Stop accepting new input from the universe in favour of my own fantasies? That's a pretty unimaginative and unchallenging way to spend the rest of my life. — Pantagruel

... knowing that your existence was a lie?

It's all on you, 180: what do you do? — tim wood

Hear me ringin'
big bell tolls
Hear me singin'
soft and low
I've been beggin'
on my knees
I've been kickin',
help me, please

What we do know is that there is no evidence of consciousness existing anywhere apart from biological organisms, so we really have zero reason to think that consciousness can exist apart from biological organisms, and every reason to think it cannot. — Janus

If by "we don't know" you mean that it hasn't been proven, then I agree; nothing in science has been proven. — Janus

And to be sure, as I react to your post, it - you -would seem to say that maybe better if the Arabs had won in '67 or '48. Is that antisemitism that's showing? — tim wood

(e.g.) R. Luxemburg, S. Freud, A. Einstein, E. Fromm, P. Levi, Marek Edelman, I. Asimov, H. Arendt, I.F. Stone, N. Chomsky, H. Siegman, M. Lerner, R. Falk, T. Judt ... — 180 Proof

I think [Gnomon's] fundamentally wrong because he has m = matter instead of m = mass, the correct equivalence. — ucarr

I've been criticizing him from the standpoint of execution of his argumentation. I've characterized it as being slapdash and error-laden.

If firstly we picture Einstein sitting at his desk writing out the equations for special relativity, and then secondly we read his paper published in 1905, can we next conjoin these two events via memory to the effect that we can claim them public and therefore physical?

You're saying physicalism is rooted in the scientific method's demand that scientifically measurable things be public?

Is metacognitive, within your context, higher-order cognition, i.e., cognition of cognition?

Can nothingness have a property? — wonderer1

A point in space? — Manuel

Maybe I've taken your point further than you intend, Banno
— 180 Proof

Not too far, perhaps. Talk of virtues and vices, dealing with here and now, ad hoc rather than programatic decision making, allowing for review of the outcomes, heuristics over algorithms; sounds about right. — Banno

"The criminal attack on Gaza won’t solve the atrocious slaughter that Hamas executed." What do you think will? — tim wood

And yet we each must act, and hence each must choose what to do. — Banno

Being moral for the sake of being moral seems pointless. — Michael

Yes, so as the OP asks, why consider morality when choosing what to do? — Michael

Why not just consider our desires and pragmatism?

Why physicalism? [ ... ] This is where the problem of consciousness originates - — Wayfarer

– because by definition consciousness is excluded from this paradigm.

I would have thought that the distinction between sentient beings and insentient objects is a fundamental not only in philosophy. — Wayfarer

God is God — Walter

One of the areas in which I have done insufficient thinking is that of the 'harmful'. — Tom Storm

For me, harmful denotes causing or increasing harm and harm denotes (bodily / emotional) impairment-to-disability via deprivation, injury, terror, betrayal, bereavement, loss of agency, etc the vulnerabilities to which are usually specific to each natural species; and in this regard, we can know exactly what harms all h. sapiens – what all h. sapiens avoid by reflex (à la conatus ~Spinoza) – as moral facts, or reasons (to cultivate habits) to help¹ prevent or reduce harm to every harmless – not causing or threatening harm or has not caused harm – individual; therefore we (can) know what each one of us ought (i.e. conatus + moral reasons) to do¹ and we (can) observe, all things being equal, whether one does it or one does not do it.

Are these sorts of maxims ultimately just variations on, 'Do not cause suffering?' — Tom Storm

... following it literally would be difficult... — mentos987

Literalism is the death of reasoning and judgment. — 180 Proof

It probably doesn't handle animal cruelty very well. — mentos987

Do you think it is possible to formulate any general principles that can be used to assess actions? — Tom Storm

Proponents of the doctrine of Divine simplicity, and especially Thomists, maintain that God is a necessary, absolutely simple and immutable being who is identical to all of his properties. — Walter

P1: If something is solely a means towards an end, then it is not an end in itself. — Bob Ross

P2: To value something entails it is solely a means towards an end.

C1: To value something entails it is not an end in itself.

That you think "moral" = "rational"; and "immoral" = "irrational" ... — Vaskane

Inequality is the root cause of dishonesty. — YiRu Li

This world is not equal and we can’t change it externally.

But there is a way to deal with the inequalities [changes] and be peaceful & honest.
What is the way?

Art never responds to the wish to make it democratic; it is not for everybody; it is only for those who are willing to undergo the effort to understand it. — Flannery O'Connor

If ethical non-naturalism is true then... — Michael

Again, "Why be moral?" is an infelicitous question - being moral is what you ought to do. Hence the answer to "ought you be moral?" is "yes!" — Banno

Assuming ethical non-naturalism — Michael