Is morality subjective?

Originally posted by KellyJay
"However that very green ligh is not real to you and thus is non-existent to you if you cannot see it. "

You seem to keep going back to nothing is real unless I'm experiencing it, I'm
not that important that reality is only what I make it as I experience it. I will
say my perspective is like that, but not reality. Things occurred before I got
here and ...[text shortened]... die, it does not stop due to me. Am I getting your
point or am I missing something?
Kelly

What I get a big kick out of are all the critics of the God of the Bible. They say how he killed so and so and how morally corrupt he is. Then they mindlessly support things like abortion on demand and a president going to Libya to deal out "justice".

Hilarious.

Originally posted by whodey
What I get a big kick out of are all the critics of the God of the Bible. They say how he killed so and so and how morally corrupt he is. Then they mindlessly support things like abortion on demand and a president going to Libya to deal out "justice".

Hilarious.

That is human nature forgive the guy you like or the party you are in over the
other guy's; depending on what we are willing to over look the worse we
become.
Kelly

Originally posted by whodey
What I get a big kick out of are all the critics of the God of the Bible. They say how he killed so and so and how morally corrupt he is. Then they mindlessly support things like abortion on demand and a president going to Libya to deal out "justice".

Hilarious.

Many of us however do not mindlessly support either. We think about it before lending our support and are quite ready to justify our stance. You however are totally unable to justify your stance and must rely instead on simply having blind faith that the God of the Bible had good moral reasons for what he did despite appearances to the contrary.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"However that very green ligh is not real to you and thus is non-existent to you if you cannot see it. "

You seem to keep going back to nothing is real unless I'm experiencing it, I'm
not that important that reality is only what I make it as I experience it. I will
say my perspective is like that, but not reality. Things occurred before I got
here and ...[text shortened]... die, it does not stop due to me. Am I getting your
point or am I missing something?
Kelly

Mind you, I don't say that my reality is not real to me because you don't observe it; I say that you cannot comment on my reality if you have not observe it, because in this case my reality will be a mere potentiality to you.

Reality occurs when an observer capable of experiencing meets a field of potentialities for experience. So there is no such a thing as a ready-made world, but a plexus of possible experiences instead of a definite pre-existing external field of materiality. It follows that the unobserved green light etc. is an unexperienced (to you, to the one that cannot experience it etc.) possibility of reality and hence it is in fact undermined for you into a mere potentiality when it is not observed by you -it cannot be properly said that a specific unexperienced observer is existent or non-existent.

Therefore, the only reality you (we) can perceive is neither absolute nor inherently existent nor "objective". The sole reality we can perceive is dependent on our consiousness, and this does not mean that we intentionally collapse the wavefunction by an intentional focusing of our cognitive apparatus.

Now, this experience occurs solely from the interaction of a subjective consciousness with the available posibilities for experience. Think of One told earlier JS357 that the tastes are absolutely (pre)existent, whilst methinks that they are relatively existent herenow solely to the sentients beings that have receptors capable to perceive and decode this specific information under specific circumstances😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Mind you, I don't say that my reality is not real to me because you don't observe it; I say that you cannot comment on my reality if you have not observe it, because in this case my reality will be a mere potentiality to you.

Reality occurs when an observer capable of experiencing meets a field of potentialities for experience. So there is no such a tors capable to perceive and decode this specific information under specific circumstances😵

"Now, this experience occurs solely from the interaction of a subjective consciousness with the available posibilities for experience."

So reality can in part be considered to consist of the available possibilities for existence -- at least what we call the future can be considered this way. [Edit: the "future" may be a useful fiction, since the available possibilities only need exist at the interface at which they are encountered in the now.] If someone rejects determinism, (including its least troublesome version, block determinism) it seems to me that that person would be amenable to the idea that reality does indeed stream from a future of available possibilities for existence; through the now, wherein the possibilities collapse to the possibility that is experienced, to what we call the past, which consists of those possibilities that have been experienced. [Edit: the "past" may also be a useful fiction.] It depends on whether we want to use the word "reality" to refer to something real about the future and the past; and if we do, the participation of "experiencers" is what distinguishes future from past.

Block-universe determinism: The experienced world can be modelled as an ultimately unchanging, 4-dimensional spacetime block. - http://www.egodeath.com/blockuniversedeterminism.htm

Originally posted by JS357
"Now, this experience occurs solely from the interaction of a subjective consciousness with the available posibilities for experience."

So reality can in part be considered to consist of the available possibilities for existence -- at least what we call the future can be considered this way. [Edit: the "future" may be a useful fiction, since the available p ...[text shortened]... 4-dimensional spacetime block. - http://www.egodeath.com/blockuniversedeterminism.htm

In this case, again consciousness determines the nature of the appearance of both the physical and the quantum realm of existence, and hence cognizance becomes once more the primary aspect of reality. It follows that the past states must be considered less than real to us herenow whilst our measurements back then and herenow impart meaningful information, therefore the observer universe can be seen as an info-processing system from which the appearances of matter emerge at a specific level of reality. Again, such a universe is understood as a manifestation of the universe’ s underlying quantum computation (appearances) that has “meaning” for itself (the physical world is a plexus of perfect information from a given appearance that is perceived subjectively by each consciousness as existent material, which then is decoded subjectively by each consciousness so that each consciousness ends up with a subjectively experienced meaning).

As regards the block universe determinism, such an ultimately unchanging universe should be unborn and permanent; however such a thing cannot be properly said, for observer universe is a phenomenon in flux😵

Originally posted by black beetle
In this case, again consciousness determines the nature of the appearance of both the physical and the quantum realm of existence, and hence cognizance becomes once more the primary aspect of reality. It follows that the past states must be considered less than real to us herenow whilst our measurements back then and herenow impart meaningful informatio ...[text shortened]... t; however such a thing cannot be properly said, for observer universe is a phenomenon in flux😵

Wow. I'm going to have to look a that for a while.

In the meantime: Do you think that if there were no consciousness of things, there would be no things?

Originally posted by JS357
Wow. I'm going to have to look a that for a while.

In the meantime: Do you think that if there were no consciousness of things, there would be no things?

Edit: "Do you think that if there were no consciousness of things, there would be no things?"

I suppose you ask me: If we had not specific things observed, which herenow we know that they are existent because we observed them and we evaluated them as existent epistemic objects, these things would be non-existent?
Well in such a case, if I read you well, these specific "things" would not be perceived by us and therefore we would be unable to state whether they are existent or not😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: "Do you think that if there were no consciousness of things, there would be no things?"

I suppose you ask me: If we had not specific things observed, which herenow we know that they are existent because we observed them and we evaluated them as existent epistemic objects, these things would be non-existent?
Well in such a case, if I read you w ...[text shortened]... perceived by us and therefore we would be unable to state whether they are existent or not😵

My head hurts😕 Wouldn't it be easier to ask , how do you define" things "? I mean if a "thing" is a construction of our brain ,say a cup, then if we are not there it is not a cup but some kind of structural variation of the universe (waves,matter, energy etc).Bottom line I think is, does the universe exist without us ? My head still hurts😕

Originally posted by OdBod
My head hurts😕 Wouldn't it be easier to ask , how do you define" things "? I mean if a "thing" is a construction of our brain ,say a cup, then if we are not there it is not a cup but some kind of structural variation of the universe (waves,matter, energy etc).Bottom line I think is, does the universe exist without us ? My head still hurts😕

I agree with you, we are not that important.
Kelly

Originally posted by OdBod
My head hurts😕 Wouldn't it be easier to ask , how do you define" things "? I mean if a "thing" is a construction of our brain ,say a cup, then if we are not there it is not a cup but some kind of structural variation of the universe (waves,matter, energy etc).Bottom line I think is, does the universe exist without us ? My head still hurts😕

I am sorry for your headache, I try to be precise.
The bottom line line is that everything that is not perceived by us, it is not part of the reality we perceive and therefore we cannot comment about it😵

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree with you, we are not that important.
Kelly

The point is not how "important" we are, but the nature of the reality we perceive😵

Originally posted by black beetle
I am sorry for your headache, I try to be precise.
The bottom line line is that everything that is not perceived by us, it is not part of the reality we perceive and therefore we cannot comment about it😵

"The bottom line line is that everything that is not perceived by us, it is not part of the reality we perceive and therefore we cannot comment about it😵"

Isn't that a comment about it? 😉

Originally posted by JS357
"The bottom line line is that everything that is not perceived by us, it is not part of the reality we perceive and therefore we cannot comment about it😵"

Isn't that a comment about it? 😉

Nope, methinks it is a comment as regards what is a part and what is not a part of the reality we perceive😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Nope, methinks it is a comment as regards what is a part and what is not a part of the reality we perceive😵

Ah. To say something exists is not attribution, it is predication.