"faith can move mountains".

One simply needs to know what 'frequency' that mountain 'thinks' in.

It doesn't matter.

I was simply demonstrating that the definition of a word is not a hard and fast LAW, and that there are a lot of meanings for the term "mind."

I don't know if you realize this, but I am more interested in improving our communication than in proving the existence of something that I happen to believe or refer to. My personal revelations and beliefs have only been mentioned for the purpose of clarity.

But if you are suggesting that I restrict my conversation to only things that can be "reasonably shown to exist," then this would not be a conversation I would engage in.

(Because all the time would be spent trying to prove things.. arguments, etc....)

You ignored my post about the definition of Universal Morality and chose to question my example of the definition of "MIND." Was that an effort on your part to argue or change the subject or topic?


SO HOW ABOUT UNIVERSAL MORALITY?

Defined:
A Moral System that Applies to All Advanced Civilizations in the Universe. *****etc....


You told me what you mean by "universal" but you have still not or explained what you mean by "universal morality." Do you agree with the definition of Universal Morality I posted?

How about the three principles of universal morality?

1. Attempt to maximize your own
personal happiness and fulfillment.

2. Attempt to maximize the happiness and fulfillment of
all other present and future individuals of your species.

3.Attempt to maximize the happiness and fulfillment
of all other sentient creatures in the universe.


What have you to say about that?

It does matter JB. You've claimed that basically nothing exists independently of some universal mind which cannot be reasonably shown to exist anywhere outside of one's imagination. Everybody's belief system, regardless of the content, is about what is believed to be true of the world/universe. It order for statements about those beliefs to be true, they must somehow correspond to fact. Opinions exist - as do facts. Facts are true regardless of whether or not someone is around to apprehend the state of affairs and put it into language in order to express it. I mean the sun is however hot it is regardless of whether or not we come to know that fact. Facts are not just statements made by humans. Facts are what those statements obtain. They obtain a state of affairs in reality which is independent of the human mind.

If and how something exists underwrites this entire thread, and your very expressions on any subject matter. On my view, which is quite 'liberal', there are two manners of existence - subjective and objective. Since the topic is morals and morality, I'll use that as an example. Most people believe that there is no objective morality, that what is right/wrong is a matter of subjective particulars, cultures, situations, opinions, personal tastes, etc. There are many different reasons why that belief is held. Some arguments against objective morality are more coherent/valid than others in that iff their premisses are true so are there conclusions. If morality is X, and X is contingent upon subjective particulars, then morality is contingent upon subjective particulars. All of them depend upon what morality is in one way or another(what kind of existence it has). Throughout written history, humans have conflated morals and other adopted moral belief with morality and treated them all as if they are the same thing(morality). My position holds that that is a fatal flaw in those arguments.

Now according to the opposition, if morality does not or cannot exist independently of the human mind, then morality itself cannot be objective. That is true. That is why I found that particular line of thinking relevant to the discussion. If morality is different than moral belief, it needs to be reasonably shown as such. It is easy to give good reason(justify) holding that the two are different, and therefore that the possibility of objective morality is sensible/plausible. It is much more difficult to show the belief as true. To do that, there must be moral facts which obtain so that moral claims can correspond to fact in order to be true. As of yet, most well-educated people(academic and other intellects alike) realize that it is possible that objective morality exists, but hold that we've failed in our attempts at arguing for it in a compelling way. Those who have a good grasp upon the subject matter can usually offer their own reasons why they hold a position which opposes the idea, or what it would take to for morality to be objective.



I agree for most terms. I was simply showing that just because one uses a word in such and such a way does not mean that that way is coherent and/or supports the claim which the term was employed in order to support to begin with. These kinds of semantic argument lead nowhere useful. If there is a difference in meaning that has some kind of relevance, then that relevnace should be shown. If not, it is a difference that makes no difference, and therefore rather petty. Yes, words have different meanings through different uses and in different contexts. That is trivially true, and not a matter of contention.



Actually Jb, you've denied the entire argument for universal morality based upon something which cannot be shown to exist. I pointed that out, and you said that it does not matter. If that does not matter, then by default alone, your objection does not.



You're the one who invoked the notion of 'proof' Jb. I was just following suit.

That is my belief according to how I define THE MIND. It doesn't matter because I am not making a claim to be proved or disproved.

It is YOUR claim that must be proven, because you openly admit that it is your claim, and that it is a fact.

In order to agree or disagree with your claim I found it necessary to learn what your idea or understanding of "the mind" is, as there are many many different definitions of that term.

When you told me that "the mind" according to the confines of your claim is intended to mean "A function of the brain." then is when I told you that I understand.

I understand where you are and what you mean and believe the mind to be.

It does not matter what I happen to believe the mind to be. I am not claiming that what I believe is a provable fact or can be shown to reasonably exist. You have already stated YOUR belief. It is not my intention to convince you of what I believe, because what I believe, or how many people agree with me, or if it can be shown to actually exist, does not matter.

I have my reasons for MY belief. I am not attempting to convince you. What I am asking for you to do is convince me that your claim is true according to your understanding of "mind."

Also I am asking you to define "universal morality" and explain why you feel it is not the same thing as "morals."

You have not done that yet, therefore I remain unconvinced of your claim even if I accept and consider your premise of your use of the the term "mind."

Again, get this clear. I am not arguing against your claim I am simply telling you that I am unconvinced that it is true. You have not proven your case or claim.

It just seems you want to argue. Well, state your case. Prove your claim.

I'm waiting.

Not at all. It came off the heels of your objection which claimed that nothing exists independently of the mind. Seeing how if that objection were true, my argument for universal morality would fail, and the thread is about morals/morality, then the notion of examining objections including how and why they are relevant or not, are par for the course.



This is, quite simply, not true.



No, and the reasons why are directly related to the earlier question which I asked you about what is involved with creating a definition.



I say at face value, they seem reasonable but there are significant problems.

1. The most obvious is that their implementation creates conflict with one another the moment that a contradiction exists between one's own 'happiness' and another's. If person A's happiness can be maximized and fulfilled by X, but person B's happiness is adversely affected by X, then what do you do? It sounds nice, but solves nothing. It is a practical impossibility to employ a code of 'moral' principles based purely upon personal preferences and expect that code to work.

2. It falls victim to the same incoherence issues that moral relativism does.

3. The first principle puts personal happiness at the forefront. Morality is about what is best for all, and what matters to all.

4. It makes morality subjective, and therefore is not morality but moral belief/codes of conduct. As such, it does not - it cannot - properly take into account what morality is in order to determine what constitutes moral/immoral behaviour.

Jb,

You used your belief that universal mind exists in order to support the idea that nothing exists independently of the mind. That constitutes being an objection to another's claim. If your beliefs do not matter, then why put them forth as a means to deny the truth of another's claims?

I do not even understand where you're coming from. Why say things that do not matter?

I do not understand what you're saying here. You offered, for some reason or another, 47 different meanings for the term "mind". My use entail 45 of those, yours entail 2.

How does that constitute sufficient reason to employ the term "confines" to the my manner of use? I mean, common sense tells me that your manner of using the term is far more confining than my own.

Again, what is the point in raising these issues?

For clarity and clarity alone...

Which claim? What constitutes being "true" in your view? That may seem to be curious, but surely with all of the failed attempts at communication here, you'll realize that these two things are very important in order for me to even be able to satisfy your request, which I'm granting is genuine.

What I'm suggesting is that if you make an objection, you should be able and ready to support it. "Universal mind" was invoked in order to support your objection to my claim. That objection was that a concept cannot exist independently of the mind. That was supported by the assertion that a universal mind exists. If you do not wish to support that claim, then you should not use it in the manner that you did.

That's just etiquette.

Your claim that universal morality exists independent of the human mind.

You define "mind" as a function of the "brain."

So your claim is that universal morality is independent of the function of the brain.

In simple terms, your claim is that universal morality is objective, not subjective.

Is it that you want to believe that "right and wrong" are not matters of opinion and not subjective? Are you wanting to claim that certain things are absolutely and indisputably wrong in every case?

That right and wrong is some sort of universal law or state of affairs and not an opinion?



If you can provide reasonable evidence and reasons to believe that a universal morality exists independent of a function of the human brain (mind).

I don't want a lot of incomprehensible mumbo jumbo, or directions to go and read volumes of books on the subject.




Thank you.

A: To facilitate communication.

I put forth my beliefs because that is why I "object" to your claim. I did not put them forth as a claim to be proven to you. It is not my intention or desire to convince you to believe as I do. (I know that would be futile.)



I am coming from my beliefs. That is why I reveal them to you, so you will know where I am coming from.

When I say my beliefs "do not matter," I mean they do not matter to anyone but me. They are not relevant and they do not matter to the subject of your claim. I am not putting them forth as facts or claims, so stop challenging them and insisting that I prove them.

I am willing to suspend my beliefs and accept your premise of "mind" being a function of the brain now that I know what you mean by mind.

From there, I can decide if your claim seems reasonably true.

Because I am willing to suspend my beliefs and accept your premise of mind, you have no reason to challenge my beliefs and demand I offer proof for them. I have my own reasons and world view and it is more complicated than this discussion can bare, not to mention it would get way off topic.

I am using only your definition that the mind is a "function of the brain."



Again, the point is communication, not "argument."



That's ridiculous. Even if you have 47 definitions that apply to yours, yours is clearly more confining than mine. Yours only apples to the human brain. Mine applies to the entire physical universe and everything in it. LOL

And, according to the colored part above, what would constitute that claim being true, in your view? I cannot satisfy your request without knowing what it would take to do so. Since there have already been issues regarding fact and opinion, it is not out of the realm of possibility that we may have different ideas about what constitutes being true. So I ask you again...

What constitutes sufficient reason for concluding that a claim be true?



If right/wrong mean moral/immoral yes, but I stress the importance that it is not a matter of my "wanting to believe".



Again, it is not a matter of "my wanting". It is clear that certain things are absolutely and indisputably "wrong" in every case. I've already offered you one example. Certain kinds of killing are considered wrong as well. Every society has such a thing in their behavioral code. The specifics concerning exactly what that entails differ, but in each case there does exist a forbidden kind. That holds true across the board for many different behaviors.



No.

In real time, your edit and my post crossed past one another...

You've answered the question. I'll post relative to your last edit.

I'm asking you exactly what would constitute being reasonable evidence and reasons. I'm wondering if you already have an idea of what that is.

I have no clue. I am willing to here your evidence. What convinced you? Why are you convinced?

There are two different aspects to be taken into consideration here. One directly involves why it is reasonable(logically possible) for universal morality to exist. That directly involves the belief being justified. The other regards what it would take to show such a thing as being the case. That is all about whether or not the belief is true.

When looking at morality, if it somehow underwrites all moral/ethical codes, discourse, and belief then there must be common denominators inherent to all of the different ones. If morality is also held to be objective, then those common denominators must also be objective. Those are just brute facts. If these things cannot be shown to be the case, then there is no reason to believe that morality is objective.

Are you with me so far?

Could you give one example of a "common denominator?"

Uh... no. Mine applies to 45 of the 47 accepted uses of the term. Yours applies to 2. Therefore, it is ridiculous to claim that what constitutes being "confining" is satisfied by anything other than the common uses.



No, it doesn't actually. Yours applies to 2 uses of the term. Those definitions are also not about the "physical" universe. In fact, those two definitions clearly state otherwise. Again, this is just an absurd way to continue the engagement here. Not to mention that this claim clearly contradicts what is true.

Go look.