Some Thoughts on Ethics

Is the core of what is considered ethical in my feelings or is it in my thoughts? Thoughts are propositional statement like mental objects, and by mental perhaps it can mean subjective events, which are one’s personal experiences. Experiences are our perceptions of the world. Perceptions are quite complex, for both feelings and thoughts are perceptions because we perceive them, or are aware of them. Experiences are also conceptions, recollections, emotions, ideations, etc. Does the suffix -tion have anything to do with the nature of experience? -Tion is used to form abstract nouns from verbs or stems not identical with verbs, whether as expressing action (revolution; commendation), or state (contrition; starvation), or associated meanings (relation; temptation), says dictionary.com. Recollections, emotions, conceptions, and ideations are all states of mind, since we can feel or cause these events to occur in us, and can distinguish each thing by the mere feeling of it, without having to use propositional statements. However, though we think in propositional statements, our thoughts are still feelings essentially, since we must be in a particular state of mind to have any particular thought. Therefore, thoughts and feelings are distinguishable, yet are both states of mind. Perhaps the core of ethics is in a state of mind?

Maybe what caused me to compare and contrast feelings and thoughts was in the distinction between states of mind and propositional statements. States of mind are innate to objects in reality, all objects have a “feel” to them; ie all objects influence the senses, either directly by touching or somehow interfering with our sensory system, or indirectly by affecting something that affects our sensory system. States of mind are created by those effects and the other capacities of the mind. Another capacity of our minds (by our here I mean human minds) is language. Language is connected to propositional statements. The main function of language seems to be communication with other organisms, and the organization of ideas and concepts. For the words I use are more than just mental or physical noise, by which I mean nonsense. Nonsense being the opposite of sense is something I can only experience as incomprehensibility, or no appeal to any sense at all, which can be achieve by disconnecting or not having the capacity for a particular sense. Language is directly connected to our senses, since we must somehow be able to sense the other being we are attempting to communicate with. Language also requires being able to perceive certain motions as being more than accidental occurrences. Most accidental occurrences are mindless matter reactions, but some are mindful matter actions. Mindful matter actions are motions meant to achieve something more than mere motion, either now or in the future. But all one can ever get from existence is motion essentially, yet our goals are not completely random and without some sort of organization, so language must be organized movement of some kind. Language is just another state of mind, but with a particular organization of moving parts.

Perhaps the core of ethics is in the idea of truth and falsehood. These two ideas are related to propositional statements and accidental occurrences. I have a state of mind that I can call truth, or the feeling of truth, and one that I can call falsehood, or the feeling of falsehood. These words I write are clear and to the purpose for me, though it may not be for others, but these distinctions are causes by differences in our mind states, particularly and most likely in the various ways that states of mind can be organized. Most coherent thought has an idea or feeling of truth or falsehood applied to it. The distinction between truth or falsehood is first based on what exist, then based on how mindful actions are interpreted. Existence is given. Interpretation is knowing or understanding the meaning of an action, ie knowing or understanding why the action occurred. Knowing or understanding are states of mind we analogize to truth or falsehood. All actions appear to me to be accidental motion or mindful motion, perhaps the core of ethics is in this distinction.

(How do physical laws manifest ethical phenomena or thought? Do they manifest these things?)

God and Ethics

How does God affect the nature of ethics? For some people claim that an atheist has no objective morality. I’m assuming this claim doesn’t infer that an atheist is a savage of some sort. Regardless, ethics is a rational standard for behavior. Evolution has provided each creature with a means to accomplish its ends, which for the most part is survival. And as the earth is the only place in the observable universe with life, we all have the possibility of interaction, since the earth is a finite object. Obviously some general rules would be a natural outcome of the circumstances.

Though I advocate a rather broad ethical standard, something along the lines of not doing harm to others, I can understand any other ethical standards, granted it is sensible. All the religions and philosophies that advocate some kind of ethical system are concerned with the human condition and its maintenance. As a human, there are things I need and things I want; and there are particular ways in which to accomplish these ends. The existence or non-existence of God has no fundamental effect on how I must live in order to live comfortably. I believed in God as a child, and now I do not. This change in my understanding of reality hasn’t altered my need for food, air, water, and other vital functions.

I mean, how could I not possess a knowledge which I claim and prove to have? I don’t have to believe in God to understand the words in the the bible, what the ten commandments are, what laws are, what the constitution is, etc. I just believe a synthesis of different philosophies is closer to the truth. And I prefer more literal explanations for my reality; religions are far too metaphorical for my taste. Ultimately all ethical dilemmas are circumstantial. The outcome will always depend on the mind’s understanding of reality and the possible motions of the world.

The Mind-Body Problem

Rene Descartes’s distinction between the mind and body was that the mind is a non-extended, thinking thing; and the body is an extended thing which does not think. It is a distinction between the mind and the body that many people maintain; however it creates unavoidable problems, the main one perhaps being how an non-extended object can interact with an extended object?

The limitation of science in describing the relationship between body and mind does not outweigh its ability to identify mechanisms and relationships between the two constructs. There is no proof for a mind existing without a body. For the most part, any organism with a brain structure has a mind of some kind. It may also be safe to assume all organisms with a mind are having profoundly different experiences. But as biologically manifest phenomena in the same universe, we must all have a common factor to our existence, which is our functionality.

The impression of the external world is projected internally. The sense or result of chemical interactions, i.e. reactions in the body to stimulus, create a subjective experience that perceives events, this we identify by observing behavior we relate to that of an object possess of a subjective experience or a mind. Our complex structure of chemical interactions resulted with sensations, drives, and intelligence; none of which appear to be beyond the capacity of physics. Physics is a description of a kind of motion; sensations, drives, and intelligence are all known by a relationship to an object or behavior. All minds are known by their relationship to a body. We have never seen a mind that has no body (even ghost have a form or behavior which makes their presence known). If we have never seen a non-extended object, how can we say such a thing exist? All things known must exert some kind of observable force for us to identify its existence.

There is no physical law that claims nature can not create a thinking object. Why can’t the body think? A mind isn’t extended because it is an action or function; not an object in space, but rather a characteristic inferred by the behavior of an object, i.e. the body. People typically say we use our minds; as if it is a tool we use. And we do not say concepts such as eating or walking are objects, we say they are descriptions of actions, i.e. motions of objects. In both cases the mind is related to something it is external to and also subjected to, which is the body.

The mind must be a product of a tangible object; for a non-extended force can not interact with an extended force, only extended forces can interact. Extension would indicate a multitude of particles, which would appear as a mass of some magnitude. Whereas a non-extended force is no particles, or perhaps one or a few. And we know extension is merely a characteristic of space and time. Thought is a brain function, and a brain is a multitude of particles arranged in a specific manner. Though we don’t have a complete model of the motions of all the particles that make a brain, when can correlate specific parts to specific functions.

The distinction Descartes appears to be making is between agent and action. Consciousness isn’t producing the phenomena of having a body, it is a function of the biological machine, viz. an active brain structure, typically within a body. It can feel as if the mind is outside the body, because there are many body states which result in different mental states, one such state creates a feeling of distance from the body. Is this surprising, considering that various chemicals can manifest a variety of particular bodily, and consequently mental, states? Anything that can be considered to possess the characteristic of a mind must be in some way expressing this possession through the utilization of energy/matter.

On Consciousness

Our method for perceiving objects is to look upon them from the outside of them, though granted we may perceive the innards of an object, but even then we are outside the innards looking upon them. However, for ourselves, we appear to be an object inside our bodies looking outwards at phenomena. This is not only the case for physical phenomena, but also for mental phenomena; for when we utilize the mechanics of imagination, we still appear to be an internal object looking upon some external phenomena (inside ourselves). Is it possible that the object which is looking outwards is consciousness? What consequences follow if this object, which is something within us looking outwards, is consciousness?

If consciousness can look upon itself, then our inquiry is, at least, partially answered. One object that is never too far away from consciousness is the body. It is clear that we can perceive our own bodies by use of a mirror, but I’m reluctant to claim that the consciousness is perceiving itself when it looks upon the object that it appears to be within. But, if our own bodies aren’t considered to be consciousness, then what else can we consider consciousness to be? For physical objects always give the body more of a feeling of reality than mental objects, whenever the two are compared. If our own body is not the consciousness, though it appears to be as consistent in existence as consciousness itself, then how can we make any mental objects consciousness; for no mental object is as consistent as the consciousness or body, though they may appear before the mind frequently. Even if we gave a mental object that has appeared before us the label of consciousness, we would still be obliged to explain the reason why we identify the mental object as consciousness.

Let us return to the basic description of consciousness, which is “awareness of one’s own existence.” If the consciousness is an object that looks upon other objects from the inside of some object, how is it aware of its own existence? For consciousness appears to be aware of many objects, but none of them can firmly be considered consciousness. And consciousness doesn’t seem to possess the ability to look upon itself, and if it has, how will we know? We become aware of the existence of other objects, physical or mental, by a perception of them. However, we claim such a thing as consciousness exist, without having any perception of such a phenomena; for we can not perceive consciousness physically nor mentally. This presents a major threat to any conception of reality that would attempt to describe existence accurately. For whether we claim all things are mental or physical, we must explain how we came to such knowledge. If we say we observed such and such phenomena, but never observed the object which is observing the phenomena, how can we claim to know the information we are receiving is true?

My personal fix to this dilemma is to be rid of the concept of consciousness completely. Consciousness appears to be a failed attempt at discovering a feature of the body and brain that is somehow beyond them both (like the spirit or soul). If we know the interactions between body and brain are the cause of our personal experiences, and that the brain is the physical structure that causes most of our bodily motions and all of our mental events, then I see no reason not to assume it is the brain and body that perceives phenomena and interacts with objects. This, however, would require some alteration to one’s model of reality, particularly a will caused solely by the brain. For we would no longer be able to claim we were in control of our bodies unless when we use the term “we” or “I”, we are referring to our brain.

On Purpose II

An object as massive as the universe, or even more fundamental, existence itself, could not possibly have been actualize for any other reason than that it could not have not happened. It is impossible for absolute nothingness to exist at any point in time, therefore existence must have always existed in some form. There is no other source for existence other than existence itself. Every phenomena in this place, including ourselves, are just parts of this whole. It has no innate or ultimate purpose, it’s merely a self propelled force. Ultimately, we also have no profound purpose. However, our brains are capable of simulating various perspectives of reality. All we need is an object in which to pursue, and we will begin to formulate means to obtain it. This knowledge of our possibilities and necessities gives rise to the concept of purpose. A consequence of the body’s adaptation to the environment.

The capacity for pain and pleasure(the negative state and positive state of the body) is the bases for the idea of purpose. If pain and pleasure did not exist, it would be impossible to know what situations we should pursue and which we should avoid. Also, how would creatures learn and evolve without these senses? It is necessary that a rational being have the ability to identify dysfunction and efficiency, as rationality requires a universal logic and adaptable mechanics. For sensations are reactions, or reflexes, to the environment. How else could the body possibly maneuver this harsh environment?

Purpose is nothing more than a pain and pleasure motivator. Even knowledge, the most valuable object in existence, is weighed in accordance to its efficiency at achieving some pleasure or avoiding some pain. Without sensations of pain and pleasure, knowledge would be nothing more than a collection of useless data. And, unless the world is adapting to the individual in it, it is impossible to live without some kind of adaptation to the environment.

If it is a fact and truth that there is no intrinsic purpose to life and existence, than is it permitted for people to take advantage of others for personal gains? For what end would an intelligent being do so, knowing its existence is not permanent, and nothing is greater than the whole? The rational choice is to formulate a harmonious relationship with the environment and acquire valuable information. Only knowledge has proven to be effective in preserving contentment, for brute strength is not enough, an understanding of direction is needed, in living entities at least. And happiness seems to be the goal of most.

(Footnote: Though life is purposeless, virtue is logically preferable to vice. Virtue is another concept which imposes on the mind. For all rational beings do what they perceive as good; and most shall agree that those who do evil to themselves or others for the sole reason of evil or pain are irrational. Therefore, if purpose exist, one must maintain also the virtue exist. What actions are virtuous?)

Pwip XXV

Since one idea implies the existence of all possible ideas, and the representation of such a concept as a point of view is beyond human cognitive abilities, we instead use abstractions. All knowledge is perhaps an approximation of the truth. How one arrives at whatever truth one finds is perhaps a matter of epistemic paths. From the perspective of the first-person one must develop one’s philosophy. One will perhaps naturally pick up on particular patterns in the world without putting forth much mental effort, or perhaps intention, to know those facts. Yet it appears that one’s own first-person view is just one of multiple first-person views, which is similar to the domain of ideas, in that all ideas are one of many. The mind while thinking of one concept may fail in bringing other concepts into its view, which is similar to the range of perception.

There are perhaps a few special ideas which supersede other ideas, and existence appears to be one of them. Anything can be put forth to represent existence. The node which would represent the idea of one’s self is one among many due to existence’s omnipresence. Ideas do not possess first-person views unless they are being expressed through first-person views. Yet it seems the idea of the Statue of Liberty doesn’t go away when I cease to think of it, neither does it seem the object which the idea reference is destroyed when I cease to look at it. The idea of the world is like the idea of the self, in that it is dynamic, both constant and changing. Physical information provides a history of the external world that any being contained within should be able to access in some form. The world as an idea, that is as something that not only is happening, but also could have happened, and in such a case has already happened and is simply waiting on actuality, may not be so easy to access by every being. Where one’s mind will move in thought seems to depend on where it has been, and its potential.

Plato suggested the only good leader for society would be a philosopher king. Would not such an individual need expert knowledge in all aspects of existence? That feat appears to require rather precise configurations from the individual who would take the role. An epistemic threshold seems needed to pass as knowledgeable or informed on a particular subject. With enough concentration on one field one can pass the threshold, or meaningful node, in ones own epistemic path. Factors such as time, perspective, and disposition limit the amount and type of goals one embarks on. In the end most individuals possess a philosophy that is judged good enough, which would require the learning of particular patterns for others to fully comprehend. So the next practical step could be a philosopher collective, i.e. a group of individuals whose net function equals that of a true philosopher. In that way one can pass or neglect certain ideas without neglecting the main goal of philosophy (which maybe some form of closure).

The social world appears to rely on notions contained in symmetry. It seemingly generates a social scale composed of the dominate and inferior ends. Most weighted social relations appear determined by functions and the individuals with such capacities. Such often appears in the form of competition. Animals perhaps use competition as a means of testing objects. One can only know what one can do by comparing one’s self with other selves. Ethics, however, appears purely cooperative, all semblance of competition is meant to maintain the collective goal of the collective good. The capacity necessary for the application of ethics doesn’t appear in all entities, though ethics must consider some of those individuals still. And it appears intuitive that non-sentient matter is inferior to sentient matter in the domain of ethics.

Ethics perhaps has a net value dictated by the output, which is mostly implicit, of a global feeling scale. Unlike in formal mathematics where positivity and negativity cancel one another, in “ethical math” the net value is negative as long as any sentient being in a socio-ethical context can be consider unreasonably pained. Those whom an intelligent being is aware are on the negative end of the feeling scale are ethical problems. Those on the positive end of the state of being whom can help others are unethical if they neglect to do so. Those who know they can help are perhaps more unethical than those whom are ignorant of their ability. Otherwise those on the negative end must depend on luck or await the expression of some potential ability that can lead to a positive state of being. The practical needs of the world must be reconciled with the needs of ethics. Whereas ethics claims all beings under it are equal, practicality shows that beings aren’t always equal. Although this may perhaps only be due to a cooperative ethical framing

Social inequality comes in the form of networks and functions. One’s first network is perhaps the community. Everyone will not necessarily be guided by their biological parent, but all would be rared by some other. There is thus the generation of a connection which begins a network that is perhaps based on some relation either explicit, i.e. both parties are aware of their relationship, or implicit, i.e. functional relations. Domains are perhaps the network of functional relations as abstract objects. All behaviors appear to be functions, and different functions seem to be related under a single category or domain.

An individual can identify various behavior it performs and list them as its own abilities. If two individuals can perform the same task, then they appear to be equal, e.g. a computer can generate two objects with different qualities (perhaps color) doing the same action. If two individuals can build a house, but one can also aid a broken leg, then the two are equal in building a house but unequal in aiding a broken leg. If the individual that can aid the leg can also aid a poisonous snake bite, while the other individual can also build a boat (which the first individual can not), then they maybe said to have knowledge of the domain of building in one and medicine in the other. Typically many functions are needed before others will accept that one is in a domain, i.e. one must pass a threshold. Inside of the domain individuals are weighed against one another to form an order of some sort, usually hierarchical, and those outside are inferior in the context. The social functional network appears hierarchical and is perhaps expressed in the economic system.

The economic system seems more related to applying a number to objects based on psychological and biological needs and wants rather than physical relations. The price of objects and functions are less constant than the metrics used to calculate physical phenomena. Such maybe due to the fact that we are more sensitive to the form of matter, rather than its mere existence (which maybe a necessity of survival). Since there is no permanent state of comfort, or such a condition is difficult to obtain, one must become skilled at controlling one’s own being in the given context. When one is fully aware of one’s capabilities, one can use such knowledge to one’s advantage in the world. The domain of the first person offers options in the form of bodily movements, such appears subsumed in the domain of cause and effect, or consistency, in and by the world. All domains intersect each other under the domain of existence, albeit they don’t all connect easily. The domain of ethics offers the option of unethical actions by being contained in the domain of existence; existence offering the options of itself and nonexistence. Yet, in the case of ethics one ought to seek virtue, since in this reality it appears to be the only true good.

Society appears to require a large amount of some form of ethical behavior. Vice seems at best useful for the purpose of aesthetics or entertainment. The leaders of each domain typically represent the domain, and serve the purpose of assisting those without such options, by making them aware or performing the action themselves. The human being needs to consume some amount of energy to perform the action of survival. And by implication survival is related to existence. There is no apparent necessity from existence for one to survive other than the possibility for one to exist based on natural processes. Such seems to be the case since the pursuit of existence or nonexistence can be seen as advantageous or disadvantageous depending on one’s mind. At the very least ethics can consider the plight of individuals articulating problems, which infers a negative condition. A philosopher collective perhaps should be aware of the categories of philosophy, if not each particular distinct idea contained within; and ethics is one of these, as no human appears without a social context.

A Perspective on Life

We perceive life as individuals by taking part in an universal experience from different positions in space, causing differences in perspective. These different perspectives cause conflicts and contradictions in our definition of the truth, i.e. the actual motion of the parts that compose the universe. The correct perspective to maintain is that which accurately describes the motion of the universe’s parts. However, due to physical and practical limitations, we must condense explanations to only relay significant information, or what we arbitrarily consider significant information. The substance of truth is usually lost when it is separated from the whole truth. And as the whole truth requires describing all events that have occurred, are occurring, and will occur, it is impossible to know. Granted our situation, we do not need to know every detail of the universe, only what is necessary. What is necessity or necessary is another question for a later time.

Personal beliefs are dependent on the nature of a particular perspective. The mind’s cognitive capabilities are not unlimited. We are able to focus on one matter at a time. For, to perform an action accurately and quickly, the whole course of motion must be seen as a single movement. But, since the process of actualizing an idea or goal requires forethought(granted we are speaking of a rational being actualizing an idea or goal), we can only think of known phenomena, and adapt ourselves to any anomalies. This causes a disharmony in the mind, because the mind must stop its initial mental movement, that which formulated a plan of action, to mend external disunity(i.e. disunity of the mental perception of the world and the world as it is in of itself). For an anomaly is just an unconsidered event. All anomalies than become known phenomena and are assimilated to known knowledge when they occur. But, dealing with them at the time of the occurrence requires we divert our attention from our main goal to a novel problem.