law

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

What is the meaning of law? Why did law come into existence?
On what basis are laws defined?

[cda...@jprude.net]

"Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> What is the meaning of law?

There is not any one the meaning of law. But generally
speaking for the purposes about which it seems you ask if you are not
just trolling: law is some combination of rules and prevailingly
accepted or acquiesced in procedures for arriving at what are said to
be rules of social and transactional relations and behavior in and for
the relevant community as enforced by way of a combination of, in the
relevant community, prevailingly accepted norms and also institutions.

> Why did law come into existence?

By a variety of means which mostly include, for humans, the
exercise of and acquiescence in the uses of power as reflected in and
also implemented by cultural and societal political institutions as
they evolved over time.

> On what basis are laws defined?

Answers will be affected by what one means and presumes one
means by defined. But generally speaking for the purposes about which
it seems you ask if you are not just trolling: by the assertion of
and acquiescence in the authority within the relevant community that
is predominantly accorded law related institutions, which include
courts and their judges or functionally equivalent rule prescribing
and dispute resolving persons and tribunals and legislators and police
and organized religious institutions and various bodies corporate,
among other things.


.............................................................................................
But of course you do not post the above questions for serious
purposes since, even if you might have expressed responses such as
those above in somewhat different words, you basically knew all this
before you posted.

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Mar 9, 7:11 pm, cdar...@jprude.net wrote:

> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What is the meaning of law?
>
>         There is not any one the meaning of law. But generally
> speaking for the purposes about which it seems you ask if you are not
> just trolling: law is some combination of rules and prevailingly
> accepted or acquiesced in procedures for arriving at what are said to
> be rules of social and transactional relations and behavior in and for
> the relevant community as enforced by way of a combination of, in the
> relevant community, prevailingly accepted norms and also institutions.
>

What is "relevant community"?
If certain members want to form their own "relevant community" just
because they don't agree with the existing laws?
What if members want to form their own laws?

[TruthSlave]

Ganesh J. Acharya wrote:
> What is the meaning of law? Why did law come into existence?
> On what basis are laws defined?

Law seems to be defined by its use, so that it means different
things to different peoples. You can say Law and mean something
completely different, to my limited understanding of Law.

Speaking generally, the law exist to control the mob. Its as
much for the group taking the law into its own hands, as it
its for the individual who defies the group.

So much of law is about the clarifying the law. What is meant,
how is it relevant? This idea of the law, is one defined by
prior use.

Imagine a world where we each used the word with a different
idea of its worth.

[David L. Martel]

Ganesh,

What is "relevant community"?

The community that makes and enforces the laws.

If certain members want to form their own "relevant community" just
because they don't agree with the existing laws?

The problem with this is that you must convince the former "relevant
community" that you are no longer a part of the former relevant community.

What if members want to form their own laws?

This is much easier. Lots of organizations have laws, customs, and rules
that apply only to their members. These members are still members of the
relevant community and are still bound by it's laws. It is a problem when
the organization's rules conflict with the laws of the relevant community.

Good luck,
Dave M.

[cda...@jprude.net]

What David L. Martel said in his Sun, 10 Mar 2013 13:45:16
-0400 posting is a very good response to these questions: essentially
correct, clear, and concise brief while, given the generality of your
queries, comparatively comprehensive.

[Ganesh J Acharya]

On Sunday, March 10, 2013 11:15:16 PM UTC+5:30, David L. Martel
wrote:

The point I am trying to raise is natural laws are fixed.

Why so many relevant communities came into existence?

Cannot laws be defined starting from one parent? If the laws is
appropriate everyone should accept the same unanimously? So, why are
deviations forming?

[David L. Martel]

Ganesh,

> The point I am trying to raise is natural laws are fixed.

Ok, start there. Tell us what "natural laws" are and why they are fixed.

>
> Why so many relevant communities came into existence?

There are many answers to this, I suspect, but without knowing what
"natural laws" are it would be premature to answer.

>
> Cannot laws be defined starting from one parent?

I've no idea what you are asking? Parent?

If the laws is
> appropriate everyone should accept the same unanimously? So, why are
> deviations forming?

Once again, I'm unsure of what you are asking. Just because some law is
appropriate here and now does not mean that it will be appropriate somewhere
else and some other time. I'm guessing that you are referring back to these
fixed, natural laws.
Also, people disagree, unanimity is unlikely.

Good luck,

[cda...@jprude.net]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:08:00 -0700 (PDT), Ganesh J Acharya
<ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The point I am trying to raise is natural laws are fixed.

If one makes the commonly made, "Anythingispossible!!"
assumption, this possibly could be ... at least possible.

But one who accords more than merely rote and reflexively
rudimentary - that is, at least more than borderline thoughtful -
attention to this attempted "point" will note that it is as verbally
incoherent as it is epistemologically unverifiable and
anthropologically including cross-culturally refuted by actual human
experience .... other than, that is, for unilaterally - and:
truthfully? mistakenly? delusionally? falsely? - asserted Revelation.

If, however, you think you understand and also would claim to
believe this so-called "point" and you also would truthfully claim
that you have thought carefully about it, you might want to provide
and explain your answers to at least these questions:
How can one reasonably decide whether Mary Smith's
assertion, "Fixed natural law requires concluding, 'Do act X!'" or
John Doe's contrary assertion in the circumstances, "Fixed natural law
requires behaving in conformity with a, 'Do not do act X!'
prohibition" actually derives from a or from The fixed natural law?
How can one reasonably decide in this connection
whether Richard Roe's assertion that "fixed natural law" requires
concluding that neither the rule, "Do act X!" nor a "Do not do act X!"
rule provides a sufficient let alone correct answer to whatever is
the, "What to do how persusavely to justify doing it?" question at
hand?
If there is not unanimous agreement with or at least
acquiescence in your answers, how ought the person claiming the
prerogative to define fixed natural law deal with non-agreeing persons
or outright dissenters?

> Cannot laws be defined starting from one parent?

Yes. And one also can and in the past some did purport to
define what explains the vitality of living plants and animals and
other forms of life on earth as derviving from their "elan vital" and
to define the source of power that enables a train to move as
"locomotive force" and, even if with tongue implanted slyly and
ironically in cheek, to define "a rose" as "a rose..." and, if you
wish, you may define the "parent" to which (Who? What?) you refer as
"The Great Pumpkin" or "The Spaghetti Monster" or as "Dark Matter" or
as "Gaia" or as "The Force" or as some named (defined) or as
Not-To-Be-Named god (or God) ... or whatever.

But POLITICALLY and CULTURALLY speaking, whoever by explicit
or at least acquiesced in consensus gets to define the operative terms
is the person or are the persons who - from time to time and from
place to place - policitally and culturally get to define the terms
EVEN IF, in fact, not derived from some sort of asserted "fixed
natural law" and also, often, even if what is said to be the binding
definition is not coherently understandable as that except as inferred
from the exercise of coercive power by or assertedly on behalf of the
relevant group.

> If the laws is appropriate everyone should accept the same
> unanimously?

Unanimously? Sez who ... and on what evidentiary or even
borderline rational basis?

Do you not understand that your bare assertion of your
underlying "point" does not provide an answer or even the beginning
basis for an arguably reasonable answer?

> So, why are deviations forming?

Continuing to presume that you posed them seriously and not
merely as an exercise in trolling, you began this thread with two very
different kinds of questions: "What is the meaning of law?" - even
though you know that there is not any one "the meaning of law" or, for
that matter, of "law" that is "fixed" in any anthropologically or
culturally or politically or intellectual sense of "fixed" - and "Why
did law come into existence?" - even though you also know that in this
connection you conflate "Why?" with "How?" and, in any event, that
there is not any one answer why or how.

Perhaps you appreciate the quasi-Socratic instead of directly
confrontational approach of Mr. Martel's 12 Mar 2013 response to these
questions or at least will think carefully about what he is trying to
suggest by that approach.

But his disclaimer that he has "no idea" what you purport to
ask by your, "Cannot laws be defined [sic] starting from one parent
[sic]?" question seems more a rhetorical ploy than a literally
accurate report of his state of mind in this connection. Surely he
does have at least some idea of what you speculate and evidently try
to suggest by your asserted "point" - namely, that the "parent" to
which (Whom?) you refer is some sort of diety (Diety?) who (Which?)
you also speculate has provided what is said by some human or group
(cabal?) of humans to have been "defined" (Revealed?).

[Bill Graham]

There are only two kinds of laws. Physical laws, and man-made laws. Physical
laws are like E=MCsqured, or The square of the hypotenuse of a right
triangle is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. And all
man made laws are not natural. (whatever that means)

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Tuesday, March 12, 2013 5:39:12 PM UTC+5:30, David L. Martel wrote:
> Ganesh,

> > The point I am trying to raise is natural laws are fixed.
>
> Ok, start there. Tell us what "natural laws" are and why they are fixed.
>

1. Every soul is from the same mother "Nature"

2. Every soul shares the same "resources"

3. Every "Natural resource" are bound to the Natural laws.

4. Every soul sharing them are bound to "Natural laws." as well?

[David L. Martel]

Ganesh

>> Ok, start there. Tell us what "natural laws" are and why they are
>> fixed.
>>
>
> 1. Every soul is from the same mother "Nature"
>
> 2. Every soul shares the same "resources"
>
> 3. Every "Natural resource" are bound to the Natural laws.
>
> 4. Every soul sharing them are bound to "Natural laws." as well?

You haven't told me what "natural laws" are or why they are fixed.
Instead you have introduced more undefined terms, soul, resources,
nature, et c.
I don't think you are trolling but you aren't very organised and you
aren't expressing yourself clearly.
I'm not sure that your "natural laws" have anything to do with legal
systems, perhaps you will receive more helpful answers at alt.philosophy.
Or, perhaps Mr. Darrow will continue his exchanges but my interest wanes.

Good luck,
Dave M.

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 5:26:36 PM UTC+5:30, David L. Martel
wrote:

> Ganesh
>
>
>
> >> Ok, start there. Tell us what "natural laws" are and why they are
>
> >> fixed.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > 1. Every soul is from the same mother "Nature"
>
> >
>
> > 2. Every soul shares the same "resources"
>
> >
>
> > 3. Every "Natural resource" are bound to the Natural laws.
>
> >
>
> > 4. Every soul sharing them are bound to "Natural laws." as well?
>
>
>
>
>
> You haven't told me what "natural laws"

Day Night
Seasons
Gravity
and all that

> are or why they are fixed.
>

Why they are fixed?
One can only know they are fixed
Do you say they aren't?

> Instead you have introduced more undefined terms, soul, resources,
>
> nature, et c.
>

Wonder how are a laws made otherwise? If everyone is for sure is from
this nature, how on earth the laws are different for different
relevant communities?
Apparently laws a defined as per ones convenience. Laws should ensure
universal happiness prevails, or otherwise the same would be lost.

> I don't think you are trolling but you aren't very organised and you
>
> aren't expressing yourself clearly.
>
> I'm not sure that your "natural laws" have anything to do with legal
>
> systems, perhaps you will receive more helpful answers at alt.philosophy.
>

Yes, they are important if souls universally experience similar.
If the universal experiences are same how can laws vary?

[j...@xxx.net]

"Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>> Tell us what "natural laws" are and why they are
>> fixed.
>
> 1. Every soul is from the same mother "Nature"
> 2. Every soul shares the same "resources"
> 3. Every "Natural resource" are bound to the Natural laws.
> 4. Every soul sharing them are bound to "Natural laws." as well

Since the poster has neither provided any information which would
allow others to understand and verify the accuracy of these
relentlessly vague statements nor tried to explain them himself, it
probably would be futile to wonder how he would respond to even the
most politely made request for explanation.

However, unless he does do in a way he has so far avoided, namely, by
explaining non confusingly what he thinks he means by "soul" and
"Nature" and by these other statements in a manner more than, as so
far, mere formalistically circular fiat, he will continue not only to
make it impossible for anyone else to determine that he knows this
instead of him merely hoping as a matter of unilaterally experienced
faith that these are logically meaningful and also factually true
statements but also will insure his continuing to wallow in his own
intellectual (not to dwell on religious, philosophical, and
jurisprudential) confusion.

Still, even if one accords the broadest possible presumption of
meaningfulness to the poster's statements #1-4, it remains a mystery
in a news group thread he started by purporting to as about the
meaning and sources of "law" how one rationally can derive there from
any law relevant and, more broadly, politically and societally
relevant answers to a myriad of jurisprudential and indeed elementary
legal questions such these and the host of obvious variations:

- Should it be enforceable law in his community that operators of
motor vehicles on roads near and in populated areas be permitted to
drive on whatever side of the road and at whatever speeds they wish or
instead be required to drive only on the right or on the left side of
the road at no more than speeds posted by representative governmental
bodies?
- If D borrows money from P and agrees but later refuses to repay it,
should D be required to repay and, if so, under color of what
standards and with the intercession of what if any institutions such
as, for example, a court and by a judgment enforcing sheriff's office?
- If D borrows money from P and if P later says that D has not repaid
it despite a request from P and if D says in response that D did repay
all of the borrowed sum or that there are other good reasons for
denying P's claim, how and by whom should it be decided that P's and
not D's or that D's and not P's claim is the factually and also
legally correct one?
- If P should be required to repay, shall P also be obliged to pay
interest on the principal sum and, if so, in what amounts computed
how?
- If T wants a share in an amount T decides of bags of rice and bars
of gold which A says belong entirely to A, what if any are the
standards, in particular, by which a neutral third person ought agree
with T instead of with A, or vice versa, and who shall that decider be
selected how and with what if any enforcement authority?
- If in the poster's community his a predominant number of his
neighbors' preferences are to the effect that one should not eat the
meat animals that only chew the cud and only have a divided hoof,
shall those preferences be imposed by law on those who do not share
them?
- If in the poster's community his and a predominant number of his
neighbors' preferences are to the effect that one should not eat the
meat animals that only chew the cud and only have a divided hoof, how
if at all should applicable law be drafted and enforced in relation to
those who prefer to eat meat of an animal which chews its cud but does
not have a divided hoof?
- If in the poster's community his and a predominant number of his
neighbors' preferences are to the effect that it is an abomination for
especially a woman to wear garments made of different fabrics but if
someone prefers to dress like Woody Allen's character "Annie Hall"
should that "Annie Hall"-like person be stoned to death?

>> You haven't told me what "natural laws"
>
> Day Night
> Seasons
> Gravity
> and all that
>
> are or why they are fixed.
>
> Why they are fixed?
> One can only know they are fixed
> Do you say they aren't

It is possible that there are what fairly can be described as "natural
laws" in the sense of, so far, overwhelmingly observed patterns of
nature that result in day-night and seasonal cycles. But, capitalized
or not, Day Night and Seasons are not natural laws much less "fixed"
such. To the contrary, even if in some sort of varying way it can be
sometimes helpful to refer to a mostly cold weather period as a
"season" of "winter" and to a mostly hot weather period as "summer"
although different cultures in different communities in different
places may label such periods differently, a claim that these are
"fixed" in any world-wide much less universal way is contradicted by
easy to observe, and actually observed, fact.

> If everyone is for sure is from
> this nature, how on earth the laws are different for different
> relevant communities?

When it is Winter in Peru, it is Summer in Darjeeling even if intense
torrential rains experienced frequently during July-August monsoons in
and near Darjeeling are rarely if ever experienced in Peru and
Bolivia. etc. etc. Different places. Different relevant
communities. Different seasons. And, OmiGod (or gods), lets not think
about ongoing massive and increasingly anthropomorphically affected
climate change! And of course it is a matter of Revealed Truth that
women may not be permitted to learn to read and shall become brides at
age nine or ten, in, for example, many parts of Afghanistan but not in
European countries to the west of Afghanistan. Different relevant
communities. Different laws and customs tantamount to law.

> Apparently laws a defined as per ones convenience.

Not one's convenience, unless that One in the relevant area is the
most powerful and power implementing emperor or religious body or the
like.

> If the universal experiences are same how can laws vary?

If chickens had teeth, they could chew and eat steak? If the poster
learns to and becomes able to breathe underwater, will he then be able
to live with sharks?

[Immortalist]

On Mar 9, 5:19 am, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> What is the meaning of law? Why did law come into existence?
> On what basis are laws defined?

Understanding how evolution has shaped human nature and individual
preferences can provide insight into how to use law to direct
individual behavior in pro-social directions and away from anti-social
behavior.

Moral Sense Theories

Theories postulating a special moral sense which either enables us to
perceive special moral qualities of virtue and vice in action (which
thereupon affect us favorably or unfavorably), or else simply arouses
feelings of approval or disapproval in us on contemplating the
ordinary qualities of actions (it is not always clear which
alternative is intended).

These theories were popular in the 18th century, and are associated
especially with Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury
(1671-1713) and Francis Hutcheson (1694-1746).

Though sometimes classed as a version of intuitionism, the theories
stood in contrast to contemporary intuitionism which claimed that we
intuit moral facts about actions, rather than being sensitively
affected by their qualities.

http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophies/moral-sense-theories.php

...we are endowed with a moral faculty that delivers judgments of
right and wrong based on unconsciously operative and inaccessible
principles of action. The theory posits a universal moral grammar,
built into the brains of all humans. The grammar is a set of
principles that operate on the basis of the causes and consequences of
action. Thus, in the same way that we are endowed with a language
faculty that consists of a universal toolkit for building possible
languages, we are also endowed with a moral faculty that consists of a
universal toolkit for building possible moral systems.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/11/marc-hauser-mor.html

Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal
Sense of Right and Wrong - by Marc Hauser
http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minds-Nature-Designed-Universal/dp/0060780703

...innate censors and motivators exist in the brain that deeply and
unconsciously affect our ethical premises; from these roots, morality
evolved as instinct. If that perception is correct, science may soon
be in a position to investigate the very origin and meaning of human
values, from which all ethical pronouncements and much of political
practice flow...

...That oracle resides in the deep emotional centers of the brain,
most probably within the limbic system, a complex array of neurons and
hormone-secreting cells located just beneath the "thinking" portion of
the cerebral cortex. Human emotional responses and the more general
ethical practices based on them have been programmed to a substantial
degree by natural selection over thousands of generations. The
challenge to science is to measure the tightness of the constraints
caused by the programming, to find their source in the brain, and to
decode their significance through the reconstruction of the
evolutionary history of the mind. This enterprise will be the logical
complement of the continued study of cultural evolution.

Success will generate the second dilemma, which can be stated as
follows: Which of the censors and motivators should be obeyed and
which ones might better be curtailed or sublimated? These guides are
the very core of our humanity. ...To chart our destiny means that we
must shift from automatic control based on our biological properties
to precise steering based on biological knowledge...

On Human Nature - Edward O. Wilson 1978
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067463442X/qid=1036537594/

There Shall Be Five Moral Modules Everywhere Beneath the Sun

The thought of cultivating solidarity as a precondition of collective
action brings up a long-standing question for me about the work of Jon
Haidt. Haidt describes five inherent moral modules — I first heard
them discussed here — that structure morality as it is practiced
around the world. The five modules:

1) Harm/care, related to our long evolution as mammals with
attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of
others. This foundation underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and
nurturance.

2) Fairness/reciprocity, related to the evolutionary process of
reciprocal altruism. This foundation generates ideas of justice,
rights, and autonomy.

3) Ingroup/loyalty, related to our long history as tribal
creatures able to form shifting coalitions. This foundation underlies
virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active
anytime people feel that it’s “one for all, and all for one.”

4) Authority/respect, shaped by our long primate history of
hierarchical social interactions. This foundaiton underlies virtues of
leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate
authority and respect for traditions.

5) Purity/sanctity, shaped by the psychology of disgust and
contamination. This foundation underlies religious notions of striving
to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the
widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by
immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious
traditions).

In applying these modules to contemporary American politics, Haidt has
proposed that liberals tend to dwell on modules 1 and 2, developing
their politics around fairness and kindness, and conservatives base
their politics on modules 3, 4 and 5. You’re not a real American, you
don’t respect the flag, and don’t put that in your mouth. (Here’s a
summary of Haidt’s work on politics.)

But module 3 and its analysis present a number of problems. For one,
discussions of Haidt’s work tend to deride it. For another, written
mostly before the rise of the Obamanation, they underestimate the
degree to which liberals are capable of forming in-group/out-group
moral judgments (still less toxic than the real right-wing love-it-or-
leave-it efflorescences).

Now, I have no background in evolutionary psychology, comparative
anthropology, or moral philosphy, not to mention precious little book-
larnin’ of any kind, but I have always been struck by the paucity of
understanding this discussion shows for the concept of solidarity. In-
group loyalty strikes Haidt as an atavism, an emotion for policing
who’s in and who’s out. But the success of social movements depends on
it–or, perhaps, an expansive, apotheotic form of it.

It may be the case that solidarity operates as a synthesis of modules
2 and 3 — a dialectical purple moral module derived from the primary
colors of reciprocity and loyalty.

Interestingly, in this 2005 Believer article, Haidt is claiming the
existence of four moral modules, and in-group loyalty does not come
up. I’d like to know how it emerged in his work.

http://joshuamalbin.com/2009/09/there-shall-be-five-moral-modules-everywhere-beneath-the-sun/

Here is one of the last non evolutionary postulates of a derivable
morality. This relic if combined with some recent science may have
potential;

Since most people do not want to be Killed, do not want others to
cause them Pain, do not want others to Disable them, do not want
others to Deprive them of Freedom, do not want others to Deprive them
of Pleasure, and we have neurological evidence of drives and needs in
the human brain that are universal, it is not a matter of doing
whatever we please as a sufficient counter-theory to our accumulated
evidence of our biological situation.

-------------------------------------

These are the ten moral rules that all rational persons would want to
be part of the public system that applies to all rational persons. No
one should be surprised by these ten rules. These are all obvious,
simple rules that everyone is supposed to follow regardless of what
their personal goal in life is. Careful attention to these rules shows
that they primarily set limits on what one is morally allowed to do.
They do not provide a positive goal for life. This is done by another
part of the moral system, what I call the moral ideals.

By an evil or a harm, I simply mean something that you would always
avoid for your self or your friends unless you had some reason for not
avoiding it. I define a good or a benefit in a similar way, as
something you would not avoid for yourself and your friends unless you
had some reason to. I claim that, in the sense I have given to the
terms, we all agree on what the goods and evils are, i.e., we all have
the same basic values.

FUNDAMENTAL

Do not Kill
Do not Cause Pain
Do not Disable
Do not Deprive of Freedom
Do not Deprive of Pleasure.

DERIVETIVE

Don't Deceive
Keep Your Promise
Don't Cheat
Obey the Law
Do Your Duty--where Duty includes those actions you are required to do
by your job, your position, your family, your circumstances, etc.,
e.g., a teacher has a duty to show up for class.

THE MORAL IDEALS

Now I am going to make explicit the moral ideals. Moral ideals are
those precepts that tell you to help others, to prevent the suffering
of pain and disability etc. Following the moral ideals goes beyond
what is required by the rules, but that does not mean that in a
conflict between the rules and the ideals, one should always follow
the rules. For example, everyone agrees that you can break a promise
to meet someone at the movies, if it is necessary to save a life. The
moral ideal of saving a life justifies your breaking this moral rule.
The moral rules and moral ideals are both important, and sometimes one
should take precedence over the other, sometimes the reverse. It
depends on what rules and ideals are involved. It depends on the
particular circumstances. But there is an important difference between
the rules and the ideals. The rules tell you not to cause an evil,
e.g., do not cause pain; the ideals tell you to prevent or relieve
evil being suffered, e.g., relieve pain.

You will notice that the moral rules can be obeyed with regard to all
people, all of the time, equally. You can obey the moral rules
impartially with regard to all people all the time, twenty-four hours
a day, seven day a week, fifty-two weeks a year. You can obey them
when you are alone on a desert island, in fact, you cannot help but
obey them when you are alone on a desert island. The situation is
really different with regard to the moral ideals. You cannot be
following the moral ideals twenty-four hours a day. You have to sleep
sometime, and when you are sleeping you are not following the moral
ideals. This is a significant difference between the moral ideals and
the moral rules, e.g., all of you reading this essay are right now
obeying all of the moral rules, but none of you right now are obeying
any of the moral ideals. Reading this essay may lead you to follow
moral ideals, but right at this minute, you are not following them,
whereas you are obeying all of the moral rules.

This difference between the rules and the ideals leads to another
difference: it is appropriate to punish people for not obeying the
moral rules, but it is not appropriate to punish them for not
following the moral ideals. When would you punish them?

http://aristotle.tamu.edu/~rasmith/Courses/251/gert-paper.html

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Mar 14, 8:36 pm, j...@xxx.net wrote:

> "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >>  Tell us what "natural laws" are and why they are
> >> fixed.
>
> > 1. Every soul is from the same mother "Nature"
> > 2. Every soul shares the same "resources"
> > 3. Every "Natural resource" are bound to the Natural laws.
> > 4. Every soul sharing them are bound to "Natural laws." as well
>
> Since the poster has neither provided any information which would
> allow others to understand and verify the accuracy of these
> relentlessly vague statements nor tried to explain them himself, it
> probably would be futile to wonder how he would respond to even the
> most politely made request for explanation.
>

If the body does not have a soul and is just a machine, then on fixing
the body a living should be brought back to life even after 10-1000
years of the body's death?
In that case every body need to be preserved if the same is true. It
becomes a moral responsibility of every living to preserve bodies of
their dead relatives?

[casey]

On Mar 16, 7:53 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> On Mar 14, 8:36 pm, j...@xxx.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>  Tell us what "natural laws" are and why they are
> > >> fixed.
>
> > > 1. Every soul is from the same mother "Nature"
> > > 2. Every soul shares the same "resources"
> > > 3. Every "Natural resource" are bound to the Natural laws.
> > > 4. Every soul sharing them are bound to "Natural laws." as well
>
> > Since the poster has neither provided any information which would
> > allow others to understand and verify the accuracy of these
> > relentlessly vague statements nor tried to explain them himself, it
> > probably would be futile to wonder how he would respond to even the
> > most politely made request for explanation.
>
> If the body does not have a soul and is just a machine, then on fixing
> the body a living should be brought back to life even after 10-1000
> years of the body's death?

Physically "you" are a pattern made up of continually changing
atoms just as a whirlpool is a pattern made up of continually
changing water molecules. Your body is like a machine where
the parts are continually being replaced with new parts.

The experience we call "our soul" comes I believe from the
what it feels like to be something "alive" looking out at the
world via our senses. We cannot imagine how this experience
is nothing but the firing of neurons but the evidence is that
that is all it is. There is no evidence for a brainless mind.
So in trying to understand what this mind is we need to
think in terms of what the brain is doing. And in order to
understand what we are as a personal identity we need to
think of ourselves as something a brain is doing.

> In that case every body need to be preserved if the same is true. It
> becomes a moral responsibility of every living to preserve bodies of

> their dead relatives?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

You mean all the molecules change but the consciousness?

[casey]

On Mar 17, 8:24 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>

Continue reading ...

[casey]

On Mar 17, 8:24 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>

> You mean all the molecules change but the consciousness?

Consciousness I would suggest is something the neurons
are doing and although the atoms that make up the neurons
keep changing they keep doing consciousness. It would be
like a football team where you keep replacing the players
but the team itself continues to play the game.

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

Also, the memory stay's intact?

[Ganesh J. Acharya]

On Mar 18, 4:08 am, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Even the brain forms first without any reason via an accident?
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.philosophy/FLGuzkfGiG4/discussion
http://ganeshjacharya.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/brain-formed-first-and-then-consciousness/

[casey]

On Mar 18, 1:39 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> On Mar 18, 4:08 am, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 17, 8:24 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > You mean all the molecules change but the consciousness?
>
> > Consciousness I would suggest is something the neurons
> > are doing and although the atoms that make up the neurons
> > keep changing they keep doing consciousness. It would be
> > like a football team where you keep replacing the players
> > but the team itself continues to play the game.
>
> Also, the memory stay's intact?

Long term memory isn't a requirement for being conscious.
Consciousness seems to exist in a temporal window.

A subject known as HM lost the ability to form new
episodic memories (his life story) when his hippocampus
was damaged but he was still fully conscious, he just
couldn't remember what happened more than a few
minutes ago.

[casey]

On Mar 18, 1:44 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> On Mar 18, 4:08 am, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 17, 8:24 pm, "Ganesh J. Acharya" <ganeshjacha...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > You mean all the molecules change but the consciousness?
>
> > Consciousness I would suggest is something the neurons
> > are doing and although the atoms that make up the neurons
> > keep changing they keep doing consciousness. It would be
> > like a football team where you keep replacing the players
> > but the team itself continues to play the game.
>
> Even the brain forms first without any reason via an accident?

Cells specialize as different types of neurons and construct
a brain by linking up according to chemical signals mediated
by the DNA code. The resulting network is then modified
by the incoming sensory signals.

If you are talking about how the brain evolved I suggest
you read up about the theory of evolution for the idea
that is was simply an accident is false.

[Ganesh J Acharya]

But which part of the world is not experiencing "seasons"? So,
experiencing seasons are fixed?

Also, if the climatic and natural conditions of Mumbai for some
reasons is switched over to New York?

The natural (climatic, bodily, ecological) conditions originally
experienced by Mumbaits would be now experienced be experienced by
New-Yorkers?

Which means laws are to also remain the same? Laws are to be based on
fixed Natural Conditions?

[Dare]

What are the relationships or distinctions between
consciousness, awareness and personal identity?
Is any memory required for "only" consciousness?
Does awareness need at least some kind of memory
to form an experience of being?
Does personal identity have meaning in a particular moment...
a "snapshot" of the flow of what neurons are doing?
It seems if there is no "window" or sequence of moments
there might not be an identity to "identify" or recognize.

I was intrigued by your comment that experience of self
is a memory of "someone's" experiences...possibly experienced
originally by another brain(I think it was mentioned in
previous posts about afterlife).
I have occasionally felt a sense of just being "thrown"
into someone else's body with "their" memories but no
identity of my own...just some kind of disoriented awareness.
It was frightening....almost like suffocating.
Ironically(?), I regained a sense of self by trying to focus on
doing something or having a conversation that forced attention
off "self." Maybe I'm going insane? :-) ... :-(

[Dare]

On 3/18/2013 10:04 AM, Dare wrote:
>
> What are the relationships or distinctions between
> consciousness, awareness and personal identity?
> Is any memory required for "only" consciousness?
> Does awareness need at least some kind of memory
> to form an experience of being?
> Does personal identity have meaning in a particular moment...
> a "snapshot" of the flow of what neurons are doing?
> It seems if there is no "window" or sequence of moments
> there might not be an identity to "identify" or recognize.
>
> I was intrigued by your comment that experience of self
> is a memory of "someone's" experiences...possibly experienced
> originally by another brain(I think it was mentioned in
> previous posts about afterlife).

I found the post:
(I may have misinterpreted...or remembered it in a different way)
---------
On Jul 10, 12:18=A0am, "Dare" <clydad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "casey" <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
messagenews:d2bb216a-5343-4ce8-=
9035-d45112626...@tu6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> > What happens after we die can be answered if we
> > understand what we are before we die.
>
> > So we don't have to wait until we die to answer
> > the question. And even if we "found ourselves in
> > heaven or hell" after death it wouldn't prove
> > life after death only that whatever appeared in
> > heaven or hell had the memory of someone who
> > once lived. So you will not find out for sure
> > if you (the now you in heaven or hell) really
> > existed once before after death.
>
> Does this say that memory survives death...
> or have I misunderstood?
> How could memory survive without
> the brain processes that maintain it?

It was just saying if you think that memory could
survive death, and I don't see how as for me it
exists as physical patterns in a brain, you still
wouldn't know by the possession of such memories
that they were made by the current you.

Self identity is a tricky issue and a key issue.
Are you the same person that existed a second ago
or do you just have their memories? Remember the
physical matter of the body flows into and out of
the body just as air flows into and out of a
tornado all that really exists is an ever changing
pattern over time.

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/fdeeee7f84eade4e?dmode=source&output=gplain&
-------------------------

[j...@xxx.net]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 19:53:21 -0700 (PDT), "Ganesh J. Acharya"
<ganeshj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If the body does not have a soul and is just a machine, then on fixing
> the body a living should be brought back to life even after 10-1000
> years of the body's death?

However ridiculous this may be, if one pretends at least for the sake
of analysis that the portion of this string of words that begins with
"If" and ends at the comma is not meaninglessly vague and instead
understandable, this two-fold problem remains nevertheless:

The following assertedly dependent clause (a) is a complete non
sequitur not in any way logically If...Then connected to its posited
premise and, independently devastating, (b) hypothesizes an itself
absurdly counterfactual contingency as if a fact.

Since, however, the poster has already demonstrated a rigid commitment
to unverifiable verbal abstractions which prevents rational discussion
much less reasoned analysis of whatever he would contend he means by
"having a soul" - both the possessory "have" and use of the word
"soul" as a noun as if referring to some sort of "thing" instead of
being a verbal marker for processes of thought - and by "machine" in
the present context while he ascribes to others what others have not
said (that an animal body is "just a machine"), it might nevertheless
be interesting if, at the very least, he would answer these three
questions in a more substantive way than with the sorts of brief while
cryptic generalized abstractions in which he has so far indulged:

1) By exactly what methods, with what materials, and by what other
means would he or any other existing or reasonably foreseeable person
EVER "fix" the body of a dead person or other dead animal so that it
would be "brought back to life" in the way he appears to fantasize?

2) How, in particular, would he or any other existing or
reasonably foreseeable person do this after 10-1000 years of the
body's death?

3) If he is unable concretely to answer the first two of these
questions in a realistic-credible matter, as of course he will be
unable to do, what exactly is the point of the first portion of this
string of words?

> In that case every body need to be preserved if the same is true.
> It becomes a moral responsibility of every living to preserve bodies
> of their dead relatives?

Putting aside its confusing ending symbol - intended to suggest a
rhetorical rather than actual question and instead an affirmative
proposition? - the non sequitur problem remains: Apart from the
physical/scientific impossibility of actually preserving a dead body
as distinguished from temporarily preserving parts of what appear to
be a once living being, it is no more logical than a claim that it is
a survivor's moral responsibility to dispose of the deceased's body as
promptly as possible after death, for instance, by burial in a way
that will facilitate its decay and absorption into the earth or by
cremation.

Even if, however, one assumes that there is some sort of moral
imperative to preserve a dead body - IF it was possible actually to do
this in any life-maintaining or life-enabling meaningful sense of
"preserve" - the poster here compounds his indulgence in a classic
essentialist fallacy by a kind of Whitehead-ian Fallacy of Misplaced
Concreteness as further exacerbated by him confounding the partial
outward appearance of detritus, a dead body, for a radically different
earlier complete being, an alive human or other alive animal.

But again: unless and until the poster in any event explains how at
any time after a body's death it can be "fixed" so as to bring it
"back to life" his ruminations expressed in this thread will remain
worse than nonsensical to the point of being bizarre and, as far as
anyone can so far tell, impossible.

[casey]

On Mar 19, 1:04 am, Dare <clydad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/17/2013 11:32 PM, casey wrote:
>

I have given a partial response in another thread,
temporal window of consciousness,

[Bill Graham]

The fact that the body is a biological machine, and we don;t yet have the
technical ability to repair anything that may happen to that machine, does
not incicate that such a thing as a, "soul" exists or has ever exixted. As a
matter of fact, the soul cannot be defined, even by those who believe in it.
(which should tell you something about it right there.) It is, in fact, a
figmant of the imagination of the religious set.