Dear Pericles,

Poirot discussed the human body and brain, she did not mention consciousness or conscience.

The brain does many things 24/7 that we are not even aware of.
Does it do EVERYTHING on its own? Maybe, maybe not.

As the brain evolves and is able to handle more abstractions, more objects come to our awareness, but that does not mean that our consciousness itself has evolved, only that more objects, including objects that are more complex and abstract, come to our attention than previously. Consciousness has never emerged: in association with a human body and brain it merely has more toys to play with.

Take the statement: "The fork should be laid to the left of the plate and the knife to its right".

Is there indeed such a moral imperative? the answer depends on the presence of a diner. If someone is going to sit there and eat, then it makes sense, but otherwise it makes no difference which way you place the fork and the knife. Similarly, if all is just body and brain with no-one to observe them, then there is no reason why the chemical molecules should be arranged this way or the other, whether the electric impulses in the brain go clockwise or counterclockwise or whether that body lives or dies.

With the greatest respect, Yuyutsu (and we all know what that means), you have it ass-backwards.

>>Consciousness has never emerged... Take the statement: "The fork should be laid to the left of the plate and the knife to its right" Is there indeed such a moral imperative? the answer depends on the presence of a diner.<<

The diner is the motivating factor for both the knife and the fork, and their relative positions. The existence of cutlery is not independent of the human brain, being a product of its consciousness of the necessity to eat efficiently. And their position on the table is a result of rules, created by that consciousness, as part of its societal evolution. I doubt whether Cro-Magnons were particularly into the niceties of fine dining, and their brains were full of pretty much the same chemicals and electrical impulses.

>>...if all is just body and brain with no-one to observe them, then there is no reason why the chemical molecules should be arranged this way or the other<<

Not sure where you are going with this. Observation, coupled with a growing awareness, and the evolution of consciousness into conscience, are fully integrated into the development process.

I suspect this might be the stumbling block:

>>As the brain evolves and is able to handle more abstractions, more objects come to our awareness, but that does not mean that our consciousness itself has evolved<<

We clearly have different opinions on the use of the word "evolve". To me, the fact that "the brain is able to handle more abstractions" is by itself the evidence that consciousness is evolving.

I'm not even sure that the two concepts - increased abstraction-handling, and evolving consciousness - can be logically separated.

Let me put it in other words, Pericles, as simple as I can without metaphors:

As the brain evolves, it presents us - we who are conscious, with new objects that may indeed be more complex and more abstract. I do not dispute that.

However, consciousness itself is not dependent on what you are conscious of.

To an extent, Yuyutsu.

>>...consciousness itself is not dependent on what you are conscious of<<

I can happily accept that at its face value.

However, I cannot accept that it is necessary to be aware of the agency that is acting upon your consciousness, in order for that consciousness to evolve.

Using your example, man slowly became aware of the need to invent cutlery, and proceeded to act upon that awareness. Then, later, assimilated the concept of social niceties, that led to a determination as to how to display that cutlery to best effect.

Your insistence that they are entirely separate constructs, with the chemical and electronic responses on the one hand, and "consciousness" on the other, I find puzzling.

It makes the massive assumption that consciousness is a static state. Unchanging. Binary, on or off. Further, it would suggest that morality, ethics, conscience etc. must also be a static state, unable to evolve, predetermined and unchanging across the ages.

Have I misunderstood?

Dear Pericles,

You, the conscious, are unchanging.

In the cutlery example, you were there already, long before your brain developed. When your brain was in the baby stage of development, you were only barely presented with simple concepts such as "Mon" and "Dad", but later as your brain developed, your consciousness was presented with the advanced concept of social niceties.

As for morality, ethics and conscience, unlike you these are relative to one degree or another, with morality relatively being the most stable (or static) of the three, followed by ethics and conscience.

Morality begins at the moment you consider yourself associated with a physical body, so it is pretty stable - but not as stable as yourself because once that is not the case (for example if your body dies or if you no longer identify with it), you are exempt. Otherwise, naturally, that same morality may apply differently in different circumstances.

Ethics are dependent on human agreements, hence are less stable than morals
(cutlery arrangement would belong to that category).

Conscience is a feeling, a sense, an emotion, hence it comes and goes.

No, Yuyutsu, conscience is not a feeling. It is a faculty.