New Buddha

"....consciousness is the subject, perceivable by its nature only to itself". The self can perceive it's own consciousness.

"Oh, consciousness is tied to the physical....." Tied to, but not physical itself? I have no idea where you are headed with this. You are going to hold on to your idea (not even really a hypothesis) no matter what anyone says. I asked what evidence would be required to change you mind and you replied "correct evidence". How does one reply to this? It would have better if you just said "I don't know".

Regi, What evidence would be required to change your position? I'm elaborating as and edit: What I'm getting at is that neurologists can pin-point certain cognitive deficiencies to traumas and/or damaged brain regions. Some people cannot recognize faces, some cannot speak a word that they read, but none the less can point to the object the word represents. Some people are color blind, some are blind or deaf. Some cannot experience pain, etc. We have blind spots due to nerve junctions in the eye. If conscious were not tied to the physical - per my understanding of your argument - then would any of the above exist?

"Consciousness is not physical" Perhaps you are equating "physical" with an entity? But "physical" can also mean an action of an entity - and I think that's the way that most on this post are using it, and perhaps you are not? Take "jumping". Jumping doesn't exist apart from an entity that "jumps". But jumping does exist and we do perceive it. However, jumping is a concept, not a percept. Meaning that it takes a level of cognitive development to differentiate jumping from running or standing still, etc. Consciousness, too, is an action of an entity and it is perceptible, but grasped conceptually.

My B52's Good Stuff album is one of my favorites (and I also own hundreds of "classical" CD's as well). They are much better musicians, composers and vocalist than you may realize. Try this Dream Land . And maybe try something other than MP3 quality sound.

".... a definition of what makes A, A" is an incorrect statement. No one statement (or characteristic) has any more metaphysical weight than any other. Meaning there is no "one" definition of what A is. Definitions are contextual. Essence is epistemological. You first have to grasp that - A is A - before you can move on to understanding what it means to say what something "is".

Well, following your argument, a 1967 Ford Mustang does not exist because there is no THING that is a 1967 For Mustang - just metal, tires, chrome, speedometers, windshields, etc. The flaw in your logic is that we don't think at the level of Percepts. Beyond a certain age, it is impossible for the mind to have a "direct" perception of reality. Meaning, that human beings think Conceptually. Consciousness does exist, I do perceive it (or don't in certain objects). It really is as simple as that. You're trying to outsmart yourself.

If some thing exists then it has physical extension in the Universe. This is true for thoughts, ideas, emotions, life, the brain, the mind, etc.

@luktannik Two problems with your argument. 1. You observer yourself making decisions - this is proof that freewill exists. 2. The idea that something is "outside the purely physical" is meaningless.

I think the gap for most people between is and ought stems not so much from "mysticism" as from "authority". Most are taught from a young age that society, government, the courts, god, etc. determine what is moral and immoral - and that an individual is/ought decision will always be subjective. If you can convince a man that he has no right to choose what is right or wrong, then he enslaves himself.

To add to my post. The modern temperature record of (the past 100 or so years) is of very poor quality, and the supposed global temperature anomaly is actually less than the margin of error inherent in instruments. If your instrument is plus or minus 1 degree in accuracy, any claim of tenths of a degree are a result of averaging. The act of averaging (especially anomolized against an arbitrarily selected base line) cannot help but be biased. I could just as easily chose a 20th century base line and show that the globe is "cooling". Any claim of "global" temperature is from griding of temperature i.e. manufacturing data. We do not have anywhere near enough stations to calculate a global surface temperature average. The UHA Temperature record (satellite temps since the late 1970's) does not agree with the land based data (NCDC, GISS, Hadley CRU) all of which claim "warming". Temperature (data) is routinely homogenized, normalized, grided, adjusted, etc. The one ABSOLUTE cardinal rule of science is don't fuck with the data - ever. CO2 absorption of OLWR tappers off very quickly. A run-away forcing to water vapor will not happen. Even the IPCC declined to include a numerical value for CO2 sensitivity in the last AR5. This was done in a foot note, lol. Atmospheric CO2 levels probably trail warming. As the planet climbed out of the LIA, the oceans warmed slightly and CO2 was released. The Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods cannot be explained by industrialization. The multidecadal oscillation in the oceans (roughly 65 years) better explains the warming from roughly 1975 to the year 2000. We are probably entering a 30 year cooling period similar to the 1940 to 1975 period. I can go on and on. And while the following is in no way proof that global warming is an artifact of statistics and data manipulation, it is non the less interesting. CCX

When I stated the following: " Subjectivism posits several other sources of knowledge such as: divine revelation, a priori, rationalism, instinct, metaphysical essenstialism, idealism, etc.".... .....I was directly addressing this type of thinking: "objective, meaning independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers: having reality independent of the mind." You are stumbling on the most important line that demarcates Objectivism from all other Western philosophies throughout history - namely, the source of knowledge. Subjectivism is not just "some school of thought" -- it is THE school of thought that has dominated Western philosophy and culture for the last 2,500 years. It was in response to Subjectivism that Rand created Objectivism. You have to understand one to truly understand the other.

I won't pretend to speak for all Objectivist, but as someone who has followed the issue closely for around 5 years now, I can say with absolute confidence that is a colossal scam.

Another tactic to arguing against Determinism and for free will is to state that you observe yourself in the process of free will decision-making -- and that this is proof enough. Your opponent will most likely counter that what you are observing is merely an "illusion" of decision making. But the term illusion implies that there exists "non-illusion" decision making. If everything is an illusion, then nothing is. Determinism is riddled with these types of contradictions.

"....and will be decided by men. This is where the concept of morality becomes subjective." Can you elaborate on this?

"....the answer to your question in post #52 is that each of the choices you listed decides and it is subjective." But it's not subjective to each person who makes the choice. Each one can have an objective position based on the context of knowledge that is available to him. Look at it another way. In a higher-up post I stated that the difference between objective and subjective knowledge (including morality) is how the information is acquired. Objectivism states that an individual, human mind gains objective knowledge from the evidence of his senses (including his concept of right and wrong) and through the process of abstraction and concept formation. Subjectivism posits several other sources of knowledge such as: divine revelation, a priori, rationalism, instinct, metaphysical essenstialism, idealism, etc. But all of these are false. Subjectivim is not a choice because it is a groundless, floating abstraction full of contradictions in all its forms.

tjfields, If you would attempt to answer "who decides" what is moral and immoral (regarding the killing) I think you will might grasp the issue better. So who decides? The moral position guy? The immoral position guy? You? Me? A third party? Select one. And then tell me if it's an Objective or Subjective decision.

They are both correct? In who's eyes? Yours? Mine? Ayn Rand's? Leonard Peikoff's? Dreamweaver? Or the Big Book of Objectivist Answers? In the mind of each individual, each believes himself to be correct. Do you dispute this?

It is moral to one individual and immoral to the other. Each individual must decide for himself. What other option is there? God? Or does might make right?

I am not saying that morality (or knowledge) is subjective. You must understand that you are confusing "subjectivity" with "certainty". It is not: subjectivity = uncertainty vs. objectivity = certainty. Objectivism says that a single, individual man can gain objective knowledge from the evidence of his senses. Subjectivism (and there are many schools of thought and variations) state that knowledge is either a priori, social, class-based, instinctual, fallible, rationalized, categorical, analytic/synthetic, etc. - in other words NOT derived from the evidence of the senses and thus, not objective. Objectivism does not guarantee certainty, or that all rational men will agree on all things. It just states that you, as an individual, can trust the evidence of your senses, and gain knowledge of the world in which you live. This is, historically, an extremely radical idea in philosophy. However, many who are new to Objectivsm, or who do not understand it well, tend to think that Objectivism guarantees that all rational men will agree on all things - and that if there is a disagreement, then someone is being irrational. This is what both turns people on-to and off-of Objectivsm. But this is not what Objectivism is saying.

It does not matter what a "group" thinks. It only matters what you think. If you are in a group of 12 people, and 11 take a position different from yours -- does that make you wrong and the group right???? Objectivism is a philosophy of individualism. Individualism doesn't mean dressing different from others or liking a type of music that your parents or the "cool kids" don't. Individualism means that it is existentially impossible for you to think for another person or have another person (or persons) think for you. You are cosmologically trapped in your own mind. What others think, do and say is nothing more than sensory data that you must observe and process to determine whether it is true or not. If I'm standing in front of a tree, and you are standing next to me, and I say, "That is a tree." You might respond, "what tree? I don't see any tree, you are imagining things." We'll how am I to reply to that? Beat you up until you "agree" with me? Or am I to doubt the evidence of my senses and defer to you? You decide what is right or wrong in all things - there is no alternate.

To understand what Rand means by "objective knowledge" you must understand the historical philosophical position(s) that she was challenging. She was fairly unique in that she showed how an individual, human brain can derive objective knowledge from the data of it's senses. This is an extremely radical position in philosophy. It also does not imply that an individual man's knowledge is omniscient or infallible. It is perfectly possible for an individual man to OBJECTIVELY REACH A CONCLUSION that he later determines to be FALSE. Note that I said "an individual man" and not "man" -- It's important to grasp this distinction. Two individuals can reach different conclusions on a topic and both be objective.

The question should be broken into different perspectives: Is it moral to me to eat cyanide? (first perspective) Does my neighbor consider it to be moral for himself to eat cyanide? (second perspective) Is eating cyanide moral in some cosmological sense such that everyone must agree - and therefore, perhaps, justify the prohibiting others from doing so? (third perspective) ​Existentially, the first perspective is the only one that you can influence. You have ZERO control over the second perspective. And the third perspective leads to either mysticism or materialism (both of which end in gas chambers).

"Specifically, Objectivists claim that morality is objectively derived from the facts of reality and is therefore not subjective." Objectivism claims that an INDIVIDUAL's mind is capable of deriving objective knowledge of the world in which he lives. This is not to say that man's knowledge is infallible or omniscient -- nor does it imply that every "rational" man must reach the exact same conclusion. Too many people confuse "objectivity" with "certainty", which is what I believe you are doing.

"In general, I think of people who have the need to advocate for empathy, as suspect mind-haters, therefore anti-life whether they know it or not." I think you are confusing "empathy" with the idea of advocating for "primacy of emotions" or even "compassion". Empathy is the cognitive trait that allows certain animals (including man) to grasp the cognitive states of other living beings. This activity is initiated at a pre-verbal level in humans (babies and adults) but it also parallels other structures in the brain that handle abstract thought, reasoning, emotions, memory, etc. All systems are equally necessary for rational, healthy behavior. One is not of greater value than the other.