How Moral Responsibility arises from Consciousness

[Vitruvius]

I don't agree that that tells us what other animals' mentalities, thinking/contemplation abilities, etc. are like. We can get into that as an epistemological debate if you like.

Behaviourism is a more honest perspective than the subjectivist speculations to be found in 'What's it like to be a bat?' by Nagel. Behaviourism treats the mind as a black box, acknowledging we cannot know the contents except by outward appearances.

I don't know what that would even mean. What does "learned at the biological level" amount to?

It involves the function or die algorithm of evolution testing the organism at every level, generation after generation, and those not fit to survive, dying out. The trait, in this case moral behaviour - is ingrained by the survival advantage it provides to the individual and the tribe, and is passed on, not just culturally, but biologically - as a psychological pre-disposition.

Of course . . . it's just that this does nothing to make morality objective or to provide the upshots of objectivity (whether we call it that or use another term) that people want, so that moral stances can be correct or incorrect, etc.

I responded to the OP - and specifically, the contention that:

"So a sound theory of moral responsibility has to be founded on the role of consciousness."

You then responded to my post to someone else, so it's for you to have a point to make, but it seems that your only point arises from your inability to understand what I'm saying. It's beyond parody for you to say to me:

"Evolution isn't some sort of entity that itself has a mind"

Do you not think I know that? I deserve more respect than that. If you think my post implies something that obviously wrong, you should re-read it, to find out why you have got that mistaken impression.

[Belinda]

Xians often say God is a Person. This is not so much a rational proposition as a ritually devotional utterance.

Actually, it's perfectly rational. God's personal nature is evident in his Creation, in the rational and moral orders of the universe, and pre-eminently, in the fact that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh.

Now, you might say, "I don't believe in any of that." But that's your assumption. It has zippo to do with whether or not those ideas are rational...or whether or not they're true, as well.

In fact, a non-personal "god" is so problematic, logically speaking, that there's really no reason anybody should believe in one.

God does not "pre-exist" anything, because 'pre' refers to temporal dimension.

Well, no. So long as a temporal dimension exists, it's quite coherent to speak of something being "pre" it.

The eternal aspect of God rules out limitation to time and any other relative dimension.

It does for Him. Not for us.

I did not say creation is eternal

I know. But if you really understand Pantheism, and what it logically requires, then you would know that Pantheism requires "the god" to be divided into two eternal forms: material and spiritual. That is why, for example, there are only individuals who can get off the "wheel of samsara": it's impossible that the whole creation would ever get off. If it did, then that "god" would not exist, because everything would be absorbed into the blank "oneness" of the spiritual realm. That's why also Nirvana is soul-extinction, not a Heaven.

The co-eternality of the material and spiritual is rationally necessary because a singlar, monolithic, undifferented "god" couldn't even "exist." There would be no meaning in that predication, and no possibility of it being true. "Existence" is predicated on differentiation.

I hope you will excuse me but there is too much in your reply for me to answer so I confine my answer to what you said about pantheism.I know only Spinoza pantheism, and that typifies western pantheism. Spinoza identified God with Nature. I.e. 'nature' in the sense of all that is naturally the case; with no supernatural order of existence. In human reasoned experience there are two aspects of what is naturally the case. One is matter and the other is mind, or consciousness. The former is objective and the latter is subjective.These two aspects of Nature or God are, as far as we can be concerned , the two sides of the same coin which is God-or-Nature(Deus Sive Natura).

For idealists (immaterialists)there is no problem about all the material stuff disappearing as it is centres of conscious experience that bring this material stuff into existence. If for some reason all the material stuff and also all the conscious centres of experience disappeared there would remain absolute mind which is eternal. Some people think absolute mind is also God.

[Terrapin Station]

Behaviourism is a more honest perspective than the subjectivist speculations to be found in 'What's it like to be a bat?' by Nagel. Behaviourism treats the mind as a black box, acknowledging we cannot know the contents except by outward appearances.

Acknowledging that we can't know the contents would be more honest. And then we acknowledge that we're making educated guesses based on behavior, but then what would be the most honest would be acknowledging that the further that something is from us anatomically, the less basis we have for making guesses based on behavior, because we just can't know how mentality would correlate to behavior in those cases.

So again, in other words, we don't know what birds' mentalities might be like.

It involves the function or die algorithm of evolution testing the organism at every level, generation after generation, and those not fit to survive, dying out. The trait, in this case moral behaviour - is ingrained by the survival advantage it provides to the individual and the tribe, and is passed on, not just culturally, but biologically - as a psychological pre-disposition.

On my view morality is ONLY fueled by psychological dispositions, although those dispositions can be influenced by one's environment. I just don't get how having whatever dispositions amounts to learning, but I guess that's not so important.

You then responded to my post to someone else, so it's for you to have a point to make

Sure. I'm very explicit about such things. My point was exactly what I wrote, and that's it (which is almost always the case--I write exactly what my point is; in contexts such as doing philosophy, it seems silly to me to not do that): "While I agree that morality would predate humans, I don't agree that morality could obtain sans consciousness. For one, morality has to be about behavioral choices, which can't obtain without contemplating options."

Then you responded in a manner that seemed like you were disagreeing with me, but now I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or not. You wound up saying that your response was describing something that wasn't about morality. So that wouldn't seem to be disagreeing with what I wrote above. To disagree you'd have to make a case for morality obtaining where that doesn't involve someone making (conscious) decisions.

[Immanuel Can]

I know only Spinoza pantheism...

That's unfortunate, for two reasons.

One is that Spinoza was not a Pantheist. He was a Panentheist, which is somewhat different. So it means you've been thinking not of Pantheism, but of something different. But secondly, it's unfortunate because, to my knowledge, Spinoza never realized or dealt with the essential fault of the view that "all is [in] God.

It is that if all is God, then God does not exist. Nothing does, in fact. Because "existence" as a concept, requires things to be distinct, not totally homogeneous and indistinguishable. For that reason, Pantheism has to "divide" God into material and spiritual parts; because without the one the other could not exist (remember the Yin/Yang symbol, for example). So both realms have to be co-eternal.

For idealists (immaterialists)there is no problem about all the material stuff disappearing as it is centres of conscious experience that bring this material stuff into existence.

That actually does not only not solve the essential problem: it doesn't even address it adequately. Unfortunate.

For Pantheism does hold that the divine mind brings material existence into being; but it also has to say that it does so eternally, and necessarily -- that the spiritual or divine is just as contingent upon the existence of material reality as material reality is dependent on idealism, the god, or "the center of consciousness."

[Belinda]

I know only Spinoza pantheism...

That's unfortunate, for two reasons.

One is that Spinoza was not a Pantheist. He was a Panentheist, which is somewhat different. So it means you've been thinking not of Pantheism, but of something different. But secondly, it's unfortunate because, to my knowledge, Spinoza never realized or dealt with the essential fault of the view that "all is [in] God.

It is that if all is God, then God does not exist. Nothing does, in fact. Because "existence" as a concept, requires things to be distinct, not totally homogeneous and indistinguishable. For that reason, Pantheism has to "divide" God into material and spiritual parts; because without the one the other could not exist (remember the Yin/Yang symbol, for example). So both realms have to be co-eternal.

For idealists (immaterialists)there is no problem about all the material stuff disappearing as it is centres of conscious experience that bring this material stuff into existence.

That actually does not only not solve the essential problem: it doesn't even address it adequately. Unfortunate.

For Pantheism does hold that the divine mind brings material existence into being; but it also has to say that it does so eternally, and necessarily -- that the spiritual or divine is just as contingent upon the existence of material reality as material reality is dependent on idealism, the god, or "the center of consciousness."

I too think Spinoza's pantheism was more like panentheism, for the reason that God-or-Nature contains both aspects of what exists.

Pantheism and panentheism don't

"divide" God into material and spiritual parts;

. For pantheists and panentheists there is one substance but not "parts". The one substance is God-or -Nature which is indivisible. We men understand God-or -Nature from two aspects i.e. consciousness and physical matter. These aspects are not divided or divisible and are how we can know stuff.

[Vitruvius]

Behaviourism is a more honest perspective than the subjectivist speculations to be found in 'What's it like to be a bat?' by Nagel. Behaviourism treats the mind as a black box, acknowledging we cannot know the contents except by outward appearances.

Acknowledging that we can't know the contents would be more honest. And then we acknowledge that we're making educated guesses based on behavior, but then what would be the most honest would be acknowledging that the further that something is from us anatomically, the less basis we have for making guesses based on behavior, because we just can't know how mentality would correlate to behavior in those cases. So again, in other words, we don't know what birds' mentalities might be like.

Again, you missed the point of the analogy. A bird doesn't build a nest with a conscious view to laying eggs. Nest building behaviour is instinctual; it's ingrained by evolution, and it's the same with the animal origins of morality. It's an example of an ingrained complex behaviour, and it relates to the OP's argument that:

"So a sound theory of moral responsibility has to be founded on the role of consciousness."

I disagree. I think of morality in terms of ingrained behaviour; the result of the structural relations of the kinship tribe, cross referenced with the observations of Jane Goodall. If you don't get the bird analogy, just let it go.

It involves the function or die algorithm of evolution testing the organism at every level, generation after generation, and those not fit to survive, dying out. The trait, in this case moral behaviour - is ingrained by the survival advantage it provides to the individual and the tribe, and is passed on, not just culturally, but biologically - as a psychological pre-disposition.

On my view morality is ONLY fueled by psychological dispositions, although those dispositions can be influenced by one's environment. I just don't get how having whatever dispositions amounts to learning, but I guess that's not so important.

And then you have the temerity to assert your own view with no justification whatsoever. In traffic terms, you just pulled out right in front of me without looking or signalling, then slammed on the brakes and are sat there doom scrolling your phone. That's what it's like talking to you.

Sure. I'm very explicit about such things. My point was exactly what I wrote, and that's it (which is almost always the case--I write exactly what my point is; in contexts such as doing philosophy, it seems silly to me to not do that): "While I agree that morality would predate humans, I don't agree that morality could obtain sans consciousness. For one, morality has to be about behavioral choices, which can't obtain without contemplating options."

Define consciousness. If you're going to attribute consciousness to everything that moves away from a flame, then you're not trying to explain much, are you? I'm trying to explain the evolutionary origins of human morality, and quite clearly, conduct with a moral dimension is exhibited in other animals long before human intellectual consciousness existed. It's reasonable to compare chimps and early humans. Chimps are not exactly our ancestors; we diverged from them about 5 million years ago - and, you'd have to read Jane Goodall and Saussure to entirely understand, but chimp societies are structured hierarchies, and morality (chimp morality) is implied by those structural relations.

Then you responded in a manner that seemed like you were disagreeing with me, but now I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or not. You wound up saying that your response was describing something that wasn't about morality. So that wouldn't seem to be disagreeing with what I wrote above. To disagree you'd have to make a case for morality obtaining where that doesn't involve someone making (conscious) decisions.

Again, you responded to my post - to someone else, so I'm saying some thing - and you're disagreeing with it.... I assume, because you're too stupid to see the truth when its set before you. I'm not disagreeing with you, because you're not saying anything. You're hopping all over the map going "Ah but..." and "What if..." entirely at random as far as I can tell.

[Immanuel Can]

For pantheists and panentheists there is one substance but not "parts". The one substance is God-or -Nature which is indivisible.

Don't fault the language. It's impossible to find the right words to express so problematic an idea.

The important point, made simple, is this: if "all is one," then nothing exists. This is because things can only "exist" in contradistinction to at least one other thing. If "all is God," as the Pantheists say, then nothing is "god" in any substantive way that everything else is not. So nothing actually exists at all.

Think of it this way. If you were made of air, (or water, or light, or rock) and the walls in your house were made of air (or whatever), and trees, mountains, ocean and air were all made of air, and, in fact, everything in the universe were made out of air, and even the boundaries that divide all these things were nothing more than an illusion with no actual reailty at all...beyond being air...then there would be nothing not "air," nothing distinct, nothing about which anything could be meaninfully predicated, no reality to anything you might imagine as "going on." And so on.

If all is one, then all is nothing. There is nothing that exists, because nothing is different from the one in which all are liquidated.

Pantheists in the East are aware of this problem. Pantheists in the West, well, most of them are fairly clueless Beatles Buddhists and other sorts of lightweights, with a few exceptions. The exceptions would be those folks who are also aware of the problem.

However, the only solution the East has found to the problem is to insist that both materiality and the spiritual realm are eternal. The great "one" is eternally separated from itself into two distinct entities, in order to have something to contemplate, some way of existing. The material and the spiritual are codependent entities, the material being a projection out of the spiritual, but no more dispensible than the spiritual itself. That is why samsara is represented as a wheel, not as, say, a line. It must not begin or end. If it does, the whole story collapses.

That's how the story goes. Yes, it's an unscientific story, as we know from empirical observation of the contingency of the material world. But it was invented in the East, by people who had none of our scientific data about the origins and trajectory of the universe. They didn't, for example, realize that there is a law of entropy, or empirically observe that the universe is inevitably headed for heat death. So they could imagine the world as eternal. And so it seemed to solve a problem they could see by way of logic, and couldn't figure out any other way.

That's the only solution to the nasty problem of non-existence if "all is one." So the whole thing is really incoherent, and bound not to be the truth at all. All is not one. If it were, there'd be no "one" at all.

[Terrapin Station]

Behaviourism is a more honest perspective than the subjectivist speculations to be found in 'What's it like to be a bat?' by Nagel. Behaviourism treats the mind as a black box, acknowledging we cannot know the contents except by outward appearances.

Acknowledging that we can't know the contents would be more honest. And then we acknowledge that we're making educated guesses based on behavior, but then what would be the most honest would be acknowledging that the further that something is from us anatomically, the less basis we have for making guesses based on behavior, because we just can't know how mentality would correlate to behavior in those cases. So again, in other words, we don't know what birds' mentalities might be like.

Again, you missed the point of the analogy. A bird doesn't build a nest with a conscious view to laying eggs. Nest building behaviour is instinctual; it's ingrained by evolution, and it's the same with the animal origins of morality. It's an example of an ingrained complex behaviour, and it relates to the OP's argument that:

"So a sound theory of moral responsibility has to be founded on the role of consciousness."

I disagree. I think of morality in terms of ingrained behaviour; the result of the structural relations of the kinship tribe, cross referenced with the observations of Jane Goodall. If you don't get the bird analogy, just let it go.

Holy crap, dude.

Is the bird's behavior moral in your view or not, first off?

[Vitruvius]

Behaviourism is a more honest perspective than the subjectivist speculations to be found in 'What's it like to be a bat?' by Nagel. Behaviourism treats the mind as a black box, acknowledging we cannot know the contents except by outward appearances.

Acknowledging that we can't know the contents would be more honest. And then we acknowledge that we're making educated guesses based on behavior, but then what would be the most honest would be acknowledging that the further that something is from us anatomically, the less basis we have for making guesses based on behavior, because we just can't know how mentality would correlate to behavior in those cases. So again, in other words, we don't know what birds' mentalities might be like.

Again, you missed the point of the analogy. A bird doesn't build a nest with a conscious view to laying eggs. Nest building behaviour is instinctual; it's ingrained by evolution, and it's the same with the animal origins of morality. It's an example of an ingrained complex behaviour, and it relates to the OP's argument that:

"So a sound theory of moral responsibility has to be founded on the role of consciousness."

I disagree. I think of morality in terms of ingrained behaviour; the result of the structural relations of the kinship tribe, cross referenced with the observations of Jane Goodall. If you don't get the bird analogy, just let it go.

Holy crap, dude.

Is the bird's behavior moral in your view or not, first off?

Let it go!

[uwot]

The important point, made simple, is this: if "all is one," then nothing exists. This is because things can only "exist" in contradistinction to at least one other thing.

Yer might want to think that one through Mr Can. What you are saying is that your supreme being cannot exist without one other thing to be in contradistinction to. As ever Mr Can, I'm happy to point out why the underpinning ontological arguments you rely on are not sound, and why what you believe is a coherent narrative in the context of ancient Greek and Medieval cosmology, but which is now woefully obsolete and in it's current US iteration is moving from harmful to dangerous.

[Belinda]

For pantheists and panentheists there is one substance but not "parts". The one substance is God-or -Nature which is indivisible.

Don't fault the language. It's impossible to find the right words to express so problematic an idea.

The important point, made simple, is this: if "all is one," then nothing exists. This is because things can only "exist" in contradistinction to at least one other thing. If "all is God," as the Pantheists say, then nothing is "god" in any substantive way that everything else is not. So nothing actually exists at all.

Think of it this way. If you were made of air, (or water, or light, or rock) and the walls in your house were made of air (or whatever), and trees, mountains, ocean and air were all made of air, and, in fact, everything in the universe were made out of air, and even the boundaries that divide all these things were nothing more than an illusion with no actual reailty at all...beyond being air...then there would be nothing not "air," nothing distinct, nothing about which anything could be meaninfully predicated, no reality to anything you might imagine as "going on." And so on.

If all is one, then all is nothing. There is nothing that exists, because nothing is different from the one in which all are liquidated.

Pantheists in the East are aware of this problem. Pantheists in the West, well, most of them are fairly clueless Beatles Buddhists and other sorts of lightweights, with a few exceptions. The exceptions would be those folks who are also aware of the problem.

However, the only solution the East has found to the problem is to insist that both materiality and the spiritual realm are eternal. The great "one" is eternally separated from itself into two distinct entities, in order to have something to contemplate, some way of existing. The material and the spiritual are codependent entities, the material being a projection out of the spiritual, but no more dispensible than the spiritual itself. That is why samsara is represented as a wheel, not as, say, a line. It must not begin or end. If it does, the whole story collapses.

That's how the story goes. Yes, it's an unscientific story, as we know from empirical observation of the contingency of the material world. But it was invented in the East, by people who had none of our scientific data about the origins and trajectory of the universe. They didn't, for example, realize that there is a law of entropy, or empirically observe that the universe is inevitably headed for heat death. So they could imagine the world as eternal. And so it seemed to solve a problem they could see by way of logic, and couldn't figure out any other way.

That's the only solution to the nasty problem of non-existence if "all is one." So the whole thing is really incoherent, and bound not to be the truth at all. All is not one. If it were, there'd be no "one" at all.

I have used standard words that are widely understood. God-Or-Nature is indivisible into parts. There is no problem. Some ontologies are monist, some are dualist, and some are neutral monist. Pantheism is neutral monist.

Pantheism is monist as to substance. God-or-Nature is all one substance that we appreciate as Natura Naturans i.e. what God-or Nature does, and also Natura Naturata i.e. all the myriad things or events of God-or-Nature.

However, the only solution the East has found to the problem is to insist that both materiality and the spiritual realm are eternal.

The "spiritual realm" and "materiality" are aspects of one substance , God-or-Nature, or simply Nature if you prefer, and we men can view the one substance from either aspect.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no problem.

Yeah, there is.

Whether or not you know there is, there is. And those who really know Pantheism know there is.

[Dontaskme]

Don't fault the language. It's impossible to find the right words to express so problematic an idea.

Only through separation of the One in the mind into two or many does judgment, evaluation or rejection occur.
Language artificially divides Oneness.

So again, I ask you to ask yourself.'' Who told you you exist, who told you you are a human?...'' try answering without using the fault of language. If you cannot hear the answer. See if you can hear the automatic default answer?

The important point, made simple, is this: if "all is one," then nothing exists. This is because things can only "exist" in contradistinction to at least one other thing. If "all is God," as the Pantheists say, then nothing is "god" in any substantive way that everything else is not. So nothing actually exists at all.

Religion arises from the longing for oneness. Superficially understood, however, it leads to separation and conflict. The deep wisdom of oneness in all that appears separate to the mind is the true religion, which can be found equally in every religion through deep understanding.

That's the only solution to the nasty problem of non-existence if "all is one." So the whole thing is really incoherent, and bound not to be the truth at all. All is not one. If it were, there'd be no "one" at all.

The one that is being referred to here is you. You are the one. This one cannot know of beginnings, or of ends. It can only know opposites within the context of knowledge as and through the mental creation of conceptual language which is made of sound and light.

Wo/Man is not the doer in daily life or in their lifetime. You didn't do you. You are done. You are always now. You are never not here.

Wo/man is not the creator, be it of religion, or of one's own existence. Nor of the particularity of any movement or of any spoken word nor of tone or the particularity of any thought. There's only the self evident realisation that there is no one other than the one that is here and now. And that is you and every other you. Every living organism has the same ONE sense of aliveness, commonly known as consciousness self evidently, always you the one and only. You exist right here, right NOW, as this one singular moment.

There can be a Realisation that there is no other pathway in life than the one that is always present right here and now, and that life is one way street.

There IS no 'OTHER CONSCIOUSNESS' either side of you now...now is eternally present. The past is only ever now and the future is only ever now. Eternal is just another word for 'all time', whether time is known as '1 minute' or it's known as a 'billion years'. It's always the same 'knowing' now.

But do not take my word for it...test it for yourself, it's all been written about since the dawn of conceptual understanding as and through the human mind body mechanism.

Nondual literature is the self evident truth that every seeker seeks. The you that is seeking is seeking you. .




.

[Belinda]

There is no problem.

Yeah, there is.

Whether or not you know there is, there is. And those who really know Pantheism know there is.

I explained why there is no problem about pantheism, or panentheism, whereas your opinion does not stand with reason against my explanation.

I suggest the main difficulty you have with the concept of pantheism is you think pantheism is 'Eastern', and peculiar to 'Eastern' mind sets.

[Belinda]

There is no problem.

Yeah, there is.

Whether or not you know there is, there is. And those who really know Pantheism know there is.

I explained why there is no problem about pantheism, or panentheism, whereas your opinion does not stand with reason against my explanation.

I suggest the main difficulty you have with the concept of pantheism is you think pantheism is 'Eastern', and peculiar to 'Eastern' mind sets.

Turning to the main topic about responsibility, Spinoza's pantheism or panentheism finds that men can have degrees of freedom and consequent personal responsibility with no accompanying need to posit anything supernatural such as Free Will.
Your version of God is Platonic whereas Spinoza's God-or-Nature is Aristotelian and natural through and through.