist? That's a good question.

And nobody knows the answer to it, so let's do something crazy and just admit it.

But if we admit it, we also admit the existence of something that's quite different from the strictly "natural," if by "natural" we mean the physical world.

Maybe there isn't an actual law of consciousness, but consciousness is obviously allowable under the laws of nature.

And yet, it's not "under" the laws of nature at all, since no natural law describes them, and none of the scientific categories we have deals with them. So what you're saying is that "nature" doesn't interfere with the supernatural, essentially. But if it's transcendent, or different in order, or of another realm of things, then the fact that nature doesn't interfere with it is utterly unsurprising.

or "mass of morality," or "three quarts of identity."

Morality and identity are just concepts, and only have a mental existence within human minds.

That's the subject of debate of the OP. It's not at all obvious that's true. But if you have the means to prove it is, then go ahead...

What we call "natural laws" certainly don't prevent them; but they also don't describe or constrain them, either. In fact, it looks very much like natural laws only have to do with material stuff, physical stuff.

You might feel able to say that, but I certainly don't.

Well, then, prove it wrong: propose a "natural law" that might govern consciousness, or identity, or morality...

[Harbal]

Maybe there isn't an actual law of consciousness, but consciousness is obviously allowable under the laws of nature.

And yet, it's not "under" the laws of nature at all, since no natural law describes them, and none of the scientific categories we have deals with them. So what you're saying is that "nature" doesn't interfere with the supernatural, essentially. But if it's transcendent, or different in order, or of another realm of things, then the fact that nature doesn't interfere with it is utterly unsurprising.world.

We both admit that we don't know what consciousness is, so we can't say it isn't a law of nature, or isn't subject to the laws of nature. We do know that it exists, though, because we both experience it. Still, if you want to call consciousness supernatural, that is your affair, but I consider consciousness to be part of nature, and not supernatural.

Morality and identity are just concepts, and only have a mental existence within human minds.

That's the subject of debate of the OP. It's not at all obvious that's true. But if you have the means to prove it is, then go ahead...

Are you saying that morality and identity are not concepts? Well I feel certain that they are, but I really don't know how to go about proving it.

What we call "natural laws" certainly don't prevent them; but they also don't describe or constrain them, either. In fact, it looks very much like natural laws only have to do with material stuff, physical stuff.

You might feel able to say that, but I certainly don't.

Well, then, prove it wrong: propose a "natural law" that might govern consciousness, or identity, or morality...

If we get a hard enough bump to the head, consciousness often disappears, so that suggests it is subject to the laws of nature.

[Immanuel Can]

Maybe there isn't an actual law of consciousness, but consciousness is obviously allowable under the laws of nature.

And yet, it's not "under" the laws of nature at all, since no natural law describes them, and none of the scientific categories we have deals with them. So what you're saying is that "nature" doesn't interfere with the supernatural, essentially. But if it's transcendent, or different in order, or of another realm of things, then the fact that nature doesn't interfere with it is utterly unsurprising.world.

We both admit that we don't know what consciousness is, so we can't say it isn't a law of nature, or isn't subject to the laws of nature. We do know that it exists, though, because we both experience it. Still, if you want to call consciousness supernatural, that is your affair, but I consider consciousness to be part of nature, and not supernatural.

Well, we do know that consciousness can't be explained in terms of "natural laws" or "physical laws" that we currently know. So any thought that it can or will be is, at present, nothing more than guessing at a future that we have no reason to believe in, and in fact, may never come. What does seem clear is that the longer we look at things like consciousness, mind, morals, identity, and so on, the odder they look...and that we're getting absolutely no traction on them by pretending that normal science has the answers.

That much, we do know. And at some point, we have to be honest about that, as well, and give up on the pie-in-the-sky dreams of the all-sufficiency of material science.

Morality and identity are just concepts, and only have a mental existence within human minds.

That's the subject of debate of the OP. It's not at all obvious that's true. But if you have the means to prove it is, then go ahead...

Are you saying that morality and identity are not concepts? Well I feel certain that they are, but I really don't know how to go about proving it.

No, you don't get to reverse the burden of proof. Sorry. If you say they are "just concepts," then it's on you to give the demonstration. I was not the one making the claim.

You might feel able to say that, but I certainly don't.

Well, then, prove it wrong: propose a "natural law" that might govern consciousness, or identity, or morality...

If we get a hard enough bump to the head, consciousness often disappears, so that suggests it is subject to the laws of nature.

Have you ever heard the expression "correspondence is not causality"? It's a good one to remember.

What you might be warranted in suggesting is that there is some connection between the physical brain and the immaterial mind...but the nature of that connection is not currently understood. Minds seem to be able to do things the physical body never can, and the physical body can be present without the mind (as in a dead body). That's all very odd, but argues that any view that simply conflates the two is reductional.

But that's just consciousness. How does the "bump on the head" observation help us with identity or morality?

[Harbal]

And yet, it's not "under" the laws of nature at all, since no natural law describes them, and none of the scientific categories we have deals with them. So what you're saying is that "nature" doesn't interfere with the supernatural, essentially. But if it's transcendent, or different in order, or of another realm of things, then the fact that nature doesn't interfere with it is utterly unsurprising.world.

We both admit that we don't know what consciousness is, so we can't say it isn't a law of nature, or isn't subject to the laws of nature. We do know that it exists, though, because we both experience it. Still, if you want to call consciousness supernatural, that is your affair, but I consider consciousness to be part of nature, and not supernatural.

Well, we do know that consciousness can't be explained in terms of "natural laws" or "physical laws" that we currently know. So any thought that it can or will be is, at present, nothing more than guessing at a future that we have no reason to believe in, and in fact, may never come.

Consciousness can't be explained, full stop. I'm not making any predictions about what might be discovered about it in the future.

What does seem clear is that the longer we look at things like consciousness, mind, morals, identity, and so on, the odder they look...and that we're getting absolutely no traction on them by pretending that normal science has the answers.

Mind seems to be the product of the fusion of brain and consciousness. The brain is physical, and much about it can be explained, it's just the consciousness part that can't be, but we have already established that, so working out what mind and consciousness are is much the same problem. Morals and identity are just ideas that exist, or arise, in the mind; they are mental constructs. I can't see how ideas can exist without consciousness, so again, it's just part and parcel of the consciousness problem.

Are you saying that morality and identity are not concepts? Well I feel certain that they are, but I really don't know how to go about proving it.

No, you don't get to reverse the burden of proof. Sorry. If you say they are "just concepts," then it's on you to give the demonstration. I was not the one making the claim.

If morality and identity are not just concepts that we link with certain emotions and feelings we experience, then I'm stuck, because that is all I can understand them as being. I really don't know what sort of demonstration is required.

If we get a hard enough bump to the head, consciousness often disappears, so that suggests it is subject to the laws of nature.

Have you ever heard the expression "correspondence is not causality"? It's a good one to remember.

What you might be warranted in suggesting is that there is some connection between the physical brain and the immaterial mind...but the nature of that connection is not currently understood.

I might be warranted in saying that the mind seems to be the result of an interaction between consciousness and brain, but for that to be possible, I might also be warranted in saying that would suggest they are both part of the same system of natural laws.

Minds seem to be able to do things the physical body never can, and the physical body can be present without the mind (as in a dead body). That's all very odd, but argues that any view that simply conflates the two is reductional.

I don't think I was conflating them.

But that's just consciousness. How does the "bump on the head" observation help us with identity or morality?

When consciousness is absent, so are identity and morality.

[Skepdick]

What? Do you think if we all start believing in God the laws of the universe (which God would thereby have been the creator of) will change?

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. It's certainly unlike anything I ever said or suggested.

The point is, the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a scientific theory based on experiment and observation. If you think it's wrong, then blame God Because if you believe in God, then you must also believe that God created that law of the universe.

1) Or do you believe God didn't create all the laws of the universe?

2) Or do you believe that the 2nd LTD is incongruent with reality?
2b) And if so, what is your evidence that the 2nd law is incongruent with reality?

Let me know which of the above your Ougi board says is true.

The scientific version of God vs Satan is Negentropy vs Entropy.

2nd law is true in general but false in particular. Entropy is increasing in the universe, but negentropy is increasing in any living organism.

Having these different types of classifications (open vs closed systems) tells you nothing about the process via which open systems (like Suns, Earths etc.) emerge from the closed system (The Universe).

Is the universe open or closed?

Maybe it's clopen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clopen_set

[Immanuel Can]

Consciousness can't be explained, full stop. I'm not making any predictions about what might be discovered about it in the future.

Well, "can't be explained by scientific methods." That much, we can certainly say. But those methods are not the only way to know things. Most people think that things like reasoning and experience, or having something told to one, are also ways of finding things out...and while such things are involved in science, they aren't disciplined methods to the degree that scientific methods are.

...working out what mind and consciousness are is much the same problem.

I don't think anybody believes that. We can slice up a brain: we can't divide consciousness. We already map the brain: we can't map consciousness. Brain is physical, and consciousness is mind.

Morals and identity are just ideas that exist

That's assumptive. You'd need to prove that.

If morality and identity are not just concepts that we link with certain emotions and feelings we experience, then I'm stuck, because that is all I can understand them as being. I really don't know what sort of demonstration is required.

Well, in fairness, you'd then have to say you don't know whether they're constructs or reflect something real.

I might also be warranted in saying that would suggest they are both part of the same system of natural laws.

Well, then, you'd be able to list the "natural laws" of consciousness. Can you?

When consciousness is absent, so are identity and morality.

Yes. Because all three are mind phenomena. But "brain" remains. A corpse is simply a body and brain without a mind in it.

[Will Bouwman]

It will be interesting to see what form IC's dismissal of this takes.

Let's see if he spots it.

[Will Bouwman]

Who is the father of the scientific method, if not Bacon? Just answer that.

Ibn al-Haytham. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cPzNmtoZDU

I did not know about him. But I went looking. Here's what the .com named after him says:

"His methodology of investigation, in particular using experiment to verify theory, shows certain similarities to what later became known as the modern scientific method."

That "shows certain similarities" is rather mysterious, isn't it?

The modern scientific method is a mysterious thing in itself. It certainly isn't synonymous with the Baconian method, but when pushed for the defining features, you flap at a wikipedia page which if you trouble yourself to read, you will discover very much supports my view rather than yours:

But science is rather a special thing, with its own methodology.

No it isn't. It is a sprawling jumble of different practices, loosely held together by observation, measurement and experiment.

From the wikipedia page you cited and might one day read:
"Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, these actions are better considered as general principles. Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (nor to the same degree), and they are not always done in the same order."

It needs some unpacking. But so far, I've been able to find more than people affirming that he had a certain predilection for skepticism and observation, and some technical achievements in things like optics, I'm not able to locate exactly what his "method" was...or whether he actually made it into a method (that is, a formal theory advanced to the scientific community, rather than just a set of personal practices), or left it informal is also hard to discover.

Do you know? Can you point out a source?

Well, here's a link to an English translation of Ibn al-Haytham's Optics: https://monoskop.org/images/f/ff/The_Op ... a_1989.pdf I haven't read the whole thing, and I don't imagine you will, but a quick scan should give you some idea of how exhaustively he recounted his methodology. If you watch the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cPzNmtoZDU , you will appreciate how influential Ibn al-Haytham was in late medieval and early renaissance Europe despite, as far as I know, Ibn al-Haytham not explicitly stating that his method should define science; that level of presumption does seem to originate with Francis Bacon.

I'd also be interested in what his metaphysical assumptions were. With Bacon, they were certainly Theistic. Al-Haytham seems to have been a regular Muslim, so also a monotheist, one would have to presume, no? And unless he was a very atypical Muslim, that would represent a different variation, but would not undermine Whitehead's Hypothesis.

I have never heard of Whitehead's Hypothesis; nor could I find any reference to it. Do you have one?

Essentially, what Whitehead was arguing is that unless you already have a conception of God as stable and law-giving, and willing to be known, which both Christianity and Islam have, then science would not have been conceived.

Whitehead or not, science does not rest on the assumption of stability and laws and certainly not a god. Christianity rests on the belief in the breaking of the normal stability and laws. If your faith relies on both laws and the breaking of them, you really don't have a test.

If we decided to start the history of scientific methody with Al-Haytham, Whitehead would still seem to be on good ground, in that regard.

It doesn't do much for your contention that science would not exist but for Christianity.

[Walker]

What would be an open system?

The Earth.

So, you're saying that the universe is a closed system, but the earth is an open system.

[Walker]

Materialism assumes we're in a closed system. There is nothing beyond the strictly material, nothing outside to "feed in" order or energy to the system, which already encompasses everything there is, the material universe itself.

But we're not in a closed system. The sun is constantly delivering energy to the Earth. The universe itself is thought to be a closed system and will allegedly someday fizzle out.

The universe is a closed system, you say. The Sun is likewise part of this closed system, and is also subject to entropy.

A closed system can exchange only energy with its surroundings.
The universe has no surroundings.
Therefore, the universe is not a closed system.

KHAAAAAAN!
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/ap- ... modynamics
(2 links here, not just one.)

There are three types of systems in thermodynamics: open, closed, and isolated.
An open system can exchange both energy and matter with its surroundings. The stovetop example would be an open system, because heat and water vapor can be lost to the air.
A closed system, on the other hand, can exchange only energy with its surroundings, not matter. If we put a very tightly fitting lid on the pot from the previous example, it would approximate a closed system.
An isolated system is one that cannot exchange either matter or energy with its surroundings. A perfect isolated system is hard to come by, but an insulated drink cooler with a lid is conceptually similar to a true isolated system. The items inside can exchange energy with each other, which is why the drinks get cold and the ice melts a little, but they exchange very little energy (heat) with the outside environment.

[Harbal]

...working out what mind and consciousness are is much the same problem.

I don't think anybody believes that. We can slice up a brain: we can't divide consciousness. We already map the brain: we can't map consciousness. Brain is physical, and consciousness is mind.

I think mind is a combination of brain and consciousness, so no matter how much we know about the brain, we will never fully understand the mind until we understand consciousness. That's what I meant.

Morals and identity are just ideas that exist

That's assumptive. You'd need to prove that.

It's my opinion, and it isn't likely to change unless I hear a reason why it should.

If morality and identity are not just concepts that we link with certain emotions and feelings we experience, then I'm stuck, because that is all I can understand them as being. I really don't know what sort of demonstration is required.

Well, in fairness, you'd then have to say you don't know whether they're constructs or reflect something real.

They are constructs that reflect states of affairs that exists within our psychology. I don't know of any reason to regard them as being more than that, so I will continue to regard them as such until that reason shows up.

I might also be warranted in saying that would suggest they are both part of the same system of natural laws.

Well, then, you'd be able to list the "natural laws" of consciousness. Can you?

I'm not sure I could list any natural laws without looking them up, but whatever they are, I have no reason to think they don't apply to consciousness.

When consciousness is absent, so are identity and morality.

Yes. Because all three are mind phenomena. But "brain" remains. A corpse is simply a body and brain without a mind in it.

I would say that identity and morality are mind phenomena, because they are ideas, and ideas only exist in the mind. I don't think consciousness is a mind phenomenon, I would say that mind is partly a consciousness phenomenon. And we don't even know if consciousness emerges from brain activity, or is something separate that interacts with brain activity. Consciousness does appear to be quite ubiquitous, though, and it does seem a bit unusual for something so commonplace to be so mysterious, I'll grant you that.

Anyway, I'm not going to concede that consciousness is supernatural, because I don't want to have to stop believing in it, or even worse, start believing in God.