Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
In the study of morality, one huge problem with trying to find an objective set of behaviors or standard rules that serve for everyone is, morality is a tool that is shaped and subject to our desires and motivations. A slave owner has no problem whipping the slave and selling off her baby during the day and then being a loving father at night. The moral disconnect does not exist. Objectively, there is no reason not to turn other people into slaves as long as there is a benefit to the slave owning society.
Except that isn't being objective because it only focuses on the view of the slave owners. Objectivity is completely fair.
Are you guys somehow mistaking objectivity for empiricism?
Morality for me is acting to engender compassion, love and wisdom. A lack of morality is acting to engender greed, hate & delusion.
Trying to add "objective" or "standardized rules" to it is like trying to solidify the fluidity of existence or bring predictability to it's chaos. I believe the real answer lies in facing that within that seeks such things.
Are you having fun here or are you serious? I'm not sure what that was all about but either you're being disingenuous or you don't really understand what I'm saying.
It seems you're suggesting that the universe is an ontologically subjective entity, which is certainly possible, but so is the ridiculous scenario I presented you. Whether or not the universe is ontologically objective has to be taken on faith. I have faith that it is ontologically objective, while you seem to think it's not. Either why, the ontological nature of the universe is irrelevant to whether or not morality is objective.
Not really. The brain distinguishes between the colours within light but colour is not separate from light. If what you said was true, there would be no distinguishing between colours except subjectively but if I show a child a few different coloured slides, they will be able to pick out blue and green. If I paint my walls blue, I'd bet not too many people call it green.
I think you're missing the point here. It doesn't matter if most humans interpret a particular frequency of light waves as the same color, because all that means is that human brains are hardwired to interpret light waves similarly. Most dogs also see the same colors as other dogs, and yet those colors are very different from what humans see.
As to the reactions you'd get if you painted your wall blue, for all you know, all the people saying "blue" actually see what is green to you, but they've simply been raised to call green blue. How do you know the colors you see are the same ones everyone else sees? How do you know others aren't simply referring to different colors by the same names? Quite frankly, I really don't even know why we're debating this, as it's already a settled scientific issue. Light waves exist objectively, colors do not. Light waves are nothing more than wave frequencies, colors are the brain's subjective interpretation of those frequencies. If there is no brain to interpret the light wave frequencies, color ceases to exist. Your objections are missing the point. All I can suggest is that you do some research on light waves and color.
And where exactly is the mind found within conscious beings? Can you find me a map of the body that shows the mind?
The mind is nothing more than the inner workings of the physical brain, this is obvious from the fact that you can completely change someone's personality simply by stabbing their prefrontal cortex and diminish one's mindfulness through inflicting brain damage on them, as well as the fact that when you are in a dreamless sleep, conscious awareness and mindfulness cease to exist. As such, the mind is nothing more than the chemical processes of the brain; if such weren't the case, why would the mind cease to exist when the brain goes to sleep?
Not according to the Dalai Lama... He makes the claim ( I'm paraphrasing) that all life forms want to be happy and as free from suffering as possible. It only logically follows to live and let live.
If I want to live then it only makes sense others want to live. I don't want anyone to kill me so it is only logical that I do not kill anybody else.
It simply doesn't make any sense to harm others.
Alright, so you realize other living creatures want to live and be happy just like you, so you've decided that you shouldn't harm other beings because that would be hypocritical. And that belief is objectively moral, how? Just because something is logical doesn't make it morally objective.
But there it is again. Objectivity that doesn't take each subjective experience into account is not objective. Objectivity is the big picture but it is all the little pictures that make up the big picture.
Objective means non-partial. If we exclude subjectivity it is partial. This is why Buddha points to the middle way. One extreme or the other guides the deluded.
I think there is a reason the Golden Rules rears its head in so many religions of peace.
I'm beginning to think the source of our disagreement in this discussion is the fact that you don't know what objective morality is.
The word "objective" as I am using it refers to that which exists even in the absence of a brain or mind to comprehend it. You, on the other hand, seem be using it to mean "non-partial."
Objective morality is the concept that moral absolutes exist -- that some things are just good, and others are just wrong, despite what other people think. That's it.
It's the way the universe unfolds. The way things go. There are no true opposites and so continuance has no opposite. Some see it as good and some see it as bad but it is the only game in town. Natural selection, evolution and the universe itself are goods that have no opposite.
What do you mean there are no true opposites? Here you are asserting the existence of objective morality -- the belief that some things are truly morally good and others are truly morally bad -- and yet you claim nothing has a true opposite? Does good and bad exist or not, an if so, how are they not opposites?
It means that mind could very well exist without the individual to use it. The brain could be a product of mind instead of the other way around. The second sentence just means that you cannot undo being here. What you do affects others and the environment.
Possible? Yes; but a lot of things are possible. What logical argument do you have to support these possibilities?
For example, my logical argument that the brain ceases to exist with the destruction of the physical brain is that when the brain shuts down in sleep, so does the mind. All conscious awareness of time, space, and stimuli (both internal and external) disappear. Therefore, from this it logically follows that the mind is dependent on and most likely a product of the physical brain.
Sorry but that doesn't hold any water with me. Rape and murder make the news for one reason... It is not the norm.
Since when did "not the norm" equal objectively immoral? As I said, morality is the product of evolution and sociocultural influences, so of course our society has a lot of common moral values, but that does nothing to show that morality is objective.
Moral authority? As crazy as it may sound, objective morality couldn't exist if it came from an authority. It would have to be quite literally common sense. Ingrained through a kind of instinct like when mammels and birds had to develope nurturing to survive.
Is nurturing good or bad? It just is the way things go because we naturally developed it.
In the study of morality, one huge problem with trying to find an objective set of behaviors or standard rules that serve for everyone is, morality is a tool that is shaped and subject to our desires and motivations. A slave owner has no problem whipping the slave and selling off her baby during the day and then being a loving father at night. The moral disconnect does not exist. Objectively, there is no reason not to turn other people into slaves as long as there is a benefit to the slave owning society.
Except that isn't being objective because it only focuses on the view of the slave owners. Objectivity is completely fair.
Are you guys somehow mistaking objectivity for empiricism?
No, it appears you're simply using the wrong definition of the word "objective."
We're speaking of ontological objectivity (whether or not something exists in actual reality, rather than simply as a product of the mind).
As crazy as it may sound, objective morality couldn't exist if it came from an authority.
It doesn't sound crazy at all.
It would have to be quite literally common sense.
Common sense is not objective. It's merely sense that is common.
Ingrained through a kind of instinct like when mammels and birds had to develope nurturing to survive.
Instinct is not objective. It's merely ingrained, as you say, behavior or skill.
Is nurturing good or bad? It just is the way things go because we naturally developed it.
It's the way things go because WE naturally developed it. Do you realize how egocentric that sounds.
Same with compassion. Our survival depends on it.
Not really. We can say that our species depends on it, for what that's worth, which is probably not much being that we appear to be on the brink of destroying ourselves.
I'm not sure if this comment is directed at me, but I don't use Buddhism to justify any type of view. The Buddha seems to have accepted the existence of objective morality (at least that's the view of Bhikkhu Bodhi). However, the Buddha's views are irrelevant to me, seeing as how I draw my opinions from philosophical thought and scientific inquiry.
I'm not sure if this comment is directed at me, but I don't use Buddhism to justify any type of view. The Buddha seems to have accepted the existence of objective morality (at least that's the view of Bhikkhu Bodhi). However, the Buddha's views are irrelevant to me, seeing as how I draw my opinions from philosophical thought and scientific inquiry.
It was not directed at you or any other specific person, but to the idea out there that there should be no real rules (e.g., the Precepts are just training rules) and looking down on religions that do have distinct rules (e.g., the Ten Commandments). And the idea here is the West that Buddhism is almost some sort of New Age religion.
The choose is suffering or not suffering here. The rest is just mental Suduko.
We can certainly say that peace is desirable, and suffering undesirable, but the desirability of something tells us nothing about objective good and bad.
Dear God, I just further realized that it doesn't matter which way I turn my laptop. Whether I turn it to the left or to the right, the Z's become N's. It's madness!
There is ultimately only dukkha and the ending of dukkha. Thinking in terms of "good" or "bad" will not lead to freedom but instead bind one to the cycle of birth and death.
To transcend good and evil is the purpose of Buddhist practice.
If there is no long, there is no short, if there is no right there can be no wrong. People these days study away, looking for good and evil. But that which is beyond good and evil they know nothing of. All they know is the right and the wrong - ''I'm going to take only what is right. I don't want to know about the wrong. Why should I?'' If you try to take only what is right in a short time it will go wrong again. Right leads to wrong. People keep searching among the right and wrong, they don't try to find that which is neither right nor wrong. They study about good and evil, they search for virtue, but they know nothing of that which is beyond good and evil. They study the long and the short, but that which is neither long nor short they know nothing of.
"There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned."
Morality for me is acting to engender compassion, love and wisdom. A lack of morality is acting to engender greed, hate & delusion.
Trying to add "objective" or "standardized rules" to it is like trying to solidify the fluidity of existence or bring predictability to its chaos. I believe the real answer lies in facing that within that seeks such things.
Kudos on that statement, How!
I've followed this thread, but have yet to chime in due to its crowded and mind-boggling posts. Perhaps if I had been born a German and was used to long, drawn-out sentences that kept you in suspense till the very end to hear the verb, I'd be better equipped to read and understand what is being said here (not less to post).
But here is my take: Morality is objective if you so choose and it can be subjective if that is the view that you just wanna take. I think the former is more humane and the latter rather drenched in Sophistry, though. Thus I agree that there is no fixed firmament here. We think we walk on Terra Firma until the Earthquake comes; then we are shaken to the core. Who can predict what one will really do when the hard rocks begin to fall into the midst of our very fragile lives? Firstly, avoid anger and drugs, for they both impair judgment. When the parts of your brain are affected by certain drugs, judgment falls away and you flee the house of reason when you yield to anger. When reason fails you, can an act you'll soon regret be far behind?
One sure bulwark I find is the concept of Rights, as in human rights. We've seen threads on NewBuddhist before debating whether these things (Rights) really exist or whether they are just "tokens" given value just by our honoring them, such as we honor the monetary value of legal tender. ¶ But that is a slippery slope if ever there was one, making room for Hitlers and Stalins to rise up powerful in the earth again to smash our race anew into smithereens.
However, I find that Rights are as objective as the human-being-objects (persons) are. Yes, other human beings do exist and they exist "out there," independent of me and my interests (well, usually, he he he) To say that these other folks out there have no objective rights would be to say that they have no right to be "out there," anywhere. Of course there are times —many, many times— when specific persons or any other person whatsoever has not the right to be in a specified place, but even there they still do have the right to be dealt with as fairly and as gently as possible due to the delicate nature of the human organism. And why is that? Because they are notour subjects and we don't have the right to treat them as though they were. Theoretically, the State can treat them as Subjects, but only for cause and through due process. And if we can only be treated as subjects by the judicial and executive authorities of the State and that State hath granted a Bill of Rights, we do verily possess these Rights under the stars of heaven, or be it sun or clouds even if they be overdrawn with dews....
Now, if by the power of reasoning and being of cheerful demeanor we always strive to give to our fellows what is rightfully theirs, by honoring their rights and entering in league with them to look out for the common good, we do well and wish others well too.
That is objective morality because it is based on the welfare of all concerned, knowing well that much suffering is endured and will henceforth be endured by all.
How then do we know always what is the right thing to do?
Well, we cannot surely know the right at all times. The best we can do is aim for it. We may miss and have some amends to make.
But the shortest rule for those most interested in the Road to Morality is just this:
Throw yourself away and live only for others, not choosing who you will befriend. Do as even Jesus said: Love thine enemies. Pray for those who curse you.
Morality for me is acting to engender compassion, love and wisdom. A lack of morality is acting to engender greed, hate & delusion.
Trying to add "objective" or "standardized rules" to it is like trying to solidify the fluidity of existence or bring predictability to its chaos. I believe the real answer lies in facing that within that seeks such things.
Kudos on that statement, How!
I've followed this thread, but have yet to chime in due to its crowded and mind-boggling posts. Perhaps if I had been born a German and was used to long, drawn-out sentences that kept you in suspense till the very end to hear the verb, I'd be better equipped to read and understand what is being said here (not less to post).
But here is my take: Morality is objective if you so choose and it can be subjective if that is the view that you just wanna take. I think the former is more humane and the latter rather drenched in Sophistry, though. Thus I agree that there is no fixed firmament here. We think we walk on Terra Firma until the Earthquake comes; then we are shaken to the core. Who can predict what one will really do when the hard rocks begin to fall into the midst of our very fragile lives? Firstly, avoid anger and drugs, for they both impair judgment. When the parts of your brain are affected by certain drugs, judgment falls away and you flee the house of reason when you yield to anger. When reason fails you, can an act you'll soon regret be far behind?
One sure bulwark I find is the concept of Rights, as in human rights. We've seen threads on NewBuddhist before debating whether these things (Rights) really exist or whether they are just "tokens" given value just by our honoring them, such as we honor the monetary value of legal tender. ¶ But that is a slippery slope if ever there was one, making room for Hitlers and Stalins to rise up powerful in the earth again to smash our race anew into smithereens.
However, I find that Rights are as objective as the human-being-objects (persons) are. Yes, other human beings do exist and they exist "out there," independent of me and my interests (well, usually, he he he) To say that these other folks out there have no objective rights would be to say that they have no right to be "out there," anywhere. Of course there are times —many, many times— when specific persons or any other person whatsoever has not the right to be in a specified place, but even there they still do have the right to be dealt with as fairly and as gently as possible due to the delicate nature of the human organism. And why is that? Because they are notour subjects and we don't have the right to treat them as though they were. Theoretically, the State can treat them as Subjects, but only for cause and through due process. And if we can only be treated as subjects by the judicial a
@Nirvana, respectively, none of that answers the question. Your post is essentially nothing more than boldly stated, unsubstantiated assertions. You set up a framework for what is good, yet you neglect to explain what it is exactly that makes your framework valid.
Furthermore, your claim that the ontological objectivity and/or subjectivity of morality is solely dependent on what one "wants" it to be is self-contradictory, for if morality is objective simply because we desire it to be so, then its objectivity is, by definition, subjective.
Also, How's claim that viewing morality as either objective or subjective is incorrect ultimately amounts to saying that morality doesn't exist at all, for that which exists neither objectively not subjectively is, by definition, nonexistent.
Lastly, your claim that objective morality can be defined by that which works for the "welfare of all concerned" is incomplete, for it fails to answer the question of why working for the welfare of all concerned is objectively moral in the first place. Your position can therefore be summarized as "objective morality is that which is good," which explains nothing, but simply begs the question.
@Nirvana, respectively, none of that answers the question. Your post is essentially nothing more than boldly stated, unsubstantiated assertions. You set up a framework for what is good, yet you neglect to explain what it is exactly that makes your framework valid.
OK, Sir! One point at a time, please.
1. respectively, none of that answers the question What is the question?
Recently I've been struggling over the subject of objective morality; for example, when I consider various acts typically esteemed as immoral (such as murder, rape, slavery, genocide, etc), my immediate gut reaction is to affirm the objectively immoral nature of such things; nevertheless, I find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to logically defend such an assertion.
If objective morals actually exist, what is it that makes them objective? I realize that some people may attempt to invoke God as a means by which to solve this problem, but I personally find that solution to be rather unconvincing given the Euthyphro Dilemma.
The Euthypro "Dilemma" is no genuine issue, hence of no relevance here. But I do find a question here, which I have to admit makes no sense to me if you're looking for a "WHY?." And it doth seem to me that you are, really, though you use the terms of "How?"
If objective morals actually exist, what is it that makes them objective? What is it that makes them objective? In other words, "in what way," "in what manner," or "by what means" are they objective or made objective?
Could you rephrase your question: "If morals actually exist objectively, what is it that makes them objective?" That would seem less convoluted to me. Will that work?
With all that said, do you personally accept the existence of objective morality; and if so, how do you defend your position?
Well, assuming I understand a smidgen of all this, I'll proceed again. I believe fundamental aspects of morality are absolute within a given functioning cooperative society with a common government. In war, all of that is lost between nations, unfortunately. Of course, war is never justified unless you are first attacked. If your country attacks another in anticipation of another country stiking first, that is a great sin...
Morality begins first in my looking outside myself far and finding others objectively standing outside of me and am given to understand that they have Rights which exist objectively alongside them as their advocates. I bow to these Rights (Sp. Derecho, German: Rechts) by doing the right thing, what the Law (Sp. Derecho; German: Gesetz & Recht, Latin Lex ) says is Right (Sp. derecho, German: recht, Latin dexter) And if the Law is wrong I follow my conscience to honor the rights of others and disobey and/or stand in opposition to that law, as appropriate for my circumstances.
I defend my position by examining my conscience and acting in accord with it. It all boils down to humility and not asking for more than my share of things. It is wrong to hurt others, as I said in my first post, because they are not subject to me but are equal (parallel) to me and hence are objects of my consciousness.
You set up a framework for what is good, yet you neglect to explain what it is exactly that makes your framework valid.
Could you flesh this out a little for me? What is the "framework I set up." Me? I thought it was in the Bill of Rights, The UN Declaration of Human Rights, etc. I think you must have a very inflated idea of who you're conversing with. I neglected to explain exactly what makes "my framework" valid? Perhaps in my first post. But now I repeat, as in two paragraphs above: It is made valid by Law and by Bills Of Rights.
Furthermore, your claim that the ontological objectivity and/or subjectivity of morality is solely dependent on what one "wants" it to be is self-contradictory, for if morality is objective simply because we desire it to be so, then its objectivity is, by definition, subjective.
Morality is objective if you so choose and it can be subjective if that is the view that you just wanna take. I think the former is more humane and the latter rather drenched in Sophistry, though. Thus I agree that there is no fixed firmament here. We think we walk on Terra Firma until the Earthquake comes; then we are shaken to the core. Who can predict what one will really do when the hard rocks begin to fall into the midst of our very fragile lives? Firstly, avoid anger and drugs, for they both impair judgment. When the parts of your brain are affected by certain drugs, judgment falls away and you flee the house of reason when you yield to anger. When reason fails you, can an act you'll soon regret be far behind?
NIRVANA: I never said that the "ontological objectivity and/or subjectivity of morality is solely dependent on what one "wants." "Solely" and "wants"/"desires" are out of place here. I was not speaking of these things, much less even thinking of them. No, I was referring to moral action being a Choice. Those were my words, "If you so choose..." Closer scrutiny of what I wrote will reveal that I thought the person poised to pursue goodness would see morality as an esteemed (objective) goal, whereas one not wanting to commit would use lots of words of speculation (Sophistry) to defend his position. So I am baffled as to what the gist of your response is.
Lastly, your claim that objective morality can be defined by that which works for the "welfare of all concerned" is incomplete, for it fails to answer the question of why working for the welfare of all concerned is objectively moral in the first place. Your position can therefore be summarized as "objective morality is that which is good," which explains nothing, but simply begs the question.
NIRVANA: Why is working for the welfare of all concerned an objective thing? It is objective because it pulls one out of one's own subjectivity and it is objectively moral because it is respectful of the rights and interests and expectations and hopes and goodly desires of others. Not rooted in self love, it cannot be subjective. That's all for now with this stuff. Way past bedtime.
@Nirvana, these posts are becoming way too long to respond to, especially considering that I'm using my phone to make posts on this thread; therefore, I'll simply reply to what I believe is the core of your response.
Firstly, to clarify, "the question" which is being discussed in this thread is whether or not objective morals exist.
I defend my position by examining my conscience and acting in accord with it. It all boils down to humility and not asking for more than my share of things. It is wrong to hurt others, as I said in my first post, because they are not subject to me but are equal (parallel) to me and hence are objects of my consciousness.
Your consciousness is not objective, nor is there any logical reason to suppose that it is capable of discerning objective morality (assuming it even exists).
Could you flesh this out a little for me? What is the "framework I set up." Me? I thought it was in the Bill of Rights, The UN Declaration of Human Rights, etc. I think you must have a very inflated idea of who you're conversing with. I neglected to explain exactly what makes "my framework" valid? Perhaps in my first post. But now I repeat, as in two paragraphs above: It is made valid by Law and by Bills Of Rights.
Your framework for objective morality is the law and the Bill of Rights? With all due respect, do you even know what ontologically objective morality is? A man made law and bill is not at all an acceptable source of objective morality, due to the simple fact that it's man made (unless you claim that such things are divinely inspired).
I never said that the "ontological objectivity and/or subjectivity of morality is solely dependent on what one "wants." "Solely" and "wants"/"desires" are out of place here. I was not speaking of these things, much less even thinking of them. No, I was referring to moral action being a Choice. Those were my words, "If you so choose..." Closer scrutiny of what I wrote will reveal that I thought the person poised to pursue goodness would see morality as an esteemed (objective) goal, whereas one not wanting to commit would use lots of words of speculation (Sophistry) to defend his position. So I am baffled as to what the gist of your response is.
Ah, I think I understand your statements now; I misunderstood. My apologies. However, I'm sure we can both agree that despite whether or not believing in objective morality results in a more "humane" society is irrelevant to whether or not morality is in fact objective.
Why is working for the welfare of all concerned an objective thing? It is objective because it pulls one out of one's own subjectivity.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, or how it explains that working for the welfare of others is objectively good. Could you explain?
Man, Being is Being. Words and concepts are not being, they are just coins and their containers.
As to your last query, don't be so derned impatient to prove yourself "right." We have fifteen minutes to clean up our posts to make sure we've made ourselves clear. I don't believe you even allowed me 7 minutes before you copied a very long post.
I do believe that "ontologists" might have heads in need of periodic overhaul. Actually, I find endodontists much more useful. No ontologist has ever solved a single one of the world's problems.
Also, you need sleep. I write "conscience" and you read "consciousness..." And yes I've studied metaphysics from Aristotle to Ortega with a lot of gaps in between.
This is just sounding brass and it leads nowhere. Be the Light and let Darkness be dark where your light cannot reach. Don't overreach where Light cannot shine. Makes no sense.
Ananda once asked the Buddha: "What, Venerable Sir, is the rewarding advantage of morality?" "Freedom from regret, Ananda! Freedom from regret!"
5
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
It was not directed at you or any other specific person, but to the idea out there that there should be no real rules (e.g., the Precepts are just training rules) and looking down on religions that do have distinct rules (e.g., the Ten Commandments). And the idea here is the West that Buddhism is almost some sort of New Age religion.
For the record, I am sorry that I go off on the Bible and the religions of Abraham as I do. I do find them distasteful but the last thing I want to do is offend you or anybody else. I promise I will try to be more skillful.
Yes, if you mean objective in the sense of evolving from nature and operating within the framework psychological laws, but not in the sense of emanating from some supranormal source (e.g., see this, this, this, this, this, etc.).
Also I would add that an objective moral code has been established within every religion that has the Golden Rule at its core. That is if we use the word "objective" to mean "without prejudice", "unbiased" or "fair". This kind of objective morality takes all subjective experience into consideration.
If we are using the term to mean "absolute" then I still think what best nurtures growth and happiness is the way. Simply because it goes with the natural grain. Not everybody thinks that way so perhaps it can't be considered absolute but I believe nature will dictate and time will tell.
I do agree with you that there can be no source of objective morality because it seems a conflict of terms. If it comes from one place but not all places it is not objective in any sense of the word.
It was not directed at you or any other specific person, but to the idea out there that there should be no real rules (e.g., the Precepts are just training rules) and looking down on religions that do have distinct rules (e.g., the Ten Commandments). And the idea here is the West that Buddhism is almost some sort of New Age religion.
For the record, I am sorry that I go off on the Bible and the religions of Abraham as I do. I do find them distasteful but the last thing I want to do is offend you or anybody else. I promise I will try to be more skillful.
...
Once again, my comment was not directed toward you or any other specific poster. Just a general comment.
I find nothing wrong with fair and balanced critiques of Christianity or any other religion, providing the same degree of fairness and standards are applied to all religions.
Not really. The brain distinguishes between the colours within light but colour is not separate from light. If what you said was true, there would be no distinguishing between colours except subjectively but if I show a child a few different coloured slides, they will be able to pick out blue and green. If I paint my walls blue, I'd bet not too many people call it green.
The brain can distinguish between frequencies of light, but they are interpreted subjectively.
We all agree that a clear sky is blue, yet, do we all see the same color? Doubtful.
Terms like "blue" are convenient labels we use for a common frame of reference and nothing more. We have to call it something.
It's a conditioned thing. The only way a child knows the sky is blue is because they have been taught that's what we call it. There is nothing inherently "blue" in the sky that a child could pick up intuitively.
As to your last query, don't be so derned impatient to prove yourself "right." We have fifteen minutes to clean up our posts to make sure we've made ourselves clear. I don't believe you even allowed me 7 minutes before you copied a very long post.
My apologies, you just so happened to post your comments moments after I logged back into the site, and giving you time to edit your post didn't even occur to me (which is odd, seeing as how I edit pretty much all of my posts).
In any case, I'm not trying to "prove myself right." I'm simply defending my position because it's the view I've come to accept, but I'm not at all attached to it. If someone could make a logical and substantiated argument for the existence of objective morality, so be it. I have no problem changing my mind, I do it all the time. I discuss these topics primarily to learn, not just preach.
I do believe that "ontologists" might have heads in need of periodic overhaul. Actually, I find endodontists much more useful. No ontologist has ever solved a single one of the world's problems.
Yes, but I must say the world would be a rather boring place if we only thought about what was "useful." Philosophical topics fascinate me, that's why I discuss them.
Also, you need sleep. I write "conscience" and you read "consciousness..." And yes I've studied metaphysics from Aristotle to Ortega with a lot of gaps in between.
My point stands, your conscience isn't objective, either. Or maybe it is. I know mine isn't.
This is just sounding brass and it leads nowhere. Be the Light and let Darkness be dark where your light cannot reach. Don't overreach where Light cannot shine. Makes no sense.
How exactly do you know that my "light" cannot shine into questions concerning morality?
Dear God, I just further realized that it doesn't matter which way I turn my laptop. Whether I turn it to the left or to the right, the Z's become N's. It's madness!
This koan turned my world upside down. But now it looks the same.
0
matthewmartinAmateur BodhisattvaSuburbs of Mt MeruVeteran
With all that said, do you personally accept the existence of objective morality; and if so, how do you defend your position?
In a battle of wits I'm unarmed. So what I'm going to say won't hold up. I think you start with things that appear to be true, you apply reason. The contradictions are false. The axioms are unprovable, so at best you can minimize the number of them & subjectively try to make them "conservative" I think a characteristic of objective systems is that they are surprising, counter intuitive and move you away from where you currently are.
Systems of ethics seem to be full of little engines of antinomialism and engines of personal equillibrium. Antinomialism (to borrow & possibly abuse the concept from Protestant Christiantity) is where there are logical gymnastics that make it easy make ethics moot because they are getting in the way of what you want to do. The engines of personal equillibrium is where we use logical gymnastics to wiggle out of any conclusion that moves us away from where we happen to be now.
On the otherhand, not reasoning about ethics seems like a bad idea. If there ever was an engine of antinomialism, it's throwing up your hands and saying it's all personal opinion and reason and ethics have no link.
reference: Drat, I can't find the reference. There is an cool article somewhere about the efficacy of prison chaplaincy, where the suprising conclusion was that prisoners were just as likely to use their religious belief (of a crazy wide variety of religion systems) to justify their actions as they were to use it to help them get back onto a recognizable "straight and narrow"
Assuming you're including me here, well I don't have all the time in the world for this, but here goes again. I have only a few minutes before I have to go off to a 12-hr shift at work.
I would add that an objective moral code has been established within every religion that has the Golden Rule at its core. That is if we use the word "objective" to mean "without prejudice", "unbiased" or "fair". This kind of objective morality takes all subjective experience into consideration.
If we are using the term to mean "absolute" then I still think what best nurtures growth and happiness is the way. Simply because it goes with the natural grain. Not everybody thinks that way so perhaps it can't be considered absolute but I believe nature will dictate and time will tell.
I do agree with you that there can be no source of objective morality because it seems a conflict of terms. If it comes from one place but not all places it is not objective in any sense of the word.
{underlining and strikeouting mine}
Well, to my mind, it all depends on whether one fully subscribes to the belief that all things are ultimately subsumed under a single unity (as the adherents of Sanatana Dharma or of the Tao do). In those cases there is only one true subject, and there being only one true subject, the subjective/objective paradigm is mere illusory. Well, that's where I'm stuck. I simply am unable to go back to that Lie, for I have seen the Light.
Are you having fun here or are you serious? I'm not sure what that was all about but either you're being disingenuous or you don't really understand what I'm saying.
It seems you're suggesting that the universe is an ontologically subjective entity, which is certainly possible, but so is the ridiculous scenario I presented you. Whether or not the universe is ontologically objective has to be taken on faith. I have faith that it is ontologically objective, while you seem to think it's not. Either why, the ontological nature of the universe is irrelevant to whether or not morality is objective.
Not really. The brain distinguishes between the colours within light but colour is not separate from light. If what you said was true, there would be no distinguishing between colours except subjectively but if I show a child a few different coloured slides, they will be able to pick out blue and green. If I paint my walls blue, I'd bet not too many people call it green.
I think you're missing the point here. It doesn't matter if most humans interpret a particular frequency of light waves as the same color, because all that means is that human brains are hardwired to interpret light waves similarly. Most dogs also see the same colors as other dogs, and yet those colors are very different from what humans see.
As to the reactions you'd get if you painted your wall blue, for all you know, all the people saying "blue" actually see what is green to you, but they've simply been raised to call green blue. How do you know the colors you see are the same ones everyone else sees? How do you know others aren't simply referring to different colors by the same names? Quite frankly, I really don't even know why we're debating this, as it's already a settled scientific issue. Light waves exist objectively, colors do not. Light waves are nothing more than wave frequencies, colors are the brain's subjective interpretation of those frequencies. If there is no brain to interpret the light wave frequencies, color ceases to exist. Your objections are missing the point. All I can suggest is that you do some research on light waves and color.
And where exactly is the mind found within conscious beings? Can you find me a map of the body that shows the mind?
The mind is nothing more than the inner workings of the physical brain, this is obvious from the fact that you can completely change someone's personality simply by stabbing their prefrontal cortex and diminish one's mindfulness through inflicting brain damage on them, as well as the fact that when you are in a dreamless sleep, conscious awareness and mindfulness cease to exist. As such, the mind is nothing more than the chemical processes of the brain; if such weren't the case, why would the mind cease to exist when the brain goes to sleep?
Not according to the Dalai Lama... He makes the claim ( I'm paraphrasing) that all life forms want to be happy and as free from suffering as possible. It only logically follows to live and let live.
If I want to live then it only makes sense others want to live. I don't want anyone to kill me so it is only logical that I do not kill anybody else.
It simply doesn't make any sense to harm others.
Alright, so you realize other living creatures want to live and be happy just like you, so you've decided that you shouldn't harm other beings because that would be hypocritical. And that belief is objectively moral, how? Just because something is logical doesn't make it morally objective.
But there it is again. Objectivity that doesn't take each subjective experience into account is not objective. Objectivity is the big picture but it is all the little pictures that make up the big picture.
Objective means non-partial. If we exclude subjectivity it is partial. This is why Buddha points to the middle way. One extreme or the other guides the deluded.
I think there is a reason the Golden Rules rears its head in so many religions of peace.
I'm beginning to think the source of our disagreement in this discussion is the fact that you don't know what objective morality is.
The word "objective" as I am using it refers to that which exists even in the absence of a brain or mind to comprehend it. You, on the other hand, seem be using it to mean "non-partial."
Objective morality is the concept that moral absolutes exist -- that some things are just good, and others are just wrong, despite what other people think. That's it.
It's the way the universe unfolds. The way things go. There are no true opposites and so continuance has no opposite. Some see it as good and some see it as bad but it is the only game in town. Natural selection, evolution and the universe itself are goods that have no opposite.
What do you mean there are no true opposites? Here you are asserting the existence of objective morality -- the belief that some things are truly morally good and others are truly morally bad -- and yet you claim nothing has a true opposite? Does good and bad exist or not, an if so, how are they not opposites?
It means that mind could very well exist without the individual to use it. The brain could be a product of mind instead of the other way around. The second sentence just means that you cannot undo being here. What you do affects others and the environment.
Possible? Yes; but a lot of things are possible. What logical argument do you have to support these possibilities?
For example, my logical argument that the brain ceases to exist with the destruction of the physical brain is that when the brain shuts down in sleep, so does the mind. All conscious awareness of time, space, and stimuli (both internal and external) disappear. Therefore, from this it logically follows that the mind is dependent on and most likely a product of the physical brain.
Sorry but that doesn't hold any water with me. Rape and murder make the news for one reason... It is not the norm.
Since when did "not the norm" equal objectively immoral? As I said, morality is the product of evolution and sociocultural influences, so of course our society has a lot of common moral values, but that does nothing to show that morality is objective.
Moral authority? As crazy as it may sound, objective morality couldn't exist if it came from an authority. It would have to be quite literally common sense. Ingrained through a kind of instinct like when mammels and birds had to develope nurturing to survive.
Is nurturing good or bad? It just is the way things go because we naturally developed it.
In other words, subjective morality.
If scientists hooked up electrodes to your brain and said you were thinking of elephants when you were really thinking about what to clean in your house would you believe the scientists? That's a standard argument for yogacara or mind only. I too think reality is subjective though there might be something (misunderstood) that compels us to see objectivity. So I disagree that the mind is an epiphenomen of the brain.
...However, it is really about how, ultimately, the mandala of our being is more than just a changing illusion. It is awareness itself that is structured and within which there are connections, even though, in a sense, there is nothing there...
Lama Shenpen Hookham
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Are you having fun here or are you serious? I'm not sure what that was all about but either you're being disingenuous or you don't really understand what I'm saying.
It seems you're suggesting that the universe is an ontologically subjective entity, which is certainly possible, but so is the ridiculous scenario I presented you. Whether or not the universe is ontologically objective has to be taken on faith. I have faith that it is ontologically objective, while you seem to think it's not. Either why, the ontological nature of the universe is irrelevant to whether or not morality is objective.
Not really. The brain distinguishes between the colours within light but colour is not separate from light. If what you said was true, there would be no distinguishing between colours except subjectively but if I show a child a few different coloured slides, they will be able to pick out blue and green. If I paint my walls blue, I'd bet not too many people call it green.
I think you're missing the point here. It doesn't matter if most humans interpret a particular frequency of light waves as the same color, because all that means is that human brains are hardwired to interpret light waves similarly. Most dogs also see the same colors as other dogs, and yet those colors are very different from what humans see.
As to the reactions you'd get if you painted your wall blue, for all you know, all the people saying "blue" actually see what is green to you, but they've simply been raised to call green blue. How do you know the colors you see are the same ones everyone else sees? How do you know others aren't simply referring to different colors by the same names? Quite frankly, I really don't even know why we're debating this, as it's already a settled scientific issue. Light waves exist objectively, colors do not. Light waves are nothing more than wave frequencies, colors are the brain's subjective interpretation of those frequencies. If there is no brain to interpret the light wave frequencies, color ceases to exist. Your objections are missing the point. All I can suggest is that you do some research on light waves and color.
And where exactly is the mind found within conscious beings? Can you find me a map of the body that shows the mind?
The mind is nothing more than the inner workings of the physical brain, this is obvious from the fact that you can completely change someone's personality simply by stabbing their prefrontal cortex and diminish one's mindfulness through inflicting brain damage on them, as well as the fact that when you are in a dreamless sleep, conscious awareness and mindfulness cease to exist. As such, the mind is nothing more than the chemical processes of the brain; if such weren't the case, why would the mind cease to exist when the brain goes to sleep?
Not according to the Dalai Lama... He makes the claim ( I'm paraphrasing) that all life forms want to be happy and as free from suffering as possible. It only logically follows to live and let live.
If I want to live then it only makes sense others want to live. I don't want anyone to kill me so it is only logical that I do not kill anybody else.
It simply doesn't make any sense to harm others.
Alright, so you realize other living creatures want to live and be happy just like you, so you've decided that you shouldn't harm other beings because that would be hypocritical. And that belief is objectively moral, how? Just because something is logical doesn't make it morally objective.
But there it is again. Objectivity that doesn't take each subjective experience into account is not objective. Objectivity is the big picture but it is all the little pictures that make up the big picture.
Objective means non-partial. If we exclude subjectivity it is partial. This is why Buddha points to the middle way. One extreme or the other guides the deluded.
I think there is a reason the Golden Rules rears its head in so many religions of peace.
I'm beginning to think the source of our disagreement in this discussion is the fact that you don't know what objective morality is.
The word "objective" as I am using it refers to that which exists even in the absence of a brain or mind to comprehend it. You, on the other hand, seem be using it to mean "non-partial."
Objective morality is the concept that moral absolutes exist -- that some things are just good, and others are just wrong, despite what other people think. That's it.
It's the way the universe unfolds. The way things go. There are no true opposites and so continuance has no opposite. Some see it as good and some see it as bad but it is the only game in town. Natural selection, evolution and the universe itself are goods that have no opposite.
What do you mean there are no true opposites? Here you are asserting the existence of objective morality -- the belief that some things are truly morally good and others are truly morally bad -- and yet you claim nothing has a true opposite? Does good and bad exist or not, an if so, how are they not opposites?
It means that mind could very well exist without the individual to use it. The brain could be a product of mind instead of the other way around. The second sentence just means that you cannot undo being here. What you do affects others and the environment.
Possible? Yes; but a lot of things are possible. What logical argument do you have to support these possibilities?
For example, my logical argument that the brain ceases to exist with the destruction of the physical brain is that when the brain shuts down in sleep, so does the mind. All conscious awareness of time, space, and stimuli (both internal and external) disappear. Therefore, from this it logically follows that the mind is dependent on and most likely a product of the physical brain.
Sorry but that doesn't hold any water with me. Rape and murder make the news for one reason... It is not the norm.
Since when did "not the norm" equal objectively immoral? As I said, morality is the product of evolution and sociocultural influences, so of course our society has a lot of common moral values, but that does nothing to show that morality is objective.
Moral authority? As crazy as it may sound, objective morality couldn't exist if it came from an authority. It would have to be quite literally common sense. Ingrained through a kind of instinct like when mammels and birds had to develope nurturing to survive.
Is nurturing good or bad? It just is the way things go because we naturally developed it.
In other words, subjective morality.
If scientists hooked up electrodes to your brain and said you were thinking of elephants when you were really thinking about what to clean in your house would you believe the scientists? That's a standard argument for yogacara or mind only. I too think reality is subjective though there might be something (misunderstood) that compels us to see objectivity. So I disagree that the mind is an epiphenomen of the brain.
Same here. I believe with any and all information sharing, mind is at play. If it wasn't for information being shared, there would be no brains.
Are you having fun here or are you serious? I'm not sure what that was all about but either you're being disingenuous or you don't really understand what I'm saying.
It seems you're suggesting that the universe is an ontologically subjective entity, which is certainly possible, but so is the ridiculous scenario I presented you. Whether or not the universe is ontologically objective has to be taken on faith. I have faith that it is ontologically objective, while you seem to think it's not. Either why, the ontological nature of the universe is irrelevant to whether or not morality is objective.
Not really. The brain distinguishes between the colours within light but colour is not separate from light. If what you said was true, there would be no distinguishing between colours except subjectively but if I show a child a few different coloured slides, they will be able to pick out blue and green. If I paint my walls blue, I'd bet not too many people call it green.
I think you're missing the point here. It doesn't matter if most humans interpret a particular frequency of light waves as the same color, because all that means is that human brains are hardwired to interpret light waves similarly. Most dogs also see the same colors as other dogs, and yet those colors are very different from what humans see.
As to the reactions you'd get if you painted your wall blue, for all you know, all the people saying "blue" actually see what is green to you, but they've simply been raised to call green blue. How do you know the colors you see are the same ones everyone else sees? How do you know others aren't simply referring to different colors by the same names? Quite frankly, I really don't even know why we're debating this, as it's already a settled scientific issue. Light waves exist objectively, colors do not. Light waves are nothing more than wave frequencies, colors are the brain's subjective interpretation of those frequencies. If there is no brain to interpret the light wave frequencies, color ceases to exist. Your objections are missing the point. All I can suggest is that you do some research on light waves and color.
And where exactly is the mind found within conscious beings? Can you find me a map of the body that shows the mind?
The mind is nothing more than the inner workings of the physical brain, this is obvious from the fact that you can completely change someone's personality simply by stabbing their prefrontal cortex and diminish one's mindfulness through inflicting brain damage on them, as well as the fact that when you are in a dreamless sleep, conscious awareness and mindfulness cease to exist. As such, the mind is nothing more than the chemical processes of the brain; if such weren't the case, why would the mind cease to exist when the brain goes to sleep?
Not according to the Dalai Lama... He makes the claim ( I'm paraphrasing) that all life forms want to be happy and as free from suffering as possible. It only logically follows to live and let live.
If I want to live then it only makes sense others want to live. I don't want anyone to kill me so it is only logical that I do not kill anybody else.
It simply doesn't make any sense to harm others.
Alright, so you realize other living creatures want to live and be happy just like you, so you've decided that you shouldn't harm other beings because that would be hypocritical. And that belief is objectively moral, how? Just because something is logical doesn't make it morally objective.
But there it is again. Objectivity that doesn't take each subjective experience into account is not objective. Objectivity is the big picture but it is all the little pictures that make up the big picture.
Objective means non-partial. If we exclude subjectivity it is partial. This is why Buddha points to the middle way. One extreme or the other guides the deluded.
I think there is a reason the Golden Rules rears its head in so many religions of peace.
I'm beginning to think the source of our disagreement in this discussion is the fact that you don't know what objective morality is.
The word "objective" as I am using it refers to that which exists even in the absence of a brain or mind to comprehend it. You, on the other hand, seem be using it to mean "non-partial."
Objective morality is the concept that moral absolutes exist -- that some things are just good, and others are just wrong, despite what other people think. That's it.
It's the way the universe unfolds. The way things go. There are no true opposites and so continuance has no opposite. Some see it as good and some see it as bad but it is the only game in town. Natural selection, evolution and the universe itself are goods that have no opposite.
What do you mean there are no true opposites? Here you are asserting the existence of objective morality -- the belief that some things are truly morally good and others are truly morally bad -- and yet you claim nothing has a true opposite? Does good and bad exist or not, an if so, how are they not opposites?
It means that mind could very well exist without the individual to use it. The brain could be a product of mind instead of the other way around. The second sentence just means that you cannot undo being here. What you do affects others and the environment.
Possible? Yes; but a lot of things are possible. What logical argument do you have to support these possibilities?
For example, my logical argument that the brain ceases to exist with the destruction of the physical brain is that when the brain shuts down in sleep, so does the mind. All conscious awareness of time, space, and stimuli (both internal and external) disappear. Therefore, from this it logically follows that the mind is dependent on and most likely a product of the physical brain.
Sorry but that doesn't hold any water with me. Rape and murder make the news for one reason... It is not the norm.
Since when did "not the norm" equal objectively immoral? As I said, morality is the product of evolution and sociocultural influences, so of course our society has a lot of common moral values, but that does nothing to show that morality is objective.
Moral authority? As crazy as it may sound, objective morality couldn't exist if it came from an authority. It would have to be quite literally common sense. Ingrained through a kind of instinct like when mammels and birds had to develope nurturing to survive.
Is nurturing good or bad? It just is the way things go because we naturally developed it.
In other words, subjective morality.
If scientists hooked up electrodes to your brain and said you were thinking of elephants when you were really thinking about what to clean in your house would you believe the scientists? That's a standard argument for yogacara or mind only. I too think reality is subjective though there might be something (misunderstood) that compels us to see objectivity. So I disagree that the mind is an epiphenomen of the brain.
That argument isn't particularly convincing, seeing as how (1) scientists haven't actually done such a thing, and (2) even if they had, it's not implausible to suggest that some part of your brain was in fact thinking of elephants.
Surely as a meditator you know how your mind can begin to conjure thoughts that completely bypass your awareness, only to be discovered later when you finally realize you're no longer focused on the object of your meditation. Simply put, the brain isn't limited to producing only one thought at a time; rather, it can be thinking many things at once, even if you're unaware of them.
On the other hand, evidence which suggests that the mind is simply a product of the brain includes:
1. The fact that mind and consciousness seem to stop existing in dreamless sleep. 2. The fact that one's personality and sanity can be altered simply by tampering with the physical brain. 3. The fact that neuroscientists, using fMRI, are able to see what decision you'll make before you even become consciously aware of that decision (this also challenges the notion of free will).
In my humble opinion there is no objective morality; and I think believing so fits in with Buddhist thought. In my clumsy vocabulary: Phenomena have no inherent existence; they are fluid and interconnected. What we see as a “thing” really is a process. It is based on / depending on other phenomena which are of the same fluid and depending nature.
Human behavior and the process of qualifying types of behavior in moral terms is fluid, open. It all depends on circumstances; on causes and effect; on context.
I think that implies we cannot hide for our responsibility. What we do is what we do. There is no universal authority giving us the seal of approval. There will be no judgment-day. We cannot ultimately judge other people either. That is to say, we can judge them, punish them or kill them; but even that is just what we do. There is no God, no Dharma, on our side saying that what we do is right. All dharma's are empty.
Fortunately we can stick to some basic practical guidelines for moral behavior; but that’s just a simplification for daily use. When it really matters, when we face a new and critical situation; it’s up to us.
In my humble opinion there is no objective morality...
Would somebody PLEASE explain to me the difference between the two following statements, and if there is one, its ramifications:
1) There is no such thing as objective morality.
2) There is no such thing as an Objective to Be Moral.
The only difference I see is that #2 implies a living, (willing?)*, and able being behind the steering wheel, whereas #1 is predicated on the idea of some object in front of some pure, bland conscious subject. *(Perhaps a lack of the will to be propelled towards universal love?)
NOR, in the case of #1, does a pure, bland consciousness confront the objective, but rather the objective doth rather seem to mock the would-be actor.
I'm not sure such consciousness exists, save only in theory. What we animals have is Loving Consciousness. Just as one cannot separate the heat from the light in the sun's rays (except mentally), I don't believe that you can bifurcate life-experience into a sheer subjective/objective paradigm without doing some violence to the essential essence of the design. To me it's a skewed approach, kinda like dissecting a frog to see how it works. But first you have to kill the frog. To me it seems all about death-to-the-Light, the downward way.
Nor need there necessarily be a SPECIFICITY inherent in the idea of objective morality, but that does not mean that among people of goodwill such a thing does not exist. If an act fits (is fitting) it is objectively good. If it does not fit (i.e., is out of place, not respecting the rights of others) it is objectively bad —or even evil if it be violent and mad.
You simply cannot parse such important things so strictly without falling into a lot of mere Sophistry. And for our weaker brethren lacking in compassion those untoward* arguments help pave the road to perdition! *floabw
(My favorite post so far: Ourself's Post #49!!!!)
Sorry, limited time, and I know that this post needs a lot of amending.
The elephants etc is a thought experiment which is common in philosophy such as 'the brain in a jar'. The thought experiment does presume that it would be possible to have a descrepency. That too is a thought experiment. What the thought experiment does do is show us that awareness is more fundamental than brains and brain waves or modern science. IF that happened you would have to agree with your awareness rather than what the doctor says. Thus the mind is more fundamental just as descartes said.
Surely as a meditator you know how your mind can begin to conjure thoughts that completely bypass your awareness, only to be discovered later when you finally realize you're no longer focused on the object of your meditation. Simply put, the brain isn't limited to producing only one thought at a time; rather, it can be thinking many things at once, even if you're unaware of them.
I didn't really understand this? Thoughts arise from non-manifest seed consciousness. They have a beginning middle and end. That is conventional reality. But in right view wisdom mind we cannot totally find one thought so how can we find a stream of thoughts? Try to see where thoughts come from, where they abide (not the body for example), and where they go to?
1. The fact that mind and consciousness seem to stop existing in dreamless sleep.
Who is the observer to that? How would you know unless there is an observer. Maybe you just forget it. It is said that sleep is a bardo. Even going to the next birth there is consciousness according to many Buddhist teachers.
2. The fact that one's personality and sanity can be altered simply by tampering with the physical brain.
Well the skhandas are not the self. Of course you can change them. But they are not the self. So cannot say 'my brain',
3. The fact that neuroscientists, using fMR
I am not sure what fMR is.
But the form skhanda is not the self.
4. I, are able to see what decision you'll make before you even become consciously aware of that decision (this also challenges the notion of free will).
I am not sure about that. How do you see a thought before you are aware? What awareness sees? If you could see a thought before you are aware then you wouldn't see anything because there is no awareness.
I think we just are in different schools of thought. I am not the only one who thinks along the lines of Yogacara, madhyamaka, Shravaka, Cittamatra, and Shentong. Sometimes I am tempted to think of it as MY brain because I have brain damage from schizophrenia. That makes it not my fault. Along that lines it is like saying I didn't trim the hedges this summer because I was layed up with sciatica nerve problem. But I have found the shravaka dharma where the skhandas are not the self and that is even more powerfully cutting though my sorrow than thinking it is my brain's fault. Perhaps it is 'a' brain rather than my brain.
The elephants etc is a thought experiment which is common in philosophy such as 'the brain in a jar'. The thought experiment does presume that it would be possible to have a descrepency. That too is a thought experiment. What the thought experiment does do is show us that awareness is more fundamental than brains and brain waves or modern science. IF that happened you would have to agree with your awareness rather than what the doctor says. Thus the mind is more fundamental just as descartes said.
The elephant scenario is certainly an interesting thought experiment, but it fails as an "argument" for mind-brain duality. We simply have no reliable evidence that a mind can exist independent of a physical brain.
Ultimately, the elephant thought experiment amounts to nothing more than a "what if" scenario, which is interesting, but does nothing in and of itself to prove anything.
I didn't really understand this? Thoughts arise from non-manifest seed consciousness. They have a beginning middle and end. That is conventional reality. But in right view wisdom mind we cannot totally find one thought so how can we find a stream of thoughts? Try to see where thoughts come from, where they abide (not the body for example), and where they go to?
I would argue that thoughts arise as a product of the physical brain and subsequently reach conscious awareness. In other words, we become consciously aware of thoughts only long after they've been created. The fMRI experiments I spoke of (which I'll link in a moment) support this.
Therefore, it follows that if the brain creates thoughts which reach our conscious awareness only long after their creation, then it could very well be possible for the brain to create many thoughts which never reach our conscious awareness at all (this would be called the unconscious mind). As such, you actually could be thinking of an elephant without being aware of it.
Who is the observer to that? How would you know unless there is an observer. Maybe you just forget it. It is said that sleep is a bardo. Even going to the next birth there is consciousness according to many Buddhist teachers.
The observer is the mind once it is restored via the awakening of the brain and realizes 9 hours have passed without being aware of anything.
I can't really argue with "maybe you just forgot." Anything is possible, after all. All I can say is that it personally seems to me that dreamless sleep lacks any conscious awareness of space, time, matter, internal/external stimuli, etc. All of this suggests (to me, at least) that the mind's existence is wholly dependent on the physical brain.
Well the skhandas are not the self. Of course you can change them. But they are not the self. So cannot say 'my brain',
I agree that the skhandas are ultimately not self (I don't believe in a permanent, independent self whatsoever), but that doesn't prevent me from saying "my brain" simply for the sake of practicality and effective communication.
Functional magnetic resonance imaging. Scientists use fMRI to observe and measure activity in particular regions of the brain through the detection of increased blood flow.
I am not sure about that. How do you see a thought before you are aware? What awareness sees? If you could see a thought before you are aware then you wouldn't see anything because there is no awareness.
I'm not saying that you see a thought before you become aware of it. I'm saying that thoughts arise in the brain, and only enter conscious awareness afterward. Neuroscientists have demonstrated this through the use of fMRI. This suggests that everything we typically associate with the mind (particularly thoughts) is solely a product of the physical brain. Consciousness of those thoughts, on the other hand, is another discussion entirely (although I would similarly argue that consciousness is simply a product of the physical brain).
I'm only going to respond to a few points because I am not feeling well with my mental illness and it is a huge strain. I think of things and then before I type them they are like in a fog that I cannot pierce.
So you think the brain creates thoughts. My teachers teacher says mind and body interpenetrate. This is why you cannot think you are a mind who 'has' a brain/body and you also cannot be a body/brain who has a mind. Rather it is not both, neither, yes, or no. It is totally interpenetratingetc..
There is an argument against dropping off sleep and looking to your alarm clock. The surangama sutra Buddha asks his student if a blind man sees. The student said 'no' lord. Then the Buddha said it was yes and that what the blind man sees is blackness. Similarly the clear mind sees non-awareness. The clear mind is the mind that if you abide in it at death you are enlightened. It is so tender that most people pass out before staying in it awhile.
My main point is that neither thoughts or the brain are the self. So it isn't 'my' brain. It is rather 'brain' and 'thoughts' all arising in the space of consciousness. I had a great point but I forgot it.
I'm just saying that scientific materialism is a valid belief. But there are other people who do not share your view and I don't know the polemics.
One thing to point out is that there is no evidence against a rebirth and nobody knows.
If it is not 'my' brain then that opens to a wider space. The vastness of mind. There is no ownership of thoughts or brain. That is what we do in meditation. We let go of thoughts and brain. Opening to a vastness.
But no there is no 'my' brain. You can say it in english of course. But in terms of elucidating the self it does no good. Buddha said the skhandas are not the self and we don't need to worry about the skhandas are. We just have to let go of the skhandas.
So you think the brain creates thoughts. My teachers teacher says mind and body interpenetrate. This is why you cannot think you are a mind who 'has' a brain/body and you also cannot be a body/brain who has a mind. Rather it is not both, neither, yes, or no. It is totally interpenetratingetc..
There is an argument against dropping off sleep and looking to your alarm clock. The surangama sutra Buddha asks his student if a blind man sees. The student said 'no' lord. Then the Buddha said it was yes and that what the blind man sees is blackness. Similarly the clear mind sees non-awareness. The clear mind is the mind that if you abide in it at death you are enlightened. It is so tender that most people pass out before staying in it awhile.
That's an interesting position, but I see no personal reason to believe it. It may be something people have experienced through meditation, but I haven't.
My main point is that neither thoughts or the brain are the self. So it isn't 'my' brain. It is rather 'brain' and 'thoughts' all arising in the space of consciousness. I had a great point but I forgot it.
One thing to point out is that there is no evidence against a rebirth and nobody knows.
True, but there also isn't any evidence against Santa Clause or unicorns, yet I assume both of us reject the existence of such things. The burden of proof lies with those asserting the existence of rebirth; until rebirth is supported by evidence, the proper default position is disbelief.
If it is not 'my' brain then that opens to a wider space. The vastness of mind. There is no ownership of thoughts or brain. That is what we do in meditation. We let go of thoughts and brain. Opening to a vastness.
But no there is no 'my' brain. You can say it in english of course. But in terms of elucidating the self it does no good. Buddha said the skhandas are not the self and we don't need to worry about the skhandas are. We just have to let go of the skhandas.
True, but there also isn't any evidence against Santa Clause or unicorns, yet I assume both of us reject the existence of such things. The burden of proof lies with those asserting the existence of rebirth; until rebirth is supported by evidence, the proper default position is disbelief.
There is is evidence of birth. So some might say that the fact of it having happened once is reason to entertain the possibility that it can happen again. It is not proper to take a position one way or the other. Either position cannot be proved.
True, but there also isn't any evidence against Santa Clause or unicorns, yet I assume both of us reject the existence of such things. The burden of proof lies with those asserting the existence of rebirth; until rebirth is supported by evidence, the proper default position is disbelief.
There is is evidence of birth. So some might say that the fact of it having happened once is reason to entertain the possibility that it can happen again. It is not proper to take a position one way or the other. Either position cannot be proved.
To entertain a possibility is one thing, to assert that possibility as true without evidence is another.
There's nothing improper about disbelieving in something you can't provide evidence against; for example, I accept the possibility of a tooth fairy, seeing that I can't provide evidence against such a thing, but that doesn't stop me from disbelieving in it. I suppose you could call me an Agnostic-Afairyist.
What do you mean by "objective morality"? Like something one needs to decide for oneself?
No, deciding what is moral for yourself would be an example of subjective morality. RationalWiki defines objective morality as follows:
Objective morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2."
Comments
Are you guys somehow mistaking objectivity for empiricism?
A lack of morality is acting to engender greed, hate & delusion.
Trying to add "objective" or "standardized rules" to it is like trying to solidify the fluidity of existence or bring predictability to it's chaos. I believe the real answer lies in facing that within that seeks such things.
I was glad to see your take on this, @How.
As to the reactions you'd get if you painted your wall blue, for all you know, all the people saying "blue" actually see what is green to you, but they've simply been raised to call green blue. How do you know the colors you see are the same ones everyone else sees? How do you know others aren't simply referring to different colors by the same names? Quite frankly, I really don't even know why we're debating this, as it's already a settled scientific issue. Light waves exist objectively, colors do not. Light waves are nothing more than wave frequencies, colors are the brain's subjective interpretation of those frequencies. If there is no brain to interpret the light wave frequencies, color ceases to exist. Your objections are missing the point. All I can suggest is that you do some research on light waves and color. The mind is nothing more than the inner workings of the physical brain, this is obvious from the fact that you can completely change someone's personality simply by stabbing their prefrontal cortex and diminish one's mindfulness through inflicting brain damage on them, as well as the fact that when you are in a dreamless sleep, conscious awareness and mindfulness cease to exist. As such, the mind is nothing more than the chemical processes of the brain; if such weren't the case, why would the mind cease to exist when the brain goes to sleep? Alright, so you realize other living creatures want to live and be happy just like you, so you've decided that you shouldn't harm other beings because that would be hypocritical. And that belief is objectively moral, how? Just because something is logical doesn't make it morally objective. I'm beginning to think the source of our disagreement in this discussion is the fact that you don't know what objective morality is.
The word "objective" as I am using it refers to that which exists even in the absence of a brain or mind to comprehend it. You, on the other hand, seem be using it to mean "non-partial."
Objective morality is the concept that moral absolutes exist -- that some things are just good, and others are just wrong, despite what other people think. That's it. What do you mean there are no true opposites? Here you are asserting the existence of objective morality -- the belief that some things are truly morally good and others are truly morally bad -- and yet you claim nothing has a true opposite? Does good and bad exist or not, an if so, how are they not opposites? Possible? Yes; but a lot of things are possible. What logical argument do you have to support these possibilities?
For example, my logical argument that the brain ceases to exist with the destruction of the physical brain is that when the brain shuts down in sleep, so does the mind. All conscious awareness of time, space, and stimuli (both internal and external) disappear. Therefore, from this it logically follows that the mind is dependent on and most likely a product of the physical brain. Since when did "not the norm" equal objectively immoral? As I said, morality is the product of evolution and sociocultural influences, so of course our society has a lot of common moral values, but that does nothing to show that morality is objective. In other words, subjective morality.
We're speaking of ontological objectivity (whether or not something exists in actual reality, rather than simply as a product of the mind).
To transcend good and evil is the purpose of Buddhist practice.
I've followed this thread, but have yet to chime in due to its crowded and mind-boggling posts. Perhaps if I had been born a German and was used to long, drawn-out sentences that kept you in suspense till the very end to hear the verb, I'd be better equipped to read and understand what is being said here (not less to post).
But here is my take: Morality is objective if you so choose and it can be subjective if that is the view that you just wanna take. I think the former is more humane and the latter rather drenched in Sophistry, though. Thus I agree that there is no fixed firmament here. We think we walk on Terra Firma until the Earthquake comes; then we are shaken to the core. Who can predict what one will really do when the hard rocks begin to fall into the midst of our very fragile lives? Firstly, avoid anger and drugs, for they both impair judgment. When the parts of your brain are affected by certain drugs, judgment falls away and you flee the house of reason when you yield to anger. When reason fails you, can an act you'll soon regret be far behind?
One sure bulwark I find is the concept of Rights, as in human rights. We've seen threads on NewBuddhist before debating whether these things (Rights) really exist or whether they are just "tokens" given value just by our honoring them, such as we honor the monetary value of legal tender. ¶ But that is a slippery slope if ever there was one, making room for Hitlers and Stalins to rise up powerful in the earth again to smash our race anew into smithereens.
However, I find that Rights are as objective as the human-being-objects (persons) are. Yes, other human beings do exist and they exist "out there," independent of me and my interests (well, usually, he he he) To say that these other folks out there have no objective rights would be to say that they have no right to be "out there," anywhere. Of course there are times —many, many times— when specific persons or any other person whatsoever has not the right to be in a specified place, but even there they still do have the right to be dealt with as fairly and as gently as possible due to the delicate nature of the human organism. And why is that? Because they are not our subjects and we don't have the right to treat them as though they were. Theoretically, the State can treat them as Subjects, but only for cause and through due process. And if we can only be treated as subjects by the judicial and executive authorities of the State and that State hath granted a Bill of Rights, we do verily possess these Rights under the stars of heaven, or be it sun or clouds even if they be overdrawn with dews....
Now, if by the power of reasoning and being of cheerful demeanor we always strive to give to our fellows what is rightfully theirs, by honoring their rights and entering in league with them to look out for the common good, we do well and wish others well too.
That is objective morality because it is based on the welfare of all concerned, knowing well that much suffering is endured and will henceforth be endured by all.
How then do we know always what is the right thing to do?
Well, we cannot surely know the right at all times. The best we can do is aim for it. We may miss and have some amends to make.
But the shortest rule for those most interested in the Road to Morality is just this:
Throw yourself away and live only for others, not choosing who you will befriend. Do as even Jesus said: Love thine enemies. Pray for those who curse you.
Metta
Furthermore, your claim that the ontological objectivity and/or subjectivity of morality is solely dependent on what one "wants" it to be is self-contradictory, for if morality is objective simply because we desire it to be so, then its objectivity is, by definition, subjective.
Also, How's claim that viewing morality as either objective or subjective is incorrect ultimately amounts to saying that morality doesn't exist at all, for that which exists neither objectively not subjectively is, by definition, nonexistent.
Lastly, your claim that objective morality can be defined by that which works for the "welfare of all concerned" is incomplete, for it fails to answer the question of why working for the welfare of all concerned is objectively moral in the first place. Your position can therefore be summarized as "objective morality is that which is good," which explains nothing, but simply begs the question.
1. respectively, none of that answers the question
What is the question? I see no question above. The Euthypro "Dilemma" is no genuine issue, hence of no relevance here. But I do find a question here, which I have to admit makes no sense to me if you're looking for a "WHY?." And it doth seem to me that you are, really, though you use the terms of "How?"
If objective morals actually exist, what is it that makes them objective?
What is it that makes them objective? In other words, "in what way," "in what manner," or "by what means" are they objective or made objective?
Could you rephrase your question: "If morals actually exist objectively, what is it that makes them objective?" That would seem less convoluted to me. Will that work? Well, assuming I understand a smidgen of all this, I'll proceed again.
I believe fundamental aspects of morality are absolute within a given functioning cooperative society with a common government. In war, all of that is lost between nations, unfortunately. Of course, war is never justified unless you are first attacked. If your country attacks another in anticipation of another country stiking first, that is a great sin...
Morality begins first in my looking outside myself far and finding others objectively standing outside of me and am given to understand that they have Rights which exist objectively alongside them as their advocates. I bow to these Rights (Sp. Derecho, German: Rechts) by doing the right thing, what the Law (Sp. Derecho; German: Gesetz & Recht, Latin Lex ) says is Right (Sp. derecho, German: recht, Latin dexter) And if the Law is wrong I follow my conscience to honor the rights of others and disobey and/or stand in opposition to that law, as appropriate for my circumstances.
I defend my position by examining my conscience and acting in accord with it. It all boils down to humility and not asking for more than my share of things. It is wrong to hurt others, as I said in my first post, because they are not subject to me but are equal (parallel) to me and hence are objects of my consciousness. Could you flesh this out a little for me? What is the "framework I set up." Me? I thought it was in the Bill of Rights, The UN Declaration of Human Rights, etc. I think you must have a very inflated idea of who you're conversing with.
I neglected to explain exactly what makes "my framework" valid? Perhaps in my first post. But now I repeat, as in two paragraphs above: It is made valid by Law and by Bills Of Rights.
Firstly, to clarify, "the question" which is being discussed in this thread is whether or not objective morals exist. Your consciousness is not objective, nor is there any logical reason to suppose that it is capable of discerning objective morality (assuming it even exists). Your framework for objective morality is the law and the Bill of Rights? With all due respect, do you even know what ontologically objective morality is? A man made law and bill is not at all an acceptable source of objective morality, due to the simple fact that it's man made (unless you claim that such things are divinely inspired). Ah, I think I understand your statements now; I misunderstood. My apologies. However, I'm sure we can both agree that despite whether or not believing in objective morality results in a more "humane" society is irrelevant to whether or not morality is in fact objective. I'm not sure what you mean by this, or how it explains that working for the welfare of others is objectively good. Could you explain?
As to your last query, don't be so derned impatient to prove yourself "right." We have fifteen minutes to clean up our posts to make sure we've made ourselves clear. I don't believe you even allowed me 7 minutes before you copied a very long post.
I do believe that "ontologists" might have heads in need of periodic overhaul. Actually, I find endodontists much more useful. No ontologist has ever solved a single one of the world's problems.
Also, you need sleep. I write "conscience" and you read "consciousness..." And yes I've studied metaphysics from Aristotle to Ortega with a lot of gaps in between.
This is just sounding brass and it leads nowhere. Be the Light and let Darkness be dark where your light cannot reach. Don't overreach where Light cannot shine. Makes no sense.
@Bodhivaka, I'm just going to start fresh and try to keep it simple because I'm sure I got tied up in that exchange and may have even confused myself.
I tend to agree with Jason here; Also I would add that an objective moral code has been established within every religion that has the Golden Rule at its core. That is if we use the word "objective" to mean "without prejudice", "unbiased" or "fair". This kind of objective morality takes all subjective experience into consideration.
If we are using the term to mean "absolute" then I still think what best nurtures growth and happiness is the way. Simply because it goes with the natural grain. Not everybody thinks that way so perhaps it can't be considered absolute but I believe nature will dictate and time will tell.
I do agree with you that there can be no source of objective morality because it seems a conflict of terms. If it comes from one place but not all places it is not objective in any sense of the word.
:-/
I find nothing wrong with fair and balanced critiques of Christianity or any other religion, providing the same degree of fairness and standards are applied to all religions.
We all agree that a clear sky is blue, yet, do we all see the same color? Doubtful.
Terms like "blue" are convenient labels we use for a common frame of reference and nothing more. We have to call it something.
It's a conditioned thing. The only way a child knows the sky is blue is because they have been taught that's what we call it. There is nothing inherently "blue" in the sky that a child could pick up intuitively.
:-/
That is probably why it helps to read suttas in context.
And of course from the Right perspective.
In any case, I'm not trying to "prove myself right." I'm simply defending my position because it's the view I've come to accept, but I'm not at all attached to it. If someone could make a logical and substantiated argument for the existence of objective morality, so be it. I have no problem changing my mind, I do it all the time. I discuss these topics primarily to learn, not just preach. Yes, but I must say the world would be a rather boring place if we only thought about what was "useful." Philosophical topics fascinate me, that's why I discuss them. My point stands, your conscience isn't objective, either. Or maybe it is. I know mine isn't. How exactly do you know that my "light" cannot shine into questions concerning morality?
Systems of ethics seem to be full of little engines of antinomialism and engines of personal equillibrium. Antinomialism (to borrow & possibly abuse the concept from Protestant Christiantity) is where there are logical gymnastics that make it easy make ethics moot because they are getting in the way of what you want to do. The engines of personal equillibrium is where we use logical gymnastics to wiggle out of any conclusion that moves us away from where we happen to be now.
On the otherhand, not reasoning about ethics seems like a bad idea. If there ever was an engine of antinomialism, it's throwing up your hands and saying it's all personal opinion and reason and ethics have no link.
reference: Drat, I can't find the reference. There is an cool article somewhere about the efficacy of prison chaplaincy, where the suprising conclusion was that prisoners were just as likely to use their religious belief (of a crazy wide variety of religion systems) to justify their actions as they were to use it to help them get back onto a recognizable "straight and narrow"
Progress??? Like a dog chasing it's tail, the joy of this chase depends on not catching anything.
{underlining and strikeouting mine}
Well, to my mind, it all depends on whether one fully subscribes to the belief that all things are ultimately subsumed under a single unity (as the adherents of Sanatana Dharma or of the Tao do). In those cases there is only one true subject, and there being only one true subject, the subjective/objective paradigm is mere illusory. Well, that's where I'm stuck. I simply am unable to go back to that Lie, for I have seen the Light.
As to the reactions you'd get if you painted your wall blue, for all you know, all the people saying "blue" actually see what is green to you, but they've simply been raised to call green blue. How do you know the colors you see are the same ones everyone else sees? How do you know others aren't simply referring to different colors by the same names? Quite frankly, I really don't even know why we're debating this, as it's already a settled scientific issue. Light waves exist objectively, colors do not. Light waves are nothing more than wave frequencies, colors are the brain's subjective interpretation of those frequencies. If there is no brain to interpret the light wave frequencies, color ceases to exist. Your objections are missing the point. All I can suggest is that you do some research on light waves and color. The mind is nothing more than the inner workings of the physical brain, this is obvious from the fact that you can completely change someone's personality simply by stabbing their prefrontal cortex and diminish one's mindfulness through inflicting brain damage on them, as well as the fact that when you are in a dreamless sleep, conscious awareness and mindfulness cease to exist. As such, the mind is nothing more than the chemical processes of the brain; if such weren't the case, why would the mind cease to exist when the brain goes to sleep? Alright, so you realize other living creatures want to live and be happy just like you, so you've decided that you shouldn't harm other beings because that would be hypocritical. And that belief is objectively moral, how? Just because something is logical doesn't make it morally objective. I'm beginning to think the source of our disagreement in this discussion is the fact that you don't know what objective morality is.
The word "objective" as I am using it refers to that which exists even in the absence of a brain or mind to comprehend it. You, on the other hand, seem be using it to mean "non-partial."
Objective morality is the concept that moral absolutes exist -- that some things are just good, and others are just wrong, despite what other people think. That's it. What do you mean there are no true opposites? Here you are asserting the existence of objective morality -- the belief that some things are truly morally good and others are truly morally bad -- and yet you claim nothing has a true opposite? Does good and bad exist or not, an if so, how are they not opposites? Possible? Yes; but a lot of things are possible. What logical argument do you have to support these possibilities?
For example, my logical argument that the brain ceases to exist with the destruction of the physical brain is that when the brain shuts down in sleep, so does the mind. All conscious awareness of time, space, and stimuli (both internal and external) disappear. Therefore, from this it logically follows that the mind is dependent on and most likely a product of the physical brain. Since when did "not the norm" equal objectively immoral? As I said, morality is the product of evolution and sociocultural influences, so of course our society has a lot of common moral values, but that does nothing to show that morality is objective. In other words, subjective morality.
If scientists hooked up electrodes to your brain and said you were thinking of elephants when you were really thinking about what to clean in your house would you believe the scientists? That's a standard argument for yogacara or mind only. I too think reality is subjective though there might be something (misunderstood) that compels us to see objectivity. So I disagree that the mind is an epiphenomen of the brain.
As to the reactions you'd get if you painted your wall blue, for all you know, all the people saying "blue" actually see what is green to you, but they've simply been raised to call green blue. How do you know the colors you see are the same ones everyone else sees? How do you know others aren't simply referring to different colors by the same names? Quite frankly, I really don't even know why we're debating this, as it's already a settled scientific issue. Light waves exist objectively, colors do not. Light waves are nothing more than wave frequencies, colors are the brain's subjective interpretation of those frequencies. If there is no brain to interpret the light wave frequencies, color ceases to exist. Your objections are missing the point. All I can suggest is that you do some research on light waves and color. The mind is nothing more than the inner workings of the physical brain, this is obvious from the fact that you can completely change someone's personality simply by stabbing their prefrontal cortex and diminish one's mindfulness through inflicting brain damage on them, as well as the fact that when you are in a dreamless sleep, conscious awareness and mindfulness cease to exist. As such, the mind is nothing more than the chemical processes of the brain; if such weren't the case, why would the mind cease to exist when the brain goes to sleep? Alright, so you realize other living creatures want to live and be happy just like you, so you've decided that you shouldn't harm other beings because that would be hypocritical. And that belief is objectively moral, how? Just because something is logical doesn't make it morally objective. I'm beginning to think the source of our disagreement in this discussion is the fact that you don't know what objective morality is.
The word "objective" as I am using it refers to that which exists even in the absence of a brain or mind to comprehend it. You, on the other hand, seem be using it to mean "non-partial."
Objective morality is the concept that moral absolutes exist -- that some things are just good, and others are just wrong, despite what other people think. That's it. What do you mean there are no true opposites? Here you are asserting the existence of objective morality -- the belief that some things are truly morally good and others are truly morally bad -- and yet you claim nothing has a true opposite? Does good and bad exist or not, an if so, how are they not opposites? Possible? Yes; but a lot of things are possible. What logical argument do you have to support these possibilities?
For example, my logical argument that the brain ceases to exist with the destruction of the physical brain is that when the brain shuts down in sleep, so does the mind. All conscious awareness of time, space, and stimuli (both internal and external) disappear. Therefore, from this it logically follows that the mind is dependent on and most likely a product of the physical brain. Since when did "not the norm" equal objectively immoral? As I said, morality is the product of evolution and sociocultural influences, so of course our society has a lot of common moral values, but that does nothing to show that morality is objective. In other words, subjective morality.
If scientists hooked up electrodes to your brain and said you were thinking of elephants when you were really thinking about what to clean in your house would you believe the scientists? That's a standard argument for yogacara or mind only. I too think reality is subjective though there might be something (misunderstood) that compels us to see objectivity. So I disagree that the mind is an epiphenomen of the brain.
Same here. I believe with any and all information sharing, mind is at play. If it wasn't for information being shared, there would be no brains.
As to the reactions you'd get if you painted your wall blue, for all you know, all the people saying "blue" actually see what is green to you, but they've simply been raised to call green blue. How do you know the colors you see are the same ones everyone else sees? How do you know others aren't simply referring to different colors by the same names? Quite frankly, I really don't even know why we're debating this, as it's already a settled scientific issue. Light waves exist objectively, colors do not. Light waves are nothing more than wave frequencies, colors are the brain's subjective interpretation of those frequencies. If there is no brain to interpret the light wave frequencies, color ceases to exist. Your objections are missing the point. All I can suggest is that you do some research on light waves and color. The mind is nothing more than the inner workings of the physical brain, this is obvious from the fact that you can completely change someone's personality simply by stabbing their prefrontal cortex and diminish one's mindfulness through inflicting brain damage on them, as well as the fact that when you are in a dreamless sleep, conscious awareness and mindfulness cease to exist. As such, the mind is nothing more than the chemical processes of the brain; if such weren't the case, why would the mind cease to exist when the brain goes to sleep? Alright, so you realize other living creatures want to live and be happy just like you, so you've decided that you shouldn't harm other beings because that would be hypocritical. And that belief is objectively moral, how? Just because something is logical doesn't make it morally objective. I'm beginning to think the source of our disagreement in this discussion is the fact that you don't know what objective morality is.
The word "objective" as I am using it refers to that which exists even in the absence of a brain or mind to comprehend it. You, on the other hand, seem be using it to mean "non-partial."
Objective morality is the concept that moral absolutes exist -- that some things are just good, and others are just wrong, despite what other people think. That's it. What do you mean there are no true opposites? Here you are asserting the existence of objective morality -- the belief that some things are truly morally good and others are truly morally bad -- and yet you claim nothing has a true opposite? Does good and bad exist or not, an if so, how are they not opposites? Possible? Yes; but a lot of things are possible. What logical argument do you have to support these possibilities?
For example, my logical argument that the brain ceases to exist with the destruction of the physical brain is that when the brain shuts down in sleep, so does the mind. All conscious awareness of time, space, and stimuli (both internal and external) disappear. Therefore, from this it logically follows that the mind is dependent on and most likely a product of the physical brain. Since when did "not the norm" equal objectively immoral? As I said, morality is the product of evolution and sociocultural influences, so of course our society has a lot of common moral values, but that does nothing to show that morality is objective. In other words, subjective morality.
If scientists hooked up electrodes to your brain and said you were thinking of elephants when you were really thinking about what to clean in your house would you believe the scientists? That's a standard argument for yogacara or mind only. I too think reality is subjective though there might be something (misunderstood) that compels us to see objectivity. So I disagree that the mind is an epiphenomen of the brain.
That argument isn't particularly convincing, seeing as how (1) scientists haven't actually done such a thing, and (2) even if they had, it's not implausible to suggest that some part of your brain was in fact thinking of elephants.
Surely as a meditator you know how your mind can begin to conjure thoughts that completely bypass your awareness, only to be discovered later when you finally realize you're no longer focused on the object of your meditation. Simply put, the brain isn't limited to producing only one thought at a time; rather, it can be thinking many things at once, even if you're unaware of them.
On the other hand, evidence which suggests that the mind is simply a product of the brain includes:
1. The fact that mind and consciousness seem to stop existing in dreamless sleep.
2. The fact that one's personality and sanity can be altered simply by tampering with the physical brain.
3. The fact that neuroscientists, using fMRI, are able to see what decision you'll make before you even become consciously aware of that decision (this also challenges the notion of free will).
In my clumsy vocabulary:
Phenomena have no inherent existence; they are fluid and interconnected. What we see as a “thing” really is a process. It is based on / depending on other phenomena which are of the same fluid and depending nature.
Human behavior and the process of qualifying types of behavior in moral terms is fluid, open. It all depends on circumstances; on causes and effect; on context.
I think that implies we cannot hide for our responsibility. What we do is what we do. There is no universal authority giving us the seal of approval. There will be no judgment-day.
We cannot ultimately judge other people either. That is to say, we can judge them, punish them or kill them; but even that is just what we do. There is no God, no Dharma, on our side saying that what we do is right. All dharma's are empty.
Fortunately we can stick to some basic practical guidelines for moral behavior; but that’s just a simplification for daily use. When it really matters, when we face a new and critical situation; it’s up to us.
1) There is no such thing as objective morality.
2) There is no such thing as an Objective to Be Moral.
The only difference I see is that #2 implies a living, (willing?)*, and able being behind the steering wheel, whereas #1 is predicated on the idea of some object in front of some pure, bland conscious subject.
*(Perhaps a lack of the will to be propelled towards universal love?)
NOR, in the case of #1, does a pure, bland consciousness confront the objective, but rather the objective doth rather seem to mock the would-be actor.
I'm not sure such consciousness exists, save only in theory. What we animals have is Loving Consciousness. Just as one cannot separate the heat from the light in the sun's rays (except mentally), I don't believe that you can bifurcate life-experience into a sheer subjective/objective paradigm without doing some violence to the essential essence of the design. To me it's a skewed approach, kinda like dissecting a frog to see how it works. But first you have to kill the frog. To me it seems all about death-to-the-Light, the downward way.
Nor need there necessarily be a SPECIFICITY inherent in the idea of objective morality, but that does not mean that among people of goodwill such a thing does not exist. If an act fits (is fitting) it is objectively good. If it does not fit (i.e., is out of place, not respecting the rights of others) it is objectively bad —or even evil if it be violent and mad.
You simply cannot parse such important things so strictly without falling into a lot of mere Sophistry. And for our weaker brethren lacking in compassion those untoward* arguments help pave the road to perdition! *floabw
(My favorite post so far: Ourself's Post #49!!!!)
Sorry, limited time, and I know that this post needs a lot of amending.
1. The fact that mind and consciousness seem to stop existing in dreamless sleep. 2. The fact that one's personality and sanity can be altered simply by tampering with the physical brain. 3. The fact that neuroscientists, using fMR 4. I, are able to see what decision you'll make before you even become consciously aware of that decision (this also challenges the notion of free will). I think we just are in different schools of thought. I am not the only one who thinks along the lines of Yogacara, madhyamaka, Shravaka, Cittamatra, and Shentong. Sometimes I am tempted to think of it as MY brain because I have brain damage from schizophrenia. That makes it not my fault. Along that lines it is like saying I didn't trim the hedges this summer because I was layed up with sciatica nerve problem. But I have found the shravaka dharma where the skhandas are not the self and that is even more powerfully cutting though my sorrow than thinking it is my brain's fault. Perhaps it is 'a' brain rather than my brain.
Ultimately, the elephant thought experiment amounts to nothing more than a "what if" scenario, which is interesting, but does nothing in and of itself to prove anything. I would argue that thoughts arise as a product of the physical brain and subsequently reach conscious awareness. In other words, we become consciously aware of thoughts only long after they've been created. The fMRI experiments I spoke of (which I'll link in a moment) support this.
Therefore, it follows that if the brain creates thoughts which reach our conscious awareness only long after their creation, then it could very well be possible for the brain to create many thoughts which never reach our conscious awareness at all (this would be called the unconscious mind). As such, you actually could be thinking of an elephant without being aware of it. The observer is the mind once it is restored via the awakening of the brain and realizes 9 hours have passed without being aware of anything.
I can't really argue with "maybe you just forgot." Anything is possible, after all. All I can say is that it personally seems to me that dreamless sleep lacks any conscious awareness of space, time, matter, internal/external stimuli, etc. All of this suggests (to me, at least) that the mind's existence is wholly dependent on the physical brain. I agree that the skhandas are ultimately not self (I don't believe in a permanent, independent self whatsoever), but that doesn't prevent me from saying "my brain" simply for the sake of practicality and effective communication. Functional magnetic resonance imaging. Scientists use fMRI to observe and measure activity in particular regions of the brain through the detection of increased blood flow. I'm not saying that you see a thought before you become aware of it. I'm saying that thoughts arise in the brain, and only enter conscious awareness afterward. Neuroscientists have demonstrated this through the use of fMRI. This suggests that everything we typically associate with the mind (particularly thoughts) is solely a product of the physical brain. Consciousness of those thoughts, on the other hand, is another discussion entirely (although I would similarly argue that consciousness is simply a product of the physical brain).
I've linked the studies below:
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html
So you think the brain creates thoughts. My teachers teacher says mind and body interpenetrate. This is why you cannot think you are a mind who 'has' a brain/body and you also cannot be a body/brain who has a mind. Rather it is not both, neither, yes, or no. It is totally interpenetratingetc..
There is an argument against dropping off sleep and looking to your alarm clock. The surangama sutra Buddha asks his student if a blind man sees. The student said 'no' lord. Then the Buddha said it was yes and that what the blind man sees is blackness. Similarly the clear mind sees non-awareness. The clear mind is the mind that if you abide in it at death you are enlightened. It is so tender that most people pass out before staying in it awhile.
My main point is that neither thoughts or the brain are the self. So it isn't 'my' brain. It is rather 'brain' and 'thoughts' all arising in the space of consciousness. I had a great point but I forgot it.
I'm just saying that scientific materialism is a valid belief. But there are other people who do not share your view and I don't know the polemics.
One thing to point out is that there is no evidence against a rebirth and nobody knows.
If it is not 'my' brain then that opens to a wider space. The vastness of mind. There is no ownership of thoughts or brain. That is what we do in meditation. We let go of thoughts and brain. Opening to a vastness.
But no there is no 'my' brain. You can say it in english of course. But in terms of elucidating the self it does no good. Buddha said the skhandas are not the self and we don't need to worry about the skhandas are. We just have to let go of the skhandas.
So some might say that the fact of it having happened once is reason to entertain the possibility that it can happen again.
It is not proper to take a position one way or the other. Either position cannot be proved.
There's nothing improper about disbelieving in something you can't provide evidence against; for example, I accept the possibility of a tooth fairy, seeing that I can't provide evidence against such a thing, but that doesn't stop me from disbelieving in it. I suppose you could call me an Agnostic-Afairyist.