Is morality subjective?

Originally posted by black beetle
The point is not how "important" we are, but the nature of the reality we perceive😵

How I perceive reality only alters my views, it does not alter for example the
chemical composition of tea cup or the wave form of light.
Kelly

Originally posted by JS357
Ah. To say something exists is not attribution, it is predication.

Why is it a predication?
To say that something is an existent epistemic object, at first you need a potentiality for an experienced reality and its interaction with your consciousness that validates a specific experienced reality in which the specific epistemic object is existent. The potentiality for an experienced reality is contained in the realm of your ability to decode whatever you perceive (cognizant apparatus) into processed information with a specific meaning to you (attribution), otherwise all the epistemic objects you would perceive (if you could, that is) they would be identical.
Observers-participancy (a result of physics) give rise to specific bits of information, which in turn give rise to physics. So perception is directly involved in the structuring of the physical world and its laws by means of attributions (of ours to the epistemic objects we evaluate as existent) based on the experienced by us reality
😵

Originally posted by KellyJay
How I perceive reality only alters my views, it does not alter for example the
chemical composition of tea cup or the wave form of light.
Kelly

Prior to your interaction with that tea etc, not only its properties are undefined to you but the tea itself is non-existent to you. And even if you had a cup o' that tea, you could define its taste solely according to the reaction of your senses and receptors (consiousness/ awareness) regardless of the chemical composition of the tea😵

Is morality subjunctive?

Would that it were.

(How that led to this: http://www.gwleibniz.com/leibniz_skull/leibniz_skull.html - I can't quite say, but it was fun. Don't mind me; carry on.)

Originally posted by black beetle
Prior to your interaction with that tea etc, not only its properties are undefined to you but the tea itself is non-existent to you. And even if you had a cup o' that tea, you could define its taste solely according to the reaction of your senses and receptors (consiousness/ awareness) regardless of the chemical composition of the tea😵

Again, prior to my interaction with that cup, it properties are undefied to me,
you say it over and over as if that means some thing! I'm not the defining
force in the universe, it stands on its own, my opinions about it may change as
I experience it, but I'm apart of the whole my reaction only gives shape to my
opinion about it, I do not create reality I live in it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Again, prior to my interaction with that cup, it properties are undefied to me,
you say it over and over as if that means some thing! I'm not the defining
force in the universe, it stands on its own, my opinions about it may change as
I experience it, but I'm apart of the whole my reaction only gives shape to my
opinion about it, I do not create reality I live in it.
Kelly

Clearly we disagree; when the properties of an observer are undefined to you, then the observer is undefined to you and you cannot process the information it envelops. Lack of information means exactly that you cannot experience it. In order to experience whatever, you need an interface, and that interface is your cognitive apparatus alone. The reality you experience is always the reality unveiled to you thanks to that interface of yours, your consciousness, and you cannot experience other reality than that. It follows that you alone define your reality, a fully subjective reality that is by definition not holistic since it does not covers all the aspects of the observer universe.
And I never said that you create your experienced reality as if you created mount Everest😵

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Is morality subjunctive?

Would that it were.

Nicely done!

Originally posted by black beetle
Clearly we disagree; when the properties of an observer are undefined to you, then the observer is undefined to you and you cannot process the information it envelops. Lack of information means exactly that you cannot experience it. In order to experience whatever, you need an interface, and that interface is your cognitive apparatus alone. The reality ...[text shortened]... se.
And I never said that you create your experienced reality as if you created mount Everest😵

Yes, I guess we agree to disagree, for I reject that reality is my experience in
total that nothing is real without me.
Kelly

Originally posted by black beetle
Clearly we disagree; when the properties of an observer are undefined to you, then the observer is undefined to you and you cannot process the information it envelops. Lack of information means exactly that you cannot experience it. In order to experience whatever, you need an interface, and that interface is your cognitive apparatus alone. The reality ...[text shortened]... se.
And I never said that you create your experienced reality as if you created mount Everest😵

Jewish kabbalah captures (from a less precise angle) something of the same thing, which I might express poetically thus—

ayin b’yesh
yesh b’ayin
within from within
within and within

echad b’echad
one into one

kol b’echad
all within one

_______________________________________

ayin = nothing/nothingness—no-thing-ness; yesh = isness; b’ = in, within, into; echad = one; kol = all.

The lines “echad b’echad / one into one” are from the chant by Yofiyah in her album “Kabbalah Kirtan”.

Originally posted by vistesd
Jewish kabbalah captures (from a less precise angle) something of the same thing, which I might express poetically thus—

ayin b’yesh
yesh b’ayin
within from within
within and within

echad b’echad
one into one

kol b’echad
all within one

_______________________________________

ayin = nothing/nothingness—no-thing- ...[text shortened]... ]echad b’echad[/i] / one into one” are from the chant by Yofiyah in her album “Kabbalah Kirtan”.

Yes.
The realm of the fundamental void wavefunction (the realm of potentiality for storing seed potentialities, the playground of the one-gone-thus)
Is the source of the uncollapsed wavefunction that contains the stored potentialities (gategateparagateparasamgatevistesd),
Which is the source of the collapsed wavefunction (that gives rise to the conventional world of dualistic experience as it is perceived by the sentient beings who are not aware of the lack of self)
😵

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes, I guess we agree to disagree, for I reject that reality is my experience in
total that nothing is real without me.
Kelly

Oh Kelly I never said that reality is your experience in total that nothing is real without you!
I said that the reality you perceive is subjective, and that morality is subjective too (well, morality could be subjunctive too) 😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Oh Kelly I never said that reality is your experience in total that nothing is real without you!
I said that the reality you perceive is subjective, and that morality is subjective too (well, morality could be subjunctive too) 😵

We can beat a dead horse if you want.
As I pointed out with colors, we may not agree on the name of the shade but we
know there is some color there, and that applies to morals, we may not agree on
what excuse gets you out of a promise, but we do agree once a promise has been
made it should be kept.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
We can beat a dead horse if you want.
As I pointed out with colors, we may not agree on the name of the shade but we
know there is some color there, and that applies to morals, we may not agree on
what excuse gets you out of a promise, but we do agree once a promise has been
made it should be kept.
Kelly

You know that the colour exists because you observed it and you decoded specific photons under specific cirsustances in a way that the colour is manifested. Other sentient beings do not decode those specific photons the way your consciousness decode it, therefore each consciousness decodes reality differently according to its nature and not because the colours are inherently existent and self-enclosed, in separation from your consciousness. Subjectivity big time.

And morality... Methinks it is our collective subjectivity alone the agent that gave rise to a specific consensus as regards our behaviour. Morality is mind-dependent because it is clearly a product of the human mind, and it is neither inherently existent nor it exists separated from the human mind. We invented it, and we use it for social reasons according to our convenience😵

Originally posted by black beetle
You know that the colour exists because you observed it and you decoded specific photons under specific cirsustances in a way that the colour is manifested. Other sentient beings do not decode those specific photons the way your consciousness decode it, therefore each consciousness decodes reality differently according to its nature and not because the ...[text shortened]... the human mind. We invented it, and we use it for social reasons according to our convenience😵

I know it exists because...
If it does it does no matter if others do or do not see or are aware.
As I pointed out over and over radio waves are real, I don't see them or hear
them unless I use a radio, not haveing a radio doesn't mean the no longer are
real.
If we all acknowledge something is real but quible about the edges on what is
or isn't the correct way to define if a promise should be kept, we all
acknowledge the truth that it is real, and quite beyond us other than knowing
we are bound to it.
Kelly