Back to find things have gone from anarchy and peace to Trump?

[Tyler H]

A thought I just had, and maybe it's utter nonsense but I'll just throw it out there raw and see what you guys think, is that UPB is a redefinition of morality. Throughout history people have used morality to explain why people shouldn't steal, assault, or murder. Whatever they use to explain why the people should not do these things gets co-opted by people who want to control others or have their own preferences they wish to impose on how people should act. UPB is a new explanation of how to be moral that is objective in the fact that it relies on principles for its definition that cannot be changed - like the scientific method.

[dsayers]

A thought I just had, and maybe it's utter nonsense but I'll just throw it out there raw and see what you guys think, is that UPB is a redefinition of morality. Throughout history people have used morality to explain why people shouldn't steal, assault, or murder. Whatever they use to explain why the people should not do these things gets co-opted by people who want to control others or have their own preferences they wish to impose on how people should act. UPB is a new explanation of how to be moral that is objective in the fact that it relies on principles for its definition that cannot be changed - like the scientific method.

I agree, but take out the UPB part. I've not read the book, but have watched as great thinkers get tripped up by it. My ex felt she had a good grasp on objective morality, read the book, and ended up feeling she understood it less somehow. I find objective morality to be much simpler than book length. Which is a good thing because in the world we live in where narrative is used to subjugate people, obfuscation is usually a sign of exactly that taking place.

 

Theft, assault, rape, and murder are internally inconsistent. People can call it whatever they want, but it's that simple. Everything else masquerading as morality is just inflicted whim.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

As far as poisoning the well: none of what I said are ad hominem attacks against you or anyone else designed to elicit negative responses. Again, "respect" for property rights, and "freedom" of religion are definable values that are associated with "Western" societies. These are not attacks or praises. It describes an objective fact. If you're asking me to go as far as to define what "freedom" of religion is in order to avoid poisoning the well... then you're not really concerned with poisoning the well. Everyone knows what that means. If I can't use commonly accepted phrases which refer to specific/definable ideas that are well known, then I can't even speak at all. So, I don't think you're concerned about me poisoning the well, you're trying to keep me paralyzed and unable to respond.

 

The words I have chosen can be tied to phenomena which I have explained multiple times. I described to you Western values, I've shown that Leftist principles DO degrade/oppose those sets of values, and, if a majority of people in the US had followed your example, and prioritized adherence to a philosophical theory over practical matters, negative consequences WOULD have come to pass. And, from what I understand about Stef's particular issue with voting: it wasn't a moral issue, he saw voting in previous elections as a useless gesture which was designed to encourage further compliance from the populace. There was too much corruption in Washington for it to make any difference whatsoever; but he changed that stance based on Trump's candidacy.

 

To address immorality: you've attempted to argue that voting is immoral; you have not proven that. Again, being that I am not the one aggressing/using force against you, and the state is, I cannot be held morally accountable for any actions in this case. By extension, neither can you. The state is the moral agent and, in its violent monopoly, renders us all victims. How we individually respond to this issue (i.e. whether we vote or not) cannot be a moral judgement.

 

Now, we are in a particular situation here where one candidate would have accelerated the financial, social, and military decline of the United States. So, Stef took up the mantle to convince us all to vote Trump. Again, according to your own framework of immorality which establishes the state as the moral agent, the aggressor, you cannot hold me, the victim, morally accountable or accuse me of initiating force against you for voting. 

 

I don't accuse you of initiating force for not voting, nor do I think abstaining can be called immoral based on UPB. I do however think that the decision not to vote represents a concerted denial of the practical realities of the current situation. So, I spoke out against it in order to attempt to potentially dissuade any other well-meaning person reading this thread from following your example.

 

I can't emphasize enough that Clinton wanted sites like this shut down. She threated to drone strike Assange, to nuke Iran. I mean, the list is endless. And it would have come to pass. And then you would have found out what it's like to actually live in a country that subjugates its citizens. So again, before you start accusing people of immorality you might want to consider the medium through which you are communicating. Because it is a medium that, through your inaction, could have been lost to us all. Is this a moral issue? No, I can't make the argument that it is. But it's what would have happened regardless. 

 

Brilliantly written post that has not been responded to.

[dsayers]

Brilliantly written post that has not been responded to.

Not even close!

 

As far as poisoning the well: none of what I said are ad hominem attacks...

That is a strawman. As is going on to pretend to address the claim without doing so. I mentioned specific words. The paralysis you claim is with regards to engaging in manipulation amid somebody with self-knowledge and rational thought.

 

if a majority of people in the US had followed your example, and prioritized adherence to a philosophical theory over practical matters, negative consequences WOULD have come to pass.

Personalization and poisoning the well. Consistency doesn't belong to me and "practical" is an assertion. I don't find enslaving 300 million people to pretend to address a vague idea to be practical at all. "negative consequences" is also vague and has been cherry-picked to not include the enslavement of 300 million people.

 

And, from what I understand about Stef's particular issue with voting: it wasn't a moral issue

Appeal to authority and deflection as nobody was talking about him.

 

To address immorality: you've attempted to argue that voting is immoral; you have not proven that. Again, being that I am not the one aggressing/using force against you, and the state is, I cannot be held morally accountable for any actions in this case.

Was covered in my article Logical Proof That Voting is Immoral. A reasonable person understand that a politician will violate property rights. This is a credible threat. You make use of that credible threat to inflict a master onto all of us. Credible threats of immoral action are immoral actions themselves because it is coercion that binds people, taking away their ability to choose for themselves without retaliation.

 

The state is the moral agent

Anthropomorphism.

 

Now, we are in a particular situation here where one candidate would have accelerated the financial, social, and military decline of the United States.

Poisoning the well and claiming to know the unknowable. Also false premise that the candidates are at all different in the one way that matters: willing and able to violate property rights. This violation of property rights is a form of corruption and corruption grows until it is stopped. Since we are talking about a fictional entity, the way to stop it is to not feed its perceived legitimacy. So not only is this not an argument, but it's an anti-solution.

 

you cannot hold me, the victim, morally accountable or accuse me of initiating force against you for voting. 

You are not the victim of your vote because your vote is your consent.

 

I do however think that the decision not to vote represents a concerted denial of the practical realities of the current situation.

"Action X is immoral unless I think it's a good idea" is not a principled conclusion.

 

I can't emphasize enough that Clinton wanted sites like this shut down.

All politicians will violate property rights. People are waking up to the myth of authority. Concealing it won't aide this. You're engaging in problem -> end when people who approach problems as problem -> solution can usurp such tyranny. And not by giving a different tyrant permission or legitimizing human subjugation.

 

Besides, if the best you can come up with is that politician X isn't politician Y, that just means they found the right carrot to convince you to dispense with your values and play their game.

 

then you would have found out what it's like to actually live in a country that subjugates its citizens.

Fearmongering. Also, claiming that the theft of a candy bar is not theft because it's not the theft of a car is not an argument. The measure for theft is lack of consent. I do not consent!

 

So again, before you start accusing people of immorality you might want to consider the medium through which you are communicating. Because it is a medium that, through your inaction, could have been lost to us all. Is this a moral issue? No, I can't make the argument that it is. But it's what would have happened regardless. 

Again claiming to know the unknowable. Also poisoning the well. I have made no accusations. You view it as such as an emotional reaction to failed bias confirmation. I made a case. One that by your own admission, you have no argument against as outlined above.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

If a bowling ball is crashing through the middle of a city, everyone who isn't trying to stop the bowling ball is either enabling or supporting mass murder. Clinton was a lunatic who had momentum, and Donald Trump was a blockade at least; a successful private businessman with a track record of at least being relatively anti-war, especially with regards to Russia.

 

Preferring one leader over another based on the evidence that one is considerably less likely to facilitate major world altering conflict with Russia (and this is just one issue: of course there is immigration, regulation, taxes, integrity, honesty, empathy etc.) has nothing to do with the non aggression principle, besides the very important fact that less aggression in the present tends to lessen aggression in the future.

 

To pretend this choice didn't exist when clearly we have a vote and can influence others, and when the evidence available showed obvious differences between the two candidates in their track record, and how they were treated by the media (the representation of everything that stands in complete opposition to philosophy, rationality, empiricism, and freedom) is not right. To acknowledge the choice, but defer the responsibility of choosing to those with less knowledge is not right.

 

Thankfully enough people realized that, but your arguments can't possibly prove that there wasn't a choice between two candidates, or that the two candidates were exactly equal for the prospects of future aggression in the world. I don't expect you to change your opinions, but I responded for others who might still be unclear about what was being questioned.

[dsayers]

Preferring one leader over another...

Is not the topic. I would prefer Trump over Clinton. I just understand that's a false dichotomy. And don't have the audacity to inflict my preferences onto others. And am not so foolish as to think a vote makes a difference. Which was one of the many challenges/null hypotheses I offered, that went unanswered.

 

In a philosophical analysis, any post that starts off talking about a bowling ball is going to be obfuscation and/or deflection. Your post was an appeal to emotion.

[D-Light]

You're the one who introduced the idea of "sentiment." It's not something I'm discussing (assuming this is a discussion). If you take my bike and then I take it back, we have mechanically engaged in the exact same behavior.

 

The question of "Who is right?" when it comes to differing moral systems is a question of sentiment. The question of ownership is also dependant upon the mutual acceptance of a moral system. While logic and reason can be applied to the non-existential claim of ownership as it pertains to a particular moral system, the ultimate answer to the question of "Who is right?" is a sentimental one, not a question of objective reality as you seem to believe.

 

If you own yourself, then objective morality follows because it would mean everybody owns themselves and that theft, assault, rape, and murder are internally inconsistent. Everything else you're claiming is morality is in fact opinions. You're just calling them morality to assert that morality is subjective. Even though I've pointed out the ways in which such a thing would be of no use to anybody and you yourself have explicated why people do such a thing.

 

That a really big IF which you cannot prove to be an objective fact. Claims of ownership are non-existential assertions of relationship based upon sentimental assertions. Claims of ownership are ultimately nothing more than sentimental justification for behavior related to the use and control of material objects including the physical body one controls by direct volition. You suggest that every prescriptive or prohibitive behavior beyond ARTM that are commonly called morality are merely opinions; however, prohibitions against ARTM based upon self-ownerships are real. That's special pleading again. That's akin to claiming "All other Gods are false, but my gods are real." All morality is mere opinion. All moral systems are mere opinion. Claims based upon that moral system or used to substantiate that moral system (such as the claim of self-ownership) are mere opinion (sentiment, preference, etc).

 

Your claims of objective morality are demonstrably false. Your morality is not objective, it is fundamentally subjective based upon the sentiment of self-ownership. You can offer any argument you want in an attempt to show how or why your sentiment is logically necessary or rational, but every argument you set forth is pre-destined to fail because it is impossible for any argument for objective morality to succeed. Objective morality simply isn't real. It is impossible for it to be real.

[dsayers]

I'm seeing dogmatic assertion as well as repeated jargon.

 

So here's the deal. When somebody engages in theft, assault, rape, or murder, they are using something to deprive others the use of that same thing. THEY are telling you that their actions are wrong. This is true independent of individual consciousness (objective). I'll let you take it up with them how they are in fact right because of sentiment, ownership is not established, etc

[D-Light]

I'm seeing dogmatic assertion as well as repeated jargon.

You're describing your own position.

 

When somebody engages in theft, assault, rape, or murder, they are using something to deprive others the use of that same thing.

Accurate declarative description.

 

THEY are telling you that their actions are wrong.

Projection of your sentiment onto the actions of another.

 

This is true independent of individual consciousness (objective).

Irrational, warrantless dogmatic assertion.

 

If we both claim to own the same bike, this is a competing claim that has a right and wrong answer.

 

The claim of ownership is one of sentiment that is either agreed upon or arrived at by mutual agreement by all parties, or it is not agreed upon. It does not have an objectively correct answer.

 

Especially if you repaint it as subjective and throw in the things you want them to do and rename the things nobody should do to make them seem different and somehow permissible. You're making my point for me

 

You're creating an strawman. That's not the same thing as me making your point for you. All moral systems are inherently subjective... even yours. If you are truly committed to reason, you will cease your special pleading and apply your intellect to figuring that out.

[DCLugi]

The claim of ownership is one of sentiment that is either agreed upon or arrived at by mutual agreement by all parties, or it is not agreed upon. It does not have an objectively correct answer.

 

Is this your argument or a sentimentally agreed upon argument?

[D-Light]

The claim of ownership is one of sentiment that is either agreed upon or arrived at by mutual agreement by all parties, or it is not agreed upon. It does not have an objectively correct answer.

 

Is this your argument or a sentimentally agreed upon argument?

No. It is not my argument, nor a sentimentally agreed upon argument.

 

The claim of owning something is not wholly dissimilar to the claim of liking, loving, desiring, or preferring something in that there is the individual (or group) and that which the individual or group expresses a sentiment for. The claim of ownership is unique in sentiment in that its sole purpose is to justify the use of force in retaining possession or control of the item. The claim has no foundational existential basis, it is simply a claim that, if necessary, is justified to others on the basis of other sentimental justifications including but not limited to primacy of claim, effort/labor put into it, reciprocal exchange of other goods and services, etc.

[DCLugi]

No. It is not my argument, nor a sentimentally agreed upon argument.

 

The claim of owning something is not wholly dissimilar to the claim of liking, loving, desiring, or preferring something in that there is the individual (or group) and that which the individual or group expresses a sentiment for. The claim of ownership is unique in sentiment in that its sole purpose is to justify the use of force in retaining possession or control of the item. The claim has no foundational existential basis, it is simply a claim that, if necessary, is justified to others on the basis of other sentimental justifications including but not limited to primacy of claim, effort/labor put into it, reciprocal exchange of other goods and services, etc.

Who posted the comment above?

[D-Light]

Who posted the comment above?

Let me rephrase, it is not an argument, but yes it is my assertion.

[Tyler H]

Let me rephrase, it is not an argument, but yes it is my assertion.

He means if you do not own yourself then who is responsible for the post.

[labmath2]

He means if you do not own yourself then who is responsible for the post.

This is the underhanded trick of asking a question pressuposing the thing you are trying to prove. He can be responsible for the post without subscribing to any notion of ownership. Responsible is descriptive meaning who performed an action ownership is prescriptive meaning who ought to have exclusive rights to something.

[Donnadogsoth]

He means if you do not own yourself then who is responsible for the post.

 

A bank loans a customer $100,000.  The customer uses the money to build a successful restaurant.  Who owns the restaurant?  The bank will own $100,000 of it, plus interest.  Now, who loaned you your ability to think and speak?

[dsayers]

A bank loans a customer $100,000.  The customer uses the money to build a successful restaurant.  Who owns the restaurant?  The bank will own $100,000 of it, plus interest.  Now, who loaned you your ability to think and speak?

Bowling balls, banks... lol.

 

The bank does not own any of the restaurant. There are two different transactions here. Bank A voluntarily trades with Entrepreneur B, and B either commissions the building of or buys the building with which to start a restaurant from company/owner C. I have no doubt that a stipulation of A and B's deal is that if B defaults, the bank will get the restaurant or other collateral, but this is not your claim.

 

Also, even if there is a deity and our property is merely on loan, this would not change the fact that I have a higher claim to my body than any other human. I've made this distinction to you before. Your input doesn't detract from the context of the conversation and only serves to obfuscate it unnecessarily.

[DCLugi]

Let me rephrase, it is not an argument, but yes it is my assertion.

So there is a MY without sentimental agreement.

[D-Light]

He means if you do not own yourself then who is responsible for the post.

Responsibility for the action I performed? That is self-evident. I am responsible for the action I originate free of force or coercion. Ownership is derivative of mutual consent. It is meaningless apart from a voluntary society.

 

 

So there is a MY without sentimental agreement.

Yes. "My" refers to one of two different conceptual relationships. One connotes a relationship of origination or association, the other connotes a relationship of ownership or sovereignty. The first exists without agreement to the sentiment of property ownership, the second requires it.

[Tyler H]

A bank loans a customer $100,000.  The customer uses the money to build a successful restaurant.  Who owns the restaurant?  The bank will own $100,000 of it, plus interest.  Now, who loaned you your ability to think and speak?

No one, who loaned you yours?

[Donnadogsoth]

No one, who loaned you yours?

 

God, obviously.

[D-Light]

God, obviously.

God is not obvious. There is no credible evidence that your ability to think and speak is a phenomena that was loaned to you.  It is merely an assertion (quite likely born of years of indoctrination including self-indoctrination) of belief.

[Tyler H]

God, obviously.

And from whom did God receive on loan his consciousness?

[Donnadogsoth]

And from whom did God receive on loan his consciousness?

 

God is an æternal substance.  He has always had and always will have his consciousness.

[DCLugi]

Yes. "My" refers to one of two different conceptual relationships. One connotes a relationship of origination or association, the other connotes a relationship of ownership or sovereignty. The first exists without agreement to the sentiment of property ownership, the second requires it.

 

Who is responsible for the agreement and sentiment? Perhaps you are contesting that responsibility isn't the same as ownership. If so then isn't responsibility also agreed upon sentiment?

[dsayers]

And from whom did God receive on loan his consciousness?

<3 Sometimes I want to kiss your mind, brother

 

God is an æternal substance. 

How do you know?

[Tyler H]

<3 Sometimes I want to kiss your mind, brother

Haha, thanks man

[D-Light]

Who is responsible for the agreement and sentiment? Perhaps you are contesting that responsibility isn't the same as ownership. If so then isn't responsibility also agreed upon sentiment?

Responsibility has two common meanings. The first connotes cause (e.g. "What is responsible for the rise in temperature?") and may or may not involve non-volitional entities such as the sun. Such is not sentiment, but an objective, causal relationship.

 

The other definition connotes culpability and only has any bearing in the context of societal interaction between volitional beings (even if that society is limited to two) and an explicit or implied contractual obligation. In the second instance, responsibility is a sentiment that is mutually agreed upon (or not). To answer your question, agreement is result of all involved parties sharing the same (or at least compatible) sentiment regarding the reality of an explicit or implied contractual obligation; so in a word to your last question, yes.

[Donnadogsoth]

How do you know?

 

(1) Cause has to end somewhere.  It can't end on contingency since that violates the principle of sufficient reason.  The only sufficient reason for the contingent things of the Universe existing is an æternal thing.  A tower of contingent causes leads to the absurdity of an infinite regress of causes.  Therefore there must be an æternal cause.

(2) Consciousness has no explanation in a sea of mindless molecules unless it is itself in some sense original, part of the æternal cause.  That would make that cause analogous to our consciousness.  Ergo, in light of mankind's creative nature able to discover and employ principle, man's mind made in the image of the Creator.

[dsayers]

(1) Cause has to end somewhere.  It can't end on contingency since that violates the principle of sufficient reason.  The only sufficient reason for the contingent things of the Universe existing is an æternal thing.  A tower of contingent causes leads to the absurdity of an infinite regress of causes.  Therefore there must be an æternal cause.

(2) Consciousness has no explanation in a sea of mindless molecules unless it is itself in some sense original, part of the æternal cause.  That would make that cause analogous to our consciousness.  Ergo, in light of mankind's creative nature able to discover and employ principle, man's mind made in the image of the Creator.

This is known as the god of the gaps. You think you see a gap, so it must be God. So... how do you know?

 

This line of thinking is predicated on the idea that humans know everything. If this were true, then we'd be able to prove a deity. Your claim is self-detonating.

[Donnadogsoth]

This is known as the god of the gaps. You think you see a gap, so it must be God. So... how do you know?

 

This line of thinking is predicated on the idea that humans know everything. If this were true, then we'd be able to prove a deity. Your claim is self-detonating.

 

On the contrary, dsayers, if you'll take the time to consider it closely, my claim is based on my knowledge of the profound ignorance of mankind.  As Cardinal Cusa described, the situation can be understood using a metaphor:  the Truth is as a circle, into which man's knowledge at any given point of time is inscribed as a polygon.  Increasing knowledge can be represented by increasing the number of angles of the polygon.  No matter how far man gets in his knowledge, he cannot achieve the angle-less perfection of the absolute Truth.

 

However, there is no principle saying that his knowledge cannot be increased indefinitely.  So the progress of man can be represented by an asymptotic curve towards infinity.  We are the species that can do this, unlike any other species, as of the lower orders of beasts and other nonhuman things.  So that gives us a special place in Nature, which is in fact supernatural because through our knowledge we  are super-nature, we can reorder the biosphere to improve our power to survive and be happy.

 

These two things, the ignorance of man of Truth, and the curve of man towards Truth, should, when considered carefully, stir in the mind an awareness that mankind's mind is made in the image of Truth, and that our knowledge comes from successful reflection—in the case of the universal physical principles, accompanied by successful empirical experimentation—within our minds.  The human mind as super-nature thus reflects the Truth, is made in the image of the Truth, which is tantamount to God.

 

I wish you would try to understand these things, as you obviously have a keen mind, a strong will, and a heart in the right place, but have focussed your efforts entirely on this anarcocapitalist logical laser you are so taken with.  I, or rather Cusa and LaRouche, offer you a wider lens.  Take a look.

 

"Whatever is not truth, cannot measure truth precisely. (By comparison, a noncircle cannot measure a circle, whose being is something indivisible.) Hence, the intellect, which is not truth, never comprehends truth so precisely that truth cannot be comprehended infinitely more precisely. For the intellect is to truth as an inscribed polygon is to the inscribing circle. The more angles the inscribed polygon has, the more similar it is to the circle. However, even if the number of its angles is increased ad infinitum, the polygon never becomes equal to the circle unless it is resolved into an identity with the circle."

--Nicolaus of Cusa

 

and

 

"Also, in De Docta Ignorantia, and also in the dialogues of The Layman and many of the sermons, he very much rejected the idea of man being able to achieve knowledge through sensuous experience. In the famous Trinity sermon of 1444, he developed the idea that the conception of the goal of the human intellect determines the road on which the mind travels to that goal; he called that the praesuponit—the future defines the present. It is that which the mind and faith defines as a goal, which defines the way how you achieve it, and which road you take. Knowledge, therefore, is not a logical extension of the addition of all existing knowledge of the past, but it is what we aim at, which is already in our faith and in our intention."

--Helga Zepp-LaRouche

[DCLugi]

Responsibility has two common meanings. The first connotes cause (e.g. "What is responsible for the rise in temperature?") and may or may not involve non-volitional entities such as the sun. Such is not sentiment, but an objective, causal relationship.

 

The other definition connotes culpability and only has any bearing in the context of societal interaction between volitional beings (even if that society is limited to two) and an explicit or implied contractual obligation. In the second instance, responsibility is a sentiment that is mutually agreed upon (or not). To answer your question, agreement is result of all involved parties sharing the same (or at least compatible) sentiment regarding the reality of an explicit or implied contractual obligation; so in a word to your last question, yes.

Is your nervous system responsible for your thoughts and actions?

[dsayers]

However, there is no principle saying that his knowledge cannot be increased indefinitely.  So the progress of man can be represented by an asymptotic curve towards infinity.  We are the species that can do this, unlike any other species, as of the lower orders of beasts and other nonhuman things.  So that gives us a special place in Nature, which is in fact supernatural because through our knowledge we  are super-nature, we can reorder the biosphere to improve our power to survive and be happy.

I agree with you that man is unique because of its capacity for reason. However the second half describes all living things. Life adapts is a universal truth, which would make labeling us super-nature a distinction without a difference. Because species that do not have the capacity for reason do this also, I would just call it natural, not super-nature.

 

These two things, the ignorance of man of Truth, and the curve of man towards Truth, should, when considered carefully, stir in the mind an awareness that mankind's mind is made in the image of Truth, and that our knowledge comes from successful reflection—in the case of the universal physical principles, accompanied by successful empirical experimentation—within our minds.  The human mind as super-nature thus reflects the Truth, is made in the image of the Truth, which is tantamount to God.

Whoops! This post was probably the most sensical I've seen from you in awhile if not ever. As impressive as that is, it's not enough to distract me from you slipping in "is made." This is begging the question. So I'll ask the question one last time: How do you know? No gaps, no assertions. I'm looking for logic, reason, and evidence.

[D-Light]

Is your nervous system responsible for your thoughts and actions?

My nervous system is responsible for my thoughts and actions to the extent that it processes sensory information it receives from the environment. My nervous system is not the primary cause of the sensory data from the environment, but it certainly has an effect on the environment from which the sensory data is obtained. In some sense, you could say that the environment I have lived in is also largely, responsible for my thoughts and actions. I have very little doubt that had my environment been less advantageous or more advantageous growing up, that my present thinking and circumstances would likely be different, probably vastly different depending on the amount of difference in the environment. There are many factors which are responsible for my thoughts and actions, and yet in the end, I (the mind) am the one ultimately culpable or ethically responsible for my thoughts and actions as I am a self-aware, volitional being (or at least I seem to be--a very strong case has been made for strict determinism).

[AccuTron]

And from whom did God receive on loan his consciousness?

 

Oh, that was from me.  Sorry, I thought everyone knew.