Emotions and Consciousness Seperate from the Brain ??

I like that idea. I like it very much. That's what I've been thinking. LOGIC is an absolute. All you need is that, and all the rest follows.As regards the term "supernatural," if we got rid of that in this discussion, and just called it "the natural that we do not know about," I don't see a lot of disagreement here.

I think Dshort's overall point is that pure naturalism gives us no ground for logic since this logic arises out of the purely physical.How can, he suggests, a bunch of chemical interactions, or whatever physical activity you want to describe it as, "perceive truths"? It could do so only by accident.Our perception that it "works" thus is also ungrounded.Maybe I'm confused about the topic, but I think "naturalism" here means the same thing as "materialism."You would need an Absolute in order to ground our perception of universal truths and the fact that they work.But of course if we substitute some notion of "mentality" for physicality, we haven't solved the problem. Perceptions would still be ungrounded.In evolutionary terms, it is hard to see how the physical can "perceive truths." I'm not saying that hasn't happened, but it is odd.

Myself, I like your idea of the "virtual absolute" (my phrase for your idea).I think we are sort of kidding ourselves if we don't think that Logic is an absolute. I'm beginning to think I've been throwing around a lot of words that don't mean anything.But I'm bumfoozled by all this brain stuff. I've been reading this book about it, and in this book the authors discuss at length what they call "mindmakers." These are different parts of the brain that holistically somehow create a "mind." But they never explain how this incredible event can really happen (obviously, it HAS happened in some sense).The idea that dshortt is advocating I have read about in C.S. Lewis' writings, who has some very clever arguments which probably never quite work. Lewis was trying to prove that naturalism/materialism defeats itself, and there was no possible way that the physical could evolve to the point at which it can "perceive truths" (mathematical truths, for example). Evolution works on the principle of whatever is advantageous to survival is likely to survive. But what is advantageous to survival may or may not be true. So if proto-man began to believe something, and somehow that helped him to survive, that was no guarantee of its truth. So the belief could only be true by a fluke.Gotta run. More later.

This appears to me to be implying an argument for design. The problem I have it with is that I don't see how the exquisiteness and complexity make any difference.One might say, look at all objects in space, and how they exquisitvely follow their appointed routes to the point that we can predict eclipses a thousand years into the future!But this is really no different from saying, "When I throw a ball into the air, it always comes down." The exquisiteness or complexity of the operation does not make it more incredible to me.A law of nature is just a statement of what things always do. The ball always comes down. That's not what's incredible; what would be incredible is that if one day the ball did not come down.

This seems to be implying--excuse me if I am jumping to conclusions--that without a moral absolute, morality is ultimately arbitrary. I think so too.Something in our heart says, "That would be wrong" (although Lam might think, "That's OK with me!"--just joking, Lam).The problem is that our heart is not very reliable, seemingly.There is a brand of Islamic conservatism that looks to me like gender apartheid. But does the Islamic conservative feel that what he is doing is right in his heart--in forcing women to wear berkas, and not drive cars, and not be educated, etc.? I rather think he does.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-29-2004 14:13 AMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-29-2004 14:16 AM

I agree with that completely.With the guilt I'm carrying around, I'm not going to dismiss objective morality out of hand.But I'm not sure if it can be codified.

Objective morality IS necessary if we are going to "truly" condemn anything. I don't like the actions of Islamic conservatives toward women, but what basis do I have to condemn them? I have my moral system, he has his. What makes mine better than his? He will do his thing while I do mine. "It's my culture," he would say. "Mind your own business." And he would be right.

You want to start a new topic dealing with this issue?

It's not a matter of what I feel or what I believe. The issue is whether in fact there is a moral absolute. If there is, we could decide the difference between me and the Islamic conservative lickety-split.In the absence of that, we can't decide anything. Yes, I can criticize but I have no reason to other than the "feeling in my heart"--which presumably is culture-specific and therefore meaningless outside of my culture.

As regards consistency, is there any particular reason why they ought to be consistent? How are we to decide between these rules?:
1. Thou shalt be consistent within thy own moral system.
2. Thou shalt not commit gender apartheid.Any reason why we should select one over the other?Next alternative:
"Imam, your rules are not absolute."
Imam: "Neither are yours. Ours are just as good."These "alternatives" are arbitrary. Sorry. It seemed to me obvious that any alternatives beg the question.However, having said all this, I will still continue to judge the gender apartheid of Islamic conservatives. In practice, we feel and act AS THOUGH there were an absolute, and that we know what it is.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-30-2004 07:40 AMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-30-2004 12:38 AM

My own situation on whether or not there is an objective morality might be summed up as follows:My heart says yes, my mind says no.In other words, if I have some strong moral feelings about something, I don't FEEL that my sense of justice or injustice is merely a cultural product or subjective product.However, the evidence suggests that it is.So obviously that is a problem.I was wondering if others felt that way.

Para, I'm going to try to paraphrase what you said to see if I get it.The type of sensuous faculties that we have determine not only what we physically see but also our perception about what we see. Colors, for example, are not real in the sense that "redness" is an absolute quality of something. Other beings may perceive "redness" as "roughness" or "saltiness" or "wavyness" because they have different ways of getting sensuous information. None of these ways of perceiving is either wrong or right, anymore than somebody's act of looking at the back of something is a more correct vision than somebody's act of looking at the front of something.The brain creates lots of little pictures that we are not aware of. There is something in the brain that makes decisions about what is or is not important to be aware of. It's a little bit like building up a habit. Somebody who lives right next door to a railroad line after a while ceases to pay attention to the sounds of trains. If we were driving somewhere new rather than following an habitual path, we would pay more attention to our surroundings. That is to say, the brain would force it into our consciousness.Sometimes the brain makes a representation of a representation (?) in an unusual place in the brain. This is done to force it into consciousness (like something dangerous or peculiar).But in order for something to be conscious there has to be two representations.The second representation is an "object" of a "process." It's a picture of a brain process not a picture of an object in the outside world.Every picture in the brain is made up not only of all the qualities of the physical object seen, but also a meta-quality. The quality is about itself and it helps to align it with other pictures in the brain to combine to make a great big picture, made out of many small pictures. Each picture has some instructions about how to integrate with the other pictures. It's this meta-quality of the pictures that constitutes self-awareness.Obviously, I'm having problems.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-10-2005 14:11 AMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-10-2005 14:16 AMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-10-2005 14:19 AMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-10-2005 15:21 AM

To be frank, Soplar, I really don't understand what Para is saying about self-awareness. Maybe I got too many representations in the brain right now.

I'd like to hear about that "issue," Para.

So what I am calling a meta-quality, you are calling an object known as the "individual." It seems like you are saying that the "individual" is the same thing as the "self."But that cannot be, because these qualities of the conscious representations are what CREATE the self. OUR awareness of the self--there seems to be already a self beforehand.I think it's just some confusion about the meaning of "self."