Topic: Where do morals come from??? | |
---|---|
uy sgisgwof exists...
And for clarity: uy sgisgwof is ALL THINKING STUFF. That would be anything that processes any information and performs any function. You're wrong here. You've wrongfully called uy sgisgwof "universal mind". |
|
|
|
Let me ask again...
What do you think is involved in the process of naming things? |
|
|
|
Let me ask again... What do you think is involved in the process of naming things? I don't think about it. I don't see how that is relevant to what I'm talking about. Why do you think it is relevant to what you are talking about? |
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 03/05/11 04:19 PM
|
|
Jb:
(And for clarity: Universal mind is ALL THINKING STUFF. That would be anything that processes any information and performs any function.) So proof of existence amounts to creating a definition? You talk about the "human mind" and when you say "the mind" it is as if you believe that the only kind of 'mind' that exists is the 'human mind.' Is that what you believe? That the only "mind" worthy of considering or exists is the "human mind?" How does the idea of the human mind compare to the idea of the human brain? Do you consider them to be the same thing or something different? In order for me to understand your claim or premise, I asked you to define or explain what you mean by 'the mind.' In past posts, I did that and you chose to ignore the subject or question as if I were getting off topic. But when you repeatedly make the claim that "universal morality" exists outside of 'the mind' and you don't really explain what you mean by "mind," how can you expect me or anyone else to understand what you mean? So proof of existence amounts to creating a definition?
You seem to think that my explanation of "universal mind" was an offer of "proof." It was not. I am simply trying to explain to you what I mean by "universal mind." You explained to me what you meant by "universal" and then I understood what you meant and why you used the term. Your first and very confusing definition was: 1. Extant in each individual case after identifying and subsequently removing the subjective particulars. Your second one was: 2. Universal means in every case, without exception. That might even serve to define universal in the case of "universal mind" but to explain further I added: "Anything that processes any information and performs any function." But I will be even more specific and say that everything that exists is thinking stuff. Even a rock, who's function is to be a rock. This is in keeping with the Hermetic Law that "All is Mind." All is "thinking stuff." Therefor, NOTHING can exist outside of MIND. Universal morality seems to be more connected to humans than to rocks, but I still cannot see how it can exist outside of even the human mind. So I conclude that the misunderstanding is in how we differ in our view of what THE MIND is. I can't even tell if I disagree with what you are claiming because I don't understand your terms. |
|
|
|
To follow your lead, the mind is a function of the brain.
|
|
|
|
It seems that in order to follow your thoughts here, I must abandon all common understanding of rather uncontentious terms. That is never a good sign.
|
|
|
|
To follow your lead, the mind is a function of the brain. Okay then, you are talking about the Human brain I assume? If so, then I do understand what you are trying to say. Given that, I find the overall subject very narrow and uninteresting. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 03/05/11 05:17 PM
|
|
It seems that in order to follow your thoughts here, I must abandon all common understanding of rather uncontentious terms. That is never a good sign. I doubt that you could ever follow my thoughts. But since I find the whole subject uninteresting, I find that I have no opinion about it, so I can't say that I agree or disagree. It is what it is. I'm sorry I interrupted your thread. |
|
|
|
The argument for your thinking stuff is circular. The argument that concepts cannot exist independently of the human mind is not negated by imagining some universal mind which cannot be identified, pointed to, and/or reasonably asserted to exist. It is quite simply true that things exist independently of the mind.
Simply put, we cannot define things into objective existence, and there is no reason whatsoever to believe that all existence is created by the mind, including some fictitious 'universal' mind. |
|
|
|
Ah, that was a simultaneuos crossposting...
Interesting how you exit when asked to provide that you ask of others... that's kinda telling isn't it? |
|
|
|
The argument for your thinking stuff is circular. The argument that concepts cannot exist independently of the human mind is not negated by imagining some universal mind which cannot be identified, pointed to, and/or reasonably asserted to exist. It is quite simply true that things exist independently of the mind. Simply put, we cannot define things into objective existence, and there is no reason whatsoever to believe that all existence is created by the mind, including some fictitious 'universal' mind. Like I said, I don't really care anymore. You can believe or disbelieve whatever you wish. I do not wish to argue the existence of "thinking stuff" I only wanted to see if I could understand what you meant. I do, understand, and I find it uninteresting. So, again, I am sorry I interrupted your class or thread or lecture, or whatever it was. |
|
|
|
Ah, that was a simultaneuos crossposting... Interesting how you exit when asked to provide that you ask of others... that's kinda telling isn't it? I exit because I see we are, as always, engaged in a futile discussion and I can't even get into your book let alone get on the same page. I don't want to get into your book because I'm not interested in psychology. I find it a shallow and tedious subject. |
|
|
|
Who is talking about psychology?
I do not understand how you can claim to understand what I'm saying when there are so many common words having their meaning be brutalized. Words have meaning for a reason. |
|
|
|
Just curious to see what other people think about this idea. I mean it is obvious that we learn about them through language, but that doe not necessarily mean that all moral content is manmade. Trust is a fine example. We enact trust long before we actually comprehend what that is, or what it entails. Is there any absolute good or bad? I mean there are certain human needs. Needs cannot be bad, can they? People run to and fro seeking wisdom and knowledge from anyone who pretends to have answers. Few people are philosopher's so why dilute the pure well that you have been given from birth. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 03/05/11 06:43 PM
|
|
Who is talking about psychology?
Apparently you are. psy·chol·o·gy [sahy-kol-uh-jee] Show IPA –noun, plural -gies. 1.the science of the mind or of mental states and processes. 2.the science of human and animal behavior. 3.the sum or characteristics of the mental states and processes of a person or class of persons, or of the mental states and processes involved in a field of activity: the psychology of a soldier; the psychology of politics. 4.mental ploys or strategy: He used psychology on his parents to get a larger allowance. Morals and morality are related to human behavior. You say that "the mind" is a function of the brain. (nothing more) I do not understand how you can claim to understand what I'm saying when there are so many common words having their meaning be brutalized. Words have meaning for a reason.
I do not brutalize the meaning of words. If you think so, then tell me what words you think I have brutalized. I am curious to know. Words are for the purpose of attempting to verbalize ideas, concepts and thoughts. Their purpose is to serve us, not to enslave us. They can have many different meanings. That is why there are usually three or four different meanings for the same word in any given dictionary and why different dictionaries will not define words exactly the same. In addition to that, words can have meanings that are not even in any dictionary. A dictionary is not THE LAW about what words mean. It is someone's attempt to interpret language and the way people use certain words. Communication is not solely dependent on words and their common meanings. The reason I told you what I meant when I say "thinking stuff" was not to make a claim that "thinking stuff" exists. Nor was it an attempt to prove or convince anyone that it does. What I was doing was trying to give you an idea about what MIND means and why your claim cannot be true. It is not just me that uses the term MIND in this way. That word has many many meanings. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mind *************************************************** mind [mahynd] Show IPA –noun 1. (in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.: the processes of the human mind. 2. Psychology . the totality of conscious and unconscious mental processes and activities. 3. intellect or understanding, as distinguished from the faculties of feeling and willing; intelligence. 4. a particular instance of the intellect or intelligence, as in a person. 5. a person considered with reference to intellectual power: the greatest minds of the twentieth century. 6. intellectual power or ability. 7. reason, sanity, or sound mental condition: to lose one's mind. 8. a way of thinking and feeling; disposition; temper: a liberal mind. 9. a state of awareness or remembrance: The poem puts me in mind of experiences both new and forgotten. 10. opinion, view, or sentiments: to change one's mind. 11. inclination or desire: to be of a mind to listen. 12. purpose, intention, or will: Let me know your mind in this matter before Tuesday. 13. psychic or spiritual being, as opposed to matter. 14. a conscious or intelligent agency or being: an awareness of a mind ordering the universe. 15. remembrance or recollection; memory: Former days were called to mind. 16. attention; thoughts: He can't keep his mind on his studies. 17. Chiefly South Midland and Southern U.S. notice; attention: When he's like that, just pay him no mind. 18. Roman Catholic Church . a commemoration of a person's death, especially by a Requiem mass. Compare month's mind, year's mind. 19. ( initial capital letter ) Also called Divine Mind. Christian Science . God; the incorporeal source of life, substance, and intelligence. Compare mortal mind. –verb (used with object) 20. to pay attention to. 21. to heed or obey (a person, advice, instructions, etc.). 22. to apply oneself or attend to: to mind one's own business. 23. to look after; take care of; tend: to mind the baby. 24. to be careful, cautious, or wary about: Mind what you say. 25. to feel concern at; care about. 26. to feel disturbed or inconvenienced by; object to (usually used in negative or interrogative constructions): Would you mind handing me that book? 27. to regard as concerning oneself or as mattering: Don't mind his bluntness. 28. Dialect . a. to perceive or notice. b. to remember. c. to remind. –verb (used without object) 29. to pay attention. 30. to obey. 31. to take notice, observe, or understand (used chiefly in the imperative): Mind now, I want you home by twelve. 32. to be careful or wary. 33. to care, feel concern, or object (often used in negative or interrogative constructions): Mind if I go? Don't mind if I do. 34. to regard a thing as concerning oneself or as mattering: You mustn't mind about their gossiping. —Idioms 35. bear / keep in mind, to remember: Bear in mind that the newspaper account may be in error. 36. blow one's mind, Slang . a. to change one's perceptions, awareness, etc., as through the use of drugs or narcotics. b. to overwhelm a person with intense excitement, pleasure, astonishment, or dismay: Cool jazz really blows my mind. 37. cross one's mind, to occur suddenly to one: A disturbing thought crossed her mind. 38. give someone a piece of one's mind, Informal . to rebuke, reprimand, or scold sharply: I'll give him a piece of my mind for telling such a lie! 39. have a good mind to, to feel tempted or inclined to: I have a good mind to leave you here all alone. 40. have half a mind to, to be almost decided to; be inclined to. 41. know one's own mind, to be firm in one's intentions, opinions, or plans; have assurance: She may be only a child, but she knows her own mind. 42. make up one's mind, to decide; form an opinion or decision; resolve: He couldn't make up his mind which course to follow. 43. meeting of minds, complete agreement; accord: A meeting of minds between the union and the employer seemed impossible. 44. never mind, don't worry or be troubled; it is of no concern: Never mind—the broken glass will be easy to replace. 45. on one's mind, constantly in one's thoughts; of concern to one: The approaching trial was on his mind. 46. out of one's mind, a. mad; insane: You must be out of your mind to say such a ridiculous thing. b. totally distracted: He's out of his mind with worry. c. emotionally overwhelmed: out of her mind with joy. 47. presence of mind, ability to think and to remain in control of oneself during a crisis or under stress: She had enough presence of mind to remember the license plate of the speeding car. |
|
|
|
Which ones apply without a brain?
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 03/05/11 07:26 PM
|
|
This is what I understand you to say:
Your claim is that there is a thing called "Universal morality" and that it exists independently of the "human mind." And that the human mind is a function of the human brain. At first you described "morality" as a "sense of ought" but then you indicated that you don't like that term. I wonder if you agree with this dictionary definition of morality. mo·ral·i·ty [muh-ral-i-tee, maw-] Show IPA –noun, plural -ties for 4–6. 1.conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. 2.moral quality or character. 3.virtue in sexual matters; chastity. 4.a doctrine or system of morals. 5.moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance. 6.morality play. *********************************************** HOW ABOUT UNIVERSAL MORALITY: Universal Morality: Defined: A Moral System that Applies to All Advanced Civilizations in the Universe Suppose human beings are not the only advanced civilization in the universe. Suppose there is a moral system that applies to all advanced civilizations, that would enable them to interact in non-destructive ways. What would that system be like? Universal Morality is an ongoing attempt to work out the basic principles of a moral system that would apply to every individual member and every sub-group of every advanced civilization in the universe, to every advanced civilization as a whole, and to how all such civilizations should interact with each other. It turns out that these basic principles are obvious. There are only three basic principles, and all complex moral principles can be derived from them, although often with surprising results. It is my contention that any advanced civilization that doesn't discover these principles must ultimately destroy itself. I also contend that, if there are any other advanced civilizations who have discovered these principles and therefor not destroyed themselves, they will not develop relations with any other advanced civilization who has not accepted these principles.
The Three UM Principles 1. Attempt to maximize your own personal happiness and fulfillment. 2. Attempt to maximize the happiness and fulfillment of all other present and future individuals of your species. 3.Attempt to maximize the happiness and fulfillment of all other sentient creatures in the universe. Found at: http://www.universalmorality.org/index.html ************************************************** Now if this is what you mean, then I do understand and I like the idea. |
|
|
|
Which ones apply without a brain? 13. psychic or spiritual being, as opposed to matter. 14. a conscious or intelligent agency or being: an awareness of a mind ordering the universe. |
|
|
|
"But I will be even more specific and say that everything that exists is thinking stuff. Even a rock, who's function is to be a rock."
So hard to 'touch' the mind of a rock... It 'thinks' in a diferent frequency reference... Within that frame we have labeled 'time'. My mind strains to reach that 'frequency'. |
|
|
|
Can those be reasonably shown to exist?
|
|
|