But not physically necessary! — Vaskane

Not that I disagree, but what do you mean by this? This is more of a cheerleader quote, we should back why we're cheering something. :)

First of all, it seems to me that to raise the possibility of a first cause one must start from a simple entity [non-composite: since if it is composite we cannot speak of a cause in the singular but of causes in the plural].

Secondly, the creation of the world [as an effect] must be treated as a binary relationship Where A causes B. More than two make several causes, and not a single cause.

Thirdly, this binary relationship must be understood as creation from nothing [as God is supposed to have created the universe from nothing: Creatio ex nihilo]. Since if there were a thing B affected by a thing A, B would have to be presupposed coexisting with A.

Fourthly, the first cause cannot be a single thing differentiating itself (monism) or being the cause of itself. That destroys the difference between cause and effect. The creator and the created. — JuanZu

Perfect except for one thing. A first cause does not necessitate that it is a 'creator'. A creator would be a complex conscious being with intention. I am not arguing that here at all. I'm just noting that there must exist at least one first cause, which does not require consciousness.

How can the first cause affect nothingness to produce the world?

Can not. Ex nihilo nihil fit. — JuanZu

Agreed. Something cannot create another from 'nothing'. The chain of causality demonstrates this. Once there is 'nothing' prior to there being something, that something is called a first cause. Now, there is a logic as to what is possible within a first cause, but that's not what this argument is about. Its just noting that there logically must be at least one first cause. If you agree with the logic here and want to discuss what that potentially means, I posted it here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12847/if-a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary-what-does-that-entail-for-the-universes-origins/p1

I had to divide it up because people got caught up on the later logic without understanding the former logic here.

I apologize: I mis-re-read it: nevermind! I re-read it again and, yes, this is purporting that a first cause (an ‘alpha) is logically necessary, since the form of the argument is that there are 3 exhaustive options (A, B, and C) and both A and B entail C, so C is logically necessary.

I really should not indulge myself in this OP while we have two pending discussions going, but I can’t help it (: — Bob Ross

Ha ha! Not a worry! I am always glad to have you in any discussion Bob. I understand the passion.

Let me just ask: what sense of the term ‘cause’ is being used here? It doesn’t seem to be physical causality but, rather, mere explanation: am I remembering correctly? — Bob Ross

Its about 'Why does X exist? Because Y happened a second prior.'

And what exactly is prior causality? — tim wood

Great descriptions tim wood! Lets add some specifications to causality. Measured causality vs total causality. Total causality includes everything everywhere in a all possible time positions that ultimately had a hand in determining the outcome of some X. That is largely unknowable.

But just like a line is 'infinite' we can measure it by feet. Measurable causality is when we put restrictions such as 'time'. The only restriction I'm putting on causality here is time, and that there is something else besides the existence itself that causes the existence to be at any particular time slice. It doesn't matter to me how many other sources are involved in creating X. In fact, my theory does not state that there cannot be multiple first causes, nor that first causes and entities that have prior causality cannot mix.

So then there are two options. Either everything is caused by something else than itself at a prior time slice, or we reach a point in which something exists that is not explained by something prior that is not itself. This first is caused, the second is a first cause, or something that has no prior explanation for its existence.

Since we cannot know the full specific chain of measurable causality, we can use sets. A set containing a first cause would simply go down the chain of causality until we reached a first cause. So we can take your dynamite example and start with one of the reasons you lit the dynamite was because three days ago somebody cut you off. I'm using the more absurd example to demonstrate that it doesn't matter where in the chain we start the measurement. Out of all the causes that lead up to the other man cutting you off, we choose one, then examine that. Choose one, then examine that, and so on. In a finite causality set, eventually we get to a point where our selection has no prior causality. This is a first cause.

So now lets examine an infinite set. Here we capture the set of infinite causality. However, there is still one question left within the set. What caused existence to have infinite causality? There is nothing prior and outside of the set, therefore this is a first cause. There is no outside reason or explanation for its existence, it simply is. As such, no matter the situation, everything always boils down to there being a first cause, or a point of existence which cannot be explained by anything prior and outside of itself.

I see that as a problem considering that minds and their status are the fundamental lynch pin of your argument. Perhaps this could be answered if you define whether it is possible for something that is not a mind to be an end in itself.

I think this is just the fallacy of the heap. — Bob Ross

I'm wondering if the tie in of minds to things in themselves is this fallacy. My thinking was that if minds are the only things that are ends in themselves, you can just remove ends in themselves and just note that minds are simply the things on this planet which should be protected and encouraged. It just simplifies the argument.

Likewise, it is not “the stronger wins”. It is entirely possible that, according to FIS, a mind holds higher precedence over another mind and the former is physically weaker than the latter. — Bob Ross

Sure, but what's the way we measure the precedence? I think it works in easily defined scenarios like "People who follow the FET and FES versus those who defy it," but what about situations in which everyone is a rational agent who follows this morality to a T? As a simple solution its a nice thought, but I'm not seeing how we can develop any air tight means of measurement when tough moral choices come up. Its not anything you have to debate with me about, these are just musings to think about.

So if you accept that ‘one ought to be rational’ and that ‘minds are ends in themselves’ and that ‘sole means are not ends’, then it logically follows that one should not treat them as a mere means. — Bob Ross

I get that. The question is why anyone should care if a mind thinks its an end to itself. There's nothing requiring me in that argument to not solely treat them as an ends in themselves. All you've noted is that we cannot solely view them as a means. Vice versa it also means we cannot solely view them as an ends. Also, I'm not really sure there's an iron bound logic demonstrating why I should care if a mind views themselves as a means to an ends.

Is it possible that you could demonstrate why using a person for one's own end is a contradiction? I believe you need to include Kant's universizability principle for it work. Essentially Kant believed "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” With that you can make an argument that if a person does not treat themselves as a means to an end, they shouldn't expect anyone else to either.

Of course, we reach a similar question once more. What if I also treat myself as a means to an end? Further, why should I care if something becomes a universal law if it doesn't benefit me directly? What logically forces me to concede a universal law, and this law in particular? Just more things to think about.

An objective moral judgement would be a moral judgement that can be logically concluded on no matter the difference in subjective viewpoint
…
This is something that cannot be rationally agreed upon by all people.

That's kind of what I'm trying to solve here. :) Maybe I won't, but you never know until you try.

Firstly, although I am trying not to import my definitions, this is not what objectivity with respect to morality standardly means, and this would, within standard terminology, be a form of moral subjectivism. — Bob Ross

Call it whatever you want personally. The meaning behind the words being used here are all that matters. As I am using objectivity, its as a rational foundation of morality that can be concluded despite differences in subjective viewpoints. I've already noted that your definition of subjective makes everything subjective Bob, but I agree with its underlying meaning. You've read my theory of knowledge so you should also understand that all definitions come from discrete experiencers. Why I don't use your definition of subjectivity is I find the term becomes so broad as to lose the meaningful contrast that I'm trying to convey. Objectivity and subjectivity in the classical sense are approaches that subjects use to solve problems. As long as you understand that objectivity leaves no wiggle room for the rational subject to disagree, we're on the same page.

You are just subjectively stipulating that what one should do is what is rational, and then calling ‘objective’ whatever can be reached as a consensus by people committed to that subjective moral judgment. — Bob Ross

No, I'm just assuming you'll grant me rationality and logic are the best tools we have to measure reality. This is not an assumption I spelled out, but maybe I should have. If you want me to go into the question of whether we should or should not use logic, I can go into that as well. I leave that to you to decide if that is important at this stage or not.

Secondly, just to go with your terms here, if all you mean by objectivity is that there is a consensus amongst rational agents, then if your argument for ‘there should be nothing’ being logical contradictory is true then this would be an objective moral judgment by your terms. — Bob Ross

Yes.

1. There is an objective morality

This is where I am not following: how does stipulating morality is objective entail that a reason which justifies its own non-existence entails a contradiction? How does it entail that ‘nothing should exist’ becomes ‘nothing should not exist’? I am not following. — Bob Ross

Not a problem, I'll try again. If this is good, I'll likely edit the OP to make things clearer as well.

1. Morality is what 'should' be, given a choice between two outcomes.
2. Rationality and logic are our best tools at identifying and reflecting reality as accurately as possible.
3. An objective morality would be a morality of what should happen that cannot be rationally or logically countered.
4. Anything that 'should' exist must have a reason that is also concluded by rationality and logic.

But what would an objective morality entail? First, we must assume that it exists to see how if there is some logical necessity in how it would exist.

A. Assumption: There is an objective morality. This will be assumed true for the purposes of this discussion.
B. An objective morality must have a rational and logical foundation to build on. Every moral question must be examined to find the foundational reason underlying its claims. This foundation must necessarily demonstrate there is no reason beyond its own existence.
C. All moral claims must answer this question as its foundation before anything else can be built. "Should there be existence, or should there not?" (Just go with me on this one for now until you get the point. I will gladly return to that debate after we see if the conclusion works assuming this is true)
D. Because A stands true, there are two conclusions that cannot happen.
d1: The 'should' or 'should not' of existence cannot both be true.
d2: The 'should' or 'should not' of existence cannot both be false.
For if both were true or false, then there would be no 'should', no answer to the foundation, and thus no objective morality.
E. Assumption: There exists a reason that nothing should exist.
F. If that is the case, then according to the reason that nothing should exist, that reason should not exist. Thus a contradiction.
Therefore, since 'there should not be existence' leads to contradicting itself, it is false, and 'there should be existence' must be true.

Follow up:

Taking the conclusion above, there is one last test. To ensure that 'should there be existence' is not logically false as well.

G. Assumption: There should be existence
H. This statement is not contradicted by any of the previous statements.
I. There should be existence is not logically proven to be false, therefore it may stand that it is true.
Therefore, if we're assuming that an objective morality exists, the concluded logical foundation of this objective morality must be that 'existence should be'.

Alright, I hope that helped! Again, really great job drilling down on this for me Bob. I hope I'm making this clearer as we go.

The fuse burning down, or at some point the burning fuse and the explosion occurring at the same time. — tim wood

Certainly there is examining causality within a slice of time, then examining prior causality, which involves time. The OP is covering causality. Choose your favorite time measurement, be that second, minutes, hours, etc.

And I am under the impression that scientists do not concern themselves much with cause-and-effect except either informally or when they know exactly what they mean — tim wood

No, causality is a staple of science. There are debates over what causality is in philosophy of science, but it is still used and understood fairly clearly in science proper.

I'm going to hold you to a higher standard than others in the forum Banno, as I know you're well versed.

The notion of cause being used is broken. — Banno

If you believe that, indicate in the OP where or why something is broken. Generic references to papers are not a discussion, nor do they indicate whether or not you read and understood the OP's use of causality.

In addition, the very notion in the OP that something is cause to exist is problematic in logical terms. In classical logic things pretty much either exist or they do not; their existence is guaranteed by the domain of discourse. The special existential predicate "∃!" requires it's own special variant. — Banno

This is not problematic in terms of logic at all.

1. A causes B

This is a proposition that is either true or false.

Finally, the structure of the argument in the OP is quite unclear. — Banno

This is the only legitimate point made so far. I wrote this a while ago and it may be unclear, that's true. At what point do you need some guidance or clarity?

I would like to just make a suggestion, reading through this OP for the second time I realized you don't seem to be actually claiming a first cause is logically necessary: instead, it is from the idea that all the options lead to a first cause based off of empirical claims. — Bob Ross

I appreciate the suggestion Bob, but I don't think I use any empirical claims. In fact, when we spoke about this last time I believe the point you noted was despite the logic of the claims, you were one of the only people who noted we lacked empirical fact to back it. I agreed with you then and still do today. The claim is not that it is empirically necessary that there be a first cause, but logically based off of the definition of a first cause vs an infinitely regressive cause.

The problem is that you haven’t given any vocabulary for this, because you haven’t engaged your theory in anything related to the nature of moral properties and judgments, so there’s nothing for me to translate to. — Bob Ross

The nature of morality is what 'should' happen. That's where we've started. As I examine proposals of what should be, I ask, "Why should that reason be?" until we chain all the way down to the basic question. "Should there, or should there not be existence?" That's really all there is to it at this point.

For example, what is the nature of an objective moral judgment under your view? — Bob Ross

An objective moral judgement would be a moral judgement that can be logically concluded on no matter the difference in subjective viewpoint. For example, 1+1=2. It can be rationally proven that it works, and no one can justify or prove that 1+1=3. To contrast with subjective, something subjective could be proven for oneself only. For example, "We all like apples." This is something that cannot be rationally agreed upon by all people.

So, for a moral judgement to be objective, its 'should' must be rationally proven despite one's subjective viewpoint. A subjective moral judgement would be, "We should all eat 20 apples a day." Maybe its true for certain individuals, but cannot be rationally proven for all individuals.

But if that existence should not exist, then 'nothing should exist' becomes 'nothing should not exist'.

This does not follow: why would this be the case? It is a non-sequitur, by my lights, to say ‘If the existence should not exist because nothing should exist, then nothing should not exist’. — Bob Ross

Because you're forgetting the first assumption:

1. There is an objective morality

Remember, we're not proving that an objective morality exists. We're stating, "If there is an objective morality, what must its foundation be?" And when we examine this down the chain of 'should's' we are left with the foundational question, "Should there, or should there not be existence?" This is a binary assuming that there is an objective morality. Meaning if one side is false, the other side is necessarily true. If both are false, then there is no objective morality. But that's not what we're looking for. We're saying, "IF, there is an objective morality, which way should the binary logically swing?" I hope that clears it up!

nature of existence
— Philosophim

What does that even mean? What do you mean by "existence"? — Arne

Please read the entire OP. That's just an introduction. The details are in reading the rest. Feel free to ask me again if after reading the entire thing, you do not understand. Lets have an honest discussion please.

but it is when we look at the logic of being
— Philosophim

Seriously, what is "the logic of being"? — Arne

Look at the logic I point out about being. Look at the OP and the actual argument. Opinions without referencing the argument are just assertions of one's own opinion. I'm interested in discussing the logic, not personal opinions.

this only begs the question. Being is still not required to conform to logic even if logic is "our" best tool. — Arne

If you think existence does not follow logic, that's fine. But if you follow logic, its still logically necessary. I even noted that a first cause has no explanation for its being, it simply is. Even with that, it becomes logically necessary. This is not about your opinion. Can you demonstrate that the argument itself is flawed? Please respond showing a contradiction or flaw in the OP, not an assertion that does not reference the OP in any way.

If they express something objective, then they are true in virtue of corresponding (adequately) to a (mind[stance]-independently existing) state-of-affairs in reality.

If they are true in virtue of corresponding (adequately) to a (mind[stance]-independently existing) state-of-affairs in reality, then the chain of reasoning for why any given moral judgment is true ends at that state-of-affairs—which violates your point that all chains of reasoning bottom out at “to be or not to be?” — Bob Ross

Yeah Bob, I don't know what you're talking about. Please remove your own language and try to say what you want to say using the language I've put forward.

My point is that all chains of reasoning (about morality) do not bottom out at “to be or not to be?”. — Bob Ross

This again is the part I don't see. Just show me an example, not a hypothetical.

If “one should exist” is a moral judgment which expresses something objective, then there must be a state-of-affairs (which exists mind-independently) that makes it true, which is not the case with your logical argument. — Bob Ross

No, its very clear. If something existed that noted 'nothing should exist' then that existence should not exist. But if that existence should not exist, then 'nothing should exist' becomes 'nothing should not exist'. Its very existence would be a contradiction. And a contradiction cannot be true. Please remove the unnecessary state-of-affairs vocabulary that I do not completely understand, and focus on the very simple example. If it existed Bob, it leads to the fact that the reason itself shouldn't exist.

Philosophim, you said we are presupposing ‘objective morality exists’. You can’t presuppose that and say moral realism might be false in your view — Bob Ross

No, I've read too many 'named' philosophies that end up throwing too much in that I don't agree with. We are not starting at the top and working our way down. We are starting at the bottom and working our way up. Please respect my request to not reference this at this point.

This is why I was wanting to dive into metaethics so I could understanding what exactly the nature of those objective moral judgments are under your view. Instead, we skipped passed it to try and make headway. — Bob Ross

That's ahead of where we are. We're just looking at one thing Bob. Should existence be, or not? That's it. Nothing more than that.

Please remove any vocabulary like state-of-affairs in your next reply so I can understand your point. As it is, I can request that as the OP. Feel free to keep any of your own vocabulary in your head, but translate it down to the language of what we're covering because you're not at where the argument is, you're somewhere else I don't understand.

So, I would like to point out this is just an empirical question about what exactly has a mind, whereas my theory is simply proving that if it does have one — Bob Ross

That's fair. So then if someone found an insect to be an end in itself, it would be needed to be treated as such.

Where does a mind begin and end?

I definitely can’t answer that, and, quite frankly, no one can. — Bob Ross

I see that as a problem considering that minds and their status are the fundamental lynch pin of your argument. Perhaps this could be answered if you define whether it is possible for something that is not a mind to be an end in itself.

Why are animals and insects ends in themselves but clearly have less value compared to people?

They don’t have less value than humans: they are prioritized lower in the case of moral antinomies, which is most of practical life, than humans. — Bob Ross

I understand you don't want to use the word value, but almost anyone using the theory will. In the case of choosing what must be sacrificed for another species to live, there must be a rationale behind it. In your case if you want to avoid value, you may just want to say, "Whatever is stronger." So if an insect ate a human being, it would be merely due to capability and not that one is more valuable than the other.

The only issue is that P2: Person's are ends in themselves isn't proven, its more of a given assumption.

I added more sections that pertain to ends vs. means; and there is an explanation below the argument of why P2 is true. They are ends in themselves because they are the only beings with a nature such that they are an absolute end. — Bob Ross

I'm not seeing why that matters though. All this seems to imply is that minds are beings that are ends in themselves. It doesn't prove why anyone should value this, its just a claim.

Which premise do you disagree with? — Bob Ross

Just why ends in themselves should matter beyond our desire or opinion that they should matter. I have a feeling reading Mww's response, that this is covered more thoroughly by Kant. He may be better to consult going forward. :)

The reasoning demonstrates that even an infinite regress falls into a finite regress of causality.
— Philosophim

Why is that? I'm a little slow today — jgill

That's the OP. Basically if you state that everything has a cause, you either get to the point where you you have the potential for a finite chain of causality, or an infinite regress. The point is that if you take the entire set of the infinite regress and ask, "What caused it to be an infinite regress?" you realize that's the finite end. It simply is, there's no prior explanation for its being.

Meh. Causality is not found in formal logic.

Certainly not in modal logic.

A first cause is not logically necessary. — Banno

Its found in the logic of the OP. And yes, its concluded that if causality exists, there is a first cause. Feel free to show why its wrong, I would be happy to see if someone can poke a hole in it! I summed it above to jgill. Feel free to ask any questions for clarity on the OP.

We know some things don't (have causality). That ought be enough to put this to rest. — Banno

That would confirm my point actually. Something that does not have a prior cause is a first cause. What examples were you thinking about?

I've answered on a number of occasions, the subject is philosophy of mathematics, and you haven't responded, other than repeating your point. — Wayfarer

The point being you haven't indicated where they exist if not in the brain.

I've said that numbers and other mathematical concepts are abstractions, to which your reply has been 'what are they made from'? But it is absurd to claim that mathematical concepts are physical. They solely comprise relations of ideas. — Wayfarer

Why is it absurd? If the brain is physical, and it can relate ideas, math is a physical result of this relation. I've noted before a rock can't create math. Nor can I fish through the air and math appears. Its not located on any other plane of existence, and it surely don't come from 'nothing'. If you can't tell me where its located apart from the physical realm of brains, which clearly makes sense to me, the absurdity is your claim, not mine.

It's certainly true that the h. sapien brain is uniquely equipped to discern these relations, but that no way proves that they are the product of hominid neurophysiology. At best it shows that the brain has evolved in such a way that it has attained the ability to understand such things. — Wayfarer

I much prefer this discussion then passive aggressive insults when there's disagreement. I view math as a construction of the brain to represent its ability to create discrete experiences, or what might also be called 'identities'. 'An' identity, is one. Take another one and put them in what we call a 'group', and its two. Math is the language and logic of our ability to identify. It does not exist in the universe separate from ourselves. It only exists and makes sense to that which can identify and reason though the logical results of having that capability.

I acknowledge this a contested subject. There is no settled answer — Wayfarer

Which is fine. Admitting that my approach had some validity, but you believe because its unproven you would rather view it the other way has my respect.

So, a platonist answer is that numbers are not to empirical objects, but are objects of reason. — Wayfarer

As I've noted, reason is a physical process that brains do. Reason again does not exist in a separate dimension. This is why I keep coming back to this. I'm trying to point out that stating something comes from reason isn't an argument that its not physical, if reason itself is physical. Our ability to imagine that reason is not physical, does not make it so. I understand the ideas behind Platonism, but I personally do not find it carries any evidential weight. I see it as a unicorn argument. A very clear and distinct identity, but ultimately fiction.

The demand to prove 'what numbers are made of' and 'where they exist' only illustrates the failure to understand this point, not an argument against it. — Wayfarer

The point I'm making is that all of human reason is physical as it comes from the brain, and the brain is physical. I have science backing me up on this. There is evidence that points to this conclusion. I am very open to seeing evidence that this is not the case. But stating, "Reason dictates its not physical" misses my point. If reason is physical, anything concluded by reason is physical as well. If reason is not physical, what is it? Where is it? Can we point some evidence of reason existing apart from the creation of a human brain?

You have failed to do so, and are instead doing me a favor by not calling me a name. How noble and strong you are!
— Philosophim

You will notice that I edited out that remark a long time before your reply appeared, but as you've brought it up, the description I had in mind was 'scientism'. And I'm not the least concerned with your 'tongue lashing', only the tedium of having to deal with it. — Wayfarer

If you edited that out, thank you. I much prefer polite conversation with you. If you don't want to deal with the tedium of my tongue lashing, keep personal insults out of it. We'll be fine then.

Your entire ouvre rests of just one claim: science proves consciousness is the product of the brain and that all that is unknown is how. But that was just the subject of the bet:

Back to the bet between Koch and Chalmers: They agreed that, for Koch to win, the evidence for a neural signature of consciousness must be “clear.” That word “clear” doomed Koch. — Wayfarer

The bet was that we would find the direct mechanical brain correlation to consciousness in 25 years. The bet was not that consciousness does not come from the brain.

to say that "logic" necessitates a first cause is not the same as saying the "nature of existence" (whatever that means) necessitates a first cause. Being is not required to conform to our understanding of either logic or the nature of existence. Only we are. — Arne

True. But logic in general is our best tool to analyze whether ideas fit in with the nature of existence as we know it. In this particular case however, logic is all we need. Its a binary question. Infinite regress, or finite regress. The reasoning demonstrates that even an infinite regress falls into a finite regress of causality. Considering I can think of no option besides this binary, its the most reasonable conclusion we can reach with what we know.

And this is good, sensible place to leave it. — J

Yeah, good conversation J! I'll catch you around in another thread.

We simply have the true definition of unicorn that already exists in the verbal model of the actual world. — PL Olcott

Right. But that verbal model always boils down to needing something synthetic to understand the terminology at the end of the day. Further, what if you have two different sets of people who have different ideas of what a true unicorn is? That's the problem when you note analytic is 'true'. Its not really true.

My purpose in this post is to unequivocally divide analytic from synthetic even if this requires defining analytic(olcott) and synthetic(olcott). — PL Olcott

I get that. The point I'm making is you haven't unequivocally done so. Look into the history of philosophy about the terms. Its centuries of bickering back and forth with no agreement. My former advice still stands. Let the words die. Indicate the concepts you want in an argument without using the words.

That brains create consciousness? We've figured that out.
— Philosophim

Did we figure it out in the sense of figuring out the truth of a proposition — sime

According to modern day science, it has been concluded that the brain that causes consciousness. Just like an engine runs a car. The question is figuring out how the engine runs.

I think the problem is something like this: You want to say that “Consciousness can only be identified through behaviors” and also “Therefore, anything with certain specified behaviors is conscious.” I’m not persuaded by the idea that “being alive” consists of behaviors, but let’s grant it. — J

That's fair and kind. My question really is, "If consciousness cannot be measured by the subjects experience, how else have we measured it over the years?" To my mind, we have to observe that a being is aware of their environment and can adapt to it. This applies to beings such as animals as well. Sometimes consciousness bounces around back only to people, so just clarifying from my end.

The argument is still shaky. The fact that (at the moment) we can only identify consciousness through behaviors doesn’t mean that all things that exhibit those behaviors must be conscious. Compare: Some Xs are Y; a is an X; therefore a is Y. This doesn’t follow. — J

Let me clarify what I think works here. If our definition of objective consciousness is measured through behaviors, that doesn't mean something that would fit the criteria of objective consciousness has subjective consciousness. And I agree. In fact, I believe it is currently impossible to know another's subjective consciousness, so we can't use it as an objective measurement.

Wouldn’t it be prudent, then, to assume that our current reliance on behavioral markers to identify consciousness is an unfortunate crutch, and that there is no important connection between the two? After all, we know that behaviors don’t cause consciousness, but something does. When we learn what that something is, we may be able to abandon functional “explanations” entirely. — J

Its an unfortunate limitation in objectivity. We cannot objectively know what a subjective consciousness is beyond our own experiences. Did you know that there are people who have no inner monologue? They cannot imagine speaking to themselves. Same with visual. There are some people who cannot visualize things. I can do both. How can I relate to and understand that at a subjective level? Its as impossible for me as it is impossible for them to have any notion of what it is like to have an inner monologue or envision something when they close their eyes. Its like if I claimed, "Yeah, I have psychic powers and can read minds." None of us would ever understand that subjective experience. We would prove it through tests and behavior.

A final thought: Perhaps all you’re saying is that AIs and robots and other artifacts might be conscious, for all we know. — J

If AIs meet the behavioral definition of consciousness, then they are objectively conscious. Remember, even a dog can show consciousness. It doesn't mean they have a human subjective conscious experience. Its beyond our knowing. The point I'm ultimately making is that we never have been able to objectively judge consciousness through knowing the beings subjective experience. Further, logically with the technology we have, we will not be able to in the near future, if ever.

If there are no brains in the universe, there is no math
— Philosophim

There is a long history of the ‘maths is discovered, not invented’ school of thought which says numbers are not produced by the brain but discerned by rational insight. But this is nowadays considered controversial because it appears to undercut materialism. — Wayfarer

Oh, who considers it controversial? You? I consider your idea that consciousness does not come from the brain as controversial, as do many other philosophers. But that's not a very good argument isn't it? In fact, that's not an argument at all.

The brain produces or is involved in producing neurochemicals, endocrines and so on, but it doesn’t produce numbers or words. Your ontology is simply that because matter is fundamental, the brain is material then it must be the case. — Wayfarer

I've been asking for some time now, if the brain doesn't produce them, where are they? What material are they made out of? I've clearly pointed out that the brain, which is physical, can retain information, make judgements, etc. This includes numbers.

IN fact most of what you write comprises what you think must obviously be true, because 'science shows it'. There's rather derogatory term in philosophy for that attitude but I'll refrain from using it. — Wayfarer

Yes, and I've asked you to give me an example where science demonstrates that its wrong, or give me philosophical examples that would give evidential weight to consciousness not coming from the brain. You have failed to do so, and are instead doing me a favor by not calling me a name. How noble and strong you are!

Concepts are not physical things. Find me one reputable philosopher who says otherwise. — Wayfarer

Appeal to authority now? I laid out clear points with clear falsifiability and asked you to provide examples of it being false. You cannot. That is why you retreat to this.

That brains create consciousness? We've figured that out.
— Philosophim

This again demonstrates that you're not 'facing up to the problem of consciousness'. — Wayfarer

I'm not the one running away here. Your inability to actually show why I'm not facing up to the problem of consciousness is your problem, then magically declaring it as such, is your problem.

I'll bow out — Wayfarer

You know, you could have avoided embarrassing yourself and getting a tongue lashing from me if you had just done this at the start. "Well Philosophim, we've been going back and forth for a while now, and I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Appreciate the conversation, I'll catch you another time."

Because it was a nice conversation up until now and I had a lot of respect for your engagements and attempt to defend your position. Next time you feel like a conversation is going nowhere, just politely end it.

But these atoms in my brain produce consciousness," I think to myself. And I wonder, "why are these brain atoms producing consciousness? What is special about them?" "Well maybe when you arrange atoms in that way they are conscious?" "But Not Aristotle," I say to myself, "that is entirely an ad hoc explanation and besides, why would the arrangement of the atoms matter?" And I am unable to answer. And that's the hard problem as I understand it. If you have an answer to that problem, I would be happy to hear it. — NotAristotle

Sure, on the question of how brains create consciousness, we're still trying to figure it out. That brains create consciousness? We've figured that out. Why do brains create consciousness? Its the same as asking why do two gases at room temperature combine together to form a liquid that we need to drink to live. Existence is magical and fascinating. What matter and energy can do is astonishing. Why can it do that? Why isn't everything just a bunch of rocks? The fact that there exists anything instead of just 'nothing' amazes me. Why does it? A question for humanity that may never be answered.

We're just going around in circles Patterner, and I don't think we're reaching each other here. Lets agree to disagree. Good conversation.

‘In our brains’ is another reification. It has no location, it isn’t in any place. If an intelligent creature were to evolve by a completely separate biological pathway, they would discover the concept of equals, But it’s a concept, an idea, it is not a physical thing. — Wayfarer

What I'm trying to note is that abstract concepts do not exist apart from brains. If there are no brains in the universe, there is no math. Your brain stores memories. https://www.livescience.com/how-the-brain-stores-memories#:~:text=The%20most%20important%20is%20the,storage%20to%20long%2Dterm%20storage.

We know that people who have brain damage in the hypocampus can no longer make new memories. Anteriograde Amnesia. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/23221-anterograde-amnesia

Your brain stores the memory of math. Your brain can plan, judge, and create abstractions. All of this is a physical process. We can create communication and transfer this information to other brains. Tell the sky and it does nothing. Tell a rock and it does not care. Tell a brain and you have the continuation of math.

Something which has no location, no place, it is nothing. Concepts and ideas are physical things that we think about and can communicate to each other over physical mediums. Is there some science that demonstrates that I'm wrong?

Being alive is not a behavior, it’s a state or condition. This allows us to say things like, “I don’t care how ‛lifelike’ the behavior of X is, the fact remains that it’s not alive.” — J

Something being life-like means that it fulfills some of the behaviors of a life, but not all of the behaviors of a life. Think of it this way. Do you know what any other person's subjective experience is like? No, you don't. You have behaviors. We have never objectively defined consciousness through subjective experiences, because its impossible to know what anyone else's subjective experience is but our own.

So no, the only way we do identify consciousness is through behavior. You can't define it based on someone's subjective experience, because its impossible to know what someone's else's subjective experience is right?

The Oxford Living Dictionary defines consciousness as "The state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.", "A person's awareness or perception of something." and "The fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world." This "awareness" can be tested by behavior. For example, we are not aware of our 500th's cell in our left leg. We are not conscious of it.

You can do tests to see if a person is aware and responsive to their surroundings. What you cannot test is their subjective experience while they do so. We never have been able to. Consciousness has never been objectively defined by it. So its always been irrelevant what the subject experiences in identifying consciousness from an objective standpoint.

No, it’s an intellectual process. 2+2=4 is an intellectual operation. There is no such thing as ‘=‘ in the physical world, it is an abstraction. — Wayfarer

It does exist in the physical world. It exists in our physical brains. Right? If it doesn't exist there, where does it exist?

That is the Hard Problem. "Through our physical brain" is a where, not a how. "In the sky" does not tell us how flight is accomplished. "In our legs" does not tell us how walking is accomplished. "In our brain" does not tell us how consciousness is accomplished. The details are not insignificant. They are remarkably important. And they are unknown. — Patterner

Sure, but its not the hard problem. Its just a problem. We learn more every day how the brain works in both medicine and science. All of this was done going with the knowledge that consciousness comes from the brain, and waiting to be proven wrong. So far, its not wrong. Its a problem to map our behaviors of consciousness to the brain for sure. But that's easy and we set out with confidence that it will be solved one day. The hard problem, the problem that in all likelihood will never be solved, is an objective science that can determine the subjective experience of a consciousness.

But I think we're repeating at this point. I've noted my stance, and you've noted yours. If we disagree still at this point, I think we can both agree that's just going to be the way it is.

But the existence of 'an immaterial entity' was not the point at issue. The claim being considered was this:

It (the act of typing) is physical in some respects, but the salient point, our understanding of what is being said, the expression of intentional meaning - that is not a physical process.

What is the non-physical part? A sub-space where my consciousness resides?
— Philosophim

The interpretation of meaning. The constant, underlying, subliminal processes of 'this means that', 'this is that', 'this word has that meaning' - otherwise known as judgement. That is not a physical process. — Wayfarer

Yes, judgement is a physical process by your brain. Rocks don't do that right? Brains do. Just a cursory examination of chemistry and physics demonstrates impossibilities right before our eyes. To an ignorant mind, none of these wonders should happen. Fire is a thing of magic. Water is two gases at room temperature, yet becomes liquid when they join. Why then is it suddenly odd that brains have consciousness? There is nothing in matter and energy that notes that this cannot be. Further, there is nothing outside of matter and energy that shows this to be. The only logical conclusion is that matter and energy in the right form can create consciousness. This shouldn't be shocking or a revelation either. Its just one more magical piece of physics and chemistry.

It is a philosophical argument: that the act of rational judgement is not reducible to the physical or explainable in physical terms. — Wayfarer

That is not a philosophical argument. That is a claim of fact or science. If you state, "I believe that one day we will find that consciousness exists outside of the physical", that's philosophy. Philosophy is 'maybe', science and facts assert. And science and facts clearly assert that consciousness, as measured by behavior, is physical. If you want to claim that's false, it must be a scientific assertion, not a philosophical supposition. We can suppose the facts are wrong or incomplete, but we cannot philosophically assert that it is proven that this incompleteness indicates consciousness is not physical.

Consider what is involved in judgement - every time you make an argument, you're inferring causal relations and equivalences, saying that 'this means that....' or 'because of this, then....'. These processes inhere entirely in the relations of ideas. And evidence for that claim has already been given, which is that the same ideas can be expressed in an endless variety of physical forms whilst still retaining their meaning. — Wayfarer

I can play a song on a piano, and then play it on a harp. Does that make the song immaterial? No. The song, as played, is physical. The song as notes, are a physical record. The song as thought of, is retained through the physical brain. The expression of that song is unique in each way. It is NOT the same thing to play a song through a harp as it is through a piano. It is a different and unique physical expression which evokes similarities within one another. We construct a notation that represents sound wave frequencies, which are then played through different physical mediums for a different color of that sound wave.

Remove the physical air, and the sound does not exist. Remove the physical page and it ceases to be a record. Remove the brain that remembers it, and the music is gone forever. It does not go to a special place or is remembered in the either. Its simply gone. Can you show me where judgements go without brains? Or where judgements are made apart from brains? No. Thus the idea that our judgements and ideas are somehow not physical is merely an idea, not a confirmed reality.

Humans are metaphysical beings because they can see meaning above and beyond the sensory. They seek to understand principles and causes. — Wayfarer

That's not metaphysical, that's just another aspect of the physical. Your senses are not the same physical part of your body that processes those senses. You can have brain blindness for example. Your eyes see fine, but your brain cannot process the information. This is all physical. Many animals can take meaning above and beyond the sensory to plan. Crows for example can solve basic puzzles. Do we look at them and find anything more than neurons? No. We're simply a more advanced neuronal system that's built upon the other basic brain systems that we need to function. Do you think the lower brain which regulates your breathing and digestion is something other than physical? Your autonomous nervous system? The veins which help regulate and coax blood throughout your body? Life is full of amazing physical reactions and adaptations to different stimuli. Again, why balk at consciousness as a building upon that?

As far as the effects of drugs and inebriants on the brain, it is obvious that this is so. But it does not establish that consciousness is a product of the brain. It is still quite feasible that the brain as a central organ behaves in the sense of a receiver — Wayfarer

Taken alone, no drugs and inebrient alone determine consciousness is a product of the brain. But taken together withe years of neuroscience and study, there comes a point where its the only thing that makes sense at this time. Its not 'feasible' that the brain is simply a receiver, its 'pluasible'. Just like its plausible that all of our actions are controlled by some evil demon entity out there. 'plausiblity' is just an imaginative idea that seems like it could work in reality, yet has never been demonstrated to be true in reality. We have no evidence of the brain being a receiver to something outside of matter and energy. So its a fun idea, but fun ideas are beyond counting. An idea without anything to demonstrate it has legs in reality, is a unicorn. The idea that consciousness does not come from brains is a unicorn. It is nothing but a hope and a wish based on there being some gaps in our complete understanding of how the brain functions.

As Patterner pointed out, consciousness is not empirically observable. — NotAristotle

Subjective consciousness is not empirically observable. Behavioral consciousness is. That is the only objective way any of us will, or likely ever, know consciousness within another being.

Or perhaps to put the question more precisely: How is the brain different from non-conscious physical stuff? My answer is that it's not different and that's the mystery. — NotAristotle

The brain and neurons are very different. That, so far is where we've encountered all kinds of natural bug, animal, and human consciousness. Its not like we've ever gone up to a rock and had it behave consciously. The only reason its a mystery is you think that its impossible for consciousness to come out of physical matter and energy. Why? It clearly does. Is it some necessary desire that we want ourselves to be above physical reality? Because if you eliminate that desire, its clear as day that consciousness is physical by even a cursory glance into medicine and brain research. I just don't get the mystery or the resistance.

I understand. But that is not what the Hard Problem is. The Hard Problem is explaining how subjective experience exists at all. — Patterner

Lets break it down carefully. When you say, "How subjective experience exists at all", its important to clarify what this means. The "at all" seems to imply its more of a "Why?" then "How?" Because how subjective experience exists in a broad sense is through our physical brains. This is without question. All we're worried about is the details in how the brain generates it.

If you mean, "Why?", no one knows. Just like no one knows why anything exists. Its an unanswerable question.

I can see the why part being part of the hard problem, but not the how part. Its just like answering how water and hydrogen combine to create water. The how isn't hard. Why does water exist at all? That's hard.

Although the verbal model of the actual world already exists it may take millions of labor years to write this all down. — PL Olcott

Then it sounds like we don't have a true definition of a fictional unicorn without a lot of work. In which case, is it analytic or synthetic?

It still wouldn't be time travel. It would be recreating the past in the future. Just like recreating a natural diamond perfectly in a lab, doesn't make another natural diamond, rather it is a natural appearing lab grown diamond. — LuckyR

This. You can't go to the past. You can only recreate a setup of matter and energy that existed in the past. Once you did, it would then continue identically as it did in the past unless any specific alterations were made.

The axioms of the verbal model of the actual world stipulates that unicorns are fictional. — PL Olcott

I understand that. But what is the true definition of a fictional unicorn?

While I can’t know what the subjective experience of a given something is, it seems probable that most things don’t have any. I assume you agree with this. So we’re just trying to draw the most likely line as to consciousness. You say with some assurance that AI programs already have limited consciousness. Is there any evidence for this beyond their behaviors? A purely functionalist argument can’t resolve this, since it begs the question. — J

It all boils down to understanding how we know about consciousness today. Its not through the subjective experience of something. Its through its behavior. There is a thought experiment called a philosophical zombie that has the behavior of consciousness, yet lacks the subjective experience that we would associate with consciousness. The hard problem shows that its irrelevant. Since we cannot know the subjective experience of anything, we can only go by behavior. The subjective experience of something that behaves consciously is currently outside of our reach.

Not quite sure why the hard problem rules out denying consciousness to computers at some future date, or why you describe the hard problem as “true.” — J

Mostly because I don't give weight to what 'may' happen. Ask someone 30 years ago what they thought 2024 would be like and they wouldn't even be close. So all we have to go on is today. Today, we do not have the scientific means to experience another consciously behaving entities' subjective experience. Meaning that if we have an AI that ticks all the behaviors of consciousness, we cannot claim that it does, or does not have a subjective experience. Its impossible for us to know. Since we cannot objectively evaluate a subjective experience, all we can do to measure consciousness is through another being's behavior.

Do I think that any non-living thing can be conscious? No, I’m strongly inclined, on the evidence, to believe that consciousness is exclusively a biological property. — J

How about we reword this a bit? Can a non-biological entity have the subjective experience of a biological entity? No. They are two different physical mediums. I can play a song on a harp or a keyboard, and the fundamental experience will have an inseparable difference in physical expression. So if an AI is conscious, its subjective experience is that of a non-biological being, not a biological being.

Unicorns are fictional animals that are {horses} with {horns}. — PL Olcott

Sure. Replace all I said with actual encounters in the world with people's drawings. Is there a degree of bending we can do with a fictional creature and still keep its identity? When is a unicorn not a unicorn, especially if its a made up creature?

Life/biology is the measure and meaning of all things. — boagie

That's nice, but how does that tie into the OP?

I am merely trying to define the term {analytic truthmaker} on the basis of the conventional meaning of those two terms. I can perfectly specify exactly what is and what is not {analytic} for all those people that have made up their minds that they don't believe in the analytic / synthetic distinction. — PL Olcott

Alright, I warned you. :)

Is this statement analytic or synthetic?

"Unicorns are horses with horns on their head"

Lets say you say yes. Now imagine that I go to a ranch where a man has glued a curled goat horn on a horse and is calling it a unicorn. Of course, none of us call it a unicorn. Which means are analytic statement wasn't actually true. But maybe we can go back and fix it.

"Unicorns are horses with straight horns on their head that have grown from their body."

Later we find a horse in the wild that has the Shope papilloma virus and it has caused a straight horn to grow out of the back of its head. Since this fits our true analytic definition, its a unicorn right? Well, no. So lets go back again.

"Unicorns are horses with straight horns coming out of their center of their forehead (Does the the angle of the horn matter? What material is the horn made out of?) which is a non-cancerous growth out of their body."

As you can see, for our analytic statement to be 'true', it needs to be based off of actual sense experience. But aren't things that require us to have sense experience to confirm that they are true make it a synthetic statement?

Lets go even simpler with math. 1+1=2. That's analytic right?

Well what is a 1? How do I tell from that sentence alone what one is? Same with two? Don't I have to actually experience what a '1' is first? But if I have to experience what a '1' is, isn't that synthetic?

Its really a question about knowledge. If you're interested, I have a paper I've worked on for years here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1 There's a summary from the first person besides me who posted that breaks it down perfectly. If you're interested in exploring the details from that summary, feel free to read the rest.

She was a neuroscientist involved in brain-mapping who suffered a major stroke, which resulted in her attaining an insight into what she descibed as 'Nirvāṇa' (her 'stroke of insight') due to the left hemisphere of the brain shutting down. But note that this was a first-person experience - there would have been no way for her to tell, as a neuroscientist, what that experience might be in another subject, without having undergone it. — Wayfarer

And I agree with this. We can objectively map physical processes to behavior, and even map physical processes to someone's claimed subjective experience, but we will never know what its like to be the subject experiencing. Its very similar to the thought experiment where someone reads all about an apple, but has never seen one. We can describe the apple in excruciating detail, but you won't know the experience of seeing, feeling, or tasting an apple until you actually see, feel, and taste it.

That being said, she had a physical stroke and a physical reaction to it. The inability to know what it is like to be a physical entity having an experience does not negate the fact that certain physical entities can have experiences.

Rationality is a capturing and understanding of the world that allows planning and use of that reality accurately.
— Philosophim

No, that is described in critical philosophy as the instrumentalisation of reason, although I'm guessing that won't of interest to those here. — Wayfarer

Yeah, sounds like we're getting off topic here. Maybe something to explore in another thread.

I'm questioning what you regard as obvious. What imparts that order? If you zero out the HD it is physically the same matter, it weighs the same, has all the same physical constituents, but it contains no information. The information is conveyed by the arrangement of matter. What arranges it? I mean, computers don't emerge spontaneously from the sky, they're the product of human intelligence. — Wayfarer

True. And modern day computers were built up over over a century of work at this point. Basic computers start out as a switch board, which is just a bunch of electrical gates that you turn off and on to set up results based on the combination of those on and off gates. Who would have guessed from such a simple premise we would build the modern world of information, movies, and games?

Now of course a computer did not spontaneously create itself. But we've created computers to the point that when you hook electricity to them and turn them on, they run themselves. In fact, there are whole computers that take very little, if any human input and run whole systems. In general when you send a message to the computer, you're not sending it to the hardware, but the software. That software converts and organizes your input to interface with the hardware, manipulating the gates to open and close as needed. These signals are then converted back into instructions that are passed up to display a result that is understandable to people. Its really quite magical and awe inspiring when you realize what is produced from the machine.

However, the question of who created the computer and its software does not deny that it is purely physical. AI has learning models now that garner new information and come up with new results based purely on its own failures. Here's a summary of AI and machine learning if you're interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RixMPF4xis

And that is the key difference between a computer and a human. For a computer, there's nothing more the file could be. It isn't "like anything" to be a computer. But we have a different experience, which gives rise to all of the problems discussed on this thread. — J

Are you sure? That's a VERY important part of the hard problem. You can't claim to know what the subjective experience is of something. We can claim that something does not have consciousness only by its behavior. We cannot make any claims to its subjective experience. With AI we already have programs that have limited types of consciousness. We have autonomous drones that automate reactions based on information. Yes, it is not human consciousness, but it is at the very least beyond the consciousness of a bug like a roach.

You have to understand, if you accept the hard problem as true, you can NEVER state, "Computers do not have a subjective experience." You don't know. Can you be a computer processing AI algorithms? Nope. So if we create a machine and program that exhibits all the basic behaviors of consciousness, you have no idea if it has a subjective experience or not.

Incidentally, what would constitute evidence of this claim? What would you be looking for? — Wayfarer

Outstanding question. I did a summary of three points for someone else who asked the same question earlier in this thread. Of course, its not limited to that. Let me find and repaste them here.

1. Consciousness is able to exist despite a lack of physical capability to do so.

For example, move your consciousness apart from your head where it sits into the next room that you cannot currently see.

2. Demonstrate a conscious entity that has no physical or energetic correlation.

For example, prove that a completely brain dead body is conscious. Or Inebriate someone to a high blood alcohol level and demonstrate that their consciousness is completely unaffected.

3. If consciousness is not matter and/or energy, please demonstrate evidence of its existence without using a God of the Gaps approach.

An inability to pinpoint the exact physical workings of consciousness does not negate that it is physical. We understand that a car needs an engine to run like a body needs a brain to be conscious. I don't have to understand electromagnetism to understand that a car needs an engine to run, and I don't need to understand the full mechanics of how the brain works to understand you need a brain to be conscious (in humans at least).

It is because he considers only rational agents to have the sufficient freedom to obey their own representational laws as opposed to the laws of nature.

I say all minds have sufficient freedom to do it, we just don’t have the same amount each. — Bob Ross

That's fair. The only potential problem I see is how to justify eating or using animals for materials or labor. Beyond animals, there's now also the question of insects. Do they have minds? Where does a mind begin and end? If we can't treat them as solely means, then do we have a right to eat them?

Of course, this has been answered in other cultures. Jainism preaches that we should never kill animals. I suppose the FIS can note its a necessary evil, but that still leads to points of comparison. Why are animals and insects ends in themselves but clearly have less value compared to people? Its an assumption we all agree upon, but I don't know if there's a clear explanation from the FET and FIS alone.

#1 is proven by the argument for FET: if one is rational, then they cannot treat a mind as solely a means towards an end without conceding a contradiction. — Bob Ross

The only issue is that P2: Person's are ends in themselves isn't proven, its more of a given assumption. Which is fine when you're trying to prove a point. If minds are ends in themselves, then we can say x,y,z. But it all hinges on the reader accepting that a mind is an end in itself and that ends in themselves matter. For a person who already agrees or does not want to question this, it can work. This is more of an apologetics philosophy for morality then a paper of proof.

Apologetics in Christianity is an approach of the religion to the common moral person. Its target audience is a person who wants to believe in God, or has a few upper level hang ups about God. Generally apologetics make a lot of assumptions and don't worry about proving a lot of their premises, only drawing conclusions from these assumptions. I think apologetics serve a very good purpose. They get a person who doesn't need or want to think too deeply about the topic to more easily make better decisions in their lives. Same with the paper you've put here. For someone who already believes in morality and wants to be moral, its a rationale to continue to do so. Not all of us are crazy people who want to dive headlong into writing and questioning the nature of "what is" for days on end. :D

Do you agree, Philosophim, with FET and FIS? Or are you just granting them as internally coherent? — Bob Ross

I'm granting them as acceptably internally coherent. For me, its not enough to state that FET and FIS are 'the' moral theory. Its not that I don't think minds are the greatest things that can be, its the 'end in themselves' argument that isn't enough for me. Why is it important to be a end in itself? What does that even mean? (I know you've answered this, just showing my thought process) Why is it that we have value and morality at all? I'm the type of person that can accept a set of assumptions that lead to a conclusion, but then I have to question the assumptions after. I have to know Bob. And its not that I can't be moral in the meantime or hold a set of values until I find out more. It just has to go deeper.

We've been discussing the objective morality proposal in another thread, so you can see how deep this goes for me. That being said, I want to emphasize again that I find value in these topics. We have all levels of different people in life, and a theory like this could fit someone's personality to give a little justification and happiness in being moral. If it is this or being thrown into moral nihilism, its better to have this any day!

I take a much more naturalistic approach: I say nature, especially evolution, makes no leaps. It is clear to me that the vast majority of animals (although I don’t know about literally all of them) have sufficient freedom to set out a means towards their end, even if they lack the highly rational capacities we humans have. My dog clearly is not rational, but she has her moments: if the matt is wet outside, then she will wait farther back for me to let her in so that her feet don’t get wet. That’s a deliberate action sparked by her making a free choice to not get her feet wet and trying to actualize that prevention by setting out waiting farther back as a means towards that end. Anyways, I am a compatiblist when it comes to free will and don’t believe in souls. — Bob Ross

These are my thoughts as well. Kant came from an era where it was still too easy to dismiss animals as having any worth, and I believe he's a victim of that culture. I often wonder how the culture I've been raised to think in affects my own outlook, and if in a few generations from now they will look back on my thoughts as barbaric or hopelessly naive. :) Anyway, good discussion Bob! I hope Mww comes along and gives it a good read.

It's physical in some respects, but the salient point, our understanding of what is being said, the expression of intentional meaning - that is not a physical process. — Wayfarer

But where is the evidence that its not? I don't mind the declaration, but there has to be evidence. If my brain bleeds do I not have a stroke? If I'm the part of my brain that processes sight is damage, my eyes work, but I cannot see anymore. If I drink alcohol, won't my words start slurring and I start thinking that the jerk to my left is really "A schtand up guy?"

The interpretation of meaning. The constant, underlying, subliminal processes of 'this means that', 'this is that', 'this word has that meaning' - otherwise known as judgement. That is not a physical process. — Wayfarer

But we can take things that impair our judgement, and this is because these substances affect the brain. If judgement was not a physical process, then nothing physical should be able to affect the process correct? Now I could grant that perhaps there is a third non-physical component that could act with the physical brain. I can get behind the idea. But do we have any evidence of this third non-physical component? If it interacts with the physical, then we can get evidence of it.

That is why Thomist philosophy (and Christianity generally) sees the human as a compound of body and soul (or psyche). Not that the soul exists objectively, but as the animating intelligence which makes the grasp of meaning possible. — Wayfarer

Again, this is a wonderful idea. But it has no evidence. I don't mind someone stating, "Its possible this idea is true, and we may find evidence for it in the future." But until evidence is found, it can make no factual declarations of its own, only suppositions.

I can have no justification for trusting a reasoning capacity I have as a consequence of natural selection, unless I am justified in trusting it simply in itself -- that is, believing what it tells me, in virtue of the content of the arguments it delivers. — Thomas Nagel, op cit

Then Nagel misunderstands natural selection. Natural selection is merely a note that species which survive in the world to the point of procreation continue on their genes. Rationality is a capturing and understanding of the world that allows planning and use of that reality accurately. Those that are not rational do not accurately capture reality, and if this inaccuracy is too high they would not be able to handle the dangers reality throws at them.

But the recognition of logical arguments as independently valid is a precondition of the acceptability of an evolutionary story about the source of that recognition. This means that the evolutionary hypothesis is acceptable only if reason does not need its support. At most it may show why the existence of reason need not be biologically mysterious. — Thomas Nagel, op cit

Again, he's missing the point. If we evolved to survive in reality, then logic necessarily reflects reality in the most accurate way we know. It all starts with, "Assume A" Can A be not A at the same time? No. And reality matches that. Logic is not an innate thing floating around existence. Its a well proven tool to accurately evaluate our ideas in a way that intends to match reality.