OK, the Johnson vs. Boswell "I refute it thus!" thing. That's fine, I approve of this objectivity, I disapprove of sophists trying to make real things vanish th

OK, the Johnson vs. Boswell "I refute it thus!" thing. That's fine, I approve of this objectivity, I disapprove of sophists trying to make real things vanish through argument. But what's real is what has qualities. Dr. Johnson's rock was real because it had solidity. When kicked or whatever (Wikipedia says "stomped") it resists, and if subjected to geological inspection it yield rock-like information - or to switch from rock to ducks, what walks like a duck, quacks, etc., is a duck. What I'm saying here, though, is that suffering doesn't have qualities unless attached to ideas and relevant to knowledge. I also keep mentioning the social angle because I think that might be crucial to morality. Though I suppose I value knowledge in isolation too. I'm confident, anyway, that I don't value neurons, or any other kind of fancy cabling, in of itself. But, I'm short on time right now, will have to drop this and run (mercifully).