Solipsistic ethical foundation: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Solipsistic ethical foundation » Solipsistic ethical foundation

Solipsistic ethical foundation
late night dream

Page: 1 2 3 4

Solipsistic ethical foundation

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3286

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 06/09/09 - 06:33 PM: Subject: Solipsistic ethical foundation	#1
I suppose - that consciousness is unitary. That is that there is no difference (apart from the contents) between one moment of awareness and another, and therefore also between your consciousness and mine. I think this, and you think I am mad, but the thoughts occur to one and the same thing - consciousness. Then it is as foolish for me to be unkind to you, as it is to be unkind to myself; indeed it is exactly the same thing. Since 'I' am sometimes (and places) unaware of the unity of my larger self as Consciousness, I like to remind myself not to be unkind to myself in the erroneous belief that the suffering that results will be someone else's. This reminder is called morality, and if sometimes I ignore myself, that does not make it bad advice. I wonder what my other philosophical selves will make of this idea?
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Mako
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 15, 2006
Location: In transit, somewhere in Nanjing

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 314

Posted 06/09/09 - 10:29 PM:

As a metaphysical statement on consciousness, it has its appeals although I don't believe one could support it with evidence which could stand up to the rigours of scientific experimentation.

As a moral statement, it is indeed deeply moral and manages to collapse the subjective (first-person) perspective with the objective (third-person) perspective, just as I believe all universal moral systems should do.

I suppose one could, taking your view, understand morality as the 'internal equilibrium/homeostasis of the unitary-consciousness' and perhaps see that as analogous to the 'balanced reciprocity' between 'separate and distinct agents' which is sought in more conventinonal moral theories.

Whether one accepts your metaphysical premise or not, I do admire the moral implications.

Mako

"To alcohol. The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems." ~ Homer Simpson

Cuthbert
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2005

Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 2138

Posted 06/10/09 - 01:08 AM:	#3
I like the sentiment, but I'm not sure about the logic. Are US Presidents the same person because they are all Presidents of the same country? If there's no difference between one pea and another and between one bean and another does it follow that there's no difference between peas and beans? But that's just being picky. It's a beautiful notion.

Crackers
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 519

Posted 06/10/09 - 09:14 AM:	#4
I intuitevely experience my conciousness as being separate from anybody elses; I have knowledge of what I feel, I have no knowledge of how others feel, I know what I know, I do not know what you know. Therefore, either: A. My conciousness is separate from all other conciousness's. B. My conciousness exists as part of a whole conciousness, but I am not aware of it. A is intuitive. Many contradictions arise from B. For example, through my conciousness I have the faculty for will, the concious will; to make decisions. If my will is to destroy another to protect myself, and if that other's will is to destroy me to protect itself, then the whole conciousness must be willing the termination and protection of both wills at the same time; which is logically impossible. Surely if we were part of a whole conciousness we would experience a "hive-mind" phenomenon so that we have one unified direction and purpose rather than many, as many wills could be self-destructive to the whole. One conciousness has one will; each member of a unified conciousness would share the same will. We do not share the same will, as scientifically evidenced by our domination of each other's wills; as the master dominates the slave. In my conciousness there are many thoughts. However, even though these thoughts rely on me for their existence, they do not care about me. They have no knowledge of me so they have no means in which to care about my existence. Such as I know the chair I am sitting on but the chair does not know me. Thus, if we are part of a whole conciousness then each individual must exist as a separate "thought" of said conciousness. We have no knowledge of the conciousness and therefore no (logical) means in which to care for it. So even if the whole conciousness does exist, why should we care for it? I do not experience the collective conciousness. I do not experience it's pleasure or it's pain. I do not experience it's loss or it's gain. Therefore even if I acted towards the benefit of the collective conciousness I would not experience it's pleasure or it's gain. Nor would I feel it's pain or it's loss if I did something that went against the collective conciousness. So why should I care? It does not affect me and never will. Also, you use this as an arguement for utilitarianism, that we shouldn't harm another being because we would only be harming ourselves; we are all part of the same thing. This is false. If we go back to he idea that each of us would exist as a "thought" of the whole conciousnesss, we must assume that the conciousness values us all equally before we could determine that we should all act towards each of our equal benefits. How are we to know that the whole conciousness believes us all to be equal? It may think that I am better than you and that your destruction at my hands would be a good thing. Similarly, I have many thoughts, but many of them are useless and I wouldn't mind if they "died". You assume that if a whole conciousness exists then we are all of equal value to it. What the whole concioussness values is unknowable, therefore the existence of a whole conciousness has no impact on meta-ethics.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 06/10/09 - 02:36 PM:	#5
I think anime... Anyways... I might argue that your definition of consiousness is different then others. Instead of being a 'thing' you evolved it into a set of actions, or functions. So, any thing that follows the same function is therefore a part of the same action? So, if I have a ball over here being affected by gravity, and a human over there parachuting and both are being affected by gravity; then that gravity over there must be the same gravity over here. Interesting change though. I like it better then a 'universal consiousness' model.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3286

Posted 06/10/09 - 05:49 PM:	#6
Mako wrote: I don't believe one could support it with evidence which could stand up to the rigours of scientific experimentation. This is true, yet I would argue that it is the assumption of science that what is true for you, is true for me, that what you can observe and measure, I can observe and measure as being the same. The universal identity of the consciousness that observes is the disregarded assumption that makes science possible. Cuthbert wrote: If there's no difference between one pea and another and between one bean and another does it follow that there's no difference between peas and beans? They are merely different arrangements of identical particles and fields. The universe is all made of the same stuff, I am reliably informed - stardust or something. Anyway, let's be scientific about this; can you point out any feature of your consciousness that is different to anyone else's? You need to be careful here not to confuse consciousness with memory. Obviously we have different memories, but they are just like a book, passive unless a consciousness is experiencing them. Crackers wrote: I intuitevely experience my conciousness as being separate from anybody elses; I have knowledge of what I feel, I have no knowledge of how others feel, I know what I know, I do not know what you know. Well you are conflating memory and consciousness. Memories and knowledge and feelings and thoughts are things I might be conscious of, but all this I would like to call the 'contents of consciousness'. Crackers wrote: B. My conciousness exists as part of a whole conciousness, but I am not aware of it. Which means that one cannot be aware of consciousness, because to be aware of it would be to have it as the content of itself. This is why you think you are a separate consciousness, because all you are aware of are the thoughts and memories and other contents, which are particular to one brain. Crackers wrote: Surely if we were part of a whole conciousness we would experience a "hive-mind" phenomenon so that we have one unified direction and purpose rather than many, as many wills could be self-destructive to the whole. One conciousness has one will; each member of a unified conciousness would share the same will. No, there is no hive mind, and no unified direction, unfortunately, and indeed many wills can be self destructive. But what is a will? I think it is a thought, a memory, that is determined to act; it is something one might be conscious of, not consciousness. Cadrache wrote: So, if I have a ball over here being affected by gravity, and a human over there parachuting and both are being affected by gravity; then that gravity over there must be the same gravity over here. Yes of course. Gravity is gravity. There is not your gravity different to my gravity; there is one force that varies in intensity.
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

cosscos
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2008

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 171

Posted 06/10/09 - 09:40 PM:	#7
Sun gives lights to A man on Africa and B man on Siberia in the same way. A man might think of it as evil by virtue of hotness in his body. His own morality, being evil against object, or the sun, stored up through history by genetic memory code, need to awake himself to that his hotness and sun's are in identity. Therefor, his evil sentiment on hot is actually originated from goodness of sun, giving lights to all men on the globe.

Crackers
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 519

Posted 06/11/09 - 02:30 AM:	#8
unenlightened wrote: Well you are conflating memory and consciousness. Memories and knowledge and feelings and thoughts are things I might be conscious of, but all this I would like to call the 'contents of consciousness'. We have the same problem still. If memories are the "contents of conciousness" and we are all part of a "whole conciousness." Then the contents of this whole conciousness includes all collective memories, knowledge and feelings and I still have none of that content except from my own. Which means that one cannot be aware of consciousness, because to be aware of it would be to have it as the content of itself. This is why you think you are a separate consciousness, because all you are aware of are the thoughts and memories and other contents, which are particular to one brain. And the contents of that one brain is my individual conciousness. I am aware of this conciousness because it does have content; that is content is thought (not the content of thought, but the thought in itself). I am aware of my thoughts and my thoughts could not exist without conciousness, therefore I am aware of my conciousness. However, I am not aware of any thoughts belonging to a "whole conciousness" and as such I have no knowledge of it's existence. No, there is no hive mind, and no unified direction, unfortunately, and indeed many wills can be self destructive. But what is a will? I think it is a thought, a memory, that is determined to act; it is something one might be conscious of, not consciousness. The will is the nature of man and all things. The drives to be and to act is the will. The will to live. The will to power. The will to conciousness. Will is greater than conciousness; conciousness belongs to will. A whole conciousness must have an underlying will that moves it into being and into action. Yet if there is no hive-mind then we are all free of this will that drives the whole conciousness. Such that we have our own individual wills to obey and not be commanded by a higher conciousness. Indeed, this "whole conciousness" is another rehash of God. Either we are separate from a whole conciousness or we are controlled by this whole conciousness. If the whole conciousness is responsible for my creation then I am nothing but what the whole conciousness causes me to be. If we are controlled by this whole conciousness we shouldn't feel guilty for anything; it's not our responsibility. If I killed you then who is to blame? The whole conciousness of course. Then the only rational thing to do in accepting a whole conciousness is accepting that your will is driven by a higher will, thus you are but a pawn to this conciousness. If one person kills another it is because the whole conciousness willed it to be so; this is hardly in support of utilitarianism.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 06/11/09 - 11:15 AM:	#9
But Unenlightened! It's not the same gravity! Truly told. Gravity is the force of attraction between two different objects. So; the force of gravity that makes the parachuter fall towards earth, is applicable to only the parachuter and the earth. The ball is a different gravity. The difference in rate of speed between the two gravities is infestistimately small however. In other words; even if consiousness is unitary; the act of consiousness between two different identities is slightly different therefore that action of consiousness is not exactly the same. To me; the idea of an existence of universal consiousness is more or less equivilant to claiming that there is an absolute truth to Beauty; based from whatever that Greek guy stated.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 06/11/09 - 11:26 AM:	#10
An analagy for collective consiousness would be eating. If any single person could consume enough food to fuel 100 people for the day and you had 10,000 people in the world; then only 100 people needs to eat in order for every person to live. This is the summation of collective eating and is essentially the same argument as to why collective consiousness must exist.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Page: 1 2 3 4

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.