> [Reuben: ]
>
> The only problem with that paragraph is that it mixes 'you
> can't judge any morality to be wrong - it's subjective' together with
> a
> moral judgement - 'don't judge other's morality'.
>
> It's a paradox I've never really figured out.
>
>
Rob:
I've seen this paradox, too. There is a way round it though (for me, anyway). You have to dump the whole concept of judgment as valid. After all, whether you think it's all environment or environment+genetics that forge a person, we are forged externally (externally to our conciousness) all the same. (I note this as your average non-thinker will try to force the 'all environment' argument, as if that provides 'accountability'. They wish to preserve 'accountability', as this in turn provides opportunity for judgement, a kind of secondary accelerator to the natural selection process whereby we will feel the need to judge eachother, then attempt to 'pass a sentence' which may mean death. If we are socially/physically strong, we will succeed and the weaker organism will be removed, if we are weaker, the 'sentence' will not be passed, the stronger organism will still survive, no harm done).
My (please shred it if you disagree) idea of a possible function of conciousness is as a frame of reference for the brain to work to. After all, no one has managed to program a computer to feel pleasure or pain, or give a monkeys about anything yet......it's the conciousness which adds context to the whole idea of motivation. This would make the conciousness merely an 'observer' to the actions of the predisposed human/other sentient creature. After all, the game plan (of human life as we know it) was already defined when we came in, and individuals from generation to generation never, ever effect changes to our central motivation. Therefore, either conciousnesses are 'totally happy and at peace' (all pleasure, no pain) with being integrated with humans, and so don't affect any real change (no way), or they have no pre-provided ability to affect any change.