Objective Morality?

David

riverflow said:

ourself said:

I'm not being disingenuous at all. Just because you see no benefit doesn't mean it isn't there. There are other conversations if you aren't interested in this one.

This could be just another hang-up you need to let go of.

You're welcome.

I was interested enough in this conversation to offer an alternative point of view which doesn't rely on the metaphysical duality of "objectivity" vs. "subjectivity"-- which is the very sort of false dichotomy that Buddhism typically avoids, and for good reason. A few others have also suggested the same thing here, not just me.

If, as Buddhism suggests, everything is dependent upon everything else, and there's no reified self which is independent and permanent, then the dualistic notions of objectivity and/or subjectivity don't make much sense.

--Not that that has ever stopped anyone from trying...

This discussion doesn't seem to be about the object/subject duality so much as the notion of universal morality.

"Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule.”

That sounds like Buddha not only thought there is objective morality but that morality is the objective.

Now if everybody is done trying to derail the conversation, I'll repeat the question that is being begged by positing there is no free will (the ability to decide).

@Bodhivaka;

If this is the first time the universe unfolded in this way then how is the future determined without free will or a creator?

What predetermined factors go into my deciding on corn flakes rather than special crisp this morning?

@riverflow;

I hope you know I meant no offence, my friend.

David

Intelligent boxers?

Now I've heard everything.

riverflow

ourself said:

This discussion doesn't seem to be about the object/subject duality so much as the notion of universal morality.

"Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule.”

That sounds like Buddha not only thought morality could be objective but that morality is the objective.

The very notion of universal ("objective") morality is founded on the notion of object/subject duality. Freewill and determinism likewise do so, dividing reality subjects and objects acting against one another. Again, this is the sort of thing that creates more pseudo-problems rather than it solves --or, what the Buddha referred to as papanca.

David

I'd figure differently... Objective or universal morality would be beyond the duality of subjective vs objective.

If things could really be against each other then there could be no objective morality but is that really the case?

Bodhivaka

@Bodhivaka;

If this is the first time the universe unfolded in this way then how is the future determined without free will or a creator?

What predetermined factors go into my deciding on corn flakes rather than special crisp this morning?

I wouldn't know what caused you to eat cornflakes this morning; however, perhaps this passage from Sam Harris' Free Will can help elucidate my position on the matter:

I generally start each day with a cup of coffee or tea—sometimes two. This morning, it was coffee (two). Why not tea? I am in no position to know. I wanted coffee more than I wanted tea today, and I was free to have what I wanted. Did I consciously choose coffee over tea? No. The choice was made for me by events in my brain that I, as the conscious witness of my thoughts and actions, could not inspect or influence. Could I have “changed my mind” and switched to tea before the coffee drinker in me could get his bearings? Yes, but this impulse would also have been the product of unconscious causes. Why didn’t it arise this morning? Why might it arise in the future? I cannot know. The intention to do one thing and not another does not originate in consciousness—rather, it appears in consciousness, as does any thought or impulse that might oppose it.
The physiologist Benjamin Libet famously used EEG to show that activity in the brain’s motor cortex can be detected some 300 milliseconds before a person feels that he has decided to move. Another lab extended this work using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI): Subjects were asked to press one of two buttons while watching a “clock” composed of a random sequence of letters appearing on a screen. They reported which letter was visible at the moment they decided to press one button or the other. The experimenters found two brain regions that contained information about which button subjects would press a full 7 to 10 seconds before the decision was consciously made. More recently, direct recordings from the cortex showed that the activity of merely 256 neurons was sufficient to predict with 80 percent accuracy a person’s decision to move 700 milliseconds before he became aware of it.
These findings are difficult to reconcile with the sense that we are the conscious authors of our actions. One fact now seems indisputable: Some moments before you are aware of what you will do next—a time in which you subjectively appear to have complete freedom to behave however you please—your brain has already determined what you will do. You then become conscious of this “decision” and believe that you are in the process of making it.
The distinction between “higher” and “lower” systems in the brain offers no relief: I, as the conscious witness of my experience, no more initiate events in my prefrontal cortex than I cause my heart to beat. There will always be some delay between the first neurophysiological events that kindle my next conscious thought and the thought itself. And even if there weren’t—even if all mental states were truly coincident with their underlying brain states—I cannot decide what I will next think or intend until a thought or intention arises. What will my next mental state be? I do not know—it just happens. Where is the freedom in that?

Nevermind

riverflow said:

It seems bizarre to me a discussion of dualistic (!!!) metaphysical notions of "subjective vs. objective" and "freewill vs. determinism" taking place on a Buddhist forum. I'm not saying it is wrong, but it certainly seems out of place.

What's bizarre is someone saying that it's bizarre... and then doing what they're claiming is bizarre. Actually, it's not bizarre at all, we all have our 'dualistic/metaphysical' notions of what's in place and what's out of place.

David

Bodhivaka said:

@Bodhivaka;

If this is the first time the universe unfolded in this way then how is the future determined without free will or a creator?

What predetermined factors go into my deciding on corn flakes rather than special crisp this morning?

I wouldn't know what caused you to eat cornflakes this morning; however, perhaps this passage from Sam Harris' Free Will can help elucidate my position on the matter:

I generally start each day with a cup of coffee or tea—sometimes two. This morning, it was coffee (two). Why not tea? I am in no position to know. I wanted coffee more than I wanted tea today, and I was free to have what I wanted. Did I consciously choose coffee over tea? No. The choice was made for me by events in my brain that I, as the conscious witness of my thoughts and actions, could not inspect or influence. Could I have “changed my mind” and switched to tea before the coffee drinker in me could get his bearings? Yes, but this impulse would also have been the product of unconscious causes. Why didn’t it arise this morning? Why might it arise in the future? I cannot know. The intention to do one thing and not another does not originate in consciousness—rather, it appears in consciousness, as does any thought or impulse that might oppose it.
The physiologist Benjamin Libet famously used EEG to show that activity in the brain’s motor cortex can be detected some 300 milliseconds before a person feels that he has decided to move. Another lab extended this work using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI): Subjects were asked to press one of two buttons while watching a “clock” composed of a random sequence of letters appearing on a screen. They reported which letter was visible at the moment they decided to press one button or the other. The experimenters found two brain regions that contained information about which button subjects would press a full 7 to 10 seconds before the decision was consciously made. More recently, direct recordings from the cortex showed that the activity of merely 256 neurons was sufficient to predict with 80 percent accuracy a person’s decision to move 700 milliseconds before he became aware of it.
These findings are difficult to reconcile with the sense that we are the conscious authors of our actions. One fact now seems indisputable: Some moments before you are aware of what you will do next—a time in which you subjectively appear to have complete freedom to behave however you please—your brain has already determined what you will do. You then become conscious of this “decision” and believe that you are in the process of making it.
The distinction between “higher” and “lower” systems in the brain offers no relief: I, as the conscious witness of my experience, no more initiate events in my prefrontal cortex than I cause my heart to beat. There will always be some delay between the first neurophysiological events that kindle my next conscious thought and the thought itself. And even if there weren’t—even if all mental states were truly coincident with their underlying brain states—I cannot decide what I will next think or intend until a thought or intention arises. What will my next mental state be? I do not know—it just happens. Where is the freedom in that?

I see assertions here but no real evidence to support them. If it were true, the accuracy level should be at 100%. As it stands, it seems like wishful thinking.

Sam Harris may simply not have a lot of mental discipline. Who can control their mental state without discipline? I know without a doubt that happiness is a choice. Had I not made the choice to be happy I would have succumbed to depression years ago. The depression I felt may have been the result of determinism but my happiness depended on a choice and a clear head.

Taking into consideration the amount of thought that goes into pushing a button that does nothing but track its own pressing, I'd say this experiment still indicates that our ability to make decisions is instinctual. As I said before, this accounts for the subconscious activity and the delay to a conscious choice.

We may subconsciously know a decision must be made but the rational person weighs the options before a conscious decision is put into action.

If it's just pressing a button that doesn't really do anything, instinct may as well just take over but still, we get bored and a change could easily be made just for the heck of it, bringing down the accuracy level.

Given more options, I'd wager the accuracy level would plummet.

If it is a life changing fork in the road then there is usually a bit more thought involved.

David

Sam Harris may be able to predict when a decision will be made during this experiment but if he thinks the outcome of said decision can be predicted exactly... Well... He may as well be reading Tarot cards or writing fortune cookies.

Bodhivaka

@Ourself, I imagine Sam Harris would argue that although your decision to be happy felt like a consciously made choice, the decision was actually made unconsciously by your brain and only thereafter reached your conscious awareness.

As a naturalist and physicalist, Sam Harris' view seems like the only reasonable position to me; however, for those that adopt a dualist interpretation of consciousness, perhaps a coherent argument for free will could be formulated.

I've already discussed why I reject a dualist view of consciousness, but perhaps there's a good argument for it that I haven't heard yet.

If we accept a naturalist and physicalist view of reality (as I do), what is there to control the brain but the physical, unconscious brain itself?

I believe to assert the existence of free will is to assert that we can somehow consciously control the brain, seeing as how (in my opinion) all thoughts are the product of the physical brain. But why should we suppose that? I'm actually reading a book by Daniel Dennett right now (Freedom Evolves) that attempts to answer that very question. Maybe it will change my mind.

Jeffrey

Non-dualism would be when eating eat. When driving drive. It is not the same thing as free will versus fatalism.

Non-dual awareness means that there is no: I, me, or mine.

David

Bodhivaka said:

@Ourself, I imagine Sam Harris would argue that although your decision to be happy felt like a consciously made choice, the decision was actually made unconsciously by your brain and only thereafter reached your conscious awareness.

It could be possible but it seems quite unlikely.

Our subconscious and our conscious work together. Let's assume my brain makes a decision I am not aware of... It can only go by what I know. A decision cannot be made for that which has not presented itself unless the brain also knows what lies around the next corner and that just isn't the case.

As a naturalist and physicalist, Sam Harris' view seems like the only reasonable position to me; however, for those that adopt a dualist interpretation of consciousness, perhaps a coherent argument for free will could be formulated.

I am also a naturalist but I don't see sound science here.

I've already discussed why I reject a dualist view of consciousness, but perhaps there's a good argument for it that I haven't heard yet.

I'm not sure I understand you here... A dualist view of consciousness?

Would that be self vs other?

If we accept a naturalist and physicalist view of reality (as I do), what is there to control the brain but the physical, unconscious brain itself?

New information.

I believe to assert the existence of free will is to assert that we can somehow consciously control the brain, seeing as how (in my opinion) all thoughts are the product of the physical brain. But why should we suppose that? I'm actually reading a book by Daniel Dennett right now (Freedom Evolves) that attempts to answer that very question. Maybe it will change my mind.

I don't see it that way at all. All it means is that we have the ability to make decisions that have effects on how some things unfold.

Jeffrey

@Bodhivaka @ourself

Imagine you don't know how a piano works. So you study it. You find that the pedal and keys always move when there is music. So you say the cause of music is keys. The keys are the brain waves. The music is the actions and mind. What the observer may miss is the pianist who is pushing the pedals and keys. If the pianist were invisible and we had no idea of a pianist we would think this that moving keys were the cause when in reality ear, keys, pianist, ear consciousness, mental formations etc of the player..

Bodhivaka

It could be possible but it seems quite unlikely.

Our subconscious and our conscious work together. Let's assume my brain makes a decision I am not aware of... It can only go by what I know. A decision cannot be made for that which has not presented itself unless the brain also knows what lies around the next corner and that just isn't the case.

@Ourself, I'm not completely sure I understand you fully, so please forgive me if what I'm about to say is completely off-base.

As far as I know, consciousness is simply awareness. It doesn't have the ability think, reason or choose -- the physical brain does that. That's my understanding, anyway. I'd be interested in hearing your arguments to the contrary if you disagree.

One idea I occasionally entertain is that consciousness is simply one part(s) of the brain being aware of another part(s) of the brain, and conscious decisions are based on interactions between those different regions. That might explain why the brain seems to argue with itself sometimes. Just an idea I felt like sharing, don't actually have any scientific evidence to back it up.

I am also a naturalist but I don't see sound science here.

I would say the science is sound, but the conclusions that have been drawn from it aren't conclusive. What do you think of the philosophical arguments for determinism? Take the clone universe thought experiment I've mentioned a few times.

Do you think that if the universe was cloned x amount of times after you were born that any of the cloned versions of you would turn out differently? If not, then you've affirmed determinism. Why? Because the fact that every "you" turned out the same way in every universe would prove that you only had one truly possible future.

I'm not sure I understand you here... A dualist view of consciousness?

Would that be self vs other?

Sorry, that was confusing. All I mean is the view that consciousness is somehow separate from and independent of the physical brain.

New information.

That doesn't support a case for free will, though. If new information is what controls the brain, then your decisions are simply a result of the new information that has been and will be introduced to your brain.

I don't see it that way at all. All it means is that we have the ability to make decisions that have effects on how some things unfold.

What is making the decision, if not the physical brain?

David

Sorry to revisit a week old conversation. I was going to leave it alone but I changed my mind. I made a decision and then thought better of it.

Was I already going to change my mind before I made the decision to leave it alone?

What happened was somebody mentioned something to me that I hadn't taken into consideration before. They said they had changed their mind about something.

Bodhivaka said:

As far as I know, consciousness is simply awareness. It doesn't have the ability think, reason or choose -- the physical brain does that. That's my understanding, anyway. I'd be interested in hearing your arguments to the contrary if you disagree.

I'd say consciousness is a state of being that allows for awareness but not awareness itself. That's probably just nit-picking though.

One idea I occasionally entertain is that consciousness is simply one part(s) of the brain being aware of another part(s) of the brain, and conscious decisions are based on interactions between those different regions. That might explain why the brain seems to argue with itself sometimes. Just an idea I felt like sharing, don't actually have any scientific evidence to back it up.

It sounds like you're talking about meta-awareness which is the state of being aware that we are in a state of being aware. We aren't just self aware, we are aware that we are self aware. I guess the next step is the state of non-self awareness, lol.

I would say the science is sound, but the conclusions that have been drawn from it aren't conclusive. What do you think of the philosophical arguments for determinism? Take the clone universe thought experiment I've mentioned a few times.

There's always going to be the uncertainty principle to contend with. Every single time determinism will come down to probability. Probability is the closest we come to determining which of the possible options are the most likely but certainly not which one is certain.

Do you think that if the universe was cloned x amount of times after you were born that any of the cloned versions of you would turn out differently?

I can't even bring myself to see how the universe could repeat exactly even once, let alone an infinite amount of times. I'd wager that if it repeats, it will unfold in an unique way.

The universe being cloned already suggests difference unless it was cloned the first time which makes no sense. Not to mention that each cloned universe would actually suggest a bigger universe which includes all universes.

All I mean is the view that consciousness is somehow separate from and independent of the physical brain.

We know that the physical brain has evolved to allow for awareness but we don't know if it's the only way for awareness to happen. Awareness is a property of the universe unless we are seperate from it but we are not.

Who's to say that form is the only way to be?

That doesn't support a case for free will, though. If new information is what controls the brain, then your decisions are simply a result of the new information that has been and will be introduced to your brain.

Which is either regarded or disregarded as being true and then the options are gone over. Then there is always the chance that any decision based on said information could be changed. A change doesn't always have to come from new sources of information but could also come from looking at it differently.

What is making the decision, if not the physical brain?

Something that cannot quite be pinned down.

Bodhivaka

Was I already going to change my mind before I made the decision to leave it alone?

In my opinion, yes.

There's always going to be the uncertainty principle to contend with. Every single time determinism will come down to probability. Probability is the closest we come to determining which of the possible options are the most likely but certainly not which one is certain.

As far as I'm aware, the uncertainty principle (if we're thinking of the same thing) is only relevant at the quantum level. It has no bearing on macroscopic reality.

I can't even bring myself to see how the universe could repeat exactly even once, let alone an infinite amount of times. I'd wager that if it repeats, it will unfold in an unique way.

I don't see it that way. In my opinion, if you create two completely identical universes, both of them will play out in precisely the same manner.

It's just simple cause and effect in my opinion. Two universes created with the exact same causes will inevitably experience the same effects.

The universe being cloned already suggests difference unless it was cloned the first time which makes no sense. Not to mention that each cloned universe would actually suggest a bigger universe which includes all universes.

If you like, we can adjust the thought experiment so that instead of using cloned universes, we'll use two identical universes which come into existence simultaneously, both of which just so happen to be completely identical to our universe at the time you were being born.

Remember, these universes are identical in every possible way. To successively refute determinism, you must demonstrate how one of the versions of you in either of these universes could turn out differently. If you can't, it stands to reason that you only had one truly possible future, and that free will is therefore an illusion.

I believe the original cloned universe version of the thought experiment works just fine, though. It's also much easier to think about.

Which is either regarded or disregarded as being true and then the options are gone over. Then there is always the chance that any decision based on said information could be changed. A change doesn't always have to come from new sources of information but could also come from looking at it differently.

This is still consistent with determinism.

Something that cannot quite be pinned down.

I can't say that's particularly convincing