It's just that you can't be an expert on value judgments, because there's nothing to be correct or incorrect about. [...] you can't be an expert when it comes to claims that any content is better than any other content — Terrapin Station

Well said. Art is art if the artist says that it's art. Our part in this is that we - as individuals, not collectively - get to decide whether we like it or not. That's how artists and their audiences relate.

why would humans need art in order to think of a story or be inspired? — NKBJ

Well, if the definition of "art" is broad enough to embrace creativity, that would be one reason. :chin:

So you have no answer to my questions, nor to those of your other correspondents. So where will you take your topic now?

“Difficult to know where to start” = “I don’t understand this and have nothing cogent to say” — AJJ

No, not really. I have this to say. In fact ( :wink: ), I already said it:

There's so much about this topic that's unclear. It seems to be trying to justify the existence of objective values by asserting that there are facts. It doesn't say whether "objective values" are accurate reflections of that which is, or merely impartial and unbiased observations. Then there is "ought", which says that there is a reason to believe the original thesis. But he won't describe or explain what this reason is.

What does this topic seek to demonstrate? That there are objective values? That Objective Reality exists? That facts exist? That the existence of objective values is dependent on the existence of facts? What? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

There's so much about this topic that's unclear. It seems to be trying to justify the existence of objective values by asserting that there are facts. It doesn't say whether "objective values" are accurate reflections of that which is, or merely impartial and unbiased observations. Then there is "ought", which says that there is a reason to believe the original thesis. But he won't describe or explain what this reason is.

What does this topic seek to demonstrate? That there are objective values? That Objective Reality exists? That facts exist? That the existence of objective values is dependent on the existence of facts? What? :chin:

You continue to ignore the context, and claim that the Truth is not particularly relevant to a discussion about whether we ought to believe true things, i.e. facts. — AJJ

Oh. I thought it was a "Brief argument for Objective Values". Not quite the same thing. And The Truth deserves and requires a topic of its own, not a derail in this one. :chin:

If there are no objective values then there are no facts (since there’s nothing that we ought to believe). There are facts, therefore there are objective values. — AJJ

This garbled statement is what we started off with. It contains so many oddities that it's difficult to know where to start. But it is not obvious from this that this topic is about The Truth. Not to me, anyway.

I wonder if you have gathered, from the article you read, that all actions taken by the mind are taken by the rest-of-the-mind, leaving the conscious mind as a passive observer? — Pattern-chaser


Well, that is pretty much my position. The real action goes on whether like it or know it or not, but we only find out about some of it. Since it's all going on before we find out about it, it's beyond our conscious control, so the conscious experiences we have are just evidence of what's going on in our mind, and we have no way to exert control. Humans, cats and dogs, and other mammals and higher life forms could live out their entire lives, acting in exactly the same ways, and all the while experiencing nothing at all. Like plants. — Unseen

Although this discussion includes "conscious" in its title, I wonder if it is helpful to suggest that you start looking at humans as embodied minds, and stop concentrating so heavily on the conscious part of our minds? For, despite all you say - i.e. whether it's accurate or not - it's our minds that control our bodies. Is it really so important to us, as humans, which part of our minds do what, when it's only the actions of our minds that are central to this discussion?

Yes, we are discussing why we are conscious (beings), as the OP asks. But is one small part of our minds - even though it is the conscious mind, and we're considering why we're conscious beings - really so important as to dominate the discussion, and have us ignore the rest of the mind, and the bodies in which they reside?

I said that we can only judge something to be probable by referring to the truth that it is, i.e. by judging in relation to the truth.
— AJJ

And I said that this is normally taken for granted. Does it really need stating, even here, in the midst of a debate in a philosophy forum? I suspect not. — Pattern-chaser


What? I explain the context of my remark, you quote my remark back to me without the context. I was responding to a statement that denied what you rightly acknowledge as the obvious. — AJJ

I was commenting on how you twisted your sentences to include 'The Truth' - an important concept, but one which is nowhere near central to the discussion going on. Not being a central issue, The Truth is (a) usually taken for granted, and (b) not really relevant to this particular discussion. But you are trying to drag it in....

Sorry. :chin:

I would say I created the world when I was born, I was ‘simply’ born and found myself on a voyage of discovery - and distinguished experiential phenomenon due to faculties of logic coherence. I wasn’t born and then decided to invent logical systems in order to comprehend my surrounding that I couldn’t comprehend or have any comprehension of comprehending. — I like sushi

Neither logic nor maths was invented by one person. And neither was invented, I suspect, by someone newly-born, as your text sort of implies (but I doubt you intended that :wink:). We found ourselves in a world we didn't understand, and we gradually crafted tools to help. Gods and religion came first, and other ideas followed. Your text seems to say that we are born with "faculties of logical coherence", just as we are born with legs. I don't think this is so. Otherwise, our paleolithic predecessors would have been logic-users, long, long before the Greeks laid down their foundations for logical thinking.

You also seem to say that, without logic, we could not formulate logic. But when put as I just did, I think the shortcomings of that argument are clear?

You are aware that was your idea, yes? — tim wood

No. I see only another of your straw men. :chin:

I wonder if you have gathered, from the article you read, that all actions taken by the mind are taken by the rest-of-the-mind, leaving the conscious mind as a passive observer? — Pattern-chaser

I said that we can only judge something to be probable by referring to the truth that it is, i.e. by judging in relation to the truth. — AJJ

And I said that this is normally taken for granted. Does it really need stating, even here, in the midst of a debate in a philosophy forum? I suspect not.

Any help if I admit to presenting an argument that the psychologists also agree with? :wink:

That is a psychologistic argument then. — I like sushi

According to psychologism, everything is a psychologistic argument, n'est ce pas? :smile:

I don’t know what you’re struggling with. — AJJ

Apparently not. I'm observing that you have ordered your words in a peculiar way, one that is not easy to understand, so that they would resemble the theme you wish to promote. Look:

The only way we can judge something to be probable is in reference to the truth that it is probable. — AJJ

This is not a normal or helpful way of saying "we can only know something if it's true". And I wonder what is the point of saying so? Isn't it the sort of thing we usually take for granted? Is there a reason to say it explicitly? Are you soon going to inform us that we can only be "X" if it's true that we are "X"?

The only way we can judge something to be probable is in reference to the truth that it is probable. — AJJ

You just bent the facts under consideration into a very strange shape, so that they will resemble your thesis. Wouldn't it be better simply to express the facts in a clear and understandable fashion? :chin:

it does take extreme ''enthusiasm'' to insist that something is true/false AND demand that ALL parties accept it as so. It's these people, who give no leeway to accommodate people of a different hue I'm referring to. Surely such people could be labelled with ''zealot''. Some might prefer ''fanatic''. — TheMadFool

:grin: Nicely put. :up: :smile:

Ought vb. - Expresses an emotional, practical, or other reason for doing something. — WordWeb

Lots of contributors to this topic are using the term "ought" over and over. Fair enough. But, given your use(s) of "ought", can you please clarify what the associated reason(s) is/are?

For example, if we ought to believe facts, why ought we? What is the reason?

[I'm not arguing that we shouldn't believe facts, I'm asking why we ought to believe them.]

Thanks for that. It seems psychologism is a way of claiming that every branch, sort or style of knowledge is part of psychologism. It's just a land-grab by another name! :smile: Maybe I'm not one of them, then. :up:

But I still maintain that maths and logic were created, not discovered.

↪TheMadFool
My mistake. I thought you were implying that logic is created rather than discovered. That is basically psychologism. — I like sushi

Ah, OK. ... Does that make me a psychologist, then? :wink: For I believe that maths and logic were created by humans. They were created for a purpose (or for a number of purposes), and they match those purposes so well - like the glove has five fingers - because we built them that way! We wanted a tool to help us manipulate shapes, making it easier for us to build houses and castles. So we didn't create geometry randomly, we did it with significant focus, to achieve a purpose, and we succeeded.

The mind is a production of the brain. — Unseen

And the brain is a collection of atoms.

Whose comment is the least useful and relevant? It's a close-run thing, I think. :wink:

All the things you are attributing to consciousness are done by the brain in an activity we can all pre-conscious mind [?] (a mind behind the mind we experience). There appears to be no need for a conscious mind. — Unseen

I wonder if you have gathered, from the article you read, that all actions taken by the mind are taken by the rest-of-the-mind, leaving the conscious mind as a passive observer? I believe this is possible, given our current knowledge, but I'm pretty sure that your conclusion has not yet been reached by the scientists working on it. The evidence does not (yet) say what you say. You seem to have latched onto one particular thing, and applied it a little too widely.

Incoherence gets the penultimate word. — tim wood

So you suggest that we can recognise that which is morally right because it makes us feel good, and I am the one who's incoherent? Hmm.

The math behind any engineering is obviously based on some sort of logic. What then is this logic? — schopenhauer1

This is Boolean logic, and it has little application to humans or to human life except when we want to consider digital electronics. If you mean to refer to logic in a wider sense, then this answer is unhelpful, and I apologise. :smile:

Boolean logic allows us to design networks of logic gates, and thereby to design computers, and the like. Pretty boring stuff, unless (like me) you spent your professional life designing digital hardware and firmware. :wink: Then it can be fascinating!

Emotions and feelings play a large part in determining what is right and wrong, — Pattern-chaser

If you think your actions are moral because you feel good about them...
— tim wood
Straw man. No-one said this. Tawdry. :vomit: — Pattern-chaser

????? — tim wood

"feel good about" = (morally) "right"? No: straw man.

Does knowing the right from the wrong impose any obligation? — tim wood

Yes, of course. It imposes doing-right. Sometimes, we are able to recognise and obey that imposition. :wink: In theory, where you live, we do that all the time, of course. :smile:

If you think your actions are moral because you feel good about them... — tim wood

Straw man. No-one said this. Tawdry. :vomit:

It is reason that identifies and determines. Emotions/feelings can be a check, but not a good check and sometimes a wrong check. — tim wood

You think this is the case, in real live humans in the real world? I think this is an "ought" rather than an "is", on your part. It is usual for those sympathetic to science/logic/objectivism to deny or minimise the impact emotions and feelings have on our lives and on our decisions, but empirical observations show the lie. Right or wrong ( :smile: ) people behave according to their emotions and feelings, maybe more often than they listen to the still small voice of reason?

Millions of poor US citizens voted for Trump. Reason or feelings?

Facts in no way generally hinge on us or anything about us. — Terrapin Station


I know mate. Again: that is what makes them objective, rather than subjective. That is why we ought to believe them. — AJJ

The only part of your argument that's being questioned is the "ought"! Ought says there's a reason to believe facts. What is that reason? Above, you seem to be saying that, because facts are true, we ought to believe them. This implies someone or something 'out there' who/which somehow compels us to believe. There is no active someone or something; there is only (! :smile:) that which is. There is no need for further justification. Agreement with that which is cannot be challenged or doubted. So there is no ought, only that which is.

If there are no objective values then there are no facts (since there’s nothing that we ought to believe). There are facts, therefore there are objective values. — AJJ

The first thing that strikes me about this is the word "ought". "Ought" says that there's some kind of reason or compulsion that requires us to believe this thing.

Ought - expresses an emotional, practical, or other reason for doing something — WordWeb

I think other respondents have already commented that a fact (in the context of this discussion) simply reflects something in the world that is. There is no ought here; what is, is.

The next thing is not going to be welcome to many readers :wink:, which is what you mean by "objective"? Without getting too involved, can we agree that "objective" refers directly to that which is? That it refers directly to an accurate correspondence with Objective Reality?

If that's an acceptable working definition, then we can return to the quote you gave us. There are objective values because Objective Reality exists. Any accurate observation of (some aspect of) Objective Reality gives rise to one or more facts. So yes, there is an Objective Reality, there are objective values, and there are facts.

But isn't this quite basic stuff when it comes to debating objectivity? Is there anything contentious here, apart, perhaps, from the words/terms used to express the concepts? Have I missed something deep and meaningful? :chin:

I have defined consciousness for my purpose as being in the state of having experiences. — Unseen

To be conscious is to be experiencing something... — Unseen

You have said this a number of times, in different ways. You always refer to consciousness as a passive thing. Consciousness is "being in the state of having experiences", as you say. But surely there is an active aspect to this too? Empirical observation confirms that we also initiate or create experiences, for ourselves and for others. As conscious entities, we experience stuff, and we interact with the world so as to create experiences too, don't we?

Is that what your morality is, such as you're moral, what someone tells you to think or do? — tim wood

No. I think that may refer to a law. :chin:

Time for you to define morality/immorality. — tim wood

Morality is knowing what is right and wrong, and using that knowledge to make judgements of what is right and wrong in situations that arise in RL.

I buy that morality is mainly a matter of reason. — tim wood

This may be the core of our mutual misunderstandings. I am not at all sure that reason alone is sufficient to explain or understand morality. Emotions and feelings play a large part in determining what is right and wrong, which is why morality is personal. What's right or wrong for me may be wrong or right for you, if you see what I mean.

Being member of a community imposes moral obligations. — tim wood

Says who?

Do you deny that being a member of a community imposes obligations? — tim wood

No, but the obligations are not moral obligations. Being a member means accepting the rules of the 'club'.

Where did I say anything about "accepting community membership?" — tim wood

Here:

To be moral is to accept being a member of a community — tim wood

what is consciousness — BrianW

:razz: Trick question! :smile: Philosophers since Hume, and probably long before, have struggled with this one, as you surely know. :naughty: :wink:

How can something immaterial do anything — Unseen

So it's the brain that controls the body, in your world? Does the (immaterial) mind have no place in your scheme? Forget for a moment that the 'conscious mind' is part of the mind, and consider the mind as a whole. Every criticism you have levelled at consciousness seems also to apply to the mind as a whole. So, is the human mind just a figment, a frippery? After all, according to you it can do nothing...?

I have given you the science that shows that what is present in the consciousness is old news, having been processed in the brain a short time earlier. — Unseen

Haven't you realised? Sensory data cannot be processed in zero time. By the time it has been processed, and reached the conscious part of the mind, about 250 msec has passed. We live a quarter of a second in the past, for this reason.

I know that this isn't the delay you're so hung up on, the one that shows some decisions can be made earlier than we might think. But time delay is intrinsic to the mind, because mental processing takes time. And this delay (the 250 msec) is the one you refer to in the above quote, although I suspect you don't realise it.

To be moral is to accept being a member of a community — tim wood

How do you connect right and wrong to accepting community membership?

No need. Science will surely tell us that prayer will do no harm, so why not let the believers try? If it works, maybe it's placebo or maybe it's a miracle. And if it doesn't work, as it may well not, nothing has been lost. There's no harm in trying ... alongside conventional medicine, not instead.

Hang your hat on someday you'll be right if you like. — Unseen

No! Not "you will be right" but "you may be right".

I should like at this point to disqualify any notion of "personal" morality. Were there to be such a thing, then there is potentially moral justification for anything at all. And if that be the case, morality itself disappears. Agree? — tim wood

No. Consider: I am a paedophile (no, I'm not, this is a little thought experiment), the greatest bogeyman of our time. To me, my practices are morally acceptable. To you, and to many others, they are not. But we can all agree that my practices are illegal.

Morality does not disappear in such cases, which only illustrate the personal nature of morals. Morality varying from person to person does not make it disappear. Hair colour varies between individuals, but colour does not disappear as a result.

do you accept that there always already exists a moral obligation to obey the law as law? — tim wood

No. I accept that my community places certain obligations upon me, and if I disobey them, I will pay some kind of penalty. My community does not try to impose its morals onto me, and if it did, I would resist. Everyone does this, don't they?

you suppose that in breaking a law, its status as law is annihilated as if it never existed. Or alternatively you suppose that law as law is not in any way morally binding on you. — tim wood

The latter. But the law does bind me, it's just that that binding is not a moral one. It's a simple and unqualified binding that my community places upon me: that I conform to its will, or get punished. My community is not a moral authority, it's just my community. I am a member, and it has certain expectations of me as a result of my membership.

Are all laws good and for the good? — tim wood

Now you're just asking whether laws and morals are inextricably linked or not. They are not. They are not unconnected either. They overlap, but they remain distinct.

the only way out is to deny that there is any moral obligation to obey law; that any obligation is established by each law, law by law. — tim wood

No, the obligation(s) are put in place by my community, all of them (probably including me). My community doesn't tell me what's right and what's wrong. It's religions that do that. It just tells me what it expects of me.

Philosophy having birthed science should let it develop itself on its own instead of trying to bring it back into its fold. — TheMadFool

Agreed. Historically, science is a tool developed by one or several schools of philosophy (the ones that include words like "analytic" and "logical" in their descriptions). But it grew up and left home some time ago, and has now successfully differentiated itself from its historical parent. I got no sense from the article that it recommended the recapture of science, did you?