Alex O'Connor vs Frank Turek | The Moral Argument DEBATE

[Blues Man]

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

And that is a big if.

There is absolutely no evidence of some universal code of behavior. And for there to be one then there would have to be an absolute authority that authored that moral code.

There is none

Dude, I just showed it to you. Logic is universal and logic determines what standards are. Not some fucked up selfish man who wants to own people or fuck little kids. Logic tells you that those things are wrong and that if you do them there will be predictable consequences.

You showed me no proof that logic exists outside the minds of humans.

Logic, like math or science or music are discovered which means they exist outside of the minds of humans.

Why don't you prove your claim?

It is called scientific discovery.

Scientific Discovery (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

).

Nothing in that says that logic exists outside of the human mind.

Music wasn't discovers so much as it was invented. All the sounds in nature are the basis for music and our musical minds evolved with our intellect.

And you still are having difficulty separating the physical world from the world of the mind.

Again... everything is manifested by mind but that does not mean it doesn't exist independently from mind. We know it exists independently from mind because it is discovered and not invented.

not everything is manifested by the mind.

Some things will have existed whether or not humans ever did. Some things have only existed since the human mind could ponder them.

The sun would exist if there were never any people.

Beethoven's 9th would not exist if there were never any people

 

[Blues Man]

Science, math, music, art and logic are consequences of a material world. They are not consequences of mind.

Music is nothing but a collection of pleasing sounds. Those sounds would exist if there were no people to hear them.

Music evolved with people as they realized some sounds were more pleasing than others, and then that some combination of sounds was more pleasing than others.

The rules of music that we hold to such as chord construction, scales, harmonies etc are also a result of the architecture of our auditory system.

 

[ding]

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

And that is a big if.

There is absolutely no evidence of some universal code of behavior. And for there to be one then there would have to be an absolute authority that authored that moral code.

There is none

Dude, I just showed it to you. Logic is universal and logic determines what standards are. Not some fucked up selfish man who wants to own people or fuck little kids. Logic tells you that those things are wrong and that if you do them there will be predictable consequences.

You showed me no proof that logic exists outside the minds of humans.

Logic, like math or science or music are discovered which means they exist outside of the minds of humans.

Why don't you prove your claim?

It is called scientific discovery.

Scientific Discovery (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

).

Nothing in that says that logic exists outside of the human mind.

Music wasn't discovers so much as it was invented. All the sounds in nature are the basis for music and our musical minds evolved with our intellect.

And you still are having difficulty separating the physical world from the world of the mind.

Again... everything is manifested by mind but that does not mean it doesn't exist independently from mind. We know it exists independently from mind because it is discovered and not invented.

not everything is manifested by the mind.

Some things will have existed whether or not humans ever did. Some things have only existed since the human mind could ponder them.

The sun would exist if there were never any people.

Beethoven's 9th would not exist if there were never any people

Wrong. Everything is manifested through mind.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

A few years ago it occurred to me -- albeit with some shock to my scientific sensibilities -- that my two problems, that of a life‑breeding universe, and that of consciousness that can neither be identified nor located, might be brought together. That would be with the thought that mind, rather than being a late development in the evolution of organisms, had existed always: that this is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so.

I have been in experimental science long enough to know that when you have done an experiment that comes out surprisingly well, the thing to do is enjoy it, because the next time you try it, it may not work. So when this idea struck me, I was elated, I enjoyed it immensely. But I was also embarrassed, because this idea violated all my scientific feelings. It took only a few weeks, however, for me to realize that I was in excellent company. That kind of thought is not only deeply embedded in millenia‑old Eastern philosophies; it is stated explicitly or strongly implied in the writings of a number of great and quite recent physicists.

Perhaps it was in part because I am a biologist that the idea at first seemed so strange to me. Biologists tend to be embarrassed by consciousness. As it is an attribute of some living organisms, they feel that they should know about it, and should indeed be in position to straighten out physicists about it, whereas exactly the opposite is true. Physicists live with the problem of consciousness day in and day out. Early in this century it became evident to all physicists that the observer is an intrinsic component of every physical observation. Physical reality is what physicists recognize to be real. One cannot separate the recognition of existence from existence. As Erwin Schrödinger put it: “The world is a construct of our sensations, perceptions, memories. It is convenient to regard it as existing objectively on its own. But it certainly does not become manifest by its mere existence.”

Let me give a simple example of the intervention of mind in physical observation: Most readers are probably aware that radiation -- light, indeed all elementary particles -- exhibits simultaneously the properties of waves and of particles, though those properties are altogether different -- indeed, mutually exclusive. This is the prime example of a widespread class of relationships that Neils Bohr brought together in his principle of complementarity, which notes that numbers of phenomena, in and out of physics, exhibit such mutually exclusive sets of properties; one just has to live with them.

Enter consciousness: the physicist, setting up an experiment on radiation, decides beforehand which of those sets of properties he will encounter. If he does a wave experiment, he gets a wave answer; from a particle experiment he gets a particle answer. To this degree, all physical observation is subjective.

It is primarily physicists who in recent times have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington in 1928 wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time.... Recognizing that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

Von Weizsacker in 1971 states as “a new and, I feel, intelligible interpretation of quantum theory” what he calls his “Identity Hypothesis: Consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality.”

I like most of all Wolfgang Pauli’s formulation, from 1952: “To us . . . the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

What this kind of thought means essentially is that one has no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves.

As for this seeming a strange viewpoint for a scientist -- at least until one gets used to it -- as in so many other instances, what is wanted is not so much an acceptable concept as an acceptable rhetoric. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious.

 

[Blues Man]

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

And that is a big if.

There is absolutely no evidence of some universal code of behavior. And for there to be one then there would have to be an absolute authority that authored that moral code.

There is none

Dude, I just showed it to you. Logic is universal and logic determines what standards are. Not some fucked up selfish man who wants to own people or fuck little kids. Logic tells you that those things are wrong and that if you do them there will be predictable consequences.

You showed me no proof that logic exists outside the minds of humans.

Logic, like math or science or music are discovered which means they exist outside of the minds of humans.

Why don't you prove your claim?

It is called scientific discovery.

Scientific Discovery (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

).

Nothing in that says that logic exists outside of the human mind.

Music wasn't discovers so much as it was invented. All the sounds in nature are the basis for music and our musical minds evolved with our intellect.

And you still are having difficulty separating the physical world from the world of the mind.

Again... everything is manifested by mind but that does not mean it doesn't exist independently from mind. We know it exists independently from mind because it is discovered and not invented.

not everything is manifested by the mind.

Some things will have existed whether or not humans ever did. Some things have only existed since the human mind could ponder them.

The sun would exist if there were never any people.

Beethoven's 9th would not exist if there were never any people

Wrong. Everything is manifested through mind.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

A few years ago it occurred to me -- albeit with some shock to my scientific sensibilities -- that my two problems, that of a life‑breeding universe, and that of consciousness that can neither be identified nor located, might be brought together. That would be with the thought that mind, rather than being a late development in the evolution of organisms, had existed always: that this is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so.

I have been in experimental science long enough to know that when you have done an experiment that comes out surprisingly well, the thing to do is enjoy it, because the next time you try it, it may not work. So when this idea struck me, I was elated, I enjoyed it immensely. But I was also embarrassed, because this idea violated all my scientific feelings. It took only a few weeks, however, for me to realize that I was in excellent company. That kind of thought is not only deeply embedded in millenia‑old Eastern philosophies; it is stated explicitly or strongly implied in the writings of a number of great and quite recent physicists.

Perhaps it was in part because I am a biologist that the idea at first seemed so strange to me. Biologists tend to be embarrassed by consciousness. As it is an attribute of some living organisms, they feel that they should know about it, and should indeed be in position to straighten out physicists about it, whereas exactly the opposite is true. Physicists live with the problem of consciousness day in and day out. Early in this century it became evident to all physicists that the observer is an intrinsic component of every physical observation. Physical reality is what physicists recognize to be real. One cannot separate the recognition of existence from existence. As Erwin Schrödinger put it: “The world is a construct of our sensations, perceptions, memories. It is convenient to regard it as existing objectively on its own. But it certainly does not become manifest by its mere existence.”

Let me give a simple example of the intervention of mind in physical observation: Most readers are probably aware that radiation -- light, indeed all elementary particles -- exhibits simultaneously the properties of waves and of particles, though those properties are altogether different -- indeed, mutually exclusive. This is the prime example of a widespread class of relationships that Neils Bohr brought together in his principle of complementarity, which notes that numbers of phenomena, in and out of physics, exhibit such mutually exclusive sets of properties; one just has to live with them.

Enter consciousness: the physicist, setting up an experiment on radiation, decides beforehand which of those sets of properties he will encounter. If he does a wave experiment, he gets a wave answer; from a particle experiment he gets a particle answer. To this degree, all physical observation is subjective.

It is primarily physicists who in recent times have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington in 1928 wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time.... Recognizing that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

Von Weizsacker in 1971 states as “a new and, I feel, intelligible interpretation of quantum theory” what he calls his “Identity Hypothesis: Consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality.”

I like most of all Wolfgang Pauli’s formulation, from 1952: “To us . . . the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

What this kind of thought means essentially is that one has no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves.

As for this seeming a strange viewpoint for a scientist -- at least until one gets used to it -- as in so many other instances, what is wanted is not so much an acceptable concept as an acceptable rhetoric. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious.

So you're sating that the earth is only in existence because it was manifested in a human mind?

Where was that mind before the earth was manifested?

 

[ding]

Science, math, music, art and logic are consequences of a material world. They are not consequences of mind.

Music is nothing but a collection of pleasing sounds. Those sounds would exist if there were no people to hear them.

Music evolved with people as they realized some sounds were more pleasing than others, and then that some combination of sounds was more pleasing than others.

The rules of music that we hold to such as chord construction, scales, harmonies etc are also a result of the architecture of our auditory system.

Music is a consequences of a material world. Music is not a consequence of mind. Music is manifested and discovered by mind.

Quoting George Wald, Nobel Laureate, "...the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

 

[ding]

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

And that is a big if.

There is absolutely no evidence of some universal code of behavior. And for there to be one then there would have to be an absolute authority that authored that moral code.

There is none

Dude, I just showed it to you. Logic is universal and logic determines what standards are. Not some fucked up selfish man who wants to own people or fuck little kids. Logic tells you that those things are wrong and that if you do them there will be predictable consequences.

You showed me no proof that logic exists outside the minds of humans.

Logic, like math or science or music are discovered which means they exist outside of the minds of humans.

Why don't you prove your claim?

It is called scientific discovery.

Scientific Discovery (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

).

Nothing in that says that logic exists outside of the human mind.

Music wasn't discovers so much as it was invented. All the sounds in nature are the basis for music and our musical minds evolved with our intellect.

And you still are having difficulty separating the physical world from the world of the mind.

Again... everything is manifested by mind but that does not mean it doesn't exist independently from mind. We know it exists independently from mind because it is discovered and not invented.

not everything is manifested by the mind.

Some things will have existed whether or not humans ever did. Some things have only existed since the human mind could ponder them.

The sun would exist if there were never any people.

Beethoven's 9th would not exist if there were never any people

Wrong. Everything is manifested through mind.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

A few years ago it occurred to me -- albeit with some shock to my scientific sensibilities -- that my two problems, that of a life‑breeding universe, and that of consciousness that can neither be identified nor located, might be brought together. That would be with the thought that mind, rather than being a late development in the evolution of organisms, had existed always: that this is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so.

I have been in experimental science long enough to know that when you have done an experiment that comes out surprisingly well, the thing to do is enjoy it, because the next time you try it, it may not work. So when this idea struck me, I was elated, I enjoyed it immensely. But I was also embarrassed, because this idea violated all my scientific feelings. It took only a few weeks, however, for me to realize that I was in excellent company. That kind of thought is not only deeply embedded in millenia‑old Eastern philosophies; it is stated explicitly or strongly implied in the writings of a number of great and quite recent physicists.

Perhaps it was in part because I am a biologist that the idea at first seemed so strange to me. Biologists tend to be embarrassed by consciousness. As it is an attribute of some living organisms, they feel that they should know about it, and should indeed be in position to straighten out physicists about it, whereas exactly the opposite is true. Physicists live with the problem of consciousness day in and day out. Early in this century it became evident to all physicists that the observer is an intrinsic component of every physical observation. Physical reality is what physicists recognize to be real. One cannot separate the recognition of existence from existence. As Erwin Schrödinger put it: “The world is a construct of our sensations, perceptions, memories. It is convenient to regard it as existing objectively on its own. But it certainly does not become manifest by its mere existence.”

Let me give a simple example of the intervention of mind in physical observation: Most readers are probably aware that radiation -- light, indeed all elementary particles -- exhibits simultaneously the properties of waves and of particles, though those properties are altogether different -- indeed, mutually exclusive. This is the prime example of a widespread class of relationships that Neils Bohr brought together in his principle of complementarity, which notes that numbers of phenomena, in and out of physics, exhibit such mutually exclusive sets of properties; one just has to live with them.

Enter consciousness: the physicist, setting up an experiment on radiation, decides beforehand which of those sets of properties he will encounter. If he does a wave experiment, he gets a wave answer; from a particle experiment he gets a particle answer. To this degree, all physical observation is subjective.

It is primarily physicists who in recent times have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington in 1928 wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time.... Recognizing that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

Von Weizsacker in 1971 states as “a new and, I feel, intelligible interpretation of quantum theory” what he calls his “Identity Hypothesis: Consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality.”

I like most of all Wolfgang Pauli’s formulation, from 1952: “To us . . . the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

What this kind of thought means essentially is that one has no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves.

As for this seeming a strange viewpoint for a scientist -- at least until one gets used to it -- as in so many other instances, what is wanted is not so much an acceptable concept as an acceptable rhetoric. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious.

So you're sating that the earth is only in existence because it was manifested in a human mind?

Where was that mind before the earth was manifested?

No. I am saying the exact opposite. Everything exists apart from mind but is manifested (i.e. understood and discovered) through mind.

 

[ding]

Science is the study of nature to DISCOVER the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature.

 

[Blues Man]

Science, math, music, art and logic are consequences of a material world. They are not consequences of mind.

Music is nothing but a collection of pleasing sounds. Those sounds would exist if there were no people to hear them.

Music evolved with people as they realized some sounds were more pleasing than others, and then that some combination of sounds was more pleasing than others.

The rules of music that we hold to such as chord construction, scales, harmonies etc are also a result of the architecture of our auditory system.

Music is a consequences of a material world. Music is not consequences of mind. Music is manifested and discovered by mind.

Quoting George Wald, Nobel Laureate, "...the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

I disagree.

The universe is completely unaware of human beings and has not changed since human beings came to be and will not change when human beings cease to be.

 

[Blues Man]

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

And that is a big if.

There is absolutely no evidence of some universal code of behavior. And for there to be one then there would have to be an absolute authority that authored that moral code.

There is none

Dude, I just showed it to you. Logic is universal and logic determines what standards are. Not some fucked up selfish man who wants to own people or fuck little kids. Logic tells you that those things are wrong and that if you do them there will be predictable consequences.

You showed me no proof that logic exists outside the minds of humans.

Logic, like math or science or music are discovered which means they exist outside of the minds of humans.

Why don't you prove your claim?

It is called scientific discovery.

Scientific Discovery (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

).

Nothing in that says that logic exists outside of the human mind.

Music wasn't discovers so much as it was invented. All the sounds in nature are the basis for music and our musical minds evolved with our intellect.

And you still are having difficulty separating the physical world from the world of the mind.

Again... everything is manifested by mind but that does not mean it doesn't exist independently from mind. We know it exists independently from mind because it is discovered and not invented.

not everything is manifested by the mind.

Some things will have existed whether or not humans ever did. Some things have only existed since the human mind could ponder them.

The sun would exist if there were never any people.

Beethoven's 9th would not exist if there were never any people

Wrong. Everything is manifested through mind.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

A few years ago it occurred to me -- albeit with some shock to my scientific sensibilities -- that my two problems, that of a life‑breeding universe, and that of consciousness that can neither be identified nor located, might be brought together. That would be with the thought that mind, rather than being a late development in the evolution of organisms, had existed always: that this is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so.

I have been in experimental science long enough to know that when you have done an experiment that comes out surprisingly well, the thing to do is enjoy it, because the next time you try it, it may not work. So when this idea struck me, I was elated, I enjoyed it immensely. But I was also embarrassed, because this idea violated all my scientific feelings. It took only a few weeks, however, for me to realize that I was in excellent company. That kind of thought is not only deeply embedded in millenia‑old Eastern philosophies; it is stated explicitly or strongly implied in the writings of a number of great and quite recent physicists.

Perhaps it was in part because I am a biologist that the idea at first seemed so strange to me. Biologists tend to be embarrassed by consciousness. As it is an attribute of some living organisms, they feel that they should know about it, and should indeed be in position to straighten out physicists about it, whereas exactly the opposite is true. Physicists live with the problem of consciousness day in and day out. Early in this century it became evident to all physicists that the observer is an intrinsic component of every physical observation. Physical reality is what physicists recognize to be real. One cannot separate the recognition of existence from existence. As Erwin Schrödinger put it: “The world is a construct of our sensations, perceptions, memories. It is convenient to regard it as existing objectively on its own. But it certainly does not become manifest by its mere existence.”

Let me give a simple example of the intervention of mind in physical observation: Most readers are probably aware that radiation -- light, indeed all elementary particles -- exhibits simultaneously the properties of waves and of particles, though those properties are altogether different -- indeed, mutually exclusive. This is the prime example of a widespread class of relationships that Neils Bohr brought together in his principle of complementarity, which notes that numbers of phenomena, in and out of physics, exhibit such mutually exclusive sets of properties; one just has to live with them.

Enter consciousness: the physicist, setting up an experiment on radiation, decides beforehand which of those sets of properties he will encounter. If he does a wave experiment, he gets a wave answer; from a particle experiment he gets a particle answer. To this degree, all physical observation is subjective.

It is primarily physicists who in recent times have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington in 1928 wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time.... Recognizing that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

Von Weizsacker in 1971 states as “a new and, I feel, intelligible interpretation of quantum theory” what he calls his “Identity Hypothesis: Consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality.”

I like most of all Wolfgang Pauli’s formulation, from 1952: “To us . . . the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

What this kind of thought means essentially is that one has no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves.

As for this seeming a strange viewpoint for a scientist -- at least until one gets used to it -- as in so many other instances, what is wanted is not so much an acceptable concept as an acceptable rhetoric. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious.

So you're sating that the earth is only in existence because it was manifested in a human mind?

Where was that mind before the earth was manifested?

No. I am saying the exact opposite. Everything exists apart from mind but is manifested (i.e. understood and discovered) through mind.

Not everything exists apart from the mind.

 

[ding]

Science, math, music, art and logic are consequences of a material world. They are not consequences of mind.

Music is nothing but a collection of pleasing sounds. Those sounds would exist if there were no people to hear them.

Music evolved with people as they realized some sounds were more pleasing than others, and then that some combination of sounds was more pleasing than others.

The rules of music that we hold to such as chord construction, scales, harmonies etc are also a result of the architecture of our auditory system.

Music is a consequences of a material world. Music is not consequences of mind. Music is manifested and discovered by mind.

Quoting George Wald, Nobel Laureate, "...the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

I disagree.

The universe is completely unaware of human beings and has not changed since human beings came to be and will not change when human beings cease to be.

I never said the universe was aware of human beings. I said the same thing George Wald said... "...the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

The universe is always changing; cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution and the evolution of consciousness say the universe is always changing and complexifying.

Humans are aware of the universe and what is known about the universe is discovered and manifested by mind.

 

[ding]

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

And that is a big if.

There is absolutely no evidence of some universal code of behavior. And for there to be one then there would have to be an absolute authority that authored that moral code.

There is none

Dude, I just showed it to you. Logic is universal and logic determines what standards are. Not some fucked up selfish man who wants to own people or fuck little kids. Logic tells you that those things are wrong and that if you do them there will be predictable consequences.

You showed me no proof that logic exists outside the minds of humans.

Logic, like math or science or music are discovered which means they exist outside of the minds of humans.

Why don't you prove your claim?

It is called scientific discovery.

Scientific Discovery (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

).

Nothing in that says that logic exists outside of the human mind.

Music wasn't discovers so much as it was invented. All the sounds in nature are the basis for music and our musical minds evolved with our intellect.

And you still are having difficulty separating the physical world from the world of the mind.

Again... everything is manifested by mind but that does not mean it doesn't exist independently from mind. We know it exists independently from mind because it is discovered and not invented.

not everything is manifested by the mind.

Some things will have existed whether or not humans ever did. Some things have only existed since the human mind could ponder them.

The sun would exist if there were never any people.

Beethoven's 9th would not exist if there were never any people

Wrong. Everything is manifested through mind.

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

A few years ago it occurred to me -- albeit with some shock to my scientific sensibilities -- that my two problems, that of a life‑breeding universe, and that of consciousness that can neither be identified nor located, might be brought together. That would be with the thought that mind, rather than being a late development in the evolution of organisms, had existed always: that this is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so.

I have been in experimental science long enough to know that when you have done an experiment that comes out surprisingly well, the thing to do is enjoy it, because the next time you try it, it may not work. So when this idea struck me, I was elated, I enjoyed it immensely. But I was also embarrassed, because this idea violated all my scientific feelings. It took only a few weeks, however, for me to realize that I was in excellent company. That kind of thought is not only deeply embedded in millenia‑old Eastern philosophies; it is stated explicitly or strongly implied in the writings of a number of great and quite recent physicists.

Perhaps it was in part because I am a biologist that the idea at first seemed so strange to me. Biologists tend to be embarrassed by consciousness. As it is an attribute of some living organisms, they feel that they should know about it, and should indeed be in position to straighten out physicists about it, whereas exactly the opposite is true. Physicists live with the problem of consciousness day in and day out. Early in this century it became evident to all physicists that the observer is an intrinsic component of every physical observation. Physical reality is what physicists recognize to be real. One cannot separate the recognition of existence from existence. As Erwin Schrödinger put it: “The world is a construct of our sensations, perceptions, memories. It is convenient to regard it as existing objectively on its own. But it certainly does not become manifest by its mere existence.”

Let me give a simple example of the intervention of mind in physical observation: Most readers are probably aware that radiation -- light, indeed all elementary particles -- exhibits simultaneously the properties of waves and of particles, though those properties are altogether different -- indeed, mutually exclusive. This is the prime example of a widespread class of relationships that Neils Bohr brought together in his principle of complementarity, which notes that numbers of phenomena, in and out of physics, exhibit such mutually exclusive sets of properties; one just has to live with them.

Enter consciousness: the physicist, setting up an experiment on radiation, decides beforehand which of those sets of properties he will encounter. If he does a wave experiment, he gets a wave answer; from a particle experiment he gets a particle answer. To this degree, all physical observation is subjective.

It is primarily physicists who in recent times have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington in 1928 wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff ... The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time.... Recognizing that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

Von Weizsacker in 1971 states as “a new and, I feel, intelligible interpretation of quantum theory” what he calls his “Identity Hypothesis: Consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality.”

I like most of all Wolfgang Pauli’s formulation, from 1952: “To us . . . the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

What this kind of thought means essentially is that one has no more basis for considering the existence of matter without its complementary aspect of mind, than for asking that elementary particles not also be waves.

As for this seeming a strange viewpoint for a scientist -- at least until one gets used to it -- as in so many other instances, what is wanted is not so much an acceptable concept as an acceptable rhetoric. If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious.

So you're sating that the earth is only in existence because it was manifested in a human mind?

Where was that mind before the earth was manifested?

No. I am saying the exact opposite. Everything exists apart from mind but is manifested (i.e. understood and discovered) through mind.

Not everything exists apart from the mind.

Like what? What is it you know about that is manifested by your mind but not apart from your mind?

 

[.oldschool]

 

[Ringtone]

Science, math, music, art and logic are consequences of a material world. They are not consequences of mind.

I'm not sure I understand what this means, ding.

 

[ding]

Science, math, music, art and logic are consequences of a material world. They are not consequences of mind.

I'm not sure I understand what this means, ding.

It means that all of those things exist in and of themselves (independent of man) as part of a material world and are discovered or manifested by the human mind. In other words, if there were never any humans to know or discover those things, they would still exist waiting to be discovered.

You can add morals and love and mercy and wisdom, etc. to that list.

 

[ding]

My perception of God is that God is infinite logic, infinite truth, infinite intelligence, infinite wisdom, infinite knowledge, infinite love, infinite patience, infinite justice, infinite mercy, infinite kindness and infinite goodness. I am not saying God has those attributes. I am saying God is those attributes. Such that mind, rather than being a late development in the evolution of organisms, has always existed: that this is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued his creation with His attributes.

 

[ding]

So all of the bad things that people ascribe to this universe and blame God for and use as an excuse to not surrender to God's will, don't really exist. They are the absence of God's attributes and attributed to man's free will to not choose God's attributes.

 

[Blues Man]

Science, math, music, art and logic are consequences of a material world. They are not consequences of mind.

Music is nothing but a collection of pleasing sounds. Those sounds would exist if there were no people to hear them.

Music evolved with people as they realized some sounds were more pleasing than others, and then that some combination of sounds was more pleasing than others.

The rules of music that we hold to such as chord construction, scales, harmonies etc are also a result of the architecture of our auditory system.

Music is a consequences of a material world. Music is not consequences of mind. Music is manifested and discovered by mind.

Quoting George Wald, Nobel Laureate, "...the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

I disagree.

The universe is completely unaware of human beings and has not changed since human beings came to be and will not change when human beings cease to be.

I never said the universe was aware of human beings. I said the same thing George Wald said... "...the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

The universe is always changing; cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution and the evolution of consciousness say the universe is always changing and complexifying.

Humans are aware of the universe and what is known about the universe is discovered and manifested by mind.

the physical world has no consciousness and never did so we humans cannot restore consciousness to the universe

 

[Blues Man]

So all of the bad things that people ascribe to this universe and blame God for and use as an excuse to not surrender to God's will, don't really exist. They are the absence of God's attributes and attributed to man's free will to not choose God's attributes.

The universe is neither "bad" nor "good" it simply is.

 

[Ringtone]

It means that all of those things exist in and of themselves (independent of man) as part of a material world and are discovered or manifested by the human mind. In other words, if there were never any humans to know or discover those things, they would still exist waiting to be discovered.

You can add morals and love and mercy and wisdom, etc. to that list.

I agree that the physical/material world, as well as it's immaterial aspects, necessarily preceded human consciousness, but your statement [t]hey are not consequences of mind, suggests that the physical/material world preceded consciousness?

 

[ding]

Science, math, music, art and logic are consequences of a material world. They are not consequences of mind.

Music is nothing but a collection of pleasing sounds. Those sounds would exist if there were no people to hear them.

Music evolved with people as they realized some sounds were more pleasing than others, and then that some combination of sounds was more pleasing than others.

The rules of music that we hold to such as chord construction, scales, harmonies etc are also a result of the architecture of our auditory system.

Music is a consequences of a material world. Music is not consequences of mind. Music is manifested and discovered by mind.

Quoting George Wald, Nobel Laureate, "...the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

I disagree.

The universe is completely unaware of human beings and has not changed since human beings came to be and will not change when human beings cease to be.

I never said the universe was aware of human beings. I said the same thing George Wald said... "...the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .”

The universe is always changing; cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution and the evolution of consciousness say the universe is always changing and complexifying.

Humans are aware of the universe and what is known about the universe is discovered and manifested by mind.

the physical world has no consciousness and never did so we humans cannot restore consciousness to the universe

You are taking what George Wald wrote out of context. He never said the universe was conscious. His full quote was, "...Recognizing that the physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness, we restore consciousness to the fundamental position . . .” What he is saying is that everything exists into and of itself but it is mind that gives it meaning. That without mind there is no consciousness of that which exists. That's the fundamental position of consciousness.