An existential ethics

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: An existential ethics

Post by Age »

promethean75 wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 3:42 pm "Yeah, but your "above reasons" are based on you mistakenly conflating the limitations implicit in the workings of physical matter with that of the infinite possibilities inherent in the workings of mind and consciousness."

See you're talking about 'mind' and 'consciousness' as if they were things that we possess, rather than as descriptions of meaningful behaviors (remember W's 'beetle inna box' experiment). We'll let Hacker explain what you've got going on here...

https://youtu.be/0yv_k5uMCpU

Jesus its an hour long dude. Might have to spread it out a little. Just hang in there, bro, and have a spot of tea while you watch.

p.s. you have no idea what havoc this seemingly innocuous philosophical mistake has caused in the world. It sits at the very core of the bourgeois machinations that have not only alienated everybody on erf from one another, but also damn near brought civilization to existential ruin. This is why er'body hates each other. We all think we're trapped in our own heads and pitted against everybody else. The 'self' as secret agent, battling the nefarious forces of the 'other'! Watch out!
Who are 'you' responding to here, EXACTLY?

If it is 'me', then 'you' could NOT be MORE Wrong even if 'you' 'TRIED TO BE'.
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: An existential ethics

Post by Age »

seeds wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 2:31 am
seeds wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 10:37 pm Yeah, but your "above reasons" are based on you mistakenly conflating the limitations implicit in the workings of physical matter with that of the infinite possibilities inherent in the workings of mind and consciousness.
promethean75 wrote: Mon Dec 27, 2021 3:42 pm See you're talking about 'mind' and 'consciousness' as if they were things that we possess, rather than as descriptions of meaningful behaviors...
Yes, that's true.
SO, who and/or what is this 'we' who SUPPOSEDLY and ALLEGEDLY 'possesses' 'mind' and/or 'consciousness'?
seeds wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 2:31 am However, when I speak of the "mind," I am talking about what I suggest is a living "arena" in which our thoughts and dreams are created and suspended.
Some people refer to the Universe, Itself, as the living arena, where ALL 'things' HAPPEN.
seeds wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 2:31 am For example, close your eyes and create the image of a basketball before the "eye" of your mind
But 'I' am WAITING for 'you' to EXPLAIN what this 'we' 'thing' IS, EXACTLY, which SUPPOSEDLY and ALLEGEDLY "has" its OWN 'mind'. And, of which, that 'possessed' 'mind' now has some sort of 'eye' attached to 'it'.

seeds wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 2:31 am and then shuffle it over to the left-hand side of your inner field of vision.
What happens when 'one's' 'field of vision' is INFINITE in size?
seeds wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 2:31 am Next, create the image of a golf ball and shuffle that over to the right-hand side of your inner field of vision so that there is a good deal of space in between the two.

And just for kickers, cause the golf ball to orbit around the basketball like the moon orbits the earth.

(I suggest that you try to imagine the objects as possessing a level of clarity and realism as the objects you experience while dreaming.)

The point is that the inner "spatial arena" in which those two holographic-like objects are suspended and orbiting each other is a part of the extended essence of your own personal being. And it is that extended essence that makes-up what I am calling the "mind."
So, WHO AGAIN, is the one that OWN or 'possesses' this so-called 'mind' 'thingy'?
seeds wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 2:31 am And just to address a couple of points in the video you linked to, one of Peter Hacker's fictional characters stated the following bits...
...the question I think is what a human being is? I mean we speak of having a mind and having a body. It seems as if the entity that has the mind and has the body is the "I," but what exactly is this "I"?
The "I" is the self-aware entity (the inner mental "agent") that willfully created the basketball and the golf ball in my earlier suggestion as to what the mind is.
So, the proper AND correct answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?', is 'what', EXACTLY?

Also, considering that a human being, which goes by the name of "seeds" here, literally, planted the 'construct' of "a basketball and a golf ball", through 'suggestive thoughts', then it could be argued that it was 'you', the one known as "seeds" here, who WILLFULLY CREATED the "basketball and golf ball" IMAGE.

seeds wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 2:31 am And what that means is that you are carrying around - right within your own skull - a perfect representation of substance dualism. And that's because the creator of the basketball and the golf ball does not seem to be made of the same malleable substance from which those two objects are formed.
...Is it a self?
Yes, the "I" is the self.
And HOW MANY of these 'I's' do 'you' PROPOSE there are EXACTLY?

In fact, the "I" and the "self" and the "soul" are all synonyms for the same thing.
seeds wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 2:31 am
And what's a human being? Is it a self-attached to a mind and body?
As pointed out earlier, the mind is the self's extended essence that forms the inner spatial arena in which the self's thoughts and dreams are created and suspended.
But, WHO and/or WHAT is the 'self' EXACTLY, (which is SUPPOSEDLY and ALLEGEDLY in POSSESSION of 'mind' or 'minds')?
seeds wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 2:31 am Whereas, on the other hand, the body and, especially, the brain represent the physiological means by which the self (aka, the "I"/"soul") is awakened into existence.
Just for information, there is FAR SIMPLER EXPLANATION, which can be and IS FAR EASIER UNDERSTOOD. And, which by the way, IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLE.
seeds wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 2:31 am
Or is the self the mind?
No, the self is not the mind, it is the owner of the mind.
HOW MANY 'selfs' are there SUPPOSEDLY throughout the Universe?
seeds wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 2:31 am The self is that which sits at the throne of consciousness within the mind's arena.
HOW BIG, or SMALL, is "the mind's" arena?

What happens, IF there are MANY 'selves', and some who CHOOSE to NOT possess a 'mind', AT ALL, and so have NO so-called "mind's arena"?

By the way, WHEN do 'you', 'selves', CHOOSE to POSSESS a 'mind' or NOT?

And, what IS 'consciousness', EXACTLY, which 'you', "selves", SUPPOSEDLY and ALLEGEDLY "sit at the throne OF"?

What happens when 'you', "selves", are NOT YET ABLE TO answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?', properly and correctly, then WHERE are those ones "sitting", EXACTLY?

Those ones CERTAINLY do NOT seem to be "sitting at the THRONE of 'consciousness' YET", AT ALL
seeds wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 2:31 am
But if the self is the mind, how can we speak of it having a mind?
Again, the self is not the mind.
But when I ask "bahman" for CLARITY "bahman" TELLS US that 'you' are the 'mind'.

So, when are 'you', human beings, ACTUALLY going to COME TOGETHER and WORK OUT and/or DECIDE what is ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct in Life?

After all 'you' have been having these nearly EXACT SAME so-called "discussions" for MILLENNIA now, hitherto when this was being written.
seeds wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 2:31 am Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to think of the self as having a mind.
If 'you' SAY SO. But, are 'you' CAPABLE of EXPLAINING to the rest of 'Us' what this 'self' IS, EXACTLY?

And, in a NON CONTRADICTORY WAY?
seeds wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 2:31 am
I'm afraid we are confused.
Yes they are, but not quite as confused as the self-declared forum "troll" who recommended the video, and who claims that he would rather be fishing than debating such things. :D

What's the deal, dude?

Is this how you troll people? You goad them into responding to something and then blow them off by insisting that you just don't have the patience to do these types of exhausting arguments over and over again?

(Btw, it would help if you used the site's quote system. It notifies us when someone posts a reply to our own posts.)
_______
VERY True.

It also helps in WORKING OUT EXACTLY who is being RESPONDED TO, without HAVING TO read back through posts.
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: An existential ethics

Post by Age »

promethean75 wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 6:20 am I have a question. If the capacity to recollect and imagine an image of something once experienced (basketballs and golf balls), 'in the mind', constitutes the proof or even the essence of the mind's existence, what becomes of the proof if the same is said about someone without sight?
But a body does NOT 'need' working physical 'eyes' TO SEE and UNDERSTAND 'things'.

There are FIVES senses of the human body, which are USED to SEE, and UNDERSTAND, the 'world' around the body.
promethean75 wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 6:20 am It sounds to me like you are basing the proof for an independent existence of the mind, on some capacity to remember things actually experienced.
How as "seeds" CLAIMING there as a so-called "independent existence of the mind", WHEN it WAS "seeds" who is SAYING and CLAIMING that the 'mind' is a POSSESSION of a 'self'. Therefore, to "seeds", the 'existence of the mind' would be DEPENDENT UPON some OTHER 'thing'.

And, if I have got this Wrong "seeds", then just CORRECT 'this'.
promethean75 wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 6:20 am So, does the mind not yet exist until there is experience, and the capacity that follows, to recollect it... to remember it?

If so, this would mean mind exists in degrees, according to and determined by the content of experience, e.g., a person with five senses has more mind than a person with four... a person with four, more than a person with three, and so forth.

Pray tell, sir, how this can be.
OBVIOUSLY 'this' could NOT be.

What the Mind IS, EXACTLY, is FAR MORE SIMPLER and LESS CONFUSING, by the way.
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: An existential ethics

Post by Age »

seeds wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 3:00 pm
promethean75 wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 6:20 am It sounds to me like you are basing the proof for an independent existence of the mind, on some capacity to remember things actually experienced. So, does the mind not yet exist until there is experience, and the capacity that follows, to recollect it... to remember it?
Metaphorically speaking, does the RAM capacity of a computer "not exist" until it receives input?
promethean75 wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 6:20 am If so, this would mean mind exists in degrees, according to and determined by the content of experience, e.g., a person with five senses has more mind than a person with four... a person with four, more than a person with three, and so forth.

Pray tell, sir, how this can be.
Explain to me how a human mind (or, more specifically, how the mind's inner "agent") could be missing one of its senses?

(Note: Be careful not to confuse the existence of a sense with that of its corresponding "window" to the outer world.)
seeds wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 2:31 am "In fact, the "I" and the "self" and the "soul" are all synonyms for the same thing."
promethean75 wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 6:20 am So the body possesses the mind as it might possess a foot, or a head of blonde hair, or a weight of 146 pounds?
No.

The body momentarily possesses (holds/encapsulates) the mind and its agent in the same way that the human placenta momentarily holds and encapsulates a human fetus...
When you say; "... the mind and 'its' agent ...", then this infers that it is 'the mind' that POSSESSES 'an agent'. Which, is the EXACTLY OPPOSITE of before, when you were saying that there is 'a self', or 'an agent', which POSSESSES 'a mind'.
seeds wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 3:00 pm Image

In which case, "...a foot, or a head of blonde hair, or a weight of 146 pounds..." would simply be the physiological attributes of that no longer needed glob of tissue...
When you say; "... that no longer NEEDED glob of tissue ...". Then WHO or WHAT has "DECIDED" that that 'glob of matter' is NOT 'needed' ANYMORE?
seeds wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 3:00 pm Image

...that gets discarded after expelling (delivering) its contents.
_______
What do you MEAN, EXACTLY, BY; "... after expelling (delivering) its contents."
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: An existential ethics

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 5:53 pm So the body possesses the mind as it might possess a foot, or a head of blonde hair, or a weight of 146 pounds?

No, the mind possesses the body.
WHERE, EXACTLY, is this 'mind' 'thingy', which 'now' SUPPOSEDLY and ALLEGEDLY POSSESSES the body?

As can be CLEARLY SEEN there were SO MANY CONFLICTING 'views', back in those 'VERY OLD and DARK DAYS' when this was being written.
henry quirk wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 5:53 pm The body is possessed by the mind.
So, HOW MANY of these 'mind' 'things' are there EXACTLY, to 'you', "henry quirk"?
henry quirk wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 5:53 pm The mind is not an extension of, or function of, the body. Man is a composite of two very different things melded or mixed together (the body which without mind is robotic meat;
So, ALL animals, including the woman and children human ones, ARE 'robotic' and it is ONLY so-called "men" who are NOT 'robotic', correct "henry quirk"?
henry quirk wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 5:53 pm the mind which without the body has no purchase in the material world).
BUT, what EXACTLY is 'the mind', to you?
henry quirk wrote: Tue Dec 28, 2021 5:53 pm Spirit and substance: soul and flesh; information and matter.
At least 'you' are 'GETTING WARMER' here, as some might say.
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: An existential ethics

Post by Age »

promethean75 wrote: Wed Dec 29, 2021 7:55 pm No Henry no. 'mind' is an attribute of substance, and the extended body is all that 'mind' can have knowledge of (through affections; effects acting on the body). We have a monistic parallelism here, not a platonic/Cartesian substance dualism. These modes - mind and body - are not causally independent.

If you have 'soul', it's because you're super bad, not because some second, immaterial substance is interacting with your body.
Here is ANOTHER one who is PROPOSING that there is some sort of 'self' who POSSESSES 'things' here.

So, WHO and/or WHAT is this 'you' that SUPPOSEDLY and ALLEGEDLY 'HAVE' 'soul'?
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: An existential ethics

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Dec 29, 2021 8:03 pm 'mind' is an attribute of substance

yeah, I used to believe and say the same thing: now, I know better
LOL 'you' have a LOT MORE EXPLAINING to do here "henry quirk" to SHOW and PROVE that 'you' ACTUALLY 'KNOW BETTER'.

So, how about you START EXPLAINING what 'the mind' IS, EXACTLY, FIRST? And then we can MOVE ALONG to OTHER 'things'.
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: An existential ethics

Post by Age »

promethean75 wrote: Thu Dec 30, 2021 7:17 pm Especially the first commandment. God got totally beat on that one. Check it out. Regarding capital punishment, you can't blame the jury or the judge because they don't actually kill anyone. You can't blame the state or it's laws because these are abstractions, not blamable people. And finally, you can't blame the executioner if he's not sure the switch he pulled did the deed.

What a dumbass. God, I mean. He really needs to revise that commandment in lieu of recent developments (like add a subsection to the statute). Prolly be another 'no show', tho. Can't count on the dude for nuthin.
WHY are 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written, STILL SO UTTERLY and COMPLETELY BLIND?

The ANSWER, by the way, is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY OBVIOUS.
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: An existential ethics

Post by Age »

Jori wrote: Wed Jan 12, 2022 10:03 am I think good and bad has nothing to do with feelings and consequences. An act is good or bad in its own sake, regardless of how you feel about it and its consequences. For example, you returned money that you found. Although you feel about it and get verbally abused and left by your wife who wants to buy a new pair of expensive shoes, it's still a good act.
TALK ABOUT NOT being ABLE TO talk about thee ACTUAL Truth because of it being DISTORTED by one's OWN DISTORTED VIEWS, ASSUMPTIONS, or BELIEFS.
Age
Posts: 20193
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: An existential ethics

Post by Age »

popeye1945 wrote: Sun Mar 27, 2022 2:53 am Ethics is just catagorical morality is it not, the guide to behaving civilly, morally, ethically in given situations. That is my take on it, if it is out in left field I stand to be corrected. One should remember I think that morality in all its shades is mutually exclusive to autonomy, thus a societal construct. It is an educational medium for civilizing the generations.
But considering the Fact that just about NONE of the generations have EVER been 'civilized' for the last few thousand millennia when this is being written, that "educational medium" has CERTAINLY NOT been working, and has, in fact, just been CONTINUALLY FAILING.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: An existential ethics

Post by bahman »

Gary Childress wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 7:02 pm I exist and there is no manual for how to exist. I just have to feel my way through it. When I do something bad, I feel bad. When I do something good, I feel good. I learn to do good by avoiding bad feelings. However, I can also become angry and allow bad feelings to persist or grow. It's very easy to act on anger sometimes and very difficult to subdue it or sublimate it. I want to feel good and so I try to do good. That's all I know.
First, there are good and evil acts. These acts could be right or wrong/bad situationally.
Post Reply