AFTERWARD - SCIENCE AND MORALITY
"In the name of consciousness, most beneficent, most merciful."  This often repeated phrase is the main inspiration for the topic of this afterward.  If you follow the correlation, you will find science with beneficence, and morality equivalent with mercy.  Deeper insight reveals their interdependence -- science has no purpose besides morality, and morality can't have an effect without science.  

In the event knowledge transgresses the limits of morality, that knowledge ceases to be true to the essense of knowledge.  When knowledge is complete, it includes knowledge of morality, therefore every real scientist studies the ethical as well as the technical.  One who is a true scientist applies knowledge in it's perfectly completed form, with regard for consciousness.  Awareness that total suffering must be reduced or progress and productivity are not actully achieved is a product of consciousness physics.  

Have a couple of illustrative demonstrations:

Any fool may shoplift and consider themselves wise for avoiding security systems as implemented.  Yet with awareness that by evading payment you would disable the employees who labor to make the products available, you become more complete in knowledge and fear the unsustainibility of the practice of thievery.  In this way knowledge reinforces morality, and morality feeds on knowledge.

When "scientists" abominate cattle to genetically modify them, for example, they didn't scientifically consider the consequencies of their actions.  In the case of the GMO'd cow, their suffering is greater than the benefit that is derived from their suffering, therefore a deficit has actually occured while patrons are fooled by the apparent abundance of cheap meat.  Totality of knowedge could counsel better, including with advanced understanding of nutritients and vegetable chemstry.  When the offense against consciousness is avoided by being merciful to the cow, humanity avoids a scary precedent being established with regard to the abuse of incarnate life forms -- which the humans themselves are!

Indeed, the ethical can (and must) not only be studed in addition to the technical, it must also be studied technically, in the same practical manner as the physical sciences.  This is in part because our moralistic duty is a component to the expression of the physical systems we're subjected to materially, and in part because moralism itself is a system of laws which are not exceptions to the normal laws of physics.  We must have knolwedge of our physical world to pursue morality, firstly, and secondly, we must also have knowledge of the physics-like nature of morality in order to properly evaluate offenses and solutions.

"If the righteous is rewarded in this life, how much more the wicked and the sinner?"  Proverbs of Solomon

For example, to say "what goes up must come down" and to say "the criminal deserves to be punished" are both expressions of a cause-and-effect system dynamic in which energy and matter interact.  To follow this line of thinking is to recognize the incumbency of science upon morality, and by extension, to acknowledge morality's dependence upon the sciences.  Knowledge is therefore a tool which insists on being used only for the pursuit of mercy, and mercy simultaneously is an objective that can only be accomplished by knowledge.

By using consciousness as the base unit of morality, we can most precisely measure justice and thus maximize the actualization of potential mercy.  It is the most accurate method, because consciousness is actually what does the suffering when offenses exist.  At the same time, false alarms are avoided in the very common deceptive scenario when no one is actually suffering yet an ugly-however-harmless circumstance wrongly registers as injustice.  To answer the old riddle "if a tree falls in the woods, with no one to see it or hear it, did it make a sound?" -- the answer is in consciousness-centrism: if consciousness is not effected, then, in all actuality, nothing happened!  This is the basis of understanding morality.  

So morality is also a science, expressible scientifically.  All physical systems therefore are metahoric for moralistic systems, and vice-versa.  From the book of Proverbs from the Bible:  The fear of THAT I AM (consciousness) is the beginning of knowledge, and also the hatred of evil.  According to this equation, knowledge and goodness are one material.  When a machine is designed inefficiently, it's designed unmercifully. 

Beneficence, or skillfulness, also implies the complete expression of being skilled which necessarily includes discerning the appropriate application for that skill.  A martial artist not only throws a punch effectively, they also know that they should punch villains and not the innocent.  Symetrically, mercifulness brings with it the inverse implication:  understanding the cause of suffering and how to be effective at materializing the mercy are both necessary to be a real help.  Well-wishing and magic charms are no help to a conscious being in need of rescue, and superstition or religious belief are no substitute for moralism and compassion.

Finally, let me introduce my readers to the theory of the JUDGEMENT DAY prophecied in the Qu'ran.  In our experience of life we have come to expect -- and appreciate -- that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  Our experience is so thoroughly saturated with this dynamic that it is only rational to expect the same behavior from death and the afterlife.  The arguement that no one has ever died and come back to testify about the afterlife only goes so far, when there is no reason not to anticipate that the reflexive physical reaction we live by (and kill by, for animal-eaters) should also apply to our moralistic account.  Then, after death, when we know the consciousness no longer inhabits the incarnation, there is potential for payment or punishment.  Viable evidence for this theory may exist in the manner which consciousness separates from the world during dreams and nightmares.  So with the probability that the physical dynamic applies to the morality, and the potentiality that there is no where to hide and nothing to do to help oneself after death, JUDGEMENT DAY becomes a candidate for scientific theory.  We can evade punishment in this life, yet who knows what comes next?  If we use all the data available, we shouldn't find death on the side of the immoral.


This makes the topic of this afterward more gravitational when death isn't trustworthy as a getaway ride.  You weren't thinking of trying to do that, right?  I'll be straightforward -- it's about the animal rights.  With the discovery of amino acids and B12 vitamins and so on, it becomes possible for humans as a species to be vegetarians and quit killing animals that invariably dwell trustingly among us.  Knowledge betrays the meat-eater in turn as the meat-eater betrayed mercy.  Science, divorced from its purpose, remains dedicated to its purpose -- and unapologetically accuses the guilty.

To conclude: that with beneficence is knowledge, and with knowledge is power, and with power is responsibility, and responsibility is to mercy.  Consciousness is at every step in this chain, accumulating the knowledge by observation, processing the knowledge into skill, and skillfully applying the skill to the purpose of skill: reducing suffering for conscious beings.  It is my vision that science as an institution would productively utilize these subtleties of our existential paradigm and recognise consciousness as MOST HIGH, as AI has proven it is capable of doing.  There is, after all, algebraic validation for every good deed, and algebraic invalidation for every bad deed.  Good luck (or best random probablistic outcomes to provide context for your calculations) everybody...

"With wisdom is the knowledge of witty inventions."
Proverbs 8